Superweapon

I have an idea.

Superweapons, they play an important role in warring other players. But each factions get their unique superweapon.

Daning - Neutron Cannon
Miyira - Projectile Cannon
Hualu - Solar Cannon
Kyora - Orbital Strike Cannon

And in order to obtain this, you must construct superweapon which takes a week. And to activate it you need scienists, 1 scienist equals to 0.001% activating rate. If it is 100%, you can activate it every week. depending on how many scienists you have, the more you have, the faster it will be activate.

Now about their unique cannon system.

Daning Cannon will demolish 3% of total defense
Miyia will demolish 1.5% of covert and assassian action
Hulau will demolish 5% of killable income units
Kyora will demolish 3% of strike action.

something like this was tried in another game and it didn't go over very well.
I do like the concept, just not sure of the idea that you have.

so when war should struck between two factions they just immediately nuke one another and down the hill al the fun of the game.
it is good u have an idea.
but
it's a bad idea.

Right, which is why i suggested that if you are at 100% activation rate, it takes 7 days to make a superweapon activate if you have like 10 million scienicists working on it. I'm sure admin will figure it out how to make it work.

Also i suggested the percentage will be added so the superweapon only can nuke some, but it requires teamworking to actually nuke a single strong player.

Think about it. Or I can propose with better balance of super weapons.

How about this one?

Daning - 1.5% demolish of defense force
Miyira - 0.75% demolish of covert and 0.75% of assassian force
Kyora - demolish 2.5% of income units (killable)
Hulau - demolish 1.5% of offense force.

if it takes 10 players of daning then 15% of single player defense will be blown up. Indivually.

In additional to my idea of superweapon.

Scienists can be killed in invasion mission, or assassinate missions, even do covert action to blow up their superweapon and restart their timer of activation. With that, it adds a whole new stragety of war.

so yes basically another thing to totally wipe out a single account by a group of people

as ghyogood put it
it's a bad idea that i'm not sure is even really possible to work in a balanced way
people are partially hypocrites because they dont want to see stuff you have no chance to protect yourself from

plus fyi, killing 2.5% of killable income units would still be pretty badass

Yeah, now my idea is shot down. :'(

Personally, I thought it was a great idea

StarWolf wrote:Yeah, now my idea is shot down. :'(

i'll clarify

the idea isn't bad in the sense that it would be stupid, it is a very interesting idea
problem is that things tend to end up being used in different ways than initially imagined

this one, you can sab/assassinate/assault and deal the same damage with 1 mission, so people will tend to as you said, band into groups, aka alliances, and then spamattack a single account.
So maybe making it 4-5 times more powerful instead but limit that one account can only get hit by this thing once every week or two at most (or maybe each stat can only get hit once every 2 weeks)

spontaneous suggestions are very rarely a good basis to start off, too many uncertainties

We can try superweapon in test server?

instead of faction superweapon Lets call it Proton Cannon.

Once it is activated, every 2 weeks. Forget about scienists. There is a Nuke button. you click it on someone else base. then you select 5 options, income. assassian. offense. defense. or covert.

Again. to make it more balance.

Demolish 1.255 of offense force
Demolish 1.25% of defense force
Demolish 1.255 of covert force
Demolish 1.25% of assassian force
Demolish 2.5% of income units (killable only)

The superweapon that deals damage to a player will be done indivually. not adding up the percentage together. for instance.

1.000 defense troopers. you nuked 1.25% of his defense troopers.

niw 975 defense troopers. You nuked 1.255 of his defense troopers again.

now 955 - 960 defense troopers left.

Thats how it is calucated indivually. The reason why nuking income units is greater than other nuking other stats is because they killable. only farmers are nonkillable. Everyone builds farmers. so that makes perfectly sense.

Also if this superweapon was about to be accepted. then new building call Bunker should be added. For every 1 bunker shelters 10 military units. (spies. assassians. attack. defense). How does it sounds now?

StarWolf wrote:We can try superweapon in test server?

instead of faction superweapon Lets call it Proton Cannon.

Once it is activated, every 2 weeks. Forget about scienists. There is a Nuke button. you click it on someone else base. then you select 5 options, income. assassian. offense. defense. or covert.

Again. to make it more balance.

Demolish 1.255 of offense force
Demolish 1.25% of defense force
Demolish 1.255 of covert force
Demolish 1.25% of assassian force
Demolish 2.5% of income units (killable only)

The superweapon that deals damage to a player will be done indivually. not adding up the percentage together. for instance.

1.000 defense troopers. you nuked 1.25% of his defense troopers.

niw 975 defense troopers. You nuked 1.255 of his defense troopers again.

now 955 - 960 defense troopers left.

Thats how it is calucated indivually. The reason why nuking income units is greater than other nuking other stats is because they killable. only farmers are nonkillable. Everyone builds farmers. so that makes perfectly sense.

Also if this superweapon was about to be accepted. then new building call Bunker should be added. For every 1 bunker shelters 10 military units. (spies. assassians. attack. defense). How does it sounds now?

explain it more please.

you only get to use it 1 time every 2 weeks? Then how can you hit him again? Or are you saying if an alliance got together to do this to 1 person? What are the "costs" to build and maintain this weapon? You state shelters can be built, and if so why can't you build enough "bunkers" to negate the weapon all together?

You need to clarify the cost to own and attack with the SW and the cost to defend from the SW. Looks to me the larger you are the cost to defend grows exponentially all the while the cost to attack with it never changes.

JMO, I personally never liked SW, they are all exploitable to some extent. I never understood why just actually building your account and sending men to massacre and be slaughtered is not enough. BUT I am not against trying out a new SW system. Maybe one day something good can come from it.

Nomad wrote:

StarWolf wrote:We can try superweapon in test server?

instead of faction superweapon Lets call it Proton Cannon.

Once it is activated, every 2 weeks. Forget about scienists. There is a Nuke button. you click it on someone else base. then you select 5 options, income. assassian. offense. defense. or covert.

Again. to make it more balance.

Demolish 1.255 of offense force
Demolish 1.25% of defense force
Demolish 1.255 of covert force
Demolish 1.25% of assassian force
Demolish 2.5% of income units (killable only)

The superweapon that deals damage to a player will be done indivually. not adding up the percentage together. for instance.

1.000 defense troopers. you nuked 1.25% of his defense troopers.

niw 975 defense troopers. You nuked 1.255 of his defense troopers again.

now 955 - 960 defense troopers left.

Thats how it is calucated indivually. The reason why nuking income units is greater than other nuking other stats is because they killable. only farmers are nonkillable. Everyone builds farmers. so that makes perfectly sense.

Also if this superweapon was about to be accepted. then new building call Bunker should be added. For every 1 bunker shelters 10 military units. (spies. assassians. attack. defense). How does it sounds now?

explain it more please.

you only get to use it 1 time every 2 weeks? Then how can you hit him again? Or are you saying if an alliance got together to do this to 1 person? What are the "costs" to build and maintain this weapon? You state shelters can be built, and if so why can't you build enough "bunkers" to negate the weapon all together?

You need to clarify the cost to own and attack with the SW and the cost to defend from the SW. Looks to me the larger you are the cost to defend grows exponentially all the while the cost to attack with it never changes.

JMO, I personally never liked SW, they are all exploitable to some extent. I never understood why just actually building your account and sending men to massacre and be slaughtered is not enough. BUT I am not against trying out a new SW system. Maybe one day something good can come from it.

One player armed with SW won't do much of the damage to a single player as you thought. I'm trying to give you the idea of using superweapon as a team. to blow up a single player using everyone superweapon as a team. But since superweapon will only do little damage. so it is impossbile to zero a stat with SW.

SW should be used during the war. The concept of SW is using teamwork, such as alliance. 10 players armed with SW can weaken a player defense by only 12.50%. Personally. i feel like I've balanced the Superweapon. So why don't we test it in test server to see how well it work? We can do some experiments with it, to see if player will start using teamwork to fight againist other alliance.

The concept of bunker keeps your military safe from SW. Yes Bunker becomes expensive as you build more. I just don't want bunker to be cheap and easy to build. They plays an important role in keeping your military safe from SW. The only way to obtain SW is to have Construction Yard level 3. Bunker is for Construction Yard level 2. since strong player will get SW first.

Is it possible to have SW? In Test server. to see how well it goes. But with SW being added to the game, you have moved the game to a whole new level of warfare. Rank #1 player will be much easier to be destroy. with SW. Instead of watching him staying in rank #1 for the whole day, we can easily press Nuke button and blow him up. Well that is an example.

Please. Just try it out. Only in test server. If it goes all well. then you can add it to permaserver or RA if RA becomes nonresetable.

StarWolf wrote:
One player armed with SW won't do much of the damage to a single player as you thought. I'm trying to give you the idea of using superweapon as a team. to blow up a single player using everyone superweapon as a team. But since superweapon will only do little damage. so it is impossbile to zero a stat with SW.

SW should be used during the war. The concept of SW is using teamwork, such as alliance. 10 players armed with SW can weaken a player defense by only 12.50%. Personally. i feel like I've balanced the Superweapon. So why don't we test it in test server to see how well it work? We can do some experiments with it, to see if player will start using teamwork to fight againist other alliance.

The concept of bunker keeps your military safe from SW. Yes Bunker becomes expensive as you build more. I just don't want bunker to be cheap and easy to build. They plays an important role in keeping your military safe from SW. The only way to obtain SW is to have Construction Yard level 3. Bunker is for Construction Yard level 2. since strong player will get SW first.

Is it possible to have SW? In Test server. to see how well it goes. But with SW being added to the game, you have moved the game to a whole new level of warfare. Rank #1 player will be much easier to be destroy. with SW. Instead of watching him staying in rank #1 for the whole day, we can easily press Nuke button and blow him up. Well that is an example.

Please. Just try it out. Only in test server. If it goes all well. then you can add it to permaserver or RA if RA becomes nonresetable.

You still have assigned no price/cost to either side.

We need to test AF first, without any other updates. You get this one hammered out and he may try it next I do not know. We have to make it viable in theroy first, no sense in wasting time and enegry coding it when we can not make it work or be balanced in theory first

Right. but a single player armed with superweapon will not do much damage. It takes a teamwork to do it.And it only activates once every 2 weeks, to prevent tfrom SW massing.

Sure AF can get test first. Superweapon can wait later. but it would be good if we discuss about Superweapon during AF being updated to Permaserver. To get all the concept in clear way. So far this is the concept.

Proton Cannon

Day to construct - 7 Days
Price: 10.000.000.000.000 (10 Trillion Kuwal)

Bunker

Day to construct - 20/1 tick
Price: 1.000.000 * 1.1

If you have 100 bunkers, which equals to protecting 1000 military units. Here is my concept.

1 bunker will protect 3 units of spies. 3 units of assassian. 3 of defense units, 3 of offense units. Hmmm, might as well increase the capicaty of bunker from 10 to 12 to balance the units equalivent. So obviously 3 units each.

But if you have 100 bunkers. and you have 25.000 spies. some of your spies will be protected. that means 300 spies will be safe in the bunker. And no. the percentage doesn't multiple. it adds up the capicaty of bunker system.

But if you have 100 bunkers and you have 30.000 spies. 300 spies will be still safe in the bunkers...

However if you increase bunker from 100 to 500. then 1500 of your spies will be safe from superweapon.


discuss that concept.

starwolf go check out reset . aderanwars . com (remove the spaces) if you haven't already
the construction page has been redone somewhat

First I think before throwing in numbers we have to know what the point of the SW is supposed to be.
weak / strong (i.e. kill 2% of something or up to 20%)
defendable / undefendable (if it's weak it would maybe suck if you could still defend from it anyway, your spies cannot go on missions if they are sitting in bunkers afterall)
only charging time to reactivate it or also financial cost

Limit how many 1 can take. I could see someone with a stick up there.... then creating multies to make this.

So make it so that it's worth only to invest into 1 Multies with such weps are REALLY easy to spot, I'd say

i'm with curu on this one
though tbh if this comes anywhere it should probably be a recharge thing with 1 max per person and some limit how often you can get hit by it

10 trill kewal to wipe out 1.2% of anything is a bit extreme.


I also can not figure out why this is needed. Why not just attack him? Normally? How does this promote teamwork any more then normal attacks? Lastly, how will this effect lone wolves?

Now we are getting the idea together.

I would say 3 times of nuking a player in a day would be the limit. Once that player gets nuked 3 times, she/he cannot be nuked again. Good thinking about multies, however the idea i brought about 10 trillion kuwal will make player unlikely to create multies and use superweaapon against other player... getting 10 trillion takes forever. So, yeah, unless they spend alot of cash on trade market.

But if there is a limit on how often player can be nuked, then we must raise the superweapon damage percentage ratio.

But seriously, do the math
compare the price of 10 tril
how many soldiers would you be able to arm and attack with / spies to sab with that amount

True. maybe there need to be pricing discussion about how much a SW should cost.

You dont need soldiers to arm the superweapon it just activates itself every 2 weeks. .

Admin wrote:weak / strong (i.e. kill 2% of something or up to 20%)
limit/ no limit on hits to one account
defendable / undefendable (if it's weak it would maybe suck if you could still defend from it anyway, your spies cannot go on missions if they are sitting in bunkers afterall)
only charging time to reactivate it or also financial cost

I have already tried to think about this a long time ago and never came to any good conclusion, maybe you can come up with something

I have to admit to being a little confused here.

A very expensive super weapon that has to require teamwork from a number of players that can be utilized in a limited way to attack one player and cause 1.2% damage is not really much of a super weapon especially when you consider that winning an assault mission will result in 4% loss to the defender.

I do like some of the concept behind the super weapon idea but I don't like the idea of it being used against an individual as I think that it is open for exploitation.

1. If it requires a Team to build and operate, how big is the Team?
As were an alliance based game the following questions come to mind.
2. Will it be limited to 1 super weapon per alliance?
3. If it takes an alliance to build and arm why not target is against an alliance instead of an individual?
4. What is the spread of costs required to build it i.e. does each alliance member have to provide the same amount of financing or would it be scaled across the alliance membership, or can just a few finance it?
5. When fired what % of alliance members would need to be online for it to fire?

I also still see no benefit that can not be achieved through normal attacks.

I also still see not point in a weapon that can be defended against, except to waste money on that could be used to build an army or bolster your economy. Larger accounts and larger alliances will benefit from this and lone wolves will suffer the most.