StarGateWars Forums

how about the planet give u sama amout as u power OR 50% of they total power, whatever is bigger.

let me explain:

u have
2 BILL RAW strike
1 BILL STRIKE PLANET 1 (cost: 4 bill naq)
3 BILL STRIKE PLANET 2 (cost: 25 bill naq)
5 BILL STRIKE PLANET 3 (cost: 55 bill naq)
10 BILL STRIKE PLANET 4 (cost: 190 bill naq)

SO, u will receive 1 bill power per planet or 50% of the planet power
that will give u one strike of (2(raw)+1(p1)+2(p2)+2,5(p3)+5(p4)) = 12,5 bill strike

that woude make the game more fair, bacuase is damm unfair take away all planet power.

the FREE massing still will be posible, but to mass some1 with 50 bill def will cost: 1,9 TRILL NAQ, and i must say that enouth to pay the repair cost of tons of massing.

I was thinking that anything over your 'natural limit' should be reduced by say 80-90%, rather than the full 100% cut-off. That way it is slightly more fair to all the investors, and not 100% useless cut-off..and that person with 100 bil strike would be reduced to like 10 bil, but considering the naq that would be required to do such a feet, and the planet could still be stollen, I can't see this problem happening again with such a settlement.

Munchy wrote:I was thinking that anything over your 'natural limit' should be reduced by say 80-90%, rather than the full 100% cut-off. That way it is slightly more fair to all the investors, and not 100% useless cut-off..and that person with 100 bil strike would be reduced to like 10 bil, but considering the naq that would be required to do such a feet, and the planet could still be stollen, I can't see this problem happening again with such a settlement.

The problem is that this suggestion - and Psicolix suggestion would massively overpower the planets - just as covert was once massively overpowered.

Currently, a planet can only give you the same effect as your natural capacity in any stat - even this is too much in my opinion. In my mind the best three options are:

1. Put the planets back to how they were originally - so that you have to rely on actually building an army and providing it with weapons.

2. Get rid of planets entirely.

3. Only have income and UP planets - this way people cannot complain about under/overpowered stats.

Controversial perhaps - but planets have been pretty much disliked since they were introduced - first people complained that they were useless, then they were upgraded nad people complained they were too powerful (some were the same people who said they were useless!!). Add to that the unintentional side effect of being able to produce attack/defence and covert of astronomical proportions with little or no respective troops (which was exploited - no matter what anyone says) and you can see why planets have been unpopular since they were introduced.

Wolf359 wrote:

Munchy wrote:I was thinking that anything over your 'natural limit' should be reduced by say 80-90%, rather than the full 100% cut-off. That way it is slightly more fair to all the investors, and not 100% useless cut-off..and that person with 100 bil strike would be reduced to like 10 bil, but considering the naq that would be required to do such a feet, and the planet could still be stollen, I can't see this problem happening again with such a settlement.

The problem is that this suggestion - and Psicolix suggestion would massively overpower the planets - just as covert was once massively overpowered.

Currently, a planet can only give you the same effect as your natural capacity in any stat - even this is too much in my opinion. In my mind the best three options are:

1. Put the planets back to how they were originally - so that you have to rely on actually building an army and providing it with weapons.

2. Get rid of planets entirely.

3. Only have income and UP planets - this way people cannot complain about under/overpowered stats.

Controversial perhaps - but planets have been pretty much disliked since they were introduced - first people complained that they were useless, then they were upgraded nad people complained they were too powerful (some were the same people who said they were useless!!). Add to that the unintentional side effect of being able to produce attack/defence and covert of astronomical proportions with little or no respective troops (which was exploited - no matter what anyone says) and you can see why planets have been unpopular since they were introduced.

I infact love idea 1. How about a poll on it? I don't think planets should impact gameplay on any great level, and that their purpose should mainly be to help smaller players. A planet that gives +50 mil to defense does nothing for a high ranking player. For someone who has just been playing for 4 or 5 days though, it can be a blessing.

Munchy wrote:

Wolf359 wrote:

Munchy wrote:I was thinking that anything over your 'natural limit' should be reduced by say 80-90%, rather than the full 100% cut-off. That way it is slightly more fair to all the investors, and not 100% useless cut-off..and that person with 100 bil strike would be reduced to like 10 bil, but considering the naq that would be required to do such a feet, and the planet could still be stollen, I can't see this problem happening again with such a settlement.

The problem is that this suggestion - and Psicolix suggestion would massively overpower the planets - just as covert was once massively overpowered.

Currently, a planet can only give you the same effect as your natural capacity in any stat - even this is too much in my opinion. In my mind the best three options are:

1. Put the planets back to how they were originally - so that you have to rely on actually building an army and providing it with weapons.

2. Get rid of planets entirely.

3. Only have income and UP planets - this way people cannot complain about under/overpowered stats.

Controversial perhaps - but planets have been pretty much disliked since they were introduced - first people complained that they were useless, then they were upgraded nad people complained they were too powerful (some were the same people who said they were useless!!). Add to that the unintentional side effect of being able to produce attack/defence and covert of astronomical proportions with little or no respective troops (which was exploited - no matter what anyone says) and you can see why planets have been unpopular since they were introduced.

I infact love idea 1. How about a poll on it? I don't think planets should impact gameplay on any great level, and that their purpose should mainly be to help smaller players. A planet that gives +50 mil to defense does nothing for a high ranking player. For someone who has just been playing for 4 or 5 days though, it can be a blessing.

Finally! Someone who sees some sense in this cess-pit of self-righteousness!