StarGateWars Forums

Tekki wrote:

Clarkey wrote:

Rodwolf wrote:

GeneralChaos wrote:I think the reason they are not in the incoming logs, is because its a covert operation, hence supposed to be stealth/secret.

+1

-1

If someone attempts to sabotage your alliance and fail then your alliance would know about it.

But they aren't attempting to sabotage the alliance, just the individual...

Erm the same can be said for attacks such as farming and raiding. They are hits on an individual that happen to be part of an alliance.

Yet no-one seems to yet give a good solid reason why failed sabs should not appear on alliance logs.

Jedi~Tank wrote:I think its fine to add failed attempts and leave successful ones anonymous.

Thank you, i'm glad someone is seeing the sensible side of it.

Clarkey wrote:

Tekki wrote:

Clarkey wrote:

Rodwolf wrote:

GeneralChaos wrote:I think the reason they are not in the incoming logs, is because its a covert operation, hence supposed to be stealth/secret.

+1

-1

If someone attempts to sabotage your alliance and fail then your alliance would know about it.

But they aren't attempting to sabotage the alliance, just the individual...

Erm the same can be said for attacks such as farming and raiding. They are hits on an individual that happen to be part of an alliance.

Yet no-one seems to yet give a good solid reason why failed sabs should not appear on alliance logs.

Tekki wrote:As for where is the harm in bringing it in. Sab is the last covert attack you can launch without having it spotted ingame. Surely those who have alarms on the log pages have enough advantages, and there are those who have alarms on the log pages to let them know about things.

There is a lot of 'warning' and bells and whistles these days to save stats.... why can't some stealth be kept

Tekki wrote:

Clarkey wrote:

Tekki wrote:

Clarkey wrote:

Rodwolf wrote:

GeneralChaos wrote:I think the reason they are not in the incoming logs, is because its a covert operation, hence supposed to be stealth/secret.

+1

-1

If someone attempts to sabotage your alliance and fail then your alliance would know about it.

But they aren't attempting to sabotage the alliance, just the individual...

Erm the same can be said for attacks such as farming and raiding. They are hits on an individual that happen to be part of an alliance.

Yet no-one seems to yet give a good solid reason why failed sabs should not appear on alliance logs.

Tekki wrote:As for where is the harm in bringing it in. Sab is the last covert attack you can launch without having it spotted ingame. Surely those who have alarms on the log pages have enough advantages, and there are those who have alarms on the log pages to let them know about things.

There is a lot of 'warning' and bells and whistles these days to save stats.... why can't some stealth be kept

I think the point is Tekki that a failed sab is not stealth due to it being failed?

Exactly.

If you have someone sneak in to a bank at the black of night and steal £1b dollars and escape never to be identified or found then that is stealth.

If you sneak in to a bank at the black of night and set of the alarm and get killed that is in no way stealthy.

I was more moving to the point where it would be nice to remove the logs. Bring back some of the stealth entirely. There are so many ways of 'saving' someone these days that do not rely on the someone being active, that the entire thing is losing the appeal.

Tekki wrote:I was more moving to the point where it would be nice to remove the logs. Bring back some of the stealth entirely. There are so many ways of 'saving' someone these days that do not rely on the someone being active, that the entire thing is losing the appeal.

Well that makes your reason for disagreeing with the idea more understandable.... you should have "moved" to that point a little quicker.

Tekki wrote:I was more moving to the point where it would be nice to remove the logs. Bring back some of the stealth entirely. There are so many ways of 'saving' someone these days that do not rely on the someone being active, that the entire thing is losing the appeal.

Dearest, it has long lost its appeal.

Failed covert ops show, successful ones dont, not even the ????. Thats the way I would go with it.

Tekki wrote:There is a lot of 'warning' and bells and whistles these days to save stats.... why can't some stealth be kept

You know, failed attempts in personal individuals logs can give off warnings to others too, they dont need alliance logs for that :\

Perhaps the alliance logs should only just include successful missions, attack, raids, planet attacks, lifers, sabs etc. So the attack will only display if it was not successful, i.e it was defended, same dealio with sabs, if they get caught or are identified (which seems to be a rare occasion as well).
Will add a bit of stealth and malice to the game at the very least, and also provoke the 1 v 1 events more. Don't forget we all have the ability to spy an unlimited amount of times now.

Anyway, sabbing has hardly anything against it and I don't see why it shouldn't be in the logs if the enemy fails at being stealthy and gets caught or identified.