Calculations

[Sniperwax]

in an online battle, the person with fewer planets will no matter what lose at least 5:1, though more likely 10:1 or more.

That is certainly an issue that needs to be addressed Math. It just feels like these proposed changes affect Joe Schmoe and Johnny Credit Card rather proportionally. A 20t MS whooping your 10t MS is still going to be a headache when it only functions as a 10t and yours functions as a 5t. A 40/40 will always crap all over a 36/36. Some SGW truths are self evident.

I wish there were better suggestions on the table than the ones listed. There are probably solutions to this problem that can leave the code as is but make the planets/ms/ab/GnR pscyho think more carefully about whether 10:1 +++ is such a bright idea. Hell i can think of several and I haven't even had a beer yet today.

[~Dä Vinci~]

in an online battle, the person with fewer planets will no matter what lose at least 5:1, though more likely 10:1 or more.

That is certainly an issue that needs to be addressed Math. It just feels like these proposed changes affect Joe Schmoe and Johnny Credit Card rather proportionally. A 20t MS whooping your 10t MS is still going to be a headache when it only functions as a 10t and yours functions as a 5t. A 40/40 will always crap all over a 36/36. Some SGW truths are self evident.

I wish there were better suggestions on the table than the ones listed. There are probably solutions to this problem that can leave the code as is but make the planets/ms/ab/GnR pscyho think more carefully about whether 10:1 +++ is such a bright idea. Hell i can think of several and I haven't even had a beer yet today.

why don't you tell us them then.. instead of complaining give ideas!

criticism is only good if constructive

[Sniperwax]

in an online battle, the person with fewer planets will no matter what lose at least 5:1, though more likely 10:1 or more.

That is certainly an issue that needs to be addressed Math. It just feels like these proposed changes affect Joe Schmoe and Johnny Credit Card rather proportionally. A 20t MS whooping your 10t MS is still going to be a headache when it only functions as a 10t and yours functions as a 5t. A 40/40 will always crap all over a 36/36. Some SGW truths are self evident.

I wish there were better suggestions on the table than the ones listed. There are probably solutions to this problem that can leave the code as is but make the planets/ms/ab/GnR pscyho think more carefully about whether 10:1 +++ is such a bright idea. Hell i can think of several and I haven't even had a beer yet today.

why don't you tell us them then.. instead of complaining give ideas!

criticism is only good if constructive

I would like to see more suggestions that keep the strong ratio capabilities possible but with a risk element added. The opposite of ASC's reward based DG system for honorable play. A punishment element that deals with dishonorable play. The better the ratio the worse the punishment.

Like if I whack-a-mole people with 5:1 losses in my favor from the start I have a x% chance of a sizeable defection or maybe causing a critical failure to my army and MS volleys/shields or perhaps instead there is a x% chance I give them a nice limited buff. Ascended beings plant a limited blessing on the defender's weps?

Any suggestion that involves risk and chance is A-O-K to me. I like it when I can do something bad even though it could bite me in the rear.

[EbilCC]

planets are needing nerfed like crazy

[Richard B Riddick]

maybe its not related to this topic, but what about this idea:

That planets adds their bonus only if they are in normal dimension and not merlined. This means that u only get the bonus if u can defend your planets, cause its kinda just stupid, how the planets can give u bonus if they arent in the same dimension like u or your army?

good idea but would require other changes, with fleets being as big as they are, you are talkin about having to spend a good 10 to 15 q per planet to defend it (maybe more), the current planet defense setup was from back when average fleet size was 100 bill to 200 bill, now there are a good dozen fleets at 1t-2t (if not more)

so to do that, you would also have to change the ratios to take a planet

[D3ath]

maybe its not related to this topic, but what about this idea:

That planets adds their bonus only if they are in normal dimension and not merlined. This means that u only get the bonus if u can defend your planets, cause its kinda just stupid, how the planets can give u bonus if they arent in the same dimension like u or your army?

good idea but would require other changes, with fleets being as big as they are, you are talkin about having to spend a good 10 to 15 q per planet to defend it (maybe more), the current planet defense setup was from back when average fleet size was 100 bill to 200 bill, now there are a good dozen fleets at 1t-2t (if not more)

so to do that, you would also have to change the ratios to take a planet

yeah i agree that we might need to change this as well, maybe raise that percentage from 10 or is it 15 now to some 30 or 50 of planet original def

[Sniperwax]

maybe its not related to this topic, but what about this idea:

That planets adds their bonus only if they are in normal dimension and not merlined. This means that u only get the bonus if u can defend your planets, cause its kinda just stupid, how the planets can give u bonus if they arent in the same dimension like u or your army?

good idea but would require other changes, with fleets being as big as they are, you are talkin about having to spend a good 10 to 15 q per planet to defend it (maybe more), the current planet defense setup was from back when average fleet size was 100 bill to 200 bill, now there are a good dozen fleets at 1t-2t (if not more)

so to do that, you would also have to change the ratios to take a planet

yeah i agree that we might need to change this as well, maybe raise that percentage from 10 or is it 15 now to some 30 or 50 of planet original def

It is 30% now and they have to send at least 30% of your def power in fleets or they can't scratch away at you anymore slowly with tiny suicide fleets. This was pointed out to me recently in the planet degradation thread. And yes you can bet on larger fleets being built now to compensate

[~Dä Vinci~]

Good ideas, and will even the playing field while still giving the planets a small advantage. % can be worked on but other than that, i vote for all three and see how it goes.

So, basically we are playing quantum now? We are spending A LOT of money and using alot of time farming and raiding to build this and now its getting nerfed! This has to end at a certain point. I don't have a good account at ALL but I don't wan't to see THIS game get away with more scams. Black market triples for a few years, then nerf them so you have to buy more....(or they may eventually become useless with the progressive nerf idea!) ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!

Not useless Stewie only useful as INC/UP. So when you farm up/generate a quad of naq now in two weeks or two months or however long it takes you just sell it. DO NOT put it into your MS or combat planets. That will improve your kill ratio and the income people will point down to you from their top ranks and proclaim "Not cool bro!". Work hard at this Stewie and maybe they'll let you into Heset one day.

I like the calculations chart by the way it is pretty.

Ya so basically like the investigation, this is another way to help or hurt who they want. Got it. Triples that you bought are now useless. MS you built up to bring down 150 tril defs, are now nerfed. AB is screwed with. What's next, if you have a bigger strike by twice theirs it doesn't count? That would make it fair for the smaller defenders right? Come on. This is another way to piss off people who've invested time and money into this game...Just like the 4 level covert nerf...(and im level 36/33) so ya this is dumb as hell

Perhaps not useless. In any of these three proposals it would still be fun as an attacker or a defender with a modest size MS and a house blessing to get nice kill ratios on inc/up slackers. The ratio won't be nearly as shock provoking anymore but they will still end up with 0 def eventually. It will just cost the attacker (or the odd defender or two with this setup) more units. The weaker party can replace their losses in a day or two passively. The stronger party replaces theirs in a week or two hunched over the keyboard for dozens of hours farming or with a credit card.

So Strike/Def planets aren't being nerfed per say INC/UP planets are getting buffed. At this rate Heset will be rank 1 before summer hits!

This would work out to (for example..(!)..) 1 attack planet being able to provide 50% support, 2 attack planets each being able to provide 45% support, 3 40%, 4 35%, 5 30% and 6 through 10 providing 25%. (At optimal strength, that would equate to 1:50%, 2:90%, 3:120%, 4:140%, 5:150%, 6:175%, 7:200%, 8:225%, 9:250%, 10:275%; a max strike of 375% having just raw strike and planetary contribution, as opposed to current 600% total.)
Any effectiveness reduction will be applied equivalently to covert/income/UP attributes.

i think high income is what making it easier to catch up to these bigger accounts which are really far ahead. Only issue is how many people are selling naq from income planets and how many are using to benefit there own account.

[Dexter Morgan]

Or we could make it a simple update that wont have any bugs.....
Only 3 merlins can be active at a time....
Simple enough eh?

[~Dä Vinci~]

Or we could make it a simple update that wont have any bugs.....
Only 3 merlins can be active at a time....
Simple enough eh?

... planet defences would need to be changes, it's virtually impossible to protect against fleet sizes today.

[Tetrismonkey]

TBH I love the income planets. Without that added income it would be near impossible for most of us who can only log on once or twice a day for a quick farming run, to somewhat play catch up. Even with a combined 600bil income per turn from two accounts, covert 38-39 will take 6 weeks to acheive. 40 would take 12 or so. Thats just one side, covert. It would take well over a year from just INCOME to get decent levels. Thats if you keep all the income AND planets.

TBH the more restrictions you place on money spenders, the more they will spend in other areas, thus limiting what normal players can achieve. No matter what the game staff does, it will never be enough to keep ahead of people that spend thousands on this game do.

With that said, keep attack/defense modifiers, IE volleys, planets, double strike limited and tied to RAW Strike and defense. Doing so forces even those with massive planets and MSs, to use more supers. Sure they will always have far better ratios, but it will bring ridicules rations of 20:1 down to 10:1 or 5:1.

There should not be any reason a 60tril defense of 150mil supers, gets torn apart by a 5tril RAW strike of 5mil supers. With these kinds of situations it causes players like myself and many others so just say **Filtered** it once your massed. Whats the point of rebuilding a defense or for that matter fighting back if you will be severely penalized for doing so.

[Mathlord]

Or we could make it a simple update that wont have any bugs.....
Only 3 merlins can be active at a time....
Simple enough eh?

Will never happen, although I actually think that's a fantastic suggestion. The problem is all the people who have invested so much money specifically in buying merlins to have their planets merlined forever.

There's no good solution and there's nothing that will be fair to everyone. I'm always hesitant to suggest changes to the game anyway...I would much rather find a way to still win inside the current setup of what we have. But if the game is going to constantly change anyway, we should try to keep up with it.

I'd personally be much happier in a world without merlins (or much more limited merlin ability) forcing people to put defenses on planets and risk losing their big investments. As it stands, you need 30% power of fleets to break a defense...an actual solution to the problem would be finding a way to balance costs of building fleets and building planet defenses to make planet defenses relevant. I still say there should be no "unkillable" stat in this game. This whole line of thinking is still a pipe dream, however. For now, we should focus on treating the symptom.

[frazz]

planets were never designed to be what they have become that is for sure

I like deaths idea about only 3 been merlined at anyone time

however the thr problem is people have spent $$ on this to get these planets

cases 1 and 2 for me

though I would say that income/up planets shouldn't be touched in the same way it will mess with the raiding and and farming economics more than we probably realise at the moment the others should be managed however I have a question about option 2

how do you decide what planet get whats % is that the players choice to number the planets

or is it by size or power as these are things that change


ps I wont rant to much about it as always but open up ascended and make tech trees that make planets ineffective depending on your tech level

[Dexter Morgan]

Or we could make it a simple update that wont have any bugs.....
Only 3 merlins can be active at a time....
Simple enough eh?

... planet defences would need to be changes, it's virtually impossible to protect against fleet sizes today.

Ya so they can't merlin the ten attack def multiply planets, they wont kick AB up super high as they would not be able to hold more than three without them being stolen.....that is why a 3 merlin at a time limit would work....although, the game would lose money then selling merlins. And whats a better way to get more dual buys, make them harder to boost you without having three of the same type, etc.....

[Sniperwax]

TBH I love the income planets. Without that added income it would be near impossible for most of us who can only log on once or twice a day for a quick farming run, to somewhat play catch up. Even with a combined 600bil income per turn from two accounts, covert 38-39 will take 6 weeks to acheive. 40 would take 12 or so. Thats just one side, covert. It would take well over a year from just INCOME to get decent levels. Thats if you keep all the income AND planets.

TBH the more restrictions you place on money spenders, the more they will spend in other areas, thus limiting what normal players can achieve. No matter what the game staff does, it will never be enough to keep ahead of people that spend thousands on this game do.

With that said, keep attack/defense modifiers, IE volleys, planets, double strike limited and tied to RAW Strike and defense. Doing so forces even those with massive planets and MSs, to use more supers. Sure they will always have far better ratios, but it will bring ridicules rations of 20:1 down to 10:1 or 5:1.

There should not be any reason a 60tril defense of 150mil supers, gets torn apart by a 5tril RAW strike of 5mil supers. With these kinds of situations it causes players like myself and many others so just say **Filtered** it once your massed. Whats the point of rebuilding a defense or for that matter fighting back if you will be severely penalized for doing so.

I think many people feel the same way Tets and agree 100% on the problem but not necessarily the solution to solve it. It is very refreshing to see Admin generate a response to this growing complaint. I just hope that everyone's well being is considered that means all the weakling casuals to the fierce and mighty OCD crowd.

I feel like these proposals spade and neuter everyone without regard for necessity. The build itself is taking the punishment here regardless of whether it is giving you 1:1 kill ratio or 3:1 or 20:1. Not everyone bought 10q-30q naq from shady mysterious naq vendors. Some people worked very hard farming for months to get their little 1.25:1 opener versus small to midsize defs.

The solution that needs to manifest here from one of you nerds is the one that shrinks that kill ratio back down to awesome but not stupidly awesome while still allowing the lame juggernaut cash accounts (which caused all of this mess) to still benefit from their build against appropriately sized armies. Small to midsize armies should also benefit from their build against appropriately sized armies.

There are a few directions that thinking can run towards. None of which are perfect but maybe worth thinking more upon. Would people get seriously pissed if their many attack power/defensive power boosting gimmicks only went as high as the opponent's total power? The excess supers are treated as 'normal supers'. So no 4t power per 1m supers for the excess just 460b which is normal This gently shrinks the fun ratio a bit when attacking targets with less power than you.

As for attacking targets with higher power yes the under-massing dilemma does need to be addressed. Borek's 8m Strikers vs 80t def example and Tets 5m vs 60t examples are disturbing.

How about a formula that first looks for you to beat the target's power with your own then treats your excess units as 'extras' that will do the actual killing upon winning the battle? This makes it so you can technically enjoy your minimal losses landing nice 'wins' on people for say naq steals/uu raid/MS mass/etc. but you won't explode your enemy's units while doing it. If you want to blow up the enemy army you still can but it will require you to send a bit extra. The math behind that is mostly effortless.

A bunch of lopsided planets and other unilateral indiscriminate nerfing is a mistake that cannot be changed back after. You can't lure people in claiming the sky is the limit and then say juuuuust kidding there's a limit. A vote for NO CHANGE is a vote for democracy!