StarGateWars Forums

Nigatsu_Aka wrote:

Lithium wrote:

Nigatsu_Aka wrote:Not everyone has covert/anti lvl 39.


*I agree with killing the attack, but not discrepantly, inflict damage to all the attack units, or inflict none.

*Defense should be zeroed before this attack can be used.

def isnt 0-ed when lifers hits acers


the issue is pretty simple

one hides units in strike which dont have a natural enemy , if admin changes none will hide units.

ascenders can risk units in stirke or ac , prob there wont be many lifer units or they can have more lifers to be used as income and also for wars.

Why only the ascenders should risk units?

This update is not about hiding units or about ascenders it is about the fact that with the bank upgrade, the players don't need income units for the bank and because the defense in the game is pretty much obsolete for those who live inside the game, sit in front of the computer and play all day, they will build huge attacks and coverts, have massive banks to store naq and farm/mass everyone at will without risking anything.

What admin is trying, is to determine the players to keep the income, poorly I say but that is his choice, in a similar manner to scratching your left year with your right hand over the head. But if he is willing to do it like this, why shouldn't someone be able to kill all the attack including supers??? Because that is where the problem is because of this the bank update and only killing the entire attack will stop the onliners doing what I have described.

I can already give you plenty of examples, players who have 30m units, producing almost no income, are fully ascended, have huge covert levels, have almost all the units in attack supers, can be covert sabbed and who can farm everyone with 2 mil spies while in the same time being able to mass the biggest defenses in the game by simply buying more UU and raising the attack. Who deals with those players if their attack is untouchable?

Lithium wrote:

Nigatsu_Aka wrote:

Lithium wrote:

Nigatsu_Aka wrote:Not everyone has covert/anti lvl 39.


*I agree with killing the attack, but not discrepantly, inflict damage to all the attack units, or inflict none.

*Defense should be zeroed before this attack can be used.

def isnt 0-ed when lifers hits acers


the issue is pretty simple

one hides units in strike which dont have a natural enemy , if admin changes none will hide units.

ascenders can risk units in stirke or ac , prob there wont be many lifer units or they can have more lifers to be used as income and also for wars.

Why only the ascenders should risk units?

This update is not about hiding units or about ascenders it is about the fact that with the bank upgrade, the players don't need income units for the bank and because the defense in the game is pretty much obsolete for those who live inside the game, sit in front of the computer and play all day, they will build huge attacks and coverts, have massive banks to store naq and farm/mass everyone at will without risking anything.

What admin is trying, is to determine the players to keep the income, poorly I say but that is his choice, in a similar manner to scratching your left year with your right hand over the head. But if he is willing to do it like this, why shouldn't someone be able to kill all the attack including supers??? Because that is where the problem is because of this the bank update and only killing the entire attack will stop the onliners doing what I have described.

I can already give you plenty of examples, players who have 30m units, producing almost no income, are fully ascended, have huge covert levels, have almost all the units in attack supers, can be covert sabbed and who can farm everyone with 2 mil spies while in the same time being able to mass the biggest defenses in the game by simply buying more UU and raising the attack. Who deals with those players if their attack is untouchable?

what i said has nothing to do with bank upgrade.
for the matter it applies to everyone the same. when one has cov 30 lvl his abnk is big enough for cov 31 , and so on.

the issue is for accounts that are training units as normal strikers and can use them when they are online by training supers or cov as the need is. they farm their naq that need, buy them or get funded by alliance.
by making normal strike units killable then they have to calculate the risk of losing them .

read the first post before making ideas.

Forum wrote:With the change to bank, basicly making miners optional, and the ongoing issue of accounts able to 'hide' from retaliation by training attack units, and removing covert and def, (not especially fair ...), the following change is being made. How it works can be discussed.

When you lifer suicide an enemy account, AntiCovert (AC) units will die; so too will attack units.
What will the cost be to get a super attacker? regular attacker? attack merc?
What order do they die in, or do they die equally by the amount you have (ie by percent).?
Maybe supers are not killed until the defense is zero ?

Will you still need 30% of a target defence in attack to use lifer suicide, or should it be increaesd? (to 50% 100% 150% ? )

What else should be considered?

What this will effectively do, is stop the 'untouchable' accounts, make lifers a bit more useful, make having a defense more useful, and make ppl think twice about their actions if they cannot hide forever

thoughts?

Forum wrote:With the change to bank, basicly making miners optional, and the ongoing issue of accounts able to 'hide' from retaliation by training attack units, and removing covert and def, (not especially fair ...), the following change is being made. How it works can be discussed.

When you lifer suicide an enemy account, AntiCovert (AC) units will die; so too will attack units.
What will the cost be to get a super attacker? regular attacker? attack merc?
What order do they die in, or do they die equally by the amount you have (ie by percent).?
Maybe supers are not killed until the defense is zero ?

Will you still need 30% of a target defence in attack to use lifer suicide, or should it be increaesd? (to 50% 100% 150% ? )

What else should be considered?

What this will effectively do, is stop the 'untouchable' accounts, make lifers a bit more useful, make having a defense more useful, and make ppl think twice about their actions if they cannot hide forever

thoughts?

Nigatsu_Aka wrote:

Forum wrote:With the change to bank, basicly making miners optional, and the ongoing issue of accounts able to 'hide' from retaliation by training attack units, and removing covert and def, (not especially fair ...), the following change is being made. How it works can be discussed.

When you lifer suicide an enemy account, AntiCovert (AC) units will die; so too will attack units.
What will the cost be to get a super attacker? regular attacker? attack merc?
What order do they die in, or do they die equally by the amount you have (ie by percent).?
Maybe supers are not killed until the defense is zero ?

Will you still need 30% of a target defence in attack to use lifer suicide, or should it be increaesd? (to 50% 100% 150% ? )

What else should be considered?

What this will effectively do, is stop the 'untouchable' accounts, make lifers a bit more useful, make having a defense more useful, and make ppl think twice about their actions if they cannot hide forever

thoughts?

Suggestion:

Make this type of attack (killing attack units) available against those of the same or higher ascended level (+/- 2 or 3 levels). That way the Unknowns cannot bully around those lower than them.

Example:
- The Unknown can kill the attack of the Unknowns, Unnamed and Unspeakable
- the Ancient God can kill the attack of LG+4, LG+3, Elder Ancient God and Ancient God of Legend.

etc

Nigatsu_Aka wrote:

Lithium wrote:

Nigatsu_Aka wrote:

Lithium wrote:

Nigatsu_Aka wrote:Not everyone has covert/anti lvl 39.


*I agree with killing the attack, but not discrepantly, inflict damage to all the attack units, or inflict none.

*Defense should be zeroed before this attack can be used.

def isnt 0-ed when lifers hits acers


the issue is pretty simple

one hides units in strike which dont have a natural enemy , if admin changes none will hide units.

ascenders can risk units in stirke or ac , prob there wont be many lifer units or they can have more lifers to be used as income and also for wars.

Why only the ascenders should risk units?

This update is not about hiding units or about ascenders it is about the fact that with the bank upgrade, the players don't need income units for the bank and because the defense in the game is pretty much obsolete for those who live inside the game, sit in front of the computer and play all day, they will build huge attacks and coverts, have massive banks to store naq and farm/mass everyone at will without risking anything.

What admin is trying, is to determine the players to keep the income, poorly I say but that is his choice, in a similar manner to scratching your left year with your right hand over the head. But if he is willing to do it like this, why shouldn't someone be able to kill all the attack including supers??? Because that is where the problem is because of this the bank update and only killing the entire attack will stop the onliners doing what I have described.

I can already give you plenty of examples, players who have 30m units, producing almost no income, are fully ascended, have huge covert levels, have almost all the units in attack supers, can be covert sabbed and who can farm everyone with 2 mil spies while in the same time being able to mass the biggest defenses in the game by simply buying more UU and raising the attack. Who deals with those players if their attack is untouchable?

what i said has nothing to do with bank upgrade.
for the matter it applies to everyone the same. when one has cov 30 lvl his abnk is big enough for cov 31 , and so on.

the issue is for accounts that are training units as normal strikers and can use them when they are online by training supers or cov as the need is. they farm their naq that need, buy them or get funded by alliance.
by making normal strike units killable then they have to calculate the risk of losing them .

read the first post before making ideas.

Are you retarded? You read the first post, cos obviously you didn't. You want to kill only the untrainable units i.e the normal soldiers, but you avoid to understand that the non-untrainable units i.e. supers in attack are also a way to 'hide' from retaliation.

All I want is to make the game fair for all. If the attack should be killed, then kill it ALL, not only the attack that is used by those who still have to ascend.

Forum wrote:With the change to bank, basicly making miners optional, and the ongoing issue of accounts able to 'hide' from retaliation by training attack units, and removing covert and def, (not especially fair ...), the following change is being made. How it works can be discussed.

When you lifer suicide an enemy account, AntiCovert (AC) units will die; so too will attack units.
What will the cost be to get a super attacker? regular attacker? attack merc?
What order do they die in, or do they die equally by the amount you have (ie by percent).?
Maybe supers are not killed until the defense is zero ?

Will you still need 30% of a target defence in attack to use lifer suicide, or should it be increaesd? (to 50% 100% 150% ? )

What else should be considered?

What this will effectively do, is stop the 'untouchable' accounts, make lifers a bit more useful, make having a defense more useful, and make ppl think twice about their actions if they cannot hide forever

thoughts?

Jedi~Tank wrote:I think if this is the case then eliminate the regular to super aspect, having units stuck to be freely killed is stupid. or change this game to STATS WARS.

Jedi~Tank wrote:As stated in the admin chat, while this update is a nice idea it will no doubt increase the number of multi's being used now (which there seems to be no regulatory action for checking aside from complaints) it will also increase hired guns or shall we say players joining for a lifer attack only i.e hired guns. And this will make a bad game situation worse.

~Phoenix~ wrote:

Jedi~Tank wrote:As stated in the admin chat, while this update is a nice idea it will no doubt increase the number of multi's being used now (which there seems to be no regulatory action for checking aside from complaints) it will also increase hired guns or shall we say players joining for a lifer attack only i.e hired guns. And this will make a bad game situation worse.

That sounds like complete rubbish. I would very much like to hear the explanatiuon behind "more multis". When do you even hear about anything multi-related anymore? Seriously.

I am of a solid opinion that every trained unit should be destroyable because we can already not inflict any damage to anyone whatsoever. With covert levels worth 500million+ units all over the place is it that bad to put a few million more in the firing line? I don't think so.

I think previously suggested ratios are fine. Attackers die at the same rate as anti-coverts and supers at 1/2 the rate of either.

Jedi~Tank wrote:LOL sorry m8 its not rubbish, There are players that have many accounts loaded with resources and vac them, and others that openly use them and have proxies to disguise the IP. I am telling you what I would do..and yes I would ask a friend to have an account, that did not play, to log on and do a dirty deed for me, load up and log off..you think that wont happen? veteran players will use the game as it is however it is to an advantage..

Opening it up to this particular aspect will pervert what is already being used as a tactic.

~Phoenix~ wrote:

Jedi~Tank wrote:LOL sorry m8 its not rubbish, There are players that have many accounts loaded with resources and vac them, and others that openly use them and have proxies to disguise the IP. I am telling you what I would do..and yes I would ask a friend to have an account, that did not play, to log on and do a dirty deed for me, load up and log off..you think that wont happen? veteran players will use the game as it is however it is to an advantage..

Opening it up to this particular aspect will pervert what is already being used as a tactic.

No sorry I still call that complete rubbish. You're casting out an update that would level the playing field to "stop cheaters" who by the sounds of your tales are going to cheat regardless.

Despite it's potential abuses I still very much think this update is needed. If someone does abuse it then that is down to the admin team to find and ban them.

Jedi~Tank wrote: I dont want to obtain Units, play a while, log off..then come back and my **Filtered** is wiped..WTH dude LOL who would play that? You? Well have fun...I have said befor ealso..the update is nice, the timing of it is Ill

Jedi~Tank wrote: This will not stop cheaters LOL it will increase it,

~Phoenix~ wrote:

Jedi~Tank wrote: I dont want to obtain Units, play a while, log off..then come back and my **Filtered** is wiped..WTH dude LOL who would play that? You? Well have fun...I have said befor ealso..the update is nice, the timing of it is Ill

That's what it was like when the game was at its best and I think I would speak for a lot of players and mainly ex players when I say I wish it could go back to being like that. The best part of this game was being on edge. It made you think about everything you did.

Don't even think of saying this update is to do with your war >.> I'm not interested in hearing how it is unfair to certain individuals. I think it is fair to the overall balance of gameplay.

Jedi~Tank wrote: This will not stop cheaters LOL it will increase it,

Already agreed that it might.. I'm of the opinion that it is worth it regardless. In fact I'd love to see it all much cheaper but hey.. someone else is gonna whine then.