How does one alliance beat another?
Do you consider a win is only when one surrenders?
Or is a win when you have completely dominated and continue to sit on an alliance?
How can one win a war if the over side sits around with nothing to kill?
Wars
-
dazman
- Forum Elite
- Posts: 1954
- Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 12:59 pm
- ID: 0
- Location: Canada
Wars
Trade feedback thread~disturbed_one wrote:its a war game so if by us massing random peeps ruins the game for them then maybe they should go play with barbi dolls
http://stargatewars.herebegames.com/vie ... 48&t=70898
-
VeNoM56k
- Forum Expert
- Posts: 1154
- Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 8:41 am
- Race: Demon Lord
- ID: 1905994
- Location: Ireland
Re: Wars
depends on the situation mate. if its a war with rules or just a shedueled war than the rules specify. if its by other means than its really in ones opinion of what they intended to do to said alliance and if they actually did it.
-
Jim
- Pony Princess
- Posts: 7883
- Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 3:34 pm
- Alliance: MaYHeM
- Race: Asgard
- ID: 45162
- Alternate name(s): Bucephalus
Kishin
Re: Wars
Currently working on a new Fun War method of deciding on who wins.
3 alliances against each other. they war. each member of the alliances votes for which of the other two alliances they think were better. Votes are counted at the end and the winner is the alliance with the most votes.
Any attempts to fix the results means a -15 votes penalty.
This means people will be going all out for the war in order to win. People will try and mass each person in order to get the vote so nobody will be left out. Doing stupid stuff gets you noticed so gets you votes. (Like building a 10t defence, or massing a 10t defence with a huge ms when yours is tiny)
The rule on fixing results means there is room for politics, double, and even tripple dealing so adds an extra layer.
3 alliances against each other. they war. each member of the alliances votes for which of the other two alliances they think were better. Votes are counted at the end and the winner is the alliance with the most votes.
Any attempts to fix the results means a -15 votes penalty.
This means people will be going all out for the war in order to win. People will try and mass each person in order to get the vote so nobody will be left out. Doing stupid stuff gets you noticed so gets you votes. (Like building a 10t defence, or massing a 10t defence with a huge ms when yours is tiny)
The rule on fixing results means there is room for politics, double, and even tripple dealing so adds an extra layer.
-
VeNoM56k
- Forum Expert
- Posts: 1154
- Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 8:41 am
- Race: Demon Lord
- ID: 1905994
- Location: Ireland
Re: Wars
Man Called Jim wrote:Currently working on a new Fun War method of deciding on who wins.
3 alliances against each other. they war. each member of the alliances votes for which of the other two alliances they think were better. Votes are counted at the end and the winner is the alliance with the most votes.
Any attempts to fix the results means a -15 votes penalty.
This means people will be going all out for the war in order to win. People will try and mass each person in order to get the vote so nobody will be left out. Doing stupid stuff gets you noticed so gets you votes. (Like building a 10t defence, or massing a 10t defence with a huge ms when yours is tiny)
The rule on fixing results means there is room for politics, double, and even tripple dealing so adds an extra layer.
I like that idea. would need a bit or work(work out the weak points etc) but it could lead to some fun, competitive wars.
-
Suzuk
- Forum Regular
- Posts: 738
- Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 6:59 pm
- Alliance: Brothers in Arms
- ID: 0
- Location: Ohio, USA
Re: Wars
Man Called Jim wrote:Currently working on a new Fun War method of deciding on who wins.
3 alliances against each other. they war. each member of the alliances votes for which of the other two alliances they think were better. Votes are counted at the end and the winner is the alliance with the most votes.
Any attempts to fix the results means a -15 votes penalty.
This means people will be going all out for the war in order to win. People will try and mass each person in order to get the vote so nobody will be left out. Doing stupid stuff gets you noticed so gets you votes. (Like building a 10t defence, or massing a 10t defence with a huge ms when yours is tiny)
The rule on fixing results means there is room for politics, double, and even tripple dealing so adds an extra layer.
Sounds like an interesting concept. The problem is, everyone is going to vote for their own alliance, regardless if they won or loss.
Maybe if you brought in an outside party and kept fantastic statistics, it could make it truthful.
-
Brdavs
- Forum Elder
- Posts: 2114
- Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 1:15 pm
- Alliance: The Legion
- ID: 69113
- Location: Trading jibes with tot gotts.
Re: Wars
Kinda depends on the war. If it`s a "normal" one then the current meters are fine.
If it`s a "personal" one, the only way is to brake the guy behind the account. And untill you do that (if you can do that), no objectifialbe qualification admin or public oppinion comes up with will work. So even thinking of them is a waste of time.
I think G.W. conclusivly demonstrated that unilaterar declarations of victory are ineffective some years back hehe...
If it`s a "personal" one, the only way is to brake the guy behind the account. And untill you do that (if you can do that), no objectifialbe qualification admin or public oppinion comes up with will work. So even thinking of them is a waste of time.
I think G.W. conclusivly demonstrated that unilaterar declarations of victory are ineffective some years back hehe...
For Rome!
Calibretto wrote: WIR SOLLEN *insert* AUSRADIEREN
Inserted part could be you!
-
MEZZANINE
- Forum Addict
- Posts: 4453
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:39 am
- Alliance: Forgotten Serenity
- Race: System Lord
- ID: 81691
- Location: CARDIFF
Re: Wars
dazman wrote:How does one alliance beat another?
Do you consider a win is only when one surrenders?
Or is a win when you have completely dominated and continue to sit on an alliance?
How can one win a war if the over side sits around with nothing to kill?
In open ended wars game mechanics make accounts/alliances unbeatable, only the will power of the players can be beaten, and in the case of hard core players that will power will never falter. Such wars will only end when everyone either grows up, moves on from the game or have what drunks call 'a moment of clarity' and realise the truth
The only truly winnable wars ( as in best alliance/accounts/players can gain true victory ) are when winning conditions and time limits are agreed up front.
Spoiler
Attack Mercs Killed (30) 459,329,001
Defence Mercs Killed (10) 2,918,478,517
Attack Soldiers Killed(60) 12,677,958
Defence Soldiers Killed(20) 226,236,488
Attack Super Soldiers Killed(300) 490,627,262
Defence Super Soldiers Killed(100) 4,131,482,551
Spies Killed(50) 4,256,505,842
Spy Killers Killed(50) 651,022,448
Mothership Weapons Destroyed(300) 35,583,034
Mothership Shields Destroyed(300) 39,498,511
Mothership Fleets Destroyed(200) 2,413,254
Planet Defences Destroyed(300) 358,539
Planets Taken(5000) 411
Naquadah Stolen(0.0001) 2,355,738,435,154,805
Untrained Kidnapped(50) 5,943,886,456
Weapon Points Destroyed (Sab+Att)(0.0001) 74,293,522,376,607
Attack Turns Used(1) 1,731,971
Defence Mercs Killed (10) 2,918,478,517
Attack Soldiers Killed(60) 12,677,958
Defence Soldiers Killed(20) 226,236,488
Attack Super Soldiers Killed(300) 490,627,262
Defence Super Soldiers Killed(100) 4,131,482,551
Spies Killed(50) 4,256,505,842
Spy Killers Killed(50) 651,022,448
Mothership Weapons Destroyed(300) 35,583,034
Mothership Shields Destroyed(300) 39,498,511
Mothership Fleets Destroyed(200) 2,413,254
Planet Defences Destroyed(300) 358,539
Planets Taken(5000) 411
Naquadah Stolen(0.0001) 2,355,738,435,154,805
Untrained Kidnapped(50) 5,943,886,456
Weapon Points Destroyed (Sab+Att)(0.0001) 74,293,522,376,607
Attack Turns Used(1) 1,731,971
-
Ashu
- Michael Westen
- Posts: 6930
- Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 3:48 am
- Alliance: TAF
- Race: Human
- ID: 81691
- Location: No Galaxy you know.
-
Honours and Awards
Re: Wars
When someone admits defeat...I(My alliace) won."Sitting" on an account doesn't make you aything but someone with too many ATs...
Bias Admin colour
-
J-ronimo
- Forum Expert
- Posts: 1238
- Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 8:32 am
Re: Wars
You show them with resuming your normal game play?
If you wish to trade with me: benti_svizca@hotmail.com
All trades are confidental and anonymous, so feel free to contact me.
All trades are confidental and anonymous, so feel free to contact me.
-
Neimenljivi
- Forum Zombie
- Posts: 6140
- Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 12:23 am
- Alliance: Lone wolf
- Race: Slovenian
- ID: 82089
- Location: Slovenia
Re: Wars
The war is won when you have reached the goals you set for this war. Everything after that is just plain stubbornness of a few people in charge that can't have a mature, unbiased, view and shall never grow up.
~N
~N
Haz wrote:It took a bit of time, but the investigation has now been completed.
S1eepy will be banned for scripting, for the remainder of this era.
2012 Awards awarded to me:Name: S1eepy [ TheCheekyChickens ]
{Banned}
Spoiler
-
bebita
- Forum Zombie
- Posts: 5852
- Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 6:40 am
- Alliance: Familly
- Race: brothers
- ID: 0
Re: Wars
they must admit defeat
Spoiler
Tziki wrote:
Bebita a known Spy from the server war, who joined TO under false pretences yet again has a filthy trick up his sleave. In fact it appears the Filth up his sleave is DDE and Mayhem. When confronted about them supporting Bebita and Rob3rt (as there were suspicions as to be a tiny account got his MS and Naq / Turns etc) neither deny their involved behind the scenes but instead hint towards it being a coincidence.
R8 wrote:the shock of seeing bebita in my attack logs after so long was too much to handle so I had to hit vac mode to try and recover for a few days
catch ya later
-
Q Man
- blarney stone
- Posts: 5129
- Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 2:39 pm
- ID: 0
- Location: behind you
Re: Wars
Man Called Jim wrote:Currently working on a new Fun War method of deciding on who wins.
3 alliances against each other. they war. each member of the alliances votes for which of the other two alliances they think were better. Votes are counted at the end and the winner is the alliance with the most votes.
Any attempts to fix the results means a -15 votes penalty.
This means people will be going all out for the war in order to win. People will try and mass each person in order to get the vote so nobody will be left out. Doing stupid stuff gets you noticed so gets you votes. (Like building a 10t defence, or massing a 10t defence with a huge ms when yours is tiny)
The rule on fixing results means there is room for politics, double, and even tripple dealing so adds an extra layer.
but if one alliance has alot more members than the other two, they are at a disadvantage?
I grew up on the street. No, not the hood, the Sesame Street.
[/size]
admin wrote:[23:50] * ~adminHere loves Q_Man
-
Hitchkok
- Forum Intermediate
- Posts: 814
- Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2009 10:25 am
- ID: 0
Re: Wars
i have suggested this a couple weeks back.
the idea is having a set time for the war, and the winner is determined by averaging the ranks of the sides.
the idea is having a set time for the war, and the winner is determined by averaging the ranks of the sides.
there is no useless knowledge, there is only knowledge we don't know how to use
math is the art of stating the obvious
click the banner.
yay, i have bragging rights
teal'c wrote:Jesus maybe Hitch should be ombudsman he seems to be the only one with brains around here
GhostyGoo wrote:Capitalism is responsible for the death of humanity through a complete and utter destruction of ethical conduct, you DO know this, right?
Thanks to capitalism, when your doctor tells you you require a kidney transplant to survive, you no longer can be certain if you actually need a kidney transplant or your doctor simply needs a new speedboat. Nice.
-Goo
only way it should be done
