BETA UPDATES 2010

[Sarevok]

well they can only taint 1 person as there vote for that week, it is a rough idea so could be tweaked to 200 votes thats a small population of the game... and then it would be quite tough for a large empire to get all of its members to vote.

How many Empires have 200+ people

FUALL with 240 members. All they need to do is taint the top player, and keep anyone not in their empire from rank 1. At least not on PPT

or make it so strikes are only 50% effective with 0(3) defence and dont get support from planets

unless they have at least 15% of the defence (planet bonuses not taken into account with the % required)they have as strike they will only get 50% strike effectiveness, and 20%+ for planets to provide support.

a 1 trill strike would then require 200bill defence... so they will have additional costs...

Token defences are a problem. You'd need some sort of ratio, like 25%, otherwise they'd just buy 1 weapons, and attack. The percentage base should be worked on planet bonuses too. Since it means you can have a 50b defence, 100b attack, and 500b attack planet bonus.

He fixed super losses recently anyway by dramatically reducing the effectiveness of 1 turn attacks at killing supers. Sure you lose defense weapons, but it takes a TON of turns now to actually kill defense supers.

He removed 1AT hits all together. And that will still allow for the supers to be freely killed.

i dont understand why some want to ban the sniping tactic? so an allaince can sit on a small one? or when an epire strike on a small allaince, rubish.

snipers are the product of the easy life that empires offers , if u accepted the empire style then why not the sniping way

Not ban, just make it less viable, like keeping a defence

[MaxSterling]

cmon guys snipers are part of the game did any of u thought what froced these ppl to be snipers?

Fear of losing stats is what forced these babies to be snipers. They're still acting like they have a 5m army size and have no skill to show for their 3-4 years of playing the game. Just too busy crying about how unfair things are and too proud to just surrender. Sad thing is, they do the same thing to me and they can't use the excuse that I bought my account or bought resources with $.

Sniping is viable for a new player learning the game... not a veteran of the game that thinks they're actually good at it.

He removed 1AT hits all together. And that will still allow for the supers to be freely killed.

I think that was the wrong thing to do. 1 AT hits are extremely useful to find a decent raid target, especially if you're low on covert capacity. Like we keep arguing... if you make a defense last longer, there's no need to remove the 1AT hit because attackers will need to use more ATs to mass down a defense, then.

[Iƒrit]

cmon guys snipers are part of the game did any of u thought what froced these ppl to be snipers?

Fear of losing stats is what forced these babies to be snipers. They're still acting like they have a 5m army size and have no skill to show for their 3-4 years of playing the game. Just too busy crying about how unfair things are and too proud to just surrender. Sad thing is, they do the same thing to me and they can't use the excuse that I bought my account or bought resources with $.

Sniping is viable for a new player learning the game... not a veteran of the game that thinks they're actually good at it.

He removed 1AT hits all together. And that will still allow for the supers to be freely killed.

I think that was the wrong thing to do. 1 AT hits are extremely useful to find a decent raid target, especially if you're low on covert capacity. Like we keep arguing... if you make a defense last longer, there's no need to remove the 1AT hit because attackers will need to use more ATs to mass down a defense, then.

your awesome
couldnt agree more

[TheRook]

why not add a 'Tainted' button... once 100 people class someone as tainted (clicking a button for them) they then have trouble selling weapons at a good price...

Each player would get 1 tainted vote per week (like a MT/trade) that applies to the person for the whole week...

Once a person has 100 votes of being tainted he is kind of treated like an outlaw and finds it difficult to do business with the universe

this way the population of SGW can punish those who are snipers and they will have a negative impact on their accounts for playing in such a way

but could also be used in large scale wars as a tool of weakening the biggest strike holding person as they can then get caught with lots of strike weapons and either take a large loss selling their weapons off or take the risk of losing some to being sabbed...

This is just a rough idea thought of now... but you probably get my point of just punishing the sniper accounts and it wont negatively effect anyone who just plays the game normally.

I know where your idea is coming from, and its not a bad idea, just way to easy to exploit, imagine this update, then take another FUALL Vs TJP etc, lol everyone would vote on each other instantly,

A person can only vote/taint someone once per week... so of the 800 people fighting if they all have to vote for the same person so at max you can only get 4 'tainted' to get such a concerted effort is going to be incredibly hard but for those absolutely determined... they can do it...

its not something you can do easily or incredibly frequently

to stop a large empire sitting on one person you can only be tainted for two weeks in a row then you have two weeks where you cant be tainted

[Legendary Apophis]

I would say this, instead of the current updates, something like:

All attack weapons are 3x the cost of previously (keep in mind att and def are 2x as strong though).
Also, def weapons can resell for 90% of their initial value,Defence weapons sell for the same rate as previous, while attack weapons sell for just 10% of their initial value.
The logic here is that massing is costly if you want to 'hit then hide' (Sell your attack weapons to avoid sabotage), while a good defense is always in demand.

Bold is my addition, and strikethough is subtractions.

I'm agreeing there...I think defence weapons should cost less than strike weapons. Otherwise nobody will have a defense in the end excepted

Only problem is what about those "Snipers" who have large attack planets, big motherships and high covert levels. They can easily lose a lot less then those who everyone is calling snipers, yet by making weapons more costly you increase their benefit. So not only are defenses 5x more expensive for the same power, but benefit from mothership and planets are the same and you can be sabbed out quite easily. The only thing this update seems to do is make those with heavily built accounts that much easier to stay at the top.

Weapon Costs, Sabbing, Planet Defenses (Massing, 50% bug, and Cost to build)

These 3 things mean that with a good mothership, covert level and planets, you could basically take on anyone cheaply since it severely hinders those who do not, even more so then it is possible already.

+1000


Also, there's no damn point in increasing cost of weapons that much, because the x2 power is for everyone and every weapon. When admin changed covert numbers in past, he didn't change cost of covert levels...
However, making attack weapons more expensive to favour more the defender is a good idea, *regardless* of increase/decrease of weapons numbers.

[MaxSterling]

Is the 1AT attack really being removed? So now we gotta waste 3ATs to test hit a raid target to find out if he has enough UU worth raiding?

[renegadze]

@ Max you can always spy, but yes it's going....finally

As "Forum" is online atm.....

Do we have a latest as to when we can expet to see Any/All of the updates?

[MaxSterling]

@ Max you can always spy, but yes it's going....finally

As "Forum" is online atm.....

Do we have a latest as to when we can expet to see Any/All of the updates?

While I do agree that it's crap that someone can 1AT another person to mass, there are other methods of improving that than removing the 1AT attack.

Like I said, 1AT raids are very useful, especially after all covert capacity is used up.

1AT attacks could be configured so that they do 0 weapon damage on a defender, but normal weapon damage for the attacker. That way an attacker will consistently mass away at a fully armed defense if they use 1ATs.

[Forum]

ok - i saved the biggest beta topic for last, and i am not totally behind on this topic
going through comments now...when this is done, I will set an official timetable for 'go live' for the updates...

<puts on figurative reading glasses....then smashes them, as even figuratively I don't need them...sighs, and clicks....begins reading....>

[Forum]

So the admin has to recognise just one fact.
...
enemeis of the leaders of the house to be booted from the house when they come in conflic with them.

yup - they should! why keep an enemy in your house...

In both cases I`d reduce ingame bonuses as much as I could ...

done.

Question is, do you want that result? It`s only gonna empower those allready in (or close to) power.

unless the small or disempowered unite...unlike a straight war of might, this is possible...political revolution in teh house!!
it is worth an effort at least...

[Forum]

a fine idea, but not the direction we're going. people say too many bonuses already. at least w/ houses, its temporary. leave and the bonus leaves with it...
i could make 'mailing lists' an option to cover communication up the road, but wanted a bit more 'fight' on the house/empire front...
anyway - not a bad idea, but not what is coming out.

I think houses should work differently. It should be you can create an "empire" if you like. Alliances in the empire then pledge their alliance banks to one alliance, who they vote as the leader. The leader of this alliance could then pay for stat bonuses.

1tril: 0.1%attack, 0.4%defence, 0.3%covert, 0.2% AC(or similar).

[Forum]

on the 'attack tied to defence' topic -- my next kick at that can is 'supers' being both attack and defence.
I am not putting that in this round of updates. Will see how the other updates work on that front first...
and balance is a theoretical state of mind - its not perfectly achievable in a game with users in it!!!

Real quick fix for the defense argument,

You must have a defense of 50% of your attack at all times, for your attack to work, and to stop the snipers who would take the loss, you cannot sell weapons off once bought.

On another note can J a s o n please explain what he believes to be balance, as im fairly sure that adding all these bonus's etc to the game is far from balance.

[Forum]

should be close....

Id be happy to see sabbing set that you can effectively sab away 40%-50% of a persons weapons.

[Forum]

done

A probe attack type would be wonderful or conversely have spying not tied to covert turns...

[Wepwaet]

I kind of wish that we could trade a limited number of merlins via broker. Basicly give people the option of getting them through market turns or brokers but keep the total amount you can recieve a week the same.

Example: You can use 3 MT's and get 9 merlins or you could trade someone else for the 9 merlins.