StarGateWars Forums

I have seen western warrior reading this which I find funny...




To be honest, Main players shouldn't make suggestions for perg and ViceVersa

Andy! wrote:To be honest, Main players shouldn't make suggestions for perg and ViceVersa

I want to play in perg and I was until lately playing perg because I dont have the time, but now I am in main for the reason I already stated in my previous posting

Now I have to find time to build enough to be able to leave my account for a days work or a nights sleep

I think they should make it so that what ever attacks you do it must be in 12 or 15 ats and 4-5 attacks at most, what ever that attack may be and possibly limit the covert and ms more or even better make sabs not available in perg

thorsworld1 wrote:

Andy! wrote:To be honest, Main players shouldn't make suggestions for perg and ViceVersa

I want to play in perg and I was until lately playing perg because I dont have the time, but now I am in main for the reason I already stated in my previous posting

Now I have to find time to build enough to be able to leave my account for a days work or a nights sleep

I think they should make it so that what ever attacks you do it must be in 12 or 15 ats and 4-5 attacks at most, what ever that attack may be and possibly limit the covert and ms more or even better make sabs not available in perg

Suck it up? Stay in main, you'll get farmed - so what? Better than getting massed?

Sylus wrote:After hearing someone got massed in norm, I think norm should be limited to the following:

1) Random arbitrary power limitation

2) Additional arbitrary limitations

3) Stringent army size limitations

4) And this should be discussed and considered by players who don't play in norm, as obviously they're the experts.

Just a thought

lol

people are always going to complain , and just to modify so that it suits you, why dont people just deal with it and adapt their style of play.

for example they can only hit you with 60 AT's so invest more so in covert and less in defence power, making it more expensive.

simpletons

thorsworld1 wrote:Whats a turtle ?

Turtle: Someone who adopts a defensive strategy, and attempts to bunker in behind defences, in the case of Gatewars, that player also tends to produce enough naq to get attention.

thorsworld1 wrote:Perg needs fixing, just because someone makes a good income because of the way they built their planets and then puts more into defending the income, FOR THE SAME REASON WHAT YOU MENTION THEY ARE NOT AROUND ENOUGHT TIME TO BANK IT.

So I'll summarise this argument: Perg needs fixing because players shouldn't lose their naq because they invested in defending it.

PEW PEW PEW. Holes. Etc.

thorsworld1 wrote:Your argument can be thrown back at you, I for one cannot throw $$ at this game which is why I have been trying to sell my account, because I thought I could play in perg and now forced to play in main all because 1 person says they will do what they want just at a whim for no reason other than because they can do it to ANYONE with little or no consequence, remember those who put most of their army to defend their income will not be able to build to attack in other words lose lose

Which one? And how? Be specific, I cannot add rebuttal if I don't know what you're arguing.

You can't spend money on your account? Big deal. I, Sylus, Have not spent a dollar on my account, as reflected by my overall poor stats.

What you need to say in order for anyone to argue with you, is what you expectations are playing this game, and whether they reflect the broader themes of this; namely, war. I just don't get why anyone wants an income, I wake up daily and I've been farmed and I think to myself "Sylus, if you weren't such a lazy player, you'd do something to stop yourself being farmed; like, getting rid of my income which I don't need, or ever see..."

See what I'm saying? Or am I being obtuse?

thorsworld1 wrote:Perg needs tweeking simple as that

No. It isn't as simple as that; nor has it ever been. People losing stats and crying our for game changes come off being highly selfish, and in game terms, naive.

Andy! wrote:To be honest, Main players shouldn't make suggestions for perg and ViceVersa

Oh man, I agree partially (for this thread, yes). I think input from all sides is necessary for any update, but what I don't like is seeing a knee jerk reaction to someone getting massed, and then everyone crying foul.

This would be my challenge to any input on game changes:

Why are you seeking change?
Is it simply because of one player? If so, think how changes affect all who play the game, more than any one player, and then justify why everyone must be adversely affected because of one situation

What is the core issue at hand; no one attack, or player style should ever constitute physically changing the game rules, the issue in this situation is player expectations vs game reality. And the only way to fix this is when players talk about how to build better accounts, and encouraging farming. And from what I can tell, norm has MANY seasoned players usually happy to help out.

PS. Guild... same old same old haha

What about your triple stat planet sylus

Archaeological layer +1 I believe

Sylus wrote:Archaeological layer +1 I believe

Ooh nice. You ruined someone's day, unless western warrior is a generous perg buddy

Id hate to start out, go to perg to learn the ropes but keep getting demolished by MASSIVE players who can be in perg. I still think there should be a limitation to covert levels. Or a limited number of sans allowed.

I think there should be no double strike or glory shop weps in perg, thats about it.

Its for slower growth, why do you need them?

The Architect wrote:Id hate to start out, go to perg to learn the ropes but keep getting demolished by MASSIVE players who can be in perg. I still think there should be a limitation to covert levels. Or a limited number of sans allowed.

newgrounds ?

why dont we make perg so you cant attack anyone !!!

Sylus wrote:PS. Guild... same old same old haha

its bringing back glorious memories

Just restrict the amount of covert capacity you can spend on 1 account to match the attacks and i don't really see a problem with anything else. You can use 60 turns a day, so lets say 4 sabs per day, 5 if you declare war when in perg. Still allows team-work and people who like playing in there to do so.

Sylus wrote:

Mathlord wrote:he still has plenty of sabs he can do. Besides, 4 15-turn attacks with ac trained on ac 40 and his giant strike from just a few mil att supers means he can knife through any defense that would float in perg.

Well, to this, his covert means more than anything he can limit his losses, and can sab the higher cov/def players. But obviously norm only pays attention to norm updates, and forgets that admin is trying to find balance in perg also, so I'll spell it out for everyone:

Game Updates 2012 wrote:Less Sab in Perg. Its not a place for super-spies, although that does not limit you coming in (as does army size). Regardless, your covert capacity is lower while in perg...

I know. Weird right. Like no one noticed...no one in norm anyway.

And as I said in my post he still has plenty of sabs he can do. Noone's questioning the legality of what Western Warrior is doing, he's successfully turned perg into his playground, but obviously there is something wrong with a system where a big player can be someplace without fear of reprisals.

Look at it this way, he has spy 41. Thanks to that he cannot be sabbed in perg. Being really the only top account in perg means he has secured the ability to not be messed with unless some big main realm players sacrifice their accounts to go in after him. Even then you can't sab a fellow 41 (you'd need at least 42 to really make sabs succeed if he uses critical). Now an ac 40 or ac 41 could go in and make 4 attacks on him killing spies but not getting anywhere near to leveling his defense. You can't mass the rank one mothership in the game in 60 turns and obviously no planet defenses are cost-effective against that size fleets unless you build 10 tril defenses. Anything below that and (on the cheap for him) he could chip away at your defenses daily costing you a fortune.

The only way to take him down would be a massive organization of people combined to mass the defense and ac the spies on his account. There should be no point in this game where you can survive without reprisals, no matter how big your account. The 60 attack turn rule was put into place to prevent certain perg players from bullying other players out of the game since it was supposed to be a slower paced place where people learn how to play. Now that 60 turn limit acts as a shield to prevent anyone from actually being able to fight back against this guy's account. Even with limited turns in perg, people could save up and mass his stuff, but as it stands now, unless you have dozens of people working together, you're barely going to make a dent.

It's easy being a big fish in a small pond. Especially when nothing can hurt you.

Borek wrote:Just restrict the amount of covert capacity you can spend on 1 account to match the attacks and i don't really see a problem with anything else. You can use 60 turns a day, so lets say 4 sabs per day, 5 if you declare war when in perg. Still allows team-work and people who like playing in there to do so.

NO! JUST NO! Perg already has a reduced sab limit in place, hence why I quoted the updates, why ruin it for everyone? Again.

Game Updates 2012 wrote:Less Sab in Perg. Its not a place for super-spies, although that does not limit you coming in (as does army size). Regardless, your covert capacity is lower while in perg...

Mathlord wrote:[spoiler]And as I said in my post he still has plenty of sabs he can do. Noone's questioning the legality of what Western Warrior is doing, he's successfully turned perg into his playground, but obviously there is something wrong with a system where a big player can be someplace without fear of reprisals.

Look at it this way, he has spy 41. Thanks to that he cannot be sabbed in perg. Being really the only top account in perg means he has secured the ability to not be messed with unless some big main realm players sacrifice their accounts to go in after him. Even then you can't sab a fellow 41 (you'd need at least 42 to really make sabs succeed if he uses critical). Now an ac 40 or ac 41 could go in and make 4 attacks on him killing spies but not getting anywhere near to leveling his defense. You can't mass the rank one mothership in the game in 60 turns and obviously no planet defenses are cost-effective against that size fleets unless you build 10 tril defenses. Anything below that and (on the cheap for him) he could chip away at your defenses daily costing you a fortune.

The only way to take him down would be a massive organization of people combined to mass the defense and ac the spies on his account. There should be no point in this game where you can survive without reprisals, no matter how big your account. The 60 attack turn rule was put into place to prevent certain perg players from bullying other players out of the game since it was supposed to be a slower paced place where people learn how to play. Now that 60 turn limit acts as a shield to prevent anyone from actually being able to fight back against this guy's account. Even with limited turns in perg, people could save up and mass his stuff, but as it stands now, unless you have dozens of people working together, you're barely going to make a dent.

It's easy being a big fish in a small pond. Especially when nothing can hurt you.[/spoiler]

But you're still failing to address my point; the inherent problem with any proposal here because of one player is going to affect the overall game mechanics in a negative way.

If you make it harder for the super account to sab, you're making it impossible for other players like me to sab at all. Or if you reduce the overall damage inflicted by sab, you are effectively saying "yes, we want you to be able to turtle". And I don't think anyone wants that.

Again, players who turtle have already had a game update that limits the amount of sabs they incur (compared to norm), they already have the 60 turn limit, and because of army size, you can only steal a maximum of 500 bil per 15 ATS, additionally, perg now has PPT (first time ever, and I hate it). And you're all saying you want more restrictions? You're all mad!

NO. JUST NO. Unless anyone here can stipulate how this isn't going to affect other players negatively, or why they should suffer all because one player decided to go for the biggest account possible. If you can't justify these two statements, then you've failed to propose a reasonable game update.

Side note: everyone's issue with Western Warrior is retarded. He has two stats. Two stats. And people are trying to change the game because of them. Ridiculous.

Sylus wrote:

Borek wrote:Just restrict the amount of covert capacity you can spend on 1 account to match the attacks and i don't really see a problem with anything else. You can use 60 turns a day, so lets say 4 sabs per day, 5 if you declare war when in perg. Still allows team-work and people who like playing in there to do so.

NO! JUST NO! Perg already has a reduced sab limit in place, hence why I quoted the updates, why ruin it for everyone? Again.

Game Updates 2012 wrote:Less Sab in Perg. Its not a place for super-spies, although that does not limit you coming in (as does army size). Regardless, your covert capacity is lower while in perg...

Mathlord wrote:[spoiler]And as I said in my post he still has plenty of sabs he can do. Noone's questioning the legality of what Western Warrior is doing, he's successfully turned perg into his playground, but obviously there is something wrong with a system where a big player can be someplace without fear of reprisals.

Look at it this way, he has spy 41. Thanks to that he cannot be sabbed in perg. Being really the only top account in perg means he has secured the ability to not be messed with unless some big main realm players sacrifice their accounts to go in after him. Even then you can't sab a fellow 41 (you'd need at least 42 to really make sabs succeed if he uses critical). Now an ac 40 or ac 41 could go in and make 4 attacks on him killing spies but not getting anywhere near to leveling his defense. You can't mass the rank one mothership in the game in 60 turns and obviously no planet defenses are cost-effective against that size fleets unless you build 10 tril defenses. Anything below that and (on the cheap for him) he could chip away at your defenses daily costing you a fortune.

The only way to take him down would be a massive organization of people combined to mass the defense and ac the spies on his account. There should be no point in this game where you can survive without reprisals, no matter how big your account. The 60 attack turn rule was put into place to prevent certain perg players from bullying other players out of the game since it was supposed to be a slower paced place where people learn how to play. Now that 60 turn limit acts as a shield to prevent anyone from actually being able to fight back against this guy's account. Even with limited turns in perg, people could save up and mass his stuff, but as it stands now, unless you have dozens of people working together, you're barely going to make a dent.

It's easy being a big fish in a small pond. Especially when nothing can hurt you.[/spoiler]

But you're still failing to address my point; the inherent problem with any proposal here because of one player is going to affect the overall game mechanics in a negative way.

If you make it harder for the super account to sab, you're making it impossible for other players like me to sab at all. Or if you reduce the overall damage inflicted by sab, you are effectively saying "yes, we want you to be able to turtle". And I don't think anyone wants that.

Again, players who turtle have already had a game update that limits the amount of sabs they incur (compared to norm), they already have the 60 turn limit, and because of army size, you can only steal a maximum of 500 bil per 15 ATS, additionally, perg now has PPT (first time ever, and I hate it). And you're all saying you want more restrictions? You're all mad!

NO. JUST NO. Unless anyone here can stipulate how this isn't going to affect other players negatively, or why they should suffer all because one player decided to go for the biggest account possible. If you can't justify these two statements, then you've failed to propose a reasonable game update.

Side note: everyone's issue with Western Warrior is retarded. He has two stats. Two stats. And people are trying to change the game because of them. Ridiculous.

Just because Western Warrior is your buddy, doesn't make our issues with him retarded.

You say we fail to see your point. You don't even address my concern. It would take dozens of people to be able to hit back against this guy in perg and that's ridiculous. No account should be made completely invincible no matter their personal investment in it and yes, as it stands, this account is invincible.

Remember when Feri/Rodwolf's account, which wasn't actually invincible, but was really hard to mass caused the entire game to change. Here's a case where a guy actually can't be taken down as the game currently is set-up.

If you actually read what I said, I said the problem was in the fact people can only use 60 turns on another opponent in perg. Remove that restriction and now no account can become unbeatable and covert isn't the impossible killer advantage it is right now.

This game is supposed to be about balance.