StarGateWars Forums

Lore wrote:

sniper0432 wrote:Maybe the upgrades can only apply to warring alliances? And only against the alliances they are at war with?

Just warring alliances? Every alliance will war sooner or later, I'd rather have the upgrades prewar not postwar.

me2

Chronus wrote:

Clarkey wrote:

DarkSchneider wrote:

clarkey wrote:

DarkSchneider wrote:2.) 2 people act as alliance Treasurer and can distribute the funds, in case one person is gone.
4.) Bank naq can only be transferred to a member of the alliance.

The bank will not be used for these purposes, it will be used for alliance upgrades. No-one will be able to withdraw funds at all.

To be honest, then there really is no need for an alliance bank at all. No matter how a banking system is done, it will favor the larger alliances with the larger incomes. Admin may as well make a bank an actual "bank".

At least I tried to provide some sort of solution to try to minimize abusing a bank system.

How can you judge this update when no-one even knows what Admin has planned for the alliance updates. it may not necessarily benefit only the large alliances. You can't judge something that you know nothing about.

YOu are right. We can't judge something that we know nothing about. So if the admins of the game want good suggestions, they need to let us know what they are thinking that the money should be for specifically, not just saying its going to be for alliance upgrades.

wrong i'll judge it as well as anything you really can jodge alot off of a book cover and most of it well be right


sooo...

that being said i thinks theirs going to be a new thing added in we don't know about somethings differnt but i'll still wonder we know so little there surly is more

Chronus wrote:

Lore wrote:

sniper0432 wrote:Maybe the upgrades can only apply to warring alliances? And only against the alliances they are at war with?

Just warring alliances? Every alliance will war sooner or later, I'd rather have the upgrades prewar not postwar.

me2

OK... what about this... there are upgrades that may be available when not at war, but when you are at war, more upgrades become available for use. And, to make things more interesting, what about an upgrade which can allow relatively weaker alliances to have a fighting chance against the stronger alliances in the game if the weaker alliance becomes the target, not the initiator. Not sure how that will work just yet, but it's an idea.

sniper0432 wrote:

Chronus wrote:

Lore wrote:

sniper0432 wrote:Maybe the upgrades can only apply to warring alliances? And only against the alliances they are at war with?

Just warring alliances? Every alliance will war sooner or later, I'd rather have the upgrades prewar not postwar.

me2

OK... what about this... there are upgrades that may be available when not at war, but when you are at war, more upgrades become available for use. And, to make things more interesting, what about an upgrade which can allow relatively weaker alliances to have a fighting chance against the stronger alliances in the game if the weaker alliance becomes the target, not the initiator. Not sure how that will work just yet, but it's an idea.

so why build anything? why build your account? or your alliance? if your just going to be penalized for it? might as well just remove growth at all and give everyone the exact same stats.

Lore wrote:

sniper0432 wrote:

Chronus wrote:

Lore wrote:

sniper0432 wrote:Maybe the upgrades can only apply to warring alliances? And only against the alliances they are at war with?

Just warring alliances? Every alliance will war sooner or later, I'd rather have the upgrades prewar not postwar.

me2

OK... what about this... there are upgrades that may be available when not at war, but when you are at war, more upgrades become available for use. And, to make things more interesting, what about an upgrade which can allow relatively weaker alliances to have a fighting chance against the stronger alliances in the game if the weaker alliance becomes the target, not the initiator. Not sure how that will work just yet, but it's an idea.

so why build anything? why build your account? or your alliance? if your just going to be penalized for it? might as well just remove growth at all and give everyone the exact same stats.

The thing is, I said that at least the weaker alliances can have a fighting chance, but does not mean that they'll win. They can at least survive for a while, and possibly take down something before being massed to death.

And who said anything about being penalized? If you're the target, you need not worry, for if you are weaker, you can get the bonus, but if you are the initiator, then you must be extra careful with what you do.

sniper0432 wrote:The thing is, I said that at least the weaker alliances can have a fighting chance, but does not mean that they'll win. They can at least survive for a while, and possibly take down something before being massed to death.

And who said anything about being penalized? If you're the target, you need not worry, for if you are weaker, you can get the bonus, but if you are the initiator, then you must be extra careful with what you do.

Hense, to NOT be penalized you have to attack someone stronger, normally you feed on the weaker not the stronger. So now you have a weak alliance feeding on a stronger, but the stronger can not start a war because they will be penalized for it.

sorry, I'm just tired of anyone who puts effort and time in their account being punished for it.

Whats the point in even trying or improving yourself at all if anyone who comes behind you is protected, has it made easier and cheaper on them, and then you get penalized and thats the same as giving them bonuses.

OK... seeing as that idea is being shot down, how about this one. If an alliance is at war with another alliance, if they really want to, an upgrade can be purchased giving alliance members the ability to get both attack and defence troops to help in the attacking of or the defending from the enemy. Of course this is a choice thing, so individual players can set how they want things, either a merged army, or the current separate armies. Now I know this is the exact same thing if two alliances were to go to war in the Blood Realm, but if you don't want to go to the Blood Realm this is an option.

sniper0432 wrote:OK... seeing as that idea is being shot down, how about this one. If an alliance is at war with another alliance, if they really want to, an upgrade can be purchased giving alliance members the ability to get both attack and defence troops to help in the attacking of or the defending from the enemy. Of course this is a choice thing, so individual players can set how they want things, either a merged army, or the current separate armies. Now I know this is the exact same thing if two alliances were to go to war in the Blood Realm, but if you don't want to go to the Blood Realm this is an option.

I don't care either way. Its an option and its one ONLY the attack force will use.

example

Alliance A uses merged army to slaughter alliance B

Alliance B now has NO Def nor Any ATT SS to retaliate against because they all dies massing alliance B

Alliance A get massive ME
Alliance B get a big goose egg.

Basicly, if its an option. its like the blood realm, not going to get used.

Well, it was an idea, and I've shared it. I'd like to see others doing the same thing.

I'm pretty unknow in SGW but top player in another Sgw-like game..... Also building my own game and willing to share about ALLIANCE TECHS.

There is one very solution to the power-ratio-member number-cost limitations it is UPKEEP and Banksize :

- Each Tech would be free, you could set the desired level of tech
- Each turn bank would loose a upkeep every turn which cost would be : Base x 2^(TechLevel/n) x Nb of player (making it increasingly costly, price double every n level)
- Only players within alliance on the last Turn Tick benefit from the techs
- You can not spend more than a % of Banksize which is : Base x Nb of player (so if you drop all player to make a superpowerfull player, you a limited by the banksize)
- i would imagine a tech to give Level% bonus to a stat to any member of the alliance.

This solve :
- supermassive alliance affording super techs if tech have a FIXED price (and not upkeep price)
- supersmall alliance funded by external affording upkeep of super tech if they can spend hellish amount in tech

Obviously the "price double every n level" make it so the growth is not linear, the higher is the tech, the more you pay it, so top alliance are not overpowered again small alliances (work the same as Covert).

regards.

ps: my english may be bad to express exactly my tough...hope you'll understand it.

Can anyone give a good reason as to why alliance upgrades should boost members of an alliance? isnt their plenty of other ways to get boosts? I mean seriously I think we have seen enough members with high boost planets and strong MSs, you really want to give them more??

IMO alliance upgrades should effect and ONLY effect the alliance NOT the players in the alliance. Why? Cause the bank is for the alliance not the players!

Ifrit wrote:Can anyone give a good reason as to why alliance upgrades should boost members of an alliance? isnt their plenty of other ways to get boosts? I mean seriously I think we have seen enough members with high boost planets and strong MSs, you really want to give them more??

IMO alliance upgrades should effect and ONLY effect the alliance NOT the players in the alliance. Why? Cause the bank is for the alliance not the players!

Thats pretty much what Admins Idea was, and he plainly stated it would not be useable by individual member nor would it be attackable. Due to it not being instatuted yet everyone is trying to change the idea before it even gets instated.

Actually :

my post is just a SUGGESTION (aren't we in suggestion topic?)

All my idea is FAIR, since the cost vs power given grow sort of like a logarythm formula instead of crappy linear/exponential ones...
(altough it would be even better to use a true log formula..but too tired from 1st january to write good english or math formula).

Fair => more power/cost for smaller players

This would smooth even more the difference between big account and small account while giving some toy to play with.

ps: i would also suggest that only 5+player alliance can benefit from alliance improvement...

anh yeu em wrote:ps: i would also suggest that only 5+player alliance can benefit from alliance improvement...

since you need more then 5 players in an alliance for it to stay open more then 30 days I see no problem with that one.

Ifrit wrote:

anh yeu em wrote:ps: i would also suggest that only 5+player alliance can benefit from alliance improvement...

since you need more then 5 players in an alliance for it to stay open more then 30 days I see no problem with that one.

This is incorrect. An alliance under 5 members will not automatically disband in 60 days if it is active during those 60 days.