StarGateWars Forums

I think planet stealing needs a bit of change. Planet defenses shouldn't be massed as easy. Stealing a 30b def planet with 3bil fleet is a load of... you know what.

So heres my idea..

A player needs to have 30% fleet power of planets def. So if theres a 30billion def planet you need at least 9bil fleets to mass it, otherwise your fleets get destroyed and planets defs are unharmed.

Each time you hit a planet, its attribute gets lowered by 2,5%, that would happen after you take it, otherwise you could just go around hitting planets n lower attributes..
So if it takes you 10 hits to take a planet you will have 25% lower attribute than initially spied.

But heres another catch...
If you hit a planet 25-35 times and manage to take it, its stats would after be empty (no stat planet).
When you'd try to hit the planet for 36th time, you can no longer attack for 24 hours.

o well now all you planet thieves n low fleet peeps shoot away how bad the idea is.

*note: all the numbers(percentages,hits..) are there just kinda for example, what i feel should be atm. So theyr open for discussion.

ty

Sounds alright to me, I think having a certain amount of hits possible till it "phases" would be sensible.

~Tallon

Agree.. good suggestion

i liked it

Would be wrong to do...why?

Cause this is war game...where things like planets are ment to be stolen or at least you should be able if you try hard...and with planet stealing you really need to try hard.

First comment would be on the 1/3 instead of todays 1/10 (1/5)

Bad make a calculation how much naq you would need to make 300 bils defences on planet.... (I ll tell you the approximation ...6-7 trills )
Then make a calculation how much naq you need to make a 40 bils (safe zone ) fleet (approximation 22 trils+ )
Now by your idea you would basically need 125 bils of fleets to destroy it...you want to calculate how much naq you need to make those?
( I ll tell you the approximation 200 trills )

Meaning even as we speak its costly to build a fleet which is capable to destroy high defences on planets and the process is costly etc etc...and you suggested it becomes imposible...
Not only that I would spent 200trills+ on my fleets...but on top of that you are saying I would end up with nothing in the end cause I would destroy the planet in process....

Mate I disagree and imho its not a good idea

planet stealing is good as it is now, no need for changes. Fully agree with svarun

Admin already set it up where Fleet slots cost go up, combined with the repairs to fleets while massing a planet and it is already a very expensive endeavor.

The only code I would change is that when you do finally steal the planet the defence facitities not destroyed upon your attack remain. In the show and in real life Ships, planets, castles etc.. can be taken with weapons available to the conquers.

Dumb question here, but i'm new...

How does planet stealing work? What i have read doesn't help much

if your attack is stronger than their defence you can take the planet. simple as that

on topic:
agree with svarun

Gooseman disapproved

I must agree with svarun, if you've seen some of the defenses on some planets I've seen, you'd be happy that you even have the ability to mass them down! I think in the end it's good for business and wars to keep it as it is.

if someone spent 20 trillion on a planets defense right now

i can't imagine how many trillion one would have to spend on fleets in order to just mass it

and u want to make it harder

I DISAGREE , svarun posted how i felt as well

Bad make a calculation how much naq you would need to make 300 bils defences on planet.... (I ll tell you the approximation ...6-7 trills )
Then make a calculation how much naq you need to make a 40 bils (safe zone ) fleet (approximation 22 trils+ )
Now by your idea you would basically need 125 bils of fleets to destroy it...you want to calculate how much naq you need to make those?
( I ll tell you the approximation 200 trills )

You don't create Fleets/Fleet Hangars just to steal one planet, while the defenses you build on a planet are only there for one cause. So this costs you state don't show the actual picture.

My point is the following (an example) :

Theres a mine (of gold or whatever) which you want to have, but it is heavily defended by lets say 10000 robots with rockets - who are in the mine or around it. You only have 1000 of them with same weapons.
In order to destroy the defenders you need to bomb the hell out of them. But in the way they'r located, each time you attack you also destroy portion of the mine. Eventually the mine is basically gone, nothing to do there as everything is destroyed.

So this is where my suggestion of max attacks comes from.
This is even better in a way, cause if you take a planet with first attack it only loses 2,5% (or something) of its attribute.
Now it loses 25%.

----------------------------

Lets see what can happen with the current system.
To build hangers for a 30 billion fleet it costs 14 trillion naquadah - about 53000 hangers. Fleets cost 650bil.
Total Costs: 14,65 trillion.

> If there is another war like COP vs CIA one, which lasts like 2 months.
Lets say we TL are in it against a very good opponent where one player has 30 billion fleets. 10 of us have 10 planets - each 300billion defense.
This ONE SINGLE player can make us damages worth 500-600 Trillion. Thats almost 1 BILLION Untrained Units worth.

I doubt they would give more for repairs.
So yea guys, this system is perfect... Not.

forum never wished the planets to be permanent additions to your system

the threat of being able to lose them should always be there

there are already numerous players attempting to put their planets out of reach of 99.99999% of the game from ever attacking them

many have gotten close if not reached that point

it should not be made any easier

we dont want the top 10% of the game to have untouchable planets that NOBODY can touch

the danger of being able to lose all your planets should be a real threat, and yes in major wars, i would think each alliance would try to destroy others planets if they invested trillions into them