StarGateWars Forums

Feb 05, 00:20 ***** Attack 306,642,150,428,216 Dark Matter Units lost 15 3,690 90,588 180,699,634,321,920 17,021,326,567,880,000
I lost 25 times more planets than he did.

Another attack, only this one is out of order by over 9 hours.....

Feb 05, 23:58 ******* Attack 337,475,322,938,428 Dark Matter Units lost 15 63,972 88,338 180,699,634,321,920 135,129,921,093,000,000

I would also like to point out that my defense level did not change, my defence was the same power, and MS's were almost identical. This is not a multi accusation, but the out of order showing in logs, at exact turn change, and so fewer losses than someone with ten times their power took off the same def must be maybe a bug? No other attacks on me were anywhere near this different, and all were in chronological order but the fishy attack. Any explanations besides the obvious, "you are a noob", which anyone who knows me knows I am not an ascended noob. Crap to mediocre account inherited, but even that is changing, let alone my skills over the years....What gives with these stats? I would put in bugs or ascended section, but I wan't all opinions as I am not sure if it is a bug, or just something I in general of this game am unaware of? Thanks for your time community.

Minimum planet loss per attack is 0.5% of trained attack planets (supers + normals), not spied your account because I could not be bothered to find your id but for a strike around that size your losses look about right to me.

Clockwork wrote:Minimum planet loss per attack is 0.5% of trained attack planets (supers + normals), not spied your account because I could not be bothered to find your id but for a strike around that size your losses look about right to me.

Actually, that is 'trained and armed attack planets'.

Also, their losses are shown in supers, while yours are shown in actual planets.. (or something like that)

Juliette wrote:

Clockwork wrote:Minimum planet loss per attack is 0.5% of trained attack planets (supers + normals), not spied your account because I could not be bothered to find your id but for a strike around that size your losses look about right to me.

Actually, that is 'trained and armed attack planets'.

Also, their losses are shown in supers, while yours are shown in actual planets.. (or something like that)

This helps a little, but how can someone lose 20X more than a person whose attack is 20X less?
This makes no sense. The way bigger attacker lost a ton more than the person attacking? How in a real life battle would that make sense? Because they are MORE powerful, I kill more defending? If you use that equation, then having less army does more damage.
Power vs. Power = Same equation to make losses sounds simpler and more realistic to me...

Thanks for the clarification though

I'll take a look at it sometime , turns out there is a bushfire on the hill next to us (which postponed my interstate traveling), so I'm a tad busy .

Dr. Walter Bishop™ wrote:

Juliette wrote:

Clockwork wrote:Minimum planet loss per attack is 0.5% of trained attack planets (supers + normals), not spied your account because I could not be bothered to find your id but for a strike around that size your losses look about right to me.

Actually, that is 'trained and armed attack planets'.

Also, their losses are shown in supers, while yours are shown in actual planets.. (or something like that)

This helps a little, but how can someone lose 20X more than a person whose attack is 20X less?
This makes no sense. The way bigger attacker lost a ton more than the person attacking? How in a real life battle would that make sense? Because they are MORE powerful, I kill more defending? If you use that equation, then having less army does more damage.
Power vs. Power = Same equation to make losses sounds simpler and more realistic to me...

Friendly fire .

Sol wrote:

Dr. Walter Bishop™ wrote:

Juliette wrote:

Clockwork wrote:Minimum planet loss per attack is 0.5% of trained attack planets (supers + normals), not spied your account because I could not be bothered to find your id but for a strike around that size your losses look about right to me.

Actually, that is 'trained and armed attack planets'.

Also, their losses are shown in supers, while yours are shown in actual planets.. (or something like that)

This helps a little, but how can someone lose 20X more than a person whose attack is 20X less?
This makes no sense. The way bigger attacker lost a ton more than the person attacking? How in a real life battle would that make sense? Because they are MORE powerful, I kill more defending? If you use that equation, then having less army does more damage.
Power vs. Power = Same equation to make losses sounds simpler and more realistic to me...

Friendly fire .

And ricochets. Lots of ricochets

Sniperwax wrote:

Sol wrote:

Dr. Walter Bishop™ wrote:

Juliette wrote:

Clockwork wrote:Minimum planet loss per attack is 0.5% of trained attack planets (supers + normals), not spied your account because I could not be bothered to find your id but for a strike around that size your losses look about right to me.

Actually, that is 'trained and armed attack planets'.

Also, their losses are shown in supers, while yours are shown in actual planets.. (or something like that)

This helps a little, but how can someone lose 20X more than a person whose attack is 20X less?
This makes no sense. The way bigger attacker lost a ton more than the person attacking? How in a real life battle would that make sense? Because they are MORE powerful, I kill more defending? If you use that equation, then having less army does more damage.
Power vs. Power = Same equation to make losses sounds simpler and more realistic to me...

Friendly fire .

And ricochets. Lots of ricochets

Merica' **Filtered** yeah.

Hehe anyway yeah, it's pretty much to do with the minimal losses (friendly fire). As the defence goes down though you will loose less, as your attack goes higher you will loose more.
In general terms the larger the differential the less you will loose and the more you will kill (remember that for tourney's and destroy )and of course the inverse applies to the defender, but it will reach a max/min always.

Sol wrote:Hehe anyway yeah, it's pretty much to do with the minimal losses (friendly fire). As the defence goes down though you will loose less, as your attack goes higher you will loose more.
In general terms the larger the differential the less you will loose and the more you will kill (remember that for tourney's and destroy )and of course the inverse applies to the defender, but it will reach a max/min always.

I still don't understand how....
A.) 1000 planets defending
B.) 1000000000 planets attacking the losses look something like this. A ends up with -334 planets and B -68000

But meh, too many instances where this does not compute
Sol thanks for your enduring work, and letting us shmoyohoes know wat' up wit' dat'.

Dr. Walter Bishop™ wrote:

Sol wrote:Hehe anyway yeah, it's pretty much to do with the minimal losses (friendly fire). As the defence goes down though you will loose less, as your attack goes higher you will loose more.
In general terms the larger the differential the less you will loose and the more you will kill (remember that for tourney's and destroy )and of course the inverse applies to the defender, but it will reach a max/min always.

I still don't understand how....
A.) 1000 planets defending
B.) 1000000000 planets attacking the losses look something like this. A ends up with -334 planets and B -68000

But meh, too many instances where this does not compute
Sol thanks for your enduring work, and letting us shmoyohoes know wat' up wit' dat'.

Don't understand as in...the reasoning behind it or how it actually works out (calculated)?

Sol wrote:

Dr. Walter Bishop™ wrote:

Sol wrote:Hehe anyway yeah, it's pretty much to do with the minimal losses (friendly fire). As the defence goes down though you will loose less, as your attack goes higher you will loose more.
In general terms the larger the differential the less you will loose and the more you will kill (remember that for tourney's and destroy )and of course the inverse applies to the defender, but it will reach a max/min always.

I still don't understand how....
A.) 1000 planets defending
B.) 1000000000 planets attacking the losses look something like this. A ends up with -334 planets and B -68000

But meh, too many instances where this does not compute
Sol thanks for your enduring work, and letting us shmoyohoes know wat' up wit' dat'.

Don't understand as in...the reasoning behind it or how it actually works out (calculated)?

Oooooooh-weeeee wat up wit dat!! Bofe uf um' yo!