StarGateWars Forums

MaxSterling wrote:

Legendary Apophis wrote:And targets, if they abuse the def planets thing they would also have more losses.

You either just don't get it, or you're plain unknowledgeable on how to play. Based on your replies, I'm guessing you really haven't figured out how to
play or have been stuck in "turn resource mode" for so long, you have no clue about any other aspect of the game. Let's say I'm a LG+1 and want a 200b defense.
Without planets, I'd need ~2m armed supers. With one 100b def planet and a crap planet, I'd only need ~1m armed supers. How would I have more losses?
If you wanna statbuild a 2T defense, then you deserve to take on a lot of losses. You should never be building a defense that you can't raid back within
minutes anyways...

Oh yes. I never attacked anyone, never done anything for five years excepted banking my naq.

YOU didn't get it. Not me. Targets who have 500bil def bonus from planets, who have a total of 800-1000bil def off blessings, I refered to.

R8 TDL wrote:sorry i read bits and pieces of this and i think i got the jist of it.

planets are a liability and a great asset. consider the naq it takes to built an attack planet up to 200 bill, you have to build defences on it, you have to possibly keep it merlined and if not you loose it and all your effort gone. if you spent all that time to build something on the account and you use it then why is that unfair? there are players sitting with 10 trill + defences and just enjoying their income and high up planets and making a fortune selling naq? whos complaining about them, hell if they get massed and loose half their army size cos they had it trained is it my fault cos i spent the saem time ascending and having good att planets? build only what you are prepared to loose.

also when you spent all that time ascending, resources building your planets and when you are going to mass someone or in a war really a few extra uu or mercs lost rteally is that last thing anyone at that time cares about. there are alot bigger issues in this game then att/def planets.

It's unfair compared to how planets should be used, and how they were indeed used (blahh). He had to build defs on all of his planets, build them all up. Now, what he did on 9-10 planets, you do it on one or two. So quite easier to not lose them, as all ressources spent on other 8 planet stats, and defs, you can spend it on your one or two "main" planets. If you merlin/PPT/platform them, you are 99% sure not to lose them.

I have yet to find bigger issues than att/def planets in this game. (as I said, MS techs, ATs being unlimited, strike to def ratios etc...are less of a problem) Excepted cheaters/hackers, but that is something forbidden anyway...

MaxSterling wrote:Nowadays...
1T naq... farmed within an hour
5m UU... raided in less than 30 minutes

or... $ traded for new resources

Exactly, an hour and a half's gametime (plus the ATs needed) or a credit card. But at the moment, they aren't the actual losses. The losses are much closer to say 100bil naq, 500k supers - you get that back in 5 mins. As the game stands, it is ridiculously easy for someone to mass a lot of accounts with most of their strike coming from planets and motherships. If it takes all of five mins for him to recover from massing someone, then he'll do it all day long.....if it takes longer (say your projected hour and a half) he'll at least think twice and wonder if its really worth the bother....

MaxSterling wrote:The strategy comes in figuring out the best way to develop your account to minimize losses and maximize gains. Continuing this discussion is pointless
because it's a matter on how you perceive playing the game.

There is strategy there.....at a very basic level. But as soon as you've decided to take the rather obvious choice of merlined planets and MS, there is little strategy involved....

MaxSterling wrote:You guys keep addressing only one side of the issue... and that's the offensive side of it.

I'm fully aware of the defence side too.....that is as much the problem as well. Someone with two attack/def duals, each with 250bil on each attribute and permanently merlined, with a 1tril MS, and some lesser strike and def planets.....could be looking at regularly inflicting 1tril damage on def or strike with say 1mil def and strike supers.....

As you just boasted, your def planets gave you a big advantage. Planets are too overpowered and need to be re-connected with raw stats more, especially when rubbish planets can give large bonuses too. The same could be said of motherships.

- Make it so that (in the case of strike planets for example), a planet can only add 25% of the raw strike, and all planets can only add up to 100% of the raw strike.
- A planet can only add its face value (if the above conditions are met): ie: no redistribution of power from bigger plants to scrap ones.
- Get rid of MS techs altogether (and perhaps even half the power of MSs [there is precedent, given how powerful covert used to be]).

If that were implemented, uu would once again have more meaning.....

RepliMagni wrote:

- Make it so that (in the case of strike planets for example), a planet can only add 25% of the raw strike, and all planets can only add up to 100% of the raw strike.
- A planet can only add its face value (if the above conditions are met): ie: no redistribution of power from bigger plants to scrap ones.
- Get rid of MS techs altogether (and perhaps even half the power of MSs [there is precedent, given how powerful covert used to be]).

If that were implemented, uu would once again have more meaning.....

It would be awesome if that was implemented. I fear it wouldn't be though, it's too cool to become true.
Reducing MSs power, not really in favour. As for planets being only 25% of raw, people who invested lots would complain. That's why I suggested, no matter what is amount of planets you got, you cannot add more than 100% of raw. No exception, and of course, fully agree with your #2. Which means there would not be redistribution either.

R8 TDL wrote:sorry i read bits and pieces of this and i think i got the jist of it.

planets are a liability and a great asset. consider the naq it takes to built an attack planet up to 200 bill, you have to build defences on it, you have to possibly keep it merlined and if not you loose it and all your effort gone. if you spent all that time to build something on the account and you use it then why is that unfair? there are players sitting with 10 trill + defences and just enjoying their income and high up planets and making a fortune selling naq? whos complaining about them, hell if they get massed and loose half their army size cos they had it trained is it my fault cos i spent the saem time ascending and having good att planets? build only what you are prepared to loose.

also when you spent all that time ascending, resources building your planets and when you are going to mass someone or in a war really a few extra uu or mercs lost rteally is that last thing anyone at that time cares about. there are alot bigger issues in this game then att/def planets.

The argument here is basically that planets are too powerful in general and a detrimental to current gameplay. With a couple of very powerful (permanently merlined) planets and a bunch of scrap ones, you can gain very high bonuses, which, when massing mid-size defs, virtually negate all uu loses. One person can mass 50 1tril defs, with the highest cost being the ATs rather than uu/naq losses.

As for the rest of what you're saying, we're not saying its your fault for massing other people....not sure where you got that from. What I'm saying is that people can mass using large strike planets and a big MS, and suffer virtually no losses.....

consider this

the naq cost to build such planets and ms is ALOT more than it would cost to build a 10 trill strike plus any losses you incurr no matter how much you mass.

so when you compare the naq invested then you can equate that to your losses you get me.

R8 TDL wrote:consider this

the naq cost to build such planets and ms is ALOT more than it would cost to build a 10 trill strike plus any losses you incurr no matter how much you mass.

so when you compare the naq invested then you can equate that to your losses you get me.

But the merlined planet is never depleted, never needs repairs, never has a chance of being stolen unless through some fault of your own. Thus, so long as you mass and farm enough, you make your money back and the rest is pure profit.

Take your example, instead of building one huge strike, say you built a 1tril raw strike based entirely on supers and weps - everytime you mass a 1tril def you probably lose 1mil attack supers and have a fairly substantial repair bill. Then say you mass 50 such defs.....you thus lose 50mil attack supers, and 10tril naq say.....

Now put those 50mil uu and naq into one big attack planet and a bunch of smaller scrap ones.....you can then attack all those 50 1tril strikes with much smaller losses....but you can do this over and over again. Seeing as you're incurring few losses you mass everyone who has hit you since you started this vendetta.....this one account could very quickly hold entire alliances to ransom on the strength of an asset that could never be touched......

You can get (what is it?) six times your raw strike through planets? Plus what your MS adds to your strike? There should be a re-balance so that your raw stats mean more than planetary stats.....then if the person in the above example wants to mass on a large scale, he at least incurs regularly losses.....

R8 TDL wrote:consider this

the naq cost to build such planets and ms is ALOT more than it would cost to build a 10 trill strike plus any losses you incurr no matter how much you mass.

so when you compare the naq invested then you can equate that to your losses you get me.

What should have thought people who built planets the old ways (build 7-10 planets up, defs as well) to find that people wanted things to change due to blahh managing to defend his planets, and see now people could steal them all? Them who built many planets stats, and many defs, not JUST one or two planets, who could be saved behind PPT/merlins, and ALSO by new update being platforms, which one-two planets users can benefit from, unlike 6-10 planets people.
Along with what Magni said.

pfff i bellieve u guys that u want to be big pigs in this game but i think admin will not unbalance the game by taking out this adavantage
where was game now if attacker would lost more then the def?
a whole server fuelled with big lazy pigs?

just spy ag torta if u don't trust my words
gatewars.com
make war not peace

once i proposed: if u use 1 day merlin then the planet is spent for that day, its cloaked and dont provide any kind of bonus.

so ppl will fight with their planets while online and htey can hide them after while not being anymore protected by them

simple

Lithium wrote:once i proposed: if u use 1 day merlin then the planet is spent for that day, its cloaked and dont provide any kind of bonus.

so ppl will fight with their planets while online and htey can hide them after while not being anymore protected by them

simple

Then what is the point of having planets? Anything you build, would just be torn down, and anything you hide, would benifit you only on PPT

I don't know how well Atk/Def planets will do then

Imo most things people cry fould about are regular features.

Caspian, blahh, merlin spam, ACing through a def, whatever. These are/were all features everyone knew about and used. They only became problematic when induviduals picked up the ball and ran with it, pushing them to the limit.

None of this "SGW-gates" for which people still accuse eachotehr of cheating to this day are bugs. It`s admins lack of foresight when putting as concept in. Only public outcry and imo jeloussy caused things to be changed, not cos they were bugged but cos some people figured out how to maximize the competitive edge they gave and the vocual majority failed to connect the dotts.

Some of these "bugs" got smashed rather fast, some were in a long time untill some war happened, others again are still around.
It has everything to do with the inpact they make on the SGW political landscape, shall we say. If you don`t rock the boat or peeve off the wrong crowd it`s a feature and being a good player. If you step on toes, expect it being classified a bug/"not as intended" and you an abuser so fast your head will spin.

Bebita mate, you're always good for a laugh. "Big pigs" indeed!

Its not a matter of completely removing planets, nor of completely removing Jason's little money earner of merlins, simply a question of balance.

Last week I massed someone with 4mil def supers and around 800bil def total - I only had around 400k att supers trained, and lost only around 100k during the massing. The person involved was relatively new to the game and was quite rightly indignant that this could happen....especially since most of my strike came from hidden attack planets, redistributed amongst some smaller scrap ones - there was little he could do to stop me doing it over and over again.

There has over the last few years been something of a moral outrage against Educating, against random massing, against ME chasing:- part of the reason all of these things take place is because of attack planets.

At the moment, I can get 6 times my raw strike by using attack planets.....and because power gets redistributed, I can have it through a couple of very big attack planets which are untouchable, and a load of lesser planets....

Planets need to be connected to raw stats more - change the 50% of raw stat to 25% for each planet, get rid of that strange ability to redistribute power across planets, and make it so that planets can only double your raw stats.....

Bring uu and naq back into play....because at the moment its all about planets and motherships....

Planets should add a max of 50% of raw to any stat regardless of the number you have. That way multiple planets is only worth it if you have a large stat and the ludicrous bonus of having a bunch of small trashy planets just so hidden merlined planets can add their max is gone.

It's funny how the people that used to whine about Blahh's planets and Caspian's planets are the same that are now against making planets less effective Me wonders how to connect all the dots from players associated with this

Fact A: Blahh spent a lot more naq to get his planets to where they were, alliance feeding or not, a lot more naq was spent on them

Fact B: The planets couldn't be stolen AT A HIGH COST TO PLANET'S OWNER

Fact C: The planets are as effective as they were in Blahh's case now, maybe a bit more

Fact D: The player who now has one or two planets with high stats and the rest of the planets are crappy doesn't need to spent nowhere near enough naq as Blahh needed to spend in order to not get them stolen

Fact E: With a use of 2x PPT + 1 MPDSD on Market it costs you just about nothing to maintain one planet forever with NO POSSIBLE WAY one could steal it, unless you make a mistake of course

Fact F: The second & / third planet with massive stats can be made untouchable with a lot less resources needed than before.

Hm some are right, I really fail to see how things are worse now than they were before

~N