I would be interested in seeing this CR..Rjsturgill wrote:Well, I don't do anything on the forums anymore, but this was brought to my attention and I figured I would throw my two cents in...Gozar wrote:
you have not heard of ACS attack... there are 6 fleets out there (not in AZGD) of equal strength or near enough (3 of these fleets are in MOC) to Flappers... let a lone another 10 or 12 that are half way... if just 5 of them ACS attacked him Flapper the result would have been the same...
First you guys haven't played a lot with acs attack I take it, as it is broken. Run the sims of a fleet, lets say 50k lunars 20k dessies, 35k recyclers and 20k LF's, and put it up against 200k lunars and see what kind of losses there is, roughly 35k lunars lost for the attacker...
Now take that same fleet and attack it with acs attack, using the same 200k lunars for one player and hell lets say you add 3 other players with 75k each. You will actually end up with the same losses as you would if you only used the original 200k.
This was brought up in the bugs section and we were told it's not correct, but it's 100% correct, feel free to PM me and I'll send you a CR of it.
Now back to the original point, things could have been dealt with better, and Flapper didn't need to lose 1/3 of his fleet. I can't take Gozars side or everyone elses here, because lets face it, I could give two **** about what goes on in Xtreme, I just wanted to show that the ACS attack argument is moot.
I ran the sim you stated... using equal.W.A.S.. for all... Single attacker loss were 12k LG.. then ran ACS attack a total of 7 times.. exactly as you sate... loss was 3k LG for attacker 1 with 200k LG and only 1200 LG for all other acs attacks each.. giving a result of the following..
Attacker Loss: 691.560.000 Defender Loss:8.785.000.000
winnings Metal:0 Crystal:0 Deuterium:0
Debris Metal:2.955.468.000 Crystal:2.730.468.000
I can not see a flaw.. here... the out come is slightly less as more ships are attacking...plus the losses are distributed equally among the attackers as it should be...so where is the bug...?