Attack/Defense planets, a bug or a "feature"?

[Legendary Apophis]

*sighs*

It is NOT a bug but a feature. Jason has it confirmed many times now.

Same as attack rank limit which was abused and got removed altogether a while ago because people sold defense and used the rank modifier to mass people in top 100. That wasn't meant to go this way, but it went this way, and was as unfair as planets are now, and yet admin intervened.

But apparently it's worse than what JMX stated, in past people built big planets to get massive total (blahh). Now, they get one giant planet and get crap planets to fill the 10 planets needed, and have their only planet unstealable (platform+PPT+merlin+def on the planet which can be bigger as they have to protect one, not ten planets). Because apparently the power is calculated from total. So it doesn't matter if you have 50bil planets x 10 or if you get a 400bil planet and 9x10bil planets, you get same result. 500bil added to your strike, and thus 600+bil strike with less than a mil supers without blessing/MS involved.

-10 duals is far harder to protect. You need to adjust the 10 to higher def enough compared to top fleets. One planet however can hide behind merlins/PPTs/platform.
-You have 20 capacities to build up, not just two.
-You have to defend those ten planets by building defs on all of them enough to avoid being stolen, not just have one planet 4days on PPT 3 days on merlin. 10 defs versus one. Platforms are limited to three. You can use one platform for big planet, however, for 10 duals, you have to spend for two more platforms, and 7 planets wouldn't have them.

[deni]

[Legendary Apophis]

It's the way it is.
Using blahh style with planets is that they could be stolen and spending is not worth anymore due to risks, while using the one massive planet means it cannot be stolen, so it's very worth it to abuse it (yes abuse it, because planets aren't meant to be main core of accounts, and with that, it's what they become).

So if this is a "feature" and not a "bug" meant to be fixed, then I would not be surprised to see in the future a rise of multi accounts built up to feed such planets building, and give a good reason to cheat. That will happen when people will realize now it's far safer than it used to be to get big planet, and they will be tempted to cheat. Just like planet stealers multi accounts were comon when multiple planets were used to build big stats. Glitches whether they are legal or not tend to be abused.

[RepliMagni]

Its not a bug, its a feature. But perhaps a more pertinent question is whether it should be a feature or not?

I myself have used this. As JMX said, if you have a couple of very big strike planets on permanent merlins and a load of rubbish planets, you can quite easily (with a decent MS) be looking at a 1tril strike with less than 1mil attack supers.

Yes, this is simply one way of playing the game, and you can do the same boosting UP, etc. But being able to play the game like this is part of the problem - 1 player (with a couple of permanently merlined duals and a good MS) can mass literally an entire alliance with virtually no losses....how does that seem reasonable?

If you set your account up like this you could mass an entire alliance of 30 people, all with 800bil defs and 400bil MSs, with perhaps 500k attack supers, a 1tril MS, and a couple of merlined strike planets and some auxillary strike planets......you'd lose probably 5mil attack supers maximum....the alliance would lose 100mil def supers easily.....How does this seem fair to anyone?

We need to get the game back to the core stats. MS and planets were supposed to be supplementary.....now they can dominate easily.

[buck]

We need to get the game back to the core stats. MS and planets were supposed to be supplementary.....now they can dominate easily.

Too much naq lieing about. But i agree.

[Legendary Apophis]

Its not a bug, its a feature. But perhaps a more pertinent question is whether it should be a feature or not?

I myself have used this. As JMX said, if you have a couple of very big strike planets on permanent merlins and a load of rubbish planets, you can quite easily (with a decent MS) be looking at a 1tril strike with less than 1mil attack supers.

Yes, this is simply one way of playing the game, and you can do the same boosting UP, etc. But being able to play the game like this is part of the problem - 1 player (with a couple of permanently merlined duals and a good MS) can mass literally an entire alliance with virtually no losses....how does that seem reasonable?

If you set your account up like this you could mass an entire alliance of 30 people, all with 800bil defs and 400bil MSs, with perhaps 500k attack supers, a 1tril MS, and a couple of merlined strike planets and some auxillary strike planets......you'd lose probably 5mil attack supers maximum....the alliance would lose 100mil def supers easily.....How does this seem fair to anyone?

We need to get the game back to the core stats. MS and planets were supposed to be supplementary.....now they can dominate easily.

@ underlined parts: it's because people using it get better ratios, high ME boost so why would they complain about it? It's like the ascended to Goa'uld income issue bonus. It lasted for a long time, people using it didn't complain. It's a "feature", so people don't give a damn whether it's "ethically" wrong, it's permitted so they will try the most they can benefitting from it as it lasts. Seeing it as heaven gift to have from 700bil to 1.4tril strike MS excluded with only one million troops..afterall, they get such an awesome ratio. So they will have cool losses ratio and appear as massmasters thanks to the way planets aren't capped rightly.
Admin probably doesn't realize how far the screwing goes.

[deni]

The Goauld income bonus was a bug as it was NOT intended to be that way.

The planets bonus is NOT a bug but a feature as it was intended.

Notice the difference?

If you like it or not is a completely different matter.

[RepliMagni]

If you like it or not is a completely different matter.

A matter to be discussed. Do you think it is a good thing for the game?

[deni]

If you like it or not is a completely different matter.

A matter to be discussed. Do you think it is a good thing for the game?

Discussion is fine. What I hate is continuing to compare apples with oranges.


If it was for me, planets should be gone entirely.

[Nigatsu_Aka]

](*,)

The Goauld income bonus was a bug as it was NOT intended to be that way.

The planets bonus is NOT a bug but a feature as it was intended.

Notice the difference?

If you like it or not is a completely different matter.

Indeed.

Also it is ammusing how "they" only think now after 3+ years that it is "unfair" to have attack/defense planets, after some people invested hundreds of trillions of naq in them.... when the attack planets were small, they were laughing at them and saying that the UP are the "real deal" and the way to go...


Also:

For mind blowing planet: Cost to reach 500,000,000,000 from 2,000,000,000 will be 205,757,594,813,715 naq and would be a total of 368,889

Some people, like the ones **Filtered** probably that they didn't farmed in their entire SGW time 200t naq to build ONE attack planet of 500bil.

[Legendary Apophis]

Also it is ammusing how "they" only think now after 3+ years that it is "unfair" to have attack/defense planets, after some people invested hundreds of trillions of naq in them.... when the attack planets were small, they were laughing at them and saying that the UP are the "real deal" and the way to go...


Also:

Cost to reach 500,000,000,000 from 2,000,000,000 will be 205,757,594,813,715 naq and would be a total of 368,889

Some people, like the ones **Filtered** probably that they didn't farmed in their entire SGW time 200t naq to build ONE attack planet of 500bil.

Also it is amusing how you assume that I "only think now after 3+ years that it is "unfair" to have attack/defense planets."
Shall I precise it's completly wrong? Probably, but that was likely to be obvious, anyway.

[RepliMagni]

@ Deni, I agree completely. But removing planets would cause too much uproar....but they do need further modification.

Some people, like the ones **Filtered** probably that they didn't farmed in their entire SGW time 200t naq to build ONE attack planet of 500bil.

You seem to have a lot of "Filtered" appearing in your posts.....is this personal for you? The reason a complaint is being made now, is how easy it is to get those bigger planets, and keep them because of merlins. It takes very little to get a couple of 250bil strike planets, permanently merlin them, with a 1tril MS, and a load of auxillary attack planets.

And so long as we have people like you who refuse any update that might inconvenience some players, no worthwhile update will be made. Some players always lose out during updates....Mujo anyone?.....we need to ask what is the greatest benefit to the greatest number? Is it to keep this ratio of planet bonus, or to temper them more so that more uu and naq are invovled in wars.....

[Legendary Apophis]

@ Deni, I agree completely. But removing planets would cause too much uproar....but they do need further modification.

Some people, like the ones **Filtered** probably that they didn't farmed in their entire SGW time 200t naq to build ONE attack planet of 500bil.

You seem to have a lot of "Filtered" appearing in your posts.....is this personal for you? The reason a complaint is being made now, is how easy it is to get those bigger planets, and keep them because of merlins. It takes very little to get a couple of 250bil strike planets, permanently merlin them, with a 1tril MS, and a load of auxillary attack planets.

And so long as we have people like you who refuse any update that might inconvenience some players, no worthwhile update will be made. Some players always lose out during updates....Mujo anyone?.....we need to ask what is the greatest benefit to the greatest number? Is it to keep this ratio of planet bonus, or to temper them more so that more uu and naq are invovled in wars.....

Yes.

Also..for underlined part, I wonder as well, why for this thread, I was called

"sore looser" "lame **filtered**", "**filtered** bastrad"

. I shall have a quick look in ATs update in MT, but I don't think I have said anything of that sort to people I disagreed with.

[Nigatsu_Aka]

@ Deni, I agree completely. But removing planets would cause too much uproar....but they do need further modification.

Some people, like the ones **Filtered** probably that they didn't farmed in their entire SGW time 200t naq to build ONE attack planet of 500bil.

You seem to have a lot of "Filtered" appearing in your posts.....is this personal for you? The reason a complaint is being made now, is how easy it is to get those bigger planets, and keep them because of merlins. It takes very little to get a couple of 250bil strike planets, permanently merlin them, with a 1tril MS, and a load of auxillary attack planets.

And so long as we have people like you who refuse any update that might inconvenience some players, no worthwhile update will be made. Some players always lose out during updates....Mujo anyone?.....we need to ask what is the greatest benefit to the greatest number? Is it to keep this ratio of planet bonus, or to temper them more so that more uu and naq are invovled in wars.....

I'm apologising to all those who can't stand my "filters"... the word i meant to use is similar to "barking"...

Indeed, i tend to take it personaly when the rules of the games i play are changed during playtime and when the updates are not thought out and tested before being released....

I have been screwed too many times by "made after the ear" updates, maybe that is why i am so reticent right now. I am open minded though... i will listen to those who actually come with an ideea and some numbers instead of saying that "the update you did 3 years ago sucks... let's change it".

[Legendary Apophis]

@ Deni, I agree completely. But removing planets would cause too much uproar....but they do need further modification.

Some people, like the ones **Filtered** probably that they didn't farmed in their entire SGW time 200t naq to build ONE attack planet of 500bil.

You seem to have a lot of "Filtered" appearing in your posts.....is this personal for you? The reason a complaint is being made now, is how easy it is to get those bigger planets, and keep them because of merlins. It takes very little to get a couple of 250bil strike planets, permanently merlin them, with a 1tril MS, and a load of auxillary attack planets.

And so long as we have people like you who refuse any update that might inconvenience some players, no worthwhile update will be made. Some players always lose out during updates....Mujo anyone?.....we need to ask what is the greatest benefit to the greatest number? Is it to keep this ratio of planet bonus, or to temper them more so that more uu and naq are invovled in wars.....

I'm apologising to all those who can't stand my "filters"... the word i meant to use is similar to "barking"...

Indeed, i tend to take it personaly when the rules of the games i play are changed during playtime and when the updates are not thought out and tested before being released....

I have been screwed too many times by "made after the ear" updates, maybe that is why i am so reticent right now. I am open minded though... i will listen to those who actually come with an ideea and some numbers

Which I did...