StarGateWars Forums

With the astronomical costs to do any upgrades or to build any stats it is just about worthless to build a sizeable strike to hit larger players with big defenses because there is not enough naq generation to farm to recoup and repair weapons and maintain.

Once you have that large strike you can't farm without selling it all because the damages are too costly.

There is no incentive to do anything other than build a giant defense because its not worth building any strike to take these big players on and once you have a big enough defense your pretty set and untouchable.

*hums*
Ti-hi-hi-hime, is on our side, yes it is..


Patience, young Origin. Games take time to take off unless hundreds sign up in the first few weeks.. you will survive.

Have you considered sabotaging them to reduce their defence instead? Also, the advantage of a large attack vs their large defences, is that you can hit all of them.

If it proves to continue being an issue for activity in-game, I'll look at what can be done.

Sarevok wrote::-k

Have you considered sabotaging them to reduce their defence instead? Also, the advantage of a large attack vs their large defences, is that you can hit all of them.

If it proves to continue being an issue for activity in-game, I'll look at what can be done.

I have but the sabotaging only ever seems to destroy attack weapons not defense.

You can hit all of them, but generally speaking the naq gained doesn't sustain the repair of damaged weapons, especially when your dealing with varying levels of higher defense.

Some have defense over 100,000 and others over 40,000 but the damages vs naq gained between the two seems unsustainable. In order to hit the 100,000 defense you have to have a matching strike but that strike is so powerful the damages from hitting a somewhat lower defense even if there is a lot of naq doesn't equal out and so repairs come from out of pocket making the whole endeavor too costly to pursue.

Hmm, seems perhaps a scale based on defenders defence is needed?

The weaker the defenders defence, the less losses/damage you take. Something like:
90-100% = 100% normal losses
40-90% = 50-100% normal losses respectively.
0-40% = 50% normal losses

Hope that made sense (it did in my head). So if you take someone on who has a defence 65% of yours, you take 75% of the losses you would have, had you engaged someone with 90+% of your attack.
Lower limit is 50% of what you would loose at the moment.

Note: Those % are of what you would take NOW. And not % of your offensive army/weapons

Sarevok wrote:Hmm, seems perhaps a scale based on defenders defence is needed?

The weaker the defenders defence, the less losses/damage you take. Something like:
90-100% = 100% normal losses
40-90% = 50-100% normal losses respectively.
0-40% = 50% normal losses

Hope that made sense (it did in my head). So if you take someone on who has a defence 65% of yours, you take 75% of the losses you would have, had you engaged someone with 90+% of your attack.
Lower limit is 50% of what you would loose at the moment.

Note: Those % are of what you would take NOW. And not % of your offensive army/weapons

Sarevok wrote:Hmm, seems perhaps a scale based on defenders defence is needed?

The weaker the defenders defence, the less losses/damage you take. Something like:
90-100% = 100% normal losses
40-90% = 50-100% normal losses respectively.
0-40% = 50% normal losses

Hope that made sense (it did in my head). So if you take someone on who has a defence 65% of yours, you take 75% of the losses you would have, had you engaged someone with 90+% of your attack.
Lower limit is 50% of what you would loose at the moment.

Note: Those % are of what you would take NOW. And not % of your offensive army/weapons

If I understand you correctly that makes sense, so on lesser defenses you suffer lower damages?

Would this affect the amount of Naq stolen?

I think it could be summed up with this quote "Would you kill a mosquito with an axe?"
I don't believe any army would use all it's force on a smaller target

Shezmu wrote:I think it could be summed up with this quote "Would you kill a mosquito with an axe?"
I don't believe any army would use all it's force on a smaller target

Oppression of larger forces have been common throughout history. I would like to see the axe v mosquito.

It would go viral on youtube, if you could do it mid-flight.

I think it's a good idea, I don't think people should be punished for attacking a far lesser active account.

Field Marshall wrote:think people should be punished for attacking a far lesser active account

So are you suggesting that if you attack someone with 0 defense, the damage to your weapons should also be 0? Or that it should be kept as it is now?

ljietuvis wrote:

Field Marshall wrote:think people should be punished for attacking a far lesser active account

So are you suggesting that if you attack someone with 0 defense, the damage to your weapons should also be 0? Or that it should be kept as it is now?

Sarevok wrote:The weaker the defenders defence, the less losses/damage you take. Something like:
90-100% = 100% normal losses
40-90% = 50-100% normal losses respectively.
0-40% = 50% normal losses

I actually read Saverok's post wrong. I thought in terms of "weaker defence" was in regard to weapon points remaining on the weapons. In terms of a 0 defence, I would think that your attackers would take no damage, afterall, they don't have to use any ammo or come under any fire. Kind of like walking to the shops and you getting some freebies!

Ironically, this could be considered as another suggestion.

Field Marshall wrote:I actually read Saverok's post wrong. I thought in terms of "weaker defence" was in regard to weapon points remaining on the weapons. In terms of a 0 defence, I would think that your attackers would take no damage, afterall, they don't have to use any ammo or come under any fire. Kind of like walking to the shops and you getting some freebies!

If there is a shop owner, they would at least grab something and throw it at you if they are being invaded... Surely

I'm happy to adjust what happens, that was just my initial idea. If people like, it, then it can be developed further.

Sarevok wrote:

Field Marshall wrote:I actually read Saverok's post wrong. I thought in terms of "weaker defence" was in regard to weapon points remaining on the weapons. In terms of a 0 defence, I would think that your attackers would take no damage, afterall, they don't have to use any ammo or come under any fire. Kind of like walking to the shops and you getting some freebies!

If there is a shop owner, they would at least grab something and throw it at you if they are being invaded... Surely

I'm happy to adjust what happens, that was just my initial idea. If people like, it, then it can be developed further.

Not if it were a promotion of course

Like those crazy people who sit there trying to get you to try their new brand of milkshake...

That said, if you applied the thoughts of the community to that. They'd punch the person offering the milkshake and take it all.

Nevertheless. Personally, I think it's viable, except when you consider that it is weighted towards the stronger person and as we know with these games, you should always allow the weaker a chance to catch up!

I agree, but as it stands, defence is the best option, since attacking costs so much.

So a compromise needs to be reached. Starters able to catch up, and current players, able to attack inactive accounts with minimal cost.

Note: New users do get boosted start stats as the game grows.

With the new vote open I'm not sure how to vote because I'm not sure that defense strength is or isn't the issue exactly it may just be the repair costs for having a higher strike, so which is best voting option?

Shezmu wrote:With the new vote open I'm not sure how to vote because I'm not sure that defense strength is or isn't the issue exactly it may just be the repair costs for having a higher strike, so which is best voting option?

I agree, the strength is not really the issue. Although if we are to make attacking easier, it makes sense to weaken the strength. But it would be better to make the damage to weapons smaller when attacking weak defenses.