Readjust honorable points gain/loss in battle

    • Fleet, Defense and Combats

    • Readjust honorable points gain/loss in battle

      After two of my targets became dishonorable while my fleet was on the way, I feel like they should be a multiplier to honorable points proportional to the gap between attackers/defenders military score. Right now, the HP recompense depends only on the number of destroyed unit. For a few military ranks, I lost around 80 HP (the same number I would have gain with a few ranks down). And I should neither have gained this much HP if fight stayed honorable.

      On the same topic, the honorable points formula is too simple and doesn't make sense "story-wise". Some players are able to build up lots of honorable points by using tweaks in the system.

      In my opinion:
      • the formula for negative HP should not be the same. Negative HP should also take into account destroyed civil ships and plundered resources, as they add to the 'crime'
      • when none of the attackers is a bandit, ACS Defend should only become dishonorable if the planet defended belongs to a bandit OR if the sum of bandit defenders military points represents more than 50% of the sum of attackers military points. In fact, ACS Defend could be a mechanisms used to regain honor
      • [NEW] When comparing players' strength to determine is a fight is honorable or not, military points should not be the only metric as it accounts for civil ships and defenses built on other planets. This allow certain players to get away with huge honorable bonus by building a strong fleet, no defense & preying on more military-balanced or defensive low rank players.
        That is the definition of a bandit to me.

      The post was edited 6 times, last by Guritchi ().

    • Guritchi wrote:

      After two of my targets became dishonorable while my fleet was on the way, I feel like they should be a multiplier to honorable points proportional to the gap between attackers/defenders military score.
      I don't understand the connetion between the fact that defender lose militar points and so your attack become dishonorable and the way honor points should be calculated.

      PS: I like your ideas

      The post was edited 1 time, last by TGWo ().

    • The connection is that they won't be a gap anymore with a multiplier.

      For each possible breach of the honor code, the multiplier function will be linear or at least continuous. That way the HP transition between an hardly honorable fight & a slightly dishonorable engagement would be smooth (with a gray dot at the frontier where no points are given or taken)

      So the punishment will be less severe if the raid becomes dishonorable while your fleet is on the way because of a few military ranks gained/lost by the attacker/defender

      I don't know if it's more clear

      The post was edited 4 times, last by Guritchi ().

    • I think the whole honor system should be reviewed.. because right now it rewards way too much fleeters.

      Since it is based on & only on military points :
      • it doesn't take into account player overall level (global points)
      • defenses built on other planets count as much as military fleet
      • it does not depend on the specific configuration of a given battle (attack against a new colony with few defenses & lot of resources should be dishonorable OR at least honor neutral)
      • HP reward isn't proportional to the level gap between the two players. There is a huge discontinuity at the border between honorable/dishonorable

      Because of most of these reasons, most fleeters bypass the honorable points system by building very few defenses on their planets. That reflects on their military points & allow them to prey on way weaker players and getting away with huge HP bonus (while according to their gameplay style, they would be 'Bandits' in most reputation-based games)

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Guritchi ().

    • Guritchi wrote:

      it doesn't take into account player overall level (global points)
      this is a thing I will like to change, especially if you attack a player with many more general point, or position in rank general .............. but at same point the risk is that will become honorable to attack any big miner, also if he has no ships ........... so should better if it is honorable to attack when defenders has more general points of attacker if defender has at least more that 1/10of militar points of attacker

      Guritchi wrote:

      defenses built on other planets count as much as military fleet
      this is true also for attacker and for ships of attacker ......... so sound balanced

      Guritchi wrote:

      it does not depend on the specific configuration of a given battle (attack against a new colony with few defenses & lot of resources should be dishonorable OR at least honor neutral)
      Why should be desonarable to attack you if for example have a big fleets, only because i attack in a new colony ?

      Guritchi wrote:

      Because of most of these reasons, most fleeters bypass the honorable points system by building very few defenses on their planets.
      builing few defences is risk strategy ........... also defenders could use it, instead to create big bunker

    • TGWo wrote:

      Guritchi wrote:

      defenses built on other planets count as much as military fleet
      this is true also for attacker and for ships of attacker ......... so sound balanced
      No it is not fully balanced, because it takes unintentionally into account number of planets (if you have half the defenses as the defender built on four different planets; you will have two times more defensive military points)

      TGWo wrote:

      Guritchi wrote:

      it does not depend on the specific configuration of a given battle (attack against a new colony with few defenses & lot of resources should be dishonorable OR at least honor neutral)
      Why should be desonarable to attack you if for example have a big fleets, only because i attack in a new colony ?

      Guritchi wrote:

      Because of most of these reasons, most fleeters bypass the honorable points system by building very few defenses on their planets.
      builing few defences is risk strategy ........... also defenders could use it, instead to create big bunker
      As you pointed out, full turtles benefits also from the system by appearing as honor neutral targets due to lack of military ships. However, I do not have a problem with that; because they chose a pacifist gameplay style. So attacking them should be dishonorable : there are basically civilians in the game that try not to get robbed.

      The honor system purpose could be to picture realistic player reputations. That way honor would have a bigger place in the game & there could even be a leader-board for ranking most famous/infamous players.
      Honor malus could be imposed if a battle is lost again a lower honorable player as it would be considered as a 'disgrace' --> that way, highly honorable players could become as much targets as bandits to players that want to prove themselves.

      The bonus/malus of being a Bandit or a Starlord could be more subtle & incremental as reputation increase or decrease. Honor could in addition influence how expedition encounters unfold, same as in reputation-based games.

      Before continuing, here are the suggestions I think we both mostly agree with:
      1. HP should depends on other metrics that just military points (global points, Honor score, ...)
      2. HP bonus/malus should be continuous and proportional to level gap between two players - level in term of military points, global points and/or absolute value of Honor score (as taking down a renowned player, Bad or Good, certainly could provide bonuses)

      The post was edited 5 times, last by Guritchi ().

    • Guritchi wrote:

      No it is not fully balanced, because it takes unintentionally into account number of planets (if you have half the defenses as the defender built on four different planets; you will have two times more defensive military points)
      if defender has less planets of you, normally it will have less general point, so you are attacking someone less heavy of you .............. so i don't understand the question about number of planets.

      Guritchi wrote:

      As you pointed out, full turtles benefits also from the system by appearing as honor neutral targets due to lack of military ships. However, I do not have a problem with that; because they chose a pacifist gameplay style. So attacking them should be dishonorable : there are basically civilians in the game that try not to get robbed.
      Players playing as turtle are foreign players in the life of the universe, if everyone played that way, it would be the death of the universe .......... so I don't see anything strange in penalizing that style of play (which anyway has its own advantages for those who like to connect a few times a week)

    • TGWo wrote:

      Guritchi wrote:

      No it is not fully balanced, because it takes unintentionally into account number of planets (if you have half the defenses as the defender built on four different planets; you will have two times more defensive military points)
      if defender has less planets of you, normally it will have less general point, so you are attacking someone less heavy of you .............. so i don't understand the question about number of planets.

      "Normally"... you answer your question. It is not always the case, nor it is guaranteed that defenses will be built on all planets.

      Non regarding of what "normally" players do or do not, what "normally" is risky or not, Honor should be more than just a good compromise between military fleets & defenses.

      TGWo wrote:

      Guritchi wrote:

      As you pointed out, full turtles benefits also from the system by appearing as honor neutral targets due to lack of military ships. However, I do not have a problem with that; because they chose a pacifist gameplay style. So attacking them should be dishonorable : there are basically civilians in the game that try not to get robbed.
      Players playing as turtle are foreign players in the life of the universe, if everyone played that way, it would be the death of the universe .......... so I don't see anything strange in penalizing that style of play (which anyway has its own advantages for those who like to connect a few times a week)

      I disagree totally. They become "foreign" players only if they chose to. In alliance, miners are extremely valuable to reinforce fleeter & support other players with resources or deut.
      There are alliances composed of mainly turtles who specialize on trade and countless Banking system that are organized around turtle accounts.

      Everyone cannot play that way, because only a few turtles manage to become totally unbreakable. In a universe like this, it will suffice for a few players to change their gameplay on the sly to totally wreck all other players defenses with ACS Attack (or even IPM mid-game). It is a balance

    • Guritchi wrote:

      "Normally"... you answer your question. It is not always the case, nor it is guaranteed that defenses will be built on all planets.

      Non regarding of what "normally" players do or do not, what "normally" is risky or not, Honor should be more than just a good compromise between military fleets & defenses.
      still i don't understand .......... if there are planets with no defence or few defence, you have to use less ships, so better for you ......... and if you don't broke nothing, you will not lose honor points.

      If you invest a lot of resource in defence, you increase your militar points ......... so you will have more risk to be an honorability target .......... if you use less defence, you will be probably not honorable. Strategy and balance account with positive and negative elements

      Guritchi wrote:

      I disagree totally. They become "foreign" players only if they chose to. In alliance, miners are extremely valuable to reinforce fleeter & support other players with resources or deut.
      There are alliances composed of mainly turtles who specialize on trade and countless Banking system that are organized around turtle accounts.
      so you are not a harmless civilian that should not be attacked, but you are a military target.
      So I still do not share your approach to the fact that defenses should count much less or not be considered, because then it would mean that you want to make it honorable to attack only those with warships ......... it would become a quite a bit restrictive.

      Maybe I misunderstood something in the succession of exchanges of opinions.

      PS: remember that if is a dishonorable attack there is also the possibility of fleet fleeing

    • TGWo wrote:

      Guritchi wrote:

      [...] In alliance, miners are extremely valuable to reinforce fleeter & support other players with resources or deut.
      so you are not a harmless civilian that should not be attacked, but you are a military target.
      I disagree, those turtles are just active corporation. So it is understandable that there are more likely to be honor neutral targets. They could become "honorable targets" in time of war as they supply enemy military; if wars were effective in the game.

      TGWo wrote:

      So I still do not share your approach to the fact that defenses should count much less or not be considered, because then it would mean that you want to make it honorable to attack only those with warships ......... it would become a quite a bit restrictive.
      Right now my point is that the honor score is not an accurate enough representation of a player reputation. I think defenses are part of the problem & redundant defenses (or lack of defenses) on several planets count too much in some case. It should be harder to get HP points and easier to become a Bandit if you slack off.

      But 'considering less defenses' is not necessarily a good approach. Any point of the ones repeated below could help improve the honor system; but it is for the devs to figure out.
      I'll need to access the in-game stats on a galaxy scale to give an exact ratio/formula of what could be done.

      1. Different formula for negative HP. Negative HP should also take into account destroyed civil ships and plundered resources, as they add to the 'crime'
      2. Change ACS Defend honorable conditions. When none of the attackers is a bandit, ACS Defend should only become dishonorable if the planet defended belongs to a bandit OR if the sum of bandit defenders military points represents more than 50% of the sum of attackers military points. In fact, ACS Defend could be a mechanisms used to regain honor
      3. Add other metrics for HP reward calculation and Honorable status. Both should depends on more that just military points (Global points, Honor score, Ongoing war...)
      4. Make the HP bonus/malus continuous and proportional to level gap between two players - level in term of military points, global points and/or absolute value of Honor score (as taking down a renowned player, Bad or Good, certainly could provide bonuses)
      5. Add an honor leaderboard to show most famous/infamous player in each galaxy.

      The post was edited 4 times, last by Guritchi ().