StarGateWars Forums

ok, hypothetical situation...

player X has 55 mil army but 32 mil are lifers. player X should have well in excess of 150 mil army size BUT because of wars, ascending and helping to many people has what he has.
8 mil of that UU are trained as spies the rest as supers and a few mil left over as miners.
player X only has these stats because he is in 5 GnR for a few more hours and then is ascending.
player X gets massed 15 mins before he logs in to find his account is virtually wiped clean and all he has left is 44 mil army (of which 32 mil are lifers).

you guys telling me in a situation like this it would be a bad thing for player X to be able to convert some of those lifers back to trainable UU?

and before you say this is just a hypothetical situation and wouldn't happen, it DID happen to me a few days ago!

PS. player X lost a further 5 mil UU when he ascended!!

PSS. don't get me wrong, i'm not out to moan about anything i'm just saying that in certain situations it wouldn't be a bad thing but hey, SGW will go on whether it comes in to the game or not

PSSS. player X hates raiding so please don't even go there

SVaRuN wrote:I suggested and am still sticking to the:

A new Technology:

The Technology on rehabilitating lifers would work as the one with mercs...you would have levels and I would go with as far as 6 levels each giving you 15% lifers recovered so when you buy them all you are able to successfuly rehabilitate 90% of lifers
Each Tech upgrade would cost you 1 trill in naq giving it some actual value unlike the other Techs...and could only be reached later on in the game...meaning only bigger players older palyer would get to buy the tech, which does seem normal seeing how they are the ones who would actually need lifers converted into miners...

- Also lets face it the tech tree is old and hasnt recieved an addition in ages...

Blue

I think this is the best option

there has to be a way to at least adjust the number of lifers...

I generaly never had problems with them.. as i always kept only this account, didnt swithc to many others, also my ascensions at least most of them were done while armysizes were alot smaler.. and in first 4 i even lost my lifers (only later it became a rule that you keep them)...
Obviusly lifers were put in place (they came about the same time after some ppl did some serious market trade stunts - all legit. .and benifited much from them.. thus miners lifers were introduced to deal with it, and also adding raiding and so on..)

But we have reached a point in game.. where there are accounts with 100mil or more lifers...
obviusly something has to be done about that.,.. as having that much of a population in a non moovable position is a bit of an issue.

Killing at curent rates doesnt work, so either change rates.. or some of the new ideas.. I do agree that lifers shouldnt be just fliped away... but say a rehab facility could be "limited" to te ammount it can do.. idk 5mil per week or 10 per week.. with some losses and some naq costs.. thus preventing ppl from turning 100mil lifers into 100mil uu in a blink of an eye.. but rather planing it over several months...

You could have the kill rate be dependent on the relative size (or AC, I have no idea what'd be more balanced) of the participants?

Dynamic stuff.. if your target is 150% of your own size, you have 150% kill rate (so to 5:1, but more like 3.75:1).. if your target is 200% your size you kill at a 2.5:1 rate.. but if your target is 10x smaller than you are, you kill at 50:1 rate. (which is ridiculous and proves the need for a limit on that)
Perhaps make it vary between 50% and 200% kill rates; to prevent abuse on either side.

*laughs beforehand because this idea will be shot down by the bigger guns*

Ready, Aim, FIRE!

nobodyhere wrote:ok, hypothetical situation...

player X has 55 mil army but 32 mil are lifers. player X should have well in excess of 150 mil army size BUT because of wars, ascending and helping to many people has what he has.
8 mil of that UU are trained as spies the rest as supers and a few mil left over as miners.
player X only has these stats because he is in 5 GnR for a few more hours and then is ascending.
player X gets massed 15 mins before he logs in to find his account is virtually wiped clean and all he has left is 44 mil army (of which 32 mil are lifers).

you guys telling me in a situation like this it would be a bad thing for player X to be able to convert some of those lifers back to trainable UU?

I believe that was the point, that 'Player X' should not be able to retrain lifers into UU, that lifers should not just be some safe place to store an army.

what gives you the idea i was trying to hide any of my UU?

at the end of the day, a big player is a BIG player and if you take into consideration UP this would do very little to change that FACT.

well its no skin off my nose, i'm not bothered about this 1 way or the other, i just thought it would be cool to have a new tech tree with allot more to gain and lose.

I think these are all interesting views, but still helps bigger players more. Even if it was availble at higher ascensions which does make sense, it is still more likely affordable to these players so the cost effect isnt much of a draw back. I see some of these players selling naq for $ and it would seem that if so, then chances being they have the acess to the resources desired for upgrades and naq requirements. Eventually you would have it maxed regardless. But still am intrested in hearing more and continuing to discuss.

If I may.

Why were Lifers introduced?

To stop training and untraining tactics.

Are they still needed?

Yes.

Lifers were never meant to be reintroduced into the game. They are "Spiritualy" broken, and dead. Much like Brooks was at Shawshank, they are intatutionalized and will never leave the mines, and live.

All accounts that have not reached LG+1 status need lifers even if they think they don't. Once you have escentially ended your ascention run, they lose there usefulness and become a problem, exspecially if massive high UP ascentions are done.

My suggestion was and still is to allow LG+1 and up to sacrifise their lifer population during ascending. I think they should bring a 5 or 10 or 100 times APP amount normal UU do, but some may feel like it should be less. Either way it allows for a useful removal of Lifers as the present system is not.


I also beleive lifers should not be reintroduced into the game, no reabilitation. If you can rehabilitate them whats the point of having lifers?

I might conceed the reabilitation be a tech thats avalible after LG+1 status, but should have a high naq cost and a return rate of only 50 to 75%. Id say 50.

smooshable wrote:

pc wrote:1:1 would be good ...I like my lifers and would not use 1:1 much
5:1 = self massing and not much of a option as far as war goes

in the last war I was in. 1 player had 9 mil Assassin trained ..but at the cost
of 45 mil lifers...nah not a option ...even 1:1 ..still a lot to lose

Exactly PC - why do an attack that hurts you as much, or even more than the person you are hitting.

I would agree, 1 : 1 ratio still hurts but you at least keep acers at bay and if need be you can hit back

would like to add NO to the rehabilitating lifers just change the ratio if the ratio is changed to a 1:1 then a person can get rid of lifers if a person wants to.

My suggestion was and still is to allow LG+1 and up to sacrifise their lifer population during ascending. I think they should bring a 5 or 10 or 100 times APP amount normal UU do, but some may feel like it should be less. Either way it allows for a useful removal of Lifers as the present system is not.

This is an intresting view and I think it seems reasonable.

I would agree, 1 : 1 ratio still hurts but you at least keep acers at bay and if need be you can hit back

would like to add NO to the rehabilitating lifers just change the ratio if the ratio is changed to a 1:1 then a person can get rid of lifers if a person wants to.

Seems that lifers, being hard workers for life shouldn't fight as well as assassins trained to kill, this doesnt make much sense but 5:1 or 4:1 does seem to make more sense.

Lore wrote:
Lifers were never meant to be reintroduced into the game. They are "Spiritually" broken, and dead. Much like Brooks was at Shawshank, they are institutionalized and will never leave the mines, and live..

and what about Andy and Red, they were not institutionalized??

everyone is different, some can handle it and others can't. hence the losses i and others have proposed

Frankly, nobodyhere, you have shown the perfect selfish reason for wanting retrainable lifers - i.e. because your account was massed and you need them to be retrainable. Well, I'm sorry about that, but you can't expect to have things work for you both ways - i.e. the ability to retrain them to be used as you see fit when other parts of your army are massed. Doesn't that effectively give you (and anyone else) an untouchable store of UU, no matter what retraining losses are introduced? And, like a couple of us have already mentioned, the type of losses being talked about during retraining are somewhat pitiful when you consider some of the UPs some players have.

(institutionalised as Lore used it means that they are unable to fit into life outside what they had become used to - mainly because of the length of time they had been used to something, or because of how things had happened - in that sense, Andy was not institutionalised at all as he played things his way from Day 1 and refused to fall into routine. Nor was Red as institutionalised as Brooks - but had it not been for Andy, he would have been).

Lore is correct - and just like supers, lifers were never (ever) meant to be retrainable and are there as a penalty for training UU into miners.

What you all have to remember is that miners were introduced not just to boost income, but they are also protected from raid - hence the penalty introduced was that 10% of those trained into miners become lifers - so as to disuade people from constantly untraining and training to their benefit.

Now, suggesting that the penalty (and it is a penalty in response to a bonus) should be in some way, undone (even with losses) is ludicrous and smacks, once more, of people simply wanting things made more convenient for them.

Lifers are there for life - if you don't want them, then don't train UU into miners. Nobody forces you to have miners - the choice is ultimately yours - if you want more income, train UU into miners and accept 10% as lifers. If you don't want lifers, then don't train miners. Ultimately it's all down to account management, but some people always want the easiest of options.

Probably not many of you remember when UU could be killed, but once upon a time they could be, and there wasn't half as much whining back then.

Wolf359 wrote:Frankly, nobodyhere, you have shown the perfect selfish reason for wanting retrainable lifers - i.e. because your account was massed and you need them to be retrainable. Well, I'm sorry about that, but you can't expect to have things work for you both ways - i.e. the ability to retrain them to be used as you see fit when other parts of your army are massed. Doesn't that effectively give you (and anyone else) an untouchable store of UU, no matter what retraining losses are introduced? And, like a couple of us have already mentioned, the type of losses being talked about during retraining are somewhat pitiful when you consider some of the UPs some players have.

nobodyhere wrote:
well its no skin off my nose, i'm not bothered about this 1 way or the other, i just thought it would be cool to have a new tech tree with allot more to gain and lose.

erm wolf, i've already stated that it really doesn't bother me 1 way or the other.

as for easy, well i've never done anything the "easy" way in this game.
yes i've been massed, and was massed for the wrong reasons i could have gone out and bought myself a tonne of turns and gone round the server raiding and replaced them, i didn't because i have never agreed with raiding and never will.

wolf, you've stated your reasons and i respect them and as i said, its no skin off my nose

Wolf359 wrote:Lifers are there for life - if you don't want them, then don't train UU into miners. Nobody forces you to have miners - the choice is ultimately yours - if you want more income, train UU into miners and accept 10% as lifers. If you don't want lifers, then don't train miners. Ultimately it's all down to account management, but some people always want the easiest of options.

You must be kidding right? dont train miners lol, this god forsaken game doesnt give u a choice in that matter...something called raiding will teach u or even force your hand to click on trained miners, i personally hate lifers never knew why they were put it but,

Theres a way of getting rid of them, just suicide them and replace them by raiding or buying UUs, dont like the work well thats too bad isnt

A new attack would be a better option, perhaps similar to the way you can kill covert ops but in reverse so you can send x amount of lifers to hunt anti covert agents or something and if they have defences in place you will loose some of these units

as lan said there should be some sort of skill to doing this not just a straight old sacrifice