Page 2 of 11

Re: Planet Update

Posted: Fri May 14, 2010 10:04 am
by renegadze
MaxSterling wrote:
renegadze wrote:true enough, but how easy is it to mass the fleet of someone who is trying to take your planet? It already costs me in excess of 3.5 tril to arm my fleet...if I decide to attack you and you notice, my fleet won't last too long.

If your in an alliance war, with various probing shots, you have to be extremely lucky to get a window in which to arm fleet and mass

I lost 5T in fleets trying to take a planet and got them all splattered on a platform. Big deal. Everyone, including myself, takes a nap. There's always an opportunity to mass planets. You just need to use some strategy to find it. Sometimes it's just a matter of hiding the planet massing within defense massing.

If you want to get back at someone during an alliance war that was exploiting the "feature", if you had any brains, you'd strip them of all the smaller planets so they need to build more raw stats to get full use of that huge planet.

If someone's using $ and buying merlins, then you'll never be able to do anything anyways... so what's the point? You just bide your time and wait for them to screw up and leave that planet in the open when you can take it.


I believe the point I was making...planets should not be unmassable...many in the game today are...many more will be after the update...I believe we calculated u would need 700k raw fleet to mass a 4-5 tril planet def soon

why does the percent need to change from 12 to 20 with the update? because people are probably moaning to admin that their precious planets are at risk....too bad

Re: Planet Update

Posted: Fri May 14, 2010 10:10 am
by MaxSterling
renegadze wrote:why does the percent need to change from 12 to 20 with the update? because people are probably moaning to admin that their precious planets are at risk....too bad

If you took the time to read these forums, you'd realize that update was implemented due to the number of planet stripping multi's that were out there.

If you want to blame someone, blame the people funding multi accounts.

Re: Planet Update

Posted: Fri May 14, 2010 10:10 am
by Wepwaet
Thats a seperate topic. This topic is about admin removing the averaging feature from planets. Can we stay on topic?

Re: Planet Update

Posted: Fri May 14, 2010 10:15 am
by renegadze
MaxSterling wrote:
renegadze wrote:why does the percent need to change from 12 to 20 with the update? because people are probably moaning to admin that their precious planets are at risk....too bad

If you took the time to read these forums, you'd realize that update was implemented due to the number of planet stripping multi's that were out there.

If you want to blame someone, blame the people funding multi accounts.


because raising it will make a big difference to a multi lmao

Re: Planet Update

Posted: Fri May 14, 2010 10:18 am
by Wepwaet
Seriously Max and Reneg start a DIFFERENT topic on that update!

Re: Planet Update

Posted: Fri May 14, 2010 10:27 am
by Join me
We have seen more than a few updates over the last few years,,,
I understand some attempts are made to fix issues,,,

People try to make a strategy given the rules that we are given to play within,,, I would like to see the cheaters and multis taken out of the game, not updates to take away strategies that people have used to play the game.

We try to strategize based on the rules of the game,,, and to have it in constant change keeps a bit interesting, but something like changing the number of ascensions, planet def strength/fleet strength, really affects peoples playing style.

Can we not play within the current set of rules? play and plan accordingly?
I am worried that the people who worked really hard to get an advantage (not cheating, but by playing within the rules) will just have it taken away given a game update,,, I know it happened in ascended, back when gods could attack through a def, that was within the rules, people need to plan and play their accounts accordingly.

I think the planet def and fleet strength is fine where it is right now. Play by the rules, dont change the rules of the game.

Re: Planet Update

Posted: Sat May 15, 2010 5:30 am
by Sarevok
You forget though.

People planned planets based on the original fleet strength. Then it was doubled. Don't you think that affected people?
Those people adapted some what. Then MS techs were brought in, again, people whom set them selves up with planets in stead of a MS, were against forced to rethink.
Now Jason gives those whom originally wanted to use planets instead of MS, a better chance at holding there strategy by adjusting values, and now you want to not give people that choice?

Join me wrote:Can we not play within the current set of rules? play and plan accordingly?
Like the original current set of rules? Where fleets are powered at about 500k/fleet, and MS reset every ascension. And there was no MS techs, yes sure, lets to that shale we

Re: Planet Update

Posted: Sat May 15, 2010 9:50 pm
by knight
Crying NOOOOO wrote:
Duderanch wrote:
Crying NOOOOO wrote:Personally I love the update. I hope it also fixes the disribution of stats planets give cause the whole having one planet with +100b and another 2 with +50b and still getting bonuses at full when building 150b stat is retarded, bonuses shouldnt carry from one planet into another, did this ever get fixed? or is it gonna get fixed?


That's what this thread is about #-o

ahh great, wasnt sure if that was the only thing, or if there was more. But thanks for comming by to troll.


Reading is fundamental. :roll:

Your post helped no one, and calling someone a troll doesn't help either. ](*,)

P.S. You know better. ;)

Re: Planet Update

Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 4:33 am
by Wepwaet
Its important to start off with the fact that this change affects the bottom line cost of farmers. It's also important to note that the people affected are broken up into 4 groups in this post; Newbies with almost basicly no MS, Midsized players with 300b strike MS's, large players with 500b+ MS's, and money players who also fall into the 500b+ MS's group. Numbers in this post are based off of 23rd ascention lvl bonuses and a 1T end strike.


In simplest terms the planet averaging effect helps people keep the majority of their planet bonuses safe by developing 1-2 "super" planets and balancing them with 8-9 "disposable" planets. Usually newbies keep one decent planet, midsized people keep 1-2, large players who can afford the USS keep up to 3 and money players keep anywhere from 7-8 planets.


A person using no MS or planets have a bottom line 36b(supers/mercs) or 52b(supers only). Compare that to a person who is using 10 planets and no MS and their bottom line drops to 16b(supers/mercs) or 18.6b(supers only).

A person using a 300b MS and no planets has a bottom line of 28.6b(supers/mercs) or 39.6b(supers only). At the other end is a person with a 300b MS and 10 planets with a bottom line of 14.8b(supers/mercs) or 16.6b(supers only).

Finally, a person using a 500b MS(the largest that could help make a 1T strike) and no planets has a bottom line of 24b(supers/mercs) or 32b(supers only). Add in 10 planets and the bottom line drops to 14b(supers/mercs) or 15.3b(supers only).

While the numbers may seem small when looked at in a single attack, look at how they are when taken out of the cost of 1k AT:
Supers/Mercs No MS No planets 2.4t to break even
Supers/Mercs No MS 10 planets 1t to break even
Supers/Mercs 300b MS No planets 1.9t to break even
Supers/Mercs Natural 300b MS 10 planets .97t to break even
Supers/Mercs Natural 500b MS No planets 1.5t to break even
Supers/Mercs Natural 500b MS 10 planets .92t to break even

Without the ability to "spread the load" people will see their bottom line increase because they won't have the ability to protect the additional developed planets necessary. This means that they will have to raise their thresholds for hitting others for naq. Because not everyone will see their bottom line increase the same amount those who have to wait to match their bottom line will be beat out to the naq by those who have lower bottom lines. Since money players already utilize multiple developed planets then they will be the least affected by this change. Large accounts will see their bottom lines increase a fair to large amount and will lose naq hits to the money'd accounts. Midsize accounts will see their bottom line affectd in a large to enormous way and will lose naq hits to both the large accounts and the money'd accounts. The newbie accounts wont see much in the way of bottom line increase because when your already sitting in the top bracket theres not much worse it can get.


How this will affect AT sales. Newbies will not be affected by this given their rather meager AT consumption. Midsize players will buy less turns due to the loss in naq hits to large and money'd accounts. The higher bottom line also means that they will have a harder time competing with the rising prices driven by increased AT usage by the large accounts. Squeezed out of naq hits and increasingly priced out of AT's, their end of the stick just keeps getting shorter... Large accounts will see a slight ease in obtaining turns as the greater ability to out farm the midsized accounts gives them an advantage in bidding for turns whose prices keep going up. Money'd accounts will see no change in their turn sales due to them buying them off the ingame black market.


The market turn solution. Unfortunately adding another market turn will not solve the underlying issue of a rising bottom line. This will simply just lesson the problem minutely especially since it doesn't adress the issue of driving the farming opportunities into the money'd accounts hands.

Even with the new planet attack minimums coming out, the highest natural planet defenses in the game are within striking distance of the top fleets. Building 8-10 such defences are prohibitively expensive(as they should be).

Unfortunately the only other main way to change the bottom line is to increase turns dynamicly which in turn would decrease their price bringing the over all bottom line down with it. None of the other components have near the effect on the bottom line as removing the planet averaging feature. This doesn't seem to be an option given the "recent" sharp reduction in AT output from the ingame market.


The Ending point is this, this update increases the distance between the large players and the money'd players since the money'd players already can spread the load over a larger number of protected developed planets. This update also hurt the midsized players who get squeezed from both rising AT prices and a decrease in farming potential caused by not being able to spread the load. None of this takes into account the vast amount of resources put into this playing style including both $$ and naq.


If looked at logicly its clear this isn't able to be solved by compromise. It will negatively impact everyone using attack or defense planets. The only viable solution to not alter the game economics in a way that hurts the midsized players is to reinstate the planet averaging and change the wording to reflect on how the feature has worked for years.













*Super and Merc loss rates based on kill %'s in faq; weapon repairs based on weapons needed to support supers/mercs x point base number x 1% of weapon point loss from full; super/merc replacement value based on stable price to buy UU/merc + cost to train unit;attacks are based on full 15AT use at a cost of 12b(current market value for 15 AT); mercs assumed to be max number that can be bought with top tech given that number of supers.

Re: Planet Update

Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 4:44 am
by Rottenking
i dont see the problem...im quite happy admin is fixing the glitch

Re: Planet Update

Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 5:06 am
by LegendaryA
Rottenking wrote:i dont see the problem...im quite happy admin is fixing the glitch

;)

----

Wepwaet, you seem to forget about another issue which is rather problematic. That this update partially solves.
Before talking about this issue, I might remind that blessings remain unaffected, mercs use remain unaffected. You talk about midsize players being affected by this update. Of course they will be affected...positively lol!
I am 99% sure the planets glitch is used by about 75-100 people *max*. Most players rely on mercs, MS, critical+nox and other means. What did this glitch enabled?
Train 1mil supers, 1.3mil mercs. Be highly ascended account. Have great MS and voilĂ ! I can go and mass the top 200 of any average/low ascended players with much lower losses. In other words, I can kill maximal with minimal amount. Now you will bring the def planets excuse. Oh well. Some will do it, but with this set up, one player can mass an alliance if not even an empire without issues. Wasn't it a slighty bigger problem than farming loss ratio? First issue solved. (you will tell me but but the cash players? Yes the cash players. But that will decrease the amount of neowarmongers who can brag about massing pages and pages with minimal losses)

You know, this farming loss ratio is nothing new, people in past didn't farm for unprofitable amounts, that's why there used to be commonly used farming rate. Now from the mouth of regular farmers, there is no more rules due to planets enableing 25bil hit on 500bil def being profitable. So you force people to build defs higher & higher, be on nox+crit all time and spend all their farmed naq on building defending side, and repair it etc. And when they ascend they lose big part of army trained in super defs. Farmers who will "suffer" from losses will just have to stop farming 35bil on 700bil def and go back to 70bil/700bil def. Oh shock, that's how it was for several years. That will reduce farming for stupid ratios, and people will feel less like there's no chance in this game to compete. Strangely enough, when the farming rates were "unfair", there was like what? 3-4 times more players online at once? Now, who happens to be the voiceful majority? Ah well...the same farmers/massers who happen to use those planets to lose less. And they appear to be more & more "important" in the % because other gaming styles happen to disappear. They don't grow in absolute, it's just that the relative part grows up due to player base decreasing. Server wars might not have helped, but the amount of players dropped below 450-500 average online since the planets started to be used as the main core to account. Making some players fearless of doing what they want, because they wouldn't lose much and mass because of being bored and winning themselves out of it by minimal losses. People massed for boredom in past, but they had to strategise in teams of bored people to mass same amount as now one or two people could do with smaller losses than bored players team could have done in past!

Not to mention, agressive farmers will have to see higher ratios, which will be benifitable for smaller ones who will not feel they can't do anything. This might be stargatewars, but it doesn't mean all players are warmongers seeking defenses to destroy and such stuff to build.

Now the problem I talked about in the start. Covert levels get higher & higher=> less need of troops there.
So, you would tell me, troops get split between income & stats? No, by the fault of the planets glitch, troops have no more use than be trained as miners to produce income. Troops lose value (excepted for people who keep playing the game how it should be played, by building supers in both strike and def), inflation comes, prices drop to smaller need of uus. Who remembers the 600mil/k? Or the 650mil/k? Now there is no such need, because unless you need lifers to replace, you don't really buy uu anymore. Because you don't lose them in massing, as you rely on planets, which hide comfortably behind merlins & platforms, while the amount of troops needed is divided by 3 or 4, despite the army sizes having grown alot! We would think with time stats would have grown up, thus uu need would have increased when wars happened. So we got bigger armies, and less need of troops. Which cause an excess of troops, causing the well known uu devaluating.
ATs become fewer, but because people due to their planets can farm for ridiculously small amounts, they need them all time, which makes the ATs price rise alot for big players satisfaction.
Those people don't buy uu for raiding as much, because they reached decent army sizes and don't lose troops due to their planets, so they use ATs to farm again & again to keep building their planets, to lose even less stats, farm for even less amounts, ask for even more ATs, all of this in disadvantage of midsized and small players, who are infact the victims of the planet glitch much more than saved by them!

This will indeed bring back strategy, as Jason said, it's the age of defenses. Strategy why? Because now, instead of massing a defense built of 10mil supers/10mil mercs with 1mil supers/1.3mil mercs, you will have to use something like 3 to 4mil of both. You will still have blessing, you will still have MS help. But there will not be 300k supers strike killed for 3.5mil supers def killed on the enemy. Snipers having small amount of super strikers, having all in planets and having almost no def supers with same set who could go and mass entire alliances of page 1, fuding this either by buying ATs on $market....or buying ATs on forums market by farming other players with very small amounts, by raising their ME in the process due to unbalanced loss ratio.

People wanted a way to slower ME chasing, snipering, one player army massing alliances by him/herself for the lolz...now this will have to be reconsidered and will be lowered.

Not to mention that now people will stop focusing on one/two kinds of planet and will reconsider having all types of planets. A bit in def, a bit in strike, a bit in covert, a bit in income and a bit in UP.
The end of supremacy of strike planets opening the hands of glorious Military Experiance by randomly massing players just because you could etc...

With the whole argument based on farmers higher losses instead of max losses to farmed ones and min losses to farmers, I don't think your lot would last a week in sgaw! :lol:
You would all see then that the striker isn't the almighty one. Because in sgaw, you face losses when you mass, and you get massed. You have to use strategy, use different strikers to take a defense down. People have a role, you have to do teaming to mass even one person. To share losses. Like it should be. Instead of 1 vs 10 having upper hand thanks to planets, you have to equal amounts, and if big def there's is, prefer to do 5 vs 1, 5 being the massers! :-D And ATs aren't buyable in sgaw..

Strategy makes things interesting, I play both kind of games, and I damn well know that I_mass_all kind of games aren't fun unless you are the masser. But considering it becomes attractive, people become snipers to minimize losses and mass all, kicking away all players who don't share same playing style. Oh yes, have REAL strategy back in this game!


Finally, last one thing I have to say on this post: could you people, defending current state of planets, claim that this glitch helped:
-make this game more enjoyable by gaining & attracting new players
-enable different styles of players to sit in their corners and enjoy the game they liked without being bothered by people being tempted to add their def in the trophy list
-minimize the amount of snipers
-prevent the naq & uu devaluation
-keep and even enhance the team strategy gaming instead of favouring the solo/duo style
-reduce random massing
...

Re: Planet Update

Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 5:47 am
by Sarevok
Hmm. It would seem that both arguments are based around losses. Primarily unit losses?

So what about if we made things that give us stats, without military, less effective?

I'm not sure if this would solve the problem or not. But, it would reduce the number of masses, since they'd take greater losses going after defences, it would also help the farmers, since most farmers hit inactive's, so there only cost to recover, is that of AT.

Feel free to explain why this could be wrong (i've not thought it through 100%), as i'd like to see if this is a worth wild solution or not.

Note: Reducing planet effectiveness would allow for planets to be kept as they are. Since instead of getting 400B attack from 1 planet, with a 100B defence, you would instead get only like 200b, with a 100b attack

Re: Planet Update

Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 6:13 am
by LegendaryA
Not only losses, but it's indeed something.

Imagine I have 500bil coming from planets, 100bil from supers/mercs, and have a 1T strike MS, and am Unknown and want to go massing people for the lols/being bored.
Only real losses there will be MS shields and or volleys to rebuild, and ATs to buy to carry on.
I can test hit accounts to see who has bigger MSs to avoid hitting them. I can also test hit accounts to see who relies on def planets, hasn't much def etc...So I lower amount of targets. Which also solves partly problem of ATs required. I chose not to sabotage.
I'm only looking for pure ME, maximiize my kills and minimize my losses.
I can carry on as long as I have ATs. Because franqly, naq repairs and supers losses are not *that* big. I could rely on ATs from $$ market, then I don't disturb the now smaller ATs market, or I can buy without dollars, from players. I will need more ATs because I know I can mass with small losses, so I will also go farming people, and due to planets, increase the ME further more on losses and be able to hit for smaller amounts, and have not anymore to follow canonic ratio of 1bil naq/10bil def.

Now with the update, I will have to get 1T raw strike, or 500bil raw strike counting on blessings, to have same amount. My losses will increase. I will be able to random mass less. I will have to farm for closer ratio to the old canonic ratio of 1bil naq/10bil def. And if I don't use $$ for ATs, go for higher ratio. Which means the other players who aren't warmongers and tend to have a more passive approach, will be more favorized, as they will be hit less often, and have more acceptable ratios. And will not feel like this game became a
monopoly of planets boosted warmongers who can mass who they want when they want.



Sarevok, you mean that planets drop power by themselves and not effects regarding raw strike/def/covert etc? I think this would be [far] worse than the fix is. People who have big planets just have to build more troops/weapons to get back the planets bonus they had, if planets lose by themselves power, it makes them a bit useless and wastes for real the amount spent in them, and no matter what people decide to build as troops/weapons, the bonus will not increase. This fix values the troops and weapons builders to have more bonus instead of favorising the total opposite, in other words build the least weapons & troops possible.

Jason actually made the best fix possible. It HAD to be fixed. Planets users would have realized maybe when the only active players would be themselves, but it's better late than too late. Actually, if he dropped planet powers, it would have wasted trillions spent in planets. By keeping planets as powerful as they are BUT requiring to have more troops & weapons built, he did a decent compromise between the users who spent on them and those who didn't. As those who didn't will still have to build them as they will have disadvantage, but a FAR MORE acceptable and logical one. Taking into account the importance of troops and weapons both for attacker and defender.

The huge defenses will still be the same to mass due to fact planets by themselves cannot suffice against 4T defs and above, they will not be harder to mass.

Re: Planet Update

Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 6:53 am
by Sarevok
I don't mean drop planet power. I mean drop the power they can provide.

Say i have 10 attack planets, each with 100b attack power. As it stands, i need a 200brealm attack to get a 1.2T total attack power. My idea was that, planets can only add 25% power. So either they build a 400b strike with their army, or accpet that they'll only get 500b, and not 1T power boost from planets. This forces more losses, and perhaps more strategy?

Note: This would also extend to MS (max 50%, not 100%), AB chance (30% max not 60%), and maybe even AB boost (50% boost, instead of double [100%])

Re: Planet Update

Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 7:20 am
by LegendaryA
Sarevok wrote:I don't mean drop planet power. I mean drop the power they can provide.

Say i have 10 attack planets, each with 100b attack power. As it stands, i need a 200brealm attack to get a 1.2T total attack power. My idea was that, planets can only add 25% power. So either they build a 400b strike with their army, or accpet that they'll only get 500b, and not 1T power boost from planets. This forces more losses, and perhaps more strategy?

Note: This would also extend to MS (max 50%, not 100%), AB chance (30% max not 60%), and maybe even AB boost (50% boost, instead of double [100%])

I get it and see the interesting factor. But. Wouldn't it be too harsh for people who only have few big planets currently?