MT->Naquadah (calculation modified)

[LordRevan]

We have introduced an anti-feeding measure: if you hit someone who has more than twice your carrying capacity in Naquadah, you take 100% of what you would take, but the defender loses 200% of that; 100% to corruption and theft by your own people.

Schematic:

Player A; 100M carrying capacity
Player B; 500M Naquadah in the open

Player A attacks player B and wins; steals 100M Naq.
Player B has 300M left; 200M was taken; 100M stolen, 100M destroyed.

yay something got changed because of me. I won the game

is the math here right? i thought that 200M would be left, not 300M.

Player A attacks player B and wins; steals 100M Naq.
Player B has 300M left; 200M was taken; 100M stolen, 100M destroyed.

from this it appears that naq that you steal is included in the 200% lost? i'm confused...

the way i think it should be: 500-100-200=200 (100M you stole, 200% - that the target loses - of what you stole is 200M, not 100M), because if the math in the example is right, the percentages are wrong or the way you're describing the mechanic is wrong, can you clarify this?

[Juliette]

No, the description below is correct. My math is right.

Player A; 100M carrying capacity
Player B; 500M Naquadah in the open

Player A attacks player B and wins; steals 100M Naq.
Player B has 300M left; 200M was taken; 100M stolen, 100M destroyed.

Quite simply, if the defender has more than 200% of the attacker's carrying capacity in Naquadah, they lose 200% of the attacker's carrying capacity. The attacker get 100% of their carrying capacity.

Maybe the misunderstanding comes from the phrase "200M was taken; 100M stolen, 100M destroyed" -> '200M was taken' is split two-ways; 100M stolen (i.e. attacker gets), 100M destroyed (i.e. no one gets).

[doc holliday]

No, the description below is correct. My math is right.

Player A; 100M carrying capacity
Player B; 500M Naquadah in the open

Player A attacks player B and wins; steals 100M Naq.
Player B has 300M left; 200M was taken; 100M stolen, 100M destroyed.

Quite simply, if the defender has more than 200% of the attacker's carrying capacity in Naquadah, they lose 200% of the attacker's carrying capacity. The attacker get 100% of their carrying capacity.

Maybe the misunderstanding comes from the phrase "200M was taken; 100M stolen, 100M destroyed" -> '200M was taken' is split two-ways; 100M stolen (i.e. attacker gets), 100M destroyed (i.e. no one gets).

That seems to hurt the defender when you are supposed to be hurting the attacker tho?

[Juliette]

That seems to hurt the defender when you are supposed to be hurting the attacker tho?

This does not hurt the defender; they would lose 200M either way (either through 15 ATs against -current- or through 30 ATs used against -previous-). The attacker on the other hand gets 50% less (over the course of his attacking; not per single hit).


Compare:
Previously:
Player A has 500M carrying capacity.
Player B has 5B Naquadah out; 0 defence.

Player A attacks Player B 10 times, and gets 5B Naquadah.

Results:
Player A: +5B Naquadah, -150 AT
Player B: -5B Naquadah.


Currently:
Player A has 500M carrying capacity.
Player B has 5B Naquadah out; 0 defence.

Player A attacks Player B 5 times, and gets 2.5B Naquadah.

Results:
Player A: +2.5B Naquadah, -75 AT
Player B: -5B Naquadah.


Comparison:
Player B loses the same in both systems.
Player A currently gets 50% of what he previously got.



As you can see, the update negatively affects players who attack 'feeder accounts'.
This update is in line with the limitations we placed on Supporter Status resource transfers; no unlimited(SS-transfers) or free (feeding) transfers.)

[LordRevan]

No, the description below is correct. My math is right.

Player A; 100M carrying capacity
Player B; 500M Naquadah in the open

Player A attacks player B and wins; steals 100M Naq.
Player B has 300M left; 200M was taken; 100M stolen, 100M destroyed.

Quite simply, if the defender has more than 200% of the attacker's carrying capacity in Naquadah, they lose 200% of the attacker's carrying capacity. The attacker get 100% of their carrying capacity.

Maybe the misunderstanding comes from the phrase "200M was taken; 100M stolen, 100M destroyed" -> '200M was taken' is split two-ways; 100M stolen (i.e. attacker gets), 100M destroyed (i.e. no one gets).

Yes (in response to the flat "No.", but "no" to what?). Back on track, now this makes sense, the first one didn't. Not saying it was wrong doesn't make it correct. You're just using too many percentages, don't mention 200% at all, it just adds confusion. Your initial sentence amended:

We have introduced an anti-feeding measure: if you hit someone who has more than twice your carrying capacity in Naquadah, you take 100% of what you would take and the defender loses 100% of your carrying capacity on top of that (due to corruption and theft by their own people).

Also, if i may, your use of the semicolon is just wrong. "200M was taken: 100M stolen, 100M destroyed" or "200M was taken (100M stolen, 100M destroyed)" or any other variation <- this would have never caused any confusion, despite the incorrect description. Just saying.

[Juliette]

Thank you for your attention to detail, sir.

[™LoT]

can sombody explain better how is calculated Mts?? UU and naq from MT??tx

[LordRevan]

=D> Thank you for your attention to detail, sir.

cant tell if trolling and secretly wanting me to STHU or just being nice :3

ps. why is STHU censored? o.O

[Juliette]

=D> Thank you for your attention to detail, sir.

cant tell if trolling and secretly wanting me to STHU or just being nice :3

Why would I troll helpful people. No, it is good to get called on details every once in a while. Might sting a little at first (I can haz ego), but better this than leaving a mistake open.