If your alliance wins a war, should you receive G and R?

[Lord Thanatos]

This is a good idea, but you should only get G&R if the alliances are reasonably close in rank, and both sides declare war. that would prevent most abuse

[|Cloud Strife|]

i like the idea where some said "actual amount of damage done" (i think it was 359..kudos yo you )... this would mean even if someone did pick on a lil guy, that they maybe get like 1 point... because we all know... sometimes the little guy deserves it.

[Zeratul]

should there be glory for those that are small who damage those that are big? like a low ranked player with small army managing to do much damage to some player with several million army size and ranked much higher? (not that it is likely to happen...)

[311 [TA]]

battle damage gap, is so flawed and easily abused

it has been brought up the battle damage needs to show things more precise

such as big weapons destroyed, total mercs/supers, troops killed in all battles attacking and defending...........spies killed etc............

it is 2 easy to jack up total damage done currently

if i attack a zero defense with a 200 billion strike, it shows i did 200 billion damage, however im attacking nothing so this is quite silly

now if i killed 4,000 supers when i attack a zero defense im at least doing something

i would like forum to update how accurate the war result page is on actual damage done FIRST then when he gets it to better reflect the end result of the war, we could add in this g/r thing, this will stop alot of abuse before it happens

[grimgor]

I have not read every post (too lazy)

What if some one does nothing during the whole war why should he/she get G&R

[Wolf359]

I have not read every post (too lazy)

What if some one does nothing during the whole war why should he/she get G&R

lol - if you weren't so lazy then you would have seen the suggestion that only those involved in attacking get G&R (for the victors) - but possibly all of the losing alliance lose G&R. Additionally there was a suggestion stated that teh alliance commander would be responsible for issuing the G&R to his members - giving him the responsibility of rewarding those who took part the most - and if he abused that then people would/could leave.

[R3B3L]

On another hand Alliances could just start wars, win them, then ascend everyone in their alliance.... But if you think about it it wouldn't really help them much. They would know how ascension works, but they would be too weak to do anything.

[|Cloud Strife|]

On another hand Alliances could just start wars, win them, then ascend everyone in their alliance.... But if you think about it it wouldn't really help them much. They would know how ascension works, but they would be too weak to do anything.

the idea is that you only get a small amount of GnR... so that it would take alot of wars to ascend.... also like you said. there no point ascending if you cant even get to the 1k rank anyway (imo)

[Wolf359]

Add to that that if you decalre a war - the other alliance HAS to accept for this to work - and they will not accept if they think they will definately lose the war - and lose G&R.

[Dark Bahamut]

this is a very nice idea. i will be following this with interest

[Lord Klapaucius]

Is it possible that the StarGateWars Admin will this post and consider the idea?

[hfown]

not gr based on how much damage done, but how many super defenders has been killed, and how many spies killed.

like........for every 10k units killed (spies/defenders), 1gr is assigned to alliance leader

maybe not 10k exactly but it has to be a number big enough to keep people from getting loads of gr, but not just like 6 gr per person....

[TheRook]

This idea would be abused far to much.

Exactly, what's to stop a top alliance from attacking some n00b alliance to get G&R?

the amount earned could be governed by the gap in power between both alliances.

eg. rank 1 alliance go to war with 200 they get say 5 g&r each.
rank 1 goes to war with rank 2 alliance they get 500 g&r each.

good Idea...

I will start my own alliance to fight against a couple of low level inactive alliances = to my total power... win both and instantly be awarded an ascension within 3-5 days without the cost of naq or UU spent on my account...

sorry but that scenario above would cause abuse...

[|Cloud Strife|]

This idea would be abused far to much.

Exactly, what's to stop a top alliance from attacking some n00b alliance to get G&R?

the amount earned could be governed by the gap in power between both alliances.

eg. rank 1 alliance go to war with 200 they get say 5 g&r each.
rank 1 goes to war with rank 2 alliance they get 500 g&r each.

good Idea...

I will start my own alliance to fight against a couple of low level inactive alliances = to my total power... win both and instantly be awarded an ascension within 3-5 days without the cost of naq or UU spent on my account...

sorry but that scenario above would cause abuse...

not if the "victim" alliance has to accept the war set upon them. if it was unofficial then noone would get anything.

another way perhaps is to steal thw glory off other people. that way no n00bs can be used as they dont have any glory.

[Zeratul]

we think that the glory should be based both on actual damage done/taken, and on the power differences between alliances... that way, if the power of biggest alliance / power of second biggest alliance = same as the power of a weak alliance / power of weaker alliance, they both get equal glory...
we know that it is extremely unlikely that omega and dirty dozen go to war, but it was just example...