StarGateWars Forums

Wolf359 wrote:

Hitokiri wrote:

Inferno™ wrote:Bad idea if you can steal lifers it can be easily abused. Income should be an untouchable stat as simple as that.

And this is the reason prices and armies are spiraling out of control. Look at the giant war raging atm, the only way one side will lose if if they get bored.

I agree - but you have to look at why miners/lifers were introduced - they were introduced as:

1 - a method to produce more income.

2 - (primarily) a method to stop them being raided (as UU).

Rather than find ways to kill/raid miners/lifers, why not just remove them from teh game completely and rely on UU? Same difefrence ulitmately - except the smaller players will be hurt by the greater effect of reduced income - but the smaller players will be massively hurt anyway if this idea was introduced as it will allow bigger players to kill/raid their miners/lifers.

This is one of those situations where there is no palatable solution - but trying to fix the problem by introducing something that was essentially the cause of the problem to start with is NO solution at all.

Removing them from the game would create a situation where your main resource producers (UU) can be raided. I have said before and it bears repeating, it should never be made so that you can RAID miners. That way, income is kept the same (it just introduces a method by which you can reduce someones income). Thus, you can increase income and they can not be raided like UU, but you've added an element whereby people are now vulnerable.

The biggest problem I see is everyone claiming that any change is going to help only the big guys. The thing is, if you make accounts vulnerable, and I mean truly vulnerable, whether it be through this or another game emchanic, there is no update possible that will not enable a much larger account to sit on a person. It comes with the territory. but the way I see it, if no vulnerability is ever introduced, then what we ultimately have, as Danaka has so succinctly pointed out, is not stargatewars, but more stargatestats. I think that ultimately, it will benifit the little guy and bring a new and challenging dimension to the game.

Oh, and as I've said before, I don't think this should be particularly easy. Maybe make it require a specific type of unit (similar to AC but make it so it's like SS and can't be untrained), or maybe it should take a larger number of AT to do a full attack, or just kill a very small percentage of a persons miners/lifers so that nox will kick in (assuming it's on) long before you've lost your entire army. Heck, maybe introduce a new type of turn, like covert, that regenerate very slowly so that even if you were at full strength, you couldn't whittle down more than 5-10% of a persons army in one shot before you had to wait for your turns to come back. There are any number of ways of control this to prevent it from being overly easy.

i would love a way to have a way to kill miners but it wont happen

i would just go after the biggest army size and completely destroy him just to see what type of response i would get now that i would like to see :p

lol, it would just mean your account would be similarly destroyed. Probably not by the original person, but one of their firends. And before long, we'd all be back to hurling stones at one another and marviling in awe when someone managed to get a million units

Oh, and I agree, UP should be left alone. It's got a good growth pattern based on increasing costs, and provides a way of improving your accounts infrastructure in such a way that no matter what happens it is safe. leave it be.

NO, very very very bad idea

I just thought up a crazy idea.


An eye for an eye deal.

First off, one would 'attack' with there miners/lifers. The target would need to have 0 defenses (massed away or what not) or else the wave of miners you send will be all killed buy those trained army troops.

When the miners engage, attacker loses a certain percentage (something low I guess.. 0.5 to 1 percent?) and 'attacks' the defenders miners/lifers. In return the defender loses a comparable amount as to how much the attacker lost.

Now I know some of you guys are afraid of losing a crap load of miners to some multi 500k army so here's the thing. The defending miners can lose at most the same amount the attacker sent. I'm not saying it should always be equal but I figure the attacker on average will always lose more miners than he can kill since the defenders have home field advantage.

Also to prevent huge armies from killing the 500k army sized folks, or whatnot the max someone can also lose is the same percent the attack would lose on a 'successful' attack. They lose whatever is 'lower' the percent OR same amountish the attacker lost.

So if to people with similar miner army size engage, attacker loses like 10k miners, expect the the defender to lose at most 10k miners on his half.

But if someone with like 40 mill miners attack 1 mill miners attacker would lose around 200k miners, and defender loses about 5k at most.

Also if a for the smaller army attacking larger army.. it would go like above, but both sides will lose around 5k miners.


Is it fair to the attacker? Not really but it's a way to 'remove' the enemy miners at a 'cost'.

NO!
Miners are made for income...
And are made as a safe place for extra uu!

PullinForChrist wrote:NO!
Miners are made for income...
And are made as a safe place for extra uu!

yes, miners are made for income but that doesnt do anything to the arguement that this idea shouldnt be used...

anticovert is safe from attacks and attack troops are safe from attacks but miners trained you lose some to lifers so miners arent exactly as safe as AC or attackers.


"suicide mission" where the more spies you send, the more spies there are to blow up enemy UP buildings or mines??????????

Bad idea, becuase if you get massed completely how are you going to retaliate, with your 0 reserve UU..

Rule number one always have as many untrainable miners as you do spies and defenders..

Rule number two always be ready to mass back

This is why I am against strikers being killed too.. Becuase guys with really large armies would just destroy everyone who grow too "large"..

NO!

Im gona get to the point, stupid idea.

I mean, the rate everything is going nothing will be safe, miners, covert levels, AC units, AC levels, mothership capacities ect.

They cost that many resources for a reason, they are one off payments for something that is PERMANENT!

Hitokiri wrote:

Wolf359 wrote:

Hitokiri wrote:

Inferno™ wrote:Bad idea if you can steal lifers it can be easily abused. Income should be an untouchable stat as simple as that.

And this is the reason prices and armies are spiraling out of control. Look at the giant war raging atm, the only way one side will lose if if they get bored.

I agree - but you have to look at why miners/lifers were introduced - they were introduced as:

1 - a method to produce more income.

2 - (primarily) a method to stop them being raided (as UU).

Rather than find ways to kill/raid miners/lifers, why not just remove them from teh game completely and rely on UU? Same difefrence ulitmately - except the smaller players will be hurt by the greater effect of reduced income - but the smaller players will be massively hurt anyway if this idea was introduced as it will allow bigger players to kill/raid their miners/lifers.

This is one of those situations where there is no palatable solution - but trying to fix the problem by introducing something that was essentially the cause of the problem to start with is NO solution at all.

Removing them from the game would create a situation where your main resource producers (UU) can be raided. I have said before and it bears repeating, it should never be made so that you can RAID miners. That way, income is kept the same (it just introduces a method by which you can reduce someones income). Thus, you can increase income and they can not be raided like UU, but you've added an element whereby people are now vulnerable.

The biggest problem I see is everyone claiming that any change is going to help only the big guys. The thing is, if you make accounts vulnerable, and I mean truly vulnerable, whether it be through this or another game emchanic, there is no update possible that will not enable a much larger account to sit on a person. It comes with the territory. but the way I see it, if no vulnerability is ever introduced, then what we ultimately have, as Danaka has so succinctly pointed out, is not stargatewars, but more stargatestats. I think that ultimately, it will benifit the little guy and bring a new and challenging dimension to the game.

Oh, and as I've said before, I don't think this should be particularly easy. Maybe make it require a specific type of unit (similar to AC but make it so it's like SS and can't be untrained), or maybe it should take a larger number of AT to do a full attack, or just kill a very small percentage of a persons miners/lifers so that nox will kick in (assuming it's on) long before you've lost your entire army. Heck, maybe introduce a new type of turn, like covert, that regenerate very slowly so that even if you were at full strength, you couldn't whittle down more than 5-10% of a persons army in one shot before you had to wait for your turns to come back. There are any number of ways of control this to prevent it from being overly easy.

I think we're violently agreeing!

If it was up to me I'd remove miners/lifers from teh game and make UU killable.

the war could end way sooner if miner could get killed, more motivation to build a defense to be massed. cuz the best possible update would say miners could not be killed if there was at least 1 ARMED defender

or something like that

i have mixed feeling about this

aggg... if you all want to play this game my only suggestion is ascend and actually play ascension! don't ask to screw up main by making it a wide-spread version of ascension for those who did not earn it.

Wolf359 wrote:I think we're violently agreeing!

If it was up to me I'd remove miners/lifers from teh game and make UU killable.

That would not be an ideal solution IMO. Miners are needed to prevent your entire army from being raidable. Or we'd be right back to where raid was first introduced (and removed within hours due to player complaints). We could just remove raid altogether (again) but that would put us back in the situation where exponential growth through UP is the only way to the top, and whoever started their growth first will always remain ahead.

Killable miners will slow down the exponential curve at the top, provided that the top players actually get attacked. In this scenario, there are several factors that determine how big your army can get.

-UP. A steady flow of UU. Gain more than you lose and you will grow.
-Army size. It makes a difference if incoming fire hits a cottage or a skyscraper. More people means more losses.
-Diplomacy. If you attract too much violence, your losses will be bigger.
-UP planets. An extra way to improve your UP. At the risk of getting the planet stolen.
-Raid. A way to bypass UP to still gain extra units. Mind the diplomacy though, raid the wrong people and you may lose more than you gain.
-Market. You can always buy lifers.

People always complain that miners and lifers should be a safe place to store UU (same for anticovert). Maybe there should be a sort of bank for miners, like bomb shelters. They'll be safe but they wont be doing anything.

Hmm, prob should have put that here wolf

Ok, what about something like this? it would mean that it would be extremely painful to kill miners, but still doable to take ppl down a notch once at the top if need be. That bomb shelter ideas a good idea if something like this was to be implemented

Have a certain amount of miners that are killable through attacks, lets call these killable miners, each turn 0.02% (this works out for a person of 100 mil army size to be 20 000 per turn) are moved into a category of killable miners (this is Not a new army type, simply a classification) up to a maximum of 2.5% (for an army of 100 mil this is 2.5 mil), it is these miners only that are able to be killed. (at this rate it would take 125 turns, so 2 and a half days to regenerate from no killable miners to max killable miners.

To kill them a new attack should be added "kill miners" (how original), the way the attack works is that it costs 100 turns, adds 10 onto the defcon counter, and kills up to 25% of the maximum killable miners (eg if max killable miners are 1 mil, (40 mil total army size) you can kill 250k uu per strike), for the attack to work, the defence must be 0, if it is not horrendous casualties ensue as the military and civilian forces combine (yaddy ya). The amount of miners killed depends on the size of the attacking force (not the strength), supers count as 1 dead, normal men .5 dead and mercs 0.25 dead. Say you have 25k of each, that would mean 25k + 12.5k + 6.25k = A potential of killing 43.75k Enemy miners (providing this is not over the maximum amount of miners able to be killed) The miners retaliate and kill 25% of the amount of miners lost (aka in above scenario miners kill 10.75k men roughly). When calculating miners killed, Lifers are killed first (to prevent someone from being stuck with no spare uu).


Also a few people have said lifers were created so they couldnt be killed... I don't think this was the original case, I always (probably just me) saw them as a way to stop people transferring a crapload of uu to a person on ppt, along with the other updates aimed in that direction, and also to stop people selling their entire uu store from their account, thats just me though...

ok, this is just comming plain from my head but seems like a compromise:

1 group of people don't want to see killing/raiding of miners/lifers get introduced
2 group of people want to see it in the game but they know perfectly well that i cannot work under todays circumstances (i.e. unlimited supply of at's)

my suggestion
Killable lifers, and lifers ONLY.
most people have a considerable amount of their miners as lifers (between 20-30% depending on army size, sometimes even as high as 99%, but imo that's their own fault of game style, mine for comparison is way way much under 20% but without ascending would be under 10% actually, so for anyone it is easy to minimize costs)

This means that people would have to rethink their tactics. If they would be in a war and want to avoid loosing 10% of the uu's they might need to turn into spy killers or attackers they would have to pool them into other unit sections (defence, spies= which can be killed) (or attack and spy killers which would often results in big losses if you want to try mass a defence with unnecesarily big amounts of unarmed supers)

and for normal players it would bean that 10% of the uu's they train into miners could get lost in a war

BUT i also think there should be a limit imposed on how many at's you can be attacking people with since as people said making people delete would be easier (but loosing 10% of your uu's isn't by far as much as loosing all and gives you certainly a further way of hurting annoyiong opponents).
The trouble with this is that many raiders rely on burning at's to grow. meaning a limit on using at's would limit their growth in a way no one else would be affected. Therefore the solution would be a new button with the sole purpose of entering the mines of your opponent and wipe all lifers you are able to find (the miners would have fled the mines being alarmed by the sentries and only lifers would remain since they are bound to the mines). Again the percentage destroyed should not be more than about 0.5%-1.5% meaning that nox and critical would be able to prevent you being destroyed completely within a short amount of time since hundreds of attacks would be necesary to decimate your lifer population