covert level attack (sab) differential cap

[Juliette]

Now *that* would be complicated.

(And it would not achieve the set target for this update.)

[BMMJ13]

I think having limited number of sabs compared to limited power makes it much less complicated to the player. Yes the coding might be a bit more complicated, however I don't see it being overly so.

How is it not achieving the target, or am I mistaken that it is supposed to make covert levels not as effective when the levels are far enough apart, thereby limiting both the usefulness of higher/unlimited covert levels as well as hopefully limiting those bullying those with small levels as well.

[Juliette]

I think having limited number of sabs compared to limited power makes it much less complicated to the player. Yes the coding might be a bit more complicated, however I don't see it being overly so.

How is it not achieving the target, or am I mistaken that it is supposed to make covert levels not as effective when the levels are far enough apart, thereby limiting both the usefulness of higher/unlimited covert levels as well as hopefully limiting those bullying those with small levels as well.

Fair points, yes. However. The point of this update is to make 1 sabotage action less effective between various level differences. Not to make a 'massive' number of sabs less effective.

[BMMJ13]

I think having limited number of sabs compared to limited power makes it much less complicated to the player. Yes the coding might be a bit more complicated, however I don't see it being overly so.

How is it not achieving the target, or am I mistaken that it is supposed to make covert levels not as effective when the levels are far enough apart, thereby limiting both the usefulness of higher/unlimited covert levels as well as hopefully limiting those bullying those with small levels as well.

Fair points, yes. However. The point of this update is to make 1 sabotage action less effective between various level differences. Not to make a 'massive' number of sabs less effective.

Same idea then, change the number of weapons sabbed instead of number of actions allowed.

Say 41 wants to sab a 37, they are fine. They want to sab a 36, and they can only kill 4/(41-36) or 4/5 or 80% as many weapons per sab as someone within range. Same could be applied down the line. 41 wants to sab a 31, they can kill 4/(41-31) or 4/10 or 40% as many weapons as someone within range.

That way it's based on damage done being changed rather than the spies needed to be sent, which isn't apparent.

[sarparto]

I think having limited number of sabs compared to limited power makes it much less complicated to the player. Yes the coding might be a bit more complicated, however I don't see it being overly so.

How is it not achieving the target, or am I mistaken that it is supposed to make covert levels not as effective when the levels are far enough apart, thereby limiting both the usefulness of higher/unlimited covert levels as well as hopefully limiting those bullying those with small levels as well.

Fair points, yes. However. The point of this update is to make 1 sabotage action less effective between various level differences. Not to make a 'massive' number of sabs less effective.

Same idea then, change the number of weapons sabbed instead of number of actions allowed.

Say 41 wants to sab a 37, they are fine. They want to sab a 36, and they can only kill 4/(41-36) or 4/5 or 80% as many weapons per sab as someone within range. Same could be applied down the line. 41 wants to sab a 31, they can kill 4/(41-31) or 4/10 or 40% as many weapons as someone within range.

That way it's based on damage done being changed rather than the spies needed to be sent, which isn't apparent.

I like this. If the point of this update is to make 1 sabatoge action less effective between various level differences, this achieves it. The way it's stated now only makes it more expensive, not less effective.

[Juliette]

I think having limited number of sabs compared to limited power makes it much less complicated to the player. Yes the coding might be a bit more complicated, however I don't see it being overly so.

How is it not achieving the target, or am I mistaken that it is supposed to make covert levels not as effective when the levels are far enough apart, thereby limiting both the usefulness of higher/unlimited covert levels as well as hopefully limiting those bullying those with small levels as well.

Fair points, yes. However. The point of this update is to make 1 sabotage action less effective between various level differences. Not to make a 'massive' number of sabs less effective.

Same idea then, change the number of weapons sabbed instead of number of actions allowed.

Say 41 wants to sab a 37, they are fine. They want to sab a 36, and they can only kill 4/(41-36) or 4/5 or 80% as many weapons per sab as someone within range. Same could be applied down the line. 41 wants to sab a 31, they can kill 4/(41-31) or 4/10 or 40% as many weapons as someone within range.

That way it's based on damage done being changed rather than the spies needed to be sent, which isn't apparent.

I like this. If the point of this update is to make 1 sabatoge action less effective between various level differences, this achieves it. The way it's stated now only makes it more expensive, not less effective.

Huh, more expensive = more ineffective..

Calculations -which this comes down to- are not a reason to change the way this is intended..
Or am I mistaken?

[Sarevok]

From post one

This change was put in place to stop 100% reliance on covert levels/actions, making number of agents/spies at least partially relevent.

If this is still the idea, then the suggested reduction in damage was not what AdminJ was after.

So I get the impression, rather than getting another spy level, to send 1/2 the spies, this only works for 4 levels lower, after that, you need to consider the spies your sending, since they will only be up to 4x more powerful, instead of levelDifference*2

[BMMJ13]

I think having limited number of sabs compared to limited power makes it much less complicated to the player. Yes the coding might be a bit more complicated, however I don't see it being overly so.

How is it not achieving the target, or am I mistaken that it is supposed to make covert levels not as effective when the levels are far enough apart, thereby limiting both the usefulness of higher/unlimited covert levels as well as hopefully limiting those bullying those with small levels as well.

Fair points, yes. However. The point of this update is to make 1 sabotage action less effective between various level differences. Not to make a 'massive' number of sabs less effective.

Same idea then, change the number of weapons sabbed instead of number of actions allowed.

Say 41 wants to sab a 37, they are fine. They want to sab a 36, and they can only kill 4/(41-36) or 4/5 or 80% as many weapons per sab as someone within range. Same could be applied down the line. 41 wants to sab a 31, they can kill 4/(41-31) or 4/10 or 40% as many weapons as someone within range.

That way it's based on damage done being changed rather than the spies needed to be sent, which isn't apparent.

I like this. If the point of this update is to make 1 sabatoge action less effective between various level differences, this achieves it. The way it's stated now only makes it more expensive, not less effective.

Huh, more expensive = more ineffective..

Calculations -which this comes down to- are not a reason to change the way this is intended..
Or am I mistaken?

More expensive to do same damage, or same expense to do less damage, same basic idea in that regard.

The calculations however, one makes it quite a bit more difficult for the player, I mean wrote a calc for the game and I'm still not even sure how the new idea will work or how it's supposed to work, while the other is the same as it's always been for the player, you just do less damage per sab, which while there will certainly be differences in the higher level of warfare, is still the same old for most people and the only difference then would be damage done, not how many you need to send or something else. I just think making something needlessly more difficult/confusing than it currently is, even while achieving what you want to achieve, it will end up not being helpful for many and will likely cause frustration.

[Juliette]

So - unless I am reading you completely wrong - your basic complaint is the fact that the formula is complicated? The formula does not get more complicated if you change it from the usual 'covert power' to 'power per spy*covert level (whatever the proper formula is, you know it BM)'.

Just use the full formula and floor it at the level cap compared to the levels.
Or am I wrong?

[BMMJ13]

So - unless I am reading you completely wrong - your basic complaint is the fact that the formula is complicated? The formula does not get more complicated if you change it from the usual 'covert power' to 'power per spy*covert level (whatever the proper formula is, you know it BM)'.

Just use the full formula and floor it at the level cap compared to the levels.
Or am I wrong?

It's because it changes what your covert is depending on what someone else is, making it more complicated/difficult to do correctly. Instead of being able to use multiple different sab calculations, you can only use the one and have to add extra parts to it to make it not fail.

Yes all it does is make it more complicated or difficult to figure out (which will likely result in many failed sabs), but I do not see how that is not a valid reason against it.

[Juliette]

Sabs were never meant to be 100% effective.. this is my point regarding the calculation being more complicated and such. If you can find a 100% solution regarding sabs, that kind of messes up the possibility of sabs going wrong.. which is a vital part of sabotage.

It's because it changes what your covert is depending on what someone else is, making it more complicated/difficult to do correctly. Instead of being able to use multiple different sab calculations, you can only use the one and have to add extra parts to it to make it not fail.

How is it more complicated to do correctly? You just need a proper spy report:
- current (opponent) Covert
- current (attacker) Covert
- current (opponent/attacker) Spies (or be clever and take Cov power and spies => level + planets)
- current (..) planets
- .. (find out!)

Yes all it does is make it more complicated or difficult to figure out (which will likely result in many failed sabs), but I do not see how that is not a valid reason against it.

This confuses me.. if you can explain, that would be great, but no rush.

[BMMJ13]

Sabs were never meant to be 100% effective.. this is my point regarding the calculation being more complicated and such. If you can find a 100% solution regarding sabs, that kind of messes up the possibility of sabs going wrong.. which is a vital part of sabotage.

It's because it changes what your covert is depending on what someone else is, making it more complicated/difficult to do correctly. Instead of being able to use multiple different sab calculations, you can only use the one and have to add extra parts to it to make it not fail.

How is it more complicated to do correctly? You just need a proper spy report:
- current (opponent) Covert
- current (attacker) Covert
- current (opponent/attacker) Spies (or be clever and take Cov power and spies => level + planets)
- current (..) planets
- .. (find out!)

Yes all it does is make it more complicated or difficult to figure out (which will likely result in many failed sabs), but I do not see how that is not a valid reason against it.

This confuses me.. if you can explain, that would be great, but no rush.

Why is it necessary to not allow a 100% always correct way to sab? Adding random factors to fail or succeed is a bad idea, even if in this regard it's set upon stuff you can somewhat control. Based on what you just said as well as what admin has said the update will be, there is no possible way to figure out based on the changes should the person be out of your reach. The fact that you can't even explain it correctly to do the sab, is why I say it's too complicated and should be changed. I'm not against the idea, I just think this solution to it is complicated and confusing.

[Sylus]

Juliette:
Excellent. Glad to see this idea put into an update.. this will definitely make wars between less-advanced players and more advanced players more of an option.

~Xtr3m3_t14rgri4N:
Great move to help the smaller ones. 10/10

Sarevok:
Like this change also. Would help slow the bullying those so far below you.

crypt0n is galactic: in response to ~Xtr3m3_t14rgri4N
+1

~Belsamber~:
Enter the era of failed sabs or over costly sabs and encouraging people to go back to old school massing

Juliette: In response to ~Belsamber~
And *this* is why J is implementing it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So to help the "new/smaller players", we're making sabbing less effective, which will push an emphasis on massing? This is what everyone in this thread is suggesting...nay, supporting.

*chuckles*

Hey new players, hope you now enjoy not just losing weapons, now you're going to be massed more, so weapons, MS, and units. Good. Solid logic. Nailed it.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT: The quote function is defaulting to a filter, and so my post is unnecessarily messy. Specifically the character "]"
Evidence:
[quote="Juliette":**Filtered**][quote="~Belsamber~":**Filtered**] Enter the era of failed sabs or over costly sabs and encouraging people to go back to old school massing [/quote:**Filtered**] And *this* is why J is implementing it. [/quote:**Filtered**]

[EbilCC]

hmm i still think you not being able to sab 3 levels lower would make it fairer for smaller people than all this coding is confusing as 41 can still sab level 30s which still sucks even if its only converted to level 34 you are still going to be overmatched

[WoofyBear]

hmm i still think you not being able to sab 3 levels lower would make it fairer for smaller people than all this coding is confusing as 41 can still sab level 30s which still sucks even if its only converted to level 34 you are still going to be overmatched

yea, does suck that someone bigger than you in one way or another can destroy what you built.. but no matter if they did it with farming or spending... they earned that right. I am not for bullying smaller players but hey, everyone in this game either earned their naq farming or got it from earning money in real life. We have all been massed or sabbed by someone bigger than us at one point.

This entire update is based on the idea of helping out smaller players. Great, I am all for that. But I dont see it working that way.. I only see it devaluing the hard work players did to get those levels. The only solution I see that would keep ppl on the same (ish) playing field would be to

A. make it where you can only hit ppl the same ascension level as you (completely killing farming for everyone)
B. Keep the noobs to New Grounds until they can actually handle main. Or you can give accounts less than say, 6 months old the option to go to new grounds for a min amount of time.. sortof like perg is now but with time restrictions of a few months or a few more ascension lvls you have to gain. Wasent perg designed to that type of thing anyway? A place where the noobs could go...

Every game I have played online there have been people playing longer and are wiser.. There will always be a bully in every bunch picking on noobs... I don't see devaluing the accomplishments and work of older members as a good solution. Nice try and I hope it works but I dont see it having any realistic help for the new players. I only see a bunch of failed sabbs and the big guy just deciding to mass the crap out of them instead... same result.. little guy gets bullied...