StarGateWars Forums

Sarevok wrote:

CABAL wrote:Lol. imo, AT generation should decrease depending on how many ATs you spend, thus allowing traders to trade, whilst hurting massers.

Reverse origins? Or origins without the 45AT/turn reward for being active?

tbh. Either would work.

CABAL wrote:

MaxSterling wrote:As for AT production based on rank or anything else... I don't agree with this. No matter how you do it, someone will find a way to exploit it. ATs should be equally available to everyone across the server.

Lol. imo, AT generation should decrease depending on how many ATs you spend, thus allowing traders to trade, whilst hurting massers.

And thus killing off the remaining active players in the game...

There has already been a decrease in players online since the AT update, you want to kill it off even further?

MaxSterling wrote:

CABAL wrote:

MaxSterling wrote:As for AT production based on rank or anything else... I don't agree with this. No matter how you do it, someone will find a way to exploit it. ATs should be equally available to everyone across the server.

Lol. imo, AT generation should decrease depending on how many ATs you spend, thus allowing traders to trade, whilst hurting massers.

And thus killing off the remaining active players in the game...

There has already been a decrease in players online since the AT update, you want to kill it off even further?

Increasing the ATs will make SGW a mindless clicking, cash spending contest. Decreasing the ATs will make SGW a half-decent game.

it's quite obvious that the players that login 1-2 times/day prefer the slower playing style. The numbers would seem to indicate more ATs is preferred though. Right before the AT update came into effect, the number of players online was hovering close to 300 players online. Now, the numbers hover closer to 200 players online.

I personally feel that more activity is better for the game than slowing it down. Slowing the game down leads to people logging in less frequently and thus quitting eventually. I can't see how that can be better for the game.

If 1 person being able to mass an entire alliance by himself is the major issue you guys are having, then there are other ways to resolve that than reducing game activity. For example I suggested that the realm alert level affects the weapon decay. If you're on critical realm alert, your weapons would last longer, thus making your defense last longer, thus killing more attackers and wasting more ATs to mass a defense. Realm alert levels already sap our incomes anyways. May as well have that sapped income serve a purpose.

The last thing I want is this game to turn into another MyBrute game where we get only 3 attacks per day.

Part of the problem has to do with the formulas admin uses to calculate losses. A strike that does 300b damage should only effect a % of 300b worth of defenders, not a % of your entire defense.

MaxSterling wrote:it's quite obvious that the players that login 1-2 times/day prefer the slower playing style. The numbers would seem to indicate more ATs is preferred though. Right before the AT update came into effect, the number of players online was hovering close to 300 players online. Now, the numbers hover closer to 200 players online.

Except that, since the overall greater availability of turns, people have been leaving. At the games start, it was like 3-4AT/turn generated, and the market restocked every reset (1k AT was about the best you could do for a MT). Where as a few months ago, when the number of players were less, there was more AT available from the market.

MaxSterling wrote:I personally feel that more activity is better for the game than slowing it down. Slowing the game down leads to people logging in less frequently and thus quitting eventually. I can't see how that can be better for the game.

Yes and no. Is it better to have 10 people playing 24hrs/day. Or 200 people playing 1 hour/day.

MaxSterling wrote:If 1 person being able to mass an entire alliance by himself is the major issue you guys are having, then there are other ways to resolve that than reducing game activity. For example I suggested that the realm alert level affects the weapon decay. If you're on critical realm alert, your weapons would last longer, thus making your defense last longer, thus killing more attackers and wasting more ATs to mass a defense. Realm alert levels already sap our incomes anyways. May as well have that sapped income serve a purpose.

I'll reiterate, i agree with realm alert being used to better sustain weapon strength

MaxSterling wrote:Part of the problem has to do with the formulas admin uses to calculate losses. A strike that does 300b damage should only effect a % of 300b worth of defenders, not a % of your entire defense.

I agree with that. But how would you work it? Would you base it off supers first, or mercs first, or normals first. I would say supers, then mercs then normals, to work out losses. Since super defenders take fewer losses. And then however many weapons are needed to match power, is what is damaged. But then probably distributed over all weapons. So rather then say 1m taking 50% damage, 4m take 12.5% damage.

Sarevok wrote:

MaxSterling wrote:If 1 person being able to mass an entire alliance by himself is the major issue you guys are having, then there are other ways to resolve that than reducing game activity. For example I suggested that the realm alert level affects the weapon decay. If you're on critical realm alert, your weapons would last longer, thus making your defense last longer, thus killing more attackers and wasting more ATs to mass a defense. Realm alert levels already sap our incomes anyways. May as well have that sapped income serve a purpose.

I'll reiterate, i agree with realm alert being used to better sustain weapon strength

Agreed.

Sarevok wrote:

MaxSterling wrote:Part of the problem has to do with the formulas admin uses to calculate losses. A strike that does 300b damage should only effect a % of 300b worth of defenders, not a % of your entire defense.*

I agree with that. But how would you work it? Would you base it off supers first, or mercs first, or normals first. I would say supers, then mercs then normals, to work out losses. Since super defenders take fewer losses. And then however many weapons are needed to match power, is what is damaged. But then probably distributed over all weapons. So rather then say 1m taking 50% damage, 4m take 12.5% damage.

Agree. imo. Supers and Normals should be calculated first, then mercs. imo Atk supers should take the same losses as def normals.

* = I love that idea!

CABAL wrote:imo Atk supers should take the same losses as def normals

I think they take 3.5%, and defenders take 2.5%??

Sarevok wrote:Except that, since the overall greater availability of turns, people have been leaving. At the games start, it was like 3-4AT/turn generated, and the market restocked every reset (1k AT was about the best you could do for a MT). Where as a few months ago, when the number of players were less, there was more AT available from the market.

You lost me...

Sarevok wrote:Yes and no. Is it better to have 10 people playing 24hrs/day. Or 200 people playing 1 hour/day.

The problem is that with fewer ATs on the market, it's the same active people getting the majority of them... thus leaving many with fewer ATs to be active enough to bother playing anymore.

Sarevok wrote:]I agree with that. But how would you work it? Would you base it off supers first, or mercs first, or normals first. I would say supers, then mercs then normals, to work out losses. Since super defenders take fewer losses. And then however many weapons are needed to match power, is what is damaged. But then probably distributed over all weapons. So rather then say 1m taking 50% damage, 4m take 12.5% damage.

There is no issue with weapon damage because when someone attacks you, you still use all of your defense supers and weapons to retaliate. If anything, If you attack me with a 300b strike and I have a 1T defense, you should be suffering 3 times my losses. Unfortunately, admin doesn't see it that way.

MaxSterling wrote:

Sarevok wrote:Except that, since the overall greater availability of turns, people have been leaving. At the games start, it was like 3-4AT/turn generated, and the market restocked every reset (1k AT was about the best you could do for a MT). Where as a few months ago, when the number of players were less, there was more AT available from the market.

You lost me...

Turn generation and available AT have been going up for years. And the total active players has been going down. I just wonder if to many AT is causing people to leave. As opposed to having more AT getting people to stay.

MaxSterling wrote:

Sarevok wrote:Yes and no. Is it better to have 10 people playing 24hrs/day. Or 200 people playing 1 hour/day.

The problem is that with fewer ATs on the market, it's the same active people getting the majority of them... thus leaving many with fewer ATs to be active enough to bother playing anymore.

Well, atm, the total AT on the market doesn't drop, so no one is missing out really.

MaxSterling wrote:There is no issue with weapon damage because when someone attacks you, you still use all of your defense supers and weapons to retaliate. If anything, If you attack me with a 300b strike and I have a 1T defense, you should be suffering 3 times my losses. Unfortunately, admin doesn't see it that way.

I agree with you on that point. If your gonna attack something 3x as strong as yourself, why would you not take 3x the losses they take. If not more, since they have the "home court advantage"

Sarevok wrote:Turn generation and available AT have been going up for years. And the total active players has been going down. I just wonder if to many AT is causing people to leave. As opposed to having more AT getting people to stay.

I highly doubt it's the ATs that are causing people to leave. It's more likely the server war and the fact people build nothing to destroy which frustrated people enough to leave. It's no fun having ATs and not being able to use them...

CABAL wrote:

Sarevok wrote:

MaxSterling wrote:Part of the problem has to do with the formulas admin uses to calculate losses. A strike that does 300b damage should only effect a % of 300b worth of defenders, not a % of your entire defense.*

I agree with that. But how would you work it? Would you base it off supers first, or mercs first, or normals first. I would say supers, then mercs then normals, to work out losses. Since super defenders take fewer losses. And then however many weapons are needed to match power, is what is damaged. But then probably distributed over all weapons. So rather then say 1m taking 50% damage, 4m take 12.5% damage.

Agree. imo. Supers and Normals should be calculated first, then mercs. imo Atk supers should take the same losses as def normals.

* = I love that idea!

That's where I disagree. If I'm commanding an army, I'm sending in my cannon fodder first aka my mercs. They're taking the brunt of the damage and losses. Besides, I thought we're trying to make defenses last longer? Killing supers at a higher ratio than the rest will weaken defenses faster.

MaxSterling wrote:

Sarevok wrote:Turn generation and available AT have been going up for years. And the total active players has been going down. I just wonder if to many AT is causing people to leave. As opposed to having more AT getting people to stay.

I highly doubt it's the ATs that are causing people to leave. It's more likely the server war and the fact people build nothing to destroy which frustrated people enough to leave. It's no fun having ATs and not being able to use them...

Or being able to use them, but not harm someone whom is stat-less or a sniper

if smone things that the problem is 1 being able to mass an alliance then what about Empires hitting 1 alliance?
that single allaince wont eb able to strike back if they ll lose more strike units then usuall.


wit this idea i was looking to improve activity of small/medium accounts trying to grow while farming dead accounts or raiding.

thos able to hit high ranks dont need the boost of 1 at, low stat accounts can grow using that lil boost

MaxSterling wrote:

Sarevok wrote:Turn generation and available AT have been going up for years. And the total active players has been going down. I just wonder if to many AT is causing people to leave. As opposed to having more AT getting people to stay.

I highly doubt it's the ATs that are causing people to leave. It's more likely the server war and the fact people build nothing to destroy which frustrated people enough to leave. It's no fun having ATs and not being able to use them...

It's a combination of both.
ATs are taken for granted. You have people spending >10k/day mindlessly massing, getting tens of billions of ME, whilst not being able to have anything worth killing, because they have massive motherships, and exploit planets.

CABAL wrote:It's a combination of both.
ATs are taken for granted. You have people spending >10k/day mindlessly massing, getting tens of billions of ME, whilst not being able to have anything worth killing, because they have massive motherships, and exploit planets.

Actually the best way to fix that? Just make the minuses work. Then it's about tactics and teamwork, rather then just throwing resources