StarGateWars Forums

Yeah, that's true

And you're both forgetting the most beautiful thing of it all..you can't even mass someone that is on nox + critical anymore because weapons last so long, now how COOL IS THAT? In a war game you cannot destroy someone unless you keep hitting constantly for 24h and that player doesn't come online, now that's what I call super duper uber koool!

Neimenljivi wrote:And you're both forgetting the most beautiful thing of it all..you can't even mass someone that is on nox + critical anymore because weapons last so long, now how COOL IS THAT? In a war game you cannot destroy someone unless you keep hitting constantly for 24h and that player doesn't come online, now that's what I call super duper uber koool!

Hm, I think for the zillionth time on those forums my sarcasm-meter broke....
*tests* Yes, it did. Off to buy the new one of $50 each

Anyways... perhaps it was indeed a tad too much, the doubling and increase realm alert

i didnt see the need for nox and def con to be changed

I believe there's a bug with the house leadership.
Currently it started with 6 days worth and is adding to it for how long an alliance has been in the house, while I believe it should be subtracting. This basically makes it where an alliance can never be kicked as the longer they are in it the longer needs to be waited to kick so it never goes down.

@ Wepwaet:
I think the concept of massing should involve tangible losses. This encourages more of that. People training units, instead of building motherships and planets to triple their offensive or defensive power. Yes, the power gained from your MS can be more easily trained over, however, in doing so, they will take more army losses. And once you past the buying cap, and even more so the raiding cap, this quickly turns bad for you.

Yes, i agree it has diminished the overall effectiveness of motherships, but in terms of massing, it just means you need to train less, to use it's full potential. Allowing you to take fewer losses against the average defence, as opposed to high-end 6T+ now.

@ Neimenljivi:
So, your biggest problem with the update, is the need to train more units, to successfully farm someone? Since your 2T strike only goes to 3T, and their 2T defence goes to 4T, cause they used units solely, and as a result, you need to train more, taking more losses, and more damage?

Massing defences are still cheaper with the MS. Your MS would never take damage (in your scenario), so would never need to be repaired, and would always provide the same power addition no? Just it's percent wise addition is relatively less.

@ stuff of legends"
That can't be right can it? I've had multi-trillion defences massed with like 2x the turns you used. Though I'm not a regular masser, so i could be mistaken.

Instead of fully massing defences with attacks, try half doing it, and sabbing the rest.

And turns were increased.. You get 5x more turns for each market turn you use. As well as being able to get 1500 non-tradeable turns from a single MT(close to what the rate was before the big removal of AT from the market)

@ Neimenljivi(2):
Again, try half massing their defence weapons, and sabbing the rest. That's why sabbing has been almost tripled in power (doing 2x as much weapons destruction, as well as taking 2/3rds of the turns)

Sarevok wrote:@ Wepwaet:
I think the concept of massing should involve tangible losses. This encourages more of that. People training units, instead of building motherships and planets to triple their offensive or defensive power. Yes, the power gained from your MS can be more easily trained over, however, in doing so, they will take more army losses. And once you past the buying cap, and even more so the raiding cap, this quickly turns bad for you.

Yes, i agree it has diminished the overall effectiveness of motherships, but in terms of massing, it just means you need to train less, to use it's full potential. Allowing you to take fewer losses against the average defence, as opposed to high-end 6T+ now.

So your telling me that the top end MS's/planets should only be effective against up to low end defenses? In what world does that make sense... What I haven't brought up yet is that defenses are slowly starting to reach the point where the losses to farm against them outweigh all but the least frequent to log in. The soft caps bottleneck people effectively creating income ceilings. You cap income growth, make it easier to build and maintain larger defenses, and soon enough you'll kill farming in the game because other than the random ppt drop it'll never be worth it to farm the naq people leave out in between log-ins.

Im going to go out on a rather large and sturdy limb here and say you haven't canvased all the new "high-end" defenses out there. The high-end defenses of pre-update are now mid-low range. The new "high-end" defenses are 20t+. Pre-update 6t+ defenses are rapidly becoming the norm.

Anyone out there with a current 6t defense that would mind sharing their rank?

Sarevok wrote:@ stuff of legends"
That can't be right can it? I've had multi-trillion defences massed with like 2x the turns you used. Though I'm not a regular masser, so i could be mistaken.

Instead of fully massing defences with attacks, try half doing it, and sabbing the rest.

And turns were increased.. You get 5x more turns for each market turn you use. As well as being able to get 1500 non-tradeable turns from a single MT(close to what the rate was before the big removal of AT from the market)

That is what needs to be fixed. Massing a little defence with a massive attack. In reality it would take a shorter time then if it were bigger.
I do try to sab a bit but when your studying for an exam at the same time you only tend to mass.

Wepwaet wrote:So your telling me that the top end MS's/planets should only be effective against up to low end defenses? In what world does that make sense... What I haven't brought up yet is that defenses are slowly starting to reach the point where the losses to farm against them outweigh all but the least frequent to log in. The soft caps bottleneck people effectively creating income ceilings. You cap income growth, make it easier to build and maintain larger defenses, and soon enough you'll kill farming in the game because other than the random ppt drop it'll never be worth it to farm the naq people leave out in between log-ins.

Your claiming that MSs/planets are ineffective against high end defences, "top end MS's/planets should only be effective against up to low end defenses? In what world does that make sense...". So a question, if you attack someone with 2x 200b attack planets and you have a 2T attack, do you not get 200b additional attack against both 2T defences, and 6T defences? If so, then they ARE effective, but ratio wise vs the defence power they are less. If that's not the case then yes, they have become ineffective.

stuff of legends wrote:That is what needs to be fixed. Massing a little defence with a massive attack. In reality it would take a shorter time then if it were bigger.

How long does it take with the same attack, against a 1T defence now? Is it like roughly 5x more turns?

Sarevok wrote:

Wepwaet wrote:So your telling me that the top end MS's/planets should only be effective against up to low end defenses? In what world does that make sense... What I haven't brought up yet is that defenses are slowly starting to reach the point where the losses to farm against them outweigh all but the least frequent to log in. The soft caps bottleneck people effectively creating income ceilings. You cap income growth, make it easier to build and maintain larger defenses, and soon enough you'll kill farming in the game because other than the random ppt drop it'll never be worth it to farm the naq people leave out in between log-ins.

Your claiming that MSs/planets are ineffective against high end defences, "top end MS's/planets should only be effective against up to low end defenses? In what world does that make sense...". So a question, if you attack someone with 2x 200b attack planets and you have a 2T attack, do you not get 200b additional attack against both 2T defences, and 6T defences? If so, then they ARE effective, but ratio wise vs the defence power they are less. If that's not the case then yes, they have become ineffective.

Discounting the fact that planets used to average, tell me were 2b power attack planets "effective" pre-update? People could use them fully and they certainly reduced a persons loss. But you couldn't say a planets effective at that level because they become marginalized with respect to having an effect on the overall strike action vs typical opponents. Theres roughly 150 accounts with over 6t in defense right now, 800 with over 1t. This is less than a week after the update with many more to follow. Doubling of atk/def isn't needed with the updates to defenses.

Its just not right to punish people who've sunk upwards of 1.25quad into something because they sunk 1.25quad into it. And now they need to pour 3.75quad more? Just too far and not needed.

havent tried, but i believe it takes ages, and with nox its impossible.

stuff of legends wrote:havent tried, but i believe it takes ages, and with nox its impossible.

If your willing to sab 40% of their weapons away to start with, it would be much easier.

Wepwaet wrote:Discounting the fact that planets used to average, tell me were 2b power attack planets "effective" pre-update? People could use them fully and they certainly reduced a persons loss. But you couldn't say a planets effective at that level because they become marginalized with respect to having an effect on the overall strike action vs typical opponents. Theres roughly 150 accounts with over 6t in defense right now, 800 with over 1t. This is less than a week after the update with many more to follow. Doubling of atk/def isn't needed with the updates to defenses.

Well, lets see. Someone has a massive strike, and a token 50b defence. With those 2 planets, you could pre-update reduce your 15b minimum needed to attack, to 11b instead. Reducing the units needed to be trained by 25%. So yes, they were. Once this was removed, you could easily go in and kill their covert, then sab their attack.
But, now we use what you should have said, being 100b attack planets(since this is 50% what i said, which is what the original attacks were). And 100B attack planets were very effective. Almost the standard attack planets of the era.

Wepwaet wrote:Its just not right to punish people who've sunk upwards of 1.25quad into something because they sunk 1.25quad into it. And now they need to pour 3.75quad more? Just too far and not needed.

Same argument can be used for planets. People spend heaps of Naq on planet defences (yes yes, less then on MS, but that's not my point), and fleets got doubled in power, and then got techs as well.

Sarevok wrote:@ Neimenljivi:
So, your biggest problem with the update, is the need to train more units, to successfully farm someone? Since your 2T strike only goes to 3T, and their 2T defence goes to 4T, cause they used units solely, and as a result, you need to train more, taking more losses, and more damage?

Massing defences are still cheaper with the MS. Your MS would never take damage (in your scenario), so would never need to be repaired, and would always provide the same power addition no? Just it's percent wise addition is relatively less.

@ Neimenljivi(2):
Again, try half massing their defence weapons, and sabbing the rest. That's why sabbing has been almost tripled in power (doing 2x as much weapons destruction, as well as taking 2/3rds of the turns)

I'm talking about a perfect scenario where opponent doesn't have MS home and/or it's already massed down to the minimum.
The percent wise it went from 50% MS 50% ground to 75% ground 25% MS strike AND the need to train more units to successfully mass someone without taking huge losses (bare in mind that losses have been increased anyway)
3m units cost ~1,5T naq. So I shouldn't have made the MS to what it is, because I spent probably around 1,5QT for whole (a bit of fluctuations in both prices but it's approx like this).
So with the new updates I would have to lose 3 BILLION units in massing people that I'd spend the same amount as I spent for MS (1,5QT) AND they'd add more to attack and be a lot more effective than MS was. Tell me one guy who spent 3 BILLION units for massing. I mass a lot (don't ME hunt though) and I've massed some big defenses and I only killed 1,5B units in total (def supers, strike supers, spies, ACs...) and meanwhile I lost only 400mil supers.

About your second point, even if I did half mass def that'd still cost 750 ATs, bigger attack super losses AND spies to sab it down. The only good news is that person can be massed even with nox+higherster on as the max ATs were increased to 1,5k

About planets - a) they aren't as expensive to defend and b) you don't even have to defend them - you could keep 1 dual on merlin forever, with the new updates even 2 and the cost, with the updates, to build an unbeatable defense is what..150T?

~N

Neimenljivi wrote:[spoiler]I'm talking about a perfect scenario where opponent doesn't have MS home and/or it's already massed down to the minimum.
The percent wise it went from 50% MS 50% ground to 75% ground 25% MS strike AND the need to train more units to successfully mass someone without taking huge losses (bare in mind that losses have been increased anyway)
3m units cost ~1,5T naq. So I shouldn't have made the MS to what it is, because I spent probably around 1,5QT for whole (a bit of fluctuations in both prices but it's approx like this).
So with the new updates I would have to lose 3 BILLION units in massing people that I'd spend the same amount as I spent for MS (1,5QT) AND they'd add more to attack and be a lot more effective than MS was. Tell me one guy who spent 3 BILLION units for massing. I mass a lot (don't ME hunt though) and I've massed some big defenses and I only killed 1,5B units in total (def supers, strike supers, spies, ACs...) and meanwhile I lost only 400mil supers.[/spoiler]

Your neglecting that it doesn't only add to your strike, but your defence as well. Also, before the updates, it would have still been 1.5 BILLION units. Which is all you've done now anyway.
So, your biggest problem is what one, that it's now less effective the resources you spent? Or the actually using military is viable, where as before you just relied on planets an a MS.

Neimenljivi wrote:About your second point, even if I did half mass def that'd still cost 750 ATs, bigger attack super losses AND spies to sab it down. The only good news is that person can be massed even with nox+higherster on as the max ATs were increased to 1,5k

Doesn't Nox only kick in when you successfully hit someone that many number of times? So if you sit at 90%, won't you be able to mass them fully without them phasing?

Neimenljivi wrote:About planets - a) they aren't as expensive to defend and b) you don't even have to defend them - you could keep 1 dual on merlin forever, with the new updates even 2 and the cost, with the updates, to build an unbeatable defense is what..150T?

Sure, if you never run into someone that has 300k raw fleets or more, you'd be set.

Sarevok wrote:

Neimenljivi wrote:[spoiler]I'm talking about a perfect scenario where opponent doesn't have MS home and/or it's already massed down to the minimum.
The percent wise it went from 50% MS 50% ground to 75% ground 25% MS strike AND the need to train more units to successfully mass someone without taking huge losses (bare in mind that losses have been increased anyway)
3m units cost ~1,5T naq. So I shouldn't have made the MS to what it is, because I spent probably around 1,5QT for whole (a bit of fluctuations in both prices but it's approx like this).
So with the new updates I would have to lose 3 BILLION units in massing people that I'd spend the same amount as I spent for MS (1,5QT) AND they'd add more to attack and be a lot more effective than MS was. Tell me one guy who spent 3 BILLION units for massing. I mass a lot (don't ME hunt though) and I've massed some big defenses and I only killed 1,5B units in total (def supers, strike supers, spies, ACs...) and meanwhile I lost only 400mil supers.[/spoiler]

Your neglecting that it doesn't only add to your strike, but your defence as well. Also, before the updates, it would have still been 1.5 BILLION units. Which is all you've done now anyway.
So, your biggest problem is what one, that it's now less effective the resources you spent? Or the actually using military is viable, where as before you just relied on planets an a MS.

Neimenljivi wrote:About your second point, even if I did half mass def that'd still cost 750 ATs, bigger attack super losses AND spies to sab it down. The only good news is that person can be massed even with nox+higherster on as the max ATs were increased to 1,5k

Doesn't Nox only kick in when you successfully hit someone that many number of times? So if you sit at 90%, won't you be able to mass them fully without them phasing?

Neimenljivi wrote:About planets - a) they aren't as expensive to defend and b) you don't even have to defend them - you could keep 1 dual on merlin forever, with the new updates even 2 and the cost, with the updates, to build an unbeatable defense is what..150T?

Sure, if you never run into someone that has 300k raw fleets or more, you'd be set.

Yes it adds to defense as well but I'm talking about massing, not being massed as you can always mass someone's MS when he's offline.

My biggest problem is that yes, resources I've spent are now a lot less effective than they would be if I didn't spend them on MS but on units after the updates.

Yes it kicks in only if you successfully hit someone that many times, however even for successful hits losses of attacker due to updates are bigger than defenders, if you intentionally fail with attacks now, the losses are FAR greater than they were.

There are less than or max probably 3 accounts in the game that have more than 300k raw fleets. Put in additional 50T in platforms and with 200T naq spent you're safe from anyone even though they spent 500-700T for hangars.

~N