StarGateWars Forums

Apologies if something similar has been mentioned before.

Why not have an ability to sab a MS?

The finer details of my idea need to be worked out, but would basically work on the principle that a realm that is undefended/poorly defended compared to the strike that goes against it, would not be able to protect the transport rings to the MS.

Thus allowing a saboteur to sneak aboard and cause havoc. Since the MS has to be in orbit to engage, the transport rings would always be available for a MS that has not been sent away.

I'd propose having a newly created unit for this "special" sabbing mission, as it would not be plausable to send millions of units to sab a MS

this unit would have to be quite costly to "create" and if your own def is 0 then this unit dies first when attacked - or at the very least a ratio def\special unit would need to be worked out.

ok enough of my mad 5 minutes

I like this

"Looks at harchy's MS on screen"

We wouldn't need a new unit. Just state that the more you send, the better distraction they create, for the saboteur to get on bored, and plant explosives. Just saves new units

The idea has popped up many many times before, but never gotten anywhere.


A few points you need to cover tho, how and when do the "sabbers" get onboard and when can they act?

Can they act on a planet steal? what about a 24 hr search mission? How many times can a MS be sabbed? all that kinna stuff.

Lore wrote:The idea has popped up many many times before, but never gotten anywhere.


A few points you need to cover tho, how and when do the "sabbers" get onboard and when can they act?

Can they act on a planet steal? what about a 24 hr search mission? How many times can a MS be sabbed? all that kinna stuff.

Perhaps after infiltrating the MS, you have a week to 'sabotage' before they get captured (and killed, or perhaps, 50% get turned into uu or something).

i.e. I infiltrate Lore's MS on Monday, he sends his MS out on Tuesday, just before his MS comes back on Wednesday, I sabotage it, and then mass it more efficiently. (And imo, it should be mainly shields that get sabotaged).

And so that the stronger players don't go around infiltrating weaker's MS, perhaps something like, the amount of stuff you destroy is relative to the ratio of capacities (including techs) between your MS and the opponent's MS, so the greater the difference going up (As in, your MS is weaker), the more you will be able to sab, but if your MS is stronger, you will not be able to sab much.

I don't see the point of a delay. Why not make it like weapon sabotage? Just curious.

Whist i can see the advantage and strategy of it, is that much detail needed?

Sarevok wrote:I don't see the point of a delay. Why not make it like weapon sabotage? Just curious.

Whist i can see the advantage and strategy of it, is that much detail needed?

Well SGW is a game where stuff happens 'instantly', I mean it would be a lot of fun infiltrating someone's MS 5 days before, then all of a sudden utterly destroying it's shields just as it comes off planet search allowing you a quick victory (Because if you have it like normal weapon sabotage, you can probably bet the MS will be fully repaired when the come off PPT/when it returns... It will add more depth and forward thinking into SGW rather than impulse-driven wars.

CABAL wrote:

Sarevok wrote:I don't see the point of a delay. Why not make it like weapon sabotage? Just curious.

Whist i can see the advantage and strategy of it, is that much detail needed?

Well SGW is a game where stuff happens 'instantly', I mean it would be a lot of fun infiltrating someone's MS 5 days before, then all of a sudden utterly destroying it's shields just as it comes off planet search allowing you a quick victory (Because if you have it like normal weapon sabotage, you can probably bet the MS will be fully repaired when the come off PPT/when it returns... It will add more depth and forward thinking into SGW rather than impulse-driven wars.

would it ot be a wasted sab, if just before it sab kicks in someone else already masses it?

renegadze wrote:

CABAL wrote:

Sarevok wrote:I don't see the point of a delay. Why not make it like weapon sabotage? Just curious.

Whist i can see the advantage and strategy of it, is that much detail needed?

Well SGW is a game where stuff happens 'instantly', I mean it would be a lot of fun infiltrating someone's MS 5 days before, then all of a sudden utterly destroying it's shields just as it comes off planet search allowing you a quick victory (Because if you have it like normal weapon sabotage, you can probably bet the MS will be fully repaired when the come off PPT/when it returns... It will add more depth and forward thinking into SGW rather than impulse-driven wars.

would it ot be a wasted sab, if just before it sab kicks in someone else already masses it?

Yes, it would be a wasted sab. Perhaps one should set the time to sab on the infiltration screen. But it's like saying "would it be a wasted massing if someone else masses just before I mass"

I don't doubt that it would be good to have time-delay features added to this game. I'm just saying that for simplicity, time delay wouldn't be needed

i dont like this idea...i dont have a big ms...but i respect those who do have worked for it...and if someone wants to take their mothership down they should eather suffer the losses or invest in their MS more

Rottenking wrote:i dont like this idea...i dont have a big ms...but i respect those who do have worked for it...and if someone wants to take their mothership down they should eather suffer the losses or invest in their MS more

But that's the problem, almost all of the players with big MS have quite literally 'worked' for it, by spending $$$. I certainly would respect someone who has built their MS up from scratch - not spending a cent, but those people are few and far between. And so, in order to invest in your MS more to catch up, you either have to be stupid enough to spend $$$, or have absolutely no life at all.

CABAL wrote:

Rottenking wrote:i dont like this idea...i dont have a big ms...but i respect those who do have worked for it...and if someone wants to take their mothership down they should eather suffer the losses or invest in their MS more

But that's the problem, almost all of the players with big MS have quite literally 'worked' for it, by spending $$$. I certainly would respect someone who has built their MS up from scratch - not spending a cent, but those people are few and far between. And so, in order to invest in your MS more to catch up, you either have to be stupid enough to spend $$$, or have absolutely no life at all.

Or be a sniper, to take almost no losses when being massed for farming people

CABAL wrote:

Rottenking wrote:i dont like this idea...i dont have a big ms...but i respect those who do have worked for it...and if someone wants to take their mothership down they should eather suffer the losses or invest in their MS more

But that's the problem, almost all of the players with big MS have quite literally 'worked' for it, by spending $$$. I certainly would respect someone who has built their MS up from scratch - not spending a cent, but those people are few and far between. And so, in order to invest in your MS more to catch up, you either have to be stupid enough to spend $$$, or have absolutely no life at all.

so in other words you want a handycap for those who chose to spend cash while also hurting those who dont

Rottenking wrote:

CABAL wrote:

Rottenking wrote:i dont like this idea...i dont have a big ms...but i respect those who do have worked for it...and if someone wants to take their mothership down they should eather suffer the losses or invest in their MS more

But that's the problem, almost all of the players with big MS have quite literally 'worked' for it, by spending $$$. I certainly would respect someone who has built their MS up from scratch - not spending a cent, but those people are few and far between. And so, in order to invest in your MS more to catch up, you either have to be stupid enough to spend $$$, or have absolutely no life at all.

so in other words you want a handycap for those who chose to spend cash while also hurting those who dont

No it's to allow a way to compete against the other MS, does know one read anymore? the conditions i proposed for you being able to sab we dependant on certain factors, and why the hell shouldn't a MS be sabbable? it's quite logical that when docked, you opponent may try to sab it