0 def huge strike

[jedi~tank]

The only part of this I dont like is losing UU for not maintaining a balance, that is overkill. Also I do have a question sincerely, what do you consider an unmassable defense? A defense that cannot be massed cheap? A defense that cannot be massed by a undeveloped account? A defense that is in all actuality unmassable? I ask this because the recent record defenses, including the 230tril one is NOT unmassable. I have been meaning to post this question for some time now and just now remembered to do it. I would like to hear opinions on this though.

And Mezz you and I talked about being able to attack the strike some time ago, I have lost my notes on that

My point was currently you dont have to have a strike to have a def, you can be all def & covert if you want and be very safe, but if you are all strike & covert then then you're vulnerable to AC.

So yes, technically anything can be massed but why should a defensive player be safe and an attacker be extremely vulnerable ? This just encourages people to build & hide behind huge defs.

The idea of linked 50% stats means if you're 100def/50att, someone else can be 100att/50def, the attacker still gets to have a def and not be an open target for ACers.

And it dont just work on big stat players, I currently have a 4 trill att & 400 bill def and you guys are always complaining that I and others in FS dont build big enough defs, with linked stats to use my 4 trill strike I would have to build a 2 trill def, when I build up 20 trill strike to mass I would also have to build up a 10 trill def.

Everyone can be massed and everyone has something to mass so this works in everyones favor.

Also the idea of miners escaping if you have no def means if you sit defenseless you lose UU, it encourages everyone to build and keep rebuilding.

I would prefer these go to untrained rather than leaving the account altogether.

[GeneralChaos]

It would need to be 50% to lifers 50% to untrained, else they will do what i stated, build massive strike, whatever they dont need, they will sit on ppt with 0 defense watching the UU come back to them.

[MEZZANINE]

Also the idea of miners escaping if you have no def means if you sit defenseless you lose UU, it encourages everyone to build and keep rebuilding.

I would prefer these go to untrained rather than leaving the account altogether.

If they went to UU then every inactive account would start converting miners into UU, we would just see a refueling of raid targets, increase in multi/raider/feeder accounts and glut of UU on the $$$ market dropping prices even further. Better for the miners to just disappear IMO

[Ryuujin Jakka]

0 def ? Just ac and sabb lol .....

[Sarevok]

Also the idea of miners escaping if you have no def means if you sit defenseless you lose UU, it encourages everyone to build and keep rebuilding.

I would prefer these go to untrained rather than leaving the account altogether.

If they went to UU then every inactive account would start converting miners into UU, we would just see a refueling of raid targets, increase in multi/raider/feeder accounts and glut of UU on the $$$ market dropping prices even further. Better for the miners to just disappear IMO

I dunno. Once all those miners are gone, where is the naq production going to go to buy these UU? No inactive will produce an income, which would kill new players, as they can compete far far less