StarGateWars Forums

With the change to bank, basicly making miners optional, and the ongoing issue of accounts able to 'hide' from retaliation by training attack units, and removing covert and def, (not especially fair ...), the following change is being made. How it works can be discussed.

When you lifer suicide an enemy account, AntiCovert (AC) units will die; so too will attack units.
What will the cost be to get a super attacker? regular attacker? attack merc?
What order do they die in, or do they die equally by the amount you have (ie by percent).?
Maybe supers are not killed until the defense is zero ?

Will you still need 30% of a target defence in attack to use lifer suicide, or should it be increaesd? (to 50% 100% 150% ? )

What else should be considered?

What this will effectively do, is stop the 'untouchable' accounts, make lifers a bit more useful, make having a defense more useful, and make ppl think twice about their actions if they cannot hide forever

thoughts?

ermm thats a tricky one to decide

a nice i dea i like it but thats 'cos i got lots of lifers

but there going to be alot of fuss about it due to well you won't be able to mass someone without the threat of your strike being killed and thus making it harder for 150 trill defs to be massed

if so i would probably look at a very high number maybe 10 to 1 seeing as a tonne of people have 100 mil plus lifers atm

maybe make it your strike need to be greater than theirs?

i don't think this will be fair on new players trying to ascend though

We talked about this in the meet a bit.

Def should be 0'd and all attack units should be killed - supers and regulars. This rewards 0'ing a def, it doesn't give you free supers killed since you can't lifer the supers through a def, and it doesn't become a game of lifering strikes rather than def.

Ratio, 1-1? Def is 0'd, you should kill atleast the same as what you lose if lifering is becoming a bigger aspect of the game.

I believe they should be both separate attacks. That you choose to kill either attackers or assassins.

This is because certain circumstances are required in each case. It is good to have a ratio between attack and defence when Lifering against assassins however against Attackers, the defence should have to be Zeroed. Also the Ratio of Lifers to Attackers should be greater than Lifers to Assassins.

The current Assassin ratio is very good, however Attackers should be 5:1. It should be not an easy attack to make or one people solely rely on.

The order should be Supers, Attackers, Mercs.
The reasoning for this is simple, since attackers can be untrained and supers cannot, it will be abused by people training a number of attackers along with their supers to use as fodder.

To summarise:
1) Both attacks are separate: You either choose to kill assassins or kill attack units.
2) Ratio should be 5:1 regardless of whether they attack supers or normals.
3) Order should be Supers, Normals, Mercs.

~Vicariously

Vicarious wrote:I believe they should be both separate attacks. That you choose to kill either attackers or assassins.

This is because certain circumstances are required in each case. It is good to have a ratio between attack and defence when Lifering against assassins however against Attackers, the defence should have to be Zeroed. Also the Ratio of Lifers to Attackers should be greater than Lifers to Assassins.

The current Assassin ratio is very good, however Attackers should be 5:1. It should be not an easy attack to make or one people solely rely on.

The order should be Supers, Attackers, Mercs.
The reasoning for this is simple, since attackers can be untrained and supers cannot, it will be abused by people training a number of attackers along with their supers to use as fodder.

To summarise:
1) Both attacks are separate: You either choose to kill assassins or kill attack units.
2) Ratio should be 5:1 regardless of whether they attack supers or normals.
3) Order should be Supers, Normals, Mercs.

~Vicariously

I don't think it should be 5:1 on supers. The def is 0'd, supers is your price. Why should you have to pay for being the better player?

I like the idea, but not sure what a "fair" rate would be.

I'm thinking along the side of doing it in the order of Mercs>Regulars>Supers, and at a rate of 1:1 for mercs, 1:1 for regulars, and 3 or 5:1 for Supers (Supers are stronger, thus should take more to kill)

This also combats users trying to hide their free UU by putting them as attack regulars.. as making attack regulars a bigger target.

I am agreeing with those saying def should be 0'd first, and that it should be a seperate attack to lifer suicide of AC units.

Mercs shouldn't be effected, it's just to throw them up as fodder to protect your supers.

That being said, I think this is dumb and it's fine how it is.

E.M.P. wrote:Mercs shouldn't be effected, it's just to throw them up as fodder to protect your supers.

That being said, I think this is dumb and it's fine how it is.

^^ this ^^ lol

how about you actually do something useful like capping covert levels instead of this nonsence?

E.M.P. wrote:Mercs shouldn't be effected, it's just to throw them up as fodder to protect your supers.

That being said, I think this is dumb and it's fine how it is.

I would tend to agree. Lifers are for AC, attack are useless without weapons and you can already remove them so I don't see why you need the ability to remove attack troops as well.

Not bad idea...as long as ratio isn't unfair for reasons mentioned (unable to build big strikes to take down big defs).
When def is zeroed, with ratio like 1:1 for attackers and 4:1 for supers (harder to kill). 5:1 is bit too high, and 3:1 not sufficient. 1:1 for supers is imo ridiculous.

In global, there's certainly a lot to say for the idea. I'm using it myself, but yeah it has a logic.

Some remarks:

* The idea of first defence that needs to be removed sounds good to me.

* I would keep the 30% in strike that is needed.

* If it kills mercs, regular attackers and super attackers I would make the ratio 1:1 for mercs, 1:2 for regulars and 1:3 for supers.

* I hope it will count for ME.

It was 'suggested' to remove snipers.

And yes lifering ac and lifering attack should be two different attacks..basically you can set the default of your lifers through a popup to either kill ac or kill attack, as long as you match the relevant conditions.

Added to that would be if everything you do train, a percentage cannot be untrained..so if you foolishly train loads of attack normals, you lose a percentage, so your only option is to convert to supers, and also make what you train as covert, a percentage untrainable.

btw admin, very important...

If your going to implemend this, give out an ingame notice (few hours at least)BEFORE you do it plz, before you get again issues (like bank update from yesterday) with angry people that have lost tons of troops becaus they were trained in something that they thought was safe...

Just to avoid a lot of nagging to your address

SSG EnterTheLion wrote:Added to that would be if everything you do train, a percentage cannot be untrained..so if you foolishly train loads of attack normals, you lose a percentage, so your only option is to convert to supers, and also make what you train as covert, a percentage untrainable.

That doesn't make much sense to me. It is equivalent to employees having a sudden death when they are fired.

Rodwolf wrote:btw admin, very important...

If your going to implemend this, give out an ingame notice (few hours at least)BEFORE you do it plz, before you get again issues (like bank update from yesterday) with angry people that have lost tons of troops becaus they were trained in something that they thought was safe...

Just to avoid a lot of nagging to your address

Don't forget to add a free PPT to that. lol