StarGateWars Forums

Byakko wrote:So here is a thought...stay with me here
What if...

instead of one on one battles you can send your mothership much like you send it in search of new planets, to fight along with your alliance in a space war with another alliance

just declare war on another alliance and if they too declare war then it would unlock a new ability to click a button and volunteer your mothership to fight in "The Battle Of _____" and then it would go and engadge in a space war along with other members of your alliance

now there would have to be some sort of limit and order to it as well
it could be five ships each with order acording to rank or mothership power or maybe even haveing a clan leader picking who's ship gets what spot

Lead mothership

Right wing

Left wing

Resurve

Ect..

In closeing i feel this would brng alliances closer togeather they would have team efforts and it would bring a deeper feel for them i think this goes with this topic but if it dosnt i will repost it just thought it was a good idea am i wrong?

Byakko wrote:your a real glass is half full kinda guy arnt you?

geisha wrote:I have suggested a similar thing ages ago, but I decided to give it another try.

I believe the game needs a system that makes wars winnable and that makes it possible to determine who wins a war and who loses it.

The reason why I think this is needed is because of the way the game has been evolving over the years. There are massive amounts of resources available nowadays and as a direct effect, everyone can afford to keep a war going for ever. There are no winners and no losers. I also believe that this is the reason the forums are going downhill. People get so frustrated with a game they can not win, that they start fighting a war of words on the forums instead and get quite personal and quite insulting. I can't even blame them and I am guilty myself but I think something can be done about this and it is a matter of game design.

So here is my suggestion:

Alliance wars are automatically triggered based on an alliance attacks on another alliance.

When alliance A uses more than a total of 1000 attack turns on at least 3 different members of alliance B within a period of 24 hours, A and B are automatically set to war. The reasons the 1000 turns have to be used on 3 or more members is to make sure that it wasn't just one member finding a nice raid target, but that it really was an act of hostility.

An alliance war lasts 4 weeks, during that period, nobody can join or leave the involved alliances and the alliances can not disband either.

After the 4 weeks, the victorious alliance is determined based on total damage done and on the total defence power remaining. The score system needs to be well conceived to make sure it is fair and can not be exploited. Since not all alliances have the same amount of resources to destroy, it would be unfair to base it only on total damage done. This is why I think it should also count in the defence an alliance is maintaining during the war. This makes sense because not removing the defences is clearly a failure of the other alliance.

When the winner has been declared, the two alliances are set to peace for a period of 2 weeks in which they can not attack each other. During that period nobody can leave or join the involved alliances either.

After that they can still repeat the process and give it another try but there will be no doubt about who has won the previous war.

During the 4 weeks period of war the alliance leaders can end the war early if they wish, all it takes is one alliance leader to click the surrender button and the other alliance leader to accept it. If they do that they skup right to the 2 weeks peace phase.

angryman wrote:I have the same idea - just a little change in how war is declaredMajor flaw already as farm lists are created by the "war" setting. So MANY would be at war in the blood realm with 3/4 of the entire server. Complete rebuild of relations would have to happen.

If a person is hit more then 5 times in 24hrs the attacker is auto set to war with the person he is hitting for 48hrs at which point it returns to neutral.ok, fine with that

If 3 members in an alliance have been set to war by another alliance in 48hrs that triggers an auto standard blood realm war for 72hrs.Bad idea as it will force unwanted wars, and smaller alliances will be constantly crippled. Many smaller alliances have people who are inactive for set time per week, but are viable members(some people do have lives, yeah scarey I know). If 1 good naq farm get 3 war settings or one guy gets raided in a group effort, then by human nature and because of worthless information like ME the entire defending alliance will have to be allialated. First to rack up as much ME as possible since its there and its free, Secondly to stop the smaller/weaker alliance from retaliating. Will become abused and smaller alliances will suffer greatly.

You going to get massed anyway rather just have the war for the 72hrs & at the end call it a day or go againsmaller weker alliances will get crushed regularly by this. And again, before a war begins, 90% of the time the outcome is known. 90% of the time its the aggressor. Now with strikes destroyed in the first wave and no way to retaliate aggressor will move even higher to a 99% when the att alliance is bigger or more active. All this does is hand the victory to the most active and the big banks.

after the 72hrs all members are set back to neutral.

- Raiding people set war all the time - the chance you will raid an alliance is small keeps people honest.How? It keeps smaller alliances crushed? but how honest?

Admin should integrate an auto post option on the forum when a blood realm war is started Why forums? Game and forums are not connected in any way. less then 1/3 of the player base even uses the forums. This idea is irational. not to mention serves only the pourpose of feeding other open farms at wars end.

This is not to see who wins but rather to have a system of war that works.You logic is flawed as stated above. This and blood realm is heavily favored to active players, and the attacking force.

Try having a 72 hr war and work 12 hrs a day, come home to NO strike to return fire with. And battle 10 people with no jobs or other commitments.

Shadowarrior wrote:Again, a "elite" alliance could smash smaller alliances all day long and with coordinated attacks win in moments. As for paying all loses plus 50%,,,,Can you not see the abuses this would allow? How could an alliance ever grow if they get beaten and then have to send the rest of their account to the enemy?

While your argument is valid and I unsterstand it - you are forgetting that this is a war game and IMO, isn't supposed to be fair. It's only realistic that there are super accounts and those who have no chance against them.

-KJ

borg wrote:What about a system that basically puts two alliances against each other for say 10 days during which time they can only attack each other and are imune from attacks for people outside the war. That way the ME count is a true reflection of casualties/effort.

borg wrote:What about a system that basically puts two alliances against each other for say 10 days during which time they can only attack each other and are imune from attacks for people outside the war. That way the ME count is a true reflection of casualties/effort.