StarGateWars Forums

hmmm i luv the idea. .... also, i think the idea that if one side doesnt declare war back then they dont get GnR is good, that would stop people picking on weaker alliances.

also i think people should lose points if they lose a war too because otherwise whats to stop an alliance going to war with say a sister alliance. and letting them win. and then having another war and letting the other team win so that they both get GnR.

as for what its based on... the gap in power to start off with and the gap in power you end with... i think thats fair... im no coding genious so i dont know if this is possible though.

but FanFlabbadoosy for getting this idea.

perhaps all all players in alliance should get glory, and more for more damage done, but for those who are not in the G&R range, it should perhaps be converted to something? (like naq/UU/AT), but it should first converted when the player logs on first time after war, so that it cannot be stolen...
or perhaps it could be converted to other things, like (anti-)Covert skills, spies, workers, weapons?

Zeratul wrote:perhaps all all players in alliance should get glory, and more for more damage done, but for those who are not in the G&R range, it should perhaps be converted to something? (like naq/UU/AT), but it should first converted when the player logs on first time after war, so that it cannot be stolen...
or perhaps it could be converted to other things, like (anti-)Covert skills, spies, workers, weapons?

maybe but when in war i put everything into anti and attack. and so my rank drops considerably.... so i wouldnt be in GnR

perhaps then that the req is that one hasn't been in G&R earlier (or at least in the few days before war start...)

The idea is good, but the way itll have to be put in is bad.

Unless the gnr figure is extremly small, I can see thsi being abused, and if it is extremly small then theres no point in having it.

Need to think of a way around abusers.

Defense-Forcefield wrote:u dont fear that the owners alliances like Omega and DD will growth more faster in ascended (the only realm where we got possibilities without be massed everytime) ?

DD are already owning the ascended realm, if they win some alliance wars and gain to much GR, that will just make the difference between them and us more big...

sorry, but i dont think that the highest alliance need more rules in them favor...

Hence the reason for saying that if you attack an alliance below your power range (whatever that is decided to be) you will get little or no G&R (or even negative G&R) - simply because there is no glory in hitting the weak.

And I agree that the amount of G&R that can be awarded should be minimised - I would say no more than 100 G&R points per person. But i still think that the alliance leader should hand it out - make him/her take more responsibility and ensure that those who work for teh alliance are rewarded. If it is given to everyone then some people would just sit back and reap the benefits.

having leader distribute it sounds like a good idea, as this way the glory could go to those who helped out, and if the alliance wants to, it could perhaps fight several wars, without distributing it, until all members would receive 100 glory, then do that over again some number of times, until all who helped out, can either ascend, or buy G&R ss... having it this way, could be like having a sort of alliance G&R bank... think how that could benefit an alliance...

I like the idea, and I like rank modifiers for the amount of G&R's gained, but total damage seems like stupid way way of determining who wins wars in my opinion. It is too easy for someone with a 200+ billion strike to hit an account with no defense a ton of times thus making it appear that they are winning, when in reality they have done nothing at all. Same goes for total power of an alliance, what is to stop someone from training 10-20 mil AC units and boosting their alliance to number 1?

In my opinion some other way would have to be found for calculating the winner of a war. The formula would have to include uu's lost while attacking/uu's killed on the enemy, naq value in weapons killed of enemy/in your repairs...ect. That is the only way this system won't be abused.

agreed, the damage done should perhaps not count if there is no loss for the target... also there should be limits on what gives G&R, perhaps related to total power, so if the total power of a player attacked is less than say 1/10th of the attacker, there is no glory...

Yeah - must admit - not totally keen on that myself. perhaps the server should log the overall power of both alliances at the beginning and end of teh war - and make a calculation based on how much the diffrence between the two alliances has changed?

Wolf359 wrote:Yeah - must admit - not totally keen on that myself. perhaps the server should log the overall power of both alliances at the beginning and end of teh war - and make a calculation based on how much the diffrence between the two alliances has changed?

But still, what is to stop a player from training a few million AC units and boosting their power a crap load?

Well how about it only uses actual damage done to the accounts - and not the damage that is indicated on the attack log.

Besides - I'm sure it is easy to write a subroutine that would eliminate things such as training up a few million ACs to increase power from the equation.

Wolf359 wrote:Well how about it only uses actual damage done to the accounts - and not the damage that is indicated on the attack log.

So your saying if an account has a 4 bil defense, and you have a 40 bil strike, the damage counter would only count 4 bil of your strike as actual damage? Interesting. I would still like the formula to include uu losses in some way, so that spies killed would count as damage(as loosing a ton of spies can be worse than even loosing a defense). But atleast your way is better than the current way.

Wolf359 wrote: Besides - I'm sure it is easy to write a subroutine that would eliminate things such as training up a few million ACs to increase power from the equation.

True

perhaps there could be something like 4 different things to get glory from in war... like up to 25 glory for damage dealt to enemy, up to 25 for spies killed, up to 25 for mothership damage done, and up to 25 for destroying attack weapons/resisting attacks...

interresting, i like that idea, seems to me like a better way, the way Zeratul suggests here, having a limit to what you can earn glory for, but then again, it would be almost impossible for a commander to distribute G&R that way, as how does the alliance commander know what members of the alliance killed the most spies, or who did the most damage to motherships and so on. correct me if i'm wrong in that statement.