StarGateWars Forums

Casshern wrote:

MajorLeeHurts wrote:Military experience should be included in rank ! Im so sick seeing all the stat builders ranked so high... it takes nothing to get to rank 1. What good is a military based war game if the warriors get no rank or recognition for actually playing the game.

At should be easier to get.

Cap should grow with army, I agree with that .

it should never be including in game ranks and even if it is keeped as ranked but outside of game rank it should be reset at least every 6 months. Now on warriors should get some recognition, fs style is very much not to build anything worth speaking ever so that when not if but when they strike, the enemy has very little to hit back at (now when i was in fs i did this as well so this is not an attack on fs in anyway). This is not a warrior ethos where opponents meet on an equal playing field but a guerrilla style warfare. Personal i don't thinl game rank should reflect this in anyway

Alliance Wars
Wars to this point were fairly standard. fight. try to get enemy goods while not losing yours. winner was hard to determine as the 'winning formula' was a bit loose....
Now - each of the 5 war types have a clear goal, and way to determine winner. This is reflected in the points you get, as seen in the war detailed summary.
Also, it is not a war unless it is accepted. A 'one way war' is simply an assault and will not be visible to the masses. Just your (and their) alliance.
The style of war is multifold. And the ultimate - war of attrition - is a true test of alliance versus alliance as both are wisked away to their own plane in the realm of blood, to interact with just each other....no outside influence, no PPT, no moving goods to and fro.
Just your alliance, and their alliance...
Here, all soldiers fight (attack or defence) in every battle.....do it if you dare.

Skunky wrote:Look everyone is totally bored with the long wars which are endless, and don't end and leave all the parties totally bitter!

So how about making alliance wars:

Alliance Wars
Wars to this point were fairly standard. fight. try to get enemy goods while not losing yours. winner was hard to determine as the 'winning formula' was a bit loose....
Now - each of the 5 war types have a clear goal, and way to determine winner. This is reflected in the points you get, as seen in the war detailed summary.
Also, it is not a war unless it is accepted. A 'one way war' is simply an assault and will not be visible to the masses. Just your (and their) alliance.
The style of war is multifold. And the ultimate - war of attrition - is a true test of alliance versus alliance as both are wisked away to their own plane in the realm of blood, to interact with just each other....no outside influence, no PPT, no moving goods to and fro.
Just your alliance, and their alliance...
Here, all soldiers fight (attack or defence) in every battle.....do it if you dare.

BUT changing them slightly. so that you do not have to accept normal types of war - except the blood realm which acts has a normal war until it is accepted so that counter strikes can occur!

By making Wars not acceptable except for blood realm (war of attrition) which makes wars winnable they are shorted and people will generally have more fun.

The aim of this is to announce a winner stop bitterness growing and continuing between two alliances (example FUALL and TTF) and bitterness grow and stop these 6month wars!!

what do you think??

EDIT
make it so that to stop 1 man alliances make it you have to have 5 members or more to start a war

Brdavs wrote:There is no way alliance war can be tweaked to accomodate a TF/FUA type war. Its waged outside the game mechanics. Not even autodeclare and autodisband on "loss" will prevent the diehard people from slugging it out for all eternity.

A new attack to kill miners/attack units/AC units:
- attack has to be at least five times a person’s defence to use this attack (this is to ensure some noob can’t take out a bunch of someone’s miners without either massing them first, or having a truly massive attack )
- destroys 5% of the person’s total miners per day (with people going on ppt, this would mean about 15% of a person’s miners vulnerable a week, not too much to cry over, but enough to damage people over time, especially in tandem with limited ATs)
- an amount of attack units and AC units would be killable in the same attack (they tried to defend the miners but were caught in the crossfire) – amount killed?: either 5% of the total miners, or 10% of attack units/AC units, whichever is higher (to ensure accounts that get rid of all miners, still have something to lose, and can’t become attack specialists)
- attack would use up a lot more turns than the standard 15 turn attack (say 250?)
- Overall intended effects – encourage people to maintain defences and enable much more damage to be done to people in wars – truly set people back
- Maybe have a higher percentage destroyable if at war with the person – up the stakes so to speak

Increase power of sabotage:
- increase the amount of weps that can be sabotaged per hit. Atm it just isn’t worth losing the spies compared to the economic loss of wep naq that sabbing gives.
- Especially increase the percentage of weps destroyable when there is no defence (ie: attack weps more vulnerable)
- Overall intended effects – again, encourage people to maintain defences during wars, and adding another dimension to the game

Get rid of the last MS update:
- increasing the percentage of shields (etc) on MS was a mistake – seriously, we have 1tril MSs floating around out there, which can majorly deflect defence or attack losses
- maybe even reduce the overall powers of MS (by a percentage rate to make it fairer for all)
- Overall intended effects – wars have become about MS, they should be about def, strike, etc. In tandem with the other updates, this would mean the MS took its role as a supplementary to other attacks, not as a replacement, which is what it has become

Limit ATs:
- get rid of artificially created ATs, and reduce the amount given per turn to 3 - slow the game down, speed isn't everything, ask your girlfriend
- overall intended effects - bring back strategy into the game. Make it necessary to plan strikes and counterstrikes, not simply one-man missions.

Intended outcomes:
- Less random massings as people now have things to lose – massers will need to maintain a defence or be wiped out much more effectively than currently
- Increase in likelihood that alliances will pull out of wars earlier – can really hurt people more, and make it much more obvious who is winning
- Puts back more strategy into the game – have to balance different aspects of your account and slows the game down so its not all just about who is online most

Problems I foresee:
- people creating more multis to get ATs – problem for admin mark to step up on
- people creating accounts purely for massing with no miners (however, this would hopefully be limited by vulnerability of attack units, and weps to sabotage)
- harder for people to catch up with the big boys – but hopefully the big boys won’t get too far in front if they’re active in wars

MajorLeeHurts wrote:I totally disagree and take offense as would the rest of FS we keep and maintain a def as long as the the opposing side keeps one !!!!!!!!!

or we wouldnt be able to sit on page one while at war !!!!!

honestly Sarg I think FUALL and that retarded server war has rotted your brain.

Skunky wrote:Magni, i agree with everything you said except for making miners killable.
do you not remember what it was like, it was the worst game ever aparently.

would you want to play a game that can have everything taken away from you in an instance? have months of work totally trashed in seconds.
if it happened the game would become dead in minutes, no one would want to play.

RepliMagni wrote:

Skunky wrote:Magni, i agree with everything you said except for making miners killable.
do you not remember what it was like, it was the worst game ever aparently.

would you want to play a game that can have everything taken away from you in an instance? have months of work totally trashed in seconds.
if it happened the game would become dead in minutes, no one would want to play.

Hence why my attack can only kill a certain percentage of miners a day - enough to retard people's growth if they're in constant war....maybe even set them back if they're not active enough to counteract it....but never enough to completely destroy.....

Casshern wrote:

RepliMagni wrote:

Skunky wrote:Magni, i agree with everything you said except for making miners killable.
do you not remember what it was like, it was the worst game ever aparently.

would you want to play a game that can have everything taken away from you in an instance? have months of work totally trashed in seconds.
if it happened the game would become dead in minutes, no one would want to play.

Hence why my attack can only kill a certain percentage of miners a day - enough to retard people's growth if they're in constant war....maybe even set them back if they're not active enough to counteract it....but never enough to completely destroy.....

having miners kill able will only lead to stalemates between super powers and small alliances and members being obliterated by them when they try to fight them

Casshern wrote:

RepliMagni wrote:

Skunky wrote:Magni, i agree with everything you said except for making miners killable.
do you not remember what it was like, it was the worst game ever aparently.

would you want to play a game that can have everything taken away from you in an instance? have months of work totally trashed in seconds.
if it happened the game would become dead in minutes, no one would want to play.

Hence why my attack can only kill a certain percentage of miners a day - enough to retard people's growth if they're in constant war....maybe even set them back if they're not active enough to counteract it....but never enough to completely destroy.....

having miners kill able will only lead to stalemates between super powers and small alliances and members being obliterated by them when they try to fight them

Skunky wrote:

Casshern wrote:

RepliMagni wrote:

Skunky wrote:Magni, i agree with everything you said except for making miners killable.
do you not remember what it was like, it was the worst game ever aparently.

would you want to play a game that can have everything taken away from you in an instance? have months of work totally trashed in seconds.
if it happened the game would become dead in minutes, no one would want to play.

Hence why my attack can only kill a certain percentage of miners a day - enough to retard people's growth if they're in constant war....maybe even set them back if they're not active enough to counteract it....but never enough to completely destroy.....

having miners kill able will only lead to stalemates between super powers and small alliances and members being obliterated by them when they try to fight them

its kinda like that atm, the hole sgw is one huge stalemate game.

but with making miners killable, you sacrifice incomes so more people will just build huge UPs and there wont be any diversity in the game. and many people will just quit after days due to being ruined by having everything on their account destroyed.!!

the best thing to do to make things more un-stalemented and not being able to fight wars constantly is to reduce AT's thus it is harder to mass more people and team work becomes a major part of the game.
and it will be harder to keep down alliances so wars are harder to fight and they will actually mean something as it will be harder to rebuild with less rescources