StarGateWars Forums

viewtopic.php?f=41&t=152559

Obviously... changes and concessions could be made.

~Kronos~ wrote:If we make resources scarce, then those accounts that already have super high stats will be unreachable. It took tons of resources to get them there, so if resources are made scarce smaller accounts will be very hard pressed to catch up. That would just make problems worse. IMO having super high accounts or being untouchable is perfectly fine. If you put the work in to get to that level then why should some one stop you? This is a war game after all. I don't think there should be any caps or limits of any type. That's just my opinion though.

That's why I suggested all accounts are shrunk based on a ratio..so say resources are reduced by 50 percent, then everyone's account is reduced by 50 percent..covert/uu/up and so on. Or some superior ratio..but something that is equitable.

SSG EnterTheLion wrote:

~Kronos~ wrote:If we make resources scarce, then those accounts that already have super high stats will be unreachable. It took tons of resources to get them there, so if resources are made scarce smaller accounts will be very hard pressed to catch up. That would just make problems worse. IMO having super high accounts or being untouchable is perfectly fine. If you put the work in to get to that level then why should some one stop you? This is a war game after all. I don't think there should be any caps or limits of any type. That's just my opinion though.

That's why I suggested all accounts are shrunk based on a ratio..so say resources are reduced by 50 percent, then everyone's account is reduced by 50 percent..covert/uu/up and so on. Or some superior ratio..but something that is equitable.

I like that idea a lot. It has some good potential and seems fair enough.

SSG EnterTheLion wrote:

~Kronos~ wrote:If we make resources scarce, then those accounts that already have super high stats will be unreachable. It took tons of resources to get them there, so if resources are made scarce smaller accounts will be very hard pressed to catch up. That would just make problems worse. IMO having super high accounts or being untouchable is perfectly fine. If you put the work in to get to that level then why should some one stop you? This is a war game after all. I don't think there should be any caps or limits of any type. That's just my opinion though.

That's why I suggested all accounts are shrunk based on a ratio..so say resources are reduced by 50 percent, then everyone's account is reduced by 50 percent..covert/uu/up and so on. Or some superior ratio..but something that is equitable.

That was suggested a long time ago in the summer and everyone flipped out on it , well it will definitely level the playing field better than updates will.

SSG EnterTheLion wrote:There are a couple of ways to change this..make resources extremely scarce by either lowering amount of naq earned and uu generated..it could be done by lowering naq/uu/covert/anti covert to what the game was say 5 years ago..of course the losses would be based on a ratio system so if you were ahead now, you'd still be equivalently the same ahead, but everyone with much lower stats, naq, uu and so on. So at one stroke this makes wars expensive and forces people to surrender.

The other way is to have a more informal system where one alliance is recognised the victor based on the state of the other alliance. This way if an alliance is reduced to sniping for more than one week in a row, it's officially recognised to have lost the war. The problem with this of course is that snipers will moan forever. Another condition could be that if over 50 percent of an empire has been descended, war lost..and so on..opinions?


PS: I put this in the most read section because while it does involve ingame suggestions for admin, it also discusses whether the sgw community can come to a consensus on what ends a war.

Point is, there will be always player for this kind of upgrades and players against.
Making rules to recognize the winner or looser. There is such system, but nobody is using it. BECAUSE you loose PPT, ability to farm and such things so ppl simply ignored this ability few weeks after it started. Players dont want to fight directly how those rules are offering, so what kind or rules do you want? We all choosed the path of Protections, Vacations and Alliance BS abilitiues, like repairs, Alliance PPTs and things like that.

Plus there is this money aspect... which will never be eliminated, because to many ppl, admin Jason included, are making lot of money on this game.

So... any more possible idea? I will for sure support it, but dont ask for new War system with rules, cuse there is one. And winner can be recognized easily. Abandon those funny emnpires, go one alliance wars only and there we are

caesar2 wrote:

SSG EnterTheLion wrote:There are a couple of ways to change this..make resources extremely scarce by either lowering amount of naq earned and uu generated..it could be done by lowering naq/uu/covert/anti covert to what the game was say 5 years ago..of course the losses would be based on a ratio system so if you were ahead now, you'd still be equivalently the same ahead, but everyone with much lower stats, naq, uu and so on. So at one stroke this makes wars expensive and forces people to surrender.

The other way is to have a more informal system where one alliance is recognised the victor based on the state of the other alliance. This way if an alliance is reduced to sniping for more than one week in a row, it's officially recognised to have lost the war. The problem with this of course is that snipers will moan forever. Another condition could be that if over 50 percent of an empire has been descended, war lost..and so on..opinions?


PS: I put this in the most read section because while it does involve ingame suggestions for admin, it also discusses whether the sgw community can come to a consensus on what ends a war.

Point is, there will be always player for this kind of upgrades and players against.
Making rules to recognize the winner or looser. There is such system, but nobody is using it. BECAUSE you loose PPT, ability to farm and such things so ppl simply ignored this ability few weeks after it started. Players dont want to fight directly how those rules are offering, so what kind or rules do you want? We all choosed the path of Protections, Vacations and Alliance BS abilitiues, like repairs, Alliance PPTs and things like that.

Plus there is this money aspect... which will never be eliminated, because to many ppl, admin Jason included, are making lot of money on this game.

So... any more possible idea? I will for sure support it, but don't ask for new War system with rules, cuse there is one. And winner can be recognized easily. Abandon those funny empires, go one alliance wars only and there we are

Good point, but abandoning these funny empires is making a rule. The funny empires would be more than happy to engage in alliance vs alliance war, but what do so many do when war breaks out or face the threat of a war? I do not want to argue with you on this, so I will make a clear statement...early this year the opportunity was there for alliance vs alliance war, you did not take it, you chose to stay with the idea that xx empire has this philosophy and yy alliance was justified to attack the lesser alliances and thus use xy and z as an excuse or reason...or whatever not to engage in alliance vs alliance war..all we see out of this is policy this and policy that etc and so forth..but I will say again, the opportunity was there for alliance vs alliance war and you took the same road you have always taken and then pointed your finger..it is what it is...and then later down the line you demand or expect change...and threaten thus and so if it doesn't change..please do not take this as a direct shot at you C2..I am making a broad sweeping point here. Now I do agree with you and the others on the war system..however it works, whatever..but as long as you DENY the chances for alliance vs alliance war due to your own agenda, your own personal beliefs, your own vindictive ways this will never happen unopposed. The adversarial aspect of your mentality has destroyed more opportunities for a more wide open and diverse game play than any 1 player or empire could ever do...and not only you specifically, but many of the folks you roll with, so think about that for a minute or 2.

Jedi~Tank wrote:

caesar2 wrote:

SSG EnterTheLion wrote:There are a couple of ways to change this..make resources extremely scarce by either lowering amount of naq earned and uu generated..it could be done by lowering naq/uu/covert/anti covert to what the game was say 5 years ago..of course the losses would be based on a ratio system so if you were ahead now, you'd still be equivalently the same ahead, but everyone with much lower stats, naq, uu and so on. So at one stroke this makes wars expensive and forces people to surrender.

The other way is to have a more informal system where one alliance is recognised the victor based on the state of the other alliance. This way if an alliance is reduced to sniping for more than one week in a row, it's officially recognised to have lost the war. The problem with this of course is that snipers will moan forever. Another condition could be that if over 50 percent of an empire has been descended, war lost..and so on..opinions?


PS: I put this in the most read section because while it does involve ingame suggestions for admin, it also discusses whether the sgw community can come to a consensus on what ends a war.

Point is, there will be always player for this kind of upgrades and players against.
Making rules to recognize the winner or looser. There is such system, but nobody is using it. BECAUSE you loose PPT, ability to farm and such things so ppl simply ignored this ability few weeks after it started. Players dont want to fight directly how those rules are offering, so what kind or rules do you want? We all choosed the path of Protections, Vacations and Alliance BS abilitiues, like repairs, Alliance PPTs and things like that.

Plus there is this money aspect... which will never be eliminated, because to many ppl, admin Jason included, are making lot of money on this game.

So... any more possible idea? I will for sure support it, but don't ask for new War system with rules, cuse there is one. And winner can be recognized easily. Abandon those funny empires, go one alliance wars only and there we are

Good point, but abandoning these funny empires is making a rule. The funny empires would be more than happy to engage in alliance vs alliance war, but what do so many do when war breaks out or face the threat of a war? I do not want to argue with you on this, so I will make a clear statement...early this year the opportunity was there for alliance vs alliance war, you did not take it, you chose to stay with the idea that xx empire has this philosophy and yy alliance was justified to attack the lesser alliances and thus use xy and z as an excuse or reason...or whatever not to engage in alliance vs alliance war..all we see out of this is policy this and policy that etc and so forth..but I will say again, the opportunity was there for alliance vs alliance war and you took the same road you have always taken and then pointed your finger..it is what it is...and then later down the line you demand or expect change...and threaten thus and so if it doesn't change..please do not take this as a direct shot at you C2..I am making a broad sweeping point here. Now I do agree with you and the others on the war system..however it works, whatever..but as long as you DENY the chances for alliance vs alliance war due to your own agenda, your own personal beliefs, your own vindictive ways this will never happen unopposed. The adversarial aspect of your mentality has destroyed more opportunities for a more wide open and diverse game play than any 1 player or empire could ever do...and not only you specifically, but many of the folks you roll with, so think about that for a minute or 2.

Minute, two...

Lol.

JT you are writing here some facts, but those are very limited. The mentioned offer 1v1 was TPP vs DxM, which we declined and asked TPP vs TDD, which you declined. So why are you mentioning my or our agenda and policy if your own is same bad as ours, in your spelling. We wanted TDD you offered DxM... declined on both sides, things escalated and it went empire wide... TPP vs DDE. You was as much guilty as I was, you had chance to acept 1v1 as well.

Point is, if empires will stay in game, and will fight together against otheres, other will fight empires.

It was you JT who as one of the last started war empire + alliance vs alliance, this war is knonw as DDE/mH vs TL where it is empire vs alliance, translated, at beginning 5 alliances vs 1 alliance, per your choice JT. Not announced war, no talks before, simply 5 alliances from empire jumped on one.

This is the point asbout empires, and at this point, today, there is I think, only one or two such empires.

The war system I mentioned is here ... how much... 3 years? or 2? The point about empires is, many of those you mentioned, abandoned empires. TO, TLE. Is not important how many allainces it has, how many players, but the fact there is more than one alliance to fight negs the ingame war system, which works perfectly. There are rulez, counts, winner and looser.

Question is, if players likes this system or not.
And question is, why they are asking for another one, if there one already exist.

PS: JT, your posting against my person whenever you see my post is bit funny, maybe you should think one minute or two before you post another funny post where your mixing facts with feelings.

No, I am not mixing facts and feelings, everyone knows why I have brought the whole of DDE in, and it's simple, you want alliance x fine, but you attack, farm, whatever on the others..I am not here to argue the past but I will say the DDE philosophy has been the same always and your interpretation of it will not change it, and I sincerely feel no obligation to justify anything to anyone....you post too many half truths and misinformation to serve your own agenda whatever it may be, I have no reason for such...I would just the same mass as to talk, that has always been my way and my death may change that. HOWEVER if this war realm is to work at all, from willing participants then the fact is when you pester alliances in an empire you get the empire, if you stick to an alliance you get an alliance. Very simple.

Obviously we are asking for a combination of something that will work because obviously the one we have does not work otherwise it would be working.

And 5 alliances did not jump on legion, TDD and a couple from Mayhem did.

Jedi~Tank wrote:No, I am not mixing facts and feelings, everyone knows why I have brought the whole of DDE in, and it's simple, you want alliance x fine, but you attack, farm, whatever on the others..I am not here to argue the past but I will say the DDE philosophy has been the same always and your interpretation of it will not change it, and I sincerely feel no obligation to justify anything to anyone....you post too many half truths and misinformation to serve your own agenda whatever it may be, I have no reason for such...I would just the same mass as to talk, that has always been my way and my death may change that. HOWEVER if this war realm is to work at all, from willing participants then the fact is when you pester alliances in an empire you get the empire, if you stick to an alliance you get an alliance. Very simple.

Obviously we are asking for a combination of something that will work because obviously the one we have does not work otherwise it would be working.

And 5 alliances did not jump on legion, TDD and a couple from Mayhem did.

JT, you should study more, read properly and read archives of yuor MSN. Your writing lyes and BS, turning all how you want and making self look good. You are direct player, offering what you cant fulfil later. You talks like god, but aint. You offers but your closed for offers. You was never equal partner for other players, your wishes were always limited and only good of ryour empire.

Now your saying you offered players and allainces the oportunity to fight with existing war system, but than you agrees on fact you delcared war 2 v 1 (we all know it was always ment to be 5 vs 1)...

Simply, am asking again. Why are you always offensive and eespecialy to me? I did not mention your name or your empoires name in my first post, you directly jumped on me and now fighting with me in this topic. You took it like someone offened your empire and you have to protect it. But this thema is about something esle, not about your empire... nope JT, not about your empire or about how you dislike C2.

caesar2 wrote:

Jedi~Tank wrote:No, I am not mixing facts and feelings, everyone knows why I have brought the whole of DDE in, and it's simple, you want alliance x fine, but you attack, farm, whatever on the others..I am not here to argue the past but I will say the DDE philosophy has been the same always and your interpretation of it will not change it, and I sincerely feel no obligation to justify anything to anyone....you post too many half truths and misinformation to serve your own agenda whatever it may be, I have no reason for such...I would just the same mass as to talk, that has always been my way and my death may change that. HOWEVER if this war realm is to work at all, from willing participants then the fact is when you pester alliances in an empire you get the empire, if you stick to an alliance you get an alliance. Very simple.

Obviously we are asking for a combination of something that will work because obviously the one we have does not work otherwise it would be working.

And 5 alliances did not jump on legion, TDD and a couple from Mayhem did.

JT, you should study more, read properly and read archives of yuor MSN. Your writing lyes and BS, turning all how you want and making self look good. You are direct player, offering what you cant fulfil later. You talks like god, but aint. You offers but your closed for offers. You was never equal partner for other players, your wishes were always limited and only good of ryour empire.

Now your saying you offered players and allainces the oportunity to fight with existing war system, but than you agrees on fact you delcared war 2 v 1 (we all know it was always ment to be 5 vs 1)...

Simply, am asking again. Why are you always offensive and eespecialy to me? I did not mention your name or your empoires name in my first post, you directly jumped on me and now fighting with me in this topic. You took it like someone offened your empire and you have to protect it. But this thema is about something esle, not about your empire... nope JT, not about your empire or about how you dislike C2.

I thought I made it plain in my initial post not directed at you, but I chose to respond since you mention empires, I thought it proper to point out that the mentality that people have AGAINST empires is more destructive to the game than the empires. I like you and everybody else just fine, if you lie or half truth something and I see it I will step to you about it.

Sure.

As far as I know, empires do not respect otheres offers much, do what they want and are playing the game with own rules.

But thats not the point, point is, what I wrote at beginning, there is war system with rules, working, but mostly ignored, since alliances keep teaming up to fight one alliance or group of alliances. Than vendetas cant be played with rules, because the existing war system works only for alliance.

But, vendetas basicly do not exist only 1 vs 1. Many times we can see ! vs alliance, group vs group, group vs alliance, or alliances or empires.

Game system created battlefield for alliances, mostly wars are ment to be for alliances. If Empires want wars, or players want vendetas, than they should ask for improving the existing war system, and not asking for new one.

For JT, translating: what was written here is not ment against you or your allainces, your friends or whoever who you need to protect. Its just basic idea I have and my point to this thema. Its realy not needed to quote this post and to make some neutral notes against C2. Cuse, if you are writing neutral, than maybe insults should not be included in your post yeah?

caesar2 wrote:Sure.

As far as I know, empires do not respect otheres offers much, do what they want and are playing the game with own rules.

But thats not the point, point is, what I wrote at beginning, there is war system with rules, working, but mostly ignored, since alliances keep teaming up to fight one alliance or group of alliances. Than vendetas cant be played with rules, because the existing war system works only for alliance.

But, vendetas basicly do not exist only 1 vs 1. Many times we can see ! vs alliance, group vs group, group vs alliance, or alliances or empires.

Game system created battlefield for alliances, mostly wars are ment to be for alliances. If Empires want wars, or players want vendetas, than they should ask for improving the existing war system, and not asking for new one.

For JT, translating: what was written here is not ment against you or your allainces, your friends or whoever who you need to protect. Its just basic idea I have and my point to this thema. Its realy not needed to quote this post and to make some neutral notes against C2. Cuse, if you are writing neutral, than maybe insults should not be included in your post yeah?

My point is, if the current format or idea is not going to be fully implemented then an alternative solution is the answer, one that is simple and known to work.

ETL is right, resources have become to easy to get...

I Played this game day in, day out..back in the day. quit after it was taking over my life to much...

After returning, im kinda losing intreset, people are to far away from my account in stats... Id have to play for years or spend ALOT of $'s to get even close... I was going to attempt to get my account back up to where it was previously... Now im not, people seem to have no worries in the game about getting massed because there are that many players without stats, just with a high covert level and a big strike

So whats the point of even trying? Whats the point of having a defence? Whats the point of even playing? As snipers are just abusing some of the over powered stats like covert....!!!!!!!

Id suggest a game reset, some of you will say it will kill the game... but didnt planets? didnt the update for covert levels? didnt snipers?

putting players back to 5 years ago? will be hard!!! you will always have some people which agree and some which wont, so IT WILL NEVER CHANGE....

ok, so the game isnt dying but the question to ask your self is... the active amount of players, is it increasing or decreasing? It's decreasing by alot, so you might not say its dying now but in a few years it might be a different story... due to how these updates have been brought out

if resources get scares then also buying them for $ shall be limited otherwise there's no match against those who play $ style.

why lowering resources when u can removed dead accounts, and those that dont log in 4 weeks get auto vaced. but at htis game stage every change would benefit a class of players and not another one. new players would find very hard to grow in order to match already built account on the massive resources that has been farmed/bought.

go back to the days before planets