StarGateWars Forums

theres a lot of good ideas in this thread but not much mention of the titan motherships out there surely this should also come into the equation especially if we wish to create a fairer game for everyone, even if its just that motherships need to be sent out 3 times a week or such and no it doesnt include when youre on ppt

Thriller wrote:I have a suggestion that might satisfy both parties.

what if having a defense were to give a strike varying bonus 5 to 10 percent extra strike depending on the strike/def ratio. higher the ratio bigger bonus.

i think that could tie in to help medium small players cope with bigger acounts. As well as obviously create more incentive to have a defense.

Incentives are different. I would imagine some would use this idea, some won't.

But instead of a bonus, why not make penalties? i.e. the farther away your atk is from your def, the less effective your weapons are, the less effective your troops are, the more they are likely to be killed.

So, a person with, what started as a 1tril strike, might end up with something close to a 400bil strike, and losing ~150% more than what the would normally lose (To make massing any def extremely costly for them)

And as pug said, MSs should be put into the equation as well. Maybe some sort of 'plague' that doesn't actually destroy your slots, but disabling them...

i.e.
Weapons Capacity
200,000 (200,000) - 100,000 Weapons Capacity Disabled

And something along the form of MS techs, would be require to 're-enable' them... Which might not seem like much at first, but can quickly add up...

I agree if your going to relate def with attack it should apply also to the ms aswell.

Your mother ship is basically just a second support account within your main account. Basically you get two accounts for the price on one.

Benisallbiz wrote:There are ways to take out some ones attack already,,,
def doesnt need to be tied to it.

Oh yes, please show me the button to kill off attack supers, and i'll leave this thread be. If you can't, then my point is still valid. Defense supers, massed, Attack supers, twiddle their thumbs doing NOTHING, and CAN'T be killed, except at the account holders digression (aka, massing someone, taking DD every time to kill them)

I also like the disabling of MS capacity. Could make it relevant by saying, you have attackers, whom man the weapons, but you need defenders to man the shields for example, or make food for the ppl lol

@ Topic, I thought this had been suggested many times already? Mybad I guess

@ topic idea: Is good in essence, but all the angles need to be thought through before anything is implemented (assuming J will)

@ the "motherships have it easy" argument: I don't care to go back and check who suggested that, but I can only assume it was someone with a "smallish" MS of under 500bil or so? It would be unlikely for anyone to suggest limiting a bonus after spending over 250tril on it. (Which is what, $500 USD cash worth?) No offense to anyone, but suffice to say; I don't agree with that idea

Speaking of "all the angles", has anyone thought of how this might affect the turn change lagg? Calculating all this for every account in the game would surely double, triple, or even quadruple the 60 seconds or so we already have.. Maybe this should be only implemented for people in an official war? A problem with that though, is that people would need to actually WANT to use the ingame war system, which doesn't really work as it is- So that would need fixing first..

I'll post more stuff later, but good job Noobert

Colton wrote:@ Topic, I thought this had been suggested many times already? Mybad I guess

@ topic idea: Is good in essence, but all the angles need to be thought through before anything is implemented (assuming J will)

@ the "motherships have it easy" argument: I don't care to go back and check who suggested that, but I can only assume it was someone with a "smallish" MS of under 500bil or so? It would be unlikely for anyone to suggest limiting a bonus after spending over 250tril on it. (Which is what, $500 USD cash worth?) No offense to anyone, but suffice to say; I don't agree with that idea

Speaking of "all the angles", has anyone thought of how this might affect the turn change lagg? Calculating all this for every account in the game would surely double, triple, or even quadruple the 60 seconds or so we already have.. Maybe this should be only implemented for people in an official war? A problem with that though, is that people would need to actually WANT to use the ingame war system, which doesn't really work as it is- So that would need fixing first..

I'll post more stuff later, but good job Noobert

Lol Colton, yes, many times. With various modifications/angles to it.

The MS argument is quite valid. I wouldn't want my $500+ being crippled cause of a new update that is brought in. That being said, allowing for full offensive capabilities with little/no defense is hardly fair really.

I doubt it would cause much more then is en-counted. My tweak would require little CPU power at all. Look at trained attackers, look at trained super defenders, is it within range? Yes, nothing, no, -10% to attack units.

But your right, we should consider all the angles to this, and help make it better. Though, we've got at least until the new Alliance Bank is updated lol

Well to have a mothership it needs to have a defence built on it, otherwise your going to lose thousands of volleys.. So really, this update is already implemented with motherships

As for the lagg, you might be right in saying that it wouldn't affect lagg noticeably if it was based off every hit, but if there's a time involvement, wouldn't that be calculated every turn.. Or even on a real-time basis? o_O

I can see the concern with turn change lagging. But this shouldn't stop suggestions to improve the game. It may add some time, this is a fact of any turn based game, whereby, every calculation is done mostly on turn change.

Perhaps it should be done in real-time? That way, people can see what they'll loose, before the turn hits, and try to rectify this? Perhaps Jason could add some sort of script, that runs client side to help with this lag.

Sarevok wrote:Perhaps it should be done in real-time? That way, people can see what they'll loose, before the turn hits, and try to rectify this? Perhaps Jason could add some sort of script, that runs client side to help with this lag.

Clientside scripts will make SGW an easy target for cheaters.

I'd just like to say this is probally the best thread ive read on main in a while now,
I do not post alot but i think i think it is such a good sight to see guys who have been playing this game for such a long time now still committed to new ideas and keeping the game fresh and wanting to attract new players and old players back too

I hope you can work everything out on this idea as it sounds interesting and would add a breath of fresh air to the game if implemented properly

CABAL wrote:

Sarevok wrote:Perhaps it should be done in real-time? That way, people can see what they'll loose, before the turn hits, and try to rectify this? Perhaps Jason could add some sort of script, that runs client side to help with this lag.

Clientside scripts will make SGW an easy target for cheaters.

Um, if it's only to show you when and if the ratio would affect you. Not saying it would be run on the server, and could be used to change stuff, but a JavaScript, which just does client side calculations, and displays like the plague thing

Someone explain the MS involvement idea in this for me? Why should the MS be tied to attack or defense? Your MS can only double your strike, right? So if you have a 1tril Strike, 250bil def to go with it so it doesn't get plagued, then your MS can add up to 500bil strike on to that? So you COULD (probably won't) have a 1.5tril strike with a 250bil defense, and then planets come in adding maybe another 100bil or 200bil, so 1.75tril strike lets say for 250bil defense... I guess I just explained it to myself?

So instead of basing how much extra strike your MS and Planets can add off your strike.. base it off your defense... Only double your defense is what it can add to your strike

People with only a 100bil defense built won't be using that 600bil MS strike much will they?

Just a thought... All else I have seen is complaints about it.

Sarajevo wrote:Someone explain the MS involvement idea in this for me? Why should the MS be tied to attack or defense? Your MS can only double your strike, right? So if you have a 1tril Strike, 250bil def to go with it so it doesn't get plagued, then your MS can add up to 500bil strike on to that? So you COULD (probably won't) have a 1.5tril strike with a 250bil defense, and then planets come in adding maybe another 100bil or 200bil, so 1.75tril strike lets say for 250bil defense... I guess I just explained it to myself?

So instead of basing how much extra strike your MS and Planets can add off your strike.. base it off your defense... Only double your defense is what it can add to your strike

People with only a 100bil defense built won't be using that 600bil MS strike much will they?

Just a thought... All else I have seen is complaints about it.

I like this idea! But imo, attack planets should be nerf'd. Big time.

CABAL wrote:
I like this idea! But imo, attack planets should be nerf'd. Big time.

Forum did try and nerf planets by introducing a "decay" of 1 facility per turn. But so much abuse was hurled at Forum that I think he is scared to reduce the power of planets now.

Everyone seems to want to walk on both sides of the street these days.

I have to agree. The price of attack and defense planets are similar (but not the same), yet, attack can damage 5x defense. In effect, attack planets are 5x MORE powerful then defense ones.

Also, the idea of your defense determining how much additional attack power you can gain from other things is interesting. In fact, even quite good. Think about it, people may say "Na, it's stupid, cause then i can't mass when I've been massed", but that's the beauty of it. You need to re-build your defense to utilize your attack bonuses. In effect, not killing attack, which maybe what people don't like (though it seems a general consensus says that killing attack supers is a good idea). Good thought Sarajevo