motherships, planets, and strike.

[Tetrismonkey]

Seems to me once upon a time there was an update that nerfed blahh . And his setup wasn't nearly as bad. Honestly. I agree it should be changed but as I read topics on an effective way to do this, I fail to see any decent solutions.

An effective solution is to limit the attack from a MS. Limiting it to 50% of your RAW strike will force players to use more supers, potentially bringing that silly 10:1 ratio to 5:1.

I used the setup blahh had before it was nerfed to great success, and I was upset to see it go when it did. Though in hindsight it was a great update for the game as a whole.

Look, if you spend massive amounts of money on the game, thats fine, your money wasted tbh, but atleast make it to where an already uneven battle doesn't become even more one sided. Planets are nerfed to 50%, so IMO so should MS's. Truth be told, if planets arn't already, but they should be nerfed to 50% of RAW strike or defense, so no ABs or doubles can benefit them.

[Tetrismonkey]

Bump!

[teesdale]

The ones with Inc/UP are walking a different path and their setup benefits them in an entirely different way than their strike/MS adversary. The strike/MS people could turn this logic around and say 30t naq a day is not fair.... INC planets should be capped at 1t a day and UP limited to 4m per day to balance the game otherwise all the strike/MS people will quit and there will be no one to sell naq/uu to.

This couldnt be more spot on.

even with an inc/up set up you could argue the point that the losses are equal.

you have a daily 30t income and 4mil UP, thats your 0ed def back after a 8 day PPT stint... so how would it be fair if you nerfed the attack set up, costing them twice as much to take your def when you can do one long weekend PPT and rebuild it at no loss (to an extent)?

tbh the unbound MS % is equal to the unbound income %, as the capped strike addition is equal to the capped def/UP addition... so realistically if there was to be an update to further cap additions at a %age, it should be ALL stat additions across all fields or none.
so planetary income is equal to 50% raw income also.

[Mathlord]

Seems to me once upon a time there was an update that nerfed blahh . And his setup wasn't nearly as bad. Honestly. I agree it should be changed but as I read topics on an effective way to do this, I fail to see any decent solutions.

The update that nerfed blahh was to make planets easier to mass than they used to be. His planets had huge defenses that prevented anyone with the fleets of the day to mass things down. What blahh didn't have was cash to buy merlins.

Ironically enough, that update was recently *very quietly* countermanded and now it takes more fleets to mass a planet defense than it used to (something we should probably discuss in greater detail why that update went through without any public discussion).

As long as you can perma-merlin a planet without consequence, people will invest heavily in planets. Now obviously, the game isn't going to get rid of merlins because they are a HUGE cash cow. Still that is the source of the imbalance. Any time you have something that other people literally cannot take, it's going to lead to a discrepancy between those that can afford to permanently merlin things and those that cannot.

Anything else we do is just trying to chip away at the bigger unsolvable problem.

Clearly players have found the sweet spot of how powerful att/def duals can be. There have always been people doing this, but in the past to resolve the issue was to raise the relative power of attack and defense strength (doubling them without doubling planet bonuses). That worked decently well if memory serves. If we don't want to double att and def again then we can either reduce the power of att/def in planets just like what we did with income when that got out of control...or we can do as described above and change the max amount att/def duals can affect a strike or defense.

Game is certainly getting interesting these days haha.

[Dexter Morgan]

Problem is we have the ludicrous situation where even though resources are pretty easy to get hold of certain account set-ups mean you can gain the full benefit of MS and planets with a small number of weapons and troops. 99% of the player base simply cannot compete and if they feel they cannot compete, why would they continue playing? if they leave who do you think you will get to use your planets and MS on? no one lol

I've received a thorough smack down from most if not all of the OE/FSF/TDD massers for about a month steady now. I've seen every kill ratio I ever thought I'd see both defending and attacking. I just feel like the trade off is already what one would expect.

A cash stocked MS will always wreak havoc. Having low MS shields of your own will always sound a lot like "Ouch!" every time they land. Going the extra step with planets is their choice. I was INC/UP for a long time and that ratio just blows in any combat as it should blow. I purchased merlins to swap some strike/def planets in and my ratios are exponentially better now in that 3-10t power range attacking or defending. Higher than that it starts mattering less and less and quickly too.

The ones with Inc/UP are walking a different path and their setup benefits them in an entirely different way than their strike/MS adversary. The strike/MS people could turn this logic around and say 30t naq a day is not fair.... INC planets should be capped at 1t a day and UP limited to 4m per day to balance the game otherwise all the strike/MS people will quit and there will be no one to sell naq/uu to.

^
Could not have put it better myself. And I have neither setup. I'm a small fish. But it is NOT FAIR to those that put time and money to nerf everytime someone cries like a lil female dog.

[Field Marshall]

Too late in the game to change it all in my opinion.

Just take enjoyment in seeing your opponent spend a ridiculous amount of their own disposable income on this game.

Also that they will never feel as good as somebody who can take down a huge defence with their own blood, sweat and tears

[Sniperwax]

And yes it sucks taking 90 full AT attacks and only being at 14% towards phase yet 60% of your stuff is dead already. I could build a bigger def to counter this but I choose not to at this time.

10t def just ain't what it used to be online or not. If these planet and MS setups really irritate me enough I have to build bigger to counter it. With inc/UP planets I imagine building big is rather easy to do. 20t def is the new 5t. Inflation is a **Filtered**.

[Support]

Poll up: viewtopic.php?f=43&t=202025

Closed; discussion can continue in the pre-update thread.
Included link to this thread in first post for reference.