motherships, planets, and strike.

[Tetrismonkey]

So my suggestion is straight forward to counter act the growing number of players investing thousands into large MSs and planets that are permenetly merlined, to strike at you with say 5 mil supers but dealing damn near 30tril in damage...

Your mothership can only deal 50% of your raw strike. That means no ABS, no double strike and no planets. If you want to use your 15tril strike from your MS, you need to have atleast a 30tril strike.

[IFLuX]

[Borek]

So my suggestion is straight forward to counter act the growing number of players investing thousands into large MSs and planets that are permenetly merlined, to strike at you with say 5 mil supers but dealing damn near 30tril in damage...

Your mothership can only deal 50% of your raw strike. That means no ABS, no double strike and no planets. If you want to use your 15tril strike from your MS, you need to have atleast a 30tril strike.

I see where you are going but tbh MS never has added power based on AB's or double strike, but yes, it should discount the strike bonus added from planets and just take the pre-planet value into account for MS purposes. Perhaps we should also look at applying the same criteria to double strike and AB as well, you can only ever have your raw power doubled by AB, with MS and planets added in after, same for double strike.

[Sniperwax]

Can't the argument be made though that spending absurd amounts of money on any particular stat is going to achieve the same imbalance?

A change like this screws over the ones that also enjoy this same build but minus the thousands of dollars pumped into it. Leads me to believe that any heavy cash stat is an imbalanced one.

[Borek]

Problem is we have the ludicrous situation where even though resources are pretty easy to get hold of certain account set-ups mean you can gain the full benefit of MS and planets with a small number of weapons and troops. 99% of the player base simply cannot compete and if they feel they cannot compete, why would they continue playing? if they leave who do you think you will get to use your planets and MS on? no one lol

[Sniperwax]

Problem is we have the ludicrous situation where even though resources are pretty easy to get hold of certain account set-ups mean you can gain the full benefit of MS and planets with a small number of weapons and troops. 99% of the player base simply cannot compete and if they feel they cannot compete, why would they continue playing? if they leave who do you think you will get to use your planets and MS on? no one lol

I've received a thorough smack down from most if not all of the OE/FSF/TDD massers for about a month steady now. I've seen every kill ratio I ever thought I'd see both defending and attacking. I just feel like the trade off is already what one would expect.

A cash stocked MS will always wreak havoc. Having low MS shields of your own will always sound a lot like "Ouch!" every time they land. Going the extra step with planets is their choice. I was INC/UP for a long time and that ratio just blows in any combat as it should blow. I purchased merlins to swap some strike/def planets in and my ratios are exponentially better now in that 3-10t power range attacking or defending. Higher than that it starts mattering less and less and quickly too.

The ones with Inc/UP are walking a different path and their setup benefits them in an entirely different way than their strike/MS adversary. The strike/MS people could turn this logic around and say 30t naq a day is not fair.... INC planets should be capped at 1t a day and UP limited to 4m per day to balance the game otherwise all the strike/MS people will quit and there will be no one to sell naq/uu to.

[Borek]

You would have a point if it wasn't so easy to steal naq with a MS/Attack planet set up, if you are a relatively active player you will make far more farming than you would being inc/UP, especially when you factor in the significantly lesser losses.

Bottom line is there is no justification for someone having a 10:1 killed to lost ratio, there is no justification for 8m strike supers/weaps being able to mass an 80t defense, period. Something needs to be changed for the good of the game.

And since i have 10 attack planets on my ng account i am making this suggestion DESPITE my own account being penalised. I am more than happy to take one for the team if it benefits the game.

[Sniperwax]

You would have a point if it wasn't so easy to steal naq with a MS/Attack planet set up, if you are a relatively active player you will make far more farming than you would being inc/UP, especially when you factor in the significantly lesser losses.

Bottom line is there is no justification for someone having a 10:1 killed to lost ratio, there is no justification for 8m strike supers/weaps being able to mass an 80t defense, period. Something needs to be changed for the good of the game.

And since i have 10 attack planets on my ng account i am making this suggestion DESPITE my own account being penalised. I am more than happy to take one for the team if it benefits the game.

I kind of want to agree about the 8m weps thing and it makes me think about about the way Covert works when you use it offensively. The whole "Your level is only ever effectively 4 levels above that of your enemy. Beyond this and your advancements are irrelevant." thing.

I wish there were better Glory currency 'buffs' available to ward off such evil scum. A suggestion I made in the past was a 7 day(yet it resets at MT reset regardless) buff for like 2500 GnR and 2 MT. Nullifies all or part of the Glory Strike's effectiveness against you

I don't care how much money you spend after that ain't no 8m weps taking down an 80t def anymore. Strategic new shield toy that would be, ha. A change to thwart the 8m/80t scenario that doesn't screw over the smaller MS/Strike peeps doesn't sound so bad really...which ever suggestion by whoever ends up getting coded.

[Sniperwax]

Also like the thought of "Defectors" perhaps. Forget GnR this could be a regular change. You can go at someone with your 10:1 ratio but there is a x% chance that x% of your army will defect over to the other side instead of watching the merciless brutality. (Think Teal'C and Bratek).

Since it would be a small number of defectors going over there in your 8m weps scenario make them a bunch of badasses like Teal'C and Bratek haha. Give them current Glory weapon strength when armed haha. So 50k defectors is really like fighting 1m new defenders under current code strength.

[Borek]

Or just get rid of the problem which is the 10:1 stupidity.

[Sniperwax]

Or just get rid of the problem which is the 10:1 stupidity.

Ah, ah. A change with a few content crumbs tossed in sounds fun. A rear end spanking from Admin for trying too hard feels waaaaaay too much like RL and not an online game lol.

[Borek]

The devil will be in the detail, as always

[Sniperwax]

The devil will be in the detail, as always

Indeed. 10:1 is obviously silliness. I would hope for a balancing measure that pisses off the least amount of people. On a scale of 1-10 where 1 is obnoxiously overpowered accounts getting banned (not gonna happen) and 10 being a freaking amazing set of game updates that fills everyone with joy (not gonna happen anytime soon) there has to be a '5' in there somewhere.

[Borek]

The devil will be in the detail, as always

Indeed. 10:1 is obviously silliness. I would hope for a balancing measure that pisses off the least amount of people. On a scale of 1-10 where 1 is obnoxiously overpowered accounts getting banned (not gonna happen) and 10 being a freaking amazing set of game updates that fills everyone with joy (not gonna happen anytime soon) there has to be a '5' in there somewhere.

Amen brother

[Z E R O]

Seems to me once upon a time there was an update that nerfed blahh . And his setup wasn't nearly as bad. Honestly. I agree it should be changed but as I read topics on an effective way to do this, I fail to see any decent solutions.