StarGateWars Forums

ppl are stating that a war is useless as nothing to be gained / lost, maybe this is an idea

Group A wars Group B, war needs to be declared and accepted.
during this war attack and defense troops fight as one army
war won by ingame stats % (better ideas ?)
duration of the war 1 - 2 weeks (maybe 1 month ?)
lets say Group A wins the war, this results that Group A gains 10% stat bonus compared to Group B (10% on attack, defense, covert and MS) or Group B loses 10% stats compared to Group A ( do we want to reward or punish ?) for duration of 3 months or less if the alliance leader of Group A official accepts the surrender of Group B ( timer available up to 90 days )

means :
if player of Group B fights player of Group A after losing the war, he would face a 10% stat difference but if player of Group B fights player C, not in the war before his stats remain the same.

disbanding or ppl leaving Group B (losing side) does not lift the loss of stats, leaving Group A (winning side) does void the benefits

not accepting the war declaration within 48hrs will result in loss of 3% stats for duration of 2 weeks

Orpheus wrote:ppl are stating that a war is useless as nothing to be gained / lost, maybe this is an idea

Group A wars Group B, war needs to be declared and accepted.
during this war attack and defense troops fight as one army
war won by ingame stats % (better ideas ?)
duration of the war 1 - 2 weeks (maybe 1 month ?)
lets say Group A wins the war, this results that Group A gains 10% stat bonus compared to Group B (10% on attack, defense, covert and MS) or Group B loses 10% stats compared to Group A ( do we want to reward or punish ?) for duration of 3 months or less if the alliance leader of Group A official accepts the surrender of Group B ( timer available up to 90 days )

means :
if player of Group B fights player of Group A after losing the war, he would face a 10% stat difference but if player of Group B fights player C, not in the war before his stats remain the same.

disbanding or ppl leaving Group B (losing side) does not lift the loss of stats, leaving Group A (winning side) does void the benefits

not accepting the war declaration within 48hrs will result in loss of 3% stats for duration of 2 weeks

to exploitable.

friendly alliances declaring war on each other prior to war with a real enemy to gain the % bonus. Bigger alliances picking on smaller ones or one who obviously cant win to gain the % bonus from refusal to war.

The need for acceptance is ok since without it the attacking side can wipe out the attack and defense of the defending side in the first wave and nearly insure victory.

Lore wrote:to exploitable.

friendly alliances declaring war on each other prior to war with a real enemy to gain the % bonus. Bigger alliances picking on smaller ones or one who obviously cant win to gain the % bonus from refusal to war.

The need for acceptance is ok since without it the attacking side can wipe out the attack and defense of the defending side in the first wave and nearly insure victory.

my intend is not that way,
the % bonus is only in view of the losing alliance, not compared to the rest of the server

A = winning alliance gains 10% stat bonus compared to B the loosing alliance
but A and B have 100% stats of C being the rest of the server.
the bonus % is only for the 2 warring alliances.

Still, ANY punishment for refusing a war is too harsh.

BenjaminMS wrote:Still, ANY punishment for refusing a war is too harsh.

i think he meant if alliance doesn't accept OR reject the 3% comes in play, i may be wrong though.

Whats to stop an alliance disbanding and then making a new alliance to stop the % loss coming into play? ~Thamuz~

~Thamuz~ wrote:Whats to stop an alliance disbanding and then making a new alliance to stop the % loss coming into play? ~Thamuz~

don't know if possible to keep the players id's and let the % loss continuing on individuals such as disbanders and deserters.

if not, well think everyone can agree that if you need to disband an alliance to evade the consequences, that party lost the war

BenjaminMS wrote:Still, ANY punishment for refusing a war is too harsh.

not in my point of view as it still is wargame after all, that the reason i brought the % for refusing to accept the war invite back to much lower % then actually losing the war...
don't forget, it only counts against the opponent, not the rest of the server

isnt the point of war to prove your dominance? shouldn't the victory be enough, and dont most warring alliances decided to mass anyway if the war request is rejected?
I dont know much about wars though so correct me if im very wrong...

Good idea Orph

I think some more discussion would be nice and who knows, maybe something will come our of it

deni wrote:Good idea Orph

I think some more discussion would be nice and who knows, maybe something will come our of it

Agreed some more discussion is needed, it might be nice if someone could post who understands how to code stuff into this type of game to see if its feasable to be able to do it, as i don't have a scooby!

Orpheus wrote:

Lore wrote:to exploitable.

friendly alliances declaring war on each other prior to war with a real enemy to gain the % bonus. Bigger alliances picking on smaller ones or one who obviously cant win to gain the % bonus from refusal to war.

The need for acceptance is ok since without it the attacking side can wipe out the attack and defense of the defending side in the first wave and nearly insure victory.

my intend is not that way,
the % bonus is only in view of the losing alliance, not compared to the rest of the server

A = winning alliance gains 10% stat bonus compared to B the loosing alliance
but A and B have 100% stats of C being the rest of the server.
the bonus % is only for the 2 warring alliances.

Good intentions are fine...but only in a theoretical situation. <points to Communism>

Plus, two alliances can have a war without declaring it on the game. It would eventually come to the point where real wars wouldn't use the ingame system, and the bullies would.

Orpheus wrote:

~Thamuz~ wrote:Whats to stop an alliance disbanding and then making a new alliance to stop the % loss coming into play? ~Thamuz~

don't know if possible to keep the players id's and let the % loss continuing on individuals such as disbanders and deserters.

if not, well think everyone can agree that if you need to disband an alliance to evade the consequences, that party lost the war

I can accept that. Technically it SHOULD be possible to record the IDs of the players at the start of and in the war, but I'm afraid that might just clog up the MySQL too much. Not totally sure of it though.

Orpheus wrote:

BenjaminMS wrote:Still, ANY punishment for refusing a war is too harsh.

not in my point of view as it still is wargame after all, that the reason i brought the % for refusing to accept the war invite back to much lower % then actually losing the war...
don't forget, it only counts against the opponent, not the rest of the server

Depends on it. It's still too much exploitable. What keeps warmongerers (the negative variant of it) of declaring war on people who've got a nice def and income and who don't like to fight, just to have a better farming chance? As already discussed a lot: you cannot force one playing style upon others. That you notice the effects of it more or less, sure. But you cannot force the permanent warfaring style upon others 'just because'. To take this even further, such behaviour is the reason this game is sickened and needs a medic. Comprende?

Orpheus wrote:

Lore wrote:to exploitable.

friendly alliances declaring war on each other prior to war with a real enemy to gain the % bonus. Bigger alliances picking on smaller ones or one who obviously cant win to gain the % bonus from refusal to war.

The need for acceptance is ok since without it the attacking side can wipe out the attack and defense of the defending side in the first wave and nearly insure victory.

my intend is not that way,
the % bonus is only in view of the losing alliance, not compared to the rest of the server

A = winning alliance gains 10% stat bonus compared to B the loosing alliance
but A and B have 100% stats of C being the rest of the server.
the bonus % is only for the 2 warring alliances.

If you won the war and its over, why do you need the % bonus? are you going to keep attacking them? they why would they ever give up or accept defeat? Most of the time there is peace after a well fought war, doesnt that negate the % bonus?

Also, I dont like the idea of kicking the loser when they are down. During the war fine, but after is over, no.

Not a bad idea though needs some refinement.

For example the war itself. Currently we have seen that the ingame war systems are far too exploitable at the moment and are not used. These would have to be fixed first before this could come into play. Though your suggestion of ingame stats to determine it would need to be percentage based on what each alliance started with in the first place and then I think divided into the actual stat like defence, attack and covert, otherwise there is nothing to stop someone from just training up a heap of covert near the end of the war time and bingo instant win.

Once wars are winnable without the current... well let's face it, the server war, from an outsiders point of view it's a fiasco! But as an example it serves. There needs to be something, besides popular opinion to determine a true victor, then a suggestion like this could be implemented.

ramen07 wrote:Good intentions are fine...but only in a theoretical situation. <points to Communism>

relevance to this topic? i mean everyone knows capitalism is epic fail cos no one ever even tried to do a fully capitalist country

anyways

Fire_of_Venus wrote:There needs to be something, besides popular opinion to determine a true victor, then a suggestion like this could be implemented.

problem here is that there are too many whiny noobs sitting around with no stats except untouchable strikes (because currently strikes below 1.5 tril are pretty much untouchable), go mass everyone who they feel like and still actually try to pretend they have skill or whatever, who would suddenly find themselves being forced to play in a way this game is meant to be played, with building and holding a defense having actually a meaning.

There's a number of solutions that have been presented or implemented on other games (with relative success), but the problem will remain generally the same:
- People here who shout the loudest don't want a skill based game
- People want the game to make everything to require as little effort as possible

open spoiler for showing how problems are interconnected
[spoiler]Imagine making lifers killable, is only 10% of the trained miners but still people will whine because they are in risk of actually losing some units.
Would that be an incentive to surrender a war or agree to a ceasefire? if you know you stand risk of losing a decent part of your army? very likely
problem would be that people would complain that big alliances might bully smaller ones into blackmail, which brings us to 2 easy solutions
- limit at's
- make massing more expensive (10-30 times at least to make attacker lose as much as the defender)
but again you'll have people who want unlimited at's because they have no income of their own, cos that's a good thing during wars, no one farms income off you, and they can simply live off by farming others;
or massing actually requiring skill, so some alliances/players who actually think massing is an achievement nowadays and still like to brag about it, cannot mass anymore so much because they will find out taht they mass 2-3 defenses they mass on a daily basis and their accounts will be reduced to rubble because of the costs involved.[/spoiler]