StarGateWars Forums

In the real world, i can't see anyone willing to attack someone, on their own land, outnumbered 3:1. I think that most wouldn't engage unless they had at least like 75% of the enemies army.
But, since this is a game of instant attacking (if it was delayed, i would go more for needing 100%) i don't think that 100% power should be necessary.

Any better?

Much, thanks. Don't know why the first time sounded greek to me. I disagree though. There are several RL examples. Try the news today http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/0 ... l?hpt=Sbin

Commando raids, going back in history there are examples too though I think theres no reason for this to mirror reality in the first place.


Wearing down a larger enemy force is a tried and true tactic both ingame and in RL. I don't see a reason for the numbers to be so close to each other.

I see what you mean. Though that's more of an example of trained professionals vs simply people with guns. Sort of like normals vs supers in our game.

I dunno... Alot of the discussion about planets etc really hinges on how Jason is going to approach the price balance of planets, and just how high he's willing to put the minimum power needed to mass. If we had this information in detail, we could probably discuss it more thoroughly

Still the way things are everyone is on equal footing because it doesn't matter how many built planets you can maintain, you can still match the effeciency of the larger people even if you can't match their strength. Take that away and you might as well start kicking people to the curb now because they'll never be able to compete with the big people ever.

By efficiency you mean losses to power ratio yeah? Eg, 10 losses/hit for 100b, or 100 losses/hit for 1T

Wepwaet wrote:PS) hey vocal what happened to all the people backing you? Wheres your majority... thats right you were always just a vocal MINORITY (wave that flag now )

You know, having suddenly 20 votes in a thread in less than a day not in general section, without post from author warning about poll bein set, means one obvious thing: your side used msn and contact list to get most votes to appear like there was many people, and have some odds votes from people who got convinced. I even witnessed people who barely ever visit forums going there to vote. So don't act like it's game majority, I'm not an idiot, you know? I used this way in past to get votes as well, so I damn well recognized a msn/alliance pm boosted poll when there's one.

Sarevok wrote:Necessary? Really?

Of course, they have yet to act respectfully

Wepwaet wrote:And yes very necessary since he's the one who pushed this through in his one on one moment with Forum.

It's horrible isn't it? Someone who dared to propose a change!

Wepwaet wrote:Tormenting him is now a reason to play the game/visit the forums.

We know you threaten and harrass the ones who don't have same stance as you, but thanks to remind it! If you act this way, it's obviously not because you think about game in general to take this stance, but for plain selfish reasons.

Well.. you could do the same (campaign on MSN) and see if there are enough people who care.
If there are not, then the majority feels different. If there are, the poll will reflect that.

Good luck.

All I will say on the matter is get over yourselves and admit this is in the interests of the game and pass it through.
Selfishness is our worst attribute.

Otherwise remove planets altogether from SGW. SGW was much better before those damn things

Wepwaet wrote:Still the way things are everyone is on equal footing because it doesn't matter how many built planets you can maintain, you can still match the effeciency of the larger people even if you can't match their strength. Take that away and you might as well start kicking people to the curb now because they'll never be able to compete with the big people ever.

Those big people in majority of the cases have those massive planet bonuses. Let the big guys build and their losses will be more.

Sarevok wrote:By efficiency you mean losses to power ratio yeah? Eg, 10 losses/hit for 100b, or 100 losses/hit for 1T

# of troops to power ratio, losses have modifiers in there that deal with atk to def sizes.

Let say it takes 2,000,000 supers for an unascended account to have a 1t attack. Everyone can make that more effecient by buying techs to lower that to say 1,900,000 supers to build the same 1t strike. Everyone also has the ability to buy merc techs and mercs to limit the number of supers they need also. Lets say that drops the number to 1,000,000 supers and 1,800,000 mercs. Now then people ascend to better their bonuses and increase their efficiency. Now everyone through their time and effort can reach ascention lvl 23 and only need 500,000 supers and 900,000 mercs to build that same 1t defence.

All of this is due to growth in the game and has nothing to do with planets, people naturally have to risk less the more efficient they become through bonuses and techs.

Planets as they stand right now allow everyone to have the same efficienty regardless of how "built" the person's planets are. A person with 10 atk planets getting a total bonus of 200b and a person with 10 atk planets getting a total bonus of 2t have the same efficienty even though they don't have the same total bonuses from planets. So the new guy can have the same efficienty as the mid lvl guy which can be the same as the large guy which can be the same as the money'd guy. They can all work from the same efficienty.

Changing planets will mean a persons curve changes too based on how many even planets they'll be able to support. The most efficient person will be able to support 10 equal planets while everyone else will have to deal with an increasingly less efficient setup. Who is that going to hurt? The small guy, the mid size guy, and even the large guy to some extent. So now the money'd people will have a leg up with AT because they can get them outside the games normal production methods, they'll have the most efficient accounts due to this planet change, and by and large they'll have the biggest MS's. How will we be able to compete with them again?

Wepwaet wrote:

Sarevok wrote:By efficiency you mean losses to power ratio yeah? Eg, 10 losses/hit for 100b, or 100 losses/hit for 1T

# of troops to power ratio, losses have modifiers in there that deal with atk to def sizes.

Let say it takes 2,000,000 supers for an unascended account to have a 1t attack. Everyone can make that more effecient by buying techs to lower that to say 1,900,000 supers to build the same 1t strike. Everyone also has the ability to buy merc techs and mercs to limit the number of supers they need also. Lets say that drops the number to 1,000,000 supers and 1,800,000 mercs. Now then people ascend to better their bonuses and increase their efficiency. Now everyone through their time and effort can reach ascention lvl 23 and only need 500,000 supers and 900,000 mercs to build that same 1t defence.

All of this is due to growth in the game and has nothing to do with planets, people naturally have to risk less the more efficient they become through bonuses and techs.

This isn't the trial of bonuses, not even of planets themselves (at least not by some people), but how planets are mattering due to the current set up. Bringing up the planets issue about unascended people? Simple, make sure that planets are more efficient (maybe, just maybe keep current things as they are for unascended as they don't have mercs/blessings/ascended weapons, while putting planets the way admin fixes them for ascended, because if you speak about fair for small guy etc...current set up isn't at all fairer than what fix will set: ascended poeple will still have much more bonuses than unascended ones, and thus be able to build their planets better etc...) So if I was personally to ask about one needed single change to the fix, I would suggest to make planets more efficient to unascended people than for ascended people. And I will indeed talk with admin about it, but I totally oppose current planets to remain how they are for ascended people, we (ascended poeople) have already *WAY* too much bonuses! Only people who deserve current state of planets to be kept are unascended people due to disadvantage they got, which would give more interest (maybe?) for unascended to remain unascended. However, keeping things as they are for everyone, doesn't do favour *at all* to unascended. My suggestio to the fix, however, does. A totally unselfish proposal. As I'm not ascended, and thus couldn't benefit from it, but, it would solve planets overpower, but also the unascended underpower.

Planets as they stand right now allow everyone to have the same efficienty regardless of how "built" the person's planets are. A person with 10 atk planets getting a total bonus of 200b and a person with 10 atk planets getting a total bonus of 2t have the same efficienty even though they don't have the same total bonuses from planets. So the new guy can have the same efficienty as the mid lvl guy which can be the same as the large guy which can be the same as the money'd guy. They can all work from the same efficienty.

Thing is, it's not meant to be so. People who invest on many planets and/or build troops shouldn't have such big disadvantage over the opportunists who spends less by building only few planets kept protected all time and train almost NOTHING. Unascended people unfairness? I said how it could be solved. I don't see why only one building way should have the upper hand and every other way "lose". That's ridiculous.

Changing planets will mean a persons curve changes too based on how many even planets they'll be able to support. The most efficient person will be able to support 10 equal planets while everyone else will have to deal with an increasingly less efficient setup. Who is that going to hurt? The small guy, the mid size guy, and even the large guy to some extent. So now the money'd people will have a leg up with AT because they can get them outside the games normal production methods, they'll have the most efficient accounts due to this planet change, and by and large they'll have the biggest MS's. How will we be able to compete with them again?

Why should people have the opportunity to keep such a bonus without any risk to lose it? With the so called bad evening of planets, people have to build more planets: risk more of them. Or, they have to do something that is meant to be in this game, build up weapons, and train troops. Planets are meant to be taken, not kept forever like MS capabilities are meant to nowadays. If few planets are strong and rest is crap, with current setup, the bonus will remain forever. And please, don't tell me about possibility to steal the crap planet(s), there's just a need of spending 15ATx amount of crappy planets lost to recover totally the bonus at a cost of 15AT only, all of this with almost nothing built as troops to quadruple(?) the damages from raw strike, blessing/MS excluded. So yes, a fix is needed.

IF this was a game which was officiliary revolving around planets, it should remain so, but this game isn't about planets only, they are meant to be taken and not stay permanent superpower on accounts.


Only people who deserve to have such interesting setup of planets as it's now are unascended as they have too few bonuses compared to ascended ones. Wanting that for ascended people is pure selfishness, however my suggestion for unascended is in interest of the game: they have bigger losses anyway, so they should have advantage compared to ascended ones, so planets fix for ascended ones being majority, but not for others, so newbies who join might see point in staying unascended due to planets.
No matter what army size...prophets to unknown have blessings, and ascended weapons, mercs techs and main growth of % per ascension is up to LG+1, then bonus slows down even if total ascension is unteresting. On other hand like I said unascended people lose big time. This thing would be good opportunity to decrease disadvantage. Unascended people can spend less: so the set up would be good for them. Ascended people can spend train more due to better bonuses, so they are perfectly fit for admin fix.

Now that solves the only real issue I found in the fix: unascended people.

Leg Apophis wrote:

Wepwaet wrote:

Sarevok wrote:By efficiency you mean losses to power ratio yeah? Eg, 10 losses/hit for 100b, or 100 losses/hit for 1T

# of troops to power ratio, losses have modifiers in there that deal with atk to def sizes.

Let say it takes 2,000,000 supers for an unascended account to have a 1t attack. Everyone can make that more effecient by buying techs to lower that to say 1,900,000 supers to build the same 1t strike. Everyone also has the ability to buy merc techs and mercs to limit the number of supers they need also. Lets say that drops the number to 1,000,000 supers and 1,800,000 mercs. Now then people ascend to better their bonuses and increase their efficiency. Now everyone through their time and effort can reach ascention lvl 23 and only need 500,000 supers and 900,000 mercs to build that same 1t defence.

All of this is due to growth in the game and has nothing to do with planets, people naturally have to risk less the more efficient they become through bonuses and techs.

This isn't the trial of bonuses, not even of planets themselves (at least not by some people), but how planets are mattering due to the current set up. Bringing up the planets issue about unascended people? Simple, make sure that planets are more efficient (maybe, just maybe keep current things as they are for unascended as they don't have mercs/blessings/ascended weapons, while putting planets the way admin fixes them for ascended, because if you speak about fair for small guy etc...current set up isn't at all fairer than what fix will set: ascended poeple will still have much more bonuses than unascended ones, and thus be able to build their planets better etc...) So if I was personally to ask about one needed single change to the fix, I would suggest to make planets more efficient to unascended people than for ascended people. And I will indeed talk with admin about it, but I totally oppose current planets to remain how they are for ascended people, we (ascended poeople) have already *WAY* too much bonuses! Only people who deserve current state of planets to be kept are unascended people due to disadvantage they got, which would give more interest (maybe?) for unascended to remain unascended. However, keeping things as they are for everyone, doesn't do favour *at all* to unascended. My suggestio to the fix, however, does. A totally unselfish proposal. As I'm not ascended, and thus couldn't benefit from it, but, it would solve planets overpower, but also the unascended underpower.

Planets as they stand right now allow everyone to have the same efficienty regardless of how "built" the person's planets are. A person with 10 atk planets getting a total bonus of 200b and a person with 10 atk planets getting a total bonus of 2t have the same efficienty even though they don't have the same total bonuses from planets. So the new guy can have the same efficienty as the mid lvl guy which can be the same as the large guy which can be the same as the money'd guy. They can all work from the same efficienty.

Thing is, it's not meant to be so. People who invest on many planets and/or build troops shouldn't have such big disadvantage over the opportunists who spends less by building only few planets kept protected all time and train almost NOTHING. Unascended people unfairness? I said how it could be solved. I don't see why only one building way should have the upper hand and every other way "lose". That's ridiculous.

Changing planets will mean a persons curve changes too based on how many even planets they'll be able to support. The most efficient person will be able to support 10 equal planets while everyone else will have to deal with an increasingly less efficient setup. Who is that going to hurt? The small guy, the mid size guy, and even the large guy to some extent. So now the money'd people will have a leg up with AT because they can get them outside the games normal production methods, they'll have the most efficient accounts due to this planet change, and by and large they'll have the biggest MS's. How will we be able to compete with them again?

Why should people have the opportunity to keep such a bonus without any risk to lose it? With the so called bad evening of planets, people have to build more planets: risk more of them. Or, they have to do something that is meant to be in this game, build up weapons, and train troops. Planets are meant to be taken, not kept forever like MS capabilities are meant to nowadays. If few planets are strong and rest is crap, with current setup, the bonus will remain forever. And please, don't tell me about possibility to steal the crap planet(s), there's just a need of spending 15ATx amount of crappy planets lost to recover totally the bonus at a cost of 15AT only, all of this with almost nothing built as troops to quadruple(?) the damages from raw strike, blessing/MS excluded. So yes, a fix is needed.

IF this was a game which was officiliary revolving around planets, it should remain so, but this game isn't about planets only, they are meant to be taken and not stay permanent superpower on accounts.


Only people who deserve to have such interesting setup of planets as it's now are unascended as they have too few bonuses compared to ascended ones. Wanting that for ascended people is pure selfishness, however my suggestion for unascended is in interest of the game: they have bigger losses anyway, so they should have advantage compared to ascended ones, so planets fix for ascended ones being majority, but not for others, so newbies who join might see point in staying unascended due to planets.
No matter what army size...prophets to unknown have blessings, and ascended weapons, mercs techs and main growth of % per ascension is up to LG+1, then bonus slows down even if total ascension is unteresting. On other hand like I said unascended people lose big time. This thing would be good opportunity to decrease disadvantage. Unascended people can spend less: so the set up would be good for them. Ascended people can spend train more due to better bonuses, so they are perfectly fit for admin fix.

Now that solves the only real issue I found in the fix: unascended people.

Rofl, a totally unselfish proposal... must of been hard trying to say that with a straight face. You don't like how planets in main work now, you refuse to build planets yourself and because you aren't "helped" by the change your being unselfish? The fact that you are pushing for something that cuts the legs out of everyone who stands above you is proof that your proposal is selfcentered.

Unascended people should work and put in the time at the game the same as the rest of us. Only ascended bonuses stop them from having the same efficiences that top end people have now. If this goes through... well they'll be SOL along with the rest of us.


There were two ways to solve this in the beginning, change the ingame mechanics to reflect the description or change the description to reflect the ingame mechanics. Why oh why are we going to get stuck with the worse of the two options.

Wepwaet wrote:Rofl, a totally unselfish proposal... must of been hard trying to say that with a straight face. You don't like how planets in main work now, you refuse to build planets yourself and because you aren't "helped" by the change your being unselfish? The fact that you are pushing for something that cuts the legs out of everyone who stands above you is proof that your proposal is selfcentered.

Unascended people should work and put in the time at the game the same as the rest of us. Only ascended bonuses stop them from having the same efficiences that top end people have now. If this goes through... well they'll be SOL along with the rest of us.


There were two ways to solve this in the beginning, change the ingame mechanics to reflect the description or change the description to reflect the ingame mechanics. Why oh why are we going to get stuck with the worse of the two options.

I didn't have any problem to say that.
Your argument is flawed about my pretended selfishness. That could work if I couldn't build those and wanted things to go my way as I would feel things are unfair for my little person due to what I can do (ie: new people who whine as they want to catch up three years old players in few weeks [the noobs]). I could build those planets, but for reasons I stated many times, I don't. Otherwise, wouldn't I be a big hypocrit to practice what I denounce?
I stand by my opinions, I don't have a double standard approach like people often have on things "do as I speak, but not as I do myself, as I do what I say to not do".

I'm sure admin will find a proper ground for unascended people. I convinced him by not yelling at him like people often do with him, so I will just use arguments to make the fix interesting for the game as a whole. Which won't mean that the only ones currently suffering, and who would still suffer if fix is same for all. When I read posts of no side about how screwed the game will be, if I didn't know what fix is, I would think "Does admin delete planets? Does he put a max to planets themselves (natural planets stats) no matter troops/weapons trained? Do they decrease natural planets power?" None of those real problematic things are in order. So...that's just making mountains out of molehills.

And I consider that giving advantage on planets to unascended over to ascended people to compensate the logical advantage of ascended bonuses over non ascended...is the proper solution. Meaning, fix for all of us ascended, something different for unascended.

Leg Apophis wrote:
I'm sure admin will find a proper ground for unascended people. I convinced him by not yelling at him like people often do with him, so I will just use arguments to make the fix interesting for the game as a whole. Which won't mean that the only ones currently suffering, and who would still suffer if fix is same for all. When I read posts of no side about how screwed the game will be, if I didn't know what fix is, I would think "Does admin delete planets? Does he put a max to planets themselves (natural planets stats) no matter troops/weapons trained? Do they decrease natural planets power?" None of those real problematic things are in order. So...that's just making mountains out of molehills.

And I consider that giving advantage on planets to unascended over to ascended people to compensate the logical advantage of ascended bonuses over non ascended...is the proper solution. Meaning, fix for all of us ascended, something different for unascended.

i'm sorry but i don't see what the big deal is about being unascended, its not like its hard to do.
if anythings made it harder for unasended / new players is the lack of ATs now.

ÃÐØÑΧ wrote:[quote="Leg Apophis]I didn't have any problem to say that.
Your argument is flawed about my pretended selfishness. That could work if I couldn't build those and wanted things to go my way as I would feel things are unfair for my little person due to what I can do (ie: new people who whine as they want to catch up three years old players in few weeks [the noobs]). I could build those planets, but for reasons I stated many times, I don't. Otherwise, wouldn't I be a big hypocrit to practice what I denounce?
I stand by my opinions, I don't have a double standard approach like people often have on things "do as I speak, but not as I do myself, as I do what I say to not do".

I'm sure admin will find a proper ground for unascended people. I convinced him by not yelling at him like people often do with him, so I will just use arguments to make the fix interesting for the game as a whole. Which won't mean that the only ones currently suffering, and who would still suffer if fix is same for all. When I read posts of no side about how screwed the game will be, if I didn't know what fix is, I would think "Does admin delete planets? Does he put a max to planets themselves (natural planets stats) no matter troops/weapons trained? Do they decrease natural planets power?" None of those real problematic things are in order. So...that's just making mountains out of molehills.

And I consider that giving advantage on planets to unascended over to ascended people to compensate the logical advantage of ascended bonuses over non ascended...is the proper solution. Meaning, fix for all of us ascended, something different for unascended.[/quote]


i'm sorry but i don't see what the big deal is about being unascended, its not like its hard to do.
if anythings made it harder for unasended / new players is the lack of ATs now.[/quote]

The big deal is that we ascended people are too advantaged bonus-wise compared to them.
And I thought a bonus unascended would have we wouldn't could be good to make unascended more attractive and not be so that new people all plan to ascend and get out asap from uanscended state.