StarGateWars Forums

I would like to see a feature that would hide your naquadriah you just requisitioned from another player temporarily hidden from the Attack pages...

1) You start out an attack with 3 mil naq in your treasury.
2) You attack someone and gain another 20mil naq.

(currently), if someone is browsing through the attack log they'd see that you have 23 mil naq, and they may attack you immediately.

I'm proposing:
3) The naq you just retrieved does not show in the attack pages, if someone is browsing they only see 3 mil naq.

So the attack page could only update say on EACH turn (or delayed by 5 minutes for naq you receive from an attack). BUT, to make spies more useful, maybe they could be used to see the ACTUAL naq a person has at the time the spies are sent.

This could be a feature added to all Naq changes. For Example:
if all naq changes are delayed by 5 minutes, then that means that when you BUY something, it will take 5 minutes for it to update and show that you don't have any naq, or when you attack you have 5 minutes to bank it, or spend it, or whatever. This will force people to pay closer attention to what they are doing. Imagine rank #1 attacking Rank #30, because Rank #30 shows they have 50 mil naq. but he already spent/banked it. So that means that Rank one would cause damage and get damaged but not collect any naq. (Bad/No intelligence prior to attack).

Where as the smart thing to do would be to spy first (see what their current NAQ actually is) then decide to attack or not.

IE: this doesn't mean you can't steal the naq.. just that you won't see it immediately unless you spy/recon.

This is more realistic in that your moles/snitches/inside people can't report to you instantly on the current status of your enemies, and would make the spies more useful besides just Sabotage.

****
The above suggestions is only in relation to the Attack pages, your own screens will show YOU your current ammount, only the attack page is delayed so that other players don't know you exact "current" ammount. Regardless of covert rating. Your covert rating still works the same, I'm just talking about a delay in update of how much naq you have (if it can be seen at all)
****

****************************************************************************************
I'm suggesting this because in Chaos I attacked someone and got 425 mil (approx) naq from them.. (it was in their account for more than 5 minutes, I know because I was having a little bit of lag and it took me a little over 5 minutes to prepare and do the attack), I banked 300mil of it (all my bank would hold) and had gone to armory and entered 7 (for super weapon quantity) and hit "process order" (this all *in total* took about 3 minutes).. and my screen came back "not enough resources" I don't mind getting attacked.. it's part of the game, but getting attacked when I've had the naq for less than 3 minutes is really irritating.

Er - no - besides this suggestion was posted very recently elsewhere (last couple of days - although I can't seem to find it now) - If you are going to steal a load of naq, then you need to be prepared to bank/spend it quickly - or at least to have the defence to protect it - why should it be hiden from everyone else?

Your suggestion could also lead to unbalanced stats - to a degree, deeming defence less important.

It would also take away a lot of risk - and without some risk, what is the point in playing?

Actually, it was probably me that suggested it, as somewhere I was reading said to pm you or some such.. I forget...

And as far as game balance.. I'm not saying that it should be hidden for a LONG time.. and I was prepared...

Defence is important, because I'm not saying it's permanently hidden, only for a few minutes after you get it, but anyone could spy and see instantly. It would make the spies more useful, and it would at a bit more strategy into the game instead of "Me barbarian, me big, me crush you"... yeah I can be crushed by a big player, but is it worth it to them to crush me if I have no naq... as I said the delay can work both ways.. it won't necessarily HIDE the naq, it will more just delay it. This way you may see someone that has a LOT of naq, but if you just attack (without doing a recon first) you may crush them and get nothing back if they've already spent it, or banked it.

Good idea, but I rather sombody else pick up the naq and then I steal it it works better. Since it would cost them much more than me.

Actually this would work really well to balance the game out in another way.

Lets say player A just attacked Player C for 50 mil naq. Player B goes to the attack screen see's that Player C has 50 mil naq... (Player B doesn't recon first, so doesn't know that Player A just took the 50 mil naq). Player B attacks Player C and gets nothing (except damage they have to repair).

There is a lot of balance in this. AND a lot of "thinking" before you jump too.

Why is everyone so skeptical??

This actually seems a pretty good idea. However, this should ONLY be for attacks. If someone was going to give money to another player, a good intelligence agency would know that before hand INCLUDING the date. And a good intelligence agency would have an approximate idea of daily income based on watching the enemy. And a simple code could compare spy levels with spies with players on that server, taking into account your enemies to determine about how many spies you would have on them, and how good they would be. This and your spy level could result in the time lag between when you see their stats or not. Also, about a quarter of your spies would probably be permanent defenders of covert attacks. If the admin has some kind of system like that based around def con, that could be fitted into the formula, too.

Lag (in minutes) = 3 - (((player's spies * 0.75 - total enemies * 100) / total players * (if the player is your enemy, then 3)) / "defending" player's spy level * player's spy level) With a minimum of 0

Basically, the things that would affect it are:

1. the amount of players (less people to keep tabs on)
2. the amount of players your at war with (we assume you have about 100x the spies working on those players)
3. If you're at war with the player (100x as many spies )
4. Your spy level (each spy is more effective)
5. Defender's spy level (their spies are better at catching yours)

So, lets say I have 50k spies and there are 25k players, with only 30 enemies. I'm not at war with this particular player. I have spy level 24, he has 23. It would only take 1.66 minutes for me to see his information. Now, say I've declared war on him... I get -1.32... this doesn't mean I predict the future. It gets changed to one.

Now lets say I have a spy level below him. 1.78 minutes before I see his money changes.

Now if I have three spy levels below him... 1.8 minutes

Eh... its a work in progress.... Anyway, its something to base a number off of, and its something more to work with.

Jade wrote:Actually this would work really well to balance the game out in another way.

Lets say player A just attacked Player C for 50 mil naq. Player B goes to the attack screen see's that Player C has 50 mil naq... (Player B doesn't recon first, so doesn't know that Player A just took the 50 mil naq). Player B attacks Player C and gets nothing (except damage they have to repair).

There is a lot of balance in this. AND a lot of "thinking" before you jump too.

You just gave the arguement I was going to give against this.

KnightValor wrote:Why is everyone so skeptical??

This actually seems a pretty good idea. However, this should ONLY be for attacks. If someone was going to give money to another player, a good intelligence agency would know that before hand INCLUDING the date. And a good intelligence agency would have an approximate idea of daily income based on watching the enemy. And a simple code could compare spy levels with spies with players on that server, taking into account your enemies to determine about how many spies you would have on them, and how good they would be. This and your spy level could result in the time lag between when you see their stats or not. Also, about a quarter of your spies would probably be permanent defenders of covert attacks. If the admin has some kind of system like that based around def con, that could be fitted into the formula, too.

Lag (in minutes) = 3 - (((player's spies * 0.75 - total enemies * 100) / total players * (if the player is your enemy, then 3)) / "defending" player's spy level * player's spy level) With a minimum of 0

Basically, the things that would affect it are:

1. the amount of players (less people to keep tabs on)
2. the amount of players your at war with (we assume you have about 100x the spies working on those players)
3. If you're at war with the player (100x as many spies )
4. Your spy level (each spy is more effective)
5. Defender's spy level (their spies are better at catching yours)

So, lets say I have 50k spies and there are 25k players, with only 30 enemies. I'm not at war with this particular player. I have spy level 24, he has 23. It would only take 1.66 minutes for me to see his information. Now, say I've declared war on him... I get -1.32... this doesn't mean I predict the future. It gets changed to one.

Now lets say I have a spy level below him. 1.78 minutes before I see his money changes.

Now if I have three spy levels below him... 1.8 minutes

Eh... its a work in progress.... Anyway, its something to base a number off of, and its something more to work with.

Equally, any good intelligence agency would know when someone is about to launch an attack, including the date (trust me, I know).

I'd say no to this since you're clearly logged in when making the attack, if you're willing to be fair game when not logged in surely you should accept it even more readily when logged in, afterall you can immediately bank/spend the naq you take.

daivahataka wrote:I'd say no to this since you're clearly logged in when making the attack, if you're willing to be fair game when not logged in surely you should accept it even more readily when logged in, afterall you can immediately bank/spend the naq you take.

but **Filtered** happens very often to people and then you are not able to bank it all.
I think it's a great idea, since that would make the game more fun/complicated and i think it should be extended to trading for naq, that it would get hidden too for a few minutes.

Jade wrote:Actually this would work really well to balance the game out in another way.

Lets say player A just attacked Player C for 50 mil naq. Player B goes to the attack screen see's that Player C has 50 mil naq... (Player B doesn't recon first, so doesn't know that Player A just took the 50 mil naq). Player B attacks Player C and gets nothing (except damage they have to repair).

There is a lot of balance in this. AND a lot of "thinking" before you jump too.

So what you are saying is make attacking harder?

Im not sure where you have been hiding but in the last few months less and less people have been attacking and more and more people sit on huge defence and gain income. This game is rapidly turning into a sit and generate naq game and you want to help it get there quicker?

I say no and a big NO at that

halamala wrote:

daivahataka wrote:I'd say no to this since you're clearly logged in when making the attack, if you're willing to be fair game when not logged in surely you should accept it even more readily when logged in, afterall you can immediately bank/spend the naq you take.

but stuff happens very often to people and then you are not able to bank it all.
I think it's a great idea, since that would make the game more fun/complicated and i think it should be extended to trading for naq, that it would get hidden too for a few minutes.

Extend it? Are you having a laugh? Attacking is becoming less and less frequent as people get higher and higher defences - so let's not limit it even further eh? This would limit attacking as there would appear to be less naq available than there actually is. It would also increase market trading, meaning more people will come to rely (wrongly) on the market for their gameplay strategy, killing off more attacking play (anybody remember the WARS part of the game name?) and thus making the game boring.

We should be promoting more ways to increase attacking play, not decrease it!

Thanks wolf. Attacking, wars, bloodshed, gritting your teeth over losing the naq you just stole. These are all parts of the game. If you can't see someone has a lot of naq, there's little reason to spy on them, so eventually, people will hardly attack at all anymore.

Wolf359 wrote:

KnightValor wrote:Why is everyone so skeptical??

This actually seems a pretty good idea. However, this should ONLY be for attacks. If someone was going to give money to another player, a good intelligence agency would know that before hand INCLUDING the date. And a good intelligence agency would have an approximate idea of daily income based on watching the enemy. And a simple code could compare spy levels with spies with players on that server, taking into account your enemies to determine about how many spies you would have on them, and how good they would be. This and your spy level could result in the time lag between when you see their stats or not. Also, about a quarter of your spies would probably be permanent defenders of covert attacks. If the admin has some kind of system like that based around def con, that could be fitted into the formula, too.

Lag (in minutes) = 3 - (((player's spies * 0.75 - total enemies * 100) / total players * (if the player is your enemy, then 3)) / "defending" player's spy level * player's spy level) With a minimum of 0

Basically, the things that would affect it are:

1. the amount of players (less people to keep tabs on)
2. the amount of players your at war with (we assume you have about 100x the spies working on those players)
3. If you're at war with the player (100x as many spies )
4. Your spy level (each spy is more effective)
5. Defender's spy level (their spies are better at catching yours)

So, lets say I have 50k spies and there are 25k players, with only 30 enemies. I'm not at war with this particular player. I have spy level 24, he has 23. It would only take 1.66 minutes for me to see his information. Now, say I've declared war on him... I get -1.32... this doesn't mean I predict the future. It gets changed to one.

Now lets say I have a spy level below him. 1.78 minutes before I see his money changes.

Now if I have three spy levels below him... 1.8 minutes

Eh... its a work in progress.... Anyway, its something to base a number off of, and its something more to work with.

Equally, any good intelligence agency would know when someone is about to launch an attack, including the date (trust me, I know).

Well, yeah, they'd know that the player would attack, yeah...

but they wouldn't know the amount of force the player will use, how their offenses/defenses will match up, ad therefore they would probably assume they didn't earn any money from the attack.

Another thing: lets say 1 turn is 1 game day. 1 minute is just under an hour, right? so 1.44 minutes should be about 1 hour & a half.

Seem a bit mroe reasonable now? Can't you just imagine some general standing in front of a bunch of people typing morse code, headsets on, looking stresses out?

"Have they launched the attack yet?"
"Yes sir, the battle ended 2 minutes ago."
"Persmission to set troops up to ambush his return?"
"Denied... we don't know if he won the battle yet, or what resources he has that are of value to us."

HOUR LATER

"Sir, you wanted to speak with me?"
"We only just recieved the information, he won the battle, and has several tons of naquadah carried by his forces. Looks like your troops are up."

HOUR LATER

"Sir! We have to turn around! He's already put the naquadah into their alpha site! We're taking heavy fire!"

Yeah, basically anyone could go on for hours and hours describing an almost cinematic description of why this is right.

No - I am pretty certain that any half decent intelligence agency would also know what strength the atatcker had, the strength of the defender, the goal of the mission, and also what the likely rewards would be.

But the overarching point is that utimately it will steer the game away from atatcking - for the reasons I gave in my previous post - and we should be promoting more attacks, not reducing them!!