Is the game dying or does it just appear that way?

[SSG EnterTheLion]

I don't think the game is dying..what I think is there are many people WILLING to play the game, but the game mechanics make it boring..take for instance a war..decimate an alliance and they become snipers, nothing to kill..so of course most of the other alliance has no reason to attack, giving the impression of people leaving/inactivity.

There are a couple of ways to change this..make resources extremely scarce by either lowering amount of naq earned and uu generated..it could be done by lowering naq/uu/covert/anti covert to what the game was say 5 years ago..of course the losses would be based on a ratio system so if you were ahead now, you'd still be equivalently the same ahead, but everyone with much lower stats, naq, uu and so on. So at one stroke this makes wars expensive and forces people to surrender.

The other way is to have a more informal system where one alliance is recognised the victor based on the state of the other alliance. This way if an alliance is reduced to sniping for more than one week in a row, it's officially recognised to have lost the war. The problem with this of course is that snipers will moan forever. Another condition could be that if over 50 percent of an empire has been descended, war lost..and so on..opinions?


PS: I put this in the most read section because while it does involve ingame suggestions for admin, it also discusses whether the sgw community can come to a consensus on what ends a war.

[Kjarkur]

I like it.

How ever, one could argue that what helped ruining the game for so many people was the fact their alliance surrendered and certain alliances always won. I.e. made the game boring.

I'm afraid it could just lead to other problems, instead of surrendering (people have gotten used to never having have to surrender) people would just quit.

Still... worth looking into IMO.

[Ashu]

There are a couple of ways to change this..make resources extremely scarce by either lowering amount of naq earned and uu generated..it could be done by lowering naq/uu/covert/anti covert to what the game was say 5 years ago..of course the losses would be based on a ratio system so if you were ahead now, you'd still be equivalently the same ahead, but everyone with much lower stats, naq, uu and so on. So at one stroke this makes wars expensive and forces people to surrender.

I agree with this.

[jedi~tank]

It's too late for tha, what's wrong with a scoring system? Now we have 2different scenarios and neither will see the light of day. I can't see the majority of the players remaining wanting to be active enough for this..although back 2years it would have been good.

[renegadze]

I don't think the game is dying..what I think is there are many people WILLING to play the game, but the game mechanics make it boring..take for instance a war..decimate an alliance and they become snipers, nothing to kill..so of course most of the other alliance has no reason to attack, giving the impression of people leaving/inactivity.

There are a couple of ways to change this..make resources extremely scarce by either lowering amount of naq earned and uu generated..it could be done by lowering naq/uu/covert/anti covert to what the game was say 5 years ago..of course the losses would be based on a ratio system so if you were ahead now, you'd still be equivalently the same ahead, but everyone with much lower stats, naq, uu and so on. So at one stroke this makes wars expensive and forces people to surrender.

The other way is to have a more informal system where one alliance is recognised the victor based on the state of the other alliance. This way if an alliance is reduced to sniping for more than one week in a row, it's officially recognised to have lost the war. The problem with this of course is that snipers will moan forever. Another condition could be that if over 50 percent of an empire has been descended, war lost..and so on..opinions?


PS: I put this in the most read section because while it does involve ingame suggestions for admin, it also discusses whether the sgw community can come to a consensus on what ends a war.

I know the issue comes up time after time, and I am not saying I haven't but the massive amount of $$ to get ahead \ rebuilding is what makes the game boring for most.

If you nuke a really good account, and they simply buy it all back next turn, there becomes a point where you just really cant be bothered. I'm not sure your suggestion fixes that issue.

Also if your a small player, and everyone around you is buying covert levels - it's pretty disheartening, and I can see why many simply give up

[Amar]

These types of suggestions have been around years. The lowering of the stats and whatnot and making the game slower and stats count and all that nonsense won't work. SGAW was basically that premise and look where it is at now.. oh wait, no one can find it.


A scoring system for war would be best at this point I believe but who rly cares. The game is at the point now where AT's are limitless and banks and army sizes are just enormous so even if you killed my account, id wait for you to get bored and the moment u turned your back i could rebuild it, quite literally, in an hour maybe tops

Where the game is at now, newer players have the best chance of competeing. I've been back like what... 3 days, bought 30mill UU from farming an hour a day not to mention spent at least 10 if not 20 trill on my MS tech levels, ascended, yes, bout tech levels, THEN ascended... but i dont care because my money supply will never run out! and by the time my glory is high enough for another ascension ill have gone from 60mill to over 200mill at this rate. It's kinda like a FPS... dying doesnt matter so much anymore so long as ur killing the other guy.



and let me add that it is because of that that i didnt quit the moment i logged in and saw some ppls army sizes. The community seems more chill now, so Im guessing a lot of the Omega douchebags quit, but in any case, I feel like I have a chance at seriously competing with the current big dogs very soon, and for me that's enough

[~Kronos~]

It doesn't seem to be dying to me at all. People play all the time. Just b/c some loose interest doesn't mean the game is dying. It just means that those individuals think so.

As far as this suggestion goes... If if failed for SGAW then I don't want to risk the same happening here. Besides, I like things the way they are going. Some minor changes would be nice, but nothing this drastic.

[Amar]

I honestly think we need to pull away from this theme of stargate and whatnot.... make a game along the same concept as this, but create it from scratch (including backstroy and all the jazz that really brings a game to life) and start from there.


The first advantage to this proposal is that the game could be advertised without risk of lawsuit

[SSG EnterTheLion]

I honestly think we need to pull away from this theme of stargate and whatnot.... make a game along the same concept as this, but create it from scratch (including backstroy and all the jazz that really brings a game to life) and start from there.


The first advantage to this proposal is that the game could be advertised without risk of lawsuit

Are you seriously trying to compare SGAW with SGW? SGAW at it's peak could never have hoped to get the amount of players this game had. The fact is Stargate is still a popular franchise, so if creating a game from scratch, you might as well reset the game.

At the end of the day, resources are too easily gotten. Scarcity leads to better warfare.

PS: And you insult Omegans at your peril!

[jedi~tank]

The game is dying is not a myth or negativity, it lives or dies on the membership I.e. players, fewer players every month and no growth = dying..but as it is, the only viable way to level the playing field without taking away from established players which apparently nobody established wants, is to score on equal ground.

[Amar]

I honestly think we need to pull away from this theme of stargate and whatnot.... make a game along the same concept as this, but create it from scratch (including backstroy and all the jazz that really brings a game to life) and start from there.


The first advantage to this proposal is that the game could be advertised without risk of lawsuit

Are you seriously trying to compare SGAW with SGW? SGAW at it's peak could never have hoped to get the amount of players this game had. The fact is Stargate is still a popular franchise, so if creating a game from scratch, you might as well reset the game.

At the end of the day, resources are too easily gotten. Scarcity leads to better warfare.

PS: And you insult Omegans at your peril!

I been gone too long to remember all the old douchers, so keep it as a compliment that Omega is remembered

As for SGAW, i wasnt making a comparison between the games. I honestly thought SGAW was a better game, I returned looking to go to that game. Im here because its no longer around. I was simply trying to use an example that had gone the route you suggested.


When you bring the numbers down, make ti harder to mass, make massings difficult and expensive for both sides... w/e the point is, it's boring now, but surely you remember what it was like building for weeks only to be massed and have to spend all that time over again. Yes, it'll be more of an epeen boost for some, but for others it'll chase them away because it's not worth the effort.


and no, we can't reset this game. It would be far to difficult to create a fair mechanic that would give people who paid cash, some much much more than others, a reason to stay around.

What I mean by a new game is a NEW GAME. something casual and simple the way SGW is, yet pull away from the sgw theme. Unless something has changed last I remember Heph and Jason had to take out all the Stargate stuff from the game because they were risking lawsuit. That's why people are allwoed to choose what their race is called, why stargatewars.com is now gatewars.com, etc etc..... if this game could be advertised then I think it would last longer.

For SGAW i remember I spent 20 dollars a day on facebook ads for a week,The hit limit I set for my ad each day was reached within hours every day. hits on the site increased 40 fold, and over 200 new accounts were registered during that time. 1 week.


If this game were advertised more, we'd continue to get new players.

The question is: Is the cost of advertising worth the possible influx of new blood, some of which will possibly put money back into the game.

But that question doesn't matter because there is still so much reference to Stargate that I can't see how admin COULD advertise, soooo new game.

U'd still be top dog if u start when it opens, and stats would be smaller and all that other jazz u mentioned.


aS FOR how a war victor is determined, that's it's own topic. wars are only one aspect of the game(very important part), but not the only part. its not the only part that brings ppl, and its not the only part that chases them away.

[Rn5ho]

amar does have a very good point there. This game might not be dying, but it's losing players (like and agree or not, it's a fact). Reasons for that are that wars are never finished as noone can lose due to resources being gained too easily and rebuilding takes no effort really. Also stats of some $$ spenders are faaaar out of reach for any player without 1000's of $$ to catch up or get near (not making a point that they shouldn't spend, their thing really, but it got out of control to the point where it's just hurting the game).

Advertising would be the 1st thing to do to get game more active again, though i'm not sure how active and interested Jason is anymore.. lol

[~Kronos~]

To me, the point of the game has always been more about building stats than the wars and such. Lately I have gotten very involved in the forum and it has made the game much more fun. The forum may be more fun than the game itself lol. Honestly, watching your stats grow is very satisfying. I enjoy it quite a bit. The wars and vendettas are also fun, but meh, not the point IMO. So, whether it's impossible to win or not isn't such a big deal for me.

[Mathlord]

There are ways to win wars in this game. You have to break your opponents will. A hard thing to do, but it has worked many times in the past. The wars that drag on just mean that both sides have a lot of will-power.

This game is built by the actions and attitudes of the players. Ingame rules will always be avoided some way and wars won't change. They don't need to change. You can't beat someone just by destroying their stats. Does the losing alliance disband if they lose a war? I imagine not...even if that happened they could just reform...or if they did lose without disbanding, whose to say they wouldn't just go right back to war after it was decided they lost it?

[Amar]

To me, the point of the game has always been more about building stats than the wars and such. Lately I have gotten very involved in the forum and it has made the game much more fun. The forum may be more fun than the game itself lol. Honestly, watching your stats grow is very satisfying. I enjoy it quite a bit. The wars and vendettas are also fun, but meh, not the point IMO. So, whether it's impossible to win or not isn't such a big deal for me.

Please keep in mind Kronos that I am in no way belittling (Auriel spell check me plz) your play style; this is just for another example.


Some would refer to Kronos as a statbuilder. Nothing wrong with that. BUT, the way he described how he plays the game, I would be more than willign to be that if stats once again became difficult to obtain, and war were more difficult to recover from, that when.. not if, but when someone decided to sit on your account for the pure **Filtered** n giggles, you would *quit* sooner rather than later.


Newer players IMO typically lean to this side of the spectrum rather than going all gung-ho karate chop.... why? because they can't in a game like that. In the present game... Kronos has his fun.. if someone has their fun with him.... oh well, he can recover fairly easily and go on with his routine. New players can play with their big ol epeen after they get to participate. I remember being new back when it was hard to be new, and for the first couple months, I couldn't(not didn't want to) but couldn't really participate in the fun because i was so much smaller than others.


I honestly think that the way things are right now, if we had more players then the inflation would be a much smaller number. There are juat so few accounts atm and so many inactive players that farming back is just too easy... which just gave me an idea!



Take all the inactive accounts, throw them in a barrel, mix it up reallllllllll gooooood, and then dump half of them back into the bin at random, and toss the rest. screw ppl who bought SS, screw people who Might come back someday, if they leave their account inactive for sayy.. 3 months, its eligible for deletion. and THEN, rinse and repeat until the active player base is actually competing for the currency in the game.


im drunk so this idea might sound better to me thabn to yall, lemme knmow!





As for Mathlord..... here's what ur missing. When you look at someone's record on let's sayyyy Halo..... do you care how long a certain match lasted? "Oh yeah, we technically lost that game but man it lasted hours!"

**Filtered** no you don't. you look at games won/lost. it's about bragging rights. if a balanced system could be created and implemented to decide the victor in a war, then it should be done. Why? Not to prevent the loser from striking back, in fact thats what we want! You can come at me all day, all week, all month, all year, maybe even on Feb 29th... (when is the next leap year btw?)...... anyways... u can bring it all you want... if the system is deciding that I'm winning each week and giving me that little tally saying I'm better than you...then I'm winning. If I decided that I don't want to play anymore. mid war,,, good for you! You just got one win, but how many times did you have to come at me? if I win 5 wars and lose 2 ... guess what... im awesome.



Math's statement is exactly what is wrong with the war system... "Break their will"



why? so they'll stop playing and you'll have one less person to **Filtered** with you? Good idea back when there where hundred and hundreds of players... but overtime, that mentality drove ppl away because in this game, there is no escape. If someone wants to harass you, you either get sat on, do the sitting, or quit.

So currently there are 2 ways to lose and one way to win...... = bad



A war system with points and whatnot has always been necessary, and should have been a major undertaking back when it mattered. Now... once again, not enough players coming in or still around to make the effort worth the reward.