StarGateWars Forums

1 Annoying thing about these big server wars is that no one defined how you win! Clearly.

I thought maybe it could be decided by a more clear definition:

Like for example when 1 side has no more members in the top 100 or top 50 then the war has been ended.

Or when no members have a defence over 500bil the war is won etc.

It would atleast be very clear, and give both sides a goal to try and achieve and this way both sides would have to keep there defenses high in order to not let the other team end the war.

It would be a war with a goal rather than farm farm farm and at the end everyone bickers over who won.

any thoughts?

(Dont post if you only intend to make smart remarks about my idea)

Imo a war ends when one side surrenders or disband.

rather than give any sort of idea ill simply watch everyone do to this that they've done to every thing else, argue and fight over it.

cuz i think most people would rather cut off one of their own fingers than agree on anything with someone from the other side in this war.

and there are no winners, just varying degrees of losers.

WeaponX wrote:cuz i think most people would rather cut off one of their own fingers than agree on anything with someone from the other side in this war.

and there are no winners, just varying degrees of losers.

Well thats lame. the bigger losers are the ones who care the most

These sorts of threads are pointless. Why?

Each side has different goals and objectives and within each side, each individual has their own personal aspirations or milestones to reach. That is something you cannot measure and as such who "wins" when every single person's vision of it is different is an almost impossible thing to declare.

By setting clearly defined "Objectives", you simply have people working against the spirit of the rules/claiming the objectives at the cost of every other factor and by limiting it to just those said things, you only show who achieved xyz without seeing the overall context. Winning a small picture does not equate to winning the big picture. Winning a battle does not equate to winning the war. Winning a tactical victory does not necessarily mean winning an overall strategic victory.

The closest measure you have is "Willgatewars" in which the most defining factor is not who is currently dominating ingame which can swing rapidly in opposite directions a number of times at any moment, but who has the willpower to wake up, sign in, fight, sign out still willing to go it another day.

The sheer game mechanics and numbers of farms/resources/trade/supply available means that each side can essentially go on indefinetely with the experience and ability to down anything the opposite side has and so they are not bound to ingame restrictions/limitations, but only by their flame for the game.

FUALL has their reputation on the line and are galvinised by their identity/image/past glory whilst Janus and Allies are galvinised by their own identity/image/past glory. Both are further reinforced or rallied by the oppositions' insults and the belief they are fighting for something worth fighting for in that both sides believe they are in the right and to stop fighting would be turning your back on said goal and make the server a worse place. Further complicating this are personal friendships/bonds and a sense of loyalty/duty and so even something as simple as willpower cannot be easily abstracted or measured.

Both sides are having fun and there is much track still left for this train to travel before anything becomes any clearer.

how about this one:

50% of total membercount flees the battle or surenders

and alliance leaving a side counts as all it's members surendering


whe you lose 50% of your numbers you are defeated in your mind anyways

Hmm well i hope when admin makes the next update there comes a way to find a winner and so on in wars.

On another note moved.

In this one, there *is* no bigger picture Sev..
Unless there are a lot of other games this conflict echoes through to.


But, since I don't feel well enough (after party last night) to actively argue with you, I'll pass up on that wonderful opportunity and go see if there's some Demerol around this place.

Dark Horse wrote:1 Annoying thing about these big server wars is that no one defined how you win! Clearly.

I thought maybe it could be decided by a more clear definition:

Like for example when 1 side has no more members in the top 100 or top 50 then the war has been ended.

Or when no members have a defence over 500bil the war is won etc.

It would atleast be very clear, and give both sides a goal to try and achieve and this way both sides would have to keep there defenses high in order to not let the other team end the war.

It would be a war with a goal rather than farm farm farm and at the end everyone bickers over who won.

any thoughts?

(Dont post if you only intend to make smart remarks about my idea)

I know what you mean - but those goals are virtual goals and cannot really be used to measure the winner in a war, because the 'loser' still has the ability to fightback.

At one time, the winner could be measured by the incapacity to fight back - but that is no longer possible, for a number of reasons.

Wars aren't what they used to be.

Rev. Auriel Daniels wrote:In this one, there *is* no bigger picture Sev..
Unless there are a lot of other games this conflict echoes through to.


But, since I don't feel well enough (after party last night) to actively argue with you, I'll pass up on that wonderful opportunity and go see if there's some Demerol around this place.

If TJP mass FUALL's stats to nothing, FUALL still have the capacity to farm/mass and essentially end peace time indefinetly for TJP. So even by setting goals to determine who wins, the bigger picture means that TJP have lost the peacetime gameplay they once enjoyed and despite "winning", end up losing just as equally.

Likewise, the reverse is also just as true - if FUALL mass TJP's stats to nothing, TJP farming/massing will end the peaceful prosperity FUALL once enjoyed so the argument is entirely vice versa. So despite which side "wins", the side that "loses" can still end the prosperity indefinetly that was enjoined by the victor.

The big picture means that the honeymoon with easy street is over for the big boys and that quite a few people didn't quite calculate the long term repercussions for launching a first strike...

Severian wrote:If TJP mass FUALL's stats to nothing, FUALL still have the capacity to farm/mass and essentially end peace time indefinetly for TJP. So even by setting goals to determine who wins, the bigger picture means that TJP have lost the peacetime gameplay they once enjoyed and despite "winning", end up losing just as equally.

Likewise, the reverse is also just as true - if FUALL mass TJP's stats to nothing, TJP farming/massing will end the peaceful prosperity FUALL once enjoyed so the argument is entirely vice versa. So despite which side "wins", the side that "loses" can still end the prosperity indefinetly that was enjoined by the victor.

The big picture means that the honeymoon with easy street is over for the big boys and that quite a few people didn't quite calculate the long term repercussions for launching a first strike...

Oh, sorry.. I thought you meant a bigger picture than that.
You're quite right about this.

Wolf359 wrote:

Dark Horse wrote:1 Annoying thing about these big server wars is that no one defined how you win! Clearly.

I thought maybe it could be decided by a more clear definition:

Like for example when 1 side has no more members in the top 100 or top 50 then the war has been ended.

Or when no members have a defence over 500bil the war is won etc.

It would atleast be very clear, and give both sides a goal to try and achieve and this way both sides would have to keep there defenses high in order to not let the other team end the war.

It would be a war with a goal rather than farm farm farm and at the end everyone bickers over who won.

any thoughts?

(Dont post if you only intend to make smart remarks about my idea)

I know what you mean - but those goals are virtual goals and cannot really be used to measure the winner in a war, because the 'loser' still has the ability to fightback.

At one time, the winner could be measured by the incapacity to fight back - but that is no longer possible, for a number of reasons.

Wars aren't what they used to be.

Agreed.


Whatever happened to war until disbanding.

Aren't you about 6-8 months premature in even starting this discussion?

If it takes that long....i'm going to become bored and start ascending. lol.

Nimras wrote:Hmm well i hope when admin makes the next update there comes a way to find a winner and so on in wars.

If the way the game decides a winner isn't in favour of the other alliance I'm sure war will just be redeclared... even if the game implements a way of making it so war cant be redeclared on the alliance who "beat you" you dont need an alliance war to mass people...

So technically no matter how a fantastic idea the alliance war update for main is you will still have "unwinnable wars"

The only way to possibly have something like this is have a "Server War"

So you would get

Server War

Faction 1 - Chosen Faction Name
Faction Leading Alliance
Faction Alliance 1
Faction Alliance 2
Faction Alliance 3
Faction Alliance 4
Faction Alliance 5
Faction Alliance 6
and so on.

Faction 2 - Chosen Faction Name
Faction Leading Alliance
Faction Alliance 1
Faction Alliance 2
Faction Alliance 3
Faction Alliance 4
Faction Alliance 5
Faction Alliance 6
and so on.

Once each faction alliance has confirmed there are joining that faction, and the Faction Leading Alliance's Alliance leader confirms that faction is ready for war. All ID's (On Main and Ascended are logged). This is going to be used for setting everyone to war on both servers. (This will mean before the war starts you can set all your relations to neutral and when it starts all your War relations will be everyone involved in the Server War - on both servers (no hiding behind different names on ascension anymore).

Once the Server war starts you will only be able to Attack/Raid/Spy/Sab etc those who are in the Server War.
Trade Brokers/Give Function - this will be limited to those ONLY in the server war. At the start of the server war all trade brokers external to the Server War will be cancelled. If that means your sneakily holding more than your allowed 10k AT on the broker and the person it rejects it to also cant hold that many they are given to the market... (that will teach you)

The only way for a Server War to have a possible ending is for resources (AT mostly) to be restricted. 1008 is the number of user generated AT per week. Using all 3 MT on AT will get you about 2.4k AT. So once the initial large stockpiles of AT are depleted only 3.4kAT will be available to each player per week (IF they use all 3 MT for AT).

The Server War declaration would not have an end date of 5 days. This would stay as a constant war recording all stats from all alliances.

External Alliances/Players cannot hit those in the war and they cannot be hit/traded with. Once the war has started additional alliances CANNOT join in. Which means nobody joining in massing other neutral/not involved alliances just because they have nothing to lose.

Those who go on vac on either server are counted as a "surrender point" (this counts for EVERY instance of VAC on both servers and if people vac more than once (on the same server)) they are automatically kicked from the alliance from the duraction of the war incase they are purposely adding "surrender points" so one faction loses. Those who quit/leave there alliance also add a "Surrender point". When someone is descended a "surrender point" is added as the "ascended being retreats".

Surrender Points

This is the method for determining a victory in the Server War.

How it works
Recorded in the same way as the rest of Military XP
Surrender points are counted at the Faction Level.

A surrender point is given to one faction when:-
A player quits the alliance (and as such the server war) (3 points)
A player goes on vac in main (1 point)
A player goes on vac ascension (1 point)
A player is descended. (1 point)
A player clicks the surrender button (added on the Server War page)
- This keeps them in the alliance but sets all the players in the war to peace and can no longer be attacked by anyone in the war this also removes the ability for trade/give functionality to anyone in the war and also cannot hit anyone in the war) (2 points

Defcon Changes Crit/Nox. (0.01 points)
- When a player changes their defcon and/or places themselves on nox this removes 0.01 points of their faction total.
So when a player PPT's they are going to take themselves of crit/nox to make the most of their turn income when they come off PPT they will turn it back on removing 0.02 points off the total. (if they do 4 days of ppt in one go it will only cost 0.02 but if they do them at 2 different times it will cost more as they will come off crit/nox and go back on twice)
(This is a way of adding points for those in main as you cant give a surrender point for massing an MS/planet/defence etc as thats just common part of war but it does mean it will cost your faction points for constant switching on off crit/nox. Which may mean people will leave crit/nox off making for a more entertaining war/more naq)
If 20 people go on PPT at 2 different times a week (one at start and one at end) thats each player taking 0.04 points of the Surrender total. 0.04x20 = 0.8 off the surrender points.


Total Surrender points is calculated based on number of players in the faction e.g. 103 in Faction1 and 75 in Faction2

The winning "Surrender Points" total is defined at the start of the war as a percentage (max 200%) of your faction players.
So if both sides suggest 75% that means Faction1 has 77.25 Surrender points total and Faction 2 has 56.25 Surrender Point total.

This means that each side has to get the other factions surrender points to less than or equal to 0.

Before you come along and say Faction 1 has a higher surrender point they also have more people so its technically still only 75% and with the crit/nox surrender points more people means more PPT's and as such the surrender points going down quicker each week or possibly by the same % as Faction2's.

For working out what things should remove a faction point I have gone for things that aren't easily done to make the war a challenge rather than massing a players defence 1 surrender point as someones defence can be massed many times and massing a 3bill defence is really nothing to be that proud of in a big server war.


Well after that remarkably long post I may put this in suggestions if people like it...

Cheers

TheRook