StarGateWars Forums

*grin* Essentially, if you ONLY get lifered (even if to 0), you will win the Bloodwar. Right, Forum?

Forum wrote:remember it takes 4 of theirs to one of yours....
so you *could* say that you got 4x as much benefit (or 1/4 as much loss) as them....

Malx wrote:No killing of the miners in blood realm. Really no point to it IMO then just adding to the slaughter... Kill the supers, both att/def, strip the planets, make them eat all their veggies, just leave us the miners. Gasp.

Those rates seem fair! I agree!

* You cannot vacation during bloodwar.
View: Note that lifer suicide does not count lifers as enemy killed (since they killed themselves), but DOES count the enemy dead, by lifer, as killed enemy units.
Also NOTE that MINERS can be killed via lifer suicide in the blood realms (and count as enemy dead). The kill ratio is 1 miner for 4 lifer. There is no '10% killed by lifers in 24 hours' max in bloodwar.
The winner of the bloodwar is the alliance who kills the most of the other alliances' units (raided units count as kills too). Straight up and simple.
Past battles can be seen via the link: 'Chronicles of Galactic Alliance Wars' on the base page.

well -not technically, Juliette.....but in your mind...sure

Juliette wrote:*grin* Essentially, if you ONLY get lifered (even if to 0), you will win the Bloodwar. Right, Forum?

Forum wrote:well -not technically, Juliette.....but in your mind...sure

Juliette wrote:*grin* Essentially, if you ONLY get lifered (even if to 0), you will win the Bloodwar. Right, Forum?

Fine, be like that. I will just go sit over there with Bob.

thank you for a kinder approach
I am not against a tie to ascended, but suspect that it might be too complex.
1) some accounts are not 'tied' properly (account trading, etc in past...)
2) what about ongoing ascended activityies like tournaments, team deathmatch? how would it layer?
3) I coded this one, and sol is doing ascended code...so he'd need to buyin too

appreciate teh thought pattern though...

CCexyDCapedCrusader wrote:now people know i dont like this concept BUT if its to stay

what about connecting it to ascended or something in someway? cant hit anyone but in that alliance no nox etc too

well if other people post suggestions for ascended then.

but if main ids have asvended make nox not work

btw should that not be fixed or looked at fixing non linked accounts n or deleting non linked ones

Forum wrote:I'd like to know how many can divide by zero

Preem Palver wrote:

Juliette wrote:Maybe add two columns 'current AS/kill count % of original'..

I'm sure most of us can divide by 10

Any number (>0) divided by 0 = infinity
Any negative number (<0) divided by 0 = -infinity
0 divided by 0 = 1

There

PS (For on topicness): I think this will make the game far more interesting than previous. War really means war, and not "hey, lets throw away some units for a while"

So is there a way for this to not become a way for larger alliances to exploit smaller ones?


As it is right now I can see some alliances wailing on another who they know does not want war, escpecially blood war. Then if they do attack back they will get blood war and can get slaughtered down to nothing but lifers.

Seems like another killing blow for the casual player. Guess they will all have to go solo,,,,, but that just paints a target on them as well.

Still sad to see your only stipulation to winning is killing more, so its therefore exploitable and worthless as a measuring tool. It should read who ever has the most to kill or is dumb enough to build will lose.

Lore wrote:Still sad to see your only stipulation to winning is killing more, so its therefore exploitable and worthless as a measuring tool. It should read who ever has the most to kill or is dumb enough to build will lose.

Touché!

Brosan wrote:

Lore wrote: Still sad to see your only stipulation to winning is killing more, so its therefore exploitable and worthless as a measuring tool. It should read who ever has the most to kill or is dumb enough to build will lose.

Touché!

Not at all touché. If you read the update/bloodwar description, you will notice that EVERYTHING dies. Ergo, what are you talking about 'building up'? Building up miners? They die. Building up Attackers? They die. All of them die.

So no. This broken-record point is invalid, and has been since the first time we told you it was nonsense (at least, if formulated the way you did).

Lore wrote:So is there a way for this to not become a way for larger alliances to exploit smaller ones?

Some of the larger alliances are already chickening out of war and are forming 4-man semi-alliances to stay 'under the radar'.

First of all, let me stress that so far, I like what I have read about bloodwar.

However, I have some major questions, and tl:dr this thread atm...

as I am about to get kicked off by housemate, so:

what happens when officers / commanders of opposing bloodwar alliances are involved?

or alliance A joins the house of Alliance B to stop bloodwar...
(besides the obvious penalties for alliances who have failed to kill 10%)

what happens if a small percentage or number of players hold an overwhelming amount of the armies?

what happens if one of the alliances in the bloodwar only has 5 or 6 members? and one leaves?

Juliette wrote:

Brosan wrote:

Lore wrote: Still sad to see your only stipulation to winning is killing more, so its therefore exploitable and worthless as a measuring tool. It should read who ever has the most to kill or is dumb enough to build will lose.

Touché!

Not at all touché. If you read the update/bloodwar description, you will notice that EVERYTHING dies. Ergo, what are you talking about 'building up'? Building up miners? They die. Building up Attackers? They die. All of them die.

So no. This broken-record point is invalid, and has been since the first time we told you it was nonsense (at least, if formulated the way you did).

Lore wrote:So is there a way for this to not become a way for larger alliances to exploit smaller ones?

Some of the larger alliances are already chickening out of war and are forming 4-man semi-alliances to stay 'under the radar'.

explain how it is NOT an issue when an alliance 2 or 3 times in total size forces or gets forced into a blood war. Since total killed is the deciding factor then total size is the main factor to decide who "wins". Please explain how "this broken record point" is invalid. Its not about who fights better, harder, more efficently, more organized, its about nothing but who has more to be killed.

From what I have read so far lifers can not be killed except by the owner? Or am I mistaken and they can be targeted as well?


What some might do is irrelevant. Educators anyone? Or will this be like the last bundle of bandaides? After people get use to it, and figure out how to exploit it to their advantage, then what?

Lore, I agree in part. It will become all about who has more to loose.. but, the people with more to loose have to kill less of the opposing alliance (10%) to avoid blood curse. They can also have people sit out the war by going vac for a couple days or hitting a ppt... or they can avoid blood war completely by not hitting back until the meter hits 100%... that part is a no brainer. If you dont get in a blood war, you dont have to worry about a blood war... Be smart in playing... Stop just "massing till you run out of ATs" and adapt.

Admin left us all many options to avoid it. (vac, PPT, Leave alliance, split down to 4 man alliances...) Fact is, if you are going to be getting involved in a blood war by what you say (someone has a lot more to loose than the other side), well, if someone has so much more than their opponent and they are hitting them enough to move the meter to 100% and their opponent is "small" ... wouldn't that make them a bully? You want to kill their stuff but hide your stuff so they cant hit back and cry foul if game is changed so they have that possibility? Really? This update is actually one of the best ones I have seen. It helps balance things more than any update I have seen so far.

Keep in mind Lore, just because you get pulled into a blood war does not mean you have to fight in it.. sitting on ppt is always an option. Being prepared ahead of time rather than deciding "oh, im bored, im gonna go mass some small alliance" is much better. This update actually forces people to play smarter.. not harder.

Thumbs up Admin. Good job! Blood war actually gives smaller alliances a chance to REALLY do some damage to those big guys... as long as they play smart.

New accounts have recently had their starting stats slightly changed:
- 100 defense mercs (used to be 10)
- no attack mercs (used to be 10)
- 1 mil. UU (used to be 100k)
- 10k covert ops (used to be 100)
- 10k raw UP (used to be 2k)

How it works is not really my issue, but the fact someone is called a "winner" is what is all wrong to me. How you can claim to be a winner when the only reason you won is because your oppoent had more to kill is just crap.