StarGateWars Forums

I don't know if any of you saw my last post about the market, but this actually kind of goes along with that one.

My alliance has (like I said) soared through the ranks because of the market, which makes trading possible even for players that have to wait a week for 7k units.

The most frequent area that my friends spend money on is their mothership. Why? Because they need absolutely no UU to create a meaninglessly strong MS. Most of my friends have motherships that can do double (or even triple) their attack and/or defense power.

So why not limit MSs in the same way we limit spies and such? The answer is simple: Officers!

For every weapon you need one "Offensive sub-specialist"
For every five weapons you need one "Offensive specialist"
For every 25 weapons you need one "Offensive sub-commander"
For every 100 weapons you need one "Offensive commander"
Same goes for defense with defensive speciallists and commanders.

If you do not have the required officers, your weapons don't participate in battles.

For Example:

X has 300 offensive weapons, 300 sub-speciallists, and 60 speciallists. He also has twelve sub-commanders, but only two commanders. His last 100 weapons don't count in battles, as he doesn't have a commander to oversee them, even though he has all the other crew needed.

Every battle, you lose four times as many guys as weapons (rounded up), with the command requirements in mind.. For instance, say I lose 25 sheilds? I lose 100 defensive sub-specialists, 20 speciallists, and four sub-commanders.

If they continue and destroy eight of my weapons, I lose three speciallists (8*4/5 rounded up), twenty-four sub-speciallists.

Costs:

Defensive sub-speciallists - 37,000 naquadah
Offensive sub-speciallists - 34,000 naquadah
Defensive speciallists - 144,000 naquadah
Offensive speciallists - 136,000 naquadah
Defensive sub-commander - 458,000 naquadah
Offensive sub-commander - 426,000 naquadah
Defensive commander - 1,124,000 naquadah
Offensive commander - 1,118,000 naquadah

This will also hopefully prevent n00bs from stupidly pouring 99% of their money into their mothership because they don't understand how it works. NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH THE NON-NOOBISH PEOPLE THAT DO IT FOR ACTUAL REASONS.

Just some ideas, the only flaw I see is implementing it. Maybe admin should start out with magically creating all the officers you need in the beginning of it. I mean, he did give us all miners that one time! Maybe we could also go all on PPT like last time... *rubs hands together while laughing maniacly*

I almost locked this....

Mothership personnel has been discussed before - but has never had a specific thread of its own - and this is a well thought out proposal.

I'll let this one linger......

You are correct in that there may be problems implementing this.

Additionally - I'm not so sure that it should be a fixed ratio of people killed dependent on how many weapons are destroyed. Just because a weapon is destroyed, it doesn't mean it's operator will be. And why would you lose 100 operators if you had 25 shields destroyed?

Overall though, I like the idea of having personnel on board - I'm not too sure of teh numbers of personnel, or how they might be killed, but that's what these discussion threads are for!!!

Yeah, I wondered if you would.

Mostly its just been kind of floating around places, showing up in random topics.

I am glad you didn't lock it I think its the right choice (obviously... lol)

And as for the casualties, I just figured it was the best way of doing it, at least as an example.

We're not stopping Admin from changing that, though. I agree with you that the casualties need some work yet.

Doesn't it kinda cost enough when a couple of shields and weapons get blown off your mothership. All this would do is further devalue attacks, making attacking someone of equal strength utterly pointless.

Which is exactly why I said that further discussion regarding cre numbers needs to take place.

Isn't it just nice when things.. work...

If it isn't broke, please don't fix it!

bit of topic, but I think something should be done to counter a mothership if you do not have one. I mean, if a grup of people decidet they do not like the idea of any new person havinh a MS they could make that happen. There is just no way someone could out-race them.

Red XIII wrote:Isn't it just nice when things.. work...

If it isn't broke, please don't fix it!

Did you read my post or not?

People have been stacking up on MS power because they don't need UU to do it. N00bs have been trading in for purely naq, and buying only spy upgrades, MS weaponry, and UP upgrading. In order to be ranked evenly, I have to meaninglessly spend money on my mothership so that it does more damage than I can do. Is this a fair trade?

If we introduce this and maybe some more ways to attack MSs (say, ground to air or sabotaging them) then we won't have to do this.

One of my best friends has surpassed me because his name is "soccer kicks butt" so he has alot of officers, and using those officers he's gotten higher UP, and using that UP he's been trading in, and using that money he's made his mothership waay too powerful for efficiency's sake!

You may be able to call that another level of gameplay, but there's no way you can call that a good one! Pretty soon these noobs will hit top 100 ranks and yet lose nearly all their battles!

Red XIII wrote:Isn't it just nice when things.. work...

If it isn't broke, please don't fix it!

The same can be said of quite a lot of the current suggestions (especially the one regarding using G&R for non-ascended bonuses), but there is still nothing wrong with suggesting it.

erm, when you say officers , do you mean that to improve your ms you have to have more officers or what , because it thats the case then thats just silly, because having no officers is a good strat.

12agnar0k wrote:erm, when you say officers , do you mean that to improve your ms you have to have more officers or what , because it thats the case then thats just silly, because having no officers is a good strat.

Nope, he means crew requirements, as in UU.