StarGateWars Forums

good idea. got my vote too!

BMMJ13 wrote:I'm not sure if I would point fingers as a lot of people on both sides of many wars sit statless. With that, it would have to be a small % so you dont leave for an hour, come back and your defense is gone along with your strike because it got too low. But does this mean that everything is based on a defense? Or to have any 1 built, you need the other 2? It could be an interesting item if worked out where it doesn't benefit any specific party (currently I see it helping the person who wants to build a huge defense while the person who wants to mass it has to build a huge strike and a large defense to match, where as the strike alone could have major losses.

Well imo, it should favour the one who wants to build the DEFENCE. Its about time SGW was biased towards the defender...

Equalising the relative strength of defenders and attackers would also help.

Or making defence soldiers stronger than attack soldiers as it is only logical as defending always has the most benefits.

Just a thought, but...

Maybe it could be some stipulation of having war set to an alliance. Right now, an alliance can set another alliance to war. If that's the case, then these rules could be implemented so that it doesn't turn into a never ending farm fest. Cause lets be honest, that's BORING!

So yeah, maybe attach this to being at war? That way, ppl not in the war and wanting to farm, can still do so, but if you are in a war, you can't sit statless and think you can just be a sniper.

Noobert, I'd like to personally congratulate you for being (to my knowledge) the first person from a large empire to suggest that something needs to happen to the defenseless massers of this game

However, I can see a flaw in the design atm (note, i only skimmed the thread, so i may have missed something). I believe with the way it is, you can build your weapons, then train your defense normals (however, this could be fixed by saying a 1:1 or 1:4 ratio of SUPER defenders to (super)attackers). That way, people can't build, mass, then sell, to prevent losses.

Also, hows about if people could have their attack units killed, in a similar way to the defense ones, once their defense has been gone for say 12 hours. I mean seriously, think about it. If you go to attack someone, and they have nothing to defend with, are you going to shoot the ground? Or go hunting for anything that could be used in an assault upon you, and take that down while they have nothing to defend with... I know what I'd do, even if my CO said not to

I agree, its a good idea.

I tried to read most of the post not sure if anyone posted or not, But what is to stop people from selling weapons? I like the idea, but theres ways around almost everything these days.

Edweirdo wrote:Just a thought, but...

Maybe it could be some stipulation of having war set to an alliance. Right now, an alliance can set another alliance to war. If that's the case, then these rules could be implemented so that it doesn't turn into a never ending farm fest. Cause lets be honest, that's BORING!

So yeah, maybe attach this to being at war? That way, ppl not in the war and wanting to farm, can still do so, but if you are in a war, you can't sit statless and think you can just be a sniper.

I like the idea of this, however if they can be a sniper, why would they enter it. Or there could be splinter groups of an alliance that break off to mass with no defense. Also the fact that the current war system only allows 1 alliance against another at a time. Perhaps an in game system which sets up allys and enemys, then regulates such actions would work, although that seems like it could involve a lot of coding.

lol so brilliant this guy,

why not to find a solution that if u take def to 0 then it drains yr stats at all, would be good, ya dont have to Sabotage, acers mass MS, cmone nobert tell me why not to remove all these stats instead of only strike?


now yr account need def coz u are ascending , boooo smarty as hell

Lithium wrote:lol so brilliant this guy,

why not to find a solution that if u take def to 0 then it drains yr stats at all, would be good, ya dont have to Sabotage, acers mass MS, cmone nobert tell me why not to remove all these stats instead of only strike?


now yr account need def coz u are ascending , boooo smarty as hell

Take your sarcastic attitude and kindly get the **Filtered** out. The door is right there. We don't need your stupidity in this thread.

I have always maintained a defense in this war, unlike you. Kind of ironic how you speak badly about this suggestion just because you hide behind a large strike with absolutely no defense.

As for the other replies, keep it coming! I wish to read this further in the morning when my mind isn't sleep deprivated and offer a solution perhaps.

Noobert wrote:Lately, tons of people have been complaining and complaining about players being able to mass while holding a 1B defense..so I was just thinking about it out of boredom today while getting fitted for my tuxedo, and I came up with an idea.

We all know of the plague, correct? What if you have to have a certain % of defensive power or you cannot build a large strike?

Example: 1T strike would need at least a 250B defense.

Each turn without the defense needed to power the strike, you would lose either super soldiers/mercs/weapons or a combination like the plague.

What do you think? I think this would eliminate those players who sit back and mass with no stats to mass in return.

Previously suggested by Dmonix, I liked it then and I still like it

viewtopic.php?f=160&t=135419&p=1642414&hilit=link+attack+def#p1642414

MEZZANINE wrote:

Dmonix wrote:I like the idea of being stuck with weapons after massing etc, but if I may add a suggestion:

Link attack and defense potential, say your strike can only be whatever you want as long as a % of your attack is your defense, that way not only do you leave something to retaliate to after massing but they have a defnce that can be counter attacked.

Any thoughts?

Thats the kind of thinking I like, if def had to be say 25% of strike or you only got 4x def power out of your strike no matter how big the strike is. That would mean if you catch someone massing you, you could take down their def to lower their strike and if they catch you off-line, you would at least have something to retaliate against.

Please post and encourage others to make or support suggestions

If we can keep the idea's coming, find the best options, put them to the vote and take them to admin with big player numbers in support, we might just change the game for the better.

I'm sure I've previously suggested links between def and resource production too but cant find it. I also suggested that miners should escape at a small % per turn when def is 0, and still think thats a good incentive for 0 staters to actually build a def.

u call 300b a large strike???? i dont understand yr point man why to relate strike to def ? so smone can mass it? why not to relate to other stats?
like MS, cov anti etc. cmone it makes no sense to lose strike if yr def get massed and u arent able to build up

what for a medium or small guy scenario? he cant ever build a big strike to mass unless he build a def to afford the strike, right.
coz some memebrs got good MS and planets to support their def it doesnt mean that others cant.

Lithium wrote:u call 300b a large strike???? i dont understand yr point man why to relate strike to def ? so smone can mass it? why not to relate to other stats?
like MS, cov anti etc. cmone it makes no sense to lose strike if yr def get massed and u arent able to build up

what for a medium or small guy scenario? he cant ever build a big strike to mass unless he build a def to afford the strike, right.
coz some memebrs got good MS and planets to support their def it doesnt mean that others cant.

Don't try it. 300B is a large strike in a war because defenses usually never reach above this. This is to make war fun again, to stop snipers and to force players to become more active if they wish to protect their accounts.

You will obviously have a certain amount of time to build up again..

If a medium or small player is trying to build a big strike, there is something wrong in his head and he should go back to raiding. The fact remains Lithium, it is to make a point to war again. Forcing the fact that massing a 3T defense means you will at least have to have a defense in return.

Lithium wrote:u call 300b a large strike???? i dont understand yr point man why to relate strike to def ? so smone can mass it? why not to relate to other stats?
like MS, cov anti etc. cmone it makes no sense to lose strike if yr def get massed and u arent able to build up

See, that's the point. If you went to war, and decimated their entire defense, and they had the largest battle cruiser on the planet, sitting in the bay for the next attack, would you leave it there, since there's no defense to destroy? Or would you then go after that. I know what I'd order my men to do...
Now, relating defense/covert to ALL stats, maybe, but every other stat can be gotten to, EXCEPT attack units. This needs to be addressed one way or the other


The only thing that linking attack and defense would do, is make the massers quit (or rethink a different strategy). The number of suggestions that have been, to equalize defense, make it more useful, make it needed, are the most commonly posted in threads.

This is taking from Semper's thread

There would need to be a defence to loss ration dependent on army size. Smaller players should have to have a bigger defence to prevent loss, but bigger players will logically lose more if defenceless. For example, for every 10mill army size = 15bill defence needed, drop to 5bill defence after 100mill (meaning someone with 200mill army size will need to have 100bill defence to stop uu/miner loss, whilst a player on 100mill army size would need the same.) Perhaps have a size limit for the uu/miner loss with defence needed to take effect, but keep it very small.

Whilst I'm not saying these values are correct, or should be used, it's another possibility.
https://talk.gatewa.rs/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=141793