StarGateWars Forums

Posted: **Fri Dec 04, 2009 5:20 am**

Lore wrote:Am I missing something?

What good is this if the armies are not equal?

10 member alliance with 50 mill average size versus a 40 member alliance averaging 250 mill size? This system wont work.

am i missing something?
should 0.5 bil soldiers be even a match to 10 bil?
all's fair in love and war. small alliances shouldn't get over their head.
so its going to be ok for larger alliances to go around bullying smaller ones and Forcing them to lose? I still say its to exploitable in those reguards. Only way it "might" work is if it is agreed upon by both sides, and then its still exploitable as will be shown below.
it is intended to use in agreed wars.

Lore wrote:Secondly, this is completely backwards in thinking. To WIN the war you have to give your opponent MORE to kill? Heck I would rather Lose the war and see my opponent having lost 3 to 4 times as much as me in men and resources.

to win a war you have to have a stronger army (should have gone without saying, actually). since a stronger army means a larger army, yes, your opponent would have more to kill.
So you agree with me then, it would be pure stupidity for a stronger opponent, or one who maintains stats to even fight this style of war against normaly or presently used tactics?
no, i don't agree with you. war is expensive, in resources and in men.
you don't want to lose both, don't war.

Lore wrote:Point is, if your going to "lose" (lose as being defined as substaining more losses then your enemy), then why fight? This is a snipers dream come true, perfect for 1 hit wonders and all strike accounts.

you got it all wrong.
losing has never and will never be defined as sustaining more losses than your opponents.
Umm, if that is your opinion/definition then I accept that, but many many people, myself included, think that is EXACTLY what losing means. Yeah you made a guy 100th of your size submit, but now you are the same size as him, so who Realllly won?

that is not my definition, it is the generally accepted western military definition. your confusing war with sports.
and even in sports it's not always true, as willl be explained in a moment.
as for your example, i win. if a boxer knocks out his opponent, does it matter how many punches he received?
now you will go ahed and say "yes it does, for his next battle", well then, good. recuperating time is an aspect in deciding who is the better athlete. similarly, it's an aspect in deciding who is the better SGW player. and the $$ players argument has been debated to length, and it does not belong here.

losing on the tactical level is failing to acomplish your mission and or to prevent your enemy from accomplishing his.
on a strategic level it is failing to achive your political goals.
if your opponnent is a tenth your size, you can sustain 5 times the losses, and still force him into submission, thus winning. in this game, as mentioned countless time, it is near impossible to force an opponnent of reasonable size into submission, since the attrition isn't high enough. so artificial means have to be interduced.
one might also ask, even if you're going to win, why fight? you just lose units and resources.
and since this system is based on sustaining rank, how exactly is it beneficial to snipers etc.?
It benificial to sniper as explained below

Example, I and 4 friends start a war with another alliance consisting of 25 members all 10 times stronger with 10 times total size. We maintain nothing but strike and use gorrilla tactics, they maintain stats and rebuild after every attack for a red ribbon that says "winner" on it. At the end of the war, they are declared the "winner". It is also noted that the 5 of us are the same total size and power of the 25 because we lost practicaly no resources where they lost everything.

Now who really won?
And even if they got a bit of coloered ribbon, I still achived my goal or ruining them ingame while not suffering any myself, so again I ask, who really won?
now, why would you enter an official war, if you don't want to win?

Lore wrote:which is more important to you? haveing the words "winner" on your screen, or having an account left when its done?

by all means, having the word winner.
Then you are one of a few, I do not know where to think you heroic or stupid, and that is not an insult, so dont take it as one. Personally if everyone fought like that the game would be awsome, but they don't so this tactic is suicide. JMO
say, lore have you ascended? even though it meant lossing a big chunk out of your account? and for what, a red title? as most active players ascend, i guess i'm not one of few.
as you agree that if anyone fought like this the game would benefit, i can't see why you object to a system that would cause more players to play exactly this way .
cause accuont sizes come and go, and frankly, it gets boring real fast to just sit there with an account all built up and frightened to do anything with it.
Why are you frightened? There is a difference in a hard fought battle with men of honor, and blindly and stupidly throwing resources at a ME hound who can suck up everything you throw out to be destroyed. Q proved he could kill 50 mill men and only lose 2 mill men doing it. You really want to expend that kind of resources? You really want to piss away 500 mill men to kill 50 mill?
you got me wrong again. i'm not afraid to lose my account, because, as i said, account sizes come and go (can't really call my account "all built up"), but that's another matter. as for your example, i fail to see how it relates to the topic.
and you might want to look at this here post.
especialy the last paragraph.
Please elaborate more, because I am honestly sketchy as to your meaning.
this post shows you xplaining to seravok how easy it is to rebuild you're entirely massed account (def AND strike in this example).

Lore wrote:All this does is make it so the one "losing" more resources wins the war, and I don't really care anything about winning under those conditions.

care to give me an argument to rebut?
for now, this will do: "no, it doesen't."

Gues we can agree to disagree, because that is exactly how I see it. ONLY way its not, is if its a battle between 2 players who actually agree to fight in this manner. If anyone reverts back to the tactics commonly used today, then this is worthless to me, but its JMO.
now you've got it. it is meant to be played between two sides wanting to actually win.

Sarevok wrote:All the areas you mentioned are based, again on resources. And resources SHOULD be what wins a war, apart from tactics. However, since this game doesn't really have advanced tactics (like flanking, or long ranged to prevent damage) then resources it is.

it doesn't have battlefield tactics. it does have tactics (ACing an opponent to ease sabbing, for instance).

Sarevok wrote:Sure, you want to train 100m AC units to win that area. But what happens if a few people NOT involved in the war, see your generous donation to their ME?

????
what donation would that be?

Sarevok wrote:Why is sabbing attack hard? You didn't focus on covert, so sabbing with like 10 units, is a piece of cake to take down your attack.
You keep sending your MS out, and they can keep using their damaged one, to kill off more spies, or defense units. Or take planets from you, reducing your stats, if you have any planets.

they'll have a hard time killing spies and defenders, as you don't have them. and you don't use your army to protect planets.

Sarevok wrote:Maybe they'll farm you all the time, cause you have no defense, which would allow them to boost the areas they lack in.

you use nox and realm alert, so you don't generate much naq.

Sarevok wrote:Also, so what if you win the point by a tiny margin, boost your stat, and when you beat them by the same margin, it doesn't seem so bad. If it becomes such an issue, just use a percentage to work out how much of a point (or 100 points to make it easier) you get, rather then out right?

or, instead of a percentage you can use a difference, receiving points according to the difference in ranks.

Posted: **Fri Dec 04, 2009 3:58 pm**

hitchkok wrote:
Sarevok wrote:All the areas you mentioned are based, again on resources. And resources SHOULD be what wins a war, apart from tactics. However, since this game doesn't really have advanced tactics (like flanking, or long ranged to prevent damage) then resources it is.

it doesn't have battlefield tactics. it does have tactics (ACing an opponent to ease sabbing, for instance).
Which is to reduce resource losses... Which is about resources.

Sarevok wrote:Sure, you want to train 100m AC units to win that area. But what happens if a few people NOT involved in the war, see your generous donation to their ME?

????
what donation would that be?
The donation whereby their looking to kill off some lifers, to do whatever it is they want to do with less of them (eg enter perg, be able to train more units around whilst staying below the cap
And since their not in the war, your just another account, with alot of AC out

Sarevok wrote:Why is sabbing attack hard? You didn't focus on covert, so sabbing with like 10 units, is a piece of cake to take down your attack.
You keep sending your MS out, and they can keep using their damaged one, to kill off more spies, or defense units. Or take planets from you, reducing your stats, if you have any planets.

they'll have a hard time killing spies and defenders, as you don't have them. and you don't use your army to protect planets.
Exactly... Your oh so great attack, will have no weapons, cause you didn't focus on covert defense.
Your MS will become massed, since they take no attacking losses, as you have no defense

Sarevok wrote:Maybe they'll farm you all the time, cause you have no defense, which would allow them to boost the areas they lack in.

you use nox and realm alert, so you don't generate much naq.
LOL!. Even with Nox AND critical, my account is worth farming almost every turn if it had no defense

Sarevok wrote:Also, so what if you win the point by a tiny margin, boost your stat, and when you beat them by the same margin, it doesn't seem so bad. If it becomes such an issue, just use a percentage to work out how much of a point (or 100 points to make it easier) you get, rather then out right?

or, instead of a percentage you can use a difference, receiving points according to the difference in ranks.
Which is open to the same exploitation you mentioned before. About training everything into AC, and having a HUGE difference

Posted: **Fri Dec 04, 2009 5:45 pm**

hitchkok wrote:
Lore wrote:Am I missing something?

What good is this if the armies are not equal?

10 member alliance with 50 mill average size versus a 40 member alliance averaging 250 mill size? This system wont work.

am i missing something?
should 0.5 bil soldiers be even a match to 10 bil?
all's fair in love and war. small alliances shouldn't get over their head.
so its going to be ok for larger alliances to go around bullying smaller ones and Forcing them to lose? I still say its to exploitable in those reguards. Only way it "might" work is if it is agreed upon by both sides, and then its still exploitable as will be shown below.
it is intended to use in agreed wars.
Then its useless as you can already decide a winner between two honorable opponents. Look at before and after Screen shots or copy and paste of stat page, training page, and Bank. If this feature has to be agreed upon, then it falls into the same catagory as the "blood realm". It wont be used, allowed, or accepted by anyone who doesnt think they can win hands down. JMO

Lore wrote:Secondly, this is completely backwards in thinking. To WIN the war you have to give your opponent MORE to kill? Heck I would rather Lose the war and see my opponent having lost 3 to 4 times as much as me in men and resources.

to win a war you have to have a stronger army (should have gone without saying, actually). since a stronger army means a larger army, yes, your opponent would have more to kill.
So you agree with me then, it would be pure stupidity for a stronger opponent, or one who maintains stats to even fight this style of war against normaly or presently used tactics?
no, i don't agree with you. war is expensive, in resources and in men.
you don't want to lose both, don't war.
You contridicted yourself on this point. First you say that yes it has to be between to agreeing parties whom BOTH will not revert to "gorrilla tactics" or turtle shelling. Then you say you don't agree with me on the same point.

Lore wrote:Point is, if your going to "lose" (lose as being defined as substaining more losses then your enemy), then why fight? This is a snipers dream come true, perfect for 1 hit wonders and all strike accounts.

you got it all wrong.
losing has never and will never be defined as sustaining more losses than your opponents.
Umm, if that is your opinion/definition then I accept that, but many many people, myself included, think that is EXACTLY what losing means. Yeah you made a guy 100th of your size submit, but now you are the same size as him, so who Realllly won?
that is not my definition, it is the generally accepted western military definition. your confusing war with sports.
and even in sports it's not always true, as willl be explained in a moment.
as for your example, i win. if a boxer knocks out his opponent, does it matter how many punches he received?
now you will go ahed and say "yes it does, for his next battle", well then, good. recuperating time is an aspect in deciding who is the better athlete. similarly, it's an aspect in deciding who is the better SGW player. and the $$ players argument has been debated to length, and it does not belong here.

Don't really know why YOU are bringing $$ players into this, but I agree you need to leave them out. As for your "boxer" analogy, I happen to agree with you, completely. I also feel you completely side stepped mine and refused to comment because you know I am right. In my analogy, who really won? the guy with a bit of red ribbon? or the loser who is now completely equal, or maybe even stronger then his opponent who was 10 times his size and strength? And No I do not nor have I ever confused war with sports. Sports has ethics, War does not. When its a matter of life or death, honor is a liability, and the winner is the one who is willing to use the dirtiest most hanis tricks no matter the cost.
losing on the tactical level is failing to acomplish your mission and or to prevent your enemy from accomplishing his.
on a strategic level it is failing to achive your political goals.
if your opponnent is a tenth your size, you can sustain 5 times the losses, and still force him into submission, thus winning. in this game, as mentioned countless time, it is near impossible to force an opponnent of reasonable size into submission, since the attrition isn't high enough. so artificial means have to be interduced.
one might also ask, even if you're going to win, why fight? you just lose units and resources.
and since this system is based on sustaining rank, how exactly is it beneficial to snipers etc.?
It benificial to sniper as explained below

Example, I and 4 friends start a war with another alliance consisting of 25 members all 10 times stronger with 10 times total size. We maintain nothing but strike and use gorrilla tactics, they maintain stats and rebuild after every attack for a red ribbon that says "winner" on it. At the end of the war, they are declared the "winner". It is also noted that the 5 of us are the same total size and power of the 25 because we lost practicaly no resources where they lost everything.

Now who really won?
And even if they got a bit of coloered ribbon, I still achived my goal or ruining them ingame while not suffering any myself, so again I ask, who really won?
now, why would you enter an official war, if you don't want to win?
You don't seem to understand my point. What if the bit of ribbon isnt my goal? what if my goal is to bring down 10 players all stronger and bigger then myself? Yes they "waste" resources keeping stats and in the end are listed as the "winner". But I also won, because I accomplished my goal, to cripple them without being crippled myself. You define "winning" differently then I do. That is the point I am trying to make.
Lore wrote:which is more important to you? haveing the words "winner" on your screen, or having an account left when its done?
by all means, having the word winner.
Then you are one of a few, I do not know where to think you heroic or stupid, and that is not an insult, so dont take it as one. Personally if everyone fought like that the game would be awsome, but they don't so this tactic is suicide. JMO
say, lore have you ascended? even though it meant lossing a big chunk out of your account? and for what, a red title? as most active players ascend, i guess i'm not one of few.
as you agree that if anyone fought like this the game would benefit, i can't see why you object to a system that would cause more players to play exactly this way .
Because it won't. Just like Blood realm this feature will be tried out, and then go unused. Maybe 1 time in a blue moon, and again, if all parties involved are "men of honor" then the system isnt needed in the first place, and all it takes is 1 "bad apple" to destroy it.
cause accuont sizes come and go, and frankly, it gets boring real fast to just sit there with an account all built up and frightened to do anything with it.
Why are you frightened? There is a difference in a hard fought battle with men of honor, and blindly and stupidly throwing resources at a ME hound who can suck up everything you throw out to be destroyed. Q proved he could kill 50 mill men and only lose 2 mill men doing it. You really want to expend that kind of resources? You really want to piss away 500 mill men to kill 50 mill?
you got me wrong again. i'm not afraid to lose my account, because, as i said, account sizes come and go (can't really call my account "all built up"), but that's another matter. as for your example, i fail to see how it relates to the topic.
and you might want to look at this here post.
especialy the last paragraph.
Please elaborate more, because I am honestly sketchy as to your meaning.
this post shows you xplaining to seravok how easy it is to rebuild you're entirely massed account (def AND strike in this example). So you think people will want to invest that much time and energy into feeding someone elses ME score?
Lore wrote:All this does is make it so the one "losing" more resources wins the war, and I don't really care anything about winning under those conditions.

care to give me an argument to rebut?
for now, this will do: "no, it doesen't."

Gues we can agree to disagree, because that is exactly how I see it. ONLY way its not, is if its a battle between 2 players who actually agree to fight in this manner. If anyone reverts back to the tactics commonly used today, then this is worthless to me, but its JMO.
now you've got it. it is meant to be played between two sides wanting to actually win.
As said before, if you have 2 "good" sides, who will honor the agreement, you dont need it. and all it takes is 1 bad apple to ruin it. ANOTHER valid point to raise. 2 "honorable" opponents go at it under these terms. What happens when 1 of the 2 sides is also being attacked by a third party? Would pretty much mean a certain loss would it not?

I'll let this be, I just want to say this. The idea, and system are good. But its exploitable, and like the blood realm, it just wont be used. No one will accept this war type unless they know they can win before hand. Why would they?

Posted: **Sat Dec 05, 2009 1:46 am**

Sarevok wrote:All the areas you mentioned are based, again on resources. And resources SHOULD be what wins a war, apart from tactics. However, since this game doesn't really have advanced tactics (like flanking, or long ranged to prevent damage) then resources it is.

it doesn't have battlefield tactics. it does have tactics (ACing an opponent to ease sabbing, for instance).
Which is to reduce resource losses... Which is about resources.
it's about making your opponent spend more resources, not about being able to generate more

Sarevok wrote:Sure, you want to train 100m AC units to win that area. But what happens if a few people NOT involved in the war, see your generous donation to their ME?

????
what donation would that be?
The donation whereby their looking to kill off some lifers, to do whatever it is they want to do with less of them (eg enter perg, be able to train more units around whilst staying below the cap
And since their not in the war, your just another account, with alot of AC out
you don't get exeperience for lifer suicide

Sarevok wrote:Why is sabbing attack hard? You didn't focus on covert, so sabbing with like 10 units, is a piece of cake to take down your attack.
You keep sending your MS out, and they can keep using their damaged one, to kill off more spies, or defense units. Or take planets from you, reducing your stats, if you have any planets.

they'll have a hard time killing spies and defenders, as you don't have them. and you don't use your army to protect planets.
Exactly... Your oh so great attack, will have no weapons, cause you didn't focus on covert defense.
Your MS will become massed, since they take no attacking losses, as you have no defense
i expleined earlier how it's easy to protect your weapons using a minimal amount of spies (pending on your preperation beforehand, of course)
why don't you have MS defence?
in MS battle the MSs aren't restricted by the natural stat.
besides, planets have their own defences.

Sarevok wrote:Maybe they'll farm you all the time, cause you have no defense, which would allow them to boost the areas they lack in.

you use nox and realm alert, so you don't generate much naq.
LOL!. Even with Nox AND critical, my account is worth farming almost every turn if it had no defense

Sarevok wrote:Also, so what if you win the point by a tiny margin, boost your stat, and when you beat them by the same margin, it doesn't seem so bad. If it becomes such an issue, just use a percentage to work out how much of a point (or 100 points to make it easier) you get, rather then out right?

or, instead of a percentage you can use a difference, receiving points according to the difference in ranks.
Which is open to the same exploitation you mentioned before. About training everything into AC, and having a HUGE difference
no. it isn't. since
a) if both parties try to do that, the difference won't be HUGE.
b) if only one try it, they'll lose since the ranks are on an (roughly) to get even higher. so having one stat ranked seariously beneath par, would spell disaster for its owners score.

Lore wrote:Am I missing something?

What good is this if the armies are not equal?

10 member alliance with 50 mill average size versus a 40 member alliance averaging 250 mill size? This system wont work.

am i missing something?
should 0.5 bil soldiers be even a match to 10 bil?
all's fair in love and war. small alliances shouldn't get over their head.
so its going to be ok for larger alliances to go around bullying smaller ones and Forcing them to lose? I still say its to exploitable in those reguards. Only way it "might" work is if it is agreed upon by both sides, and then its still exploitable as will be shown below.
it is intended to use in agreed wars.
Then its useless as you can already decide a winner between two honorable opponents. Look at before and after Screen shots or copy and paste of stat page, training page, and Bank. If this feature has to be agreed upon, then it falls into the same catagory as the "blood realm". It wont be used, allowed, or accepted by anyone who doesnt think they can win hands down. JMO
so why not have an ingame system to do it, instead of screen shots (which BTW, can be very easily manipulate using photoshop etc.)?

Lore wrote:Secondly, this is completely backwards in thinking. To WIN the war you have to give your opponent MORE to kill? Heck I would rather Lose the war and see my opponent having lost 3 to 4 times as much as me in men and resources.

to win a war you have to have a stronger army (should have gone without saying, actually). since a stronger army means a larger army, yes, your opponent would have more to kill.
So you agree with me then, it would be pure stupidity for a stronger opponent, or one who maintains stats to even fight this style of war against normaly or presently used tactics?
no, i don't agree with you. war is expensive, in resources and in men.
you don't want to lose both, don't war.
You contridicted yourself on this point. First you say that yes it has to be between to agreeing parties whom BOTH will not revert to "gorrilla tactics" or turtle shelling. Then you say you don't agree with me on the same point.
it has to be between agreeing parties that agree to fight each other, and that BOTH WANT TO WIN. their tactics are theirs to choose, this system will simply make guerilla warfare un rewarding. what ever tactics youre gonna choose, you'll lose resources. it's up to you to do your best to maintain your overall rank.

Lore wrote:Point is, if your going to "lose" (lose as being defined as substaining more losses then your enemy), then why fight? This is a snipers dream come true, perfect for 1 hit wonders and all strike accounts.

you got it all wrong.
losing has never and will never be defined as sustaining more losses than your opponents.
Umm, if that is your opinion/definition then I accept that, but many many people, myself included, think that is EXACTLY what losing means. Yeah you made a guy 100th of your size submit, but now you are the same size as him, so who Realllly won?

that is not my definition, it is the generally accepted western military definition. your confusing war with sports.
and even in sports it's not always true, as willl be explained in a moment.
as for your example, i win. if a boxer knocks out his opponent, does it matter how many punches he received?
now you will go ahed and say "yes it does, for his next battle", well then, good. recuperating time is an aspect in deciding who is the better athlete. similarly, it's an aspect in deciding who is the better SGW player. and the $$ players argument has been debated to length, and it does not belong here.

Don't really know why YOU are bringing $$ players into this, but I agree you need to leave them out. As for your "boxer" analogy, I happen to agree with you, completely. I also feel you completely side stepped mine and refused to comment because you know I am right. In my analogy, who really won? the guy with a bit of red ribbon? or the loser who is now completely equal, or maybe even stronger then his opponent who was 10 times his size and strength? And No I do not nor have I ever confused war with sports. Sports has ethics, War does not. When its a matter of life or death, honor is a liability, and the winner is the one who is willing to use the dirtiest most hanis tricks no matter the cost.
if you want to get technical, both. "blasphemy" you might say "how can both parties win the same war?!"
well, winning is defined as accomplishing your mission (tactical)/achiving your political goal (strategic) as their goal was to get the red ribbon, and youres was to hurt them, both won. historical examples are abundant, and i'll just mention one foor good measure. on the egiptian israely front in the Yom Kippur War (named the october war by egyptian) the starting position was israely fortification on the east bank of the suez canal. at the ceasefire a thin strip of the east bank of the canal was occupied by egiptian forces, this being israel's only lose of territory. this facts lead both the egiptian and the israely government to declare victory, and in both countrys this war is remembered as a victory to these days
losing on the tactical level is failing to acomplish your mission and or to prevent your enemy from accomplishing his.
on a strategic level it is failing to achive your political goals.
if your opponnent is a tenth your size, you can sustain 5 times the losses, and still force him into submission, thus winning. in this game, as mentioned countless time, it is near impossible to force an opponnent of reasonable size into submission, since the attrition isn't high enough. so artificial means have to be interduced.
one might also ask, even if you're going to win, why fight? you just lose units and resources.
and since this system is based on sustaining rank, how exactly is it beneficial to snipers etc.?
It benificial to sniper as explained below

Example, I and 4 friends start a war with another alliance consisting of 25 members all 10 times stronger with 10 times total size. We maintain nothing but strike and use gorrilla tactics, they maintain stats and rebuild after every attack for a red ribbon that says "winner" on it. At the end of the war, they are declared the "winner". It is also noted that the 5 of us are the same total size and power of the 25 because we lost practicaly no resources where they lost everything.

Now who really won?
And even if they got a bit of coloered ribbon, I still achived my goal or ruining them ingame while not suffering any myself, so again I ask, who really won?
now, why would you enter an official war, if you don't want to win?
You don't seem to understand my point. What if the bit of ribbon isnt my goal? what if my goal is to bring down 10 players all stronger and bigger then myself? Yes they "waste" resources keeping stats and in the end are listed as the "winner". But I also won, because I accomplished my goal, to cripple them without being crippled myself. You define "winning" differently then I do. That is the point I am trying to make.
as i said before, yes you both win. only difference is that you can get youre win now, without them even knowing that theire in a war. implementing this system will allow wars which has more point to them. i mean, if all you want to do is win, no matter how small the challenge is, go and play chess with a moron. if you want to fight and beat an opponnent of roughly youre level and have fun doing it, use this system.

Lore wrote:which is more important to you? haveing the words "winner" on your screen, or having an account left when its done?

by all means, having the word winner.
Then you are one of a few, I do not know where to think you heroic or stupid, and that is not an insult, so dont take it as one. Personally if everyone fought like that the game would be awsome, but they don't so this tactic is suicide. JMO
say, lore have you ascended? even though it meant lossing a big chunk out of your account? and for what, a red title? as most active players ascend, i guess i'm not one of few.
as you agree that if anyone fought like this the game would benefit, i can't see why you object to a system that would cause more players to play exactly this way .
Because it won't. Just like Blood realm this feature will be tried out, and then go unused. Maybe 1 time in a blue moon, and again, if all parties involved are "men of honor" then the system isnt needed in the first place, and all it takes is 1 "bad apple" to destroy it.
"honuor" is not an issue here. its between parties that want to win
cause accuont sizes come and go, and frankly, it gets boring real fast to just sit there with an account all built up and frightened to do anything with it.
Why are you frightened? There is a difference in a hard fought battle with men of honor, and blindly and stupidly throwing resources at a ME hound who can suck up everything you throw out to be destroyed. Q proved he could kill 50 mill men and only lose 2 mill men doing it. You really want to expend that kind of resources? You really want to piss away 500 mill men to kill 50 mill?
you got me wrong again. i'm not afraid to lose my account, because, as i said, account sizes come and go (can't really call my account "all built up"), but that's another matter. as for your example, i fail to see how it relates to the topic.
and you might want to look at this here post.
especialy the last paragraph.
Please elaborate more, because I am honestly sketchy as to your meaning.
this post shows you xplaining to seravok how easy it is to rebuild you're entirely massed account (def AND strike in this example). So you think people will want to invest that much time and energy into feeding someone elses ME score?
no, they'll want to invest it having fun warring each other

Lore wrote:
All this does is make it so the one "losing" more resources wins the war, and I don't really care anything about winning under those conditions.

care to give me an argument to rebut?
for now, this will do: "no, it doesen't."

Gues we can agree to disagree, because that is exactly how I see it. ONLY way its not, is if its a battle between 2 players who actually agree to fight in this manner. If anyone reverts back to the tactics commonly used today, then this is worthless to me, but its JMO.
now you've got it. it is meant to be played between two sides wanting to actually win.
As said before, if you have 2 "good" sides, who will honor the agreement, you dont need it. and all it takes is 1 bad apple to ruin it. ANOTHER valid point to raise. 2 "honorable" opponents go at it under these terms. What happens when 1 of the 2 sides is also being attacked by a third party? Would pretty much mean a certain loss would it not?
i'll say it again (i'll actually copy paste it) "honuor" is not an issue here. its between parties that want to win.
as to being attacked by a third party, yes that would hinder one of the sides. two options:either have the war in a different realm, or shrug it off as "**Filtered** happens"

Lore wrote:
I'll let this be, I just want to say this. The idea, and system are good. But its exploitable, and like the blood realm, it just wont be used. No one will accept this war type unless they know they can win before hand. Why would they?

seeing we're done. here's my final statement:
EVERYTHING is exploitable. the specific exploit you are talking about is not inherent in the system. as you agree the system is good, and implied you would enjoy to use it (against the appropriate opponnent), and your only objection is the the usage of it, i say let the people decide for themselves.

Posted: **Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:02 am**

hitchkok wrote:
seeing we're done. here's my final statement:
EVERYTHING is exploitable. the specific exploit you are talking about is not inherent in the system. as you agree the system is good, and implied you would enjoy to use it (against the appropriate opponnent), and your only objection is the the usage of it, i say let the people decide for themselves.

You seem to misunderstand me on another point. I have no "objection" to the system. I'm showing you how it will be exploited and ruined by 3rd parties. How it is very closely akin to the blood realm, a waste of coding that is never used. I'm not objecting to the idea, I'm offering constructive critasism to try to mold it into something useful.

Its not working tho.

Posted: **Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:51 am**

Lore wrote:You seem to misunderstand me on another point. I have no "objection" to the system. I'm showing you how it will be exploited and ruined by 3rd parties. How it is very closely akin to the blood realm, a waste of coding that is never used. I'm not objecting to the idea, I'm offering constructive critasism to try to mold it into something useful.

Its not working tho.

You know Lore, I do honestly believe that you mean well, but I went again over the entire thread and failed to find one point that can be defined as constructive criticism.
Now, constructive criticism is of the form "A and B will not work well because X and Y, but if you do Z and W, it would work better" or something of that sort. it does NOT use adjectives such as "useless", "stupidity" "waste of coding" and the like. Note that a criticism can be constructive, and still not accepted, like Sarevok's.
Also, you should understand that i'm not the one to be convinced, and neither is you, sarevok, tekki, or any player. the one to be convinced is Jason. for this reason i happily welcome constructive criticism (although i do openly debate it if i don't think it correct).
About blood realm, the question you have to ask yourself is why isn't it used? from what i gather, this is exactly why, because there is no way to effectively decide a war. this is meant to solve it. it is not to replace blood realm, it is to complement it.

sorry if the post seems sarcastic at times, it's just my style of writing.

Posted: **Sun Dec 06, 2009 8:38 am**

hitchkok wrote:
Lore wrote:You seem to misunderstand me on another point. I have no "objection" to the system. I'm showing you how it will be exploited and ruined by 3rd parties. How it is very closely akin to the blood realm, a waste of coding that is never used. I'm not objecting to the idea, I'm offering constructive critasism to try to mold it into something useful.

Its not working tho.

You know Lore, I do honestly believe that you mean well, but I went again over the entire thread and failed to find one point that can be defined as constructive criticism.
Now, constructive criticism is of the form "A and B will not work well because X and Y, but if you do Z and W, it would work better" or something of that sort. it does NOT use adjectives such as "useless", "stupidity" "waste of coding" and the like. Note that a criticism can be constructive, and still not accepted, like Sarevok's.
Also, you should understand that i'm not the one to be convinced, and neither is you, sarevok, tekki, or any player. the one to be convinced is Jason. for this reason i happily welcome constructive criticism (although i do openly debate it if i don't think it correct).
About blood realm, the question you have to ask yourself is why isn't it used? from what i gather, this is exactly why, because there is no way to effectively decide a war. this is meant to solve it. it is not to replace blood realm, it is to complement it.

sorry if the post seems sarcastic at times, it's just my style of writing.

Well it does, but I take no offense to it. I just accept that as the way you are/you write. I'm cool with it.

As for what you consider constructive critasism, ok I somewhat agree with you. I could phrase it differently. Its a bad habit developed over years of being in this section, but the way you posted it to me seems to be down talking, or talking to someone like they are a child.

I'll try to reproduce my points in a different manner, when I have some time. I think they still stand very well as they are.

As for Blood realm, your wrong as to why its not used. There is a perfectly working system in place that decides a winner. The result is one side or the other gets a bit of red ribbon. The reason it is not used, is because only someone who knows they will win will use it, and the person who knows they will lose wont accept it. PERIOD. Thats the part I can't seem to get across. EVERY one of the "war types" can be exploited so that the winner is already decided before the first shot is fired. This suggestion will be the same. I still contend that if you have 2 "honorable" opponents that the system isnt needed in the first place.

That said, I do agree and disagree about replacing/complementing blood realm. I think for either to be viable, they need to be combined. This idea is useless because of the involvement of 3rd parties. Making it like the blood realm eliminates that and brings it closer to a viable option. Blood realm locks out all 3rd parties.

Posted: **Sun Dec 06, 2009 9:52 am**

Lore wrote:As for Blood realm, your wrong as to why its not used. There is a perfectly working system in place that decides a winner. The result is one side or the other gets a bit of red ribbon. The reason it is not used, is because only someone who knows they will win will use it, and the person who knows they will lose wont accept it. PERIOD. Thats the part I can't seem to get across. EVERY one of the "war types" can be exploited so that the winner is already decided before the first shot is fired. This suggestion will be the same. I still contend that if you have 2 "honorable" opponents that the system isnt needed in the first place.

the thing i can't get is why you keep comming back to the "honour" point, when it was repeatedly stated that honour doesn't have anything to do with it. i do understand what do you mean by "honourable", and would like to point out that this suggestion is meant to make "honourable" fighting rewarding. call it forcing someone to be honourable if you like. i also mentioned more than once this is meant for the set wars/agreed wars/blood realm wars. those are all sinonimus.
about exploiting the blood realm, all exploits now are based on depleting your account on purpose before hand. this just won't work with this suggestion, as it defeats the purpose.

Posted: **Sun Dec 06, 2009 10:15 am**

hitchkok wrote:
the thing i can't get is why you keep comming back to the "honour" point, when it was repeatedly stated that honour doesn't have anything to do with it. i do understand what do you mean by "honourable", and would like to point out that this suggestion is meant to make "honourable" fighting rewarding. call it forcing someone to be honourable if you like. i also mentioned more than once this is meant for the set wars/agreed wars/blood realm wars. those are all sinonimus.
about exploiting the blood realm, all exploits now are based on depleting your account on purpose before hand. this just won't work with this suggestion, as it defeats the purpose.

OK, point taken. For this thread/debate I define my use of the word "honorable" as player who have like minds/thinking/goals, and most importantly who WOULD build and maintain stats during the entire War. Thats what I mean whaen I use it.

You say the suggestion makes honorable fighting rewarding, and I happen to fully agree with you, what I was attempting to show you was it only takes 1 bad apple to ruin the idea/suggestion. I also showed how a 3rd party can destroy the idea as well.

As for other exploits not working on this idea, I again disagree and feel I have shown they will

2 alliances, both have 5 members, both have 500 mill total pops, basicly completely even. Should be an even or a good fight yes?

ex 1. Alliance A keeps all members built, alliance B has 1 member with nothing but strike, he therefore expends nothing on defense and is able to maintain a stronger strike. End result (A possibility, not a definite) could be alliance A loses more overall resources keeping their defenses up, and alliance B has more overall stats due to Alliance A expending more resources on defense leaving less resources to strike with.

ex 2. Alliance A and alliance B go to war. Alliance A suffers no 3rd party attacks. Alliance B suffers massing of 1/2 its members daily by 3rd parties until the war ended. End result is Allaince B loses even if they did more damage, fought more, fought harder, expended more resources, or anything else.

Posted: **Sun Dec 06, 2009 6:07 pm**

Lore wrote:ex 1. Alliance A keeps all members built, alliance B has 1 member with nothing but strike, he therefore expends nothing on defense and is able to maintain a stronger strike. End result (A possibility, not a definite) could be alliance A loses more overall resources keeping their defenses up, and alliance B has more overall stats due to Alliance A expending more resources on defense leaving less resources to strike with.

1) as you said, this is a possibility, not definite result.
2) I still classify it as a valid tactic. I also happen to think it's quite a dangerous one, since having no defences costs ranks, and heavily, while it's releatively cheap to rebuild your defence to get a reasonable rank (1,000 or so).

Lore wrote:ex 2. Alliance A and alliance B go to war. Alliance A suffers no 3rd party attacks. Alliance B suffers massing of 1/2 its members daily by 3rd parties until the war ended. End result is Allaince B loses even if they did more damage, fought more, fought harder, expended more resources, or anything else.

1) let me qoute you on this one.

Lore wrote:That said, I do agree and disagree about replacing/complementing blood realm. I think for either to be viable, they need to be combined... Blood realm locks out all 3rd parties.

that was what i meant all along, and i stated it over and over.

2) however, i still say it could be interesting roleplay-wise to allow 3rd (and 4th and 5th for that matter) parties. again, historical evidence abound.

StarGateWars Forums

(yet another) way of deciding the winner of wars

Re: (yet another) way of deciding the winner of wars

Re: (yet another) way of deciding the winner of wars

Re: (yet another) way of deciding the winner of wars

Re: (yet another) way of deciding the winner of wars

Re: (yet another) way of deciding the winner of wars

Re: (yet another) way of deciding the winner of wars

Re: (yet another) way of deciding the winner of wars

Re: (yet another) way of deciding the winner of wars

Re: (yet another) way of deciding the winner of wars

Re: (yet another) way of deciding the winner of wars