StarGateWars Forums

Great post TC, very informative.

Tactical Commander wrote:MS battles are not realistic because they are not true MS battles. Because games approach is that MS primary goal is to solely to infuse as much damage as bonus to the ground troops. Not to damage the other MS.

That says it all really, and is the key message in a good post!

Add me on msn TC - basilisk_xaos@hotmail.com and I'll run or provide you with whatever MS numbers you want.

Lore wrote:

Wolf359 wrote:

Lore wrote:

Wolf359 wrote:Yes - that is stupid.

what exactly are you refering to?

If its what I said you have seriously stumped me mate LOL

I was agreeing with you:

Lore wrote:What I still cant understand is why 1 shield is as strong as 1K shields, stupid if you ask me.

But that goes against everything you argued me about in the MS discussion? You said because a ship had more shields that it should be easier to hit and therfore take more damage?

*Is seriously stumped now*

Not quite correct.

I said that if a ship had more shields, more weapons and more hangars, then it should, logically be bigger, therefore easier to hit - I did not state that this should be directly linked to damage, although I did state that if it is easier to hit, then in a battle between it and a smaller ship, you could reasonably expect it to receive more hits than the smaller ship. The overall point is to say that size should not be a totally discounted factor.

The big flaw really is that it is all just about shields, when it shouldn't be - shields are there to protect hull damage, which doesn't exist here. If it did, I doubt very much that this argument would be occurring - or at the very least could be laid to rest more easily.

If you have 2 ships - both have the same amount of weapons - say, for arguments sake, 5. But one ship (A) has 100 shields, while the other (B) has 100,000 shields, then by the argument I had previously - the systems required to support the greater number of shields would increase the size of that ship, making it a bigger, and therefore easier target. This in turn means that the A is more likely to land hits on B, than vice-versa. And lets say, for arguments sake, the ratio of hits is 3:1 (assuming savings can be made against each additional enhancement), in favour of A. Let us also say that for every hit made by either ship, they drain 1 shield (the ships have the same weaponry remember).....

This means that 300 shields would be destroyed on the B, by the time that all of the 100 shields are destroyed on the A. The problem is that that is as far as it goes. If Hull damage then began to occur, it would make far more sense, since the point of having more shields is to be able to make you last longer in a fight.

You don't have shield 'shields' that protect the shields, so having more shields does not therefore reduce your shield damage - and should in fact, by my definition, mean you receive more damage from a ship of similar weaponry to your own.

The counteraction, and again this is perfectly logical, to reduce damage on the bigger ship would be to increase the weaponry on it; and since I said that 100:100,000 shields produces a hit ratio of 3:1, then for arguments sake, let's say that the bigger ship having 5,000 weapons (producing same weapon ratio as shield ratio) would have the same effect - i.e. 5000:5 weapons gives a hit ratio of 3:1 for the larger ship....

The increased number of weapons increases the chances of hitting the smaller ship...

It is still a larger ship (and the increase of weapons will have made it slightly larger still, and so the smaller ship may still have a slim advantage) - but we're now looking at 2 hit ratios of 3:1 in favour of the larger ship, when considering weapons systems, and 3:1 (probably slightly over) in favour of the smaller ship in terms of shields. This means that throughout the battle, both ships are likely to score the same amount of hits, meaning that by the time the 100 shields on the small ship have been destroyed, then 100 shields (or just slightly more) will have been destroyed on the larger ship.

I agree, completely, the way it is currently is not as good as it should be, and probably only follows (although very vaguely and at an unacceptable extreme) the size logic by fluke chance rather than design - but like I said - my point was not to say that this is how MS battles should be dictated, but that it should be a factor considered with everything else that has been suggested.

Well you explanation only works with defined numbers.

As stated many times, its not right that a MS with both fewer att weapons and fewer to 0 shields can inflict far more damage then it can recieve.

Either way, we both agree the entire system is hosed so no matter.

It works with any numbers - but I'm not getting into it again, simply because we do agree the system is pants!

Also, how about give the option to sell the volleys and shileds, or atleast a % of them.

Anyway, given more thought, I realized that while my shield goal works per say....it would have to be....well, even if they were required to use shields, they could use less volley's to keep costs low, and in the end it comes down to how many turns they have and persistence.

Even if at first they are losing more, if they are persistent enough, they can win in the long run if they wait till the defender is offline. Preliminary calcs (assumes I know what I'm doing) show that the X number would likely have to be really high, like requiring to match 50% shields or higher.

While such a large number would work and fix the problem, it doesn't so much as fix MS, but removes them. Main reason anyone has a big MS its so they can mass another MS, at least that is why I build an MS, and this update would remove MS massing for top MS players (except amongst themselves), well remove it for anyone except among any MS that is of comparable strength.

Yeah, constantly have that extra 200,300 bil, or whatever your MS is, free bonus damage is great, its almost like a junk prize that you give to last place, I mean, it something, but I doubt anyone will dump 10's of trillions into their MS just for that.

Anyway, my suggestion simply enhances the current way MS battles work, in that it helps larger MS simply provide a bigger ground bonus. My suggestion while beneficial to the smallest players in that it protects their MS,

the mid players, whose MS may not win, but absorb enough damage to prevent the attacker from winning the battle. I know I had a few where my MS was able to absorb enough damage to do this. Not making it a true MS battles, which I wanted to do.



Anyway
Below is the Math behind the idea of needing a certain amount of volley damage to do a certain amount of shield damage suggestion....or at least its a start.

First
When taking damage regarding shields
-If MS A volley power is at/below 50% of the MS B shields, MS B takes no damage.
--Cost of building a volley power to 50% that of shield power, is about 50% cheaper.
----Calcs
-----100k shields = 300bil power = 60 Trillion naq
-----75k volleys = 150bil power = 28 Trillion naq (cheaper to arm too).

-Amount of damage
--The max is 10% destruction of remaining shield generators.
---10% being if you hit with volleys matching/exceeding MS shield.
----Calcs (Top is MS A, bottom is MS B)

Case 1
-----150k volleys = 300bil power = 100% power match (= 112 Trillion naq to build)
-----100k shields = 300bil power = 10k shields destroyed = 22bil in repairs.

Case 2
-----75k volleys = 150bil power = exact 50% match
-----100k shields = 300bil power = no damage, defender wins tie.

Case 3
-----113k volleys = 225bil power = about 75% (= 64 tril to build)
-----100k shields = 300bil power = 5k shields destroyed = 11bil in repairs

----Calcs (Top is MS B returning fire on MS A, bottom)
-------lets assume = capacity on MS for shields/volleys

Case 1
-----100k volleys = 200bil power = <50% power match
-----150k shields = 450bil power = 0k shields destroyed

Case 2
-----100k volleys = 200bil power = 89% power match
-----75k shields = 224bil power = 8k shields destroyed -18bil repairs

Case 3
----100k volleys = 200bil power = 60% power match
-----113k shields = 338bil power = 2k shields destroyed = 4.5 bil repairs

As you can see in all three scenarios, The MS that has clearly spent more wins. But the amount of extra damage it inflicts in the short run, isn't that much compared to the cost of building it.

In some of those cases, if the weaker MS spent naq and had say, 75k Fleets equiped(about 28 Trillion to build capacity, 1 Tril to arm), for ascended, gives about 87bil bonus power, enough to tip the scales into their favor.

In some of these cases, the weaker MS, while the first battles maybe a bit costly at first, could still be won, depending on naq in bank, player skill, being able to farm the other players repair naq, or as mentioned, their fleets providing enough boost to allow them to become the stronger.

Volley/fleet losses might need some adjustment or might be alright.

If you think 50% might be to big, by all means do a case like mine using 40%, or 20% or whatever you think might be better. To be honest, I only used 50% because it made the first round of math easier.

and yes Tekki, I did add you, but it would appear you and I have very different online schedules.

TC

Bumped..again.

Bump.

yea sure, its not enough we have a bunch of 2tril MSs running around that will wreak havoc on general balance once this war is over (if its ever over), lets make it so they cant be fiesably massed.

Sheesh, thinking like this got SGW to where it is. I want I want I want. Its a problem cos it hurts me me me. I I I want a fix cos this realy realy realy isnt fair to me. Grow some vision peeps. I for one hope admin doesnt buckle under pressure and do something he`ll end up regreting down the line (again).