StarGateWars Forums

I was just looking at the logs and seen what is probably someone's multi with nothing on it farming our alliance which got me thinking about this idea.

Basically if you want to farm and hit a particular alliance you must have a certain defense. If you want to farm/raid the top half of page one you must have a 15tril plus defense, second half say 12.5tril, top of page two 10tril and bottom half 7.5tril and so on. (could be higher or lower)

If you want to take a planet same deal goes (would cut out multi stripping)

This way it pays to have your alliance at a certain rank and forces snipers and alliances to build if they want to continue a war. Also means for farmers you farm allainces with greater risk as you will have to have something built.

good idea, not sure FS or OE would agree though

Guild wrote:good idea, not sure FS or OE would agree though

Everyone's just going to have to get along

great idea, but the scales would be a bit troublesome ...

how about:

at least 30% of the average defense in the given alliance.

ie
Smaller alliance example:
target X is in alliance A
Alliance A has 10 members: 5 members have 1T defense, 5 members have 0 defense.
Average defense in Alliance A = 0,5T
30% of alliance A average defense = 0,15T (150B def)


Bigger alliance example:
Target Z is in alliance B
Alliance B has 20 members: 10 members have 5T defense, 5 members have 2T defense, 5 members have 0 defense.
Average defense in Alliance B = 3T
30% of alliance B average defense = 0,9T (900B def)


Would be a dynamic application, so it would hardly require tweaking afterwards, and the formula isnt that big, so shouldnt cause any lagg in processing.

Love you long time coyle.

Guild wrote:good idea, not sure FS or OE would agree though

I don't think enforced 'defence' levels are the way to go, it feel artificial. That said I would suggest something like this:-

1) cannot sell weapons, they are used, nobody else wants them. (just like you cant disarm your Motherships, arming your troops is an investment).
2) in defence of your planet, both your attack and defence troops fight. (Defence troops fight full strength, attack troops fight at half strength). All trained troops can be killed.
3) when attacking others, only your attack troops are sent, just like it is now. (They fight at full strength).
4) when taking a planet, the defenders MS fights to protect the planet if it is at home (say providing up to an additional percentage of the planets defences) both MS take damage from the engagement.

Something like that

Clockwork wrote:

Guild wrote:good idea, not sure FS or OE would agree though

I don't think enforced 'defence' levels are the way to go, it feel artificial. That said I would suggest something like this:-

1) cannot sell weapons, they are used, nobody else wants them. (just like you cant disarm your Motherships, arming your troops is an investment).
2) in defence of your planet, both your attack and defence troops fight. (Defence troops fight full strength, attack troops fight at half strength). All trained troops can be killed.
3) when attacking others, only your attack troops are sent, just like it is now. (They fight at full strength).
4) when taking a planet, the defenders MS fights to protect the planet if it is at home (say providing up to an additional percentage of the planets defences) both MS take damage from the engagement.

Something like that

Doesn't solve any problems and I think some of those have been suggested before. I don't see a problem with this idea, well unless you just want to snipe. And there not enforced, if you don't want to build them then you just can't hit a particular alliance, you have a choice.

Drought wrote:great idea, but the scales would be a bit troublesome ...

how about:

at least 30% of the average defense in the given alliance.

ie
Smaller alliance example:
target X is in alliance A
Alliance A has 10 members: 5 members have 1T defense, 5 members have 0 defense.
Average defense in Alliance A = 0,5T
30% of alliance A average defense = 0,15T (150B def)


Bigger alliance example:
Target Z is in alliance B
Alliance B has 20 members: 10 members have 5T defense, 5 members have 2T defense, 5 members have 0 defense.
Average defense in Alliance B = 3T
30% of alliance B average defense = 0,9T (900B def)


Would be a dynamic application, so it would hardly require tweaking afterwards, and the formula isnt that big, so shouldnt cause any lagg in processing.

~Coyle~ wrote:

Clockwork wrote:

Guild wrote:good idea, not sure FS or OE would agree though

I don't think enforced 'defence' levels are the way to go, it feel artificial. That said I would suggest something like this:-

1) cannot sell weapons, they are used, nobody else wants them. (just like you cant disarm your Motherships, arming your troops is an investment).
2) in defence of your planet, both your attack and defence troops fight. (Defence troops fight full strength, attack troops fight at half strength). All trained troops can be killed.
3) when attacking others, only your attack troops are sent, just like it is now. (They fight at full strength).
4) when taking a planet, the defenders MS fights to protect the planet if it is at home (say providing up to an additional percentage of the planets defences) both MS take damage from the engagement.

Something like that

Doesn't solve any problems and I think some of those have been suggested before. I don't see a problem with this idea, well unless you just want to snipe. And there not enforced, if you don't want to build them then you just can't hit a particular alliance, you have a choice.

My suggestion means you have something to strike back at, and if they only build attack, you have a bonus to killing their troops because they would only be half strength.

Your suggestion, if I were wanting to snipe, I would build the minimum defence i needed using normal troops, sell and untrain the lot after, not much difference other than the hassle of training and untraining troops and mercs. Or did you mean your defence had to consist of supers, maybe I missed that in your post.

Also if your alliance actually manages to keep the others down they can't retaliate if they have no defences (may actually force allainces to surrender, long shot I know ha)

Clockwork wrote:

~Coyle~ wrote:

Clockwork wrote:

Guild wrote:good idea, not sure FS or OE would agree though

I don't think enforced 'defence' levels are the way to go, it feel artificial. That said I would suggest something like this:-

1) cannot sell weapons, they are used, nobody else wants them. (just like you cant disarm your Motherships, arming your troops is an investment).
2) in defence of your planet, both your attack and defence troops fight. (Defence troops fight full strength, attack troops fight at half strength). All trained troops can be killed.
3) when attacking others, only your attack troops are sent, just like it is now. (They fight at full strength).
4) when taking a planet, the defenders MS fights to protect the planet if it is at home (say providing up to an additional percentage of the planets defences) both MS take damage from the engagement.

Something like that

Doesn't solve any problems and I think some of those have been suggested before. I don't see a problem with this idea, well unless you just want to snipe. And there not enforced, if you don't want to build them then you just can't hit a particular alliance, you have a choice.

My suggestion means you have something to strike back at, and if they only build attack, you have a bonus to killing their troops because they would only be half strength.

Your suggestion, if I were wanting to snipe, I would build the minimum defence i needed using normal troops, sell and untrain the lot after, not much difference other than the hassle of training and untraining troops and mercs. Or did you mean your defence had to consist of supers, maybe I missed that in your post.

You could do that, sure we could also up the resale of defense weapons to counter that and sure you could leave a lot of killable SS trained in to be slaughtered so. Yes defense would be made up of SS. Also at least if someone catches you massing their alliance they instantly have something to hit.

~Coyle~ wrote:Also if your alliance actually manages to keep the others down they can't retaliate if they have no defences (may actually force allainces to surrender, long shot I know ha)

Thats actually a pretty good approach.

Been thinking of ups and downs to such things, perhaps an idea to sum some up so it can be tackled ?

example:
So someone has 100T def, and the rest only 1t, in an alliance of 5 people ...
That would require a huge def to even attack.

optional solution A:
Only count the average defs of the ones off PPT.
So if all the defenses are on ppt ... the others can still be farmed by just about anyone.
(gives a little more depth to being on or off ppt too)

Optional solution B:
Use the averages formula to get a minimum need defense, but as soon as the scale tips over for example 2T then no more is required.



An up side to the idea:
New players, eager to play and farm, are less likely to make a mistake of hitting big alliances which ends them on a farm list / war list of the bigger alliances members seeing them as vultures or multis.


Also, when your talking about needed defenses of around 1t, you will definately need supers anyway.

Interesting idea Drought, but using averages on def swings the requirement down, the more you mass, by the end of it you would need very little defence built to attack a recently massed alliance, which would open it up to sniper Naq farming by anybody.

Edit:- maybe a combination of the average attack and def?

Clockwork wrote:Interesting idea Drought, but using averages on def swings the requirement down, the more you mass, by the end of it you would need very little defence built to attack a recently massed alliance, which would open it up to sniper Naq farming by anybody.

But thats where the activity of an alliance makes all the difference.
They can rebuild, which would restore/increase requirements directly after someone starts rebuilding.


dynamic really starting to warm up to the idea

That's true, so option A then? To prevent huge ppt defs being used to protect say 1 guy sat massing away.