StarGateWars Forums

So what... Remove the randomisation and reduce the efficiency? Or make planets more take-able, despite fleets receiving a 160% power boost.

TBH, i don't see why planets shouldn't be un-takeable. MS can't be taken, only reduced in power for a time. Why should there only be MS as the only significant realm power boosting feature which is un-takeable (ascension is too in a matter of speak, de-ascending them)

Sarevok wrote:So what... Remove the randomisation and reduce the efficiency? Or make planets more take-able, despite fleets receiving a 160% power boost.

TBH, i don't see why planets shouldn't be un-takeable. MS can't be taken, only reduced in power for a time. Why should there only be MS as the only significant realm power boosting feature which is un-takeable (ascension is too in a matter of speak, de-ascending them)

Those planets that are untakable cannot be reduced in power even for a short time so you comparing planets with MSs is just..hilarious and inappropriate

~N

See its a doubled edged sword,

You want planets to be massable, but you want to beable to do it without any great risk to yourself, the random factor needs removed full stop, make it either 15 or 20% of the planets RAW defense in fleet strength if they have a platform on that, you lose all your fleets, no random number needed.

But people seem to want to beable to invest 200trill into hangers and mass quads of defenses on planets with it, admin should make it that for every planet you successfully steal you lose 1% hangers.

The problem with this game has been and continues to be, people wanting updates that will only benefit them, anyone who doesnt play the game the same way, gets screwed,

Seems to me that the only ones arguing against this are the ones with large (200k+) amount of fleets.

Makes me wonder if I should even bother.

Top fleets cant take top the top platforms now (3 on 1 planet).

The proposed updates will make it significantly harder and much more expensive to take well defended planets, and its certainly not cheap now.

This update will give cash players (who can afford to build massive platforms) a strategic advantage over the majority of all other players.

Worst of all, the cash they spend wont benefit the game as they wont need to buy merlins.

These updates personally suit me just fine but they are a terrible idea for the game itself.

I voted no.

Robe wrote:I agree with Neimenljivi, Tekki and Juliette.

The randomization factor should be statiscially insignificant.

Otherwise these updates will make planets largely invulnerable.

I agree. However if he also removes the averaging then 4 planets will be less powerful than they are currently, meaning that keeping them is not a bad thing.

~Norbe~

Neimenljivi wrote:Those planets that are untakable cannot be reduced in power even for a short time so you comparing planets with MSs is just..hilarious and inappropriate

~N

And for the 98% of planets that are takeable? And perminantly loose 25% of their maximum power, and will take 10's of trillions to rebuild, compared with a what, 2t repair job for a like 3t ms

Robe wrote:Top fleets cant take top the top platforms now (3 on 1 planet).

The proposed updates will make it significantly harder and much more expensive to take well defended planets, and its certainly not cheap now.

This update will give cash players (who can afford to build massive platforms) a strategic advantage over the majority of all other players.

Worst of all, the cash they spend wont benefit the game as they wont need to buy merlins.

These updates personally suit me just fine but they are a terrible idea for the game itself.

Then make it you can only have 1 platform per planet, that will stop someone building 3 of them to 1 trill and putting them all on 1 planet.

As it stands its pointless for someone to build a massive defense on a planet, as an alliance will just find someone to take it.

Time and time again in this game the defender is at the loss.

removes plats at all and compensate who still have them. admin should find a % for fleets cost and planet def cost to be equal otherwise one side rules.

GeneralChaos wrote:

Robe wrote:Top fleets cant take top the top platforms now (3 on 1 planet).

The proposed updates will make it significantly harder and much more expensive to take well defended planets, and its certainly not cheap now.

This update will give cash players (who can afford to build massive platforms) a strategic advantage over the majority of all other players.

Worst of all, the cash they spend wont benefit the game as they wont need to buy merlins.

These updates personally suit me just fine but they are a terrible idea for the game itself.

Then make it you can only have 1 platform per planet, that will stop someone building 3 of them to 1 trill and putting them all on 1 planet.

As it stands its pointless for someone to build a massive defense on a planet, as an alliance will just find someone to take it.

Time and time again in this game the defender is at the loss.

I think you massively underestimate the cost of massing down the big planets. Anything 2tril+ (including plats) costs me 120bil+ per hit to repair, and it takes a number of hits befoer that figure is reduced. This coupled together with the fact someone can easily wipeout your fleet, or worse still hit you a couple of times and you wipe out your own fleet when you no longer maintain "massable" levels makes it very expensive.

the proposed update will mean you would have to have about 340k hangers to mass down a 2tril def (including plats) even at that level you are already talking about top 1-2%? fleets ingame. This update just smacks of big $$ spenders running to Admin after spending loads defending planets.

Just delete planets and fleet - - and no I don't care how much you've all spend on either\both

Sarevok - it costs you about 10T naq IN REPAIRS ONLY to mass a 2t+ defense, let's also not forget about the ATs used, naq used for buying fleets, etc etc
With new updates we're talking about 20% of planets being untakeable. The other 80% that are takeable are, let's face it, **Filtered** planets with no real attributes

~N

@ renegadze

I wasnt comparing it to a 1 to 1 though, i am fully aware how much it costs to mass a planet down, and i know what you mean, my point was, that once you have the hangers, providing you can do it without being hit, you can mass 10x the cost in defenses that those hangers cost,

So as the defender is always at a loss, make it that regardless of size when you steal a planet you lose 1% hangers, and fleets auto adjust to that, seems fair right.

In failing that the only thing admin can do, to level the playing field is like stated, remove planets and fleets from the game. That way it is even.

@GC:
Tis true. 1 plater building planet defences, vs an alliance working together on one MS to be able to take any planets they want.
Aye, the defender does always seem to get the short straw. Though Jason seems to think "the age of defence is comming"...

@ Lithium:
I agree man. Why should one be cheaper or more expensive than the other. Why should someone that spends lets say 100T on planet defences, be easily overpowered by someone that spent 100T on fleets. However, i would suggest that the costs be to defend 2 or 4 planets. The reason being, a MS can add 100% to attack AND defence. Each planet can only add 50% for a stat. So 2 for attack, and 2 for defence to make it even planet power vs MS power.

@ renegadze:
You do realise that, a platform can be massed, despite the value. If there is a 100k defence, which 300B power. I need 15% to damage that planet. However, a platform only need 10%. SO, as long as i am over the 15% needed for the planet defences (45B), AND over the platforms 10%, i can mass the platform, before massing the planet.
So, if they have, as i said, 100k planet defences for 300B, and lets say 200k defences on platforms for 600B. I only need 60B, not 105b, to damage the platform, mass it, then move on to the planet... (tested in Beta, 4.5T total defence, massed by about 800b fleet power)
Also, i did another test. ONLY time your fleets go poof, is if you don't meet the 10% requirement for platform massing. If you don't meet the 15% for planets, then you simply aren't allowed to engage...

@ Neimenljivi:
The 2T i was referencing, is to repair a MS of about 1T power, completely wiped out. Not taking planets. a 1T MS power, can add 500B attack AND defence. Yet whom would build a planet to 500b power? Maybe 5 planets at 100b each? Which means they need to protect all 5, otherwise, their version of the 1T MS, when the planet is taken, costs about 15-20T naq easily.

@ GC (again):
I don't know planets need to be completely removed. Even making them only being able to add 25% would reduce total power added to about 250%, instead of 500%. Which would mean more units to kill

Sarevok wrote:@GC:


@ renegadze:
You do realise that, a platform can be massed, despite the value. If there is a 100k defence, which 300B power. I need 15% to damage that planet. However, a platform only need 10%. SO, as long as i am over the 15% needed for the planet defences (45B), AND over the platforms 10%, i can mass the platform, before massing the planet.
So, if they have, as i said, 100k planet defences for 300B, and lets say 200k defences on platforms for 600B. I only need 60B, not 105b, to damage the platform, mass it, then move on to the planet... (tested in Beta, 4.5T total defence, massed by about 800b fleet power)
Also, i did another test. ONLY time your fleets go poof, is if you don't meet the 10% requirement for platform massing. If you don't meet the 15% for planets, then you simply aren't allowed to engage...

You do realise this thread is opposed to the pending update? not what we have now. The update proposes changing the % from 12 to 20 before you can do damage

in simple terms

to mass a 2 tril planet def previously you would need 240bil fleet power under the new update you would need 400bil power to do the same damage

the difference is from about 200k (rough guess) fleet you now need 340k

this makes the "Only time your fleets go poof" test incorrect