I was just looking at the logs and seen what is probably someone's multi with nothing on it farming our alliance which got me thinking about this idea.
Basically if you want to farm and hit a particular alliance you must have a certain defense. If you want to farm/raid the top half of page one you must have a 15tril plus defense, second half say 12.5tril, top of page two 10tril and bottom half 7.5tril and so on. (could be higher or lower)
If you want to take a planet same deal goes (would cut out multi stripping)
This way it pays to have your alliance at a certain rank and forces snipers and alliances to build if they want to continue a war. Also means for farmers you farm allainces with greater risk as you will have to have something built.
Minimal Defense.
-
- Forum Addict
- Posts: 3519
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 2:19 pm
- Alliance: Doom
- Race: Irish
- ID: 0
- Location: Ireland (dublin)
Minimal Defense.
...what makes you think Tom can't hurt you? Guy's a genius He's walking around, a free man, with over a hundred child molestation charges on him - Daku
-
- Forum Addict
- Posts: 4826
- Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 11:18 am
- Alliance: Retiring
- Race: Draeden
- ID: 1916018
- Location: writing a booklet so people understand my humour :D
Re: Minimal Defense.
good idea, not sure FS or OE would agree though
Retired but still on a rampage
Spoiler
Rudy Peña wrote:Yea, OE is the the next FS in terms of snipers. We proud ourselves on it to the point we give out awards and see who can mass the most with a 0 def.
Drahazar wrote:Im happy to snipe anyone i want, why should i build any defences for you people
George Hazard wrote:FM is like a rite of passage for alliances.
You haven't truly made it to manhood until you've slept with the town prostitute.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- Forum Addict
- Posts: 3519
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 2:19 pm
- Alliance: Doom
- Race: Irish
- ID: 0
- Location: Ireland (dublin)
Re: Minimal Defense.
Everyone's just going to have to get alongGuild wrote:good idea, not sure FS or OE would agree though
...what makes you think Tom can't hurt you? Guy's a genius He's walking around, a free man, with over a hundred child molestation charges on him - Daku
- Drought
- Forum Expert
- Posts: 1142
- Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 11:52 am
- ID: 0
- Location: dde
Re: Minimal Defense.
great idea, but the scales would be a bit troublesome ...
how about:
at least 30% of the average defense in the given alliance.
ie
Smaller alliance example:
target X is in alliance A
Alliance A has 10 members: 5 members have 1T defense, 5 members have 0 defense.
Average defense in Alliance A = 0,5T
30% of alliance A average defense = 0,15T (150B def)
Bigger alliance example:
Target Z is in alliance B
Alliance B has 20 members: 10 members have 5T defense, 5 members have 2T defense, 5 members have 0 defense.
Average defense in Alliance B = 3T
30% of alliance B average defense = 0,9T (900B def)
Would be a dynamic application, so it would hardly require tweaking afterwards, and the formula isnt that big, so shouldnt cause any lagg in processing.
how about:
at least 30% of the average defense in the given alliance.
ie
Smaller alliance example:
target X is in alliance A
Alliance A has 10 members: 5 members have 1T defense, 5 members have 0 defense.
Average defense in Alliance A = 0,5T
30% of alliance A average defense = 0,15T (150B def)
Bigger alliance example:
Target Z is in alliance B
Alliance B has 20 members: 10 members have 5T defense, 5 members have 2T defense, 5 members have 0 defense.
Average defense in Alliance B = 3T
30% of alliance B average defense = 0,9T (900B def)
Would be a dynamic application, so it would hardly require tweaking afterwards, and the formula isnt that big, so shouldnt cause any lagg in processing.
a very bad hairdo
- Loki™
- Forum Elder
- Posts: 2464
- Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 12:43 am
- Alliance: Jötunheim
- Race: System Lord
- ID: 41339
- Alternate name(s): Lloth, Sargonnas, D4ywalk3r
Re: Minimal Defense.
Love you long time coyle.
Spoiler
Spoiler
George Hazard says:
thats what happens, HVE takes your soul and gives you an awesome high
when you leave, you can't live without it
thats what happens, HVE takes your soul and gives you an awesome high
when you leave, you can't live without it
The forces of Loki™ rush in full force, and inflict 1,086,054,534,340,000 damage on Pooop's forces!
It was confirmed that 12,620,737 of Pooop's forces fell at the hands of Loki™'s assult.
The forces of Pooop fought back with all they could, and managed to inflict 481,837,854,506,000 damage on Loki™'s forces!
They managed to eradicate 1,988,050 of Loki™'s troops.
-
- The Ablest Man
- Posts: 1758
- Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:07 pm
- Alliance: Multiverse
- Race: Clockwork Admin
- ID: 1940718
Re: Minimal Defense.
Guild wrote:good idea, not sure FS or OE would agree though
I don't think enforced 'defence' levels are the way to go, it feel artificial. That said I would suggest something like this:-
1) cannot sell weapons, they are used, nobody else wants them. (just like you cant disarm your Motherships, arming your troops is an investment).
2) in defence of your planet, both your attack and defence troops fight. (Defence troops fight full strength, attack troops fight at half strength). All trained troops can be killed.
3) when attacking others, only your attack troops are sent, just like it is now. (They fight at full strength).
4) when taking a planet, the defenders MS fights to protect the planet if it is at home (say providing up to an additional percentage of the planets defences) both MS take damage from the engagement.
Something like that
-
- Forum Addict
- Posts: 3519
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 2:19 pm
- Alliance: Doom
- Race: Irish
- ID: 0
- Location: Ireland (dublin)
Re: Minimal Defense.
Doesn't solve any problems and I think some of those have been suggested before. I don't see a problem with this idea, well unless you just want to snipe. And there not enforced, if you don't want to build them then you just can't hit a particular alliance, you have a choice.Clockwork wrote:Guild wrote:good idea, not sure FS or OE would agree though
I don't think enforced 'defence' levels are the way to go, it feel artificial. That said I would suggest something like this:-
1) cannot sell weapons, they are used, nobody else wants them. (just like you cant disarm your Motherships, arming your troops is an investment).
2) in defence of your planet, both your attack and defence troops fight. (Defence troops fight full strength, attack troops fight at half strength). All trained troops can be killed.
3) when attacking others, only your attack troops are sent, just like it is now. (They fight at full strength).
4) when taking a planet, the defenders MS fights to protect the planet if it is at home (say providing up to an additional percentage of the planets defences) both MS take damage from the engagement.
Something like that
Last edited by ~Coyle~ on Fri Jul 26, 2013 2:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
...what makes you think Tom can't hurt you? Guy's a genius He's walking around, a free man, with over a hundred child molestation charges on him - Daku
-
- Forum Addict
- Posts: 3519
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 2:19 pm
- Alliance: Doom
- Race: Irish
- ID: 0
- Location: Ireland (dublin)
Re: Minimal Defense.
Drought wrote:great idea, but the scales would be a bit troublesome ...
how about:
at least 30% of the average defense in the given alliance.
ie
Smaller alliance example:
target X is in alliance A
Alliance A has 10 members: 5 members have 1T defense, 5 members have 0 defense.
Average defense in Alliance A = 0,5T
30% of alliance A average defense = 0,15T (150B def)
Bigger alliance example:
Target Z is in alliance B
Alliance B has 20 members: 10 members have 5T defense, 5 members have 2T defense, 5 members have 0 defense.
Average defense in Alliance B = 3T
30% of alliance B average defense = 0,9T (900B def)
Would be a dynamic application, so it would hardly require tweaking afterwards, and the formula isnt that big, so shouldnt cause any lagg in processing.
...what makes you think Tom can't hurt you? Guy's a genius He's walking around, a free man, with over a hundred child molestation charges on him - Daku
-
- The Ablest Man
- Posts: 1758
- Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:07 pm
- Alliance: Multiverse
- Race: Clockwork Admin
- ID: 1940718
Re: Minimal Defense.
~Coyle~ wrote:Doesn't solve any problems and I think some of those have been suggested before. I don't see a problem with this idea, well unless you just want to snipe. And there not enforced, if you don't want to build them then you just can't hit a particular alliance, you have a choice.Clockwork wrote:Guild wrote:good idea, not sure FS or OE would agree though
I don't think enforced 'defence' levels are the way to go, it feel artificial. That said I would suggest something like this:-
1) cannot sell weapons, they are used, nobody else wants them. (just like you cant disarm your Motherships, arming your troops is an investment).
2) in defence of your planet, both your attack and defence troops fight. (Defence troops fight full strength, attack troops fight at half strength). All trained troops can be killed.
3) when attacking others, only your attack troops are sent, just like it is now. (They fight at full strength).
4) when taking a planet, the defenders MS fights to protect the planet if it is at home (say providing up to an additional percentage of the planets defences) both MS take damage from the engagement.
Something like that
My suggestion means you have something to strike back at, and if they only build attack, you have a bonus to killing their troops because they would only be half strength.
Your suggestion, if I were wanting to snipe, I would build the minimum defence i needed using normal troops, sell and untrain the lot after, not much difference other than the hassle of training and untraining troops and mercs. Or did you mean your defence had to consist of supers, maybe I missed that in your post.
-
- Forum Addict
- Posts: 3519
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 2:19 pm
- Alliance: Doom
- Race: Irish
- ID: 0
- Location: Ireland (dublin)
Re: Minimal Defense.
Also if your alliance actually manages to keep the others down they can't retaliate if they have no defences (may actually force allainces to surrender, long shot I know ha)
...what makes you think Tom can't hurt you? Guy's a genius He's walking around, a free man, with over a hundred child molestation charges on him - Daku
-
- Forum Addict
- Posts: 3519
- Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 2:19 pm
- Alliance: Doom
- Race: Irish
- ID: 0
- Location: Ireland (dublin)
Re: Minimal Defense.
You could do that, sure we could also up the resale of defense weapons to counter that and sure you could leave a lot of killable SS trained in to be slaughtered so. Yes defense would be made up of SS. Also at least if someone catches you massing their alliance they instantly have something to hit.Clockwork wrote:~Coyle~ wrote:Doesn't solve any problems and I think some of those have been suggested before. I don't see a problem with this idea, well unless you just want to snipe. And there not enforced, if you don't want to build them then you just can't hit a particular alliance, you have a choice.Clockwork wrote:Guild wrote:good idea, not sure FS or OE would agree though
I don't think enforced 'defence' levels are the way to go, it feel artificial. That said I would suggest something like this:-
1) cannot sell weapons, they are used, nobody else wants them. (just like you cant disarm your Motherships, arming your troops is an investment).
2) in defence of your planet, both your attack and defence troops fight. (Defence troops fight full strength, attack troops fight at half strength). All trained troops can be killed.
3) when attacking others, only your attack troops are sent, just like it is now. (They fight at full strength).
4) when taking a planet, the defenders MS fights to protect the planet if it is at home (say providing up to an additional percentage of the planets defences) both MS take damage from the engagement.
Something like that
My suggestion means you have something to strike back at, and if they only build attack, you have a bonus to killing their troops because they would only be half strength.
Your suggestion, if I were wanting to snipe, I would build the minimum defence i needed using normal troops, sell and untrain the lot after, not much difference other than the hassle of training and untraining troops and mercs. Or did you mean your defence had to consist of supers, maybe I missed that in your post.
...what makes you think Tom can't hurt you? Guy's a genius He's walking around, a free man, with over a hundred child molestation charges on him - Daku
- Drought
- Forum Expert
- Posts: 1142
- Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 11:52 am
- ID: 0
- Location: dde
Re: Minimal Defense.
~Coyle~ wrote:Also if your alliance actually manages to keep the others down they can't retaliate if they have no defences (may actually force allainces to surrender, long shot I know ha)
Thats actually a pretty good approach.
Been thinking of ups and downs to such things, perhaps an idea to sum some up so it can be tackled ?
example:
So someone has 100T def, and the rest only 1t, in an alliance of 5 people ...
That would require a huge def to even attack.
optional solution A:
Only count the average defs of the ones off PPT.
So if all the defenses are on ppt ... the others can still be farmed by just about anyone.
(gives a little more depth to being on or off ppt too)
Optional solution B:
Use the averages formula to get a minimum need defense, but as soon as the scale tips over for example 2T then no more is required.
An up side to the idea:
New players, eager to play and farm, are less likely to make a mistake of hitting big alliances which ends them on a farm list / war list of the bigger alliances members seeing them as vultures or multis.
Also, when your talking about needed defenses of around 1t, you will definately need supers anyway.
a very bad hairdo
-
- The Ablest Man
- Posts: 1758
- Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:07 pm
- Alliance: Multiverse
- Race: Clockwork Admin
- ID: 1940718
Re: Minimal Defense.
Interesting idea Drought, but using averages on def swings the requirement down, the more you mass, by the end of it you would need very little defence built to attack a recently massed alliance, which would open it up to sniper Naq farming by anybody.
Edit:- maybe a combination of the average attack and def?
Edit:- maybe a combination of the average attack and def?
Last edited by Clockwork on Fri Jul 26, 2013 3:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Drought
- Forum Expert
- Posts: 1142
- Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 11:52 am
- ID: 0
- Location: dde
Re: Minimal Defense.
But thats where the activity of an alliance makes all the difference.Clockwork wrote:Interesting idea Drought, but using averages on def swings the requirement down, the more you mass, by the end of it you would need very little defence built to attack a recently massed alliance, which would open it up to sniper Naq farming by anybody.
They can rebuild, which would restore/increase requirements directly after someone starts rebuilding.
dynamic really starting to warm up to the idea
a very bad hairdo
-
- The Ablest Man
- Posts: 1758
- Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:07 pm
- Alliance: Multiverse
- Race: Clockwork Admin
- ID: 1940718
Re: Minimal Defense.
That's true, so option A then? To prevent huge ppt defs being used to protect say 1 guy sat massing away.