StarGateWars Forums

This is with the absolute maximum damage being done each descension hit.

If you desire include a short justification for your feeling/vote.

Voted 4. It gives someone the ability to descend someone completely on their own if given the chance. I'd also like to point out that most will not be hit with the max damage due to their defensive stat levels. Most people take more then a days worth of hits. That's based on stat level information prior to the most recent update as i don't not know if the update will stay in effect.

im sorry tekki I told you the other day its 3 hits minimum to decend someone and I have the logs to show it still i just looked to see if i had multiple of them still in mine

Theoretically if you destroy 2/5 LF it is 3 hits but for most people they can recover enough that it is 4 hits. I have never descended anyone in less than 4 hits EXCEPT where they were weakened in life force before I started on them.

So what you told me and what I've experienced are two separate things.

well i have decended 4 people past week two took 4 hits (people who did alittle on there account) and two that didnt do much so and I have killed lots in 3 hits so anyway

CCexy wrote:im sorry tekki I told you the other day its 3 hits minimum to decend someone and I have the logs to show it still i just looked to see if i had multiple of them still in mine

This is not actually true....there are people that can be descended in 1 hit!

I know...I've done it lol

i think it should be 5 hits
reasoning:
5 x 2.5 hours = 12.5 hours
that way people should be able to log in atleast twice a day to refill their lifeforce reserves
then people cannot be decended while they sleep, or while at work

for 5 hits, would be 10 hours....if the gap is 2.5 hours...

remember the taking 3 pills, one every half hour, they last an hour riddle? same principle

renegadze wrote:

CCexy wrote:im sorry tekki I told you the other day its 3 hits minimum to decend someone and I have the logs to show it still i just looked to see if i had multiple of them still in mine

This is not actually true....there are people that can be descended in 1 hit!

I know...I've done it lol

had that happen to me in the Server war, (not sure if its still possible since the previous updates)

@ Rottenking.. CJL is right 5 hits is 10hrs

ie
10:00 hit
12.30 hit
15.00 hit
17.30 hit
20.00 hit

I do think the ranking/size rule should also apply to decention hits as well.

I've descended people in one hit, it's just that their life force was low. I have never managed to descend anyone who started with full life force in anything less than 4 hits.

hmmm...

well, I'm not sure what I think it should be...

or what I think would most benefit me...

but I do think it should be based in part on the preparation of the target...

(having a good ascended account should continue to be at least helpful in avoiding descension.)

And since any descension makes it easier to descend a person in the future,
(based on what I have seen from other people's SGW calculators),

I think any further discussion of changing descension should take this current reality into consideration.

I'm thinking, as said by others, 5 would be a good number of hits @ 2.5h per hit.


In line with the topic;
Perhaps inactivity should be 'rewarded' by being descended faster?
5 hits for a regularly active person, strictly counting logins to keep it fair;
4 hits for a person who has been inactive for 2 weeks;
3 hits for a person who has been inactive for 4 weeks (~1 month);
2 hits for a person who has been inactive for 8 weeks (~2 months), and finally;
1 hit for a person who has been inactive for 16 weeks (~4 months).
(Provided, of course, that you have sufficient ToC to take out the person in that number of hits.)

Juliette wrote:I'm thinking, as said by others, 5 would be a good number of hits @ 2.5h per hit.


In line with the topic;
Perhaps inactivity should be 'rewarded' by being descended faster?
5 hits for a regularly active person, strictly counting logins to keep it fair;
4 hits for a person who has been inactive for 2 weeks;
3 hits for a person who has been inactive for 4 weeks (~1 month);
2 hits for a person who has been inactive for 8 weeks (~2 months), and finally;
1 hit for a person who has been inactive for 16 weeks (~4 months).
(Provided, of course, that you have sufficient ToC to take out the person in that number of hits.)

Good point.
Activity in ascended should be rewarded this way.

Cole wrote:

Juliette wrote:I'm thinking, as said by others, 5 would be a good number of hits @ 2.5h per hit.


In line with the topic;
Perhaps inactivity should be 'rewarded' by being descended faster?
5 hits for a regularly active person, strictly counting logins to keep it fair;
4 hits for a person who has been inactive for 2 weeks;
3 hits for a person who has been inactive for 4 weeks (~1 month);
2 hits for a person who has been inactive for 8 weeks (~2 months), and finally;
1 hit for a person who has been inactive for 16 weeks (~4 months).
(Provided, of course, that you have sufficient ToC to take out the person in that number of hits.)

Good point.
Activity in ascended should be rewarded this way.

Inactivity should be punished. Not activity rewarded. It is a matter of semantics but a very relevant point. The 'reward' is a negative one but calling it 'punishment' directly makes it sound rather Draconian.

Charisma wrote:

Cole wrote:

Juliette wrote:I'm thinking, as said by others, 5 would be a good number of hits @ 2.5h per hit.


In line with the topic;
Perhaps inactivity should be 'rewarded' by being descended faster?
5 hits for a regularly active person, strictly counting logins to keep it fair;
4 hits for a person who has been inactive for 2 weeks;
3 hits for a person who has been inactive for 4 weeks (~1 month);
2 hits for a person who has been inactive for 8 weeks (~2 months), and finally;
1 hit for a person who has been inactive for 16 weeks (~4 months).
(Provided, of course, that you have sufficient ToC to take out the person in that number of hits.)

Good point.
Activity in ascended should be rewarded this way.

Inactivity should be punished. Not activity rewarded. It is a matter of semantics but a very relevant point. The 'reward' is a negative one but calling it 'punishment' directly makes it sound rather Draconian.

That's what I meant, but somehow got it mixed. (as after all, active ones don't really get rewarded, they just would have same descension delay, while inactive wouldn't)