StarGateWars Forums

yep, i think making it costly is the way to go.

Tropic Thunder wrote:Why not create a new attack to allow you to mass strike, but you would have to do it once the defense is zeroed otherwise the strike an defense would be added together? To stop it being totally unfair on the defender ensure that:

The loses when someone is massing the strike are hugely in the defender's role. (Instead of having to have a 30% of their strike you wil have to have a 50%+). Or even having a larger strke then their defense?

Make the new attack require alot more ATs than just 15, maybe 50? so if they are on NOX, some of their strike may be salveged.

The only down side is that people won't be able to figh back if their defense and strike have been zeroed, but by making it alot more costly than it s already it would make it overal alot fairer.

Sorry, have to say this...

SCREW THAT.

Why should attack get special treatment? Defenses never get to be salvaged. Maybe if people stopped one the weapons were gone, or it was very limited for defense once they are maybe. But unless that is done, IMO, attack SHOULD suffer the same losses as defense, if not MORE, as their trained to attack, not defend against an attack

Sarevok wrote:

Lore wrote:In essence all it means is strike will now have to be written off as a loss the same way defenses are, but will ultimately change nothing.

In my view, this is what should be done. If their willing to wipe out your defense with a large strike, then they should be willing to watch their strike ALSO be wiped out, in retribution.

But what you fail to see/understand is there will be no strike left. Anyone whos a commited player will continue to mass until their strike is pretty much useless. Still leaving nothing for retrobution.

As for not being able to fight back if both def and strike are wiped, ANY SGW player worth his salt has enough bank and sense to buy 1 weapon, and in 1 turn have enough naq to completely rebuild and arm his strike, and in 2 turns completely rebuild his account. Period. Resources are far to avalible.

Lore wrote:

Sarevok wrote:

Lore wrote:In essence all it means is strike will now have to be written off as a loss the same way defenses are, but will ultimately change nothing.

In my view, this is what should be done. If their willing to wipe out your defense with a large strike, then they should be willing to watch their strike ALSO be wiped out, in retribution.

But what you fail to see/understand is there will be no strike left. Anyone whos a commited player will continue to mass until their strike is pretty much useless. Still leaving nothing for retrobution.

As for not being able to fight back if both def and strike are wiped, ANY SGW player worth his salt has enough bank and sense to buy 1 weapon, and in 1 turn have enough naq to completely rebuild and arm his strike, and in 2 turns completely rebuild his account. Period. Resources are far to avalible.

I don't disagree with that assessment. But for those whom (in general) do the massing of defenses, have little defense themselves. And OFTEN have an attack worth destroying. Whilst it may not allow instant retribution, it would allow future possibilies

Sarevok wrote:

Tropic Thunder wrote:Why not create a new attack to allow you to mass strike, but you would have to do it once the defense is zeroed otherwise the strike an defense would be added together? To stop it being totally unfair on the defender ensure that:

The loses when someone is massing the strike are hugely in the defender's role. (Instead of having to have a 30% of their strike you wil have to have a 50%+). Or even having a larger strke then their defense?

Make the new attack require alot more ATs than just 15, maybe 50? so if they are on NOX, some of their strike may be salveged.

The only down side is that people won't be able to figh back if their defense and strike have been zeroed, but by making it alot more costly than it s already it would make it overal alot fairer.

Sorry, have to say this...

SCREW THAT.

Why should attack get special treatment? Defenses never get to be salvaged. Maybe if people stopped one the weapons were gone, or it was very limited for defense once they are maybe. But unless that is done, IMO, attack SHOULD suffer the same losses as defense, if not MORE, as their trained to attack, not defend against an attack

No.
If strike was easily massable you would get people just massing away all the large strikes for a reason, whilstit should be a tactical move and be costly so people would only do it as a last resort or to give them an advantage in war.

Tropic Thunder wrote:

Sarevok wrote:

Tropic Thunder wrote:Why not create a new attack to allow you to mass strike, but you would have to do it once the defense is zeroed otherwise the strike an defense would be added together? To stop it being totally unfair on the defender ensure that:

The loses when someone is massing the strike are hugely in the defender's role. (Instead of having to have a 30% of their strike you wil have to have a 50%+). Or even having a larger strke then their defense?

Make the new attack require alot more ATs than just 15, maybe 50? so if they are on NOX, some of their strike may be salveged.

The only down side is that people won't be able to figh back if their defense and strike have been zeroed, but by making it alot more costly than it s already it would make it overal alot fairer.

Sorry, have to say this...

SCREW THAT.

Why should attack get special treatment? Defenses never get to be salvaged. Maybe if people stopped one the weapons were gone, or it was very limited for defense once they are maybe. But unless that is done, IMO, attack SHOULD suffer the same losses as defense, if not MORE, as their trained to attack, not defend against an attack

No.
If strike was easily massable you would get people just massing away all the large strikes for a reason, whilstit should be a tactical move and be costly so people would only do it as a last resort or to give them an advantage in war.

Umm, it's already done to defenses on a regular basis... So why should those people be exempt?
I've had a 2.5T and a 3T defense, massed, just cause it was there. Why shouldn't i be allowed to mass their 1-2T strike cause THAT'S there also

Sarevok wrote:

Tropic Thunder wrote:

Sarevok wrote:

Tropic Thunder wrote:Why not create a new attack to allow you to mass strike, but you would have to do it once the defense is zeroed otherwise the strike an defense would be added together? To stop it being totally unfair on the defender ensure that:

The loses when someone is massing the strike are hugely in the defender's role. (Instead of having to have a 30% of their strike you wil have to have a 50%+). Or even having a larger strke then their defense?

Make the new attack require alot more ATs than just 15, maybe 50? so if they are on NOX, some of their strike may be salveged.

The only down side is that people won't be able to figh back if their defense and strike have been zeroed, but by making it alot more costly than it s already it would make it overal alot fairer.

Sorry, have to say this...

SCREW THAT.

Why should attack get special treatment? Defenses never get to be salvaged. Maybe if people stopped one the weapons were gone, or it was very limited for defense once they are maybe. But unless that is done, IMO, attack SHOULD suffer the same losses as defense, if not MORE, as their trained to attack, not defend against an attack

No.
If strike was easily massable you would get people just massing away all the large strikes for a reason, whilstit should be a tactical move and be costly so people would only do it as a last resort or to give them an advantage in war.

Umm, it's already done to defenses on a regular basis... So why should those people be exempt?
I've had a 2.5T and a 3T defense, massed, just cause it was there. Why shouldn't i be allowed to mass their 1-2T strike cause THAT'S there also

Yes you can mass their strie, but why should it be cheap.
If you are going to mass the only way for someone to strike back, why should it be free.

Tropic Thunder wrote:

Sarevok wrote:

Tropic Thunder wrote:No.
If strike was easily massable you would get people just massing away all the large strikes for a reason, whilstit should be a tactical move and be costly so people would only do it as a last resort or to give them an advantage in war.

Umm, it's already done to defenses on a regular basis... So why should those people be exempt?
I've had a 2.5T and a 3T defense, massed, just cause it was there. Why shouldn't i be allowed to mass their 1-2T strike cause THAT'S there also

Yes you can mass their strie, but why should it be cheap.
If you are going to mass the only way for someone to strike back, why should it be free.

Cause massing a defense is cheep(or free?). So why should attack be any different, when they are designed to attack, and not defend?

I'm not saying, make it so you can by-pass their defense and go straight after their attack. I'm saying, when they have little to 0 defense, and you remove that. It should be as easy as defense, if not EASIER.

So was talking to a few friends, and its clear that after being massed several times there are just to many people who will build a strike with 0 to little defense, so they can do all the damage and take none in return.

So we got talking and think that you should have at least a defense of 50% of your strike, in order for you to use your strike at all, this will stop all the 1trill + strikes with 0 defenses, and to combat the sell off weapons after massing, when you do attack/mass/raid someone multiply times, you cannot sell your defense/attack weapons for 12 hours, this it to protect your own realm from revenge enemy attacks.

( in lieu of the 12 hours no selling, it could also be made that, when you buy weapons etc, there resell value is 0, you can sell them all but get 0 naq back, after 12 hours you get 50% back, if you keep them a full 24 hours you get 100% naq back, this will reward those who play the game right, and punish those who dont, lets face it, having a massive strike to mass with 0 defense is not how the game was designed, this may also actually force teamwork from alliances, instead of 1 man mass down, sell off then same person AC etc etc )

To add to all this, the minimum AT's that should be used should be set to 5, after witnessing yet again 2 people using approx 400 x 1AT's to mass someone down, yet the 2 that did it had nothing to mass, so you can use anywhere from 5-15 to mass, those who play the game correct and who arent all about stats this will not affect, the players who arent afraid of a real war in the game will also not be affected.

This simple change would make wars winnable full stop, ADMIN needs to put something in place soon, or the server will be full of people with 1trill+ strikes, and 0 defenses.

---

Im fairly sure the first people to complain that its a bad idea, are the ones who have 0 to little defense, or only ever mass with 1 AT. Such is life i guess.

Good idea.
It's also in this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=151891

GeneralChaos wrote:Im fairly sure the first people to complain that its a bad idea, are the ones who have 0 to little defense, or only ever mass with 1 AT. Such is life i guess.

I, it is true.

There's been several threads about this. Requesting either greater defensive power whereby increased min% needed. Or, have the opposing stat at some %age of the other one (aka, 1T strike need 250b defense, or 3T def needs 500b strike [though I'm not sure what having a strike would achieve, apart from more things to sab])

The other things that's been thrown around, is the idea to be able to hit at a strike. I like the within 12 hours, you sell at 0, then 12-24 you get 50%, and 24+ you get 100%. Though i think it should be more like 0%, 25%, current rate. Otherwise, ascending for those whom are finished, had alot more costs involved (not being able to re-claim weapons costs completely)

The 0-25 then current would work also.

As for the massive strikes, nah you see Sabbing isnt effective enough to hurt, now if admin was to make it that sabbing did 3x as much as it does currently then yes it would hurt, as it stands for most you cannot sab enough weapons away to make it effective.

GeneralChaos wrote: those who play the game correct and who arent all about stats this will not affect, the players who arent afraid of a real war in the game will also not be affected.

what do you mean "play the game correct?"
there is no such thing.
every person has different goals, and is playing with a style to get those goals.
for some it is warring, for some it is ascending and for some it is stat-building.
and some mix and match, and some are none of the above.

having said that. i don't see any good reason for having a percentage limitation. i do, however think attackers should be killable, and the number of deaths to your forces should be calculated based on the opponents force, and not your own.
but what i really think should happen, is this and other threads in this section should get pointed out to the game admin and get his response. be it a "yes", "no", "maybe", "later", or anything else.

hitchkok wrote:

GeneralChaos wrote: those who play the game correct and who arent all about stats this will not affect, the players who arent afraid of a real war in the game will also not be affected.

what do you mean "play the game correct?"
there is no such thing.
every person has different goals, and is playing with a style to get those goals.
for some it is warring, for some it is ascending and for some it is stat-building.
and some mix and match, and some are none of the above.

I believe GC means more along the lines of having all strategies/play styles viable. As it stands, and the only reason i don't follow suit is because i don't like the idea of having nothing, the most viable, is have a massive attack, and 0/little defense and covert. All though, it would be a great experiment, if everyone made like 3b/turn, and had massive strikes to go after everyone else built the same...

hitchkok wrote:having said that. i don't see any good reason for having a percentage limitation. i do, however think attackers should be killable, and the number of deaths to your forces should be calculated based on the opponents force, and not your own.
but what i really think should happen, is this and other threads in this section should get pointed out to the game admin and get his response. be it a "yes", "no", "maybe", "later", or anything else.

IMO, either way is useful. Both allow people whom stat built to get retribution against people that only build things that (as it stands) are un-killable. Seriously, how many massers do you think would be up in arms, if admin decided that defense units are NOT kill-able ever, and the ONLY way to mass someone, is to ONLY remove the weapons. Yet this is exactly how it stands for attack units.