StarGateWars Forums

Draleg wrote:I think the HC of the Empire would veto you Nim .

( sorry , no more off topic posts from me )

AWW why is it i think the same lol but meh dont give the offer :p.

But its alright i kinda thought the same hehe but thanks for correcting me as i said i admit my knowledge on that part is lacking and wrong in many areas.

Nimras wrote:

Mordack wrote:Is it the people who lead the major alliances and coalitions? The ETLs and Robes who pull the strings of FUALL and TFF?

I just see one issue with that one.

you should write TJP not TTF.

TTF = TJP, ToB, other alliances and lone wolfs. <--- TTF is like what CIA was last time you know CIA had TLE, EPAc (EPAc was like 5 alliances and 1 empire) they are many bonding to fight with each empire and alliance has a saying. TTF would not be here if not so many alliances, coalitions, empires and lone wolf joined against FUALL with TJP.

FUALL = OE and DDE. <--- down here from what i recall its one HC where not all are rep from each alliance yes please correct me lol i know more about TTF on this matter lol.


So as far i see it there is a big difference on TTF and FUALL, where FUALL proberly has one leader TTF has non. To do the one leader thing you would proberly have to do TJP lol.

That said not sure. JASON :p??

As Tekki has pointed out, FUALL also has multiple leaders.

I wasn't claiming that either faction has a single dictator, but was rather suggesting that there was influencial figures within each. Robe and ETL being two of the most obvious and high profile examples.

Sorry....appears this thread descended into spam after my post

As for power in general in sgw? - People like ETL and Robe have a lot, but not strictly from their positions within their respective hierarchies - its a combination of character and achievements in their case.

Another category would be quite a few people who posted here - Lore, Mordack, Buck, Semper. Something I realised a long time ago: this game is all about how people perceive you - your reputation is by far the most precious commodity. A big forum personality commands much more "power" than someone who can click enter a lot. It used to be much more about who knew the ins and outs of the game mechanics, but now with the game becoming so simplifed to button bashing, its a lot more about the person behind the enter key.

As for the power to change the game in any meaningful way? Well, the above people can make a stand, but it'd be worthless without some kind of game mechanics to back it up. The game needs an overhaul, and the only people capable of getting that are people who have Jason's ear - whether through persistent attendence at the admin meets or through being a forum admin, they are the people who could push through some real change.

RepliMagni wrote:Sorry....appears this thread descended into spam after my post

I was about to say the same thing.

As for changing the game.. I think the request for origins was a cry to take sgw back to the better days. The role play aspect also cant be downplayed in its affect on people's behavior. It remains to be seen what effect, if any, that server will have on SGW.

The only people I see that are able to change anything drastically are probably old time players in FUALL/TTF..

They have the support of an Empire, friends throughout the game etc. It just depends if they are doing good..or doing bad.

well... i believe with wars, Admin has come up with a helpful suggestion by making the update with the different types of wars...

now i'm not too sure if im right with everything im bout to say

but judging by the chronicles of past wars, none of them wars have been even used

whats the point of having that update when it's left sitting there to rot?

most wars now alliance dont even declare on the opposition alliances

i think if we actually used these wars we might, actually get somewhere... maybe?

simple....the people have the power...

You have Empires...DDE...OE....TLE....TOB....The Collective Empire (had to plug lol)

BUT

What is in common with all these alliances? give up? thats right its the members...members of the game have the power...

Im the leader of The Collective...only because my members wish me to be...not because i have a supernatural power of changing everyones minds and what not.

Each player makes up there own minds...If i ask my guys to mass an alliance then thats me (a player) making a choice...then its up to my members to make a choice on if they will follow that or not...simple...

each member of the game has the same amount of power.

facepie wrote:well... i believe with wars, Admin has come up with a helpful suggestion by making the update with the different types of wars...

now i'm not too sure if im right with everything im bout to say

but judging by the chronicles of past wars, none of them wars have been even used

whats the point of having that update when it's left sitting there to rot?

most wars now alliance dont even declare on the opposition alliances

i think if we actually used these wars we might, actually get somewhere... maybe?

Have you even looked at them?

EVERY single one of them is exploitable to the attacking side, and admin was told that when he launched them, so in effect, WHY would you accept a war you know 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt you can not win?

The planet wars, so if an alliance of 5 people, with no planets calls a planet war on your alliance of 22 people all with planets,,,,, you going to accept?

Stat/power war, so if an alliance of 5 people with no other stat then attack calls a stat war on your alliance of 22 all with stats,,,,, you going to accept?

Resource war, so if an alliance of 5 people with 1 bill incomes starts a resource war with your alliance of 22 with 10 bill incomes,,,, you going to accept?

see where I'm going with this?

and not only that but the entire ME system is hosed. I ask you this, who did better?

player A
Kills 10 mill def soilders, losses 6 mill att soilders

player B

kills 9 mill def soilders, loses 1 mill att soilders

now who did better?

Player B did much better statisticly speaking, but the present ME system says player A won even tho player B killed more per loss.

~Odin~ wrote:simple....the people have the power...

You have Empires...DDE...OE....TLE....TOB....The Collective Empire (had to plug lol)

BUT

What is in common with all these alliances? give up? thats right its the members...members of the game have the power...

Im the leader of The Collective...only because my members wish me to be...not because i have a supernatural power of changing everyones minds and what not.

Each player makes up there own minds...If i ask my guys to mass an alliance then thats me (a player) making a choice...then its up to my members to make a choice on if they will follow that or not...simple...

each member of the game has the same amount of power.

unfortunately I greatly beg to differ dear Lenin.

~Odin~ wrote:simple....the people have the power...

You have Empires...DDE...OE....TLE....TOB....The Collective Empire (had to plug lol)

BUT

What is in common with all these alliances? give up? thats right its the members...members of the game have the power...

Im the leader of The Collective...only because my members wish me to be...not because i have a supernatural power of changing everyones minds and what not.

Each player makes up there own minds...If i ask my guys to mass an alliance then thats me (a player) making a choice...then its up to my members to make a choice on if they will follow that or not...simple...

each member of the game has the same amount of power.

you my friend are so wrong , in everything you have leaders and followers , even if all the players had the exact same account they would not be equal , there is a thing called charisma and manipulation , and some ppl just have charisma , others can manipulate , the best combine the 2 and throw in some other skillz and bang , you got yourself a person ppl believe in and will follow .

And if you don't think i'm correct try looking at the difference between Bush and Obama . ( sorry to drag RL in here )

edit : @Semper , wat you posted is prolly the short version of wat i was trying to say

Draleg wrote:

~Odin~ wrote:simple....the people have the power...

You have Empires...DDE...OE....TLE....TOB....The Collective Empire (had to plug lol)

BUT

What is in common with all these alliances? give up? thats right its the members...members of the game have the power...

Im the leader of The Collective...only because my members wish me to be...not because i have a supernatural power of changing everyones minds and what not.

Each player makes up there own minds...If i ask my guys to mass an alliance then thats me (a player) making a choice...then its up to my members to make a choice on if they will follow that or not...simple...

each member of the game has the same amount of power.

you my friend are so wrong , in everything you have leaders and followers , even if all the players had the exact same account they would not be equal , there is a thing called charisma and manipulation , and some ppl just have charisma , others can manipulate , the best combine the 2 and throw in some other skillz and bang , you got yourself a person ppl believe in and will follow .

And if you don't think i'm correct try looking at the difference between Bush and Obama . ( sorry to drag RL in here )

edit : @Semper , wat you posted is prolly the short version of wat i was trying to say

Well I have to say I agree with you both.

In odins case, I do believe the masses can out weight the leaders, but it generally wont because the masses are lazy and would rather sit and whine meaninglessly then work or act.

In Drelegs case I also agree, but I too note that in 90% of the cases it a personal choice to give away or not use ones own power, hence the "followers" mentality.

And while the "Bush/Obama" analogy is a good one, lets please not turn this into a R/L leaders discussion ok guys? (I know someone will want to lol)

Lore wrote:

facepie wrote:well... i believe with wars, Admin has come up with a helpful suggestion by making the update with the different types of wars...

now i'm not too sure if im right with everything im bout to say

but judging by the chronicles of past wars, none of them wars have been even used

whats the point of having that update when it's left sitting there to rot?

most wars now alliance dont even declare on the opposition alliances

i think if we actually used these wars we might, actually get somewhere... maybe?

Have you even looked at them?

EVERY single one of them is exploitable to the attacking side, and admin was told that when he launched them, so in effect, WHY would you accept a war you know 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt you can not win?

The planet wars, so if an alliance of 5 people, with no planets calls a planet war on your alliance of 22 people all with planets,,,,, you going to accept?

Stat/power war, so if an alliance of 5 people with no other stat then attack calls a stat war on your alliance of 22 all with stats,,,,, you going to accept?

Resource war, so if an alliance of 5 people with 1 bill incomes starts a resource war with your alliance of 22 with 10 bill incomes,,,, you going to accept?

see where I'm going with this?

and not only that but the entire ME system is hosed. I ask you this, who did better?

player A
Kills 10 mill def soilders, losses 6 mill att soilders

player B

kills 9 mill def soilders, loses 1 mill att soilders

now who did better?

Player B did much better statisticly speaking, but the present ME system says player A won even tho player B killed more per loss.

true true, and i agree with all the war points except with the resource war youd expect the players wif 10bil income to easily be able to keep their resources by rebuilding etc as they have a higher source of income

but no i was more pointing towards the other type of war that Jason made, forget what its called T.T

facepie wrote:true true, and i agree with all the war points except with the resource war youd expect the players wif 10bil income to easily be able to keep their resources by rebuilding etc as they have a higher source of income

but no i was more pointing towards the other type of war that Jason made, forget what its called T.T

If either alliance is worth its weight there wont be a defense left standing so it will go to turn farming. even if they do as you said, and the larger builds def that are constantly taken down hr by hr, then even if they won by resource count, they still lost 10 to 1 in men,,,,,you call that a victory?

Its called the war of attrition, and if 2 evenly matched alliances could battle it out, it might be a viable option, but as long as the 2 alliances are skewed by either member count or by total population then it is rendered useless. there is no crit/nox so no way to phase or stop all strike accounts. Both att and def units die, so as long as one side or the other knows when the war will start, then that side will always win as it can mass ALL Att and Def in the opposing alliance.

many good suggestions to balance that have thus far fallen on deaf ears and that's why no one uses it.

~Odin~ wrote:simple....the people have the power...

You have Empires...DDE...OE....TLE....TOB....The Collective Empire (had to plug lol)

BUT

What is in common with all these alliances? give up? thats right its the members...members of the game have the power...

Im the leader of The Collective...only because my members wish me to be...not because i have a supernatural power of changing everyones minds and what not.

Each player makes up there own minds...If i ask my guys to mass an alliance then thats me (a player) making a choice...then its up to my members to make a choice on if they will follow that or not...simple...

each member of the game has the same amount of power.

I agree.

The most powerful people in the game...are the players. Sure leaders make choices, and ask their members to carry them out, but in that moment, there is a choice, and in that choice lies the power. The members have all the power, make the wrong choice, and you end up alienating your own alliance. Make the right choice, and you are the leader they have been looking for. It all comes down to choice, because you have to listen to your members for they are the power, not a single person holds it all. It comes from a collective. If I were asked to step down by my own alliance members by a 2/3 majority, I would because that is in their power to call for my resignation. So to answer the question of who the shakers and movers are of the game, its the players and members of every alliance. Each one has the power to stop a war or keep it going.

Lore wrote:

facepie wrote:true true, and i agree with all the war points except with the resource war youd expect the players wif 10bil income to easily be able to keep their resources by rebuilding etc as they have a higher source of income

but no i was more pointing towards the other type of war that Jason made, forget what its called T.T

If either alliance is worth its weight there wont be a defense left standing so it will go to turn farming. even if they do as you said, and the larger builds def that are constantly taken down hr by hr, then even if they won by resource count, they still lost 10 to 1 in men,,,,,you call that a victory?

Its called the war of attrition, and if 2 evenly matched alliances could battle it out, it might be a viable option, but as long as the 2 alliances are skewed by either member count or by total population then it is rendered useless. there is no crit/nox so no way to phase or stop all strike accounts. Both att and def units die, so as long as one side or the other knows when the war will start, then that side will always win as it can mass ALL Att and Def in the opposing alliance.

many good suggestions to balance that have thus far fallen on deaf ears and that's why no one uses it.

point taken, as i said in my first post, wasn't sure on that situation, merely just something i noticed