StarGateWars Forums

I am curious, who are the two persistent descender people who managed to descend as much as:
RANK NAME RACE KILLS
1 **Anonymous** INDU 1,262
2 **Anonymous** ORI 564

Whoever they are, they stopped at the very latest when Sol added the ranking.


The number is still the exact same as it was Thu Mar 08, 2012.

...HAX!

Both are not hax, the number 1 player is really quite active.

Sol wrote:Both are not hax, the number 1 player is really quite active.

Both just have not been descending for the past year, and a half.

Funny story, that. 1,262 descensions at an average of 4 hits per descension with 3 hour intervals is 15,144 hours spent descending, is 631 days, is 1 year and 9 months of non-stop descending.

Since descensions have been recorded since late '07 when the feature was introduced (let us just say October 2007 for calculatory purposes), i.e. 6 and a half years ago, the user in question can have descended 1 person per day (12 hours) with time to spare. Not that many; especially not if you only descend a select set of ~30 inactives (~30, because at ~1 descension per day your first target will come back from their 'time off', not sure about post-descension protection, so taken liberally).


Ah well. Fun times.

Juliette wrote:

Sol wrote:Both are not hax, the number 1 player is really quite active.

Both just have not been descending for the past year, and a half.

Funny story, that. 1,262 descensions at an average of 4 hits per descension with 3 hour intervals is 15,144 hours spent descending, is 631 days, is 1 year and 9 months of non-stop descending.

Since descensions have been recorded since late '07 when the feature was introduced (let us just say October 2007 for calculatory purposes), i.e. 6 and a half years ago, the user in question can have descended 1 person per day (12 hours) with time to spare. Not that many; especially not if you only descend a select set of ~30 inactives (~30, because at ~1 descension per day your first target will come back from their 'time off', not sure about post-descension protection, so taken liberally).


Ah well. Fun times.

I give that nr 1 player a salute. holy $hit!!!

Bioflick wrote:

Juliette wrote:

Sol wrote:Both are not hax, the number 1 player is really quite active.

Both just have not been descending for the past year, and a half.

Funny story, that. 1,262 descensions at an average of 4 hits per descension with 3 hour intervals is 15,144 hours spent descending, is 631 days, is 1 year and 9 months of non-stop descending.

Since descensions have been recorded since late '07 when the feature was introduced (let us just say October 2007 for calculatory purposes), i.e. 6 and a half years ago, the user in question can have descended 1 person per day (12 hours) with time to spare. Not that many; especially not if you only descend a select set of ~30 inactives (~30, because at ~1 descension per day your first target will come back from their 'time off', not sure about post-descension protection, so taken liberally).


Ah well. Fun times.

I give that nr 1 player a salute. holy $hit!!!

i dont...picking on noob accounts much

~Desert Phantom~ wrote:

Bioflick wrote:

Juliette wrote:

Sol wrote:Both are not hax, the number 1 player is really quite active.

Both just have not been descending for the past year, and a half.

Funny story, that. 1,262 descensions at an average of 4 hits per descension with 3 hour intervals is 15,144 hours spent descending, is 631 days, is 1 year and 9 months of non-stop descending.

Since descensions have been recorded since late '07 when the feature was introduced (let us just say October 2007 for calculatory purposes), i.e. 6 and a half years ago, the user in question can have descended 1 person per day (12 hours) with time to spare. Not that many; especially not if you only descend a select set of ~30 inactives (~30, because at ~1 descension per day your first target will come back from their 'time off', not sure about post-descension protection, so taken liberally).


Ah well. Fun times.

I give that nr 1 player a salute. holy $hit!!!

i dont...picking on noob accounts much

Its quite impressive still, he kept up the pressure quite some time!

I doubt the person picks on noobs. Mostly inactives probably

Lord Katsumoto wrote:I doubt the person picks on noobs. Mostly inactives probably

Maybe Lord K but my opinion stands...a person that can descend active accounts now that's a feat!

Waste of turns.

I would love to know this question as i am trying to get to number 2 spot on the list...also why hide behind ???? if it was me i would be showing my name

Unless you show you're name i will take the unofficial number one spot as i show my name

nightlight wrote:I would love to know this question as i am trying to get to number 2 spot on the list...also why hide behind ???? if it was me i would be showing my name

Unless you show you're name i will take the unofficial number one spot as i show my name

Your name s hidden by default, so unless you go and specifically choose to show your name it will always be hidden. Might not have looked in preferences since the top 10 thing was introduced.

Clockwork wrote:

nightlight wrote:I would love to know this question as i am trying to get to number 2 spot on the list...also why hide behind ???? if it was me i would be showing my name

Unless you show you're name i will take the unofficial number one spot as i show my name

Your name s hidden by default, so unless you go and specifically choose to show your name it will always be hidden. Might not have looked in preferences since the top 10 thing was introduced.

Combined with the numbers staying the same.. doubt he/she has logged in.

~Desert Phantom~ wrote:

Lord Katsumoto wrote:I doubt the person picks on noobs. Mostly inactives probably

Maybe Lord K but my opinion stands...a person that can descend active accounts now that's a feat!

I completely agree, if they are going to waste all those turns, farm me some dmu!