Page 8 of 20
Re: Is SGW dying?
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 1:15 am
by Skunky
Darth Caedus wrote:
Personlly I'd like the MS techs gone, ME gone and perg to have a auto eject function when you reach a certain size to keep the army sizes fairer.
they already have an auto eject fuction in perg its like 60mil army size.
MS techs finily someone agrees with me
and ME gone, never happen i suggest getting it un ranked
Re: Is SGW dying?
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 1:18 am
by Skunky
Darth Caedus wrote:
Personlly I'd like the MS techs gone, ME gone and perg to have a auto eject function when you reach a certain size to keep the army sizes fairer.
they already have an auto eject fuction in perg its like 60mil army size.
MS techs finily someone agrees with me
and ME gone, never happen i suggest getting it un ranked
the main problem is too many ATs. i suggest only allowing 2AT/turn
and from the market the trade ratio of 5bil to 50ATs or less so you can only get 750turns a week from them.
this will slow down the game but remove the random massings as u need to conserve ATs plus epople will have to work together to mass.
also maybe improve the ratio when massing so its more expensive and you lose more. i killed 44mil supers and only losing 1.6mil supers thats CRAZY. it needs to be adjusted!!
Re: Is SGW dying?
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 1:25 am
by show_more_availabl
Yes I agree completly not all is Jasons fault.
He has done a wonderfull job to date apart from a few updates that I dont agree with but I cant complain since I never really post on here for the same reason above that I dont want to be targeted by someone because they dont agree with what I say or how I have built my account.
Game politics need to be changed but that is difficult for players to do because the large players seem to stick together to make sure they dont loose there power or intimidation a lot like george bush actually.
lets just punch some holes next to our own names so you have follow us seems to be the philosophy.
and yes the above statement about a higher loss rate when raiding and attacking would be a great idea would limit attacks a little more.
I also think that removing mercs from the game would make it a bit fairer as then you cant just say meh there just mercs ill buy more you would actually be loosing your troops that actually count for your stats and it would cost a lot more to repair after a massing.
I believe that Nox insurance was brought in to try to help against massings from this sort of tactic but a draw back of nox is that if inactives put it on there accounts it makes it harder for no0bs to raid to catch up to the big guys
an update to NOX would be nice if you are inactive for a certain period of time it cancels itself to allow no0bs to raid. and thus catch up easier
and maybe the 10x rank limit on raiding should also incorporate not just rank but perhaps a max power limit and a lowering of the army size limit on raiding
Re: Is SGW dying?
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 1:51 am
by Darth Caedus
Skunky wrote:Darth Caedus wrote:
Personlly I'd like the MS techs gone, ME gone and perg to have a auto eject function when you reach a certain size to keep the army sizes fairer.
they already have an auto eject fuction in perg its like 60mil army size.
MS techs finily someone agrees with me
and ME gone, never happen i suggest getting it un ranked
Ahhhh so perg does have its limits, maybe they should be lowered!? MS techs only helps to widen the gap between smaller & larger accounts to me (The saying the rich get richer and the poor get screwed comes to mind). ME is just another reason to mass people, so yeah losing the ranks may help a little but probably wont change alot.
Changing the AT's should help cull the random and pointless massings but somehow, somewhere, someone will find away of carrying on the traditional random massings. They always do.
show_more_availabl wrote:and maybe the 10x rank limit on raiding should also incorporate not just rank but perhaps a max power limit and a lowering of the army size limit on raiding
Interesting.
Re: Is SGW dying?
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 1:58 am
by I Am Thor
All in all, I believe its up to us players to change the way the game is headed. Admin has their problems to deal with and always will because as soon as something is added or upgraded in the game, something goes wrong. We have to change it, the server war, has to end, the players without honor have to be dealt with. Admin won't change it, we have to.
Re: Is SGW dying?
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 2:00 am
by show_more_availabl
Agreed.
Re: Is SGW dying?
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 2:18 am
by Darth Caedus
I Am Thor wrote:All in all, I believe its up to us players to change the way the game is headed. Admin has their problems to deal with and always will because as soon as something is added or upgraded in the game, something goes wrong. We have to change it, the server war, has to end, the players without honor have to be dealt with. Admin won't change it, we have to.
I cant see a end to the server war & players with little or no honour dont get dealt with as they are the only ones that can change how they play. Another downside is that its getting increasingly harder to recruit members (Newbies) into alliances as they dont fancy the hassle of random massings.
Re: Is SGW dying?
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 3:21 am
by Cole
viewtopic.php?f=101&t=135469My poll about what needs change and what doesn't. That way, we'll see how much people are in favour of keeping things as they are and how much want a change!
Re: Is SGW dying?
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 3:22 am
by RepliMagni
Wow...some real player hating going on in here. Yes, I agree, we are partly to blame - but so are the game mechanics:
Server War?:
Players: Grudges too long held have festered and neither side will back down. Stubborn to a fault.
Game Mechanics: This war has been fought in various guises for years. The game doesn't allow for a winner. Doesn't allow for anybody to actually be hurt.
Overall: Yes, you can blame the players, but the game mechanics are also at fault.
Random Massings?:
Players: Powerful players getting bored and trigger happy want to "pwn" some noob
Game Mechanics: Attacker loses very little. Unlimited ATs. Nothing destroyable, so no fear of reprisals.
Overall: The game is virtually asking for people to take this stance.
One of the biggest problems is that you can't hurt people. Now I'm not advocating going back to the original ascension where you could raid away an entire person's army - that produced a powerful group that were untouchable in essence. What I'm suggesting is a compromise between the two - someway that you can hurt players but without destroying their account - ie: when they have no defs, you can destroy a percentage of their attack....maybe also a percentage of their miners. Not enough to cripple them, but enough to make people think twice about random massings, about entering wars for infinite amounts of time.....
As for people saying that newer players need the unlimited ATs to catch up - why do you think people randomly mass you without fear of the losses? Because of unlimited ATs. Limit the amount of ATs and you get better raid returns per ATs used....limit the amount of ATs and people randomly mass less.....But there also needs to be other introductions - like a new attack to kill a percentage of attack/miners/AC when def is gone. And besides - do you really think its right that someone can play for a month and catch up with veterans? Where's the challenge or fun in conquering a game in a month?
Re: Is SGW dying?
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 3:28 am
by Cole
RepliMagni wrote:As for people saying that newer players need the unlimited ATs to catch up - why do you think people randomly mass you without fear of the losses? Because of unlimited ATs. Limit the amount of ATs and you get better raid returns per ATs used....limit the amount of ATs and people randomly mass less.....
Hence why most of little amount of uus I raided was mostly in perg
Less ATs, but MORE FUN to raid (it's not quantity but quality that makes it fun damn!
)
Totally agreeing there. It's much more fun with smaller amount of ATs as at leastyou dont steal crap amounts.
Re: Is SGW dying?
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 3:29 am
by Caprila
There were plenty of people that massed for ME before it was ranked. Remove the ranking, and I imagine it will still happen. It is the attitudes of the people that do it.
1at is powerful, too powerful in my opinion. Losing 59 supers vs 40k+ for the opponent.. the power of such an attack should be 1/15th should it not? Including MS damage, and yet it is not.
If you can afford to create large attack planets and a huge MS for those kind of ratios, I hardly think you'd be whining over a few extra uu lost in massings, should costs increase. And yet, when admin did try to adjust the damage of 1ats, the uproar (primarily from large players) made him turn it right back.
Fleets and planets? That is one of the few things I totally agree with. If you wish for everything to be killable, why should planets be any different? Planets are expendable Bonuses not the staples of your account, as anyone who has been planet stripped should know. You'd think with the huge bonuses on planets people are Always complaining about, no one would complain at being able to take those away..
As for $$? It will always be there, something you will never be able to weed out. Less AT's, and less merlins might even thing up a little.
The server war is the culmination of hundreds of small infractions, building up tension and grudges between the two sides. It is precisely this reason, that is still continues. It is not merely the will of the 'alliances' per se, but also each individual person fighting for their own reasons. Those that want to quit has already gone, those that remain will likely still be here next year. Has it unbalanced the game? Maybe, maybe not. It is true the growth rate is huge, but then again, so is the loss rate. How much bigger would FUALL or TF be now, if the war had not happened?
Empires have changed our gameplay true, and I personally think the game would be a lot more interesting without them. The chances of that happening though (everyone wants to retain their piece of power, no one will freely give it up - onering syndrome) are incredibly remote.
Re: Is SGW dying?
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 3:34 am
by Cole
Caprila wrote:There were plenty of people that massed for ME before it was ranked. Remove the ranking, and I imagine it will still happen. It is the attitudes of the people that do it.
Yes but there they can't brag about their rank as there won't be none! 
1at is powerful, too powerful in my opinion. Losing 59 supers vs 40k+ for the opponent.. the power of such an attack should be 1/15th should it not? Including MS damage, and yet it is not.
Yes true...however for MS massing we are very used to how it is now, and it's a compromise between fair MS masing and old school MS massingIf you can afford to create large attack planets and a huge MS for those kind of ratios, I hardly think you'd be whining over a few extra uu lost in massings, should costs increase. And yet, when admin did try to adjust the damage of 1ats, the uproar (primarily from large players) made him turn it right back.
True, however massing of MSs was all scales of people..admin decided to do a compromise and it was good Fleets and planets? That is one of the few things I totally agree with. If you wish for everything to be killable, why should planets be any different? Planets are
expendable Bonuses not the staples of your account, as anyone who has been planet stripped should know. You'd think with the huge bonuses on planets people are Always complaining about, no one would complain at being able to take those away..
Don't forget repeated "ping pong" of a planet make it so weak and expesive to rebuild that it's almost like if it was destroyed! As for $$? It will always be there, something you will never be able to weed out. Less AT's, and less merlins might even thing up a little.
The server war is the culmination of hundreds of small infractions, building up tension and grudges between the two sides. It is precisely this reason, that is still continues. It is not merely the will of the 'alliances' per se, but also each individual person fighting for their own reasons. Those that want to quit has already gone, those that remain will likely still be here next year. Has it unbalanced the game? Maybe, maybe not. It is true the growth rate is huge, but then again, so is the loss rate. How much bigger would FUALL or TF be now, if the war had not happened?
Empires have changed our gameplay true, and I personally think the game would be a lot more interesting without them. The chances of that happening though (everyone wants to retain their piece of power, no one will freely give it up - onering syndrome) are incredibly remote.
Re: Is SGW dying?
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 6:43 am
by Mistress_Minx
Reading through all this it is increasing obvious the start of changes no matter what they are, will start with the players, and it will the 'oldies' or those in the big and powerful alliances and coalitions as they have the most to lose.....some poeple just love their accounts and the power it brings them too much.
A new era for SGW needs to begin, and unfortunatly itll begin with those like in fuall, ttf and the upcoming epa....they have the most to loose but they need to set an example for everyone so we can make this game better for everyone
Re: Is SGW dying?
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 7:40 am
by ~Enigma~
I was lurking on the forums and msn for a month or two before making my return last week, and i gotta say i was astounded at a number of "old school" players who were hanging up there boots, in such a short amount of time from each other. These were players who i've known, or known of, from way back in '06/07.
BUT
Equally, with the reformation of the (once) great, EPA, albeit with a fraction of it's original member base, this seems to be somewhat of a transition period.
I also agree with posts above mine talking of the overabundance of ATs, and agree that the turn generation rate has reached slightly over-the-top levels. I mean, especially in times like these with the "server-war" in full flight, you shouldnt be able to go onto the forums and have turns so readily available. ATs are such a valuable resource in this game, and it's part of the fun of war scrapping around to get ATs and making each click of the attack button count. Call me old fashioned
Anyway, to sum up, yes people are leaving due to impatience/boredom etc. But no, i don't think the game is dead/dying/going stale. I just think the game mechanics need a little kick in the pants.
~E~
Re: Is SGW dying?
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 8:53 am
by Empy
Just posting again to remind everyone... not everyone in the game uses every single AT they have to mass people. There is a function called "raiding" and that is what people who aren't currently sitting 300mil AS, 34 spy levels, huge MS, are doing to grow. Limiting the amount of AT in the game simply makes it harder for the new players who join to catch up to the big ones.
I don't wanna go back and quote but someone said something along the lines of... "Where is the fun if you can catch up to the veterans in one month?". Okay, make a new account and show how you can have an account like any of the veterans after one month. You can't.
Veterans are quitting and leaving, new players are the lifeforce of this game. Limiting the amount of ATs ruins the game for new players, leaving them in the dust while the veterans are catered to because they have been playing the longest and can yell the loudest when something they don't like happens.