StarGateWars Forums

Should your planets defence power be added into your power and/or your alliance power?

I think it should. what if you had ,as example 50bil, defence power on planets. That could really change the alliance rankings.

yeah it really could change the rankings

but so could adding 60 trillion allience power to some weak allience for no reason

in other words no

hidden wrote:but so could adding 60 trillion allience power to some weak allience for no reason

huh?

interesting but i agree with hidden...no making alliances purely for planetary power

yeah i really like this, even if i dont have any planets haha

Again, strangely, I find myself agreeing with hidden.

i ahte when ppl vote and dont comment, why shouldnt planet defence be included after all fleet power is, that like only allowing aspard to get ranked for def and not attack.

Because the benefit of the planet (attack/defence/covert etc.) is already calculated into the stats and therefore included in the alliance power. What good is a planet with zero (hypothetically speaking of course) bonuses but incredible defenses on it?


J.G.G.

i say no because you cant sell or use a planet defence for any think only to defend that planet also there no planet defence ranking

Jean Gregoire Gabriel wrote:Because the benefit of the planet (attack/defence/covert etc.) is already calculated into the stats and therefore included in the alliance power. What good is a planet with zero (hypothetically speaking of course) bonuses but incredible defenses on it?


J.G.G.

and the planets that have no bonus?

~_+Psi Kiya Trist+_~

Emperor Martin wrote:I think it should. what if you had ,as example 50bil, defence power on planets. That could really change the alliance rankings.

It looks good only assuming that all players had an equal opportunity from inception to obtain and hold planets. Then, if a smaller alliance had x planets(of type y) and a large alliance had x planets(of type y), it could really change the alliance rankings.

Knowing that stronger, more experienced players are in larger/mid-sized more established alliances, and that lower ranked players are unlikely to have/hold planets when considering the nature of this game, I postulate that any planets created with this intent would end up in the realms of stronger, more experienced players(to which I see no fault or injustice). This will ultimately will create greater differences with stronger established alliances(stronger, more experianced players) relative to smaller volitile alliances(newer, less experienced players) because those newer players will be unlikely to hold onto planets when battled by a larger, stronger player.

Therefore, it really wouldn't change the alliance rankings. The top 10-20 would probably be mixed around a little, but I conclude that no significant change will be made with respect to alliances. I voted no.

Layman explaination: A lot of people(using historical observations) have commented that it's tougher for smaller/newer players to catch up to larger players. It seems like this will create further divisions between stronger, more experienced players and those who are not in this category. I don't really feel like cycling through many posts about how tough it is to play a free online game, and it doesn't seem(upon further inspection) to be able to do what it's designed to.

K

idea abandoned, someone lock please