contact
June 17, 2019, 06:58:07 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Admiral T-Wayne

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 67
1
Original Universe / Re: Hollow victories
« on: September 13, 2018, 03:05:35 AM »
All that is happening there is that the people getting the push might be fooling people 'way down on the leader board, who don't look closely at the top.

But the folks at the top know when someone has concluded that they can't gain their rank on their own merits.  Too bad when someone who has been in the game for years, and done reasonably well, decides that they are going to gain a hollow victory and ride up the ladder, on the shoulders of someone else.

They'll never be able to look back on their rank and know that they could have gotten there on their own.  They will always wonder if they were good enough.

2
Original Universe / Hollow victories
« on: September 12, 2018, 09:16:28 PM »
Just thinking of some "hollow victories", most having to do with rapid movement up the leader board.

1.  Buying a high-ranked account that you don't know how to manage.  It takes a bit of experience and skill to manage one of the monster accounts.  Many of them have changed hands during the past 9 months or so.  I don't think that the new owner has been able to maintain rank, in any of these cases.

The moral of the story is don't acquire an account that is 'way larger than what you are used to having.  It's just about a sure thing that you will be disappointed in the result, because you will find that the other large players who have built up their accounts over the long haul understand how to advance their accounts.  They will keep advancing and pass you.  There is little that is more frustrating than moving downward in the ranks, unless it is your intention to do so, for example due to a change in your level of commitment to the game.

2.  Moving up the ladder by getting DSP rides and RSP bumps from others.  Particularly for a player who already is highly-ranked, to do this is admitting to yourself that you aren't good enough to move up on your own, and you are telling those around you on the leader board that you gave up on passing them on your own merit.  That must be the hollowest victory of all. 

3
A number of large accounts have changed hands during the past few months:

Silent Bob -> Zx -> J.T. Kirk

WGW -> John Fury

(Rich) Shinzon -> (Don Woods) Shinzon

And several more.  The common result of each of these moves is that the acquirer has not been able to hold rank.

It takes a certain set of skills, interests, and personal characteristics to gain and hold rank at the top.  If you are interested in acquiring the account of a retiring major player, with the intention of advancing it, feel free to reach out to guys like Bruce Mays, Treakle, Steve Carlston, and me.  We'll be glad to talk with you about what it took for us to get to the top.  The hope is that this information will help you determine if you are suited to a major account.  Some people are, some aren't.  There is nothing wrong with not being the type of player who can keep a top account moving forward.  It takes a LOT of hard work, and it doesn't fit everyone's play objectives.

4
Feature Suggestions / Re: Titan Class Recycler (New Ship Request)
« on: July 19, 2018, 10:39:55 PM »
Hi, I've suggested a similar ship, named the Persephone class (mother of Dionysus/Zagreus).

To protect BFG's hydro revenue, my suggestion had it being a 5x Dionysus in its physical characteristics and resources cost, with the same propulsion, fuel consumption, and speed characteristics as the Dio.  The main benefit of the Persephone is that it would make it so that even the largest NPCs can be scooped (at least the crystal and equal hydro scooped) using a single recycler fleet.

5
Original Universe / Re: Varsity tournament 2018
« on: April 25, 2018, 03:50:38 AM »
Hi, folks, we will be using the scoring system from the most previous "varsity" tournament, with a few tweaks which were introduced mid-stream.  So, here is the first draft of the scoring system, we have lots of time for adjustments, if folks can justify them.

SCORING SYSTEM

The scoring system is based on fleet strengths of the attacker versus the defender's total fleet strength. All fleet strengths are determined and posted at the start of each round. This is the number that will be used to calculate the strike points awarded (See Chart & Examples below)

ATTKR Force vs. Defender's Total Fleet Str.      STRIKE POINTS
                   0 - 10%                                              5000
                   11- 25%                                              3750
                   26 - 50%                                             2500
                   51 - 75%                                             1250
                   76 - 100%                                           1000
                  101 - 125%                                           500
                  126 - 150%                                           250
                  151% or more                                       100

A successful Attack / Defend must generate a minimum of 25k war points.

All successful defends are worth 500 strike points - no more, no less.

Any attack or defense which results in a "conventional" SFC war win earns an additional 1000 points.

In any 24-hour period, only the first successful plunder attack by an alliance against a given opposing player earns strike points.  Notwithstanding this statement, any plunder attack which results in a war win still earns 1000 bonus points.

In the previous tourney, we had a situation where one alliance found a high-resources planet that was left undefended by a negligent player.  The alliance plundered that planet so many times, that they earned enough strike points to make it impossible for any other alliance to challenge them for the tourney lead.  The above limitation on plunder attacks is instituted to avoid a repeat of that situation.

Needless to say, two alliances have to be at war, in order for a successful attack (or defense) to win strike points.
     
Example - Ship vs Ship
Player A launches an attack against Player B.
Player A uses 6000 ships in the strike. Player B has a total fleet strength of 10000.
Player A's attack is 60% of Player B's total strength. If Player A's attack is successful and scores more than 25k war points (i.e. game's point tracker) then Player A's alliance gains 1250 strike points
Example 2 - Resource Strike
Player C launches an attack on Player D's planet
Player C's attack force is 20% of Player D's total fleet strength
Player C's grabs resources that net 19k war points which would generate 0 strike points

The scoring system presented here intentionally is weighted to favor attacks with "just enough ships to win", vs. "overwhelming force" attacks.  Points earned for successful, well-tuned attacks also intentionally are set to be substantially larger than the points earned by successful defenses, thereby providing an incentive to take some chances on offense.   


6
Bug Reports / Re: Captcha ... on Trade Merchant
« on: February 25, 2018, 07:16:42 AM »
The CAPCHA seems to pop up after about 100 merchant invocations.  It is incredibly aggravating, because after 100 or so clicks, you are pretty much into mind-numbed mode and it is very easy to continue to click that "Repeat this trade" link after the CAPCHA has popped up.  After you fill in the CAPCHA screen, you can't get the app to go back to the state where you can continue clickety-clicking.  SO, you have to kill the browser tab, use a fleet to launch your hydro off the planet, recreate your tab, start clicking again to resume creating hydro, and recall your fleet.

Once upon a time, before BFG implemented the "Repeat this trade" link, it took about 15 seconds to do a trade.  With the link, we are down to about 1 - 1.5 seconds.  For us big spenders, it would be grand if BFG revisited my original proposal for the feature, which provided a means for specifying how many conversions you wanted to do.  I did well over 1000 conversions today.  This "dial a number" feature would have been very handy!

7
Original Universe / Re: Throwing down the gauntlet -- the race for No. 2
« on: January 28, 2018, 11:24:45 PM »
I've been away on personal business for a while, providing all you fine folks with what undoubtedly has been a welcome respite from my score-keeping posts.

Per my most recent previous post, all you readers understand that we have a new No. 2 player, Silent-Bob.  During the past 10 days, S-B has continued his manic pace of play, overtaking Bruce in DSPs as well as in RSPs.

I consider this last achievement -- becoming No. 2 in DSPs -- to be very significant.  Here is why.

At the top of the ladder, we squirrel away huge quantities of res, collecting for the next Hydro Storage unit upgrade.  So, total score doesn't necessarily tell the "full story", because a player can be just a few days away from finishing collecting the res for the next HS upgrade and suddenly gaining 75 sextillion+ game points.  So, RSPs (and total score) can jump in sudden leaps.

DSPs are a decent surrogate measure for assessing how two players stand vs each other in this res-collecting exercise.  If we assume that two players of about-equal size are hitting NPCs of similar composition, then each player's ratio of res gained per DSP gained will be about the same.  It is likely that the player with more DSPs gained will achieve a certain level of res collection before the other player will.

Because Bruce reached his HS 75 several weeks before did SB, and thus had a head start on collecting res for his HS 76, I had been thinking that Bruce would finish his HS 76 first, get that 151 sext bump in his total score, and hold on to No. 2 for a bit longer -- until SB finally finished his HS 76. 

I'm not so certain of that anymore.  I now think that SB has a very good chance of getting the HS 76 before Bruce.  In this case, SB will hold on to No. 2 -- until he passes me for No. 1!

8
Original Universe / Re: Throwing down the gauntlet -- the race for No. 2
« on: January 18, 2018, 05:06:22 AM »
Can we say -- a new No. 2 in TWO DAYS???

Congrats to Silent-Bob for ascending to No. 2 in SFCO!

Well done, mate.

Now, to get that HS 76 upgrade completed, so that you can put a stranglehold on that spot!

9
Original Universe / Re: Throwing down the gauntlet -- the race for No. 2
« on: January 15, 2018, 09:13:46 PM »
I've been doing other things for the past few days, and until now failed to notice the following...

Overall gap is less than 10 sext points.  I continue to be surprised that
Bruce's HS 76 has not yet shown up.

The very important DSPs gap is down to about 21 sext points

We could have a new No. 2 in less than a week.

10
Original Universe / Re: Throwing down the gauntlet -- the race for No. 2
« on: January 11, 2018, 08:20:45 PM »
Whew!  The DSPs gap has dropped below 40 sextillion, at least momentarily -- 39.25 sextillion.  What we are seeing here reminds me of the time, about 4 years ago, when Bruce blew past me on the leader board.  This was back when Proms were still King vs. NPCs, and I was around Rank 8.  Bruce cruised by like I was stuck in mud.  We are seeing the same sort of thing here, with S-B playing the role of Bruce in that earlier chase-down.   

11
Here is the DoW order:

COLD DoWs Blitz, Pilgrims, and Pug

Blitz DoWs Pilgrims, Pug, and SPQR

Pilgrims DoWs Pug, SPQR, and Legacy

Pug DoWs SPQR and Legacy

SPQR DoWs COLD and Legacy

Legacy DoWs COLD and Blitz.


This should result in each alliance being at war with each of the other alliances.

12
Original Universe / Re: Throwing down the gauntlet -- the race for No. 2
« on: January 09, 2018, 06:40:59 AM »
Wow.  Three days since my previous post, and S-B has cut more than another 10 sext points off Bruce's lead.  The DSPs gap is down to 47.121 sext DSPs, and the overall gap is down to 35.94 sext points.  At this rate, we might have a new No. 2 in less than 2 weeks.

I keep expecting Bruce to pop his HS 76, widen the gap, and hold onto No. 2 until S-B gets his HS 76.

The rate of closure is astonishing to me. 

13
Hello, fellows,

This thread still reflects these as being the eligible-for-attack rank brackets:

Brackets:
Players will be in the following bracket classes:
1-100 are involved only if they are attacked by a lower bracket, they are here to advise and assist but not to be hunting as this will skew the tournament into a varsity tournament not a JV setting (Thank you Treakle for correcting me about this)
101-350 Can attack this bracket or above bracket
351-600 Can attack this bracket or above bracket
600-800 Can attack this bracket or above bracket
800+ can attack any bracket

I recall seeing some recent PMs among the involved alliance leaders that changed these brackets.  DZ, can you please confirm the current wisdom regarding the brackets?

I dug up this recommendation from you, which didn't have a lot of discussion among the alliance leaders:

instead of 101-350 and 350-800 I should instead do 101-250 and 250-500 then 501-800.

I agree with you that the "new" proposal is better,  There is a LOT of difference between a 100 player and a 350 player.  Making that first bracket 100 - 250 is better, in my opinion.  Heck, in my opinion, making that first bracket only the 100s would be even better, but I suspect we wouldn't have enough players only in the 100's to make it interesting for those participants.

14
Original Universe / Re: Throwing down the gauntlet -- the race for No. 2
« on: January 06, 2018, 02:17:19 AM »
And, back to the purpose of this thread...

S-B currently is less than 60 sextillion DSPs behind Bruce, having closed the gap by another 9 sext points in about 3.5 days.  The overall gap is down to 48.41 sext points.

I will be shocked if S-B is able to pass Bruce for overall No. 2 during January.  Bruce has been working on his HS 76 for about six weeks longer than has S-B.  I keep looking for Bruce to pop his HS 76 "any day now" and add 150 sext points to his total.   But, if this doesn't happen in the next 20 days or so, we most likely will have a new No. 2 player for the first time in about 3 years.

15
Original Universe / Re: Throwing down the gauntlet -- the race for No. 2
« on: January 06, 2018, 02:07:46 AM »
Hi, DZ,

Phantom units are ones which are built but never appear on the screen.

Each planet, moon, or Heph can base a maximum of 9.223 Qn (plus change) of each type of ship (and defenses, for planets and moons).  You will never see more than that number of Arties, Athenas, Proms, Missile Batteries, etc., on any celestial body.  This is due to a numeric limit of the game.

However, even if you have the max units of a given type on a planet (or moon), you can build more on that planet (or moon).  For example, if you have 9.223 Qn Missile Batteries on a planet, the game will happily let you queue up and build another 9.223 Qn...  and another 9.223 Qn... and another set, ad infinitum.  Those extra units go into the SFC numeric black hole, they will never appear on the screen.  However, the building player gets credit for the units and for the units' RSPs.

It's my personal opinion that this behavior is a bug.  I believe that if a ship or defensive unit can't be seen, it shouldn't be counted, and that the resources of a unit that can't be seen shouldn't be included in a player's RSPs.  Again, this is my opinion, others will disagree.  Either BFG disagrees with my opinion, or they don't care enough to fix this "feature" of the game.

The ability to create these phantom units is how some guys show multiple sextillion defenses and fleet units in their leader board tally.  It also is why their RSPs values are so inflated.  They are building units that never appear, and they are being credited for the units and the resources spent to build the units.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 67