Page 4 of 4
Re: Minimal Defense.
Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2013 4:50 pm
by Richard B Riddick
minimal def is an interesting idea but runs into many issues
basing it off of alliance defenses hinders vendettas, that alone makes basing it off of alliances average def a bad idea
and making it 50% of another persons is a very very bad idea, with there being people with armysize over a billion, how do u propose those with smaller armysizes mass that, even if they get to raid cap, they lack the units to build the def, and mass it. and while i know some people will say use teamwork, how bout it being a 1 on 1, or the person has nobody big enough to help or that are willing to destroy months of up damage to their accounts, the smaller account would not be able to do anything just cause of lack of units, and even if they succeed, ok now all their units are att and def supers, they have no spies to protect the weapons, so the def can be sabbed at almost no cost, unless they mass their own strike to get units to train as spies
i like the percentage idea, but i think 50% is nuts cause of those factors
personally i think 15 to 20 % is more reasonable, maybe even 25, but not 50%
Re: Minimal Defense.
Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2013 10:56 pm
by SVaRuN
About being one on one?
You can but a lot harder. And you know what? That is how it is supposed to be.
Because some people are giants in this game and some are not not everyone should be able to destroy everyone.
You want to know how one can still do it?
Start massing him... lose units...
Go back to raiding to the cap
Start massing him again
and so on and on
You will recover a lot faster because of the raiding. He on the other hand is over the plague. So his army size will get smaller and smaller and you will eventually cut him down.
Is that hard. Yes Is it supposed to be? Yes
Cause this is exactly what is wrong with this game now days. Best players can be snipped by some guy who doesnt even play this game for real. Or some multis.
Good players will be able to go after the biggest guys and make them really hurt. Good alliances will take them down as well.
Smaller one probably not.
Re: Minimal Defense.
Posted: Sat Aug 10, 2013 1:42 am
by ~Dä Vinci~
it's a great idea but not 50% imo.. and people in plague dn't keep loosing uu their up is so high if anything some gain uu 1b+ and without being able to snipe ( which has/is ruining the game) i really can't see many playing due to extra costs and effort with how the games been played now. I can't even see admin implementing it anyway he's stubborn to new ideas.
Re: Minimal Defense.
Posted: Sat Aug 10, 2013 2:26 am
by SVaRuN
No I didnt say that they lose UU on their own. They lose more UU than they gain when you mass them that is what I meant
Biggest defenses back in the day. The entire CIA had to cooperate to bring those down. But it hurt the guy building them as well also
Re: Minimal Defense.
Posted: Mon Aug 26, 2013 7:56 am
by ~Tziki~
Clockwork wrote:Guild wrote:good idea, not sure FS or OE would agree though
I don't think enforced 'defence' levels are the way to go, it feel artificial. That said I would suggest something like this:-
1) cannot sell weapons, they are used, nobody else wants them. (just like you cant disarm your Motherships, arming your troops is an investment).
2) in defence of your planet, both your attack and defence troops fight. (Defence troops fight full strength, attack troops fight at half strength). All trained troops can be killed.
3) when attacking others, only your attack troops are sent, just like it is now. (They fight at full strength).
4) when taking a planet, the defenders MS fights to protect the planet if it is at home (say providing up to an additional percentage of the planets defences) both MS take damage from the engagement.
Something like that
well logic and role play was the reasoning behind many functions in the game...
why would you provoke someone so big, if you did not believe you could defend yourself to a reasonable degree?
its not a bad idea tbh, i see the agenda behind it, but none the less for logical reasons its good.
Re: Minimal Defense.
Posted: Tue Aug 27, 2013 5:27 pm
by ~Coyle~
I think the way I had it set out on my first post is still the way to go. Doesn't call for a huge defense but still something worth hitting.
Re: Minimal Defense.
Posted: Fri Jan 10, 2014 4:06 pm
by Caprila
[23:08] <cha0sk1ng> You just want to mass people more KJ, haha
[23:08] <~Support> Anything that makes it easier for 'bigger' to remain big without a counterbalance is a bad idea. <-- I'll repeat.
[23:09] <cha0sk1ng> It's tricky I suppose
[23:09] <KJ> cha0sk1ng: partly yes, but the game will die when nobody has stats
[23:09] <KJ> and less and less people are building
[23:09] <KJ> entire alliances
[23:09] <KJ> even entire empires are considering just being snipers to bother others
[23:09] <KJ> lol
[23:09] <KJ> And yes it is tricky - which means we need to discuss it
[23:09] <~Support> No.
[23:10] <~Support> -> forum, if you insist.
01[23:14] <Caprila> minimal defence discussion comes and goes, problem really i think is no one really has a good solution
[23:15] <~Support> Continue it in that thread, maybe. You will need to make an extremely good point to convince me to favour a single stat - defence - just because people want to mass more.
[23:18] <~Support> Best bet in that regard (short segue back to minimal def) is along the lines of efficiency modifiers. x vs y.
Re: Minimal Defense.
Posted: Sun Jan 19, 2014 4:11 pm
by WoofyBear
Think about it another way... Yes, problem with snipers... Min defs..hmm. No way to enforce a min def on people as anyone can play the way they want.. So find another reason to make them get the min def... no G&R unless you are in a certain rank range AND have a certain min def... Lots of the snipers like to do the double strike.. This would cut back on that a bit but they could still do 5pt G&R for 6 days and get the required G&R.. but would be more likely they would have SOMETHING to loose...
just a thought