"Ricter;785293" wrote:
"Mageduckey;784086" wrote:
The same principle applies to fleet arena (more so, since GW doesn't have ranks).
This is something that's not as sure-fire as you're making it out to be. You're banking on the ship meta changing faster than the ZR strategy could adapt. Certainly possible, but not guaranteed.
It's just as guaranteed as some of your assumptions. You can't shoot mine down without also invalidating yours.
"Ricter;785293" wrote:
"Mageduckey;784086" wrote:
You can get all 5 DS ships from GW if you use the (currently) weak Geo Spy Starfighter. Since you are rushing zetas, you have to use him because rushing zetas = zetas only. If you were to carry that out fully, it would take you 97 days to 5* all 5 DS ships from GW. You still have no LS ships at all...
I don't know where you get this math from, but it's incorrect. Please look at my post again - first off, RZ subs Slave I for the Geo Spy and bite the bullet on fleet points. Second, even starting at 0 blueprints and getting 13 blueprints / day, it would only take 89 days to 5* a total of 8 brand new ships. So the fact that you think it takes 97 days to 5* only 5 ships when starting beyond 0 shows that your math is off somewhere significant.
Actually your math is off - you only get 12 blueprints a day from GW, not 13 (400 * 3 = 1200, not 1300). 1160 / 12 = 96.66666666667. So my math isn't off.
"Ricter;785293" wrote:
"Mageduckey;784086" wrote:
Again, disagree with this assumption that there will never again be a new zeta that is worthwhile.
You're absolutely correct here, and absolutely missing the point. It's not that there's not going to be new zeta abilities ever, but that you're banking on there being enough useful ones that RS's zeta mats advantage makes a difference and that the timing lines up - if it takes 6 months for them to release them, it doesn't matter if you have more upgrades if they don't matter.
Okay, but you're banking just as much that they
won't release multiple useful zetas in that time frame. You can't call me out for "banking on _____" when you're banking the exact same amount but in the opposite direction. Either we both get to do it or neither of us gets to do it. I'll let you decide, but needs to be the same both ways.
"Ricter;785293" wrote:
"Mageduckey;784086" wrote:
I believe it's a clear and safe assumption to claim that they will be behind in ship strength, fleet arena ranking, flexibility to meta shifts, and overall zeta count. After all, they rushed only zetas from fleet arena.
You're basically counting every choice of advantage here without acknowledging that you have to make choices. Yes, RS will have more FS - but if they're spending that to catch up on zetas, they won't have a ship strength advantage anymore. If they spend it on ship strength, they won't catch up on zetas.
Yes they will, because it won't take them as long to get the same number of zetas as the RZ. It takes them 13-14 days instead of 30. So while RZ is attempting to catch up on fleet strength, RS gathers zetas in half the time and then proceeds with their advantage before RZ has a chance of catching up.
"Ricter;785293" wrote:
"Mageduckey;784086" wrote:
No, in my math I'm only spending 32 days behind on zeta upgrades. It would take roughly 30 days for the falling fleet arena rank to afford 20 zetas (using the payouts in my first post, obviously it might be a little faster if you don't drop as much). RS gets a zeta upgrade at day 62 (assuming yes, they switch over to zetas to catch up). So the difference isn't 60 days. I have no idea where you got this number.
You spend 30 days at 0 upgrade versus 1. Then you spend around 30 days at 1 upgrade versus 2. 30 days + 30 days = 60 days.
You don't have an upgrade those first 30 days though, dude. You have 0 zeta upgrades for the first 30 days while you're spending fleet tokens on only zetas. Then it takes an additional 32 days
after you get your zeta for me to get mine. That means I'm only 32 days behind on zeta upgrades. Because the initial 30 neither of us has a zeta upgrade so I'm not behind.
"Ricter;785293" wrote:
"Mageduckey;784086" wrote:
Additionally, the RS player only spends 13-14 days getting that zeta upgrade, maintaining an advantage in fleet arena because they aren't sacrificing as much potential (much lower opportunity cost of 13 days worth of tokens vs 30 days worth of tokens).
But you're still spending the tokens, man. You can't count them for fleet advantage AND zetas if you're spending them on zetas. If you're spending your FS to get zetas at the 13-14 day range, you're going to lose fleet rank. You claim a super harsh fleet rank drop for one strategy here but not the other.
Because you're spending on zetas for 30 days. I'm only spending on zetas for half that time. So my fall won't be nearly as harsh as yours.
"Ricter;785293" wrote:
"Mageduckey;784086" wrote:
Actually, the RZ player is taking more risk than the RS player...
This entirely responds to not my point, so I'll try being more abstract. One strategy is short-term. One is long-term. In an unpredictable game that changes rapidly, a strategy that requires nothing to change to gets its advantage is more risky because things may change against it before it pays off. Yes, 100% absolutely true that either strategy can be screwed. But if RZ is screwed on day 45, it got 15 days of payoff. If RS is screwed on day 45, it has nothing to show for it.
Except the only way RS gets screwed, realistically, is if zetas aren't available in challenges anymore or if their drop rate is severely nerfed. Otherwise they won't get screwed as much as RZ because they will have better fleet arena positioning to handle whatever changes are made.
"Ricter;785293" wrote:
"Mageduckey;784086" wrote:
You seem to believe that QGJ having a zeta upgrade = auto win in arena. It doesn't. There are ways to take him down; as always, it comes down to speed on mods to determine who goes first. So yes, you could say "but you need crazy good speed mods to counter him", but I would counter with "so does your QGJ in order to avoid being countered."
C'mon man, this is just junk. All I said is that it gave a rank bump from 11-20 to 6-10. That's it. Don't put words in my mouth, your arguments have been super solid up to this point.
You might not have said it was an auto-win, but in all of your points you indicate that having that one single zeta is significant enough to sacrifice 30 days of fleet growth. You claim that one zeta is enough to move you up significantly (at least in my shard, the difference between 20 and 10 is rather large, we don't see many people jump up to top 10 unless they've been mid-upper teens for some time). Perhaps I was overzealous in using "auto-win", but I don't believe QGJ zeta is going to be as overpowered as your points lead me to believe you think it is.
"Ricter;785293" wrote:
"Mageduckey;784086" wrote:
Not true. RS will still have a decent fleet arena ranking, so they will only need 13-14 days to get their zeta upgrade. Since the RZ player took 30 days to get their upgrade, they are still behind. The RS player is still 17 days ahead of the RZ player.
Okay... but if RS stops spending FS on blueprints, their fleet rank is going to drop. So that 13-14 day window is inaccurate.
Not by as much, because it's a good chance that once people reach zeta challenge many of them will start buying zetas, at least in part, to supplement their challenge rewards. After all, they want to catch up in arena, right? Will everyone do this? No. But some likely will, easing competition a little. I'm not saying RS won't drop rank if they switch to full-time zeta purchases, but they wouldn't drop as much RZ did.
"Ricter;785293" wrote:
"Mageduckey;784086" wrote:
I didn't quote the individual values to save space, but where are you getting all those partial values from? Those are not what you get after the tutorial. If those are what you have right now, they don't count because remember, this is counting either from last Tuesday (launch) or hitting 60 and joining ships at some point in the future.
Sure... but you do realize that a lower starting blueprint count is going to advantage RZ, not RS, right? Yes, it is my numbers, but I used them to provide a benchmark that I cared about.
That's fair, but how do lower blueprints benefit RZ? You're still behind 30 days (worth of fleet tokens), while the RS player only needs, say, 15 days to get their zeta upgrade. They take half the time to do it, meaning they are putting fewer fleet tokens into zetas and more into ships.
"Ricter;785293" wrote:
"Mageduckey;784086" wrote:
Where are you getting 49 * 13 from? You spent 33 of those 49 days putting all fleet tokens into zetas, so you actually only have 16 * 13 = 208 blueprints from fleet shipments after 49 days.
GW tokens + JC energy mission. 13 blueprint/day * 49 days.
Ah, I suppose I missed where you said you were adding in the JC energy mission. However, a level 60 who's just accessed fleets can't get to 8-B Hard (requires level 76). So my math above is still correct - 1160 / 12 = 97 days.
"Ricter;785293" wrote:
"Mageduckey;784086" wrote:
This right here is 9.5 zetas that you aren't getting. That by itself means your RZ player is actually an RZ/RS player. My math was strictly between RS and RZ, with no middle ground. Your initial point of only buying zetas in fleet shipments is what I was contending, which I believe I successfully did.
The strategy had to be adjusted, because a F2P can't perform a true RZ strategy (they would have to get some combination of GeoSpy, SunFac, or Slave I and since that math wasn't relevant to me nor most F2P I discounted it). This was an adjustment due to Acrofales's post, not yours. I had falsely assumed that any combination of 8 5* ships would work.
Ah.
"Ricter;785293" wrote:
"Mageduckey;784086" wrote:
... my math still holds true despite your disagreement with it. The RS player stays ahead in the ships game at the expense of a 32 day disadvantage in regular arena.
You fall behind almost immediately afterwards. You have a much longer disadvantage than 32 days. If you're swapping to buying zetas, your ship blueprint advantage will lessen.
The advantage might lessen, but it doesn't disappear. Because it's a 30 day advantage reduced to a 15 day advantage. Just because the advantage lessened doesn't invalidate the remainder of the advantage.
"Ricter;785293" wrote:
"Mageduckey;784086" wrote:
But after that gap they are on equal footing in arena (albeit maybe have to fight up the ladder a little), they are ahead in ships, and they are more prepared for future zeta upgrades and ship releases - in short, they are more resilient to the constantly changing state of this game.
This is what makes me doubt your math. You claim dramatic drops in ship rank AND claim that it's incredibly difficult to climb the ladder, but then later in the same post claim that it's not a problem to climb the ladder. And you've consistently ignored the point that a single rank improvement, one much less drastic than the rank loss that RZ or RS/RZ would face in fleet rank, would create a massive gain in crystals - a single tier improvement could net 1600 crystals in the 0 upgrade to 1 upgrade window, and a similar amount in the 2 upgrade to 1 upgrade window.
It's not a problem to climb the ladder later in the post because it's referring to the RS player, who is in a much better position to climb. They have better fleet strength and are more likely to have high stars of the "rare" ships (while we can discount the rare ships' "drop" rate for initially getting them, I don't believe we can discount that for gaining star levels above unlocked). The RS player still has an advantage (of roughly 15 days) over all the RZ players, and is more apt to be able to compete because they aren't as behind as the RZ players (they're only 15 days behind the true RS players who don't touch zeta shipments, and as you said multiple times, 0/65 is the same as 60/65; 30 days is far more significant at lower star levels than 15 days at higher star levels due to the changing amount of blueprints required to increase).
"Ricter;785293" wrote:
"Mageduckey;784086" wrote:
I would like to see proof that my assumptions are so drastic that they cannot be used as the basis for my math, and that your response assumptions are solid enough to count as the basis for your math, please.
If you want to play this game, do the same for mine. You've done a mostly great job of presenting solid counterpoints, but are now your argument is just turning condescending. We're both making guesses here, let's cut the **** and not pretend otherwise. Cool?
I apologize for turning condescending, that wasn't my intent. I had a really bad day yesterday (almost crashed twice due to "unintelligent" drivers in the fresh snow) and I didn't turn that off fully before responding. I'm sorry.
As for both making guesses - yes, we are. And I said we were. But what I was saying was that you are claiming my assumptions are dangerous/too much, yet you provide your own assumptions and do not attempt to show how or why my assumptions might be disproportionate (what I read didn't seem to show how my assumptions were off); yet, I showed at least in part that your assumptions might not be 100% sound because of evidence from the devs recently (chiefly power creep). That's what I was getting at: at multiple times in your last post (that quoted me) you said you disagreed with my assumptions and thought they were outlandish (in other words). And you based your rebuttal on those claims, that my assumptions were too much. But you didn't prove that they were. You can't invalidate my assumptions with your assumptions alone; otherwise I could do the same back to you and we'd get nowhere. We are both making assumptions, and that is necessary. At the risk of sounding like a kindergartner, "you started it". You were the one who initiated discounting assumptions merely because you
thought they were too much (I provided evidence, if only marginally, to show that your claims were on shaky grounds - recent actions by the devs); I was simply asking you to prove they were wrong in order to completely discount them, OR to prove yours were right if they were going to be the basis of discounting mine. That's all.
