StarGateWars Forums

Sorry, I'm going to touch on many "common suggestions" so bare with me, these things need to be voted on and brought to Jason's attention if people agree:

A new attack to kill miners/attack units/AC units:
- attack has to be at least five times a person’s defence to use this attack (this is to ensure some noob can’t take out a bunch of someone’s miners without either massing them first, or having a truly massive attack )
- destroys 5% of the person’s total miners per day (with people going on ppt, this would mean about 15% of a person’s miners vulnerable a week, not too much to cry over, but enough to damage people over time, especially in tandem with limited ATs)
- an amount of attack units and AC units would be killable in the same attack (they tried to defend the miners but were caught in the crossfire) – amount killed?: either 5% of the total miners, or 10% of attack units/AC units, whichever is higher (to ensure accounts that get rid of all miners, still have something to lose, and can’t become attack specialists)
- attack would use up a lot more turns than the standard 15 turn attack (say 250?)
- Overall intended effects – encourage people to maintain defences and enable much more damage to be done to people in wars – truly set people back
- Maybe have a higher percentage destroyable if at war with the person – up the stakes so to speak

Increase power of sabotage:
- increase the amount of weps that can be sabotaged per hit. Atm it just isn’t worth losing the spies compared to the economic loss of wep naq that sabbing gives.
- Especially increase the percentage of weps destroyable when there is no defence (ie: attack weps more vulnerable)
- Overall intended effects – again, encourage people to maintain defences during wars, and adding another dimension to the game

Get rid of the last MS update:
- increasing the percentage of shields (etc) on MS was a mistake – seriously, we have 1tril MSs floating around out there, which can majorly deflect defence or attack losses
- maybe even reduce the overall powers of MS (by a percentage rate to make it fairer for all)
- Overall intended effects – wars have become about MS, they should be about def, strike, etc. In tandem with the other updates, this would mean the MS took its role as a supplementary to other attacks, not as a replacement, which is what it has become

Limit ATs:
- get rid of artificially created ATs, and reduce the amount given per turn to 3 - slow the game down, speed isn't everything, ask your girlfriend
- overall intended effects - bring back strategy into the game. Make it necessary to plan strikes and counterstrikes, not simply one-man missions.

Intended outcomes:
- Less random massings as people now have things to lose – massers will need to maintain a defence or be wiped out much more effectively than currently
- Increase in likelihood that alliances will pull out of wars earlier – can really hurt people more, and make it much more obvious who is winning
- Puts back more strategy into the game – have to balance different aspects of your account and slows the game down so its not all just about who is online most

Problems I foresee:
- people creating more multis to get ATs – problem for admin mark to step up on
- people creating accounts purely for massing with no miners (however, this would hopefully be limited by vulnerability of attack units, and weps to sabotage)
- harder for people to catch up with the big boys – but hopefully the big boys won’t get too far in front if they’re active in wars


Please, when considering these updates, think about the good of the game and what you'd like to play - not what it will set you back in the short term (especially those who will lose out with making MS weaker)

Comment away

EDIT: Lots of No votes. Anyone want to say why they disagree?

I don't mind the sab suggestions.

The killing of miners not so much, because someone could potentially create a heap of multies have their main account mass then come in and kill the miners of a an account. Now yes 15% killable in a week is nice but (selfishly) for me that's.... about 53million men (in the first week).

Just 'cos I got my defence massed, that's more than a little harsh IMO especially since the person attacking to kill the miners loses nothing. The game where everything is killable was ascension, not main. Though a better way of killing AC'rs would be good.

Wars aren't really about MSs, just that with them now doubling attack and defence they are a real benefit to people. What I'd like to see instead is a dedicated MS only attack.

I don't agree with having to keep a percentage of men trained in defence either (which isn't mentioned here but has been suggested else where. You keep the amount of defence you need.

Um some nice suggestions but I don't think all should be adopted.

Sab definitely though!

Tekki wrote:I don't mind the sab suggestions.

The killing of miners not so much, because someone could potentially create a heap of multies have their main account mass then come in and kill the miners of a an account. Now yes 15% killable in a week is nice but (selfishly) for me that's.... about 53million men (in the first week).

Just 'cos I got my defence massed, that's more than a little harsh IMO especially since the person attacking to kill the miners loses nothing. The game where everything is killable was ascension, not main. Though a better way of killing AC'rs would be good.

Wars aren't really about MSs, just that with them now doubling attack and defence they are a real benefit to people. What I'd like to see instead is a dedicated MS only attack.

I don't agree with having to keep a percentage of men trained in defence either (which isn't mentioned here but has been suggested else where. You keep the amount of defence you need.

Um some nice suggestions but I don't think all should be adopted.

Sab definitely though!

Wars aren't about MSs? Everytime I've been in the FUALL/TJP thread all I hear is a bunch of bickering about Robe/your/and Priape's MS, and how everyone hides from them.....with nobody rebuilding hardly, it seems to be the only thing happening these days.....

As for the 5% it was just a rough figure - anything to increase the likelihood of more damage being done than currently. People are in wars for the last five months but still grow simply because they do nothing for 3 days and ppt for 4 days - hardly much of a game really is it?

Ascension lost its all killable a long time ago, and has long since become a joke. Maybe 15% in a week is too much - but a percentage is definitely needed, and preferably one higher than people's income could simply rebuy by the end of the week....

The new attack you mention is similar to the retro days. It put more emphasis on UP and covert levels because they couldnt be taken away. I remember it being some fun but then again that was a long time ago. The thing that does do is severely reduce the speed at which things grow. I think at the current rate of growth (300 mil men armies/covert level 35/1 tril motherships) we will soon be at chaos numbers. The distance between the top dogs and the new players increases dramatically every day.

Sabbing power has already been increased.. its pretty powerful now imo.. Its fairly easy to cost someone several hundred bil or a couple tril by sabbing at present values. That combined with today's UP's makes the loss of a few spies worth the result.

MS.. I think I agree with tekki that a separate ms might be a better solution. If they didnt add to defense or attack then you probably wouldnt see many as big as they are now.

Limited AT... I know wolf has been lobbying for this for a while now. The biggest reason not to limit them has been the available growth for new players. I do agree that it would increase strategy and reduce random massing and "one-man shows". While making uu/miners killable would help reduce/limit the massive growth, limiting AT would make it harder to rebuild after your army gets killed off. That one is a toss-up imo.

lol at the moment the TTF FUALL thread is stuck on MSs but it isn't the only war thread. If all the others are perpetually stuck on them then yeah but I think that might be specific to that one - at the moment.

How many times does it have to be said,

ADMIN has stated several times, any update that effect INCOME will not be done, thus killing miners will not happen.

If you want to kill off what is left of the game sure, go ahead hurt income, and watch the numbers leaving the game now increase 10 fold

kill attackers maybe, or just heavier losses whilst massing.

15pages of 1at hits is a boring read.

tom twin wrote:kill attackers maybe, or just heavier losses whilst massing.

15pages of 1at hits is a boring read.

Thats because ADMIN refuses to fix that 1 AT crap, all he has to do is set it 1AT = 1/15th attack, forcing the attacker to use 15 or its pointless, same rule should be added for MS, 1 AT = 1/15th of your MS power.

If he fixed that, he wouldnt have to worry about anything else for now, numbers would be lost in wars.

GeneralChaos wrote:How many times does it have to be said,

ADMIN has stated several times, any update that effect INCOME will not be done, thus killing miners will not happen.

If you want to kill off what is left of the game sure, go ahead hurt income, and watch the numbers leaving the game now increase 10 fold

I didn't realise admin had stated that.

Do you really think people will leave more quickly if this were implemented? How many people in FUALL/TJP actually play anymore? Not just PPT now and then, or use msn, but actually play? A dozen diehards....? How long before they stop even logging in occasionally? How many "legends" have to quit before we see something needs changing?

Maybe the percentage amounts were too high.....maybe. But so long as they're more than the person's income can replace alone in the week, then they're a restriction on growth....much more effective than now. How many times have people complained that wars aren't winnable? They still won't categorically be with this update....but there would be less chance of stalemates simply because people are too stubborn to move on.....

GeneralChaos wrote:Thats because ADMIN refuses to fix that 1 AT crap, all he has to do is set it 1AT = 1/15th attack, forcing the attacker to use 15 or its pointless, same rule should be added for MS, 1 AT = 1/15th of your MS power.

I like this. Or as close as possible to it.

With respect, wasn't 'ending wars' what the new war system was about?

Though I believe some alliances have declared but others never accepted.

The other problem, as I see it, is not with game play but with peoples perceptions. It is considered by many, I feel that being prepared to say "this is a stalemate" or 'i surrender, let's move on' weakness. As is ANY alliance that attempts to go to the bargaining table to end a pointless situation. I know, I've had experience here.

Too many alliances have built themselves on 'we will war forever' when what they mean is 'we won't say surrender or stalemate, instead we will just go inactive'.

It's this perception - of weakness if you want to acknowledge the truth or move on - that I think is one of the more pressing issues. How that can be fixed.... I have no idea, unfortunately.

Hope that was clear.

Whats the point in having a war system when no one accepts it? As it currently stands, the only way to win a war is make the other side more bored than you.

But with these updates people can't just go inactive and wait for the end of the war - because then they'll actually lose something. Inactive people grow during alliance wars - isn't that one of the most ridiculous things in the game? This way, people's accounts are put on the line a lot more than simply their boredom levels.... its a lot easier to stay in a war when you have nothing to lose....if people's accounts are put on the line I think people would find it harder to be so stubborn....

RepliMagni wrote:Whats the point in having a war system when no one accepts it? As it currently stands, the only way to win a war is make the other side more bored than you.

Yes, I know. It's pathetic but it's the stated tactic of some alliances. Automatic war acceptance would be nice on the new systems, or at least acceptance say after what 10 hits back? or X hours.

RepliMagni wrote:But with these updates people can't just go inactive and wait for the end of the war - because then they'll actually lose something. Inactive people grow during alliance wars - isn't that one of the most ridiculous things in the game? This way, people's accounts are put on the line a lot more than simply their boredom levels....

Yes, I know and I agree with some of yoru suggestions, just not with all. At the same time though, the perceptional issue and the demands made by some need to be altered, or it may still be more profitable to go inactive, rather than have to buy your way out of a war.

although im not sure about the percentages the basic idea of all of them i agree with

also perhaps a way of limiting how many att turns you can receive a week through player to player trades so the richest people cant buy unlimited attack turns and thus become capable of completely destroying a large amount of weaker people

Then people who raid to try catch up with the bigger people suffer.

Meh...no-one is going to be happy with everything bout the game. But I really would like to see more realistic attacking losses.

Even if you say that 1at is a "lightning attack" as admin said causing more defensive losses than offensive...if your going for a lightning attack lets be honest, your not going to take the whole bloody army with you. It eliminates the purpose.