StarGateWars Forums

WHY was this altered?

It was FINE how it was.

It now costs more to sab - 6% of spies and does less damage! 2.5% of weapons

Massing still isn't that great, having massed two of the largest defences ingame I can say that with authority so why make sabbing cost more and do less.

It used to be toothless, it finally got some ability and now it's being weakened back down to toothless again.

Why?

it was toothless when the average defence consisted of a mill or two weps, in which case sabbing that at 2% relieved 40k odd weps, aka nothing, que a few updates, a bit o'money thrown around and defences usually consist of 7 mill odd weps, sabbed is upped to 3% and you are killing 210k weps per hit, apart from everything stacking against massing as well...sabbing was not fine as it was.
Although just playing around with %'s isn't as good as relieving some of the pressure against attacking, its a start, and probably the furthest extent admin will go.

It's alright if you have the time, turns,units farm list and ability to get the naq over a period of a few weeks or months, or money to get the covert level so you can actually play the game, otherwise your screwed, like quite a few people. A bit pointless trying to play a war game when you can't war.

Sniping ftw!!!

This is related to the bank update, that allows for sniping game play. Less efficiency in sabbing => less damage can be done to snipers who build only attack and covert.

But I do like these updates, thank you very much admin!!!

The point is there IS ways of defending against Sab just that most people are too lazy to do it. The defence is not get more covert levels either.

It's about ratios but it appears most people do not wish to go for that and just want to sniper.

So joy, now we are playing the game of snipers.

Tekki wrote:The point is there IS ways of defending against Sab just that most people are too lazy to do it. The defence is not get more covert levels either.

It's about ratios but it appears most people do not wish to go for that and just want to sniper.

So joy, now we are playing the game of snipers.

I agree with you. I truly believe that admin had good intentions, but these last updates were really made just to say that he didn't updated the game, i.e. to please some moaners?. Which is sad... really really sad, indeed.

Sabbing was fine the way it was and should be restored.

These constant small changes in % only serve to annoy players who have to keep changing their sab calculators.

Tekki wrote:The point is there IS ways of defending against Sab just that most people are too lazy to do it. The defence is not get more covert levels either.

yeah, build an attack of 10 odd trill will take 30 odd mill weps, so you would want to be killing about 1 mill spies at least to make it cost more, so thats about 20 odd mill to send in, so i would say a few high flyers sit around the 38-39 covert lvl mark now, so they would have a covert of about 40,894,504,000,000 (just for c38) to send in 20 mill spies. Now I assume you know about the mechanics of the game, such that your covert power has to be greater than the oppositions to execute a successful sabotage, so reversing the stance, for the enemy to send in 20 mill spies you will need a covert greater than that long number. I would easily take the average joe's covert level to be 36 so 34 ish mill units, or 48 mill for covert 35.
Now you would want to protect 34-48 mill spies with a defence, so 10 trill? 15 trill? + more weapons on top of that, so to keep a good 'ratio' you should train more spies for more covert. A shedload of naq and UU compared to what it would fall for. So much for that ratio.

Yeah there is a way of defending, it would be stupid if admin didn't invoke that idea, but its ridiculous enough to 'defend' against sabbing. The high covert levels just sit on the rooftop and throw stones and the people walking past.

I dont seem to recall any discussion topic about altering sabbing. I do recall it briefly being said on the last admin meets, but mostly about bein able to chose to either sab strike or defence weapons.

I thought we were done with (important) updates that havent been discussed first?

This update needs actually more look into then the bank update, which is more harmless imo.

Rodwolf wrote:I dont seem to recall any discussion topic about altering sabbing. I do recall it briefly being said on the last admin meets, but mostly about bein able to chose to either sab strike or defence weapons.

I thought we were done with (important) updates that havent been discussed first?

+1
But that was a few users, admin never agreed to anything.
And the bank changes do have a large impact.

ok compromise reached:
the 3% is back. the 6% cost remains.

this update sucks

but yet in the same sence.. its kinda good to.. now its harder to sab a defence.. and easier to covert phase..

example;

person with avg covert -34
person with high cov -39

person with 34 cov has 7mil spys and xxx amount of cov power
person with 39 has same ammount of power but what 400-600k spies


person with 34 cov has 30mil defence weps
person with 39 sends 500k spies to kill all them weps


i think this update is more meant for the attacker and help a defender..

Bad update, the people who spend $$$ dont care about an extra 1% spy losses since UU are cheap to buy, and many of these same people are the ones who have the highest Covert levels also bought with $$$.

Remember what happened last time the sab % was increased ???? Admin ended up having to reduce it again after so many complaints !!!




As above the problem with sabbing is that low stat / sniper accounts with little stats arent worth sabbing or massing due to the sab % and cost of ATs.

Rather than tinkering with the sab % why not put a minimum weapons sabbed in place, say 2.5 % or 100K weapons whichever is higher, that way small stats can be zeroed at a reasonable cost

Also with massing the size of the strike to the size of def should effect damage, massing a 100 Bill def with a 10 trill strike should take far less 15AT attacks than massing a 100 bill def with a 100 bill strike.

MEZZANINE wrote:Bad update, the people who spend $$$ dont care about an extra 1% spy losses since UU are cheap to buy, and many of these same people are the ones who have the highest Covert levels also bought with $$$.

Remember what happened last time the sab % was increased ???? Admin ended up having to reduce it again after so many complaints !!!




As above the problem with sabbing is that low stat / sniper accounts with little stats arent worth sabbing or massing due to the sab % and cost of ATs.

Rather than tinkering with the sab % why not put a minimum weapons sabbed in place, say 2.5 % or 100K weapons whichever is higher, that way small stats can be zeroed at a reasonable cost

Also with massing the size of the strike to the size of def should effect damage, massing a 100 Bill def with a 10 trill strike should take far less 15AT attacks than massing a 100 bill def with a 100 bill strike.

wouldn't it be much easier to decrease the decay rate on defense weapons so they get damaged faster... truth be told decreasing sab percentage still makes it plenty efficient cause its the decay rate on weapons that makes them harder to mass at least in my opinion.

Iƒrit wrote:

MEZZANINE wrote:Bad update, the people who spend $$$ dont care about an extra 1% spy losses since UU are cheap to buy, and many of these same people are the ones who have the highest Covert levels also bought with $$$.

Remember what happened last time the sab % was increased ???? Admin ended up having to reduce it again after so many complaints !!!




As above the problem with sabbing is that low stat / sniper accounts with little stats arent worth sabbing or massing due to the sab % and cost of ATs.

Rather than tinkering with the sab % why not put a minimum weapons sabbed in place, say 2.5 % or 100K weapons whichever is higher, that way small stats can be zeroed at a reasonable cost

Also with massing the size of the strike to the size of def should effect damage, massing a 100 Bill def with a 10 trill strike should take far less 15AT attacks than massing a 100 bill def with a 100 bill strike.

wouldn't it be much easier to decrease the decay rate on defense weapons so they get damaged faster... truth be told decreasing sab percentage still makes it plenty efficient cause its the decay rate on weapons that makes them harder to mass at least in my opinion.

Maybe, but the other problem with sabbing is everyone damages their own attack weapons before logging off to prevent def being sabbed without attacks. Before tinkering with sab %s it would be good to have a choice of 'sab def' or 'sab attack'.

MEZZANINE wrote:

Iƒrit wrote:

MEZZANINE wrote:Bad update, the people who spend $$$ dont care about an extra 1% spy losses since UU are cheap to buy, and many of these same people are the ones who have the highest Covert levels also bought with $$$.

Remember what happened last time the sab % was increased ???? Admin ended up having to reduce it again after so many complaints !!!




As above the problem with sabbing is that low stat / sniper accounts with little stats arent worth sabbing or massing due to the sab % and cost of ATs.

Rather than tinkering with the sab % why not put a minimum weapons sabbed in place, say 2.5 % or 100K weapons whichever is higher, that way small stats can be zeroed at a reasonable cost

Also with massing the size of the strike to the size of def should effect damage, massing a 100 Bill def with a 10 trill strike should take far less 15AT attacks than massing a 100 bill def with a 100 bill strike.

wouldn't it be much easier to decrease the decay rate on defense weapons so they get damaged faster... truth be told decreasing sab percentage still makes it plenty efficient cause its the decay rate on weapons that makes them harder to mass at least in my opinion.

Maybe, but the other problem with sabbing is everyone damages their own attack weapons before logging off to prevent def being sabbed without attacks. Before tinkering with sab %s it would be good to have a choice of 'sab def' or 'sab attack'.

well if the decay rate was higher on def weapons then it wouldn't really be a problem.