attack/def/balanced war

[Sol]

Should attack and defence be tied in similar to main to deter snipers?
for example...
def has to be 25% of attack, so to increase attack further, defence must be increased.

[Navy]

While I don't snipe, I guess I don't see the point of taking out a viable way to play the game. Sure, it's annoying--you get massed then the other person never has anything for you to mass in return.

I don't know, it just seems like it's forcing the game into a narrow way to play whereas if you leave it as is people actually have options of how they want to play.

Just my opinion, maybe once more people post I will become better educated on the subject.

However, I vote no.

[Clockwork]

Should attack and defence be tied in similar to main to deter snipers

No such ratio exists in main

[Sol]

Should attack and defence be tied in similar to main to deter snipers

No such ratio exists in main

Must have been suggested some time ago then....or added then removed.... or I'm out of touch with reality . I swear I saw it somewhere.

[reborn]

Just a point blank No, we don't have it in main.

Reason is your then forcing ppl to play such a way, maybe they don't want too, when they train a strike they cant un-train it, its there to be killed.

Plenty of ppl have been caught with their strike and had it DM right away. I just think its really wrong trying to force ppl to play in such a way.

Why not put in you can only have 10% of total size of strike, 10% defence , 10% covert, 10% assassins , rest income ?

Were do u stop? Ppl can just train up all planets in assassins atm and just DM, or train to covert and sab.

I might of suggested this myself not so long back but im sure I said then it would be forcing ppl to play in such a way it would be wrong.

[~Tziki~]

Agree with reborn.

It was said long ago that you should never force a player to do something unless they want to do it.
As annoying as sniping can be at times, its a part of the game, and the only real way smaller players can stand up to the bigger ones.

Forcing people to train x amounts first is messing with a style of play, and shouldnt be implemented.

People should be free to control their own units as they see fit.

Edit: + as reborn said, its irrelevant. If you want to increase attack, just increase it. the more you increase without a defense the more you put yourself at risk of being destroyed without any chance of defending yourself, So if you can easily destroy the strike of someone, why do you need them to have a defense aswell? Seems illogical

[KOS]

I said no, now if the question was can at or def improve on main cause of something done on the ascended server, I would say yes.

[PTCACM]

Attack: Defence - 1:0.5
Would be great, we could have something to mass when we massed, would limit army expansion, and finally we would see stats on everyone, hope it comes up

[Norbe]

I can't seem to vote in the poll so i'll post instead.

"Attack: Defence - 1:0.5"

Would be the most I'd want to see, but I think it's a good idea.

I can easily see the point Reborn is making. The issue as I see it is there are quite a lot of ways to bring a defense down in ascended. In 96% of cases, the attacker will always lose far less than the defender. With Destroy and DM being such powerful tools, it's really a bad idea to build a big defense. You can Destroy a defenese to 0 with your strike starting at 1/3rd of their defense power, and it's cost and losses effective. Even if they are online repairing it can work. Add to this the fact that CER recovery is much much quicker near plague, and you have an environment where it is actually a great strategy to sniper. Your attacking losses are less and you recover quicker than the defenders who have little hope of effectively defending themselves.

Tying attack and defense won't solve those problems, but it does at least make people invest a tiny bit more when massing and allows the defender to return fire on something. But to have to build a 100Q defense to build a 100Q strike would be ludicrious. Defense at 50% max.

[reborn]

Some of your not really thought it out it seems.

The only ways this turns out is like this.

If u force ppl to build a defence you will never see ppl doing strike again , you will only see ppl doing DM.

Tbh I cant even believe this was even put up as an idea, telling ppl you have to build to do such a thing is shocking.

Next you will be saying we have to build a defence to sab ppl.

So do we then say you can only have (X) amount of planets of assassins to a strike /defence/covert?

You might as-well say as I put u can only have 10% in defence, 10% in strike,10% in covert, 10% in assassins.

Or lets think about it like this your in arena.

You lose you defence but u have a 20 quad strike...... whats this you can not do anything with it because you have 0 defence.

So you have to sell of strike to build some defence, now your strike is lower , while this is happening your still being hunted, then your DM then your DI and then sabbed.

You will not be able to hit back at all.

Trying to force ppl to build certain ways only leads to a few ways you can play, instead of having a range of ways.

Would love to see how many want this would say they would like this in main too, because I bet they wouldn't. Nor would I want to see it and I sit with a defence 99% of time much bigger than others.

[borg]

are there alternatives - eg once you have zeroed a defence u should be able to sab attackers weaps and then kill attackers - just a thought - on the specific question u asked I would say no

[Sol]

are there alternatives - eg once you have zeroed a defence u should be able to sab attackers weaps and then kill attackers - just a thought - on the specific question u asked I would say no

Sure. This is a sort of general question rolled into an answer. If anyone has an alternative I'll add it to the vote. You should be able to re-cast your vote an unlimited amount of times.

[frans]

I'm seeing a lot of players being mislabeled as snipers when they are simply just playing aggressively. So how about we decide how a sniper is different from your typical aggressive playstyle, and what it actually takes to actually snipe a player.

[Clockwork]

are there alternatives - eg once you have zeroed a defence u should be able to sab attackers weaps and then kill attackers - just a thought - on the specific question u asked I would say no

You already have the option to sab away ATTACK weps, and/or kill ATTACK planets. It simple depends on how you choose to attack somebody in the first place. True is becomes a slower process when your opponent becomes phased, but you already have the tools to destroy pretty much everyone your opponent had built (much more so than main).

[noone]

Would this work for the command star too ?