Bug with scanners/sensors

[Neimenljivi]

As with all battles, this one has been recorded in your WorldShip's conscience. Official Recollection:

Cycles Utilized: 12
Instigator: WorldShip Jack Oneil
Target: WordlShip tzuicabej
The WorldShip Jack Oneil's weapon loadout:

*,*** Neutron Pulse Cannon

Defences in place:

** Antimatter Shield
*** Neutron Shield


Opposite this, was the WorldShip tzuicabej

The WorldShip tzuicabej's weapon loadout:

4 Photon Pulse Cannon

With defences:


These two mighty WorldShips begin to engage.






The weapons of WorldShip Jack Oneil fire, inflicting 1**,***,*** firepower on tzuicabej!
tzuicabej meets this with shield resistance of 4,799

It was confirmed that despite the shields on the WorldShip tzuicabej that:
0 of tzuicabej's shields were destroyed
0 of tzuicabej's weapons were destroyed
0 of tzuicabej'sSensors were destroyed
2 of tzuicabej's Scanners were destroyed
You are sure that the difference in firepower compared to shields, as well as the raw strength of that firepower, dictate the damage you can do. You also think that there is a maximum percent of a worldship that can be destroyed at any one time, but that matter is one best considered at another time....


tzuicabej fought back with all they could, and managed to generate
208,368 offensive firepower towards the WorldShip Jack Oneil!
This is met by with shield strength of 1**,***,***
They managed to destroy:
0 weapons,
0 shields,
19 Sensors and
27 Scanners on the WorldShip Jack Oneil.




Putting down the chronicled battle report, you cross reference and call for the corrosponding military armory reports to see the state of your weapons after such a battle...


Offense:
Your Neutron Pulse Cannon went from strength 50,000 to 50,000 (now 50000/50000 and 0 percent damaged)

Defense:
Your Antimatter Shield went from strength 2,900,000 to 2,900,000 (now 2900000/2900000 and 0 percent damaged)
Your Neutron Shield went from strength 53,000 to 53,000 (now 53000/53000 and 0 percent damaged)

You also note that 0 weapons, and 0 shields are simply gone. You wonder what they were....


The forces of Jack Oneil massacred those of tzuicabej
The forces of tzuicabej open a wormhole and flee from the battle! If they had faces one could have seen glory on the face of the victors, and spite on the defeated!

Considering the scrap that was left behind by the WorldShip tzuicabej, it is recorded that
a total of 67,544,640 Naquadah was taken and traded from the parts of the WorldShip tzuicabej

Many wonder if tzuicabej will consider retaliation, but - when force meets force - there will have to be some changes in the preparedness of tzuicabej before such a feat should wisely be considered!

Even though his defense & strike are a lot less than 1/10 of my defense & strike actions I still lost some sensors and scanners..
Please fix it asap, makes farming people with some sensors & scanners trained very expensive...

~Jack

[jedi]

yes i agree it has been the same for me i have had to untrain my spys when farming

[Deerslayer]

Scanners should be lost just as AC is lost in main if you attack someone that has any defense and a bit of covert...now the sensors being lost in the same attack, I see your point that it should be fixed.

[Neimenljivi]

Firstly defense without weapons = no defense
Secondly (if the upper thing isn't enough) your realm is one giant MS, there are no units, just building blocks. And it clearly states in updates that if your opponent has less than 1/10 power of your power (def/strike thingy, too lazy to write all) you suffer no damage. He clearly had less than 1/10 of my power so they shouldn't suffer any damage. Unless it's scanner vs sensor and vica versa power that counts here but in this case I should have killed at least some of his sensors and a bit more of his scanners.

~Jack

[EnVy!]

yeppers

[Dathrick]

I must agree with this being a problem. Currently on any attack I lose 40 scanners, and 20 sensors. And the person I am attacking has no defence at all. I am losing units and I do not understand why.

Dath~

[Affirmation]

This reply makes the assumption that an Inactive player's Worldship, even when equipped with zero Attack weapons and Zero attack shields, still has a minor attack of some sort to fire back with, just as in previous Eras, Inactives hit with at least 3 points of something.

From Game Updates:

In the Battle section:
Some Scanner and Sensors completely destroyed, when hit.
(By some, we would have to know what actual quantity 'some' entails to know whether there is a bug or not. Some means at least a few, and if you have 5000 Scanners or Sensors, then losing 20-25 each per attack would amount to a loss of .4-.5%, sounds like 'some' completely destroyed to me?)

They are just not made to take a beating...The amount that are destroyed depend on the surface area of your WorldShip used by that component (factor of component count), and how well your Shields held against the enemy Weapons. Remember that simply having more shield power than fire power does not mean you are untouched...unless you overwhelm, some hits DO get through....
(OK, again if they are not made to take a beating, and the amount destroyed is determined partially by a factor of component count, then if you have lots of Scanners and Sensors trained when attacking, you will increase the slight percentage always destroyed during the attacks. If you want to minimize destroyed Scanners and Sensors during attacks on Inactives, untrain as many of them as you can. But there will be a minimum amount damaged if you have any trained at all. And, there is the cost factor of retraining them once farming attacks are over compared to the numbers of army losses taken during normal farming... What is the level that you can tolerate in army losses vs. the amount of NAQ farmed that you can spare to retrain all/most of your Scanners and Sensors after a farming run??)

From Scanners/Sensors Damages info:
Scanners and Sensors are not used in battle, but can be damaged when the enemy WorldShip fires on your Worldship....
(Once again, here is the assumption that a Worldship from an Inactive fires with at least some sort of attack/defense, and if so, you will lose a set minimum percentage of scanners/sensors during an attack on any player whether active or inactive.)

Now I am not saying that the percentage of damage taken is not buggy, or set too high, but it is apparent that there will be a minimal loss of scanners/sensors even when farming the most navalent/impotent of Inactives.

Do I like it or agree with the amount? Not necessarily, BUT, it does add a whole new dimension of strategy and planning to when, how you make farming runs, and what you have to train/untrain to minimize losses in army, especially scanners and sensors. I know I tend to only farm when I have lots of time, so I can untrain all my scanners and sensors, farm lots of NAQ, and then save enough NAQ to retrain my scanners/sensors back before signing off.

I am interested in finding out if the minimum scanner/sensor damage level percentage is higher than it should be, but the fact that you lose scanners/sensors during attacks to anyone including Inactive players is not, in my demented opinion, in and of itself a bug. But, the amount of damage may just be buggy or too high for the parameters of this Era.

[Neimenljivi]

In game updates it writes that IF the defense overhelms your enemy's attack NONE of the hits will get through and if none of the hits get through then your scanners/sensors ARE untouchable..
I do belive that 1bil+ def vs. 1mil strike clearly overhelms it but my sensors & scanners still die thus it is a bug..

~Jack

[schuesseled]

It is surely a bug if someone with 0 stats but lots of turns can mass all your scanners/sensors at the last turn with 0 losses.
More thought needed from Admin. I like new concepts and extra losses for attacking someone is fine, just so long as it cant be abused.

[adminGary]

Please correct me if I'm wrong.
This is thread falls under the same bug as viewtopic.php?f=96&t=145684

[Affirmation]

Please correct me if I'm wrong.
This is thread falls under the same bug as viewtopic.php?f=96&t=145684

I believe it is the same, and from one "Gary" to the other I say a big THANK-YOU from all of us who debated if this was a bug, how much of a bug, and if not was it something that should be adjusted. I believe you have made me (Gary-Affy) and all very happy!!

Thanks for all your work on Q the past few days...

[Neimenljivi]

You are right Gary, I think Ben posted it as a reminder as mine was posted almost 2 weeks ago and got no answer...
Since it's fixed it can be closed now Thanks for fixing it

~Jack

[adminGary]

Sorry about the delay

[S1eepy]

we still love you Gary