StarGateWars Forums

Sarevok wrote:

Offensive Bias wrote:*grin* That's a risk with any amount of turns, and if one multi can farm more naq, it will in fact serve to reduce the total number of multies that come into the game daily.

Well, if we wanted to reduce the risk, just autobad any account that shares an IP with any other account. That'll eliminate multis. Only problem is, if 2 people play from the same house, or same university etc...

Are you a supporter of carpet bombing, Sarevok? I ask, because that seems like an apt comparison in gravity of the measure you propose to address an issue which I -personally- don't consider a huge problem in itself.
No.. such measures -as an intensified autoban- would close off the game to many players, and would in fact damage the game more as the current situation does.

Offensive Bias wrote:

Sarevok wrote:

Offensive Bias wrote:*grin* That's a risk with any amount of turns, and if one multi can farm more naq, it will in fact serve to reduce the total number of multies that come into the game daily.

Well, if we wanted to reduce the risk, just autobad any account that shares an IP with any other account. That'll eliminate multis. Only problem is, if 2 people play from the same house, or same university etc...

Are you a supporter of carpet bombing, Sarevok? I ask, because that seems like an apt comparison in gravity of the measure you propose to address an issue which I -personally- don't consider a huge problem in itself.
No.. such measures -as an intensified autoban- would close off the game to many players, and would in fact damage the game more as the current situation does.

Infact, in C&C Generals ZH, i do quite enjoy both carpet bombing and Nuke Carpet Bombing
But that's a game...

lmao SCUD Launcher ftw.

But imagine someone using a proxy to make a multi -> acquire personal ATs -> raid -> another multi -> raid the previous multi, until you have a multi with like 100mil uu.

Which is then raided by the original creator, then deleted.

Can this not already be done? lol

But it depends, if you do it by mac address, or by IP

Sarevok wrote:Can this not already be done? lol

But it depends, if you do it by mac address, or by IP

Both can be changed at will IP and MAC that is so its easy to do what he said.

What was wrong with unlimited turns?

If I had unlimited turns, I could get myself a shiny new 1T MS very easily. Check out other normal RPGs, the quality of your account/character depends on how much effort you put in to it.

Then there's RPGs like EVE online. No matter how much you work on your account, its impossible to catch up to the people who started playing when the game was created.

I like the first type better. It makes things nice and even for everyone.

This was a very quick and unthought out plan so feel free to poke holes in it

Hoochivette wrote:What was wrong with unlimited turns?

If I had unlimited turns, I could get myself a shiny new 1T MS very easily. Check out other normal RPGs, the quality of your account/character depends on how much effort you put in to it.

Then there's RPGs like EVE online. No matter how much you work on your account, its impossible to catch up to the people who started playing when the game was created.

I like the first type better. It makes things nice and even for everyone.

This was a very quick and unthought out plan so feel free to poke holes in it

The fact is it ruins the game that you can mass whole alliances at no cost to you because of to many turns.

It is taking it to far it is also why the game is slowly going to die.

Nimras wrote:

Hoochivette wrote:What was wrong with unlimited turns?

If I had unlimited turns, I could get myself a shiny new 1T MS very easily. Check out other normal RPGs, the quality of your account/character depends on how much effort you put in to it.

Then there's RPGs like EVE online. No matter how much you work on your account, its impossible to catch up to the people who started playing when the game was created.

I like the first type better. It makes things nice and even for everyone.

This was a very quick and unthought out plan so feel free to poke holes in it

The fact is it ruins the game that you can mass whole alliances at no cost to you because of to many turns.

It is taking it to far it is also why the game is slowly going to die.

Indeed

The game is slowly dying regardless of the turns thing. Everyone who grows big just goes and joins DDE or OE. Eventually thats all that'll remain.

Lowering the number of available turns isn't going to stop that... Keeping the number of turns high atleast gives folks like me a chance to play and get a nice big MS before the game dies

Hoochivette wrote:The game is slowly dying regardless of the turns thing. Everyone who grows big just goes and joins DDE or OE. Eventually thats all that'll remain.

Lowering the number of available turns isn't going to stop that... Keeping the number of turns high atleast gives folks like me a chance to play and get a nice big MS before the game dies

Actually by bringing back tactics and remove the unlimited turns there pretty much is now will bring back alot of people even legends that left because of this issue.

No it would bring back new life to the game in so many ways.

And your wrong in they go join DDE or OE as there is so many other alternatives for big people and you should know that.

So you rather want the turns and see the game die or loose the turns and maybe see more life back, and no turns fix will not be enough but it would be a good and strong start.

I actually prefer a game, where you would never be able to catch up with someone who started earlier.

It gives a incentive for a lot of the older players to continue playing. imo it's almost disgraceful seeing people with 196xxxx,197xxxx IDs being able to catch up to some pre 19xxxxx IDs with just a few dollars.

CABAL wrote:I actually prefer a game, where you would never be able to catch up with someone who started earlier.

It gives a incentive for a lot of the older players to continue playing. imo it's almost disgraceful seeing people with 196xxxx,197xxxx IDs being able to catch up to some pre 19xxxxx IDs with just a few dollars.

This is NOT doable, if the person was a builder, and not a warer, then they would have the size of some of the larger accounts. I've seen account in the 600m range. How many of your 1.9m accounts are this size?

CABAL wrote:I actually prefer a game, where you would never be able to catch up with someone who started earlier.

It gives a incentive for a lot of the older players to continue playing. imo it's almost disgraceful seeing people with 196xxxx,197xxxx IDs being able to catch up to some pre 19xxxxx IDs with just a few dollars.

Why would the people with IDs in the 19xxxxx range bother play if they knew they could never catch up to people who started playing earlier? They'll just be on the recieving end of massings/raids/naq hits. Then they'll quit when they realise they cant catch up.

Who will the early starters play with then? Themselves? Same old wars fought again and again, old players will quit so that's a very bad thing.

@Nimras, reducing turns brought back no tactics whatsoever. Its still the same clicking thing its always been, just people PPT more now than they used to

Hoochivette wrote:

CABAL wrote:I actually prefer a game, where you would never be able to catch up with someone who started earlier.

It gives a incentive for a lot of the older players to continue playing. imo it's almost disgraceful seeing people with 196xxxx,197xxxx IDs being able to catch up to some pre 19xxxxx IDs with just a few dollars.

Why would the people with IDs in the 19xxxxx range bother play if they knew they could never catch up to people who started playing earlier? They'll just be on the recieving end of massings/raids/naq hits. Then they'll quit when they realise they cant catch up.

Who will the early starters play with then? Themselves? Same old wars fought again and again, old players will quit so that's a very bad thing.

@Nimras, reducing turns brought back no tactics whatsoever. Its still the same clicking thing its always been, just people PPT more now than they used to

I disagree. Its far more costly for a single person to run through an alliance themselves now. Thus improving the chances of team work and co-ordination

Hoochivette wrote:

CABAL wrote:I actually prefer a game, where you would never be able to catch up with someone who started earlier.

It gives a incentive for a lot of the older players to continue playing. imo it's almost disgraceful seeing people with 196xxxx,197xxxx IDs being able to catch up to some pre 19xxxxx IDs with just a few dollars.

Why would the people with IDs in the 19xxxxx range bother play if they knew they could never catch up to people who started playing earlier? They'll just be on the recieving end of massings/raids/naq hits. Then they'll quit when they realise they cant catch up.

Who will the early starters play with then? Themselves? Same old wars fought again and again, old players will quit so that's a very bad thing.

@Nimras, reducing turns brought back no tactics whatsoever. Its still the same clicking thing its always been, just people PPT more now than they used to

Your wrong actually it would mean that 1 player can't take down like 30 alliances in one go without his members in his alliance having to do anything.

If the turns was down there we would see teamwork between accounts and alliances not mass for 1 single hit because it is to expensive in turns.

If you talk to many of the legends around and people in the big alliances most of them will actually agree with me on this one, turns are to plenty and ruining the game, the fact that new accounts at no expensive can catch up to the old accounts.

I mean honestly i remember my first 9 ascentions the cost it was because I always had to rebuild my MS, now a days i see new accounts rock past me in MS with ease because they didn't have to rebuild their MS after each ascention as i had to and many others here. The fact is the new commers in many ways has it way to easy.