StarGateWars Forums

adminGary wrote:I'll look into the ratios on weapon durability vs defence.

I'll think about adding an upkeep fee if you have too many of one type of unit. Without miners the game needs a better source of income for players. The amount of naq generated by both attack and defence vaires by their respective alert or fatigue levels. When a fatigue level is full those units do not generate any naq.

I'll look into further reducing the chances of loosing units on recon missions.

I changed the attack system. Since turns now closely represent time in game. A 15at attack could be considered as X amount of time spent attacking the enemy, therefore a 1at attack is 1/15th of X amount of time and logically should do 1/15th the damage.

I've been thinking about reducing the amount of naq generated by UU from 6 per turn per tick to 3. This would reduce the amount of naq generated from 'farm' accounts by 1/2. I will also take into account the cost to repair wepons and perhaps reduce this accordingly.

I hope I haven't missed any points that were made.

blahh wrote:@admin nice to see some1 activly working on a server, reminds me of sgw in beginings you keep looking we ll keep testing and throwing ideas It is very refreshing, and I think it is the #! reason for constant growth and high activity.

@lore, i never said 1 at thing was a bad considering massings and so on, its acualy not a bad spin of using only a portion of your power something similar was my sugestion eons ago to be done in main.,.. so you dont need to use full force just a portion... the point i was making was that if you cant test with 1 at (as you only use a portion of power) and you cant spy and not loose units... theres realy not much to conserve lossed but to just hit strait up. meaning no point in actualy having a spy option. (so i was mearly pointing that out not sayn 1 at is bad thingi )I see and agree with your point here. You do have an absolute point on the 1AT/spying issue. *hats off*

and as for "lazy" attackers, i build about 350k strike just to test stuf, sold it in less than 24h did about 20 or so hits with it, some decent some not so... I also got no problem building 3x biger one in a week or so when i increase my bank size suficiently... I agree with you if ppl want big hits they gotta work their way to up their strike to owerpower the defences, but atm defences are just too big because simpy ppl dont loose anything with it.,.. they still get income off them, and it protects them. Now same argument could be said that attackers also produce naq, ,so there isnt much loss there, but the catch is that 3x the strike i had this weekend costs 1.5mil in repairs per hit to maintain, which means that even if you have a strike that can top the bigest def, its not much use to you as there arent much hits to be made (1.5mil naq out at least for repairs, up to 30 troops to just retrain, and than try to aprise the value of the troops lost.. ) thats why every1 farms inactives, 0 repairs and casualties make it by far most profitable.I had not done much testing with big strikes, but your example and Seaborgium example prove that there is a major issue there.

so the bottom line of this is its not lazy attackers, but rather a big defence has close to no trade offs, and curent "huge" defences dont produce, and wont produce for quite some time the necesary income to farm eficienty among active population comparing to the costs of that farming.In that I can agree, my only question/concern is,,,,,, How do we fix it, but not make it like main when defenses are utterly useless?

and i m not sayn there arent many ways to play a game, and not tryn to undermine any1s, but i do think you ll agree with me that a game that has as its only activity farming inactive accounts, isnt much of a game at all, cause honestly, if we wanted that, we could get the code, create our own server on local pc, spawn a few 1000 random accounts and go hit them, there just isnt any "interaction" Naaa, you made good points backed up with examples and facts, good work.

arkangel13 wrote:
Gary i think any changes you may want to do a poll in forums to get a overall response instead of 4 people posting things need changing. post the poll for a week then if u get enough intrest then change the code . this post has nothing to do with these ideas as someone of these are decent thoughts

blahh wrote:@admin I agree with lore and others here, a simple flip switch and go with one idea in a blik of an eye might not be a good solution, we have seen many bad things implemented in main that way, a good discusion and some patience and input from us, will eventualy lead to a much better solution. Your idea of inactives moving to 1/10 of income would be good if a server was idk 20.000 accountts big and had over 4000 active ones among them, but as it is in its "origin" state, its much too soon, it would take away much of the naq from circulation ergo force a game in a more stagnant state. Though you might wanna keep the idea written down somewhere, as like i said, when the game grows, might not be a bad idea at all.
I somewhat agree, just not totally sure about the forcing the game into stagnation tho, but i am willing to admit it is a possibility.

at the curent state i think reducing damage taken by the weapons and with that repair costs would be more suitable course.. If atm weapons take 6-10% damage per hit, try moving it to 3-5%. That way some of the costs while hitting will be reduced, and also doesnt makes defences useless as well massing them will take logicly more hits after this so it would infact make it alot harder. If thats too much of a problem (not sure didnt do any massing testing in this server yet..) you can always adjust the damage done to the weapons proportional to their state... meaning if a weapon is at 100% strenth it will take less damage than if its at 50% strength (which actualy makes sence doesnt it ? )
I think it does, but it gives the attacker another advantage as they can repair every attack so their repair bill is cheaper.

also like i said be4, def units generating naq gives too much value to the defece, one of the tradeoffs of having a large defence is lowering you income if thats not in place ppl will simply continue to build larger and larger defences, just to be on a safe side. And while that is a walid tactic, if its too widely used, the game will take a defensive-inactive state, which again imo isnt a good idea as playn means interacting.
I agree with playing means interaction part 100%. But I think removing the unlimited free income from the server would force more interaction and more defenses to be massed, but IDK, people are strange creatures.

also a side note to you from some stuf i noticed and feel its good to pass on:
Dont be afraid to try something, and if it turns out bad, "roll it back"! We have seen alot of bad ideas done in main, but the bad part of it is not getting its not a good idea, tryn to fix it or tweak it with another bad idea and than another and than another. Eventualy you end up with a pile of bad things in a game, so if you try something and it doenst take in its usualy(not always) best to remove it and try something else.
And also as the game grows (like i pointed in beginig) ideas and concepts change (whats good at server size 1000 might not be good at server size 20000) so you either have to compensate for it or do something totaly different with it, keep that in mind
AG, Please listen to these words and take them to heart. You have the beta server at your finger tips as well. I think we can all agree one of the worst parts of main is the bandaides heaped up on bad updates to try to fix them instead of just removing the bad update.
Blah,,,,,Hats off mate, well spoken.

all and all i think so far i like some of your twists to the game so i guess good job. Loved the not having all weapons in the begining thing but slowly through "research" coming to it. It gives us something to look forward too, though that probably wont continue indefinetly so i hope you got some other kindersurpises up your sleeve for us

Sarevok wrote:So is it fixed then?

I've noticed my single weapon is being damaged less now

arkangel13 wrote:
Gary i think any changes you may want to do a poll in forums to get a overall response instead of 4 people posting things need changing. post the poll for a week then if u get enough intrest then change the code . this post has nothing to do with these ideas as someone of these are decent thoughts