MS attack option

But not bugs.
Post Reply
Lebe
Forum Grunt
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 7:57 pm
Contact:

MS attack option

What about adding one more attack type. MS attack option. ATs cost would be lower, MS casualities higher and it would be only your MS vs theyr MS.
Plus winner could take 1/10 of killed ships as captured.
User avatar
Juliette
Verified
The Queen
Posts: 31802
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 6:57 pm
Race: Royalty
ID: 4323
Alternate name(s): Cersei Lannister
Location: Ultima Thule

Re: MS attack option

A raid on someone's fleet? :shock:
Sounds very interesting; I will pitch it and we will see about the feasibility..

Keep providing ideas; the more ideas, the better. :-D
Image
User avatar
dark lord tacoma
Forum Elite
Posts: 1614
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 3:36 am
Alliance: ROT
Race: System Lord
ID: 1991753
Alternate name(s): *~Thoth~
Location: Cumbria in England in Britain on earth
Contact:

Re: MS attack option

ms's are fragile enough imo redusing the at's used to destroy them doesnt add up imo
Image
"Play the game for more than you can afford to lose... only then will you learn the game."
Winston Churchill
Tek wrote: Your're attempting to gain a steady footing, on a moral highground made of rice pudding.

You have started playing at 15:46:39 on 29. August 2008
Eärendil wrote:I am going to mass them all
User avatar
Mathlord
Forum Zombie
Posts: 8920
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 10:56 am
Alliance: Tauri Alliance
Race: Tollan
ID: 12759
Location: On the Edge of the Unknown
Contact:

Re: MS attack option

I agree, it's difficult enough getting attacks like this:

Sep 16, 14:05 Warayth Attack defended 15 1 (+1 MS) 0 (+4 MS) 148,971,200 28,573,709 details

I inflicted devastating damage, and while he only lost 1 troop and 1 ms, I lost 4 motherships. I'd instead propose that if you want to attack someone's mothership it at the very least can't be devastating damage inflicted on the attacker.
Image
Spoiler
Image

13:38 General Zeus Sabotage Repelled 377,977,330 details

The forces of simpson_eh fought back with all they could, and managed to inflict 305,393,963,879,000 damage on Mathlord's forces!
They managed to eradicate 4,635,986 of Mathlord's troops.
---
The forces of simpson_eh fought back with all they could, and managed to inflict 12 damage on Mathlord's forces!
They managed to eradicate 0 of Mathlord's troops.
User avatar
Juliette
Verified
The Queen
Posts: 31802
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 6:57 pm
Race: Royalty
ID: 4323
Alternate name(s): Cersei Lannister
Location: Ultima Thule

Re: MS attack option

Makes sense.. destruction is good, too much destruction stops the game in its tracks. :)
Image
Freestyle304
Forum Regular
Posts: 514
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 6:37 pm
ID: 1922793
Alternate name(s): Newgrounds: Meechum

Re: MS attack option

Mathlord wrote:I agree, it's difficult enough getting attacks like this:

Sep 16, 14:05 Warayth Attack defended 15 1 (+1 MS) 0 (+4 MS) 148,971,200 28,573,709 details

I inflicted devastating damage, and while he only lost 1 troop and 1 ms, I lost 4 motherships. I'd instead propose that if you want to attack someone's mothership it at the very least can't be devastating damage inflicted on the attacker.


I'm guessing then that most of your defense was land based. It makes some sense, in a way. Your MS fleet was hurt more by his because it was out-classed. Having gotten past this, his fleet was unable to take anything because your large ground-based defense, in turn, overwhelmed his fleet.

The question though is why the ground defense doesn't take out motherships, and whether we would want that to change. The name of the defense weapons though is consistent with tech that would not produce fleet casualties (e.g., Negative Energy Vortex Field Generator). Personally though, I'd want a defense with teeth, and I'd want to know what my energy satellites were doing while all this was going on!
Post Reply

Return to “Balance / Labels / Features”