sab to work on attack weapons only

[Sarevok]

I would say balance the sab vs mass better. And then add a feature to allow attack units to be killed of like defence units. Replacing weapons are cheaper and easier then the units.

[Richard B Riddick]

worst idea ever. all that would happen is a bunch of 300 t defs come up with 0 defs and game would die VERY fast, hell i'd probably quit if that happened.

and whoever said massing doesn't happen dont know what they are talking about, when i had 38 cov i was massing more than sabbing, cause u have limited cov turns, and its' not hard to build balanced stats that make it more costly for the enemy to sab u than if they massed you. the reason sabbing has become so popular though is due to the allience repair and allience ppt. due to those 2 things u can spend hours trying to mass someone who is offlin
e and never susceed (happend to me, spent over 4 hours trying to mass someone, and they never reached 0, though they did lose all their spies and defenders, they kept all weapons due to allience repair then allience ppt, which his retarded.)

if you wish to make the game better get rid of the allience repair and the allience ppt. (allience repair being the worst of the two).

sabbing and cov power setup is fine as is for now, just get rid of those 2 things

[Dubby_CompGamerGeek2]

I am strongly against this update as it was originally spelled out,

even though my covert level is poor enough for this update to easily benefit me personally.


Massing should result in moderately higher costs for the attacker, not excessive costs.

Sabbing could work first on attack weapons,
but needs to work on defensive weapons at some point.


the one good thing about this update potentially going through is that I don't see it last more than 1 - 2 weeks, tops... as the change would be so dramatic.


I do however, believe it's important for players to be kept guessing somewhat as to what updates are in the development pipeline 6 months from now...


as proven when Admin Jason returned many moons ago,

and stuck to his story about planets being always intended to be stealable,

and many people, (including many of my friends), acted like this was news to them.

[Kikaz]

Dubby planets were stealable on their release date.

[[BoT] Jason]

He means the untouchable planets that no fleets could take

[WoofyBear]

many many many good points have been made.

my suggestion is a combo of a few suggestions made..

Alliance repair button: limit the number of times per day/week it can be used (like alliance ppt) and increase the cost a bit since this is one of the ways massing is deterred.

Sabbing: maybe make it more of a random thing (no options to choose) it either destroys more att or def weapons when you sab but is random which ones get hit the hardest. Being able to pick which one you sab should not be a choice since sab is supposed to be a stealthy move and any weapon is a target of opportunity. In a war in real life or the SG world, ANY weapon can be used for attack or defense so in the game making it more random which group is hit harder would be more fair and a bit more in keeping it balanced.

a way to restrict the massive cov lvls that seem to keep most people from being massed could be done by putting a limit on the max cov power someone can get regardless of their cov LVL. This would keep the massive accounts out there from basically being untouchable by the small to medium sized accounts. As it is with cov, you have to dump a VERY large amount of naq into just buying cov lvls. This has become the most important thing in the game which, i think, is wrong. It is not balanced the way it is set up now. Cov should not the the most important thing.. There should be NO primary thing required but a balance of everything. Suggesting that someone's def is unsab-able is not the best idea to balance the game again and get massing back as the main way of leveling an account. Currently, if you want to 0 someone you have to do a combo of sab and mass anyway, so why change it.

Yea, I am not a regular poster on the forum, but as a player, I think we should all be heard. I come from a defensive/diplomatic/peaceful alliance, but I still see this as a bad idea. This would make people with a large AS almost untouchable. If you do this, then all that would need to be done is keep no cov, build a massive def and no one could touch you, entire alliances could go after one account with a massive def and do no noticeable damage on it before the guy with the massive def had one of his friends sab away all the att weapons of the people that are trying to take him down. Simply stated: It will severely unbalance the game more than it is now and cause more problems that it is supposed to fix.


Just my opinion. Maybe someone will listen, maybe not. I said my peace.

[Tekki]

I already have to dump a heap of naq into my covert level, why would I then accept or want the limiting of the power? Why should covert power be limited? If you are going to do that, then you also need to limit the power of attack and defence and AC and all other power. Because in the proposed limiting of covert power, you are then dictating a method of playing.

At the moment though covert is NOT the most important thing. If you think it is then I'm sorry you are mistaken. The most important thing hasn't change and is still fundamentally the knowledge of how to play. Covert is powerful but it is not over powered. It is just finally now doing some damage, but I've said that in the past, and I'll say it again. There are particular ratios of weapons that can keep you safe, if people are too lazy to work them out then tough bikkies. It comes back to the knowledge of the game. I know what the ratios are, but I'm usually to lazy to bother.

[Juliette]

I like this update.

Tough luck for the people with huge coverts. You should have known the imbalance created was never going to be allowed to persist.
Same as with the Motherships earlier. Again an imbalance that was not allowed to persist.
And even earlier with Planets. Yet another imbalance that was corrected by Jason.


This is a typical phenomenon in this game. (In any game with a still functioning economy.) Tweaks here lead to imbalances elsewhere. The solutions often create an equal if not greater number of consequential issues. Anticipation towards the solutions presented for the issues raised is a great element of this game. A strategic element in the meta-game. (That same meta-game which includes the forums, the activity there and user interaction outside the range of options coded into the game.)

[Tekki]

What Imbalance?You mean the people whining and whinging because they have a lower covert and are ascending, or the people who are complaining because they don't actually put in the ratios or weapons correctly.

Though I'm curious to know what imbalance was there with motherships that you 'believe' was corrected? Or with planets? Which imbalances were those.

I'm also curious as to if you suggesting this update since no one has come forward to admit they did.

[Field Marshall]

So basically, what you are proposing is more balance to the game?

If this occurs, it will cause a massive decrease in activity. There must be a reward for putting time into this game and people who do deserve to have good accounts.

When the updates were released many people were forced to improve and adapt their accounts, now that people are finally getting there, you are going to ruin it again.

Either way, if you could let me know asap. I have a lot of naq that I am saving for the next level. I can dump the lot elsewhere if you tell me sooner than rather.

I might build up an even more ridiculous defence.

The ultimate solution would be to reverse the idea that defences are difficult to mass, if you made strike slightly more effective, you may have a better result.

I cannot believe how out of touch you actually are with the game, what a terrible way to run a business.

[Juliette]

What Imbalance?You mean the people whining and whinging because they have a lower covert and are ascending, or the people who are complaining because they don't actually put in the ratios or weapons correctly.

Complaints, or complainants can never be an imbalance. They can be a symptom of an existing imbalance. Or they are just whining. Regardless of that; whining about changing mechanics and values within mechanics is just that. Whining. If you have no other point than "But we built up according to the old rules"; tough luck. Changes are changes; and change -when it comes and the anticipation riding coach- is as much part of the game itself as massing, sabbing or resource management.

Though I'm curious to know what imbalance was there with motherships that you 'believe' was corrected? Or with planets? Which imbalances were those.

Re: Mothership;

* maybe bug, maybe not, but: Mothership not damaged on attack with less than required percent (attack versus defense) -- as now the attack mothership will not engage if attack is so small compared to defense...

Re: Planets;

* Planet 50% of max 'natural' value corrected: Previously, the AVERAGE of all planets of one type (ie attack) could not count for more than (planet count x 50% natural strike action). This has now been changed (to reflect what the planet description actually says) that ANY GIVEN PLANET cannot contribute more than 50% of natural (post bonus) value (in this example, to attack.) The same goes for defense, covert, anti-covert, and UP. Income planets are not affected.

I'm also curious as to if you suggesting this update since no one has come forward to admit they did.

I do not think I had anything to do with it. I may be a muse in disguise. I honestly do not know. Jason does as Jason does. Convince him otherwise if you wish.

[Juliette]

I do not think I had anything to do with it. I may be a muse in disguise. I honestly do not know. Jason does as Jason does. Convince him otherwise if you wish.

Well, when you have the guts to actually show up as your real being then perhaps your opinion may be worth noticing. Until then, you are just another mouth without an account and thus nothing to risk and not real understanding of game play.

Umm, Teks? I am my real being. Leaf Village represents.
As for being a 'muse in disguise'; Jason and I spoke of various things, but not about this specific update as proposed in this thread. So while I cannot say I have nothing to do with change, I cannot say I did not indirectly influence this one either. I can only deny direct involvement, not proximate effects of conversations. It is one of the risks of talking to a game's Creator.

Though complaints and complainers can never be an imbalance? What drug are you on? While complaints usually show some sort of imbalance, that does no mean the dumbest suggestion should be taken to correct any perceived imbalance or injustice.

Complaints and complainers are a symptom of imbalance. Either mental imbalance -in the case of complainants without legitimate reason-; game imbalance -in the case of e.g. the planet situation-; resource imbalance -Calimero-effect; "they are big and I am small"-; mechanical imbalance -one stat mechanically outweighing and cancelling out the others; e.g. Mothership situation-; and finally financial imbalance -business value of an update is wrongly assessed; update corrected-.

As for this leap of logic:

While complaints usually show some sort of imbalance, that does no mean the dumbest suggestion should be taken to correct any perceived imbalance or injustice.

Jump up! and around the block we go. Why do you utter two completely separate sentences and imply a logical connection to anything said in this thread or implied by common sense? Two separate phrases, so:

While complaints usually show some sort of imbalance,

So far, so good.

that does no mean the dumbest suggestion should be taken to correct any perceived imbalance or injustice.

Aside from aesthetic updates/suggestions, all updates/suggestions are mechanical in nature. Whether any suggestion of the latter kind is made with the correct information and experience in game mechanics or not they are intended to improve or correct the imbalance or 'injustice' it addresses. An 'injustice' is a complicated matter; it is a situation which is perceived unfair by one or more people. The emotional charge associated with injustice invalidates it as the single reason a change should be made. Regardless. Suggestions perceived as 'teh dumbiest' by people with a different frame of reference may be less important or less interesting; the admin's job is to make all these suggestions fit into an actual update. That might mean Jason will ignore the suggestions some whiners make and take note of other suggestions; or it might mean Jason says: "I detect a problem. This is a solution. Implementing." It is not that interesting how the process works exactly.

Would be going too deep into psychology and game theory if I were to dissect your post, this update, the suggestions to change the update itself; and it would serve no purpose beyond personal satisfaction and the hurting of eternity.


tl;dr:
- I am a regular player. (Maybe a bit simple.)
- I did not suggest this idea as it is to Jason.
- What Jason makes out of this thread is his to make.
- Keep discussing it. (I know I will.)

[Tekki]

[spoiler]

I do not think I had anything to do with it. I may be a muse in disguise. I honestly do not know. Jason does as Jason does. Convince him otherwise if you wish.

Well, when you have the guts to actually show up as your real being then perhaps your opinion may be worth noticing. Until then, you are just another mouth without an account and thus nothing to risk and not real understanding of game play.

Umm, Teks? I am my real being. Leaf Village represents.
As for being a 'muse in disguise'; Jason and I spoke of various things, but not about this specific update as proposed in this thread. So while I cannot say I have nothing to do with change, I cannot say I did not indirectly influence this one either. I can only deny direct involvement, not proximate effects of conversations. It is one of the risks of talking to a game's Creator.

Though complaints and complainers can never be an imbalance? What drug are you on? While complaints usually show some sort of imbalance, that does no mean the dumbest suggestion should be taken to correct any perceived imbalance or injustice.

Complaints and complainers are a symptom of imbalance. Either mental imbalance -in the case of complainants without legitimate reason-; game imbalance -in the case of e.g. the planet situation-; resource imbalance -Calimero-effect; "they are big and I am small"-; mechanical imbalance -one stat mechanically outweighing and cancelling out the others; e.g. Mothership situation-; and finally financial imbalance -business value of an update is wrongly assessed; update corrected-.

As for this leap of logic:

While complaints usually show some sort of imbalance, that does no mean the dumbest suggestion should be taken to correct any perceived imbalance or injustice.

Jump up! and around the block we go. Why do you utter two completely separate sentences and imply a logical connection to anything said in this thread or implied by common sense? Two separate phrases, so:

While complaints usually show some sort of imbalance,

So far, so good.

that does no mean the dumbest suggestion should be taken to correct any perceived imbalance or injustice.

Aside from aesthetic updates/suggestions, all updates/suggestions are mechanical in nature. Whether any suggestion of the latter kind is made with the correct information and experience in game mechanics or not they are intended to improve or correct the imbalance or 'injustice' it addresses. An 'injustice' is a complicated matter; it is a situation which is perceived unfair by one or more people. The emotional charge associated with injustice invalidates it as the single reason a change should be made. Regardless. Suggestions perceived as 'teh dumbiest' by people with a different frame of reference may be less important or less interesting; the admin's job is to make all these suggestions fit into an actual update. That might mean Jason will ignore the suggestions some whiners make and take note of other suggestions; or it might mean Jason says: "I detect a problem. This is a solution. Implementing." It is not that interesting how the process works exactly.

Would be going too deep into psychology and game theory if I were to dissect your post, this update, the suggestions to change the update itself; and it would serve no purpose beyond personal satisfaction and the hurting of eternity.


tl;dr:
- I am a regular player. (Maybe a bit simple.)
- I did not suggest this idea as it is to Jason.
- What Jason makes out of this thread is his to make.
- Keep discussing it. (I know I will.)

[/spoiler]

This idea is imbalanced, and will only make things more imbalanced. Forum has said he cannot think of a reason not to do this, but so far there have been plenty of reasons suggested not to do this. While you 'like the idea' you have not given a viable ingame reason beyond your belief that stuff is imbalanced. Could you show some math or something like that to prove it? I do not believe sabbing is imbalanced at the moment, merely that people aren't really aware of how best to play it. There are ratios involved with weapon numbers but perhaps you have some stats or math that will show otherwise, so please do go ahead and give some numbers.

So Forum will make of it what he will but what has become clear, at least to me is that the majority does not wish to see this go through. So, I'm not going to discuss it further, unless and until someone can actually come up with more reason to discuss it rather than 'they like it' because there have been many posts which have shown the likely ingame consequences of this decision and very few that have shown any positives - ingame positives. And ingame is after all, what we are trying to improve.

[Richard B Riddick]

Charisma, if u like this update, and think it will benifit game, u are out of it, and going on bout those ascending and having lower cov levels, after sab and cov update im actuallyy finding it EASIER to not be sabbed, and most of time since update came out I been either 30, or 31 due to ascending. Planets are actually useful now, they work wonders in ascending accounts, and with increased merlins one can merlin 2 planets at a time. So the cov isn't that wacked out, people just need to adapt, and when I had a high level account, if someone had balanced stats id ac through def, very very effective if used right, and even with allience repair ur doing heavy damage, and after bulk of spies are gone, well you sab them. This update is lame. Charisma, how bout a plauge level player trains all units as defenders, 0 cov, with loss ratios as is he would be literally impossible to mass, would take another plauge player to so it and with losses he can't take it down all way, and then trade cap he can't really have people on standby with more uus, and with strike being sabbable, someone would just sab him (one of guys friends) because hed have not enough spies if he trained a strike big enough to mass him.and there is still allience repair, so ud have like 100 litterally undamagabe accounts. Charisma, think with ur head, this update goes through I can tell you game will die. While yes it is unbalanced, this will makes sense, while yes game play changes, and people need to adapt to new changes, some changes are plain stupid and should not be done like this one. Annd limiting cov power, ver very stupid idea, train maxcovs, and turn on crit realm, he can build whatever he wants cause he can't be sabbed. And y should he limit the cov people can run, that's based on how people want to set account up. That's basically saying nobody can build above a 10 t def and a 10 t strike. No ms above 3 t. Just stupid. Issue atm lies with alloence ppt and allience repair

[~Coyle~]

Look at Repli's voting thread, all the game needs is a few tweaks and he has list most of the tweaks that should be made.