StarGateWars Forums

Mukasa wrote:

Wolf359 wrote:I pretty much agree with all of your suggestions, except introducing an alliance bank - unless it is done properly and has a limit.

I also wouldn't have the market generating ATs at all - the only ATs in the game should be those generated by the players. In fact, the only resource I would have being generated in the market is naq - any bank can, after all, print more money of they wanted to.

If things along these lines were brought in they would solve a lot of the concerns people have in the game. I don't think it's the complete solution - some way of fairly resizing everyone's armies (with compensation in the form of naq) may have to be brought in to counter against the fact that you'd have massive armies and small armies, and an insurmountable task to close the gap due to lack of ATs - but I think it's one of the beter proposals I've seen.

agree..with what u said....but COME ON?! taking away army size that some worked hard for? lol....u got to be kidding me...just because some lazy asses don't want to grow and don't raid ALTHOUGH they HAD/HAVE big chance to..and those who do should suffer now because of those lazy asses?

this is said unpolitely but i do get really pissed of when idea like this is presented....and ur right..there are MANY better ways thank taking something away from active player that wants to grow...get real.

I understand what you say - but if these things were implemented and mass availabilty of AT was taken away (which seems to have growing support) then there needs to be some way in reducing the gap as the gaps we'd be left with would be insurmountable. What I was thinking was that if you put everyone's army size on a diagonal straight line graph, such as this (illustration purposes only):



and then bend it into an exponential curve, such as (again illustration purposes only):



Then with the naq received as compensation they can either use it to buy UU, or AT to raid.

(That is grossly over simplifying the idea - there would have to be some work put in as to how it would be done, and to what degree (And how it affects each unit type))

I understand that people may see this as a lot of 'work' (and I use that word loosely) taken away - but to be honest, something would be needed to balance the upset. This is simply a starter for 6, it may not be the ideal solution. There may be a better solution - I'm sure we're all open to any that will be put forward.

Additionally, if updates like this were to happen, along with something to counter the resultant insurmountable gap, does anyone see the need to keep caps anymore?

First curve is without the cap (nothing stops you) and second within the cap (higher you are hardest you grow), at least I think so...

yes - but not exactly what I meant. What I'm saying is that if your suggestions were put in and generated AT removed, then a formula would be applied to every account in the game at that time, to change everyone's army sizes from those represented in the first graph, to that in the second graph. Everyone keeps their army size 'rank' if you like - but the sizes of all armies will be reduced.

This would mean that those with the biggest army sizes would lose the most troops - but they would also receive the most compensation to be re-invested.

Wolf359 wrote:yes - but not exactly what I meant. What I'm saying is that if your suggestions were put in and generated AT removed, then a formula would be applied to every account in the game at that time, to change everyone's army sizes from those represented in the first graph, to that in the second graph. Everyone keeps their army size 'rank' if you like - but the sizes of all armies will be reduced.

This would mean that those with the biggest army sizes would lose the most troops - but they would also receive the most compensation to be re-invested.

not fair at all..i rather see that "smaller" ones have more bonuses....like more at's generated per turn...let's say those below 5m generate 10 per turn...something like that..and the biggest ones still get 3 per turn...

reducing army sizes..no way....won't be accepted in this reality...it isn't games fault that there are such big gaps..players fault u know....everyone that was at 30-40m 2 months before caps being updated now could get to 75m...and how many did get there? so it is extremely unfair to those who worked really hard last few weeks so they got up....change at's generations.....basicly change the flow of at's but leave army sizes alone.

Wolf359 wrote:yes - but not exactly what I meant. What I'm saying is that if your suggestions were put in and generated AT removed, then a formula would be applied to every account in the game at that time, to change everyone's army sizes from those represented in the first graph, to that in the second graph. Everyone keeps their army size 'rank' if you like - but the sizes of all armies will be reduced.

This would mean that those with the biggest army sizes would lose the most troops - but they would also receive the most compensation to be re-invested.

The problem is, IF it came in, WHICH troops would disappear? miners? lifers? supers? spies?
That's another problem!

Mukasa wrote:

Wolf359 wrote:yes - but not exactly what I meant. What I'm saying is that if your suggestions were put in and generated AT removed, then a formula would be applied to every account in the game at that time, to change everyone's army sizes from those represented in the first graph, to that in the second graph. Everyone keeps their army size 'rank' if you like - but the sizes of all armies will be reduced.

This would mean that those with the biggest army sizes would lose the most troops - but they would also receive the most compensation to be re-invested.

not fair at all..i rather see that "smaller" ones have more bonuses....like more at's generated per turn...let's say those below 5m generate 10 per turn...something like that..and the biggest ones still get 3 per turn...

reducing army sizes..no way....won't be accepted in this reality...it isn't games fault that there are such big gaps..players fault u know....everyone that was at 30-40m 2 months before caps being updated now could get to 75m...and how many did get there? so it is extremely unfair to those who worked really hard last few weeks so they got up....change at's generations.....basicly change the flow of at's but leave army sizes alone.

Please say why it is not fair - especially when appropriate compensation will be given. And as I said - I do not consider mindless raiding 'working' at the game anyway - how much work does it actually take other than the willingness to sit in front of your PC for hours on end and endure the monotony of it all?

I'm open to other suggestions on how to counter the removal of generated AT - but to do nothing would leave even more insurmountable gaps - and that is just not right and will cause potentially more unrest (perhaps not immedaitely - but in the future) than we have now.

A different rate in ATs could work - but how to implement it? Rank would be unfair - Army size? If so - considering what kind of units?

Apophis The Great wrote:The problem is, IF it came in, WHICH troops would disappear? miners? lifers? supers? spies?
That's another problem!

Quite - and that requires some thought - perhaps all to some degree.

Wolf359 wrote:

Mukasa wrote:

Wolf359 wrote:yes - but not exactly what I meant. What I'm saying is that if your suggestions were put in and generated AT removed, then a formula would be applied to every account in the game at that time, to change everyone's army sizes from those represented in the first graph, to that in the second graph. Everyone keeps their army size 'rank' if you like - but the sizes of all armies will be reduced.

This would mean that those with the biggest army sizes would lose the most troops - but they would also receive the most compensation to be re-invested.

not fair at all..i rather see that "smaller" ones have more bonuses....like more at's generated per turn...let's say those below 5m generate 10 per turn...something like that..and the biggest ones still get 3 per turn...

reducing army sizes..no way....won't be accepted in this reality...it isn't games fault that there are such big gaps..players fault u know....everyone that was at 30-40m 2 months before caps being updated now could get to 75m...and how many did get there? so it is extremely unfair to those who worked really hard last few weeks so they got up....change at's generations.....basicly change the flow of at's but leave army sizes alone.

Please say why it is not fair - especially when appropriate compensation will be given. And as I said - I do not consider mindless raiding 'working' at the game anyway - how much work does it actually take other than the willingness to sit in front of your PC for hours on end and endure the monotony of it all?

I'm open to other suggestions on how to counter the removal of generated AT - but to do nothing would leave even more insurmountable gaps - and that is just not right and will cause potentially more unrest (perhaps not immedaitely - but in the future) than we have now.

Apophis The Great wrote:The problem is, IF it came in, WHICH troops would disappear? miners? lifers? supers? spies?
That's another problem!

Quite - and that requires some thought - perhaps all to some degree.

if u know how to raid u need 1 hours to raid 5m+ uu...now since when is talking bout how to raid prohibbited i dunno..i think it's not...so big players will get 650b for every million units taken away? cool...then they will buy em back...if less..why less? come on....bad bad idea that won't be accepted anyway

did anybody say talking about raid was prohibited?

and I believe I said that the naq could be used to either buy back UU or AT - either from the market or players - so what was your point?

many good suggestions here...

the reason suggestions in the suggestions forum arent locked, is that there is no need to do it...

only those suggestions that are repeats, or horribly unbalancing (like giving 1 race 300% bonus to UP)... the rest is left alone...

removing artificial ATs is probably the best... only then will the market truly work ingame...

While you guys discuss that, I'd just like to voice support for Tok`ra's MS patrol idea. It'd allow people to protect their planets with their MS (IE, the MS's could fight and if you can get past the defending MS, then you can deploy your fleets and attack the planet. But that's my idea, not his.) Also, it gives players with ten planets a way to send their MS's away when they raid, but it doesn't allow them to hide it when being attacked.

My version:

I. All acounts that werent active for 1-2 month get deleted unless in vacation mode. (raiding stays now only ppl wont feast on the unactive ones also the players who hate raiding will like it more now...since raiding will now be more then just who has enough time...you ll actually have to raid the "active ones")

II.
Lifers killng ACers rate goes drastically down to 2:1 in favour of Lifers...(ACers fearing nothing and noone while ACing = history, also ppl who hate not being able to do nothing to guerilla ppl now have a wep. more)


III.
Killing Superattackers becomes possible - (idea is still open but probably smth like ascension can be brought in so basically AC power or smth? but defence also needs to be gone...so basically ppl will have an interest in having defence if they wont wish their attack supers get slaughtered and also guerilla warfare will become a lot more **Filtered**)

IV.
PPT goes from 2 days a week to 1 day a week MAX! ( week has 7 days...out of those 7 days ppl are able to ppt 4 thats too much if you dont have time click vacation or dont go on ppt...With it wars would be decided more quickly since ppl would lose wast amounts of income in compare to other folks in SGW (well mostly anyway) also more open for attack etc...never realised why 4 days is necessary)

V. Spying enables you to see more then just stats: Here I would suggest there is 1/20 or a bit less chance that while you spy you see partial (again perhaps 10% of ppl direct shipments/brokers) Ppl would finally know who is supplying who in wars IF enough effort would be invested...

VI. Eleventh slot for Planets BUT... ( Yes new slot but here you can only keep a planet for day then its automatically abandoned if not retaken...wheres the need?....Some ppl have 10 slots they wish to be able to steal planets in war...but they would need to sacrifice their own...not really k...so generally for more open warfare...)

VII. UU mercs as reserves for attack defence mercs...( as explained in some thread under suggestions UU mercs would substitute or automatically be trained in attack/defence mercs untill it is filled to the end...however to prevent abuses only up to 2 mils or so UU mercs can be hold in an acount...why? well ppl could just buy mils of them and then their defences would fall very slow since there would always be mercs to back them up....

VIII. Spy action gains importance...( we would play more of a ascension way but not totally...)
Instead of todays 1/5th of opponents cover action to see ppls naq as armysize...we make it 1/2. That way stelth gains its meaning...now just about anyone can see just about anyone...also I would suggest that with raising one level spy you gain 2 times more action and not 1,44x as now...(covert power needs to be adjusted for this as well so numbers dont get too high...) AC can follow this ofcousre...or not...


IX. Converting Lifers to UUs/miners (Some function that can basically convert Lifers to UUs or miners I would recomend a price of 200 bils per 1 mils Lifers conversion or a bit higher)



Thats it for now from my part...



Blue

Judochop wrote:If it aint broke...

I think judging by the amount of discontent regarding some elements of the game, that it is in need of fixing!

SVaRuN wrote:My version:

I. All acounts that werent active for 1-2 month get deleted unless in vacation mode. (raiding stays now only ppl wont feast on the unactive ones also the players who hate raiding will like it more now...since raiding will now be more then just who has enough time...you ll actually have to raid the "active ones")

Like it.

II.
Lifers killng ACers rate goes drastically down to 2:1 in favour of Lifers...(ACers fearing nothing and noone while ACing = history, also ppl who hate not being able to do nothing to guerilla ppl now have a wep. more)

Undecided on this one.

III.
Killing Superattackers becomes possible - (idea is still open but probably smth like ascension can be brought in so basically AC power or smth? but defence also needs to be gone...so basically ppl will have an interest in having defence if they wont wish their attack supers get slaughtered and also guerilla warfare will become a lot more **Filtered**)

Again - has some merit - gives people a reason to have a defence - if you don't have a defence, then your attackers start dying - makes sense.

IV.
PPT goes from 2 days a week to 1 day a week MAX! ( week has 7 days...out of those 7 days ppl are able to ppt 4 thats too much if you dont have time click vacation or dont go on ppt...With it wars would be decided more quickly since ppl would lose wast amounts of income in compare to other folks in SGW (well mostly anyway) also more open for attack etc...never realised why 4 days is necessary)

Again - undecided - I know some people have issues with PPT - but they aren't a major factor if some of the other suggestions in thsi thread were to be implemented.

V. Spying enables you to see more then just stats: Here I would suggest there is 1/20 or a bit less chance that while you spy you see partial (again perhaps 10% of ppl direct shipments/brokers) Ppl would finally know who is supplying who in wars IF enough effort would be invested...

Like this a lot - in fact I suggested something similar a long time ago - in that spying might also be able to let he spyer gather information on attack/intel logs and also in-game messages.

VI. Eleventh slot for Planets BUT... ( Yes new slot but here you can only keep a planet for day then its automatically abandoned if not retaken...wheres the need?....Some ppl have 10 slots they wish to be able to steal planets in war...but they would need to sacrifice their own...not really k...so generally for more open warfare...)

I see the idea - but I'm on the fence!

VII. UU mercs as reserves for attack defence mercs...( as explained in some thread under suggestions UU mercs would substitute or automatically be trained in attack/defence mercs untill it is filled to the end...however to prevent abuses only up to 2 mils or so UU mercs can be hold in an acount...why? well ppl could just buy mils of them and then their defences would fall very slow since there would always be mercs to back them up....

Indeed - give them a use!

VIII. Spy action gains importance...( we would play more of a ascension way but not totally...)
Instead of todays 1/5th of opponents cover action to see ppls naq as armysize...we make it 1/2. That way stelth gains its meaning...now just about anyone can see just about anyone...also I would suggest that with raising one level spy you gain 2 times more action and not 1,44x as now...(covert power needs to be adjusted for this as well so numbers dont get too high...) AC can follow this ofcousre...or not...

Dunno on this one - you used to gain twice the action for each increase in spy level - but it was reduced as covert became too powerful.

Not too sure what you were talking about when you mentioned 1/5 and 1/2 - talking about making it easier to spy?

IX. Converting Lifers to UUs/miners (Some function that can basically convert Lifers to UUs or miners I would recomend a price of 200 bils per 1 mils Lifers conversion or a bit higher)

This is the only one I really don't like - basiclly because the clue is in the name - "Lifer" - with the idea of lifers being like supers in that it would be difficult to re-integrate them into society. You want more income, you pay the 'penalty' of getting lifers. However, if something was introduced along the lines of 'for every 1 (or 2) lifers successfully rehabilitated then 1 dies (or something similar - it could be a random amount between set limits) - i.e. keeping a 'penalty' - then it may be plausible.

Wolf359 wrote:

Judochop wrote:If it aint broke...

Not too sure what you were talking about when you mentioned 1/5 and 1/2 - talking about making it easier to spy?

1/5th of enemy covert action is required to see their naq as army size (meaning if I have 100 bils CA can see you on attack site if you have bellow 500 bils CA...
IMO it should be lowered to 1/2...



Thanks for a second opinion on the suggestions though...


Blue

SVaRuN wrote:My version:

I. All acounts that werent active for 1-2 month get deleted unless in vacation mode. (raiding stays now only ppl wont feast on the unactive ones also the players who hate raiding will like it more now...since raiding will now be more then just who has enough time...you ll actually have to raid the "active ones")

II.
Lifers killng ACers rate goes drastically down to 2:1 in favour of Lifers...(ACers fearing nothing and noone while ACing = history, also ppl who hate not being able to do nothing to guerilla ppl now have a wep. more)


III.
Killing Superattackers becomes possible - (idea is still open but probably smth like ascension can be brought in so basically AC power or smth? but defence also needs to be gone...so basically ppl will have an interest in having defence if they wont wish their attack supers get slaughtered and also guerilla warfare will become a lot more **Filtered**)

IV.
PPT goes from 2 days a week to 1 day a week MAX! ( week has 7 days...out of those 7 days ppl are able to ppt 4 thats too much if you dont have time click vacation or dont go on ppt...With it wars would be decided more quickly since ppl would lose wast amounts of income in compare to other folks in SGW (well mostly anyway) also more open for attack etc...never realised why 4 days is necessary)

V. Spying enables you to see more then just stats: Here I would suggest there is 1/20 or a bit less chance that while you spy you see partial (again perhaps 10% of ppl direct shipments/brokers) Ppl would finally know who is supplying who in wars IF enough effort would be invested...

VI. Eleventh slot for Planets BUT... ( Yes new slot but here you can only keep a planet for day then its automatically abandoned if not retaken...wheres the need?....Some ppl have 10 slots they wish to be able to steal planets in war...but they would need to sacrifice their own...not really k...so generally for more open warfare...)

VII. UU mercs as reserves for attack defence mercs...( as explained in some thread under suggestions UU mercs would substitute or automatically be trained in attack/defence mercs untill it is filled to the end...however to prevent abuses only up to 2 mils or so UU mercs can be hold in an acount...why? well ppl could just buy mils of them and then their defences would fall very slow since there would always be mercs to back them up....

VIII. Spy action gains importance...( we would play more of a ascension way but not totally...)
Instead of todays 1/5th of opponents cover action to see ppls naq as armysize...we make it 1/2. That way stelth gains its meaning...now just about anyone can see just about anyone...also I would suggest that with raising one level spy you gain 2 times more action and not 1,44x as now...(covert power needs to be adjusted for this as well so numbers dont get too high...) AC can follow this ofcousre...or not...


IX. Converting Lifers to UUs/miners (Some function that can basically convert Lifers to UUs or miners I would recomend a price of 200 bils per 1 mils Lifers conversion or a bit higher)



Thats it for now from my part...



Blue

I - Agreed ONLY for all accounts having less than 5k army, they don't help new players, but new players can't raid active people, did you forget it? If no new people can do it, there will be less new people ingame replacing those who left and game will die slowly but surely.
II - I say 2 lifers= 1 assassin is right.
III - Bad idea main isn't ascension and shouldn't be like ascension. But why not something like a type of attack used to transform with each attack a small percentage of normal attackers into uu but that process would kill 2 assassins for 1 transformation. Supers attackers can't be transformed, as those units are untrainable, they sorta lifers of attacking, so only normal attackers which could be during wars used as "stock for uu" since assassins can be killed by lifers, so normal attackers are only safe place, not anymore. But supers can't be touched. Balanced suggest it is.
IV - PPTs are fine as they are, nothing more to say.
V - I wonder if it's a good idea, it's looks to much like big brother feature lmao!
VI - Hmmm that's too easy warring like unlimited ATs, no need to make the game going on this way, it's enough deep on unlimited ressources for who can get them.
VII - Yes and no. No for limit of mercs, what I suggest is...untrained mercs just stay untrained mercs over the limit, until merc limit goes higher by training new soldiers, so then they can be used for att/def mercs until limit is touched.
VIII - 1/2 is ok, 1/2 for naq and stats, 1/3 for army size. And I'm 100% for 2x power for each new level (why the hell did we change it by the way??)
IX - Could be a good idea.

ATG ur right bout lan's 1st idea..i like ur idea better...get rid of those below 5k...leave others.