StarGateWars Forums

Forum wrote:seriously max, why not just come out and say what you're trying to get at, instead of sidestepping the issue, beating around the bush, and trying to be polite and tactful -- nobody can read your mind-- just say it!!

MaxSterling wrote:Admin should stop trying to add more bonuses...

MaxSterling wrote:Now that I've edited all of my posts in this thread, you think Admin will get the hint not to add any more bonuses to this game than there already is?

Forum wrote:and if this proves true in play, agreed by all, we can nix the bonus, or nix the houses....been done bofore...

GeneralChaos wrote:Some of this update is good, just the houses that are not.

renegadze wrote:But kind of pointless without some sort of bonus attached...if one house doesn't make a difference from another, then you may as well all just join the same alliance if you want to "be together"

Lore wrote:I don't mind the "houses" update. Its 2 maybe 3 characteristics of the update which I feel will make it fail. So I feel its important to express my opinion and show how and why I have said opinion.

Leg Apophis wrote:

GeneralChaos wrote:
He could have also added under that idea, a message board for that house, that only house alliance members can see, like a quick message system, ( like the old chaos server ) would allow vastly greater communication. ( i even suggested this message board idea several times, but gave up when you know admin aint listening )

I asked Jason this for races few monthes ago (races over a certain amount of members of course, like 20), to make races like in the old chaos server. Would be good to see that for houses.

Sarevok wrote:yeah, i see what you mean by that GC. I hope to try to get jason to make them a redistribution instead of an out right bonus.

Or do people prefere it just a grouping with advantages like group pms etc?

Forum wrote:the nice thing with houses you can join/leave, is i can do things like add negatives in future, nerf bonuses, or create attack multipliers bigger than 2 for 'wars' between houses....
opposed to layering these directly on an alliance, and being stuck with them, i can change houses as requried over time/feedback, and if you don't like it, you can just leave the house.
so - we start here, where it is, and see... if it needs changing, it is easily done. this suggestion is just the catalyst for my reply for all 'houses should be like...' posts

Forum wrote:of note on why things get added, over time, is because i get such a headache trying to REMOVE anything
so if you have 2 items; A and B -- and want to equal them... you cannot decrease B so you increase A... and so it goes....
not that anyone cares, but I wanted to say it.

CCTheCapedCrusader™ wrote:perg should be for those only below Living God and 30 million or taken away altogether now as it gives us more to play with

Heka wrote:not sure if this has been addressed and i refuse to read so many pages so i'll just say, it appears the alliances houses are due to be determined by army size rather than total power, i am fairly against this, i dont have much power or army size atm but i really liked the idea that there was finally a reason to have total power, atm there is no good reason to have stats, making the houses based on power would of given people a reason to build up and a reason to want to weaken others......

doing things by size basically eliminates the smaller alliances and empires from the running permenently, the more popular empires will rule unopposed, at least when it was power there was the option to fight for power within a house now there is nothing, no chance, boring, stupid, pointless.

of course this is all hinging on the fact the houses are going to be size based still, if not ignore this post

Forum wrote:hmmm...fairly well thought out. size versus power is also slower....less radical revolutions...
i will think on this. the flip side is also valid though - you get powerful, you get crushed so you're not a threat....
AC is less powerful than before, but still a big part...
i am not sure the 'best' answer, but will think on it. maybe a combo..

Heka wrote:not sure if this has been addressed and i refuse to read so many pages so i'll just say, it appears the alliances houses are due to be determined by army size rather than total power, i am fairly against this, i dont have much power or army size atm but i really liked the idea that there was finally a reason to have total power, atm there is no good reason to have stats, making the houses based on power would of given people a reason to build up and a reason to want to weaken others......

doing things by size basically eliminates the smaller alliances and empires from the running permenently, the more popular empires will rule unopposed, at least when it was power there was the option to fight for power within a house now there is nothing, no chance, boring, stupid, pointless.

of course this is all hinging on the fact the houses are going to be size based still, if not ignore this post

MaxSterling wrote:

Sarevok wrote:...and weapons lasting longer.

This is really the only option to increase a defense's usefulness. Which is why my suggestion to tie weapon fatigue to realm alert would probably work the best.

Increasing costs hurts smaller players.

No matter what the power levels are, massing will not change unless the weapons last longer.

Wepwaet wrote:There is also no reason for people TAG and above to be in perg. You should include a ascention lvl cap on perg as well.