StarGateWars Forums

deni wrote:If you want to pick on semantics, so be it. But my question still stands:

Show me how someone without a huge MS and attack planets (ergo with no heavy investment in a strike setup) can mass a 9 tril defense loosing only 2 mil troops.

deni is right, massing a defense you always lose a significant amount compared to their defense unless you have a larger ms/attack planets. However, losses are still significantly less for the masser compared to the defender.

BMMJ13 wrote:

deni wrote:If you want to pick on semantics, so be it. But my question still stands:

Show me how someone without a huge MS and attack planets (ergo with no heavy investment in a strike setup) can mass a 9 tril defense loosing only 2 mil troops.

deni is right, massing a defense you always lose a significant amount compared to their defense unless you have a larger ms/attack planets. However, losses are still significantly less for the masser compared to the defender.

If the defender is offline and cannot repair/retrain or counter-attack.

Deni is right... got tagteamed once, while I was online. The attackers suffered some relative heavy losses because I was repairing and they had a lower strike then my def, although they ABed sometimes.
Couldn't have happened if I hadn't been online... then they'd lost far less

deni wrote:A good MS does cost about 1.5 quad naq. That is the equivalent of almost 2 bil uu you could have bought and trained into attack supers to mass away You reach break even when the cost (uu equivalent) of the big mothership and the killed own attack supers become less then the attack supers you would have killed without a big mothership. Ergo, a big MS enables you to mass cheaper, only after you would have killed at least 2 bil own attack supers in massings.

Depends. With approx 800 tril you also come far... although indeed for the top-MSes you need 1.5 quad due to the costs that rise.

Alas, of course you can use the 1-AT tactic to mass to suffer less losses.. however, if the defender is online it will worthless to you when said defender would be on nox + crit... because you'd need ages, while perhaps the defender comes to mass you into the ground.

LOL, this is kinna funny to read. I wonder where the 50 mill super defenders came from LOL. I never said anything about it. But you did make my point very well for me.

deni wrote:I would like the learn the art of massing a 9 tril defense (50 mil supers) with a 400 bil strike (2 mil supers). Please show me how it goes, because I do not know how but judging from your post you do know.

a hint: read the thread title

Well you will have to learn that from another, since I never made that claim LOL.

I guess it just makes no sense to me the way jason wish washes back and forth. first wanting people to actually build their ACCOUNTS, then punishing them for it, then throwing in all these frilly little things that unbalance everything, and then letting everyone keep their MS after jacking the power through the roof with the useless MS enhancement updates. So in fact he doesnt want you to build your own account even tho he wish washes back and forth, over and over. Meh, like I said before, to each there own. Its game mechanics, thats a fact, still dont mean i have to like it

50 mill Defensive SS, LOL, who would be that damn stupid in this game

Found someone stupid

Super Soldiers 3807489(atk) 89000000(def)
Defensive Action 16,864,885,200,000

Sarevok wrote:Found someone stupid

Super Soldiers 3807489(atk) 89000000(def)
Defensive Action 16,864,885,200,000

*Can feel the ME chasers drooling*




Bet you could make some naq with that ID in the BM

Lore wrote:

Sarevok wrote:Found someone stupid

Super Soldiers 3807489(atk) 89000000(def)
Defensive Action 16,864,885,200,000

*Can feel the ME chasers drooling*




Bet you could make some naq with that ID in the BM

There are a lot 10+ tril defenses ingame. Makes me wonder why it does so surprise you. If you are not willing to build a decent defense, then it does not mean that no one is.

Lore wrote:But please explain why or how its fair for 1 person to lose 2 million men massing someone else and they lose 50 mill due to these truely unbalanced updates?

Do you want to pick on semantics?


I'd also like you to state your thesis as the lol'ing does not contribute to the discussion at all.


About the MS upgrades: People complain all the time about the huge MS claiming that the MS techs have just made them more powerful. This is not the case at the moment. At least 4 of the top 5 MS based on raw slots do not have all technologies but have bought up only to tech 5 or tech 7. A weaker MS (based on raw slots again) can currently outpower them. Ergo, in the current situation the MS technologies gives an advantage to the weaker motherships.

deni wrote:
About the MS upgrades: People complain all the time about the huge MS claiming that the MS techs have just made them more powerful. This is not the case at the moment. At least 4 of the top 5 MS based on raw slots do not have all technologies but have bought up only to tech 5 or tech 7. A weaker MS (based on raw slots again) can currently outpower them. Ergo, in the current situation the MS technologies gives an advantage to the weaker motherships.

That is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard. (ok I'm exaggerating there but thats the gist of what I'm trying to say). You sould like a coal lobbyist arguing that clean coal doesn't produce CO2. A 15% bonus on those is still over 50000 slots. More than what 80% of the active accounts on the server have in total.

Fact is a 30% bonus to MS has made a bad situation worse, whether or not the top 5 have taken advantage of it is beside the point. The 30% bonus adds nothing to the game, does comparatively nothing for anyone with a small MS, disadvantages everyone who is ascending, and generally makes hanging onto income and defences a thousand times more difficult. The combination of attack planets permanently merlined (remind me why merlins was introduced again, when Forum specifically said planets were not meant to be held forever?) and uber MS's has brought the game to where it is and why there are so many of these threads & discussions popping up begging for change.

I dunno, i think if there was major change of some sort, be it with relation to MS, planets, defense/offense, wars, etc, it'd breath new life into the game.

As it stands, people complain cause they have time to think about what to complain about, as opposed to having something new and interesting to explore (which is probably why, when people run outa time, they chose chaos or quantum instead of SGWs, since every few months, there's something new to explore)

~Insider Trader~ wrote:

deni wrote:
About the MS upgrades: People complain all the time about the huge MS claiming that the MS techs have just made them more powerful. This is not the case at the moment. At least 4 of the top 5 MS based on raw slots do not have all technologies but have bought up only to tech 5 or tech 7. A weaker MS (based on raw slots again) can currently outpower them. Ergo, in the current situation the MS technologies gives an advantage to the weaker motherships.

That is the biggest load of crap I have ever heard. (ok I'm exaggerating there but thats the gist of what I'm trying to say). You sould like a coal lobbyist arguing that clean coal doesn't produce CO2. A 15% bonus on those is still over 50000 slots. More than what 80% of the active accounts on the server have in total.

Fact is a 30% bonus to MS has made a bad situation worse, whether or not the top 5 have taken advantage of it is beside the point. The 30% bonus adds nothing to the game, does comparatively nothing for anyone with a small MS, disadvantages everyone who is ascending, and generally makes hanging onto income and defences a thousand times more difficult. The combination of attack planets permanently merlined (remind me why merlins was introduced again, when Forum specifically said planets were not meant to be held forever?) and uber MS's has brought the game to where it is and why there are so many of these threads & discussions popping up begging for change.

So what? Nerf the motherships of those who have spent quads of naq to build them up? Is that what you do consider as fair?


When you make statements like this, then you need to make sure that you are not comparing apples to oranges.

Lets say I have a MS with x slots that is stronger then your MS with y raw slots. We are both on MS tech 10 so



Then I state, that me having MS tech 5 is damaging me so much, that your MS is stronger if it is on tech 10



For that to be the case, your MS needs to have about 88% of the slots of my MS x.

That means, that for every 100 slots I have, you need to buy only 88 to make your MS stronger then mine conditional on me having MS 5 and you having MS tech 10.

Now you talk about big MS with 350k strike slots. 88% of it means that while I spent the naq to buy 350k slots, you need to buy only 308k slots. Considering the price progression in that range, 42k slots cost about 150 tril naq.


So you can spend 150 (minus 28 tril ... the cost to get you from MS tech lvl 5 to lvl 10) tril naq LESS and have a MS better then mine ... In this case the MS techs HELPS YOU.


Now, you can come and tell me that your MS does not have 300k volley slots but only 20k and compare it to my MS with over 350k. Then I can only say, that your 50k did cost you a few trils and my 350k have cost me quads. After all you do no expect $1 to be worth as much as $100, do you?

deni, even if you don't currently have techs, you have the option of having them, which will nerf the argument that it favours smaller MS's. It's not the smaller MS's fault that you've chosen not to exercise that option.

So what? Nerf the motherships of those who have spent quads of naq to build them up? Is that what you do consider as fair?

I never suggested nerfing MS's. I suggested removing techs. There's a difference.

When you make statements like this, then you need to make sure that you are not comparing apples to oranges.

Lets say I have a MS with x slots that is stronger then your MS with y raw slots. We are both on MS tech 10 so

1.3 x > 1.3 y


Then I state, that me having MS tech 5 is damaging me so much, that your MS is stronger if it is on tech 10

1.15 x < 1.3 y


For that to be the case, your MS needs to have about 88% of the slots of my MS x.

That means, that for every 100 slots I have, you need to buy only 88 to make your MS stronger then mine conditional on me having MS 5 and you having MS tech 10.

Now you talk about big MS with 350k strike slots. 88% of it means that while I spent the naq to buy 350k slots, you need to buy only 308k slots. Considering the price progression in that range, 42k slots cost about 150 tril naq.

You proved a point that I haven't made yet but still supports my argument. The problem is fixed by removing techs. You will only get full value for the quads you have spent on your MS if someone else can't buy extra slots cheaply through techs when you have chosen not to have techs

So you can spend 150 (minus 28 tril ... the cost to get you from MS tech lvl 5 to lvl 10) tril naq LESS and have a MS better then mine ... In this case the MS techs HELPS YOU.

And yet I still argue for removing techs. Why? Because I think they're crap and I said so in my previous post.

Now, you can come and tell me that your MS does not have 300k volley slots but only 20k and compare it to my MS with over 350k. Then I can only say, that your 50k did cost you a few trils and my 350k have cost me quads. After all you do no expect $1 to be worth as much as $100, do you?

I never implied that, I don't give a stuff how much you or anyone has put into their MS. What I'm arguing is that no one should be able to get potentially 30% extra relatively cheaply. I'm not having a go at you in particular, and I'm not using you as a reason for nerfing techs. I just think the argument for having techs removed is compelling.

Well, bigger MS requires more energy to fly. It would be cool if we had some sort of gasoline required for motherships to fly. Of course this will narrow narrow the gap between Motherships. Bigger motherships should require a lot more "gasoline" than smaller.

Deni you best come to grips with the fact that MS will, depending on how hard a certain group lobbies, get nerfed sooner or later.

It creates the massive unblanace which will become obvious as soon as the half dozen bought/project built MSs on top are no longer tied up in war but out and about farming the server.

Naq invested is not really an argument against it.
People over the years invested truckloads of naq in AC leves, planets, planets def etc. etc. and saw it all nerfed, in certain cases just because of one guy that dared to think too big.

I`m just saying, if you prepare for it now, it`ll be easier when it happens. And it will happen as soon as the 6 leave the garage and go about town "seeking the return of their investment". Is it fair? Heh, "fair" is not a relevant category in this/these game/s.

Brdavs wrote:Deni you best come to grips with the fact that MS will, depending on how hard a certain group lobbies, get nerfed sooner or later.

It creates the massive unblanace which will become obvious as soon as the half dozen bought/project built MSs on top are no longer tied up in war but out and about farming the server.

Naq invested is not really an argument against it.
People over the years invested truckloads of naq in AC leves, planets, planets def etc. etc. and saw it all nerfed, in certain cases just because of one guy that dared to think too big.

I`m just saying, if you prepare for it now, it`ll be easier when it happens. And it will happen as soon as the 6 leave the garage and go about town "seeking the return of their investment". Is it fair? Heh, "fair" is not a relevant category in this/these game/s.

Most of the big motherships farm the server already so I guess the server is used to it

You do not like it? Oh well, you cannot like everything in life (or in that game)

It`s not an issue of me liking it or not. Heck why would I mind, I rub ellbows with on of the biggest and helped to pitch in (minutely) to make it over the time. And when the war ends I`ll be (relativly) safe from all of them.
But the key is looking at the big picture, see...

Its an issue of logic & history having a tendency of repeating itself.

Blahh stepped on enough toes. Whoever thinks these ships won`t aswell in time, is being naive. Or overconfident. Or hypocritical. Or all of the stated heh.



The deciding factor will as allways be... do you provide enough of an income for admin to warrant keeping it or will you get muzzled to apaease/not repell the 99% of the current/future playbase/potential funders.


Bigger, brighter, more loved and more notorious than you got pegged back/capped due to the merciless market logic deni. It was never fair nor accepted well by those it affected, and those affected were the vocal bedrock of the game no less.
Tis all I`m saying.
As allways in SGW, I wouldnt get too attached to stuff. Especially stuff that rocks the boat so.