StarGateWars Forums

This is to compliment the many threads/arguments ongoing about game mechanics so Ill start a new one with these..

Attack/def ratio-

**Attacker must be within 25% of defenders army to even hit (similar to ascended)

**The def of the attacker must be 25% of thier own attack to engage a successful hit

**The covert/AC power of the attacker must be within 50% of the combined att/def power of the defender for the attack to be successful

**If/when a defender defense is 0'd then allow for a max of 15% of thier strike supers to be killed as they have lost thier defense and should be subject to being eliminated.

**if fleets can be used they should be lost as well..how about a fleets battle or platform battle?

**Keep current alliance functions as is, with this scenario or one similar it makes them actually useful as for real strategy

Jedi~Tank wrote:This is to compliment the many threads/arguments ongoing about game mechanics so Ill start a new one with these..

Attack/def ratio-

1 )**Attacker must be within 25% of defenders army to even hit (similar to ascended)

2 )**The def of the attacker must be 25% of thier own attack to engage a successful hit

3) **The covert/AC power of the attacker must be within 50% of the combined att/def power of the defender for the attack to be successful

4 )**If/when a defender defense is 0'd then allow for a max of 15% of thier strike supers to be killed as they have lost thier defense and should be subject to being eliminated.

5) **if fleets can be used they should be lost as well..how about a fleets battle or platform battle?

6) **Keep current alliance functions as is, with this scenario or one similar it makes them actually useful as for real strategy

1) Amy size ratios are exploitable due to trading in main

2) I suggested a similar thing over a year ago when we were discussing making stats worth while again but admin went with the alliance functions PPT/Repair instead. I prefer this way of making stats worth while but not both together, if this was implemented, the alliance functions should be removed.

3) I dont see any point in the covert being linked to att/def other than to protect those with high levels.

4) Seems reasonable that attackers should assist in def when def is down, Bloodrealm has a similar thing where att/def fight together in a ratio/calc we couldnt figure out.

5) Fleets can be spied, platforms cant, Personally I always thought platforms were a bad update, they should be on spy reports, and fleets should not engage in MS battles, would be better if fleets were purely for Fleet-v-Fleet and Fleet-v-Planet/Platform. If MS is home I think fleets should help defend planets against enemy fleets.

6) Alliance functions ( PPT/Repair ) just allow a few highly active players to defend many low activity players. They should be removed IMO

Remove your innactives..

Jedi~Tank wrote:Remove your innactives..

Is that a suggestion ? Dont admin already purge inactive accounts to vacation after a set period of time ? I thought he started doing that last year.

Personally I would never boot someone from an alliance just because they are busy in RL, RL comes first. But if admin dont do it already I would agree that anyone who dont log in for say 1 month, should be put on vacation mode.

MEZZANINE wrote:

Jedi~Tank wrote:Remove your innactives..

Is that a suggestion ? Dont admin already purge inactive accounts to vacation after a set period of time ? I thought he started doing that last year.

Personally I would never boot someone from an alliance just because they are busy in RL, RL comes first. But if admin dont do it already I would agree that anyone who dont log in for say 1 month, should be put on vacation mode.

no Mezz YOUR innactives, this way you do not have to worry about this statement of yours

6) Alliance functions ( PPT/Repair ) just allow a few highly active players to defend many low activity players. They should be removed IMO

you may use it for this reason..DDE uses it to gaurd our offline accounts and enhance the possibilities of live battles, something of which you seem to fear.

Good suggestions but it is a bit to complicated for my taste.

How about this?

One to solve them all, well maybe not all but a few.

"Lay siege" - Lay siege to a world when it's defenses are gone (def = 0). Result: kills a % of miners. It tales a wile to perform and it is expensive in turns.

I'm a anarchist and i like the idea of destroying someone completely.

/Kza

p.s. sorry JT if this seems like a hijack, i assure you it is not .

ALot of farm lists would get killed dead, making the farming even more competitive. I beleive the most active should reap the benefits, but i think the more casual gamer shouldnt be cut out of the equation totally.

I agree whole heartedly to 2, 4 & 6. However would we have the % be based off raw stats or post planet boost stats?

I actually believe the MS house which allows for planet massing on both sides without either being able to defend isnt as ill advised as people make out. Both sides benefit from it. And while the people in the House sacrifice the ability to build a competitive MS & knw they cant defend their planets against the entire server, the people outside risk losing planets to a small % of the server but have the opportunity to gain advantage over a majority by building a competitive MS. Im assuming thats what you mean by fleet battles JT, apologies if not.

Its more likely in the grand scheme to benefit from a uber MS, then it is to find people with Planets that can be massed to a level that will really hurt them. Good ideas though mate for the most part.

Kazarian wrote:Good suggestions but it is a bit to complicated for my taste.

How about this?

One to solve them all, well maybe not all but a few.

"Lay siege" - Lay siege to a world when it's defenses are gone (def = 0). Result: kills a % of miners. It tales a wile to perform and it is expensive in turns.

I'm a anarchist and i like the idea of destroying someone completely.

/Kza

p.s. sorry JT if this seems like a hijack, i assure you it is not .

No m8..all good suggestions are welcome from everyone.

Jedi~Tank wrote:
**If/when a defender defense is 0'd then allow for a max of 15% of thier strike supers to be killed as they have lost thier defense and should be subject to being eliminated.

Should have an attack which costs more ATs - 50 for example, which targets both the combined strike and def of the opposition. Or just the strike of the opposition but can only be used once the def is down? something like that. Maybe add some diversity to the game instead of just sab.

**Attacker must be within 25% of defenders army to even hit (similar to ascended)

this will affect farming , a small account wont be able to farm 300m inactives or 0 def. and it shall work both ways.

**The def of the attacker must be 25% of thier own attack to engage a successful hit

first it takes a script to run every 30 min and i think it may increase the turn lag. second it removes the possibility for a kamikaze mission to single players who want at least to be able to mass whos sitting on them.

**The covert/AC power of the attacker must be within 50% of the combined att/def power of the defender for the attack to be successful

means if one cant sab straight away due to high covert provided by highl or too many uu trained then he cant normally mass.
still takes a script to check , it ll be exploitable due to rising the cov/ac power in turn change.


**If/when a defender defense is 0'd then allow for a max of 15% of thier strike supers to be killed as they have lost thier defense and should be subject to being eliminated.

never liked the auto kill , smone wit not a high cov lvl is dead meat.

**if fleets can be used they should be lost as well..how about a fleets battle or platform battle?

i dont get the idea but i d like to add smth regarding MS/fleets
when a MS takes a planet then for the whole duration of the time to bring planet home it should not be able to engage
It might be worth finding a way that the MS can protect using its power or fleet power to protect the planet it stole from being retaken.

**Keep current alliance functions as is, with this scenario or one similar it makes them actually useful as for real strategy

personally didnt liked the extra ppt and i dotn belive in online fight , it takes no skill for that fight , wins who have the bank fill and can fill it again faster.
also ppt/repair bonuses kicks out the surprise element and affect the strategy.


i give credit for trying to improve the game mech as it really needs to, but to do it we need to have the problem in first place instead of providing the solution.

i think they should put a ratio on massing smaller defences, so it doesnt cost a large amount of AT's, it seems logical.

Lith, i'm not sure all your "scripting" worries are founded.

Would it not take the same time it takes to compare raw attack and defence, as it does to compare your attack, verses their defence? It's a simple variable check, not some large sorting script like rankings.

its not only one variable there will a few , yr strike/def and then yr strike vs target def , the turn script will have the coded added and also have an action when not met the power.
irt wont change much evenif applied due to sabing which is the most effective.


to find a way to fix some game mech we have to present whats the real trouble and then find an appropriate way to propose a solution that dont improves ones game and kicks another.

ppl plays the game in different ways , thats good coz it builds specific skills and maintain up the activity. but when game changes in a way that 2 years work goes almost null then wheres the point in collaborating to improve it?

it a must that gamers here shall have a strong voice to put a hold on an update that slow the activity.

Those values are calculated on the fly. You won't notice the lag imo. And it'll be faster then the randomisation of the attack and defence powers.

Lithium wrote:find an appropriate way to propose a solution that dont improves ones game and kicks another.

This is always going to happen. Blaah has dominance thanks to he's planets, the game was changed, and hes game was kicked down the drain. Any change proposed will negatively affect someone's game play style.

thats because there are ppl that want it to happen