Rule Change Proposal

Lord Priape · Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:57 am

I would like to push forward an idea that would make Alliance wars winnable in the future. Like the vacation rule no player can go on Planet Protect Treaty if they have attacked another player in the last 24 hours. This could be expanded so that when an alliance war is declared and aggreed to no player on either side of the war could go on PTT, until a peace is established.

I know on the surface this rule change does not sound like much but it would eliminate allot problems with the way wars are conducted now, especially their length.

1. The mass and hide tactic would be eliminated, defenders would get a shot at returning the favor to their attackers so therefore attackers would have to hold some of their resources in reserve for the retaliatory attacks

2. Resupplying and subsequent rebuilding of accounts from outside sources would be open to attack.

This is only a purposal, please add your suggestions and concerns, so that a better proposal can be written and sent to the Administration.

Priape

Turkey · Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:59 am

This should go in suggestions...

Also, alliances would just not bother declaring war...meaning they can use PPT.

Blackburn · Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:00 am

put it in ,,game suggestions'' then...

Teal'auc of the Void · Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:03 am

Moved to suggestions.

Teal'auc

generaloneill · Thu Apr 12, 2007 12:35 pm

and for what its worth, its a good idea.

Lord Priape · Thu Apr 12, 2007 1:36 pm

You killed this topic by moving it here. It was relavant to the other topics it was created with.

Priape

Tok`ra · Thu Apr 12, 2007 1:39 pm

Lord Priape wrote:You kill this topic by moving it here. It was relavant to the other topics it was created with.

Priape

This is still the propper place for it tho.

On topic tho....

Horrible idea.

Any 'rules' like this would simply be exploited, and not solve anything.

Lord Priape · Thu Apr 12, 2007 1:43 pm

Saying it was horrible idea doesn't help write a better proposal

Provide an example of how it could be exploited so that the proposal could be rewritten to fix the problems.

Priape

Tok`ra · Thu Apr 12, 2007 1:46 pm

Lord Priape wrote:Saying it was horrible idea doesn't help write a better proposal

Provide an example of how it could be exploited so that the proposal could be rewritten to fix the problems.

Priape

Simple, people disband their alliance and keep attacking, or simply never form one.

Besides, why change war.

I for one would prolly leave the game if such an update was made.

Lord Priape · Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:01 pm

You would leave the game....beacuse during a war you aren't able to hide on PPT?

In real life who can hide from war when the enemy brings it to you?

What would disbanding an alliance accomplish when you are not allowed to go on PPT if you attacked some one in the last 24 hours?

Priape

Tok`ra · Thu Apr 12, 2007 2:19 pm

Simple, in war you can duck behind something and take cover.

More imotantly, you dont have restrictions in real life, it should be the same here.

Lord_Zeus · Thu Apr 12, 2007 3:24 pm

Tok`ra wrote:Simple, in war you can duck behind something and take cover.

More imotantly, you dont have restrictions in real life, it should be the same here.

You can be killed in real life. Wars should be winnable, not a farmfest, make a persons account hurt enough and they'll cry for peace. (good idea...)

God MPTC · Thu Apr 12, 2007 9:04 pm

Brutally bill · Thu Apr 12, 2007 9:15 pm

I'm against this, I believe "war" in SGW is good the way it is. New rule changes aren't needed. Unless you go ahead and change the rules so that you can destroy somebody's account in main, war is exactly that. Is the religious war in palestine(sp?) winnable? How many lives have been split there? As long as the will of the people remains I believe war should remain.

Rule Change Proposal

Rule Change Proposal

Login