StarGateWars Forums

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 7:31 am**

Agree'd In RL, If I was facing a MS Like JT's I'd sab that bugger first, and kill off some of his men

Blow it right up, Infact they do that all the time in SG1 and Atlantis

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 3:40 pm**

renegadze wrote:Apologies if something similar has been mentioned before.

Why not have an ability to sab a MS?

The finer details of my idea need to be worked out, but would basically work on the principle that a realm that is undefended/poorly defended compared to the strike that goes against it, would not be able to protect the transport rings to the MS.

Thus allowing a saboteur to sneak aboard and cause havoc. Since the MS has to be in orbit to engage, the transport rings would always be available for a MS that has not been sent away.

Okay so what then becomes ‘adequately defended?’ If I have defence greater than or equal to my strike? If my spies are greater than or equal to my strike/defence, the enemies covert? Etc

renegadze wrote:I'd propose having a newly created unit for this "special" sabbing mission, as it would not be plausible to send millions of units to sab a MS

this unit would have to be quite costly to "create" and if your own def is 0 then this unit dies first when attacked - or at the very least a ratio def\special unit would need to be worked out.

ok enough of my mad 5 minutes

If your defence is 0, unless these units cost 10 times a defence super I’d want to kill more defence supers or attack supers before I go after these dudes. It doesn’t necessarily strike me as being something that is needed – another unit but if you wanted to go that path by not suggest ‘super spies’ as in spies that can’t be untrained much like defence/attack supers.

In regards to this I still would like to see strike supers killable before other units, especially a ‘new’ one when a defence is 0.

I can see where you are going with this idea, but it needs a heap more thought into the why and the mechanics of it before it becomes something that can really be commented on. At the moment it’s more than a little vague beyond ‘sab MS’. The actual conditions that would be attached to that statement are what make or break this. And at the moment, without the extra information, the idea is definitely broken.

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 4:20 pm**

Rottenking wrote:
CABAL wrote:
Rottenking wrote:i dont like this idea...i dont have a big ms...but i respect those who do have worked for it...and if someone wants to take their mothership down they should eather suffer the losses or invest in their MS more

But that's the problem, almost all of the players with big MS have quite literally 'worked' for it, by spending $$$. I certainly would respect someone who has built their MS up from scratch - not spending a cent, but those people are few and far between. And so, in order to invest in your MS more to catch up, you either have to be stupid enough to spend $$$, or have absolutely no life at all.
so in other words you want a handycap for those who chose to spend cash while also hurting those who dont

lol, how would it hurt those that don't spend $$$?

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 4:47 pm**

Rottenking, technically an update like this would effect every MS and unless there were restrictions placed on it, I could sab a smaller MS before massing it if I wanted

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 7:39 pm**

CABAL wrote:Perhaps after infiltrating the MS, you have a week to 'sabotage' before they get captured (and killed, or perhaps, 50% get turned into uu or something).

i.e. I infiltrate Lore's MS on Monday, he sends his MS out on Tuesday, just before his MS comes back on Wednesday, I sabotage it, and then mass it more efficiently. (And imo, it should be mainly shields that get sabotaged).

And so that the stronger players don't go around infiltrating weaker's MS, perhaps something like, the amount of stuff you destroy is relative to the ratio of capacities (including techs) between your MS and the opponent's MS, so the greater the difference going up (As in, your MS is weaker), the more you will be able to sab, but if your MS is stronger, you will not be able to sab much.

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 7:48 pm**

CABAL, come back to the game so I can mass your MS... multiple times

Smaller MSs CAN take out larger MSs at equal cost at the moment, IF the person knows how and no I'm not about to give lessons. That's up for others to work it out.

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 9:02 pm**

If you did it based on total built, wouldn't that be reasonable? Sort of like attacking. When you attack, you take between 0% and 3.5% losses/attack. If you did a similar thing, like destroy 1-2% shields/hit, then it would be relative the the persons MS.

Though that is based around instant attack, as opposed to time delayed. But could be used for time-delay. If you were about to build up enough units on board, to take out a certain % of what's available to destory

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 10:04 pm**

How about I just say that my ground crews are smarter than those displayed in SG1, SGA and SGU and thus will not let anyone they don’t know to be loyal to me personally on to my MS. See problem solved, no enemies on my MS.

If that doesn’t work then how about I say, build yours?

If that still doesn’t work, then how about I repeat that smaller MSs may take out larger MSs for about the same cost in naq if they know how and that those with smaller MSs should learn this method?

If that still doesn’t work, how about I just say NO, no sabbing MSs.

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 10:23 pm**

lol. owned.

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 10:28 pm**

Tekki wrote:How about I just say that my ground crews are smarter than those displayed in SG1, SGA and SGU and thus will not let anyone they don’t know to be loyal to me personally on to my MS. See problem solved, no enemies on my MS.

I seem to recall some substance that was able to convince people they are whom the say they are?

Tekki wrote:If that doesn’t work then how about I say, build yours?

Why, cause i choose a different path, and my path is wrong?

Tekki wrote:If that still doesn’t work, then how about I repeat that smaller MSs may take out larger MSs for about the same cost in naq if they know how and that those with smaller MSs should learn this method?

I don't doubt that. But how does that nullify an update?

Tekki wrote:If that still doesn’t work, how about I just say NO, no sabbing MSs.

Then it would be your personal oppinion an valid

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 10:33 pm**

Sarevok wrote:
Tekki wrote:If that doesn’t work then how about I say, build yours?
Why, cause i choose a different path, and my path is wrong?

Yet you are suggesting that I and my MS because I chose to build it should suffer from being sabbed and that I can’t sab equally back a smaller MS.

You chose not to build your MS, that is fine and your right. I chose to build mine, that is fine and my right.

But now people go ‘Gah, my MS is tiny how can I cut the bigger ones down!’ and suddenly my choice to build my MS becomes the wrong one and I’m penalised for it.

THAT is what you are suggesting here, penalise those who chose to build their MSs and do it in such a way that it is not equitable. You are now saying that the path of building the MS is wrong. Your argument about paths and choices in invalid and remains invalid while this is a suggestion that does not equally affect all MSs and therefore all players.

I stated it earlier and I will repeat, this suggestion lacks enough detail to be considered with any degree of argument.

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 10:39 pm**

Tekki wrote:I stated it earlier and I will repeat, this suggestion lacks enough detail to be considered with any degree of argument.

I'll side with you on this. And so i appolagise for being a bigot.

Discussing an abstract idea doesn't work people

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 10:55 pm**

Tekki wrote:CABAL, come back to the game so I can mass your MS... multiple times

Smaller MSs CAN take out larger MSs at equal cost at the moment, IF the person knows how and no I'm not about to give lessons. That's up for others to work it out.

Not if both are online.

Tekki wrote:How about I just say that my ground crews are smarter than those displayed in SG1, SGA and SGU and thus will not let anyone they don’t know to be loyal to me personally on to my MS. See problem solved, no enemies on my MS.

If that doesn’t work then how about I say, build yours?

If that still doesn’t work, then how about I repeat that smaller MSs may take out larger MSs for about the same cost in naq if they know how and that those with smaller MSs should learn this method?

If that still doesn’t work, how about I just say NO, no sabbing MSs.

Then remove sabbing as well.

With $$$? No.

Only if they are offline...

stuff of legends wrote:lol. owned.

STHU
EDIT: why does this need to be censored? Can't I say WTH anymore?...
EDIT2: ...

Sarevok wrote:
Tekki wrote:If that doesn’t work then how about I say, build yours?
Why, cause i choose a different path, and my path is wrong?

That's the thing, people can only choose to ascend and build up their MS; nothing else.

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 11:03 pm**

Now if people can only chose to ascend and build their Mothership then why are we trying to limit what they can build? Why not make the other paths better? Like building defence and stuff.

Unfortunately though ascension and motherships are the two permanent features and thus they are the two that will be utilised the most – mothership especially as investment there doesn’t go to waste where investment into covert may if you ascend again. It’s a function of ascension that the permanent features will be built more. So way back in the dim dark ages the resetting of motherships should have been kept but wasn’t though that still would eventually lead to an imbalance between new and old accounts.

Essentially though because teh game does not reset there will always be some imbalance between new and old accounts and developed and undeveloped accounts simply because this is the way it is. Unless you want to add stratification to the game whre by the developed/old accounts can’t attack the newbies then the imbalance is going to remain. But on the other hand, the developed/old accounts usually don’t want to attack the new accounts merely because there is nothing of value there or no challenge. That is meant to be their protection providing they don’t deliberately go and poke the sleeping lion. Which if they do, then that’s their own fault and no protection is available.

As for the ‘not when they are online’ actually YES when they are online. It does though I admit take more skill for the smaller MS to be viable in that situation but IS possible. And no I’m not volunteering to demonstrate because I’m woefully out of practice in that regard.

Posted: **Sun May 16, 2010 11:12 pm**

Tekki wrote:As for the ‘not when they are online’ actually YES when they are online. It does though I admit take more skill for the smaller MS to be viable in that situation but IS possible. And no I’m not volunteering to demonstrate because I’m woefully out of practice in that regard.

*Wants Tekki's secrets!*

But Tekki si correct. Any limitation would be hard to help new players compred with old players. Only thing possible would be perg, but it's so dominated by 1-2 alliance, that if you impeed on there territory, your in trouble

StarGateWars Forums

Sabbing MS

Re: Sabbing MS

Re: Sabbing MS

Re: Sabbing MS

Re: Sabbing MS

Re: Sabbing MS

Re: Sabbing MS

Re: Sabbing MS

Re: Sabbing MS

Re: Sabbing MS

Re: Sabbing MS

Re: Sabbing MS

Re: Sabbing MS

Re: Sabbing MS

Re: Sabbing MS

Re: Sabbing MS