StarGateWars Forums

I have read many arguments for and against in many different threads. So I have started this thread so that arguments could live in the same 1 thread.

Note: Please do not troll this thread. Please contribute to the discussion or move on.

My long winded view.

The ability to truely crush a player where that person loses all their super soldiers, all their UU, all their weapons, their mothership, is a state, that I think would give the game more realism.

The fact that it could be achieved rather easily by a big player, or at a large cost and not so easily by a relatively equal player, shouldn't matter. After all it is logical that for a larger player it should be easy and for a smaller player it should be harder. This could be controlled using upper and lower limits allowing for players to attack and recieve attack from only players ranked 1000 places above and below.

It may be argued that players invest large amounts of time to build an account up, but why should this be a reason to protect your investment. In the real world, people spend their lives building (business, sporting teams, family) in some cases only to lose everything. But they are faced with a decision, re-build or not re-build. I would have a lot more respect for a player who was crushed and rebuilt, than a player who sat mid game, built up their account to a certain level played for a few months then abandoned their account.

This is where Alliances come to play. They help each other rebuild. Some may say that some Alliances would become unbreakable. I say no. Eventually an alliance would grow between alliances to crush the ruling alliance, with the power moving from a few to the many. An alliance would move to the top, only for them to be toppled and so continues the circle of life.

I have put in 5months (not as long as some of you), and would be willing to lose it all. If I was crushed, it would only make me more determined to rebuild, and I would be more excited about seeking revenge.

Equally, I would enjoy crushing accounts of other players as part of the game. Lets be honest this would give greater satisfaction then anything possible in the game to date. The ability to take a player to their knees.

I have tried to answer these questions;

1. Would it make the game more realistic?
2. Would it heighten the experience of the game?
3. Would I be willing to lose it all?
4. What are the pros?
5. What are the cons?

Please consider them before posting your thoughts.

I would be very much keen to hear your view.

budakajana wrote:

1. Would it make the game more realistic?
2. Would it heighten the experience of the game?
3. Would I be willing to lose it all?
4. What are the pros?
5. What are the cons?

Ok, here's my point of view. First of all, the point of alliances being able to rebuild their members is not fair to the dedicated lone wolf. Some people don't want to join an alliance, so they would be out of luck if they were destroyed. That's something I wanted out of the way first.

On to the questions:
1: Yes and no. Total destruction would be slightly more realistic, but not in the timeframe things happen in this game. Germany wasn't bombed to bits in 1 night. That's what could happen here, you wake up to find everything gone. No chance of striking back because everything is gone.
2: Yes. If you can actually do something to put a player back a few weeks in development, that would allow for some new ways of fun.
3: Ouch, not if I can help it.
4: Finally a way to put the big guys out of power.
5: It would likely be too easy.

But my most important gripe is just the fact that in real life, when fighting a war, both sides fight at the same time. In our current setting that wouldn't be possible. So the defender is getting pummeled while he's not around. The attacker has all the time in the world to repair his weapons in the meantime. It's an unbalanced fight. And by the time the defender gets back online, the attacker is long gone, as are the defenders means of counterattack. Now to fix that, one thing I can think of is to put a time-delay on repairing attack weapons. Once you pay for the repairs, you can no longer attack and it takes until next turn to repair them. That way you give the other party a little more time to respond. Whichever way it is done, there has to be a way to make it take a long time to destroy someone. It's not fair to be able to destroy without a chance to respond.

you mean like massing someone while they sleep

if you think its cool to lose everything and then re-build play quantum

1. Would it make the game more realistic?
I don't think so, completly and utterly destroying someone to the point they say "Screw it" and /quit, I don't think has happened much in history. Many places that have lost large wars, people who have lost it all in buisness etc etc they are still around.

2. Would it heighten the experience of the game?
Hell no, it would just mean that you can instantly get annhilated by the people higher than you, almost on a whim. People will inevitably shift to the highest alliances, and they will just get more powerfull, and in the current state of events, most of them won't attack each other, and it'll be "Stagnate Wars".

3. Would I be willing to lose it all?
Hell no. Even now, where the most you can lose is attack and defence, losing those can set people back a huge amount of time, adding the ability to remove everything else is just too big a step.

4. What are the pros?
You could utterly utterly destroy someone. Doing that can make you feel good. You might get some sort of rush, knowing every attack you make, could end with you back to the start.

5. What are the cons?
You could be utterly utterly destroyed. That would destroy a large massive amount of time investment. People who are ranked high, so high only a few people or a massive alliance attack can hurt, have gotten their without this burden of destruction over there heads.

and NO limits on attacking of the likes of that rescinded update

Sleipnir wrote: But my most important gripe is just the fact that in real life, when fighting a war, both sides fight at the same time. In our current setting that wouldn't be possible. So the defender is getting pummeled while he's not around. The attacker has all the time in the world to repair his weapons in the meantime. It's an unbalanced fight. And by the time the defender gets back online, the attacker is long gone, as are the defenders means of counterattack. Now to fix that, one thing I can think of is to put a time-delay on repairing attack weapons. Once you pay for the repairs, you can no longer attack and it takes until next turn to repair them. That way you give the other party a little more time to respond. Whichever way it is done, there has to be a way to make it take a long time to destroy someone. It's not fair to be able to destroy without a chance to respond.

Possible solutions to this:

1. A player may only attack another player a certain number of times per day.

2. A player may only be attacked a certain number of times per day (just as you can only be sabbed a certain number of times).

3. A new defensive posture setting is introduced. This would work rather like realm alert in that it would increase (at a cost) the defensive action level of the player. It could even have an option to be activated after a certain number of attacks - sort of saying to your troops 'okay, you've got the watch. If you suffer more than 5 attacks, go to a heightened defensive posture'. The consequence of this heightened defensive posture is that the amount of damage/casulaties suffered by the defending player is SIGNIFICANTLY DECREASED. (The other option would be to have any further attacking players suffer increased casualties/damage - but this could lead to abuse of the system by the defending player).

I would personally go for a combination of 1 and 3 - and would use the SIGNIFICANTLY DECREASED option - this would mean that attacks could still be made for naq, but would mean it would make it harder to totally destroy someone.

MackTheKnife wrote:1. Would it make the game more realistic?
I don't think so, completly and utterly destroying someone to the point they say "Screw it" and /quit, I don't think has happened much in history. Many places that have lost large wars, people who have lost it all in buisness etc etc they are still around.]

And so would the players. They would still have the same covert levels, they would still have the same UP, and would have the left overs of being attacked, a few weapons, a few soldiers etc. They would then be free to rebuild and plan revenge.

MackTheKnife wrote:2. Would it heighten the experience of the game?
Hell no, it would just mean that you can instantly get annhilated by the people higher than you, almost on a whim. People will inevitably shift to the highest alliances, and they will just get more powerfull, and in the current state of events, most of them won't attack each other, and it'll be "Stagnate Wars".
]

You assume the higher alliance would just allow people to join at the drop of a hat. You also assume that top alliance wouldnt attempt to take each other out, rather they would just kill the lower ranked players, which I am sure wouldnt occur, where is the fun in that. Lets no be stupid there would be some lower players smashed, but in most cases it would be for a cause.

MackTheKnife wrote:3. Would I be willing to lose it all?
Hell no. Even now, where the most you can lose is attack and defence, losing those can set people back a huge amount of time, adding the ability to remove everything else is just too big a step.
]

So you prefer to be a player that protects what they have, rather than play the game with the potential of losing weapons, soldies, UU, or whatever.

MackTheKnife wrote:4. What are the pros?
You could utterly utterly destroy someone. Doing that can make you feel good. You might get some sort of rush, knowing every attack you make, could end with you back to the start.
]

Glad we see eye to eye on this point.

MackTheKnife wrote:5. What are the cons?
You could be utterly utterly destroyed. That would destroy a large massive amount of time investment. People who are ranked high, so high only a few people or a massive alliance attack can hurt, have gotten their without this burden of destruction over there heads.

It has to start somewhere. And I couldnt see the top players lasting all that long at the top, before being smashed themselves. But the difference with them, is that they would rebuild faster than the average player.

Okay got a couple of things to say.

Firstly, the limits just don't work, they create too many loopholes, like a smaller alliance being able to take out a much stronger alliance merely because the bigger alliance can't fight back. But wolf made some excellent suggestions. I agree with all of them.

Secondly, somebody mentioned that all the smaller players will flock to the larger alliance. Well being one of thos 'big' alliances, I can tell you that the UTA does NOT just accept anybody. Not only do we have to completely trust you, but you have to prove yourself to us first via our training alliance. You also have to have satisfactory stats and be on good terms with pretty much the entire alliance. And it doesn't stop there. I've set in place a series of rules that must be adhered to. If you break them you get booted and banned from ever joining the UTA again. So no, it's not that easy to just join a big alliance.

From memory I believe that Omega, EPA, ArchAngels, Crystal Force and D12 have similar procedures.

everything buda has said is good look at ascenion you can destroy some ones account there and you should be able to go it here there are alot of players like esker who just ruin the game with there "tactics" if we could get away to destroy accounts like this then people like eskie would be nothing

am going to make a list of players i would go after if this was possible

jix

Mod Edit by Wolf359: There is no place for name calling and insults on this forum.

, this is bullsh**, I would leave the game the as soon as i loged on and found out
It's worse then making the complex, doing eather of things would make ti too hard for newbes gto get going
even now, can u see a newbe gitting into the top 100 in two years time even with the help from an alliance
I'm working on an idea to keep the game fresh as we speak, this my even be included. but the idea my never be implmented because it would tack forever to code, and would need some better survers

While I don't agree entirely with this suggestion I do think something needs to be done about players who have 0 weapons and just put all their money into covert. Sitting there with no threat of being sabotaged as they have nothing to lose anyway. I do think we need to introduce something that can destroy covert.

[daedalus] wrote:In my opinion that would ruin the game, if someone destroyed me right now i would just stop playing, it took me a lot of time to even get where i am now. Sure sometimes i would love to just obliterate someone but that someone would normally be too good for me to beat anyway and it would then take away the fun of the game for them...they wouldn't be able to catch up very easily if i have a few months head start!

Oh and one last point, what is there to stop them just destroying you again and again when you are trying to get back up?

Also it would require a significant loss for the attacker, as they would be of a rank similiar to your own.

And of course why should there be any reason not to destroy you again.

[aussie babsy] wrote: , this is bullsh**, I would leave the game the as soon as i loged on and found out
It's worse then making the complex, doing eather of things would make ti too hard for newbes gto get going
even now, can u see a newbe gitting into the top 100 in two years time even with the help from an alliance
I'm working on an idea to keep the game fresh as we speak, this my even be included. but the idea my never be implmented because it would tack forever to code, and would need some better survers

It took me 4months to hit top 100. I probably wasted a couple of weeks amongst there. So 2 years is a bit of a hit and miss. What is this complex you talk about?

Looking forward to seeing your idea.

I thought Aussies had more fortitude, and fighting spirit, gues not.

not when somone comsup with the Idea that u can louse evey thing