StarGateWars Forums

So a permutation of someones suggestion was: Instead of overcoming the 10x def so you can finally manage to attempt a descension attack, the TOC of the attacker could be scaled relative to the 10 x def, so the bigger your attack is, compared to a defence, the more TOC is used, to the point where your maximum capacity is reached when it's 10 x the defence.

For instance, defender has 5 quad defence therefore to use 100% of my toc I'll need to have a 50 quad attack, or at least destroy the defence further so I can use a smaller attack. However I can still descend attack but only (attack/(defence*10)) * TOC, will be used (up to 100% of the toc that is...), so you wont NEED to surpass the 10x def, but you will punished if you fall under it.

Other suggestion were to increase it so if your attack is exceptionally greater than the defenders, then your TOC can become greater than what it is usually. For big against small reasons I would limit it so it can only occur if you're attack someone bigger than you, and not smaller.

Thoughts?

Your physical army is only being used to keep the other guys army tied up while you go and fight ascended being to ascended being. I don't see how that can affect your ascended beings attack potential.

Fluff aside, the first suggestion, allowing hits but with reduced TOC would open up the ability of tiny ascended accounts to be used to block much bigger ascended accounts, (those they would never have been able to attack before), locking them in an ascended battle for 3 hours. Fair enough if a larger account had killed of the defenders defence for them, but allowing a fresh prior account with nothing invested, to attack a well built Unknown account, without having to do anything, seems out of whack to me.

The second suggestion, allowing an increase in TOC, might be interesting, it depends how much the increase could scale to. It would promote people investing planets, that could be killed off, so there is risk to the reward which is a good thing. And it would not allow small accounts to be killed of any quicker (because of the 2/5 rule) but would mean larger accounts with better defences might become less 'safe'.

What kind of percentage bonus have you considered?

Question...how much does the story line play into the thinking on the ascended side of ideas?

I think both idea's could be very interesting to at least test out

Clockwork wrote:Your physical army is only being used to keep the other guys army tied up while you go and fight ascended being to ascended being. I don't see how that can affect your ascended beings attack potential.

You sort of answered your own question. If you don't have the time, concentration or clear way to take out another being in an ascended match, then you need to take out more more of the defence.

Clockwork wrote: ...would open up the ability of tiny ascended accounts to be used to block much bigger ascended accounts, (those they would never have been able to attack before), locking them in an ascended battle for 3 hours.

? There already exist the small on big rule that stops any obvious fruitless attempts at 'blocking' attempts.

Clockwork wrote: What kind of percentage bonus have you considered?

Probably up to 150%. So a 3 bill could be 4.5 etc.


@jt, ~30%, most of the game doesn't fall in line with the story, consider the races.

Sol wrote:

Clockwork wrote:Your physical army is only being used to keep the other guys army tied up while you go and fight ascended being to ascended being. I don't see how that can affect your ascended beings attack potential.

You sort of answered your own question. If you don't have the time, concentration or clear way to take out another being in an ascended match, then you need to take out more more of the defence.

Clockwork wrote: ...would open up the ability of tiny ascended accounts to be used to block much bigger ascended accounts, (those they would never have been able to attack before), locking them in an ascended battle for 3 hours.

? There already exist the small on big rule that stops any obvious fruitless attempts at 'blocking' attempts.

Clockwork wrote: What kind of percentage bonus have you considered?

Probably up to 150%. So a 3 bill could be 4.5 etc.


@jt, ~30%, most of the game doesn't fall in line with the story, consider the races.

Ok, I ask because there seems to be a trend to stop smaller from blocking bigger or am I not seeing that?

Sol wrote:You sort of answered your own question. If you don't have the time, concentration or clear way to take out another being in an ascended match, then you need to take out more more of the defence.

Yeah I was speaking purely from a fluff point of view, I just don't see the connection between your physical army and the ascended being itself. Your Physical army does not make your ascended being any stronger or weaker. But again, thats just fluff

Sol wrote:? There already exist the small on big rule that stops any obvious fruitless attempts at 'blocking' attempts.

Oh, I was not familiar with a rule that prevents smaller accounts making direct ascended attacks against larger accounts, other than having to build a physical army strike large enough to swamp the defenders physical army defence. Which ruled that out given the size difference, unless a larger account first destroyed the defenders defence, allowing the smaller account to attack. I did not think there was a separate rule in place against (small attacking large) because I have never been prevented from descending far smaller accounts myself (large v small).

Sol wrote:Probably up to 150%. So a 3 bill could be 4.5 etc.

Would you base the increase on the ratio of your strike v their defence?

Sol wrote:For big against small reasons I would limit it so it can only occur if you're attack someone bigger than you, and not smaller.

Forgot to ask last time, how would you measure large v small in this case? would you base it on the physical expanse, or would you base it on the ascended 'entity' (so your personal levels rather than planet count)?

Jedi~Tank wrote: Ok, I ask because there seems to be a trend to stop smaller from blocking bigger or am I not seeing that?

This update would do the opposite...it would allow you to attack, but be penalized if there is too much defence. Instead of not being able to attack at all if there was too much defence (as it is now).

Clockwork wrote:

Sol wrote:Probably up to 150%. So a 3 bill could be 4.5 etc.

Would you base the increase on the ratio of your strike v their defence?

Correcto mondo.

Probably something like.... ((strike/(def*10))^0.5) * TOC = TOC used, max 1.5*TOC
So a 22.5:1 ratio will net you the max bonus.
2.5:1 is halved
10:1 break even

I might make it def*20 though, 45:1 max, 5:1 halved, 20:1 break even (even thought AJ did say he had changed it to 20:1)

Clockwork wrote:

Sol wrote:For big against small reasons I would limit it so it can only occur if you're attack someone bigger than you, and not smaller.

Forgot to ask last time, how would you measure large v small in this case? would you base it on the physical expanse, or would you base it on the ascended 'entity' (so your personal levels rather than planet count)?

The entity, it will be based on how big or small the being is compared to you, probably just a typical TOC v TOC as it's used for attacking and defending.

Ratio above is calculated....
If you get an increase above your normal:
If your TOC > their TOC, no bonus.
If your TOC < their TOC, you get the bonus up until you reach their TOC. (So technically if you have like 6 bill and attacked a 7 bill, but you had a 150% multiplier, you would only use 7 bill).

If you get a decrease then it will just use the decreased value.

That's what I'm considering, although I could just not have the multiplier go over 1...

I don't see why it's so hard to just mass someone's defense before descending them. For those that claim physical attacks don't serve any purpose on the ascended server, that still maintains an important use for them in everyone's eyes.