Make wars winnable

[geisha]

Just an idea to bring more balance to the game and the way wars are being fought:

What if you had to declare war before you can attack someone (I mean it's not really an act of neutrality to run into someone's realm with your entire army anyway, now is it...) and what if declaring an alliance war automatically sets all alliance members to war with the members of the other alliance...

---> bye bye nox

And what if a declaration of war only lasts a month followed by a month where you can not attack the player you were at war with...

This would give people a chance to rebuild after a war and get diplomatic discussions going. They can still declare war after that month again...

It would also make sure you can't continuously farm the same person or even alliance forever...

[Tok`ra]

I like it.

[dardar]

sounds nice. and mabey there could be thing were it keeps count of how many wars u been in and how many uve won.

[Tok`ra]

sounds nice. and mabey there could be thing were it keeps count of how many wars u been in and how many uve won.

Ah, but what defines winning .


Cause dammage took or dealt ingame aint it.

[WeedSeed]

how about Units losts and Power at begining and at the end.

[_BlackAsc_]

maybe have a drop menu where a time limit can be chosen for anywhere from 1 - 6 months or something seeing as there is a cooldown period.

[Bazsy]

Hmm... I suggested something very similar at the last admin chat:)

[Lord Sokar]

having to declare war to attack someone would be pretty nice, have a who new war system implemented to make wars actually wars would be nice too, e.g have something like when one wants to end a war, have an official ingame treaty, just list of many parameters in the game(e.g, no attacking, sabbing, raiding, non of that to officers, a daily, weekly, monthly, yearly, etc donation of naq, among other thing)...send it to the person, they have the option to change anything for their terms, then once both parties accept, then war is over, have one main parameter could probably be deciding which person is the one who looses the war...e.g "i declare that i have lost this war" then a profile or something to that effect can be accessed on anyone displaying what wars they have lost, what wars they have won, etc...a breach of the treaty would have some sort of repercussions unless they canceled the treaty which would, say, destroy the treaty's effect after 24 hours or so...


just spitting out ideas...




btw, tok'ra, i <3 the siggy...

[geisha]

I also think it should be harder to mass someone. Your should at lest need 50% of their defence in strike if not 100%. It's ridiculous how easy it is to mass big defences right now. Should certainly be more expensive for the attacker.

[Thufir_Hawat]

Lets not make it where players are invincible.

If your going to make it where the top defence cant be massed by smaller attacks then you need to set it where ranks cannot attack smaller ranks. No one really wants this.

Then the rank system needs to be changed to follow the total account worth system like the Ascended Power Points. So that top players can't just sandbag a score to strike someone 1/2 their strength or 1% even.

Having limits on wars only lasting a short while then a month off would allow those with huge armies to simply mass then reload. Even worse on an alliance level.

There is no doubt that I at 25M could take on a 5 mil account doing more damage for a short period, especially with a larger bank and a defence that another cant mass since their attack isnt large enough. Then after give them a month where they have to focus on rebuilding while I simply collect ATs and Refill my Bank. But does that mean I won?

This suggestion seems very one sided to the largest players. I would not think it would be fair to the smaller members.

I should not be surprise since this is a computer game in the modern world of instant gratification, that many wish to do the most thrilling thing there is to do here, Massing Defences and Kiling Units. That is not winning a war though but just a battle.

Wars should be won or loss not on points but on will power. Simply being capable of doing more damage and killing more units has never guaranteed victory. If it did in Real Life than Coalition soliders in Iraq and Afghanastan would of been home long ago.


The declaring War to attack anyone is a good Idea though.

I still think though that there should be sometype of shield you can employ while on line. Someone that is active should be given a chance to repair, move units etc.. while being massed. Even with NOX you need a fast computer to repair shields or untrain and retrain spies.

I like the Idea before of having to renegotiate with the NOX after a period like 48hours.

Many use nox for differnt reasons, some to delay in battle, some to reduce Naq, some to protect defence, some to slow raiding of an account that sits for days(multies) or months(inactives).

There are many different issues here just with NOX. Should forum work to remove dead accounts or remove the NOX on them to make it easier for the raiders?

Once again instead of NOX alone prehaps add a Shield/Cloak/Phase device that if you are online while being massed you can click on to slow the attacks like NOX to allow you to take counter defensive actions. Prehaps be able to buy them ahead of time so it is simply a switch on. It only needs to last for a short period like a turn.

Sorry I am so long winded.

[Sleipnir]

Just an idea to bring more balance to the game and the way wars are being fought:

What if you had to declare war before you can attack someone (I mean it's not really an act of neutrality to run into someone's realm with your entire army anyway, now is it...) and what if declaring an alliance war automatically sets all alliance members to war with the members of the other alliance...

---> bye bye nox

Maybe something like this?

http://herebegames.com/StarGateWars/vie ... hp?t=72367

[Brdavs]

And what if a declaration of war only lasts a month followed by a month where you can not attack the player you were at war with...

Talk about raid farm rotation heh... List A and list B... Can`t say ppl would like it heh...

[Fear Of The Duck]

What if you had to declare war before you can attack someone

Maybe if you want to attack sbdy for the n-th time during the week? Declaring war for simple 15 naq attack once a week is to much hassle imo. (That'd mean I'd need to declare 19 wars every second day or so).

[Xanthors]

Just an idea to bring more balance to the game and the way wars are being fought:

What if you had to declare war before you can attack someone (I mean it's not really an act of neutrality to run into someone's realm with your entire army anyway, now is it...) and what if declaring an alliance war automatically sets all alliance members to war with the members of the other alliance...

---> bye bye nox

Maybe something like this?

http://herebegames.com/StarGateWars/vie ... hp?t=72367

always liked your ideas Sleip