StarGateWars Forums

Duderanch wrote:Or we could just leave it how it is. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

A little fraught with neophobia, DR? Thou Luddite! Where is thy sense of adventure?

This is basically just spitballing an idea, and your point is very valid. Would take something very well prepared to replace the current system, not something trial-and-errory.

Duderanch wrote:Or we could just leave it how it is. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

+1

Sylus wrote:I look forward to watching this game break, should be a hilariously stupid ride.

I look forward to your little SGW friend's face when it becomes apparant that he has lost over $10k worth of investment

I think decsension should be more punishing then it is at the moment, I don't think levels are the answer. Maybe explosion of all their stats ingame would be funny...?

Maybe the time is not yet right for this descension tweak.

Field Marshall wrote:

Sylus wrote:I look forward to watching this game break, should be a hilariously stupid ride.

I look forward to your little SGW friend's face when it becomes apparant that he has lost over $10k worth of investment

I think decsension should be more punishing then it is at the moment, I don't think levels are the answer. Maybe explosion of all their stats ingame would be funny...?

It would be funny, sure. Practical.. hmm.

Wearing the DESCENDED mark on your account is pretty humiliating as it is... haha.

I definitely learnt my lesson fast!

*COUGH* ~Xtr3m3_t14rgri4N *COUGH*

I was half tempted to just quote everything Duderanch posted. But hell that'd just be lazy.

Juliette wrote:Mister Sylus, this would replace the descension penalty, making it LESS painful. Obviously removing 1 ascension level would have no effect at all if you have no Ascended bonuses to begin with (current descension penalty).

Essentially, instead of '0-bonus', you would go to '(AscLvl-(x times descended))-bonus'. (This is in the idea with my later suggestion attached.) Explain to me how that would be 'worse'? Unless you get descended 23 times in a row (if that is happening, try logging into Ascended, hit four people and build a little cache to use when under fire, might help with that), you get more bonus than you would if descended the way things are now.

First of all. Let's acknowledge the power disparity on Ascended. The bulk of power in that section of the game is from a select few.

Now. Let us consider the implications.

If the counter to the (AscLvl-(x times descended))-bonus is to reascend. Then the sheer losses involved in re-ascending which essentially wipes an account sans AB. You have to admit you'd be at a loss to argue that this could be made to make any semblance of balance.

If you're proposing this is instead not permanent, and involves a set time period how would it work? Dictate the exact terms of what you're proposing, and I'll start there.

Would it require an overhaul of the timing of direct assaults.
Would you remove the phasing of an account post descension?
Is it possible that this sort of proposal could be easily abused by larger accounts?

I mean that's obviously a major concern of everyone here, power imbalance. Obviously every person that cried with glee over the new covert update would support the idea that when assaulting someone directly, the entire calcs should be overhauled to prevent huge accounts smashing tiny accounts. Perhaps the attacker should have their personal stats lowered within 50 points of the defender. That'd be fair. That'd even it up. Just like the covert system does.

Field Marshall wrote:I look forward to your little SGW friend's face when it becomes apparant that he has lost over $10k worth of investment

Removed - Haz

*grin* Excellent points, Sylus. Maybe someone else has an answer, because I do not - at the moment. Like I said..

Juliette wrote:Maybe the time is not yet right for this descension tweak.

Sylus wrote:

Field Marshall wrote:I look forward to your little SGW friend's face when it becomes apparant that he has lost over $10k worth of investment

Removed - Haz

Removed - Haz

Sylus wrote:First of all. Let's acknowledge the power disparity on Ascended. The bulk of power in that section of the game is from a select few.

You started wrong, there is a power disparity but only because of the lack of activity by those at the bottom of the food chain. 2 weeks and a bit of farming would protect the vast majority of people on ascended. A month and a bit of effort would make you undescendable. This arguement isn't really justified. I didn't play ascended for about 2 years. Played for a month and managed to increase my account hugely because of it getting more expensive the further up the ladder you go. I've had the largest ToC at me, realistically, it wasn't possible. All done with minimal effort.

I do support the idea of losing ascended levels. As a larger player, I would be prepared to lose x% of my stats on a permenent basis for not logging in. Obviously this would hurt larger players more and the scale of effectiveness is more heavily aimed at balancing the battlefield in main.

A 1% damage into my covert is substantial if you considered the naq required at level 40. If you then consider 1% of the cost of a level 32.

I do feel that as a balance to the other side, perhaps we can consider auto descension. If at maximum efficency it will take 6 hits to descend someone. Locking into an attack for 18 hours should be considered. If the defender logs in, then they are saved.

Removed - Haz

Field Marshall wrote:You started wrong, there is a power disparity but only because of the lack of activity by those at the bottom of the food chain. 2 weeks and a bit of farming would protect the vast majority of people on ascended. A month and a bit of effort would make you undescendable. This arguement isn't really justified. I didn't play ascended for about 2 years. Played for a month and managed to increase my account hugely because of it getting more expensive the further up the ladder you go. I've had the largest ToC at me, realistically, it wasn't possible. All done with minimal effort.

A month, to take someone's personals from zero to undescendable? That's your argument. Then how does any active player get descended? Ever?

Hmm... I'm probably going to say that's false. I put effort into farming on ascended. For more than a month, and I know I'm still EASILY descended by current stats.

Field Marshall wrote:I do support the idea of losing ascended levels. As a larger player, I would be prepared to lose x% of my stats on a permenent basis for not logging in. Obviously this would hurt larger players more and the scale of effectiveness is more heavily aimed at balancing the battlefield in main.

This has ZERO to do with balancing main. Descension is about obtaining advantage against someone not descended. Furthermore the logic is fatally flawed. Larger accounts have proportionately as much to lose. Losing everything in a large account is the equivalent of losing everything in a small account. Your statement belies the fact that larger accounts are capable of inflicting more damage.

You tell me how permanent losses to an account stats isn't open to abuse by large players?

Field Marshall wrote:I do feel that as a balance to the other side, perhaps we can consider auto descension. If at maximum efficency it will take 6 hits to descend someone. Locking into an attack for 18 hours should be considered. If the defender logs in, then they are saved.

... if you feel this is a good game mechanic why not apply it to main. Hell take user away completely, and we can watch gatewars like it's 2012's most boring budget indie film.

I'll delete your rant. Don't hold onto things so tight, life is too short! I'll even follow your lead with a classic "U MAD BRO?". Happy now? I'm FM, I'm a troll.

Sylus wrote:

Field Marshall wrote:You started wrong, there is a power disparity but only because of the lack of activity by those at the bottom of the food chain. 2 weeks and a bit of farming would protect the vast majority of people on ascended. A month and a bit of effort would make you undescendable. This arguement isn't really justified. I didn't play ascended for about 2 years. Played for a month and managed to increase my account hugely because of it getting more expensive the further up the ladder you go. I've had the largest ToC at me, realistically, it wasn't possible. All done with minimal effort.

A month, to take someone's personals from zero to undescendable? That's your argument. Then how does any active player get descended? Ever?

Hmm... I'm probably going to say that's false. I put effort into farming on ascended. For more than a month, and I know I'm still EASILY descended by current stats.

Easily? Seriously? You are farming for at least 300t per 15ats I presume?

I would be highly shocked if I wasn't about right. To be honest, I cannot remember the amount of ATs you gain per turn. I don't log into ascended anymore. Highest ToC is still 7b right? Without sounding condescending, I think you might be doing something wrong?

Sylus wrote:

Field Marshall wrote:I do support the idea of losing ascended levels. As a larger player, I would be prepared to lose x% of my stats on a permenent basis for not logging in. Obviously this would hurt larger players more and the scale of effectiveness is more heavily aimed at balancing the battlefield in main.

This has ZERO to do with balancing main. Descension is about obtaining advantage against someone not descended. Furthermore the logic is fatally flawed. Larger accounts have proportionately as much to lose. Losing everything in a large account is the equivalent of losing everything in a small account. Your statement belies the fact that larger accounts are capable of inflicting more damage.

You tell me how permanent losses to an account stats isn't open to abuse by large players?

Ok, you descend me...and I take a huge loss, my levels start to lose massively. I'd start logging into ascended to be honest. If I descend you. It means you have to ascend again. It's a 2 week process and a few resources to farm. Proportionatly speaking, it would hurt a level 40 more. There are only a certain amount of "larger" players on ascended. I would worry more about alliances as opposed to individuals. Sorry, I thought the spy levels and MS levels that were referenced earlier were in main. Sorry, a technicality.

Sylus wrote:

Field Marshall wrote:I do feel that as a balance to the other side, perhaps we can consider auto descension. If at maximum efficency it will take 6 hits to descend someone. Locking into an attack for 18 hours should be considered. If the defender logs in, then they are saved.

... if you feel this is a good game mechanic why not apply it to main. Hell take user away completely, and we can watch gatewars like it's 2012's most boring budget indie film.

[/quote]

I liked that movie.

Sylus wrote:and I know I'm still EASILY descended by current stats.

Splendid.

Anyway, your strange ramblings aside. Ascended is all about activity. Give me, Fieldy, Jo or even that rather attractive Duderanch an account that only has a top level of 100, and I garentee you that there is no one ingame who could descend any of us, if we were active enough. Fact is, spend 30mins farming and your account goes from 3hits to drop, to 4hits. 4 hits is 9hours. Hit someone before you go to bed, or before you go to work, boom, you're now 12hours til you can be descended. Trust me, if you spend a week or two on your Asc acc, it becomes a pain to descend. In the last war I fought in I can tell you with 100% conviction, the exact players who were active and boosting their levels, and who weren't (If you don't believe me, check my sig haha). Most of those who boosted their levels, didn't get the embarrassing title due to their hard work that was put in. I've had alliance mates and officers go from easy drops too tough descension targets in a month.

I think that it should change the reward the descender more. For our hard work ^.^ The victim should lose all their Ascended Blessing, get the title of shame AND their title should be sent one back down the ladder. Levels remain the same, cvrt and AC, but title changes, and thus AB gets a small set back.

There's no 'great divide' on Asc. There's simply people who can be bothered to play, and improve their accounts, and people who can only be bothered to whine.

Hybrid36 wrote:Wearing the DESCENDED mark on your account is pretty humiliating as it is... haha.

I definitely learnt my lesson fast!

*COUGH* ~Xtr3m3_t14rgri4N *COUGH*

Haha! You were one of the ones I was most proud of

THIS CANT HAPPEN , !

people with like ToE with ascended half decent but still descandable with covert levl 38-40 would get knocked back !

that means he would have to re ascend to get them bonuses back or all his hard work on obtaining that ascended level would be in vain ..


and durig a war where people get descended often a person would be able to lose like 3-4 ascended levls in a few months if he has a weak ascended?


this cant happen it seems like a way just 2 bully smaller ascended players and a way to make you feal like you accomplished something when you would be taking away a persons hard time..

matty~ wrote:THIS CANT HAPPEN , !

people with like ToE with ascended half decent but still descandable with covert levl 38-40 would get knocked back !

that means he would have to re ascend to get them bonuses back or all his hard work on obtaining that ascended level would be in vain ..

Not sure if it was in this thread or something else there was mention of keeping some things when being descended, i.e covert/anti levels.
I think it would be good just to knock them down a level so they actually have something to do (get gnr) to be able to ascend again. Of course they would have to face a barrage of the opposition trying to keep them out of GnR, but that's the fun of it, keeping in mind this is just a loss of one level, not all, so it's still easy to keep up.
Perhaps allowing a further engagement on ascended say 3 days after would be good.

Maybe not loose a descension, but when your descended you loose your bonus as usuall, then after your title comes back you have to aqquire more g n r to build back a % of your bonus you loose with a New idea implemented, if you don't you become like a lower ascension level till its rebuilt.

Genius ild say.

i think its a terrible idea, and if you really think about it, it only damages things, because if someone wants to reach unknown again, they need to reascend, and that causes them to lose covert levels, ac levels, techs, armysize (takes a while to get if you are close to plague) unit production, which many have spent YEARS building. the only ones who this would not hurt permanently are the $$ spenders as they would just rebuy their lost ascended level. i'm pretty sure many people would quit. and all you guys saying, oh they can just be active. i know many (myself included) that due to work and school can't log in for a good 16 hours plus at times (ive gone 24 hours without access, whole reason i hit ppt on weekends) and if this is done for a couple days each week, you can't just vac each week, and not everybody has access to internet on their phones (thats how i keep from being descended. so basically, they have a surprise issue come up, or they suddenly have to work long period of time, they can't hit vac, they get descended, then they lose a level, and have to reascend, thus losing everything that they built since they finished ascending, i think not.

i think a better option if a change is insisted on would be where they lose the ascended bonus, and to get it back they need to trade glory for their stats back (through the market that way they also use an mt or 2), but not an ascension where it resets their stats, just a trade from the game market, say 1 or 2 k worth of glory to reacquire lost stats, but you have to wait at least 2 weeks to do the trade

personally i think its fine the way it is though