sabbing = war setting

[Dexter Morgan™]

How about a failed attack on a defence makes a war setting as well since it's practically synonymous with a failed sab....

Sol, i like alot of your ideas, but this is not one of em. Im a level 35 covert. (**Filtered**) I would agree with a failed sab equals war set, but only if the defence is at the right level. Blessings with these insanely amped up MS's equals a failed attack about 30% sumtimes. Why punish a "chance of blessing" with an auto war set?

It was sarcasm to shine a bit of light on the narrow suggestion, not an actual real suggestion
Also what do you mean by....

And as far as evening out ...

I mean you don't even out games....people put hard earned A. money or B. Time into building their accounts. Don't punish level 41's cause it is "hard" to kill them.... (i have 35/33) and NO $$$ and I farm hardly ever...so ya that is what I mean. The whole 3 levels higher can't hit, auto war sets, its all BS. If you have the right math, then the rest works itself out in text games. That is what I meant...

[Field Marshall]

#-o this is to balance sabbing not about snipers if u see a flaw help me with a idea to solve it

I liked your first idea, I didn't like your second...therefore my idea is to scrap this idea!

[Sol]

I mean you don't even out games....people put hard earned A. money or B. Time into building their accounts. Don't punish level 41's cause it is "hard" to kill them.... (i have 35/33) and NO $$$ and I farm hardly ever...so ya that is what I mean. The whole 3 levels higher can't hit, auto war sets, its all BS. If you have the right math, then the rest works itself out in text games. That is what I meant...

This is true, although things change all the time in text based games, the black market pushed open a new era of selling.
There is never the right math in play, well at times there can be, but it always needs to be appended for different user bases and scenarios constantly. It wouldn't be punishing because it's 'hard' but more or less 'impossible' and absolutely pointless. IF someone could actually spend the time, by farming, to gain the naq to be able to reach a high level like that, then yeah it would be ok, but it's (for all intensive purposes) impossible, and seeing as covert is practically the weapon of choice in 95% of the situations people find themselves in, I would say that's a bit of math that needs changing . Sure there is the odd 1 or 2, like r8 and Thamuz that that kept up with the top hitters but they only managed to peak at like what, 39?

[Dexter Morgan™]

I mean you don't even out games....people put hard earned A. money or B. Time into building their accounts. Don't punish level 41's cause it is "hard" to kill them.... (i have 35/33) and NO $$$ and I farm hardly ever...so ya that is what I mean. The whole 3 levels higher can't hit, auto war sets, its all BS. If you have the right math, then the rest works itself out in text games. That is what I meant...

This is true, although things change all the time in text based games, the black market pushed open a new era of selling.
There is never the right math in play, well at times there can be, but it always needs to be appended for different user bases and scenarios constantly. It wouldn't be punishing because it's 'hard' but more or less 'impossible' and absolutely pointless. IF someone could actually spend the time, by farming, to gain the naq to be able to reach a high level like that, then yeah it would be ok, but it's (for all intensive purposes) impossible, and seeing as covert is practically the weapon of choice in 95% of the situations people find themselves in, I would say that's a bit of math that needs changing . Sure there is the odd 1 or 2, like r8 and Thamuz that that kept up with the top hitters but they only managed to peak at like what, 39?

Somewhat agree. Although math is the only constant, which is preferred method of communication with other intelligent beings when the time comes. If you are good at math, the equation never changes, just the factors.

And I suggested that you instead of cap or restart, make the levels more equivelant to "farmers CAN keep up" if needed. As in:
level 1 = 1% level 29 = 29% level 30 = 29.5% level 31 = 30% bonus, rather than the 4X amount bonus levels 36 to 37 gives.

[Duderanch]

I think you may be confused with how covert power works at the moment as C37 is far from 4x the power of C36. At the moment every second level doubles your covert power e.g.

With 1m spies:

35 - 850b power
36 - 1.2T power
37 - 1.7t power
38 - 2.4t power
39 - 3.4t power
Etc...

[spoiler]All numbers taken from BettyCalc [/spoiler]

[Sol]

I'll help you with the other section...

if the enemies covert level is +1 yours you will need ~2.1 spies to their 1 spy trained to successfully sab, crit is assumed to be on.
+2 3 : 1
+3 4.2 : 1
+4 6 : 1
+5 8.5 : 1

(inversely, so you would be sabbing to a weaker covert level, crit is assumed to be on)
taking out your own level is of course a 1.5 : 1
-1 your level is a 1.06 : 1
-2 you will need 75% LESS than what they have trained.
-3 53% less
-4 37.5% less
-5 26.5% less

So what's the general rule now? 1 t def to 4 t covert? So while you have 25 mill spies trained to keep your 10 t def on a covert level 37 you're getting raped by a covert 39 while they only use 18.8 mill, 12.5 mill if you're against a c 40.

Big numbers now since there are big stats.

@dex, isn't that what the cue said? (just about anyway), in which case didn't I say to do that earlier?

[jedi~tank]

If only, however there is no reason it shouldn't, it makes sense, but you can't just let one thing happen when the same event occurs in the same situation just differently worded. The only reason it's mentioned for sabotage is, well, quite obvious. It's still highly one sided anyway, it will only practically help people that are in war, that are then wanting to participate in said war, and it will only help them when the enemy has no ppt (5 bucks says they will jump to ppt when the war setting is gained on an account that could actually hurt them) and they would need to have a moderately attackable defence that won't cripple your account if you took it on, otherwise you wouldn't even bother to mass it. If some big account strips another account via sab and gets a war setting in what 6 hits? So what, as if they would bother retaliating. Knowing them they would have a high covert to keep them covered and some form of a defence (whether big or small), with a MS that has just been injected with roids, and the pilot with speed (straight into their eye ball I might add), by admin J. What's worse is it's relative, c 36 will have a 'big account' compared to a c 34 , c40 to a c37 etc.
Then again people will work out the calculation in a few secs, and sab to the border of the war setting and then stop (getting a friend to finish the job or something).
It's effectively useless, albeit a decent idea.
If you want to make it slightly more effective just block all sabs to 3 covert levels lower and call it divine ascended intervention.

I like this one.

[jedi~tank]

If you want to make it slightly more effective just block all sabs to 3 covert levels lower and call it divine ascended intervention.

What do you all think about this one? It is a way to separate the player groups a bit.

[Sol]

What I said was sarcasm, but it would do a better job than the original suggestion.
Although like i have said many times, do what 'the cue' said.

[Rudy Peña]

As admin said last week at the admin meet that there most likely be a auto alliance war setting, this shouldnt happen. As it will take effect and give the other alliance a chance to mass people who didnt take part in the sabbing or doesnt even know about the sabbing at all till they get massed.


So I say no.

[jedi~tank]

As admin said last week at the admin meet that there most likely be a auto alliance war setting, this shouldnt happen. As it will take effect and give the other alliance a chance to mass people who didnt take part in the sabbing or doesnt even know about the sabbing at all till they get massed.


So I say no.

I dont like it myself due to the fact it minimizes individual play in terms of a vendetta or skirmish can kick off an alliance wide war..although as long as its optional to accept or decline from both ends I wouldnt mind it.

[Rudy Peña]

As admin said last week at the admin meet that there most likely be a auto alliance war setting, this shouldnt happen. As it will take effect and give the other alliance a chance to mass people who didnt take part in the sabbing or doesnt even know about the sabbing at all till they get massed.


So I say no.

I dont like it myself due to the fact it minimizes individual play in terms of a vendetta or skirmish can kick off an alliance wide war..although as long as its optional to accept or decline from both ends I wouldnt mind it.

Thats true also, I think the option should be there.

[Sarevok]

I think some sort of threshold is worth considering. But make sure it is 2-way.

It'll be much better than on ascended, since you can't simply "untrain" a covert level. Whilst you can buy an extra so they can't sab you, your enemy can do the same at like 1/8th of the cost (with the cost doubling/level, and being 3 levels different)

[Dexter Morgan™]

I'll help you with the other section...

if the enemies covert level is +1 yours you will need ~2.1 spies to their 1 spy trained to successfully sab, crit is assumed to be on.
+2 3 : 1
+3 4.2 : 1
+4 6 : 1
+5 8.5 : 1

(inversely, so you would be sabbing to a weaker covert level, crit is assumed to be on)
taking out your own level is of course a 1.5 : 1
-1 your level is a 1.06 : 1
-2 you will need 75% LESS than what they have trained.
-3 53% less
-4 37.5% less
-5 26.5% less

So what's the general rule now? 1 t def to 4 t covert? So while you have 25 mill spies trained to keep your 10 t def on a covert level 37 you're getting raped by a covert 39 while they only use 18.8 mill, 12.5 mill if you're against a c 40.

Big numbers now since there are big stats.

@dex, isn't that what the cue said? (just about anyway), in which case didn't I say to do that earlier?

MY ONLY POINT IS DONT PUNISH THE RICH OR ACTIVE (I am neither) ....cant reach level 38 from 41 is dumb, what is the point in getting it? It only restricts ability of "said players" that have reached that pentacle.

Kinda like when the US ended Japan with an A-Bomb....cruel, maybe, justified....hell yeah

[Sarevok]

MY ONLY POINT IS DONT PUNISH THE RICH OR ACTIVE (I am neither) ....cant reach level 38 from 41 is dumb, what is the point in getting it? It only restricts ability of "said players" that have reached that pentacle.

Two way street you realise. Level 38 can't reach 41 either. In fact, could be an incentive. If you can save enough to have a covert level better than your enemies, there is nothing they can do to take you down covert wise (short of stepping up to your level)

Also

Kinda like when the US ended Japan with an A-Bomb....cruel, maybe, justified....hell yeah

Really? Necessary? Was gonna write some response from their side, but I'd probably get warned, like I hope you do.