StarGateWars Forums

Why can some people never leave the insults out even if its only a suggestion topic :S

Wether Universe has been or has not been in a coma is really not rellevant to the ongoing discussion on the state of the game (read: not the state of Universe)

ROCKY wrote:Please leave personal insults out of this thread, warning has been issued.

idc
has universe got a warning
she insulted me first. thanks

on topic:
i agree with max

FreeSpirit wrote:Why can some people never leave the insults out even if its only a suggestion topic :S

Wether Universe has been or has not been in a coma is really not rellevant to the ongoing discussion on the state of the game (read: not the state of Universe)

again she insulted FIRST
thanks

FreeSpirit wrote:Why can some people never leave the insults out even if its only a suggestion topic :S

Wether Universe has been or has not been in a coma is really not rellevant to the ongoing discussion on the state of the game (read: not the state of Universe)

Because some people cant help but be rude to people because they don't know how else to behave.

Clarkey wrote:

FreeSpirit wrote:Why can some people never leave the insults out even if its only a suggestion topic :S

Wether Universe has been or has not been in a coma is really not rellevant to the ongoing discussion on the state of the game (read: not the state of Universe)

Because some people cant help but be rude to people because they don't know how else to behave.

yes i agree, she doesn't know how to behave!. she insulted first so i insult back, thanks. where is her warning
just coz when ever some1 says "coma" she complains and gets them warned yet she gets no reprocussionz. hmm

on topic:
i agree with apophis
say no to killable minerz

MaxSterling wrote:While I can understand the desire to be able to destroy everything on someone's account, there would be some serious issues should an empire decide to take control. An empire could come in, destroy everyone's accounts until they had nothing left on it... no miners, lifers, covert, AC, MS. After that happened, what would be the incentive for anyone to come back. Everyone would have a shell for an account and that empire could just crush any account that showed any signs of life. Yes the war would end, but so would the game. Very few people would return to playing this game should everything on their account be destroyed and have themself get sat on or be a farm for the remaining empire.

Something like this might be viable for the Quantum server where everything resets every 3 months, but for a game with no resets... it would basically devastate the game.

While the current system is severely flawed because wars can never end, at least people are still playing.

The only way I can see something change is to perhaps make it so you can only attack someone X number of times in a day... otherwise you MUST go to blood realm where I read that attack soldiers are destroyable. Battle it out for a week or so. When they come out, they cannot attack each other's accounts for x amount of time.

That's the kind of educated criticism I like.

Yes, it seems that playability comes into play when social interactions are involved, but then again, to bring back ascension as mentioned by Jim, I did get quite far in that realm with absolutely no alliance affiliations. This was in the era where empires controlled the whole server.

Bringing up alliance taxes, along with making formal war declaration requirements (with an associated cost, it being very expensive for a strong power to initiate warfare with a weak power and less expensive for a strong power to initiate conflict with a strong power. The lowest cost for war initiation would be a weak power initiating war with a strong power, although it's likely that the weak power will suffer many more losses. By power, I'm referring to either individuals or alliances, where an alliance war declaration would draw its funds from its alliance bank and perhaps the leader's bank.)

War declaration would be necessary to have the ability to attack a given player more than twice within 24 hours in a manner similar to the way it currently is in perg. The cost of declaring war would be proportional to the difference in power between the initiator and the one upon which war is declared. It would put the two powers in a state of war (so the other party would not have to declare war: it would automatically be reciprocated).


Agapooka

Agapooka wrote:
War declaration would be necessary to have the ability to attack a given player more than twice within 24 hours in a manner similar to the way it currently is in perg. The cost of declaring war would be proportional to the difference in power between the initiator and the one upon which war is declared. It would put the two powers in a state of war (so the other party would not have to declare war: it would automatically be reciprocated).


Agapooka

I have to totally disagree. Senerio. You are neutral to me, farm me max allowable times per day( what ever that is) I get tired of it and set war in preparations to mass you. By your above suggestions my cost skyrocket if I am more powerful overall, Why???? To defend myself I am taxed to death? Will become a game of sniper tactics. Will be 100% strike accounts with no other stat roaming free since the ONLY way to stop them is declare war, to destroy the strike, and that magnifies your own cost so high its no worth it.

Win for the little guy, the one hit wonders, the snipers, and another kick in the nadds for anyone who maintains stats, and tries to grow.

ONLY way your suggestions will work is a complete rewrit of the attack system, stopping 2 mill strikers from killing 50 mill off the defenders account, stop unlimited resources, stop sellable AT, and force stats. Otherwise your trading one faulty system for another.

Lore, read my previous suggestions in this thread and you'll see why it'd work. Read the parts about ATs as a non-tradeable resource and the ability to destroy strike with your own strike when their defence is 0.

Although you raise a good point. An attack could be called provocative and it would lower the cost of declaring war.

The way I see it, there'd be different relationships:

Peace
Neutral
Provocation
War

Peace cannot be broken. One must manually set one to "neutral". Attacking a neutral player automatically changes one's relation with that player to "provocation", which lowers the other's cost to declare war. After one has provoked another, they can declare neutral or peace, but at a cost. How's that?

Agapooka

To see the results of everything being destroyable and growth being unlimited you jsut have to look at the ascended of old when nobody played and those few that did were pritty much all allied.

All in all ascended was a great indicator of what is going to happen to main. Its accelerated growth really brought to light fast all the inevitable conclusions of what happens with certain concepts that were rightfully so then ditched on main (or preemptive measures were taken)... In the end it grindfed down to a hault.





There is imo no real solution for SGW these days. Making everything killable and removing caps is a death sentance in itsown merrit, we have proof of that.

Imo you`d have to do atleast a soft reset of sorts... leveling the MS field, ascension field & slowing the succer down. That would buy you more time I suppose, as far as newcomers are concerned, old guard are a different matter lol...

Or not even slowing it, current pace gave it a good life but this situation and differences that make things unplayable for some and stale for others are the natural conclusion of the cycle.



Short of remaking it into a new game (complete reset or radical mechanic redesign), you`re not getting rid of time related problems.

So we all seem to acknowledge that, no matter what changes are made to the game, the problem is the concept of alliances. Ah well, easily solved. *nukes alliances*

Agapooka wrote:So we all seem to acknowledge that, no matter what changes are made to the game, the problem is the concept of alliances. Ah well, easily solved. *nukes alliances*

even if there were no ingame tag'd alliances there would still be allies and non-official alliances :S

Any sign of cooperation between more than 2 players will be deemed cheating?