The reletivity of covert

[Lore]

AC has been a sore issue for some time, it is the only stat that only can be damaged by the person who is being attacked by it & thats if they are on when be A C'd.

Players have been asking for ages for this to be addressed, but as of yet nothing has been done

Think about it,

if we could help defend alliance members/friends from being A C'd, just as we do when they are being massed, taking repair naq, sabbing, massing the massers, etc.

Well my only issue with AC is that during war its the only place you can store men to lower your income that is safe from attack.

[grimgor]

they could make it which ever one is higher get calculated

cause if your rank was out of 5 stats farmers would drop out cause of there 0 AC


or

they could make it you can only have as many AC'ers as spys

Well my only issue with AC is that during war its the only place you can store men to lower your income that is safe from attack.

what about Attack Soldiers

[kinnell]

No. You're Wrong.

Do you think that the top 100 people also have the top 100 defense. Very unlikely. There are a lot of people who like to stay out of the spot-like and are ranked 2000-5000 with extremely high defenses. They also may be raiders.

The same thing with covert. Having a high covert keeps you out of the spotlight and even you have a 0 attack or an unarmed mothership, you're not going to be ranked very high which is good for hiding from farmers for growth or raiding.

You may be able to sab top 100 people but that does not mean you can sab top 100 coverts, which would be distributed.

Having 10 million AC is nice and is a easy way to bump that COVERT score but REMEMBER that AC is active and C is passive. This means that for an AC benefit other than power, you need to mass and be active. Covert on the otherhand would allow you to be invisible to the world without you having to do anything. Unfortunately, that would also put you at risk of being massed and losing it. But getting power seems very overrated.

A lot of new people seek power foolishly. (Power for recognization because your awesome & ascending are in my opinion the only reasons you need rank) What's the point of being top 100 if your army size is 8 mill. If I mass you, game over.

I honestly just disagree with having AC get less emphasis.

[Tacet]

I don't really care whether AC gets more or less attention than it currently does, though it would be nice to see where your covert is ranked.

Personally I only care for rank for ascension, and currently I have a decent rank (in GR range) with 0 AC. But for newer ppl without full SS it can be very difficult to get a large enough army to have a decent covert. For those ppl the current emphasis on AC makes it much easier to get into GR range.

If you really want to change it, I prefer Zeratul's idea (with a twist):

Both covert and AC are ranked seperately, showing you how you rank in each, but your total rank is worked our from the total of the two's power, i.e. 200 bil covert + 200 bil AC = 400 bil, which is then ranked and used for the total rank. Both covert and AC carries the same weight, though, unlike the current setup where AC gives twice the power that covert does. This will solve the "if AC = 0" problem, and might make programming easier. (I'm not much of a programmer so I'm not sure, lol!)

[Lord Silent Bob]

Personally I generally have 0 AC. I've always found the best way of attaining a good rank for G&R is a good spread of stats. currently with a good even spread it's possible to gain G&R with under 250 bil TP.

I've played with AC and Covert to as most of you no doubt have. I found it actually made little difference to my own rank and really only affected alliance ranking.

For me...if it ain't broke. don't fix it.

[Zeratul]

Both covert and AC are ranked seperately, showing you how you rank in each, but your total rank is worked our from the total of the two's power, i.e. 200 bil covert + 200 bil AC = 400 bil, which is then ranked and used for the total rank. Both covert and AC carries the same weight, though, unlike the current setup where AC gives twice the power that covert does. This will solve the "if AC = 0" problem, and might make programming easier. (I'm not much of a programmer so I'm not sure, lol!)

the idea here is then that there are 3 covert ranks? one regular covert, one AC, and one total covert, right?

then the rank is calculated from attack, defense, total covert, and MS... that seems easier that what we suggested...

[Hells__Angel]

Seperate ranks for AC and covert. Yes.

Change the AC system. No.

[TheRook]

Whats needed is..

1)AC to be the same as Covert (when on the same covert/AC levels) so you have to train MORE AC troops than covert troops
2)AC to die even if there is 0 defence (maybe at about 1/5th of the rate the covert troops die)
3)AC being able to be massed just like covert troops (a new attack method - using covert troops die upon a defence like AC troops and die in a similar rate mentioned in point 2)



TheRook

[Ston]

dont care about ranking either but im all in for a change of the AC system.
as mentioned several tiems before i woudl appreciate having AC as a selectable option on attack page (pretty much like in asc).

and then it will be fought out without taking attack strike and defence strike into account or only for giving bonuses.

like: "Hunt Intel Units" -Button, Turns that must be used = 15.
then it goes enemies COVER strike vs your AC strike only -while giving a small bonus of 10% to the attacker when his strike is higher then defence or other way round.

the losses are directly calculated like they are in a normal attack.
-> if the enemy got no or lil coverty left you wont lose any or lil ac units
->if the enemy got a a way better (maybe devestating like in att) hes not losing anything but you are
-> if equal or only small difference ~the same losses (a lil advantage for the attacker)
-> and not to forget, defcons will aid the defenders covert action directly, so will asc blessing eventually help the attacker.

but thats just my thought.

[grimgor]

i would like to see a ratio of 1:1 of anti covert to covert troops

would also change wars a tiny bit but then you got a bug when some one lose there covert troops

[urogard]

what i think really needs to get adressed is that ac doesn't kill spies with 0 casualties cos it currently it's bs

spies also have some hth training, or can handle weapons.
So something like for 2-6 Spies killed you loose 1 AC (numbers can be different, just tossing in a random number) and ratio changes with difference in levels. you haveing more ac levels than the enemy covert levels will lessen your losses, enemy having more covert levels than you ac levels raises your losses.

[generaloneill]

Well i was looking at my own covert today, and decided that covert in itself does not rank highly at all, Most people dont have more than a million spies, however my covert on its own is lowly ranked yet i could easily sabotage people in the top 100...The problem is the old Anti Covert being Realtive to the covert rankings, which i See as a problem, not only does it help in easily gaining rank, as its more powerful than covert, it also gives people an easy way of haveing power which cant be removed e.g. people would not train 10 million spies as they would be aced! So, I was thinking, this is a suggestion, but also a moan, So im putting it here for now, and seeing what the thread turns into, i was thinking haveing seperate ranks for covert and anti covert...That would mean that you could actually figure out how realtive your covert actually is to rank and so on, As apposed to haveing, what i would percieve as a n00bly way of getting a load of TP and rank, haveing uber AC trained,(As apposed to haveing a load of stats that can be removed, come on people its STARGATEWARS!) But as it happens more and more, the chain effect therein is that more people need to train AC to move up the ranks because there covert just doesnt cut it and ac is non removeable....So, anyone get what i mean...

see that button under backspace and above shift on the right of your keyboard?

[Defense-Forcefield]

i fully support what you mean.

But perhaps you should go over it again and add some breaks, or paragraphs (how the heck do you write that)

thx mate, exactly what i was looking to say (but dont found good wards )

[TORN4DO]

Separate ranking would mean that everyone would HAVE to have good AC to be ranked highly. Unless it would be carried out like in one of the previous posts that if AC is 0 it wouldnt be in effect... but that would be tricky i guess... and if you had low AC your rank would drop or what -.-

A way to avoid that would allso be that AC would be ranked seperately but would have no effect on the overall rank.

And the AC system is fine the way it is.

[Legendary Apophis]

Whats needed is..

1)AC to be the same as Covert (when on the same covert/AC levels) so you have to train MORE AC troops than covert troops
2)AC to die even if there is 0 defence (maybe at about 1/5th of the rate the covert troops die)
3)AC being able to be massed just like covert troops (a new attack method - using covert troops die upon a defence like AC troops and die in a similar rate mentioned in point 2)



TheRook

1)maybe no
2)no no & no
3)big big NO! (why would AC be the most vulnerable troops ingame??)