War.. so why not "War" as a standard?

[Juliette]

*notice to Zeratul: Couldn't find this, if anyone can, teach me again how to Search*


Every relation ingame is Neutral when one starts playing.
I find this is not consistent with the theory that this is a wargame.
When starting out, everyone should be at war. War, because one enters a battle for domination where one might seek and find allies for, later, but not right away. Therefore, one is at war with everyone, as everyone is their enemy.

I wish to stress the importance of this, as some people seem to forget they are at war with everyone whom they are not at peace with.. thus resulting in such hilarious and ridiculous concepts as 'vulturing' being bad, instead of a valid strategy/tactic for everyone seeking to grow.

There.. I stop before I start ranting about how vulturing cannot possibly be bad. That'd be a prayer without ending.

[Legendary Apophis]

That would bring chaos into game...hehe :p
But would it means EVERY TIME someone joins, it sends you a pm "xxxx declared war with you"?
That would be heavy spam then ...so neutral would be as war is now, to set to have this status, so oyu would get neutral pms instead of war pms!

[Juliette]

You're not making sense at all, mate.

Of course they won't start sending PMs. They'll just join. Messages for Neutral are unnecessary.
Heck.. the whole "Neutral" setting is pointless.. but as long as it is there, who cares.

[Zeratul]

auriel, cant remember seeing anything like this before, so nothing within the last year or so on this...

anyways, what Apophis The Great meant, was that he thought that if this was implemented, every time some new fellow starts, all others would get war declaration from them...

[Juliette]

Figures.

And yay! I got an original idea!


Anyway, one wouldn't get such messages whenever someone joins.. a simple check (imo) could prevent that from happening. One just starts with everyone at war. No messages nowhere.. only when changing a relation.
Beginning to play at war isn't a relation change, is it?

[ThakalluS]

Yeah,he has set war with everybody ... then Nox wouldn't be very helpful to him ... and imagine setting all those accounts to neutral ...

[Juliette]

lol

See.. I knew Neutral had one benefit.
It can serve as a 'protection' for people you have NAPs with but no actual peace. Makes the game a bit tougher too, seeing how Nox falls out of *most* battles.

Heh.

[hidden]

dont make me reference the stargate universe

everyone is neutral until they decide whether to be enemys or allys

you know except the goa'uld who would probably be at war with everyone until they decide otherwise

anyway the war setting does nothing but ensure a larger amount of naq it wont stop the vulturing concept(wish i was there to stop it from ever becoming popular)

this game is ruined already if not from the updates then from the people who have made terms like vulturing and the mass everyone for nothing attitude

[Juliette]

Don't preach to the choir, Reverend..
I am heavily opposed to the whole culture of considering vulturing bad..

[Phoenix of Terra]

How about set opposing races to enemy automatically? Ie, a Tauri would automatically be an enemy to Gou'ald and Repilcators, and a Gou'ald would automatically be an enemy to Tauri and Asgard.

[hidden]

:?

Don't preach to the choir, Reverend..
I am heavily opposed to the whole culture of considering vulturing bad..

its my style

[Lore]

*notice to Zeratul: Couldn't find this, if anyone can, teach me again how to Search*


Every relation ingame is Neutral when one starts playing.
I find this is not consistent with the theory that this is a wargame.
When starting out, everyone should be at war. War, because one enters a battle for domination where one might seek and find allies for, later, but not right away. Therefore, one is at war with everyone, as everyone is their enemy.

I wish to stress the importance of this, as some people seem to forget they are at war with everyone whom they are not at peace with.. thus resulting in such hilarious and ridiculous concepts as 'vulturing' being bad, instead of a valid strategy/tactic for everyone seeking to grow.

There.. I stop before I start ranting about how vulturing cannot possibly be bad. That'd be a prayer without ending.

I'd have to disagree.

Anyone with a 3 man army is a fool to "War" with the server. You don't war with everyone in the game. You war with people you can war with.

Now I would love to see the "Relation" settings actually mean something. But starting off at war is a bad idea.

And "True" vulturing is a bad thing. Since admin wont allow retaliation against such accounts.

[hidden]

good idea lore i expect you to expand on it

what suggestions do you have for making the war setting mean something

something like taking naq from your bank to automatically repair weapons whenever they attack you or you attack them or they sab you or something

im sure you'll think of something

by the way you can retaliate against vultures until they have nothing left except one weapon which they use to hit all the people at war who didn't bother to build a def so its their fault they get hit

[Lord_Zeus]

I wish to stress the importance of this, as some people seem to forget they are at war with everyone whom they are not at peace with.. thus resulting in such hilarious and ridiculous concepts as 'vulturing' being bad, instead of a valid strategy/tactic for everyone seeking to grow.

Here Here! Someone talks some sense... as to the issue, war could be auto declared if you attack someone... don't know, neutral is kind of pointless, but so is war unless you want to increase your losses.

[Zeratul]

if this were implemented, newbies could figure out more easily how to farm to grow, and thus more would stay...