Injuring Miners

[TacticalCommander]

I don't like those ms ideas.....we play hard and pay more naq to build a good mothership.

a cool mothership is priceless during times of war

if your plan comes up, our motherships will be useless during times of war....maybe the price of developing the mothership must be brought down

I fail to see how motherships will become useless? They will still be used for massing other MS in addition to injuring the miners.

As for MS, thats a different suggestion in of itself, and therefor arguing for it is a different thread, but I will say that the changing of development costs doesn't matter, as those with more naq would be able to build even bigger ones as they do now.

[Cerberus]

The only problem with that idea is that if your defence was amplified by ten then no MS would be able to beat a worthwhile target. Think of this- you are in a war with a massive income alliance and the only way u'd win is if their income was cut off. You send your alliance's best MS to orbitally bombard the other alliance. All of the enemy's defence is above 100bil. Defence of those players would then be over ONE TRILLION and would thus be unbeatable by a single MS. Especially when the attacker has to beat the defending MS aswell. I highly doubt that even the top ranked MS has enough power to take out someone with a defence of 120bil which would then become 1,200,000,000,000 defencive power. Add say another 30bil power from the defending MS and you've gotta blast through 1,230,000,000,000 defence power and still have some juice left in your MS! Just rediculas!

[TacticalCommander]

No defense is unmassable. In war, I designed the attack so that massing a persons defense would have to massed before you would launch hits against miners.

Follows the same concept of AC. You could AC a person who has a defense(big or small), but you would take heavy losses. The only difference is with ACing you can still actually kill some spies, with this, you have to win in order to injure miners.

I think it(the difference) should stay that way because MS losses are cheap to replace in comparison to lost units.

The defense amplification also helps keep big players from going around and harassing small. It is also there because it helps, hasn't completely, but helps stop the complaining about about how big players who have solely invested in MS. The defense amp. gives them everyone a slight advantage.

Although, I'm all for trying the update without he amplification, and then adding it later after seeing if it is needed.


TC

[Cerberus]

But in a war, you don't have the ATs built up to wipe out every one of your enemy's defence so that it's only 23mil or something and then still have turns left to orbitally bombard them! It's ridiculas! The best way of having it is that if the defender's MS and defence power stays the same as if it were a normal attack!
Another thing, if you put in the defence amp to help smaller players u obviously weren't thinking properly. If a big player really wanted to hit the little guy they would mass them into the ground and then do the orbital bombardment and wipe out what little chance the small player had of rebuilding!

[TacticalCommander]

First, I said it helps small players defend against Bigger MS, I didn't say it made it impossible. By making big players go through normal defense first, it decreases the chance of randomly having small players miners injured. The one thing really protecting a small player, is the fact he is small, since amount injured is based partially on a % based, a big players MS would take the same amount turns to injure all miners whether its 50mil miners, or 5mil miners.

Next, taking out the amplification, chances are, 99% of all defenses out there, will still need to be massed before you launch any MS attack on the miners. Because the defending defense doesn't take any damage or losses in this attack. Plus a good chunk of defenses are bigger and can stop a MS. While they don't need the amp, the smaller defenses would benefit from it.

With that in mind, I didn't design this idea, or I should say the attack implementation to around being a first strike tactic. This is designed to stop wars from becoming just prolonged farming by
A) encourage players to build defenses in war.

by injuring one sides miners, crippling their income received, even when on PPT, we come too
B) crippling their over all long term ability to buy AT that can be used to farm the other side or even mass the other sides rebuilt defenses.

I'm confident in A, not so sure about B because that would be an ideal, and too often, ideal things on paper just don't work out in real life. But I still hope.

TC

[A-Unit]

Sorry if this has already been said, but I can't be bothered to read 5 pages of comments.

Why would you want to stop someone's income during a war? If an enemy was making for example 5bill per turn, why would you want to reduce that and waste AT? Wouldn't it be better to spend 15 AT's on stealing naq rather than waste 1k or so AT's to stop their income?

[TacticalCommander]

one reason is
You could steal, but if they do a PPT 4 days a week, then they are still growing more than what you can farm in the 3 other days. Too be most effective, you would want to injure them before they go on PPT to hurt their income when you can't steal it.

TC

[Lore]

one reason is
You could steal, but if they do a PPT 4 days a week, then they are still growing more than what you can farm in the 3 other days. Too be most effective, you would want to injure them before they go on PPT to hurt their income when you can't steal it.

TC

Exactly

[Wolf359]

one reason is
You could steal, but if they do a PPT 4 days a week, then they are still growing more than what you can farm in the 3 other days. Too be most effective, you would want to injure them before they go on PPT to hurt their income when you can't steal it.

TC

Exactly

Indeed - it all goes back to when UU were made unkillable, raid was brought in, but then some people moaned about UU still not being protected (not sure why they should be), and so miners were introduced. And since AT are no longer the preciously rare resource that they should be, people wouldn't think twice about using them to injure miners, IF it would hurt their enemy more than stealing etc.

So, stealing naq (And even raiding) doesn't hurt people when they can just go on PPT for 4 days out of 7 (or 8 days straight).

However, if this was introduced I'd bet that the same people (or at least the same type) who called for unkillable UU, miners and 'unlimited AT', would complain against it - heck, they might even start agreeing that there is too much AT about!

[Eternal Serenity]

I like the injure Idea but I hate the Multiplier. In the end I see it being a fairly worthless attack. 50 bill MS def or even 20 magnifies to 500 and 200 respectively. Only the largest can beat that and to make matters worse alot of the stalemates are between larger alliances. Take blahh and sva and others with 400-500 bill ms's. That,s a 2 trill def. to bust through its just not happening. Even if the 2 ms's are dead even you cant get through.(not counting the fact shields give more power) So in the end your just condemning the small players to death as they will be the only ones even remotely touchable. Good Idea but bad way to implement it.

[Lore]

I like the injure Idea but I hate the Multiplier. In the end I see it being a fairly worthless attack. 50 bill MS def or even 20 magnifies to 500 and 200 respectively. Only the largest can beat that and to make matters worse alot of the stalemates are between larger alliances. Take blahh and sva and others with 400-500 bill ms's. That,s a 2 trill def. to bust through its just not happening. Even if the 2 ms's are dead even you cant get through.(not counting the fact shields give more power) So in the end your just condemning the small players to death as they will be the only ones even remotely touchable. Good Idea but bad way to implement it.

He has a valid point.

[TacticalCommander]

I like the injure Idea but I hate the Multiplier. In the end I see it being a fairly worthless attack. 50 bill MS def or even 20 magnifies to 500 and 200 respectively. Only the largest can beat that and to make matters worse alot of the stalemates are between larger alliances. Take blahh and sva and others with 400-500 bill ms's. That,s a 2 trill def. to bust through its just not happening. Even if the 2 ms's are dead even you cant get through.(not counting the fact shields give more power) So in the end your just condemning the small players to death as they will be the only ones even remotely touchable. Good Idea but bad way to implement it.

He has a valid point.

If I understand you, you think the MS gets multiplied by 10 when defending.

After rereading it, I can see your confusion, and its from the way I wrote it and I apologize.

Only the defensive action gets multiplied. Then the defending MS adds its power too it. SO if an MS does only 50bil damage attacking, it will still only do 50bil damage defending.

Defensive actions are viewed as liabilities and get massed all the time, and still will be through normal attack/raid.

I will reword the segment to make it clear that the defending MS doesn't not get multiplied. Not that it would matter, because a bigger MS could just mass the MS through normal attack/raid where it wouldn't get the multiplier, then go mass the miners.

TC

[Eternal Serenity]

Well while your right massing the def. down is the first thing you do so it would work the mutliplier still leaves the guys with say 1 trill+ untouchable and its becoming a more common def. these days. Perhaps a technology such as shielding over your mines that can only be accessed through massing the def. Then your MS gets a small multiplier+sheilding boost vs. attackers stats like at or ms Ill leave that to your opinion.