Re: ONE ALLIANCE TO RULE THEM ALL???
Posted: Sun May 01, 2016 9:20 am
50 shades of **Filtered**?~NyX~ wrote:50 Shades?Mental wrote:GREY POWER!!!!!!!!!!!!
StarGateWars Forums
These are the forums for the GateWa.rs family of text-based space-centred PBBGs
https://talk.gatewa.rs/
ONE ALLIANCE TO RULE THEM ALL???
Page 2 of 2
Re: ONE ALLIANCE TO RULE THEM ALL???
Posted: Tue May 03, 2016 5:11 pm
TL;DR - Keep brainstorming, these ideas a little weak tho. Let's add campaigns!
I like that you are brainstorming and daydreaming, and a bit of poking and prodding could be something.
I think all that needs to be done is implementing a little more transparency and resolution to wars. Kind of like how blood wars are implemented. In all honesty the constant notification you are about to enter a blood war is frustrating, and prevents blood wars a lot.
I think it would be sweet for the idea of a "Campaign" to be introduced. I wrapped my campaign idea in spoiler as I am going to throw it in a new topic and it is a bit long winded:
[spoiler]Any alliance leader (or individual) can define a campaign, you have campaign leader (alliance and by extension that alliances leadership control the campaign). The campaign has a set goal, and time frame and goals can only be changed after 48 hours or something (to help allow for treaties and agreements to shape the campaign).
Campaign goals can be like "Alliance disbands, 1Q Campaign loot etc"
You can set things that allow any alliance to join campaign, and campaign drains all the naq (kind of like alliance levies are currently done).
Being part of a victorious campaign gives all participants insignia to be displayed on their account page. Would be cool to have medals etc associated with the campaigns too. Might be too drastic a change, but would add a lot of cool things to see what campaigns people have been part of.
How I see the main idea of the campaign that all actions by campaign members contributes to a resource pool. So all attacks on the defined enemy drain 10% of the retrieved naq/uu into the resource pool. At the end of the campaign the resource pool is then allocated to the members as defined by the campaign leaders. This needs some form of control, but the general idea is that you can set up campaigns based on total farm values (1q naq pool total) so the campaign automatically ends when the resource pool hits the campaign target.
I think campaigns should also include the ability for both parties to agree to peace treaties etc that (if agreed upon) enforce a peace treaty between all members, as well as default war settings between members to prevent nox abuse.
I have a bunch of other ideas for this campaign business, but never really thought to suggest it as the game is starting to wither a little.[/spoiler]
I love the idea of the houses as they are though, and would be interesting to see all the houses fall into 2 (or ideally 3) factions, and you get bonuses against other factions or something. Would be hard to get the balance right though, but worth a continued discussion.
I like that you are brainstorming and daydreaming, and a bit of poking and prodding could be something.
I think all that needs to be done is implementing a little more transparency and resolution to wars. Kind of like how blood wars are implemented. In all honesty the constant notification you are about to enter a blood war is frustrating, and prevents blood wars a lot.
I think it would be sweet for the idea of a "Campaign" to be introduced. I wrapped my campaign idea in spoiler as I am going to throw it in a new topic and it is a bit long winded:
[spoiler]Any alliance leader (or individual) can define a campaign, you have campaign leader (alliance and by extension that alliances leadership control the campaign). The campaign has a set goal, and time frame and goals can only be changed after 48 hours or something (to help allow for treaties and agreements to shape the campaign).
Campaign goals can be like "Alliance disbands, 1Q Campaign loot etc"
You can set things that allow any alliance to join campaign, and campaign drains all the naq (kind of like alliance levies are currently done).
Being part of a victorious campaign gives all participants insignia to be displayed on their account page. Would be cool to have medals etc associated with the campaigns too. Might be too drastic a change, but would add a lot of cool things to see what campaigns people have been part of.
How I see the main idea of the campaign that all actions by campaign members contributes to a resource pool. So all attacks on the defined enemy drain 10% of the retrieved naq/uu into the resource pool. At the end of the campaign the resource pool is then allocated to the members as defined by the campaign leaders. This needs some form of control, but the general idea is that you can set up campaigns based on total farm values (1q naq pool total) so the campaign automatically ends when the resource pool hits the campaign target.
I think campaigns should also include the ability for both parties to agree to peace treaties etc that (if agreed upon) enforce a peace treaty between all members, as well as default war settings between members to prevent nox abuse.
I have a bunch of other ideas for this campaign business, but never really thought to suggest it as the game is starting to wither a little.[/spoiler]
I love the idea of the houses as they are though, and would be interesting to see all the houses fall into 2 (or ideally 3) factions, and you get bonuses against other factions or something. Would be hard to get the balance right though, but worth a continued discussion.
Re: ONE ALLIANCE TO RULE THEM ALL???
Posted: Tue May 03, 2016 6:09 pm
Thanks everyone for commenting and voting.
It seems most don't like the idea of ONE great alliance with all the game's active players. But some do like the idea of TWO great alliances (1 light, 1 dark) with all the game's active players.
I just had an additional thought that I decided to post that I hadn't considered before:
What about THREE great alliances with all the game's active players?
(1 light, 1 dark, and 1 NEUTRAL)
Just a thought.
It would seem we still need to wait for more votes on the other ideas to get a good picture on what players want vis-a-vis old alliances and 'last log-in' times.
Perhaps someone could direct Juliette to this thread so she can have a look and maybe suggest some of these ideas to Jason.
PS. Does anyone know what this 'Ascension' thing is that is happening on the 6th?
Thanks.
It seems most don't like the idea of ONE great alliance with all the game's active players. But some do like the idea of TWO great alliances (1 light, 1 dark) with all the game's active players.
I just had an additional thought that I decided to post that I hadn't considered before:
What about THREE great alliances with all the game's active players?
(1 light, 1 dark, and 1 NEUTRAL)
Just a thought.
It would seem we still need to wait for more votes on the other ideas to get a good picture on what players want vis-a-vis old alliances and 'last log-in' times.
Perhaps someone could direct Juliette to this thread so she can have a look and maybe suggest some of these ideas to Jason.
PS. Does anyone know what this 'Ascension' thing is that is happening on the 6th?
Thanks.
Re: ONE ALLIANCE TO RULE THEM ALL???
Posted: Tue May 03, 2016 6:47 pm
Jason left the building years ago, and atm we practically have the 3 empire thing anyway with OE, TF/TAF and DDE.SEBASTIAN wrote:Thanks everyone for commenting and voting.
It seems most don't like the idea of ONE great alliance with all the game's active players. But some do like the idea of TWO great alliances (1 light, 1 dark) with all the game's active players.
I just had an additional thought that I decided to post that I hadn't considered before:
What about THREE great alliances with all the game's active players?
(1 light, 1 dark, and 1 NEUTRAL)
Just a thought.
It would seem we still need to wait for more votes on the other ideas to get a good picture on what players want vis-a-vis old alliances and 'last log-in' times.
Perhaps someone could direct Juliette to this thread so she can have a look and maybe suggest some of these ideas to Jason.
PS. Does anyone know what this 'Ascension' thing is that is happening on the 6th?
Thanks.
Re: ONE ALLIANCE TO RULE THEM ALL???
Posted: Wed May 04, 2016 6:45 am
seabastion ur cooked mate.. for obvious reasons these are all terrible ideas...
unless you wanna alll make one super alliance and i'll stay out and mass it
unless you wanna alll make one super alliance and i'll stay out and mass it
Re: ONE ALLIANCE TO RULE THEM ALL???
Posted: Thu May 05, 2016 10:07 am
I don`t mean to hijack this thread or anything, but Jason left? I've been away for quiet some time. Who`s running the game then?~NyX~ wrote:Jason left the building years ago, and atm we practically have the 3 empire thing anyway with OE, TF/TAF and DDE.
Re: ONE ALLIANCE TO RULE THEM ALL???
Posted: Thu May 05, 2016 10:25 am
We have two people who are active. JulietteHiteiKan2 wrote:I don`t mean to hijack this thread or anything, but Jason left? I've been away for quiet some time. Who`s running the game then?~NyX~ wrote:Jason left the building years ago, and atm we practically have the 3 empire thing anyway with OE, TF/TAF and DDE.
, who handles everything from forum, to main and ascended issues, bugs, glitches and account issues. And Sol, who handles a lot of Ascended tourny's and updates.Re: ONE ALLIANCE TO RULE THEM ALL???
Posted: Thu May 05, 2016 10:38 am
Ah I see. Thanks for clearing that up for meThe Tribulation wrote:We have two people who are active. JulietteHiteiKan2 wrote:I don`t mean to hijack this thread or anything, but Jason left? I've been away for quiet some time. Who`s running the game then?~NyX~ wrote:Jason left the building years ago, and atm we practically have the 3 empire thing anyway with OE, TF/TAF and DDE.
Re: ONE ALLIANCE TO RULE THEM ALL???
Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2016 4:38 pm
Lolredstorm wrote:I vote for Harchi to run the light alliance and Kik to run the dark alliance when he comes back. Then they each get to pick active players in turn until they have filled out there teams run it as a tournament winning team gets 100 trill naq per player or 50k turns or something....