StarGateWars Forums

MEZZANINE wrote:TBH why doesnt admin fix the current war systems in place before looking at new ones. FS and Alpha tested the Bloodrealm over a year ago, we reported all the glitches and the fact the scoring system show no results ( 0:0 ), and admin never even replied in emails or in forum.

A great war system that could have made a big difference to the game abandoned through apathy.


Though the suggestion above is very interesting and could be good, I think a far simpler and for the most part already coded ( stills needs fixes and changes ) would be a version of Bloodrealm for Team Battles where the alliance leader can select the members entering Bloodrealm.





EDIT

A 'Thunderdome' version of bloodrealm could also be used for Vendetta's / 1v1s.

~Tziki~ wrote:Okay so i was talking to an admin of a different game similar to this. The admin knew about this game and asked me what would i like to see in the game, that gatewars currently doesnt have.
To which my response was, i dont want to see ever lasting wars dragged out over a matter of pride, i want to see a clear victor and i want it to be measured / declared so there is no debate over who has won.

This is a suggestion we talked about (i have made it more gatewars orientated as id rather it be implemented here) (please note the blue writing is for effect only and not an attempt to be percieved as a forum mod, as i am of no such a position)

- lets say members from x alliance, use x amount of turns, on alliance y

- If the amount of turns used, damage done is acceptable then an auto alliance war is declared.

- The opposing alliance can accept or decline the declaration

- BUT

- If they decline, and then retalliate anyway, they are automatically considerd to accept the war declaration

- Once war has started, there should be an amount of naq to be given to the victor, depending on the size, income, member count of the losing alliance.

- There should be a minimum fee to pay, that is auto deducted from the income of every member that was involved in the war, and paid to an alliance bank (can be withdrawn by leader) of the victorious alliance.

- When in war, if alliance y is completely owned, and some players do not build stats or attack to an acceptable magnitude, those players are auto declared as surrendering (stops everlasting wars fought by only 1-2 people)

- When surrendered, these accounts are forced to set peace with all members of opposing alliance, and vice versa.

- Surrendered accounts cannot trade with members of their alliance, to stop feeding.

(maybe add something about being unable to trade with an alliance in war if you have traded with a surrendered account, to stop transfer from peace member - neutral player - war member)

- Once all players, or a set percentage of the members in an alliance/empire, on one side of the war have been auto surrendered. The war is lost.

Please see thread viewtopic.php?f=13&t=105963 for further idea's on improving this basic outline of possible improvement (e.g how many attack turns / players to auto declare war)

~Thamuz~ wrote:The initiaters of the war if they do a surprise strike will always have too big of a lead in my eyes as they are the ones to strike first they can put there account into a better warring system (to reduce losses) before the other alliance has a chance to retaliate,
Also what happens if alliance B has twice the stats of alliance A in the first place. Will this be taken into account?

~Tziki~ wrote:Okay so i was talking to an admin of a different game similar to this. The admin knew about this game and asked me what would i like to see in the game, that gatewars currently doesnt have.
To which my response was, i dont want to see ever lasting wars dragged out over a matter of pride, i want to see a clear victor and i want it to be measured / declared so there is no debate over who has won.

This is a suggestion we talked about (i have made it more gatewars orientated as id rather it be implemented here) (please note the blue writing is for effect only and not an attempt to be percieved as a forum mod, as i am of no such a position)

- lets say members from x alliance, use x amount of turns, on alliance y

- If the amount of turns used, damage done is acceptable then an auto alliance war is declared.
right from the start you have top 10 alliances trashing lower 100 alliances because they know they can force their will and win,,,,Also the attacker has the advantage of having already destroyed their opponent,,,,,,also it gives the striker to great an advantage because the defender has to not only rebuild a defense but also build a strike to attack with,,,,Also Alliance A attacks alliance B, but alliance B also has 10 non allianced lone wolves attacking it helping Alliance A,,,just a few exploits
- The opposing alliance can accept or decline the declaration
Why would anyone accept an invitation they can not win?,,,,,why would you accept a declaration if you are the defender who is beaten and broken already after the initial strike? It needs to be a pre determined declaration, both sides have to agree to, and when both sides agree a random time is generated. NO attacks can be done before said time, and all attacks after are counted,,,,,but even this is exploitable. Either lone wolves or ather alliances can attack 1 side or the other weakening one side, if you stop anyone outside them from attacking then you get 2 friendly alliances doing it for protection
- BUT

- If they decline, and then retalliate anyway, they are automatically considerd to accept the war declaration
open to extortion,,,,Alliance A smashes alliance B,,,, if alliance B retaliates a war is called and income taken from alliance B anyway, basically its a no win situation for alliance B. Means top alliances can go around doing this to the lowest 100 alliances pulling income from them.
- Once war has started, there should be an amount of naq to be given to the victor, depending on the size, income, member count of the losing alliance.
This has been an ongoing sore point for all discussion of this nature,,, if you just lost why add insult to injury by forcing the loser to pay for the victor to rebuild,,,, and then the victor jumps the loser again immediately knowing they are fully build while the loser is still trying to rebuild after having to give away spoils to the victor???? it just makes the strong stronger and the weak weaker,,,,, and if you say the winnings are created by the game and not paid by the loser then you have 2 friendly alliances doing it to get free resources

- There should be a minimum fee to pay, that is auto deducted from the income of every member that was involved in the war, and paid to an alliance bank (can be withdrawn by leader) of the victorious alliance.
if both sides agree fine, if 1 side is forced into it then this is a horrible idea and open to extorsion,,,,, also putting all the funds in the hands of 1 person is generally a bad idea, should be given to each member by %
- When in war, if alliance y is completely owned, and some players do not build stats or attack to an acceptable magnitude, those players are auto declared as surrendering (stops everlasting wars fought by only 1-2 people)
So if I take a weekend off in a month long war I get booted? Will vacationed accounts be counted? What defines do not build stats? whats attacking to an acceptable magnatude? again if the defender is forced into a war this just adds insult to injury when you already can't stand against the attacker and your only options are gorilla tactics and sniper tactics.
- When surrendered, these accounts are forced to set peace with all members of opposing alliance, and vice versa.
Not against it, but its a bad idea from an alliance perspective,,, why do you want to lose the farms you just created? do you not need those farms to continue the war? can't farm them if you set peace, and if only the defender sets peace and not the attacker that truly is insult to injury when you have to accept being attacked and farmed but can not return fire. That would piss people off to no end.
- Surrendered accounts cannot trade with members of their alliance, to stop feeding.
So many exploits here, Player A surrenders, trades with player z, who trades with player y, who trades with alliance mate of player A. Why stop feeding? is it not a legitamate attack strategy? When I take a weekend off for Real Life the first thing I'll do is send funds to those still fighting, and upon return accept funds from those taking time off. Not to mention those with no AT may fund those with plenty but have no Naq or men. Why stop it? it is needed and a good tactic.
(maybe add something about being unable to trade with an alliance in war if you have traded with a surrendered account, to stop transfer from peace member - neutral player - war member)
Good catch to the exploit, but you do realise its not possible? I can send a trade though 27 people if I wanted. That or even break a straight cycle by player A trades with player B, Player C trades with player D. Players A and D are alliance mates, Players B and C are just friends and willing to help each other. The alliance mates completed the trade, but there is no circle that can be detected by script. 3 days later players B and C complete the trades to each other.
- Once all players, or a set percentage of the members in an alliance/empire, on one side of the war have been auto surrendered. The war is lost.[/color]
Not against it, but gives a massive advantage to alliances with 99 to 100% active members. There are a vast majority of alliances with 25% to 50% "casual players". Those not on daily, and who may take weeks off from playing due to r/l commitments. It allows the most active alliances to exploit those less active. Not saying its a bad idea, but it is when the active alliance can force it on the less active alliance.

Please see thread viewtopic.php?f=13&t=105963 for further idea's on improving this basic outline of possible improvement (e.g how many attack turns / players to auto declare war)

Please keep all spam out of the topic. This is for discussion of the above mentioned suggestion.

Guidelines for posting:

- Post if you agree or disagree.
- Say what you agree or disagree with.
- ENSURE YOU POST WHY YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE, AND IF POSSIBLE HOW TO IMPROVE ON THAT REASON (aka be constructive, or dont post at all)