StarGateWars Forums

Rudy Pena wrote:

Sol wrote:I fail to see how sab has anything to do with this idea. In which case it's practically suggesting an alternative to stop snipers.

It came about cause all my army is in strike to mass rodwolf when he is not running to ppt or vac mode.
So as I have nothing that can be massed. This would be the only way to hurt me, as I cant have nothing more then like 1t def max.

Well Rudy I can assure you of 1 thing, you never have been or never will be a game changer....this suggestion was devised and presented over a year ago just re-presenting it.

Jedi~Tank wrote:

Rudy Pena wrote:

Sol wrote:I fail to see how sab has anything to do with this idea. In which case it's practically suggesting an alternative to stop snipers.

It came about cause all my army is in strike to mass rodwolf when he is not running to ppt or vac mode.
So as I have nothing that can be massed. This would be the only way to hurt me, as I cant have nothing more then like 1t def max.

Well Rudy I can assure you of 1 thing, you never have been or never will be a game changer....this suggestion was devised and presented over a year ago just re-presenting it.

But the problem with the suggestion are the same as before though, and Rudy just highlighted it: to mass the very biggest defs in the game you need a massive strike. If you need to add a reasonable def to that, and a covert, etc, it becomes logistically difficult, if not nigh on impossible, to bring down some of the monster defs...

RepliMagni wrote:

Jedi~Tank wrote:

Rudy Pena wrote:

Sol wrote:I fail to see how sab has anything to do with this idea. In which case it's practically suggesting an alternative to stop snipers.

It came about cause all my army is in strike to mass rodwolf when he is not running to ppt or vac mode.
So as I have nothing that can be massed. This would be the only way to hurt me, as I cant have nothing more then like 1t def max.

Well Rudy I can assure you of 1 thing, you never have been or never will be a game changer....this suggestion was devised and presented over a year ago just re-presenting it.

But the problem with the suggestion are the same as before though, and Rudy just highlighted it: to mass the very biggest defs in the game you need a massive strike. If you need to add a reasonable def to that, and a covert, etc, it becomes logistically difficult, if not nigh on impossible, to bring down some of the monster defs...

Covert phasing and blocking ftw also, please remember that we now have double strike. I think you will actually find, with the recent update, it's relatively simple

I think this..

I remember one time when I was in a battle and I was massing a big defense, and I had a big strike and a medium defense. 50tril/200b. When I was massing my strike and defense was sabbed away, but I rebuilt my strike and kept on massing. There was 5 players hitting me and they couldn't stop me. I eventually massed the defense to 0. If I wanted to I could have bragged about what a great masser I am because I fought against 6 other players and I couldn't be stopped. But that isn't right because the game mechanics allowed me to do that.

If when my defense was 0 and I started losing double (or a percentage) of my strike supers in addition to my normal losses I would have had to pause and put my defense back to a ratio appropriate to my strike to avoid that (15% for example). And I think that would have been fair, because if I had to maintain that to keep on with my mission, and got the job done while fending off the other 5 players, then I can say it was a good massing job.

~Deathlok wrote:I think this..
I remember one time when I was in a battle and I was massing a big defense, and I had a big strike and a medium defense. 50tril/200b. When I was massing my strike and defense was sabbed away, but I rebuilt my strike and kept on massing. There was 5 players hitting me and they couldn't stop me. I eventually massed the defense to 0. If I wanted to I could have bragged about what a great masser I am because I fought against 6 other players and I couldn't be stopped. But that isn't right because the game mechanics allowed me to do that.
If when my defense was 0 and I started losing double (or a percentage) of my strike supers in addition to my normal losses I would have had to pause and put my defense back to a ratio appropriate to my strike to avoid that (15% for example). And I think that would have been fair, because if I had to maintain that to keep on with my mission, and got the job done while fending off the other 5 players, then I can say it was a good massing job.

Making it almost impossible for a lonewolf to defend themselves against a joint massing...I don't like the idea of one guy massing whole alliances, but lets not make it so they can't even defend themselves...

Field Marshall wrote:
Covert phasing and blocking ftw also, please remember that we now have double strike. I think you will actually find, with the recent update, it's relatively simple

Think it would be easy with double losses? Goes from one extreme to the other. Why the double strike was brought in I still don't know...

RepliMagni wrote:

~Deathlok wrote:I think this..
I remember one time when I was in a battle and I was massing a big defense, and I had a big strike and a medium defense. 50tril/200b. When I was massing my strike and defense was sabbed away, but I rebuilt my strike and kept on massing. There was 5 players hitting me and they couldn't stop me. I eventually massed the defense to 0. If I wanted to I could have bragged about what a great masser I am because I fought against 6 other players and I couldn't be stopped. But that isn't right because the game mechanics allowed me to do that.
If when my defense was 0 and I started losing double (or a percentage) of my strike supers in addition to my normal losses I would have had to pause and put my defense back to a ratio appropriate to my strike to avoid that (15% for example). And I think that would have been fair, because if I had to maintain that to keep on with my mission, and got the job done while fending off the other 5 players, then I can say it was a good massing job.

Making it almost impossible for a lonewolf to defend themselves against a joint massing...I don't like the idea of one guy massing whole alliances, but lets not make it so they can't even defend themselves...

Field Marshall wrote:
Covert phasing and blocking ftw also, please remember that we now have double strike. I think you will actually find, with the recent update, it's relatively simple

Think it would be easy with double losses? Goes from one extreme to the other. Why the double strike was brought in I still don't know...

How are you getting a lone wolf can't defend himself? The only way anyone can defend themselves anyway is if they are online.

RepliMagni wrote:

Field Marshall wrote:
Covert phasing and blocking ftw also, please remember that we now have double strike. I think you will actually find, with the recent update, it's relatively simple

Think it would be easy with double losses? Goes from one extreme to the other. Why the double strike was brought in I still don't know...

[spoiler]Aug 06, 01:29 Duderanch 0 Naquadah stolen 15 366,136 40,538 15,113,811,056,600 1,737,276,803,700 details
Aug 06, 01:29 Duderanch 0 Naquadah stolen 15 373,204 47,043 15,002,055,828,000 1,994,162,418,540 details
Aug 06, 01:29 Duderanch 0 Naquadah stolen 15 380,423 44,501 16,199,632,952,000 2,030,311,115,240 details
Aug 06, 01:29 Duderanch 0 Naquadah stolen 15 387,798 47,403 16,297,817,268,300 2,168,197,151,240 details
Aug 06, 01:29 Duderanch 0 Naquadah stolen 15 395,332 53,373 15,214,785,262,100 2,270,118,617,260 details
Aug 06, 01:28 Duderanch 0 Naquadah stolen 15 403,029 54,820 15,594,328,718,900 2,380,274,763,980 details
Aug 06, 01:28 Duderanch 0 Naquadah stolen 15 410,892 63,829 15,483,771,436,400 2,738,997,555,110 details
Aug 06, 01:28 Duderanch 0 Naquadah stolen 15 418,926 61,006 16,241,757,979,900 2,733,870,572,490 details
Aug 06, 01:28 Duderanch 0 Naquadah stolen 15 427,133 72,149 15,420,196,860,500 3,053,704,640,150 details
Aug 06, 01:28 Duderanch 0 Naquadah stolen 15 435,519 83,472 15,104,385,900,400 3,439,935,886,318 details
Aug 06, 01:27 Duderanch 0 Naquadah stolen 15 444,089 76,807 16,560,909,390,200 3,451,489,093,980 details
Aug 06, 01:27 Duderanch 0 Naquadah stolen 15 452,844 88,326 16,037,635,506,500 3,819,691,510,201 details
Aug 06, 01:27 Duderanch 0 Naquadah stolen 15 461,790 90,529 15,412,021,732,300 3,738,258,077,810 details
Aug 06, 01:27 Duderanch 0 Naquadah stolen 15 470,933 89,341 16,503,218,206,400 3,925,740,434,290 details
Aug 06, 01:27 Duderanch 0 Naquadah stolen 15 480,276 100,946 16,102,441,136,300 4,297,633,357,010 details
Aug 06, 01:26 Duderanch 0 Naquadah stolen 15 489,823 98,520 16,671,209,935,700 4,312,990,566,370 details
Aug 06, 01:26 Duderanch 0 Naquadah stolen 15 499,581 114,246 15,500,172,977,000 4,613,820,811,570 details
Aug 06, 01:26 Duderanch 0 Naquadah stolen 15 509,553 107,717 16,681,369,342,000 4,647,394,848,540 details
Aug 06, 01:26 Duderanch 0 Naquadah stolen 15 519,745 122,376 16,862,050,843,100 5,293,077,227,390 details
Aug 06, 01:26 Duderanch 0 Naquadah stolen 15 530,162 131,085 16,935,531,670,600 5,644,656,165,120 details
Aug 06, 01:26 Duderanch 0 Naquadah stolen 15 540,809 136,758 17,258,515,640,900 5,946,972,069,280 details
Aug 06, 01:26 Duderanch 0 Naquadah stolen 15 551,692 140,982 16,734,427,320,900 5,889,571,698,790 details
Aug 06, 01:26 Duderanch 0 Naquadah stolen 15 562,816 145,174 17,063,320,964,800 6,125,604,111,430 details
Aug 06, 01:26 Duderanch 0 Naquadah stolen 15 574,187 147,460 17,333,921,317,800 6,260,809,016,200 details
Aug 06, 01:25 Duderanch 0 Naquadah stolen 15 585,811 151,643 17,480,381,165,700 6,430,088,958,150 details
Aug 06, 01:25 Duderanch 0 Naquadah stolen 15 597,694 185,281 16,558,381,537,000 7,355,276,390,564 details
Aug 06, 01:25 Duderanch 0 Naquadah stolen 15 609,842 190,584 16,096,666,586,200 7,267,636,230,070 details
Aug 06, 01:25 Duderanch 0 Naquadah stolen 15 622,261 199,907 17,702,243,760,000 8,280,610,315,030 details
Aug 06, 01:25 Duderanch 0 Naquadah stolen 15 634,958 148,289 16,766,319,284,400 8,647,793,395,330 details
Aug 06, 01:25 Duderanch 0 Naquadah stolen 15 647,938 140,173 17,586,387,625,900 8,501,787,791,100 details
Aug 06, 01:25 Duderanch 0 Naquadah stolen 15 661,210 161,752 16,210,215,196,400 8,955,473,620,840 details
Aug 06, 01:25 Duderanch 0 Naquadah stolen 15 674,781 173,898 16,387,358,793,100 9,633,022,744,440 details
Aug 06, 01:25 Duderanch 0 Naquadah stolen 15 688,656 176,206 16,466,364,417,100 9,706,758,342,760 details
Aug 06, 01:25 Duderanch 0 Naquadah stolen 15 702,843 182,854 16,199,506,657,900 9,804,775,161,030 details
Aug 06, 01:24 Duderanch 0 Naquadah stolen 15 717,352 173,256 17,395,440,251,200 9,876,877,527,310 details
Aug 06, 01:24 Duderanch 0 Naquadah stolen 15 732,186 198,915 16,416,776,949,800 10,580,911,505,100 details
Aug 06, 01:24 Duderanch 0 Naquadah stolen 15 747,357 191,874 16,742,045,277,500 10,296,614,490,100 details
Aug 06, 01:24 Duderanch 0 Naquadah stolen 15 762,870 200,179 17,234,282,332,500 10,935,310,225,100 details
Aug 06, 01:23 Duderanch 0 Naquadah stolen 15 778,736 234,735 16,478,008,955,100 12,102,740,050,100 details
Aug 06, 01:23 Duderanch 0 Naquadah stolen 15 794,961 210,328 18,117,229,343,200 11,787,362,191,700 details
Aug 06, 01:23 Duderanch 0 Naquadah stolen 15 811,555 221,241 16,821,573,104,300 11,376,001,735,300 details
Aug 06, 01:23 Duderanch 0 Naquadah stolen 15 828,526 242,596 18,019,831,841,900 13,191,461,519,400 details
Aug 06, 01:23 Duderanch 0 Naquadah stolen 15 845,884 235,372 18,280,248,305,200 12,824,180,357,900 details
Aug 06, 01:23 Duderanch 0 Naquadah stolen 15 863,638 254,542 17,177,199,915,600 12,861,058,467,000 details
Aug 06, 01:23 Duderanch 0 Naquadah stolen 15 881,798 244,165 18,089,976,690,200 12,831,042,593,100 details
Aug 06, 01:23 Duderanch 0 Naquadah stolen 15 900,372 294,571 17,167,893,331,500 14,474,107,209,744 details
Aug 06, 01:22 Duderanch 0 Naquadah stolen 15 919,372 302,526 17,122,265,750,000 14,604,216,246,500 details
Aug 06, 01:22 Duderanch 3,250,053,578 Naquadah stolen 15 938,807 317,445 16,802,156,430,000 14,806,011,490,300 details
Aug 06, 01:22 Duderanch 78,001,285,879 Naquadah stolen 15 958,689 321,369 17,338,395,465,000 15,229,630,954,000 details
Aug 06, 01:22 Duderanch 19,807,540,465 Naquadah stolen 3 192,535 60,887 17,517,141,810,000 14,533,565,063,700 details[/spoiler]

These are all of the attacks, with a fully repaired defence and no sabbotages done. I did this to 4 other targets for the ME.

So the answer to your original question is yes. I could mass a 100t def with relative ease.

~Deathlok wrote:How are you getting a lone wolf can't defend himself? The only way anyone can defend themselves anyway is if they are online.

In your example, you (as a fictional lonewolf) could continue your massing with multiple people attacking you. Now, if you needed to maintain a 7.5tril def during said mass to avoid double losses, it quickly becomes exorbitantly expensive for a single person to hit multiple people. Needing to maintain a pre-requisite defence makes it very difficult for a lonewolf to defend themselves and successfully attack...

RepliMagni wrote:

~Deathlok wrote:How are you getting a lone wolf can't defend himself? The only way anyone can defend themselves anyway is if they are online.

In your example, you (as a fictional lonewolf) could continue your massing with multiple people attacking you. Now, if you needed to maintain a 7.5tril def during said mass to avoid double losses, it quickly becomes exorbitantly expensive for a single person to hit multiple people. Needing to maintain a pre-requisite defence makes it very difficult for a lonewolf to defend themselves and successfully attack...

It should be expensive for a single defender to fend off multiple attackers, and it should cost the attackers more than it does now. If 5 attackers are on 1 defender it will be less expensive for the attackers because there are 5 of them

~Deathlok wrote:It should be expensive for a single defender to fend off multiple attackers, and it should cost the attackers more than it does now.

It should be expensive, yes. But my point is we don't want to make it too hard.

Player A has a 20tril def and 10tril strike and c.36. Player A is allianceless. Player A gets massed by DDE. Player A now has 0 def and 8tril strike. Player A builds a 2tril def, and uses his 8tril strike to fight back. DDE sab out his 2tril def. Everytime he tries to build a sufficient def not to incur double losses, he gets it sabbed out by DDE. Player A is in a catch 22 position.

Now what we want to stop is: Player A has c.41. Player A massess/sabs all of DDE in one night....

RepliMagni wrote:

~Deathlok wrote:It should be expensive for a single defender to fend off multiple attackers, and it should cost the attackers more than it does now.

It should be expensive, yes. But my point is we don't want to make it too hard.

Player A has a 20tril def and 10tril strike and c.36. Player A is allianceless. Player A gets massed by DDE. Player A now has 0 def and 8tril strike. Player A builds a 2tril def, and uses his 8tril strike to fight back. DDE sab out his 2tril def. Everytime he tries to build a sufficient def not to incur double losses, he gets it sabbed out by DDE. Player A is in a catch 22 position.

Now what we want to stop is: Player A has c.41. Player A massess/sabs all of DDE in one night....

Anyone can mass an alliance like that if everyone is offline, but right now the masser can have a free run even if they have a 0 defense. You shouldn't use alliance names and make this about alliances too. To stop that or make it more fair then the masser has to maintain a defense ratio proportionate to their strike when someone is online to defend..if nobody is online there is no worry about it.

Sarevok wrote:Another alternative would be, as suggested before, attackers help defend.

So those without a defence, their attackers help out.

Perhaps, based off some percentage, say 15%, your attack troops step in to meet this to defend. For example, you have a 20T strike, and 0 defence. As a result 15% of your attack power helps defend. So 3T of your attack units would be defend (1.5T attackers if say you had 1.5T defence already) and that would be your effective defence, and as a result, those units could be killed when attacking the person with 0 defence, but 20T attack.

Elaborate just a little more please.

1st post updated.

Jedi~Tank wrote:

Sarevok wrote:Another alternative would be, as suggested before, attackers help defend.

So those without a defence, their attackers help out.

Perhaps, based off some percentage, say 15%, your attack troops step in to meet this to defend. For example, you have a 20T strike, and 0 defence. As a result 15% of your attack power helps defend. So 3T of your attack units would be defend (1.5T attackers if say you had 1.5T defence already) and that would be your effective defence, and as a result, those units could be killed when attacking the person with 0 defence, but 20T attack.

Elaborate just a little more please.

Let me try.
It essentially means, if you have a large attack, you need 15% of that power in defence. If you don't have that, then your attack units help your defenders defend (Whether the power of the attacks should be reduced would need to be considered).
So, if you have a 10T strike, then your account MUST have a 1.5T defence. If you only build 1T yourself, then 500b power worth of attack units will help to defend your realm. These can be killed similar to defence units, and weapons damaged the same way.

Problem I'm now seeing, is that whoever strikes first, sorta wins. You can mass their defence, and then with no defence, you can mass their attack basically. Perhaps a timer would need to be used. 16 hours of a defence being under 15%, then attacks start defending. Allows people to rebuild and not loose their units, also allows large strikes with no defence to be brought down.

Make it a supers ratio. So that a cov 41 can't just screw a few people massing their alliance