StarGateWars Forums

In most aspects of this game I see that the cost to protect something is about equal to the cost to destroy it – defence and strikes here – to mass a 1trillion defence you need about a 1trillion strike which if neither has planets cost’s about the same amount in terms of UU and weapons..

Planets have changed this somewhat and seem to be an exception. Planetry power when helping to mass a defence is okay but it does seem to me as if the cost of taking a planet is excessive in regards to the cost of protecting the planet.

For example – a planet with a 300billion defence and this isn’t an unreasonable defence from what I’ve seen, costs between 5 to 8 trillion naq (depending on size etc and stuff like that.)

The cost to get enough fleets to be able to mass then steal that planet – about 100k fleets on an ascended account – costs approximately 60t.

Now the argument is, I presume, that the cost of the planets is multiplied by 10 for 10 planets so is then between 50 to 80trillion naq, which then makes the fleet cost reasonable but this is invalid, due to the fact you can only take 1 planet a day. Yes you can mass 10 planets or more a day and have others steal them but in all other aspects of this game the ability of an individual to destroy is equal to the ability of a team to destroy – just that the team spreads the cost more.

Now the difference between planetry defence and required fleet costs gets more pronounced as you get more planetry defence.

600billion planetry defence costs say 16trillion naq. The cost for the approximately 160k fleets required to mass and then steal that planet is 154trillion.

Below shows the planetry defence, the amount it costs to get that defence, how many fleets you need as a bare minimum to mass that defence and then the cost of just equipping the hangers of that many fleets. To say nothing of the cost to actually equip the fleets and then mass the planet.

Planetry Defence......cost @ 80million per defence............Number of fleets - rounded up............Cost of fleets............Percentage of defence to fleets costs
200,000,000,000......5,333,333,333,333........................53,000................................................16,854,954,012,000............32
300,000,000,000......8,000,000,000,000........................80,000................................................38,401,440,012,000............ 21
400,000,000,000......10,666,666,666,667........................105,000................................................ 66,151,890,012,000............ 16
500,000,000,000......13,333,333,333,333........................131,000................................................ 102,968,358,012,000............ 13
600,000,000,000......16,000,000,000,000........................157,000................................................ 147,896,826,012,000............ 11
700,000,000,000......18,666,666,666,667........................183,000................................................ 200,937,294,012,000............ 9
800,000,000,000......21,333,333,333,333........................210,000................................................ 264,603,780,012,000............ 8
900,000,000,000......24,000,000,000,000........................235,000................................................ 331,354,230,012,000............ 7
1,000,000,000,000......26,666,666,666,667........................261,000................................................ 408,730,698,012,000............ 7
1,100,000,000,000......29,333,333,333,333........................287,000................................................ 494,219,166,012,000............ 6
1,200,000,000,000......32,000,000,000,000........................313,000................................................ 587,819,634,012,000............ 5
1,300,000,000,000......34,666,666,666,667........................340,000................................................ 693,606,120,012,000............ 5
1,400,000,000,000......37,333,333,333,333........................365,000................................................ 799,356,570,012,000............ 5
1,500,000,000,000......40,000,000,000,000........................391,000................................................ 917,293,038,012,000............ 4
1,600,000,000,000......42,666,666,666,667........................417,000................................................ 1,043,341,506,012,000............ 4
1,700,000,000,000......45,333,333,333,333........................443,000................................................ 1,177,501,974,012,000............ 4
1,800,000,000,000......48,000,000,000,000........................470,000................................................ 1,325,408,460,012,000............ 4
1,900,000,000,000......50,666,666,666,667........................495,000................................................ 1,470,158,910,012,000............ 3
2,000,000,000,000......53,333,333,333,333........................521,000................................................ 1,628,655,378,012,000............ 3

What do all the gobbledegook numbers mean?
They mean that it becomes severely unrealistic to take planets.

I can see a few solutions.

1. Make fleets more powerful (about 3-5 times more powerful than they are now.)
2. Make the cost to get enough fleets to take a particular defence a set percentage amount of the cost of that defence
3. Make planetry defence exponential like fleets AND back calculate current defences to compensate
4. Change fleet cost to be a linear increase AND back calculate for current fleets
5. Creation of a planetry type that allows your MS to more effectively mass and steal planets

Option 1 solution. Fleets 4 times more powerful:
1t planetry defence costs 26trillion and the required number of hangers costs approximately 26trillion plus equipping and massing costs

Option 2 solution – effectively the same as option 1

Option 3 solution – would reduce some of the planetry defences now. I don’t like this option.

Option 4 solution – would increase the number of hangers on some MSs a lot!

Option 5 solution – opens a can of worms but they might be tasty worms!

Option 1 is obviously my preferred option.



All this assumes I have my math right. Be gentle if I don't but excuse please rounding and other things like that.

your seeing it al wrong, taking planets is way to cheap

yes it costs alot to make fleet hangers but you keep em forever

planet defences however can be massed down, once you have enough hangers you can take any planet you need. and it doesn't cost you alot of naq to do it.

it should be made more expensive to mass a planet if ya wanne make the game more intresting and fun

zeekomkommer wrote:your seeing it al wrong, taking planets is way to cheap

yes it costs alot to make fleet hangers but you keep em forever

planet defences however can be massed down, once you have enough hangers you can take any planet you need. and it doesn't cost you alot of naq to do it.

it should be made more expensive to mass a planet if ya wanne make the game more intresting and fun

If you don`t prove with matemathics STHU.

He has very solid arguments. Well done Fire of Venus.

I like option 3 though the back calculating would be pretty hard.
Also with this id say planet massing would have to go it should be if your fleets are better you can take it. Not sure though.

Something definatlley has to be done there are virtually untakable planets out there now.

@ Nigatsu - there was no need to tell zeek to STHU, he put forward his point of view as he is entitled to do same as everyone else in this forum is.

Fire_of_Venus wrote:600billion planetry defence costs say 16trillion naq. The cost for the approximately 160k fleets required to mass and then steal that planet is 154trillion.

Multiply that with 10 pnaets and you get same result, altrugh result is still unrealistic as there are no limitations to howmany planets you can mass.

Next time suggest to have multiple motherships, and motherships able to take a planet every hour, or even better remove planets from the game

kind of a hard subject it is.... but its true, yes its almost 10 times expensive to get a def , and its also true that if u take one planet a day, in a month its 1/3 cost .... so... u are asking a lil change that would make planets cheaper to take..... thats for sure.

well i agree bit the solution is much more complicated...

what i would suggest is to reduce the cost of buying fleets upgrades by more then half or maybe even stop them accumulating in price all together. but to even it out, make stocking fleets more expensive, or to make selling the fleets less profitable to stop people buying fleets and selling them off state away so they cant be retaliated agenst. this i believe would even out the playing field and Yalow planets with over 1 trillion defense reachable by some accounts.

soz lets face it no one can afford to spend 660 trillion naq to take one planet...

iNFiNiTY wrote: or even better remove planets from the game

100% agreed, Ditch them all together. The worst update to ever hit the game as far as game health is concerned.

Fleets in main should be the same as in ascended, they go up every 10k you get, anyone who plays ascended knows what i mean.

actually, planets strike me as rather easy to steal, because you have to rebuild defenses from scratch, at full cost. Your fleets you rebuild at replacement cost, not capacity cost.

Better solution: Implement capacity/ current for planetary defenses, so defenses are cheap to rebuild but capacity is expensive to pay for initially.

I remember reading somewhere that admin did not intend for planets to be a permanent fixture to your account ie: there should be the risk of them being taken at all times.

The amount of naq poured into JMX's fleets and the fact that I remember seeing somewhere him saying that there were about 20 planets he couldn't take in the game means that for the above intention by admin to be true it would need to be cheaper to build the required strength to take planets.

I personally like option 4 the best - with option 1 you will still have the situation down the track where the cost of defending a planet is 3% of the cost of building hangars to mass it down. With a linear structure the cost of defending a planet is a constant % of the cost to equip your MS to mass it.

This is a war game....... more planet taking will inevitably mean more warring

Really when it comes down to it, there are maybe only 20 or so planets in the game that are pretty much unmassable, when you take into the few thousand that are in the game, its really not that much of an issue.

EDIT: when i say unmassable, i mean by 1 person alone, an alliance could still easily produce enough naq to remove the best defended planets in the game.

Yeah, I'm gonna go with no on this one.

Why? because defenses are 1 time only things. You build the number of hangers, you get them forever, it's utterly impossible to lose them.. then you're simply faced with what 2-5tril to build the fleets? whereas if someone wants to KEEP their planets... they're looking at hundreds of tril naq, to one day just lose it.. all.

IF, one were to make defenses a slots type thing, then I could see making fleets cheaper/more powerful whatever.

hmmm well seeing i m making the argument against it on quite some ocasions and did some extensive math (tabels wont be included) i might as well post it here and than just refer to the link whenever talking about it.

be4 going into it however here are some "key points" that define the cirkumstances which you have to "take into account" when thinking about the matter.

1. planets were intended to be an adition to the game, but turned out to be a major part in the game (so their "value" in ones game play is quite significant) regardless of their "type"
2. planets were introduced (by admins own words) to cause some "new" wars... but turned out, that wars normaly dont start over planets, rather than that, Planets are used as a "damage causing point" in wars... meaning if you wanna hurt them, go after the planets.
3. Alliances and team play are an important part of the "game play" either intentional or not, that cant be ignored
4. Planets have been (again by admins own words) in the game too long to simply remove them as they have impact it on large scale.


now that you have the "surrounding cirkumstances" heres the math and reasoning.

The math

Comparison calc for 1.2t def (this covers 99.9% of the planets in the game)
10 planets to be defended by a 1.2t def cost 4x8x10 = 320tril naq
- using size monsterus as most planets worth such defence and in nowadays times are at least that size.
- using 10 planets as well obvius.. a player has to defend all his planets not just 1..
But sadly.. the costs dont stop here. Seeing as you ve just wasted 320tril on defending a planet.. it would be smart to put something in the planets atribute else.. well youre a moron, defending a "non worthy" planet...
the investment in the planet can easyly double the "cost put in planet"
so count it as another 320tril towards the "atributes" of the planet... else look up moron in the dictionary... for why overdefend something?

now the fleet calcs from your own math so i dont look up mine is roughly 580tril to take down a planet of that magnitude...

Investment wise it seems about equal doesnt it? 640 vs 580?

Now if you go lower than 1.2t and fleets(hangars) cost being a linear function (plz gawd ppl stop talking about exponential as they are not) the costs of fleet side drops faster, than the cost on the planet size (constant costs). making having fleets more valuable than having planets defs.
If you go higher.. you get a mirror image.. meaning you actualy go to a point where fleets costs of 1 person will outweigh the costs of 1 persons planet investments.

I recon the vast majoriyt of planets in the universe belongs to the range of 0-600bil def.. and wont reach the 1.2t def barrier anytime soon.


Now lets see what the sugestion of either lowering the 15% to 10% increasing fleets strenth or whatever does (actualy they all do the same thing, lowering the fleet side of the costs just from different angles)
For the point of this discusion i m taking the change to 10% min..

so planet costs at 1.2t stay the same 320Tril for defences alone + atributes(you can call them here whatever cost as you will see lower)

the fleet side is however a bit different.. you only need about 200k flees now, so only 200Tril naq..

As you can see a tiny change offsets the balance... the costs of fleets are put lower than just planet defs alone... meaning the pure profit of striping 1 guy from 10 1.2t planet defs would be about 120tril + whatever hes trhown into their atributes.... quite nice a ?


Now heres some reasoining:
Alliances are as said a big part of this game, Fleets are a nice example of how "team work" profits over being solo. You see, ppl normaly dont build up fleets sky high, because they dont need to you need but one guy to have them high and he can mass all the planets you need massing.
A nice example of that would be JMX and a few unnamed players from TLE too.
Through cordination and "team play" i ve seen 1 fleet mass up to 50 planets in a single day... smaller fleets coming in to take them away thus that single fleet causing the loss of 50 planets... in 1 day.. (remember the math was done for 10planets)

And as it shows usefull... fleets are build by individual at first, and than later moved on to "alliance wide cause" meaning many ppl are helping build 1 single fleet, thus sharing the costs of them (because later on, they will all profit from those fleets, not just the guy who has them.)

Sadly planets are not like that, evry one has 10, and evry1 is working on his own 10.

one of the popular reasons is also fleets can never be destoryed.. i mean not their real value hangars... while planets well.. once they are gone.. all is lost, def, atribute, never to be seen again.

also, by costs of planets being constant and fleets not, it takes some quite some time to "properly" defend a planet meaning in that time that a player moves to build higher planet defs.. he is open to attacks that might cross his plans, and planets taken away by "surprise"... i mean lets face it 320tril is not something that falls off from the sky... well thats unless youre cheating... in which point, the whole debate is useless as you can aford 10quad of naq to build whatever fleets you need building

and a history lesson:
Be4 when the 10% was in (it never realy was.. as 1 fleet could mass planets) There were alot of ppl, who based most of their game play on the fleets (Eros from be4 the update, i also remember robin in tha hood playn that stile for quite a while, than there was hellboy or someting, ect..)
They did that not because they were "idiots" but becuase they did some math, and found it the easyest way to annoy ppl. I invest 80tril... and i destroy 800tril... in a few runs, and than some more later thats how i m gonna walk over their balls and annoy them, was their mentality..
And at the time, it was a good one, as it worked.

The curent setup of the planet taking vs defending... offers "equal investment" on both sides with a bit cheaper on the fleets in the lower, end and a bit expenciver on the higher end. While still holding fleets cant be lost, and are not build by individuals rather by groops, and it is always profitable to invest in fleets... no matter how far you go.. it always pays up, same as UP, it gets expenciver.. but eventualy it always pays back.

I do however love all the coments about what is "untakable" and what isnt... i remember about 1.5years back ppl were talking how 120bil planet defs are untakable.. today were talking about how 1.2t planet defs are untakable... in a year or 2 we ll be talking about how 12t planet defs are untakable... and so on Time is a relavant factor in any cirkumstance, seeing something be4 some1 else gives you advantage, planing and acting on it.. will always give you good results.

Good post all the way around but 1 thing is wrong.

Who says alliances don't fund one players planet defenses and attributes?

And who says all of the funding alliances doesnt also gain from said investment?



The one thing I wonder about is simmilar to Blahh here. Planet defenses do have a max capability. Fleets do not. My question is will admin leave it like that or give into the planet holders when the max defense is easily taken by a noob MS?

Food for thought.