ATTACK/DEFENSE MODIFICATIONS

[jedi~tank]

I submit that a defense should be within a certain ration of the strike to make efficient successful attacks...example..

Player A attacks Player B
Player A has 5T strike and a 6T def
Player B def is 0 and strikes back
Player B loses double strike supers due to their strike supers becoming defender

The only way to restore this to normal is for Player B to raise their def to within 15% of their strike???

Enhancements excluded..this can go 3 ways.

Option 1- The defense ratio must be within 10% of the strike in order to maintain the set normal losses at the current mechanics. If the defense goes below that threshold, starting at the next turn change the attacker will begin to lose x2 the normal.

Option 2- The number of defense soldiers, be it supers,guards or mercs must be within 5% of the number of soldiers in strike or the losses of the attacker will double.

Option 3- by Sarevok: Another alternative would be, as suggested before, attackers help defend.

So those without a defence, their attackers help out.

Perhaps, based off some percentage, say 15%, your attack troops step in to meet this to defend. For example, you have a 20T strike, and 0 defence. As a result 15% of your attack power helps defend. So 3T of your attack units would be defend (1.5T attackers if say you had 1.5T defence already) and that would be your effective defence, and as a result, those units could be killed when attacking the person with 0 defence, but 20T attack.

[Heisenberg]

Ok in another thread there is a suggestion for new sab adjustments..
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=193952

With the idea that "If you want to make it slightly more effective just block all sabs to 3 covert levels lower and call it divine ascended intervention."

I submit that a defense should be within a certain ration of the strike to make efficient successful attacks...example..

Player A attacks Player B
Player A has 5T strike and a 6T def
Player B def is 0 and strikes back
Player B loses double strike supers due to their strike supers becoming defender

The only way to restore this to normal is for Player B to raise their def to within 15% of their strike???

Great idea. Stops people massing with nothing for the person to mass back!
Only downside is to take down a 100tril def well, you'd need a massive attack, an in turn not to lose double suppers, a fairly sized defence.

[jedi~tank]

Ok in another thread there is a suggestion for new sab adjustments..
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=193952

With the idea that "If you want to make it slightly more effective just block all sabs to 3 covert levels lower and call it divine ascended intervention."

I submit that a defense should be within a certain ration of the strike to make efficient successful attacks...example..

Player A attacks Player B
Player A has 5T strike and a 6T def
Player B def is 0 and strikes back
Player B loses double strike supers due to their strike supers becoming defender

The only way to restore this to normal is for Player B to raise their def to within 15% of their strike???

Great idea. Stops people massing with nothing for the person to mass back!
Only downside is to take down a 100tril def well, you'd need a massive attack, an in turn not to lose double suppers, a fairly sized defence.

Team work..attacker, sabber and acer...

[Sphinx42]

Ok in another thread there is a suggestion for new sab adjustments..
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=193952

With the idea that "If you want to make it slightly more effective just block all sabs to 3 covert levels lower and call it divine ascended intervention."

I submit that a defense should be within a certain ration of the strike to make efficient successful attacks...example..

Player A attacks Player B
Player A has 5T strike and a 6T def
Player B def is 0 and strikes back
Player B loses double strike supers due to their strike supers becoming defender

The only way to restore this to normal is for Player B to raise their def to within 15% of their strike???

Great idea. Stops people massing with nothing for the person to mass back!
Only downside is to take down a 100tril def well, you'd need a massive attack, an in turn not to lose double suppers, a fairly sized defence.

Which is not necessarily a bad thing - 'the only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed'.

I just have to wonder - hasn't enough been done against 'snipers' yet? Attack weapons resell costs, lifers killing attack supers, sabotage more effective... do we still need to worry about them? Sure, there may still be 'snipers' about, but they hurt themselves enough in the long term by playing that way.

[Heisenberg]

What if it's a 1 on 1 vendetta? Because only 1 has issues with the one with the massive defence?

Don't get me wrong. I do like the idea. Just it would make 1 on 1 useless if one has a huge def.

[jedi~tank]

Ok in another thread there is a suggestion for new sab adjustments..
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=193952

With the idea that "If you want to make it slightly more effective just block all sabs to 3 covert levels lower and call it divine ascended intervention."

I submit that a defense should be within a certain ration of the strike to make efficient successful attacks...example..

Player A attacks Player B
Player A has 5T strike and a 6T def
Player B def is 0 and strikes back
Player B loses double strike supers due to their strike supers becoming defender

The only way to restore this to normal is for Player B to raise their def to within 15% of their strike???

Great idea. Stops people massing with nothing for the person to mass back!
Only downside is to take down a 100tril def well, you'd need a massive attack, an in turn not to lose double suppers, a fairly sized defence.

Which is not necessarily a bad thing - 'the only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed'.

I just have to wonder - hasn't enough been done against 'snipers' yet? Attack weapons resell costs, lifers killing attack supers, sabotage more effective... do we still need to worry about them? Sure, there may still be 'snipers' about, but they hurt themselves enough in the long term by playing that way.

Yes..and this post isnt about snipers. Its about playing the game in a more competitive manner..I mean you can only lifer an enemy so many times, you can only sab so many times..to be more realistic for everyone. How often have we engaged in a battle and cant mass back? Granted the defense killing off strike supers is a form of it, but if the attacker defense grid is down shouldnt strike supers then become apart of the grid?

I agree Architect..but a 1v1 with massive def is kind of over the top..you wont mass that without war/war and you wont mass it if neither account is capable of holding enough UU to do it.

Example..if Rodwolf and say Rudy did an onliner..and they both had equal strike and equal def..maxed on UU neither one could 0 the other without reloading o the fly multiple times...if that.

edit..I mean a 100tril def is considered a monster grid..so 1 account wouldnt be able to take it..i mean now you can because you can load up on attackers with no defense..get covert phased and nothing could stop it aside from PPT or phase...and the attacker is losing 1-1 as it is??? And btw this thread again isnt about that 100tril def..its about more playable options.

[Heisenberg]

Yeah I get what you mean JT. Like for me taking a big defence would cost me a lot right now. With this I would use team work. I'm lucky enough to have alliance mates that would work with me cause they love war.

Just even if I had a 20 trill defence, some 100 mil UnKnown starts **Filtered** with me, I'd probably mass him. Were as if he doesn't have an alliance it'd be very costly for him on his own to try take that defence out. If he could afford it in te first place.

[Sphinx42]

Yes..and this post isnt about snipers.

By 'snipers' I meant 'players who mass without having a defense of their own (regardless of their reasons for not having a defense)' - which is what your initial post deals with. I just tried to keep it short, I tend to make my paragraphs too lengthy.

Its about playing the game in a more competitive manner..

I'd call it more restrictive, to be honest - 'if you want to fight back, you must cough up more resources than before'.

How often have we engaged in a battle and cant mass back?

Don't engage in a battle you know you can't win, I would say. Come back later, or find another way, and let badmouths say what they want.

Again, I'm not saying this idea is bad, as I couldn't come up with anything about it that would be detrimental to one group or other of players (like it happens with most suggestions). I just don't see its necessity/usefulness, is all.

[jedi~tank]

Yes..and this post isnt about snipers.

By 'snipers' I meant 'players who mass without having a defense of their own (regardless of their reasons for not having a defense)' - which is what your initial post deals with. I just tried to keep it short, I tend to make my paragraphs too lengthy.

Its about playing the game in a more competitive manner..

I'd call it more restrictive, to be honest - 'if you want to fight back, you must cough up more resources than before'.

How often have we engaged in a battle and cant mass back?

Don't engage in a battle you know you can't win, I would say. Come back later, or find another way, and let badmouths say what they want.

Again, I'm not saying this idea is bad, as I couldn't come up with anything about it that would be detrimental to one group or other of players (like it happens with most suggestions). I just don't see its necessity/usefulness, is all.

How would you get back at me if I massed you with no defense and no coverts for you to kill? Lifering my supers costs you more, sabbing my strike weapons costs you more..If you kept a 10-20 tril def..all I need to do is build 2 tril worth of supers, combined with 5 tril strike of my planets and 5 tril strike of my MS..snipering you would cost me a days worth of production..you see I am using you as an example btw.

[Sphinx42]

How would you get back at me if I massed you with no defense and no coverts for you to kill? Lifering my supers costs you more, sabbing my strike weapons costs you more..If you kept a 10-20 tril def..all I need to do is build 2 tril worth of supers, combined with 5 tril strike of my planets and 5 tril strike of my MS..snipering you would cost me a days worth of production..you see

In which case, building (and even losing) a def worth 15% of your attack would cost you even less. Besides, one day's worth of production, two days' worth of production... it's not that much of a difference for a big account with a thing against me, so I doubt it would save me from massing anyway.
Basically, it comes down to richer (in-game, not speaking IRL) accounts (that can afford to snipe others) being able to mass poorer (smaller, or less active) accounts without a chance for adequate retribution.
In which case, my philosophy is that the smaller guy should focus on getting bigger - revenge is a nice thing to think about when you're angry, but in the end it's still naq and UU that make the game go round.

I am using you as an example btw.

As long as you don't use me as an example in-game, sure I'm always willing to listen to reason and rethink my ideas

[~Deathlok]

I think attackers that have a 0 defense should lose more than the normal strike. That should be the price paid for attacking and having nothing to attack back on. 15% seems like a big ratio though.

1tril strike= 150b def
10tril strike= 1.5tril def
100tril strike= 15 tril def

Actually that doesn't look so bad, but if it was 10% that would be ok too.

[Sarevok]

Another alternative would be, as suggested before, attackers help defend.

So those without a defence, their attackers help out.

Perhaps, based off some percentage, say 15%, your attack troops step in to meet this to defend. For example, you have a 20T strike, and 0 defence. As a result 15% of your attack power helps defend. So 3T of your attack units would be defend (1.5T attackers if say you had 1.5T defence already) and that would be your effective defence, and as a result, those units could be killed when attacking the person with 0 defence, but 20T attack.

[Sol]

I fail to see how sab has anything to do with this idea. In which case it's practically suggesting an alternative to stop snipers.

[~LordRse~]

Lot of game suggestions these days :

[Rudy Peña]

I fail to see how sab has anything to do with this idea. In which case it's practically suggesting an alternative to stop snipers.

It came about cause all my army is in strike to mass rodwolf when he is not running to ppt or vac mode.
So as I have nothing that can be massed. This would be the only way to hurt me, as I cant have nothing more then like 1t def max.