StarGateWars Forums

Clockwork wrote:That's true, so option A then? To prevent huge ppt defs being used to protect say 1 guy sat massing away.

Yup, and it would still be in line with the perspective coyle mentioned.

When you have 2 alliances trying to keep eachother down, then not the one with most activity wins, but the one with best activity.

Brings back another element thats been gradually fading .... skill.

Not to burst your bubble here, but didnt we do multiple threads on this very idea and your side (assuming you are still fs) lobby with omega to block it by trashing the threads?

Anyways I have always wanted this in the mechanics.

Clockwork wrote:That's true, so option A then? To prevent huge ppt defs being used to protect say 1 guy sat massing away.

How about you just build instead of crying.

Loki™ wrote:

Clockwork wrote:That's true, so option A then? To prevent huge ppt defs being used to protect say 1 guy sat massing away.

How about you just build instead of crying.

I'm all for having a minimum def, and how exactly is that crying?

Good imputs people

And JT I don't remember this idea ever being mentioned.

Clockwork wrote:

Loki™ wrote:

Clockwork wrote:That's true, so option A then? To prevent huge ppt defs being used to protect say 1 guy sat massing away.

How about you just build instead of crying.

I'm all for having a minimum def, and how exactly is that crying?

Then why were you arguing against it?

Clockwork wrote:

Loki™ wrote:

Clockwork wrote:That's true, so option A then? To prevent huge ppt defs being used to protect say 1 guy sat massing away.

How about you just build instead of crying.

I'm all for having a minimum def, and how exactly is that crying?

Dont mind loki, he/ she is part of the YCC. you're crying crew.

~Coyle~ wrote:Good imputs people

And JT I don't remember this idea ever being mentioned.

Oh, you have a bad memory. i will put links up shortly. I am all for the idea.

Jedi~Tank wrote:

~Coyle~ wrote:Good imputs people

And JT I don't remember this idea ever being mentioned.

Oh, you have a bad memory. i will put links up shortly. I am all for the idea.

No actually I don't, if I seen this I would have been all for it. Didn't have a problem as I always had defences

Loki™ wrote:

Clockwork wrote:

Loki™ wrote:

Clockwork wrote:That's true, so option A then? To prevent huge ppt defs being used to protect say 1 guy sat massing away.

How about you just build instead of crying.

I'm all for having a minimum def, and how exactly is that crying?

Then why were you arguing against it?

Re-read the thread, I offered an alternative solution, it was discussed, Droughts solution sounds like the better way to go, and I agreed with it. At no point did anybody cry about having to build.

Jedi~Tank wrote:

Clockwork wrote:

Loki™ wrote:

Clockwork wrote:That's true, so option A then? To prevent huge ppt defs being used to protect say 1 guy sat massing away.

How about you just build instead of crying.

I'm all for having a minimum def, and how exactly is that crying?

Dont mind loki, he/ she is part of the YCC. you're crying crew.

Didn't you roll in one of those before?

Loki™ wrote:

Clockwork wrote:

Loki™ wrote:

Clockwork wrote:That's true, so option A then? To prevent huge ppt defs being used to protect say 1 guy sat massing away.

How about you just build instead of crying.

I'm all for having a minimum def, and how exactly is that crying?

Then why were you arguing against it?

I didnt see it as arguing though, he gave some feedback upon a request for possible ups and downs.

Would be great for this thread if personal opinions of other peoples comments or contributions are not handled or given as stabs to one another.


Coyle, variations of this idea have indeed been suggested, but not in a setup like this.
The goal was the same, minimum required builds for various aspects of the game.
but, tbh, too much of the personal opinions on comments generally got in the way of it turning out to be anything usefull.

Jedi~Tank wrote:

Clockwork wrote:

Loki™ wrote:

Clockwork wrote:That's true, so option A then? To prevent huge ppt defs being used to protect say 1 guy sat massing away.

How about you just build instead of crying.

I'm all for having a minimum def, and how exactly is that crying?

Dont mind loki, he/ she is part of the YCC. you're crying crew.

lulz

~Coyle~ wrote:

Jedi~Tank wrote:

Clockwork wrote:

Loki™ wrote:

Clockwork wrote:That's true, so option A then? To prevent huge ppt defs being used to protect say 1 guy sat massing away.

How about you just build instead of crying.

I'm all for having a minimum def, and how exactly is that crying?

Dont mind loki, he/ she is part of the YCC. you're crying crew.

Didn't you roll in one of those before?

Ive rolled in and out of allot of things..I dont remember that one tho..seems like telling people they are whining or crying over something has always come from your side. I can see where posting that is allot easier than actual constructive interaction into a topic.

Drought wrote:

Loki™ wrote:

Clockwork wrote:

Loki™ wrote:

Clockwork wrote:That's true, so option A then? To prevent huge ppt defs being used to protect say 1 guy sat massing away.

How about you just build instead of crying.

I'm all for having a minimum def, and how exactly is that crying?

Then why were you arguing against it?

I didnt see it as arguing though, he gave some feedback upon a request for possible ups and downs.

Would be great for this thread if personal opinions of other peoples comments or contributions are not handled or given as stabs to one another.


Coyle, variations of this idea have indeed been suggested, but not in a setup like this.
The goal was the same, minimum required builds for various aspects of the game.
but, tbh, too much of the personal opinions on comments generally got in the way of it turning out to be anything usefull.

There's always been topics on minimal defences and such but I never heard anything about basing it on alliance power or average defense. Either one would be viable I think. Lots of good imput so far for the Ups and Downs.