Attack planets

[Cole]

They are getting ridiculous.
Seriously having a free extra 500-700bil strike without any damage to it, it's getting out of hands!

What I propose is either repairs needed every time you attack, to stop making it totally unfair and illogical promotion to snipers. So if you get 8 attack planets, 8 planets to repair like for weapons. It's totally logical, it's an issue that needs to be solved, attacking/massing for FREE. Or, more your planets get bigger, the more they have chances to lose x% of capacities needed to be rebought.
Example: 50bil planet losses about 100 capacities per attack
60bil losses 200 and so on. (example amounts)

[~Deathlok~]

hm
if you see somebody with big attack planets,stole them

[Cole]

hm
if you see somebody with big attack planets,stole them

Don't you think they are most of times on Merlin? That's what makes it worse!

If I was to spend a week stealing planets for every sniper in this game having high strike planets (they often have most of planets as attack), I would be done at start of autumn!

Afterall, I'm not the only one to have met those, so it's logical I propose this...it has to be changed anyway!
Admin changed UP circles, that one is worse than circles, so why not change it too?

[Cole]

wi' damages all ye be doin' is makin' em into weapons, matey

and losin' capacity seems a bit much to me

I don't really understand what you say...
But well having a free strike that can't be damaged (unlike Mothership) as long as you buy Merlins...what's the point in having a defence (or still playing this game) when snipers will have 1/15 losses you do?

[Cole]

That was just example amounts for capacities lost...and well of course repairs would be lower as attack weapons are smaller than reg strike.

[Cole]

Got a better idea..
UP planets are sized to raw UP, why not limit attack planets to strike force, so if you got 200bil strike and 600bil planets, you only get 200bil bonus.
I think it used to be like that..don't think it's still the case.

[Tekki]

So getting 600b defence from planets is fair? It's only attack that's unfair?

Or getting 11b per turn when your natural income is 1b?

The arguement here is get defence planets, though I do admit that the benefits of 1AT massing should be removed. That's something you haven't touched on.

But for getting the fr/ee strike, how is that different from the free defence, UP, income or covert

[MEZZANINE]

I agree it makes massing and farming so cheap for the masser that defenses are pointless.

BUT

The problem is not the planets themselves, it's the absurd planetary defense post upgrade that makes them un-killable, people would not build such big planets if they could be taken.

The current cost of planetary defenses compared to the cost of fleet hangers and the risk of total loss without even being able to spy what your attacking means these planets cant be taken even by the biggest of accounts.

It was a bad upgrade from the start, many people said so but because admin had already coded it before going public he was not willing to scrap all the work he had put into it.

[Cole]

So getting 600b defence from planets is fair? It's only attack that's unfair?

Or getting 11b per turn when your natural income is 1b?

The arguement here is get defence planets, though I do admit that the benefits of 1AT massing should be removed. That's something you haven't touched on.

But for getting the fr/ee strike, how is that different from the free defence, UP, income or covert

You use your defence only to defend yourself, and as much as defence planets help, if you want to mass an account, they'll just delay it. Attack is different, because it's an active action, not passive(defending), and you can mass/farm many players with it, while a defence is strictly for you against the rest.
Covert planets haven't same use. Sabotages are less frequently done than attacks, so again, can't be compared. UP planets are 1/2 sized to your UP.

Attack planets can be used for:
Farming
Massing defence
Raiding
Killing spies

Defense planets can be used for...
Defending.

Covert planets can be used for...
Sabotages.

See the difference?

[Tekki]

I agree it makes massing and farming so cheap for the masser that defenses are pointless.

BUT

The problem is not the planets themselves, it's the absurd planetary defense post upgrade that makes them un-killable, people would not build such big planets if they could be taken.

The current cost of planetary defenses compared to the cost of fleet hangers and the risk of total loss without even being able to spy what your attacking means these planets cant be taken even by the biggest of accounts.

It was a bad upgrade from the start, many people said so but because admin had already coded it before going public he was not willing to scrap all the work he had put into it.

Planetry defences are too high? Okay that one's new to me sorry Mezzanine, could you provide some examples of 'massive' planetary defences? Because I seriously didn't think there were any planets out there that couldn't be taken. Most of the valuable ones are on merlin.

I can accept that the fleets are expensive to buy though but all in all I didn't think there were many truly 'big' defences on planets left.

LegendaryApophis - I do see the difference, and with that argument the initial bonuses for Asgard should be reduced (something I thought at the time, despite the fact I started as an Asgard and something that has happened in Quantum) but I think the main problem comes from the differences in death rates especially when 1 AT massing.

It's supposed to be 3.5% attackers killed to 2.5% defenders (at least it was a while back) but 1 AT massing allows you to kill a fairly significant proportion of enemy defenders (with your planetry bonus) for well practically nothing of your own men. It is possible for some people to mass 5million supers and lose... oh about 200k maybe. Now THAT is wrong, so I think one that is balanced a bit (if it gets balanced a bit) then farming won't be quite as cheap.

[bigcakes]

i have attack planets and think they are fine. people like playing the game differently, thats why some people have huge UP, income or defense planets. defense planets make massing a defense extremely long and with little losses on there side. if u think attack planets are so good then get some and start attacking, but then u would lose ur UP or income planets which people wouldnt like doing. I play the game actively by attacking others play it passively by sitting and growing. its just different gaming styles. you can only get 50% of ur raw attack per planet just like UP planets so its not that ridiculous. I agree with tekki about the 1 AT though even though i use it lol. sorry if this post didnt make sense i was writing fast.
kbye
john

[~Insider Trader~]

You would like your (say for example) 1.2T def getting hit by someone with 300b normal attack + 300 bill from MS + >800 bill from planets?

Whilst I hate it, I can't find fault with Tekki's argument of "get some defence planets".

But seriously, this is all a bit mad. You might as well remove attackers and just play with your planets & MS if you're going to have 80% of your attack coming from bonuses.

Maybe a reduction to a 25 or 30% limit bonus from planets (including UP & Income so there is no bias) & MS is an option. It won't kill off the problem, but it forces you to take a few more losses when attacking with virtually nothing.

[Stickm@n]

You would like your (say for example) 1.2T def getting hit by someone with 300b normal attack + 300 bill from MS + >800 bill from planets?

Whilst I hate it, I can't find fault with Tekki's argument of "get some defence planets".

But seriously, this is all a bit mad. You might as well remove attackers and just play with your planets & MS if you're going to have 80% of your attack coming from bonuses. no, because att/def planets only do half what your base strike and def are. Maybe limit how many att/def planets you can have.

Maybe a reduction to a 25 or 30% limit bonus from planets (including UP & Income so there is no bias) & MS is an option. No way... maybe for att/def planets but not the others. It won't kill off the problem, but it forces you to take a few more losses when attacking with virtually nothing.

[Cole]

Inside trader, you forgot blessing...
An ascended blessing I have nothing against, but it means it quadruples your attack! (for people with heavy strike planets)
You got 250bil strike, and your MS add let's say 150bil (going thru a decent enemy MS). Your planets add 250bil as they have total 700bil power. Then comes blessing. Your MS still adds 150bil, but strike is now 500bil, and planets do give 500bil more!
You end with over 1.1tril strike from a regular 250bil strike+150bil MS...isn't there soemthing wrong?

I say, blessing does NOT affect planets strike bonus!
That would already be a decent compromise for all sides.

And Tekki is right about 1ATs massings...losses should be decreased by half to defender, not totally though (we don't want to totally lose 1ATs massing gameplay afterall, just make it more fair!)

[bigcakes]

To Legendary: that same formula can happen to someone with defense planets or just a defense. if u are going to take away part of attack planets u would have to even up all the planets which no one would like doing.
kbye
john