StarGateWars Forums

Strike Action: 656,525,288,160
Defensive Action 0
Covert Action: 215,276,886,257

Stats aren't current.

Ofc. he can be AC-ed,then his strike can be sabbed,...untill he's "phased out".....but he can farm enough to cover his losses AND make profit...

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=102654&p=1252273#p1252273

with this update....you've made ppl not bother to sell strikes anymore lol...all they need to do is buy big spy lvl,train few spys,and they are more or less safe...

but with making an update where u need certain % of DEF to have STRIKE...let's say 50% it ould be much much better because this guy here would need 325b def which is(i will say blindly) 2m supers? that's 1,4t in uu's and 1,2t in weapons that CAN be destroyed+sabbig his strike,acing his spies....yes..that would make this game much more interesting because fools like this one wouldn't be able to have only strike for few months and get to raiding limit with no work at all....

go ahead, i expect only those will complain bout this that are too greedy to accually play this game and risk something, we all know true warriors would welcome this update because it would give a good challenge and make wars etc. much more interesting....

You could train normal guards+buy weapons or use mercs too,but u'd need much more weapons-.--> more to lose....either way it would be much more risky,challenging and fun.

I already heard compalins bout this,but only from ppl that have stuff like the guy above-big strike,big spy lvl,few spies,no def..... a lot of ppl basicly do what i wrote but it SHOULD be "enforced". It's just not interesting anymore that a 20m guy can take down 100m+ guy. Ofc. he has losses when he sells weapons then,but if he has nice attack planets,nice MS,he doesn't need much weapons-he doesn't lose much. This way, ppl would have to THINK bout farming techniques and also THINK about war tactics....2 times, I was online when someone like that guy farmed and massed,but couldn't do anything cause he had 0 def and just the right amount of spies that makes sabbing costly and also not worth AC-ing. All that these guys have to do is find the right formula and then they will be safe from everyone except the guy who will take down the 50k spies they have with spy lvl 31+


make this update and i'm sure SGW will be much more interesting.


P.S. Sorry if I made it unclear- wrote this at a wrong time lol....

put down ur Questions and I'll do my best to answer them.

how can you work out a formula?

ever one has a different covert level


also the cost of level 30 and 31 is 9.6T so if a 20M army size person has that his growth is slowed he/she could be 150% bigger


fight fire with fire

upgrade your covert level

So basically you want to remove even more of a persons ability to play as they see fit?

With the change in selling of weapons it becomes a question of who has larger incomes to rebuy those weapons and you can no longer hit fast and then 'retreat' as it were leaving nothing for your enemy to hit. That was a valid tactic which has now been almost completely eliminated by the change in sale prices. Yes it's annoying to those who've been hit - guess what, it's MEANT to be.

If you want people thinking more then free things up again so that hey can be hit again randomly, not tied down to having to play in a particular style.

A big no from me.
I have been in war recently AGAINST the kind of people you refer to, I was annoyed by this indeed.
But this doesn't mean it's a yes from me, far from that. I delt with it, it's like that, that's all...

We already have the attack ranks thing in ascension (similar to raid, but here even more stupid as you can't hit bigger than you), no need to develop the gap even more between groups of players (big, medium, small).

who the hell said u can't hit bigger ones? ofc u can! but you'd have to risk some stuff to take them down to you.

The price drop for weapon sale is GREAT update but tieing together def,strike would mean that ppl can't just mass and lose what they lose when attacking and nothing more,it would accually mean u can hurt someone back.

Example: Ero'sore was able to mass you,but u couldn't mass him 90% of time cause he had nothing to mass,and that pissed ppl off....and this update wouldn't make any bigger gaps,it would accually bring back the advantage that bigger guys SHOULD have over smaller ones.

Tell me,wouldn't you be annoyed if someone massed and sat on you couldn't do anything back? With this update wars would accually be winnable, 1 vs 2 wars much more interesting,but like i said,you only see yourself in the position where you'd have to risk something to do something.

Example for this update was shown in a way in 1 vs 1 war where Pele and Jedi fought each other.

No, I'm a greedy guy who isn't prepared to risk resources

there you have it simple and true

muska it be unfair for the person/allaince that got massed first not only do they have to build a strike but a defence as well

1. write my name right
2. so your telling me, it's better that u get massed and u can't do anything back then being able to accually destroy something too?

Look beyond the fact that you'd have to risk stuff to be able to do damage and you'll get the picture..it wouldn't be fair at all.

If person A masses person B, then person B will prolly mass person A back. And to do that, person B needs def so that he can use his strike,and with that,he's playing a risky game cause he can lose even more if person A is online while person B is trying to mass person A. It would bring in a whole new meaning of being a good fighter, making mistakes would accually mean u'd pay for them badly. It would also show who's here to play stargatewars and not stargatepeace.

Mukasa

Ascended was right to begin with. Were everything could be hurt. Admin changed that so I don't see this happening. This is a good and valid idea but its obvious that admin doesn't want wars winable, he doesn't want anybody beatable. Its just not fair that a 6 month old account can be hit by the rank 1 account thats been playing 3+ yrs. But it is fair that same 6 month old account can repeatedly mass and sit on the same account that cant hurt them.

Sad really.

yes,it is sad....also sad that ppl don't see what i accually mean..they only see themselves in a position where they have to risk stuff.

Maybe this update will eb made if i bug admin every wednesday on both meetings...

So Mukasa, you are going to ignore your poll which says it's a not a good idea and nag anyway? My my my... who's selfish now?

I'm not necessarily thinking about me. I'm thinking of some of the smaller accounts that have no way of striking back. They can be sat on by the bigger accounts and snipping massing is one of the FEW ways they can strike back. If you remove that then all you'd have ingame is a suck up fest where little accounts suck up to the bigger accounts in the hope of getting justice for themselves, rather than being able to do it themselves even if it is costly to themselves to train all their men as supers.

Additionally with the way some alliances are now, with not being able to graciously accept the surrender of an enemy without extortion, wars should not be winnable.

Lore - ascension was broken. The fact that no one could get anyway without being in a certain few alliances, as they would get massed and raided into the ground for no good reason was the reason it needed fixing. I can attest to this personally because it DID happen to me. I would perhaps have put in that update differently but it's in now.

Ok....time for me to move in with a very long post and destroy a few of the arguments I've seen shown up here.

I voted yes, but I've decided it does need tweaking.

Instead of limiting you can't build x strike unless you have y defense, Limit is so that your strike only deals a max damage that related to your defense

Example If you have 500bil Defense, the most your strike can do is 500bil, or 1 Trillion Damage, regardless of number of troops or weapons, ms bonus, or even planet bonus...maybe include ascended blessing.


Now to address the arguements I've seen for this not to be implemented, or other updates similiar to it.



"This hurts the very small and doesn't allow them to strike back against the big". argument
If they are so small, how are they able to scrounge the resources together to hit big players? Surely if they can pull those resources together they can also get enough for a defense.


"Big players will start sitting on small players" argument
-small players can easily, and likely raid/farm inactive accounts to replace losses
- this will waste big players time trying to stop small from growing
--Looks at AT prices
-Pergatory
-Small players are small, they don't have a lot to lose.

How about you think about how this will help the small players
--More destructive wars will allow increased UU losses for big players
--This in turns makes it easier for small players to catch up.

"Its not fair because now one would have to build a defense and strike to hit back" argument
-I fail to see how the current system is fair?
-Save up naq to replenish your weapons.
-Be willing to untrain miners.
--or store troops else where
-Or better yet, have a strike already built(or players in your alliance), so then you just have to build a defense
--That way, when you mass back, they too, will have to rebuild a defense, goes both ways
-That sounds a lot fairer than one side being able to hit and have nothing to lose.



"Removes a persons ability to play as they see fit"
-They can still play the High strike, little to no defense, enough covert to stop sabs,
-Won't be very effective, but they can still play it.
-Buy the defense, sell the weps. Use normal troops, untrain them when. Sure it costs a bit more, but that doesn't mean they can't play it.
---Even then they take a risk in assuming that the person isn't online and won't mass them, or that someone in the alliance will see it and mass them before they can sell.
-This game has been built on that what you do should cost you something, and balance, and right now, these sniper accounts are favored to highly.
-Yes the weapon selling was GREAT improvement, I see this as Icing on the Cake so to speak.


"There will be fewer wars because people will be too scared to lose their stats" argument
If you use this argument, congrats your account has just volunteered to be sent back to the stone age. You just called a good number of people cowards and accused them as unwilling to fight, and unless you specify the exact people/alliances you are referring too be too scared to lose their stats, you can just Assume Omega, DDE, some other big alliance/person, or all of them, will think you are talking about them. Logic and experience tells me, they won't take kindly to that.


"This will allow players to exert unreasonable extortions to end a war"
-Pergatory
-Leave the alliance (get a new one to protect you)
--Don't pull thats not fair here, as that happens now, people leaving alliances because of war.


Greedy people
If you were not selling, people would likely buy more from FORUM.



TC

Tekki wrote:Lore - ascension was broken. The fact that no one could get anyway without being in a certain few alliances, as they would get massed and raided into the ground for no good reason was the reason it needed fixing. I can attest to this personally because it DID happen to me. I would perhaps have put in that update differently but it's in now.

Tekki you are correct in it did and does need fixing, Admin treating ascended like a red headed step child for over 2 yrs didnt help anything either. I'll conceed your point if you conceed mine. If everyone thats active on ascended now, had been active then, things would have been far far different. Even better actually. 1 AT per turn back then meant you didnt randomly mass anyone. And whats even better is back then if the "Masses" had stuck together, they could have done real damage to massive accounts unlike now. You can't touch miners so ascended is as lost as main is. Its unwinable and pretty much pointless.

TacticalCommander,bravo

Tekki: Poll was only to see what ppl think-half of those who voted still don't know anything bout this update,but just voted no cause it would mean they'd have to accually risk or lose stuff to do damage...ur apparently one of those greedy ones...

Tekki wrote:I'm not necessarily thinking about me. I'm thinking of some of the smaller accounts that have no way of striking back. They can be sat on by the bigger accounts and snipping massing is one of the FEW ways they can strike back. If you remove that then all you'd have ingame is a suck up fest where little accounts suck up to the bigger accounts in the hope of getting justice for themselves, rather than being able to do it themselves even if it is costly to themselves to train all their men as supers.

that is maybe true in ur imagination..in sgw it's not....guys with 10 army...can build a trill strike and the needed def+covert....instead,all stats are zero now,and strike is over a trill...wow...

rest of ur post is BS