Deascension
Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 6:12 pm
Talked to a mate and thought of this one...
While many are "afraid of deascension" some wonder other anticipating this idea wont be likeable by the strongest who probably wanted to keep everybody down...from ascended server...(joking)
So the idea:
Deascension can only be executed by guys at least 100% stronger then you.
The executioner losses 30% of everything he has.
Now let us check it thoroughly:
-100% stronger:
+in army size(planet size)
- 30% of everything he has
30% of his planets are eliminated
30% of mass invaders, 30% of mass defenders, 30% of income planets...30 percent in every planet field (as the descended one also losses up to 30% of the bonuses ...from here if he was only 4 times ascended then they both should lose 20%...)
Why this harsh conditions....well we have heard the idea being deascended for 3 month or smth like that...well that is long time to be without 30% bonus in main also some players in main want to make it harder to hurt the smaller players...well with this hurting them would end up being much more risky
)
Then also in the sg-saga we can see deascension is only done when there is some large violation of the ascended rules...well...in this way the amount of deascended wouldnt be so big...and only those that really made smth their opponent think is utterly bugging them...would be deascended...
Why 100% stronger rule...well so not everyone would be able to deascend you...and about the question what about the strongest one in ascension (well mass him as long as their is not someone 100% then him LoL he is the strongest he should be harder to deascend dont you think)
Why 30% limit...so there wouldnt be any bullying...at least not for nth and at least not without a consequences...
An example of the process:
You are supposingly rank 200 in ascension (by influence) You have a total of 500k planets and some group of ppl (alliance) wants to deascend you...well they mass you etc you go down to 300k planets after the massing...and the only one who can deascend you is a 100% bigger player you a 600k + guy...and even so he deascends you...you go down from ascended server...and he ends up with 180k of planets less..
Good things about it:
Well ppl would start playing ascension more...most of them dont play as they say whats the use ppl are 100x stronger then me i ll be deascended anyway even if i build up...wel in this case more that you build up...more expensive for someone to mass you...and equals =bigger protection from deascension as bigger you become more they ll think about deascending you
Also a good thing would be implementing so called HARD to do thing in sgw...lots of strategy...involved in deascension...we all know there is max of 2000 ats...so you think how you ll spend them and that is a strategy...as well this deascension would mean exactly the same.
Well it is only an idea and for admin to decide for you to diss it or support it.
To sum up:
+ for big players they will hardly be deascended
- for big players they wont deascend as easily as they thought they will
+ for smaller players they can build more safely...and with knowing more they build the better
- for smaller players...i dont see it
P.S. (as these could be breached by alliance just massing a person...and then putting one guy in the end to finish the deascension...there could be smth changed...all involved in attacking or sabbing this person deascended within 6 hours or so....would lose 5-10% of their power...now...will there be any 10 to one after this
I dont think so I even support this idea more...as it is more ---You wont get pass the original thought ...that is
TO DEASCEND IS COSTLY AND NOT A COMMON THING
Best Regards: SVARUN
While many are "afraid of deascension" some wonder other anticipating this idea wont be likeable by the strongest who probably wanted to keep everybody down...from ascended server...(joking)
So the idea:
Deascension can only be executed by guys at least 100% stronger then you.
The executioner losses 30% of everything he has.
Now let us check it thoroughly:
-100% stronger:
+in army size(planet size)
- 30% of everything he has
30% of his planets are eliminated
30% of mass invaders, 30% of mass defenders, 30% of income planets...30 percent in every planet field (as the descended one also losses up to 30% of the bonuses ...from here if he was only 4 times ascended then they both should lose 20%...)
Why this harsh conditions....well we have heard the idea being deascended for 3 month or smth like that...well that is long time to be without 30% bonus in main also some players in main want to make it harder to hurt the smaller players...well with this hurting them would end up being much more risky
)
Then also in the sg-saga we can see deascension is only done when there is some large violation of the ascended rules...well...in this way the amount of deascended wouldnt be so big...and only those that really made smth their opponent think is utterly bugging them...would be deascended...
Why 100% stronger rule...well so not everyone would be able to deascend you...and about the question what about the strongest one in ascension (well mass him as long as their is not someone 100% then him LoL he is the strongest he should be harder to deascend dont you think)
Why 30% limit...so there wouldnt be any bullying...at least not for nth and at least not without a consequences...
An example of the process:
You are supposingly rank 200 in ascension (by influence) You have a total of 500k planets and some group of ppl (alliance) wants to deascend you...well they mass you etc you go down to 300k planets after the massing...and the only one who can deascend you is a 100% bigger player you a 600k + guy...and even so he deascends you...you go down from ascended server...and he ends up with 180k of planets less..
Good things about it:
Well ppl would start playing ascension more...most of them dont play as they say whats the use ppl are 100x stronger then me i ll be deascended anyway even if i build up...wel in this case more that you build up...more expensive for someone to mass you...and equals =bigger protection from deascension as bigger you become more they ll think about deascending you
Also a good thing would be implementing so called HARD to do thing in sgw...lots of strategy...involved in deascension...we all know there is max of 2000 ats...so you think how you ll spend them and that is a strategy...as well this deascension would mean exactly the same.
Well it is only an idea and for admin to decide for you to diss it or support it.
To sum up:
+ for big players they will hardly be deascended
- for big players they wont deascend as easily as they thought they will
+ for smaller players they can build more safely...and with knowing more they build the better
- for smaller players...i dont see it
P.S. (as these could be breached by alliance just massing a person...and then putting one guy in the end to finish the deascension...there could be smth changed...all involved in attacking or sabbing this person deascended within 6 hours or so....would lose 5-10% of their power...now...will there be any 10 to one after this
I dont think so I even support this idea more...as it is more ---You wont get pass the original thought ...that is
TO DEASCEND IS COSTLY AND NOT A COMMON THING
Best Regards: SVARUN