StarGateWars Forums

Posted: **Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:49 am**

what?
- as suggessted by topic.

how?
1) at the end of each turn of the war the ranks of all players of either side are summed, then divided by the number of players.
2) this number is the side's score for the turn, and is visible to all players of BOTH sides.
3) also visible is the overall score, calculated by summing the turn scores.
4) five final turns count for double.
5) side with lower score, wins.

why?
1) ranks are measurement of military effectiveness (by definition!). having lower rank -> having stronger army.
2) visible to both sides as an aid for decision making and strategy.
3) wars will end when an overwhelming (10X) difference in overall score is made.
4) whoever sustain hes power in the end of the war clearly strategised better, and is thus rewarded.
5) stronger army -> lower rank -> lower score

Posted: **Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:53 am**

nice idea: but what if the whole alliance ploughs UU into AC, then its not because they have strategised better, it is because the other side dont want to do triple damage to themselves.

Posted: **Wed Dec 02, 2009 9:55 am**

I do like the idea a lot as it forces people to build something to destroy but as AoH said ... it can be abused a lot. ok, you can lifer suicide AC but people simply could go on PPT and train a huge amount of spies / assassins for that time. So the idea would only work in case PPT wouldn't be allowed during the war.

Posted: **Wed Dec 02, 2009 10:00 am**

or if those on ppt werent included in the average

i know that you can lifer, but thats what i meant when i said the enemies would have to lose triple

Posted: **Wed Dec 02, 2009 10:16 am**

you could also just train the AC right before turn change and untrain after?

Posted: **Wed Dec 02, 2009 10:24 am**

Aesthetics of Hate wrote:nice idea: but what if the whole alliance ploughs UU into AC, then its not because they have strategised better, it is because the other side dont want to do triple damage to themselves.

what then?
it's a viable strategy.
just means they'll have less attackers and defenders.
and that they'll lose alot more AC each time they attack.

Reschef wrote:as AoH said ... it can be abused a lot.

well, no it CAN'T.
why? because.

hitchkok wrote:1) ranks are measurement of military effectiveness (by definition!). having lower rank -> having stronger army.
5) stronger army -> lower rank -> lower score.

Reschef wrote: So the idea would only work in case PPT wouldn't be allowed during the war.

that's a good idea.

Aesthetics of Hate wrote: i know that you can lifer, but thats what i meant when i said the enemies would have to lose triple

yeh, cause lifers are SOOOO important

Man Called Jim wrote:you could also just train the AC right before turn change and untrain after?

only if youre online during the entire war.

Posted: **Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:47 pm**

I hate to tell you this hitchkok Lifers ARE important, just as miners are - they are your bank space. Lifers for the base bank space that you can't lose. Miners can be lost when you retrain them so please don't go saying lifers aren't important.

I like this as an idea - aka end or declare a war winner - but I would do it differently. Instead I would sum the individual stats and average them.

So that you get ranked on your attack, defence, covert, MS and AC. That way even if an alliance ploughs everything into AC it does them no good as they only win one of the categories. The rest would be won by the other alliance and then declared the winner. However an extra average for army size and alliance size would also be needed or the alliance with 50 people will pawn the alliance with 5 every time.

That's about the only viable way of doing this one that I can see.

Though would this be for the set wars? or say for when two alliances are mutually set to hostile?

Posted: **Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:06 pm**

Its a good idea Tekki.

What if, instead of basing it off rank. You base the waring parties stats against each other? This would stop the AC training, as both sides would be able to do it. But also, people would KNOW that they would be trained, and could hit over turn change, to try and get those highly trained units.

But here's the idea.

Base the 5 areas against each waring party. Atk vs Atk, Def vs Def, etc.
Take the total of each stat, average it by the number of players on the side of the war, and that's their value. The opposition is also calculated in the same way, and their average worked out.
These values are then compared, and whomever has the higher of the two, will gain a point for that area.
In short, you can gain between 0 and 5 points each turn, and whomever maybe gets to 2x (since the increments are smaller) their opponent, after 2 days of war, or whomever has the larger value at the end of the war period, is the winner.
Also, lag wouldn't really be an issue. Since the lag generated atm, is due to what, over 50k ranks be calculated with all the inactives around. Whereas this, is simply done for those whom are in a war (maybe 500 tops at any 1 time, 1/100 of the total size of the game)

Posted: **Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:27 pm**

Am I missing something?

What good is this if the armies are not equal?

10 member alliance with 50 mill average size versus a 40 member alliance averaging 250 mill size? This system wont work.

Secondly, this is completely backwards in thinking. To WIN the war you have to give your opponent MORE to kill? Heck I would rather Lose the war and see my opponent having lost 3 to 4 times as much as me in men and resources.

Point is, if your going to "lose" (lose as being defined as substaining more losses then your enemy), then why fight? This is a snipers dream come true, perfect for 1 hit wonders and all strike accounts.

which is more important to you? haveing the words "winner" on your screen, or having an account left when its done?

All this does is make it so the one "losing" more resources wins the war, and I don't really care anything about winning under those conditions.

Posted: **Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:33 pm**

You would not wish to loose the war, if it meant tyrant-like domination though, would you?

Posted: **Wed Dec 02, 2009 8:47 pm**

Tekki wrote:I hate to tell you this hitchkok Lifers ARE important, just as miners are - they are your bank space. Lifers for the base bank space that you can't lose. Miners can be lost when you retrain them so please don't go saying lifers aren't important.

point taken.

Tekki wrote:I like this as an idea - aka end or declare a war winner - but I would do it differently. Instead I would sum the individual stats and average them.

So that you get ranked on your attack, defence, covert, MS and AC. That way even if an alliance ploughs everything into AC it does them no good as they only win one of the categories. The rest would be won by the other alliance and then declared the winner.

okay, there are 3 possibilities. either you are refering to
1) the stats ranks,
2) the raw stats,
3) what sarevok suggest in his post.

here's the rebuttle
1) ther's no difference here, as ranks are based on individual stats ranks.
here is how the math works out
[spoiler]let M a set containing the ranking of the entire server.
let U ("upper case alliance") be a set, containing the subsets A',B',C'...N' (members of said alliance(note: N' represents the fact that the set is finite, not that it has 14 members)).
let subset X (note: this is X, denoting any of the subsets, NOT the specific subset X') contain the objects X1,X2,X3,X4 (the stats rankings).

let L ("lower case alliance") be a set, containing the subsets a',b',c'...n' (members of said alliance (note: n' represents the fact that the set is finite, not that it has 14 members)).
let subset x (note: this is x, denoting any of the subsets, NOT the specific subset x') contain the objects x1,x2,x3,x4 (the rankings of a specifiec players stats).
let S stand for U score.
let s stand for L score.
____n
let sigma x (underlines are for the spacing)
____a
stand for the sum of a through n (a+b+c....n) (again, n means that the set is finite, not that there are 14 objects).

led DXY be an operator "deploy", which ranks subset X from highest to lowest, in the set Y. (the ranking engine).
NOTE: D will ALWAYS return the lowest number for the lowest object (although it will be a different number).

my suggestion will take the form of
______N'_____X4
S*N=sigma D(sigma X)M (underlines are for the spacing)
______A'_____X1

______n'_____x4
s*n=sigma D(sigma x)M (underlines are for the spacing)
______a'_____x1

teki's suggestion will be

______N'_____X4
S*N=sigma (sigma X) (underlines are for the spacing)
______A'_____X1

______n'_____x4
s*n=sigma (sigma x) (underlines are for the spacing)
______a'______x1

since D will ALWAYS return the lowest number for the lowest object, this is the same suggestion.

admittedly, there is some to be said of this analysis in term of mathematical conventions and rigor, but it is true non the less[/spoiler]
EDITED: some clarificatinon notes added.

2) Totaly, totaly unacceptble as it is much more abuseable. will not solve the problem AoH pointed out, and would make it worse. no defences at all would be built, and the war would become an all out race to get NAQ for MS and UU for AC and attackers.

3)it is alot more abuseable, since the margin in each field would count to nought. kind of like the electoral system in the USA, where a candidate can theoritacly have just over 25% of the popular vote and still be elected

Tekki wrote:However an extra average for army size and alliance size would also be needed or the alliance with 50 people will pawn the alliance with 5 every time.

1) not if the 5 people alliance has stronger members
2) to be brutally frank, the 5 people alliance shouldn't get into a war with the 50 people one.

Tekki wrote:Though would this be for the set wars? or say for when two alliances are mutually set to hostile?

for the set wars only.

Lore wrote:Am I missing something?

What good is this if the armies are not equal?

10 member alliance with 50 mill average size versus a 40 member alliance averaging 250 mill size? This system wont work.

am i missing something?
should 0.5 bil soldiers be even a match to 10 bil?
all's fair in love and war. small alliances shouldn't get over their head.

Lore wrote:Secondly, this is completely backwards in thinking. To WIN the war you have to give your opponent MORE to kill? Heck I would rather Lose the war and see my opponent having lost 3 to 4 times as much as me in men and resources.

to win a war you have to have a stronger army (should have gone without saying, actually). since a stronger army means a larger army, yes, your opponent would have more to kill.

Lore wrote:Point is, if your going to "lose" (lose as being defined as substaining more losses then your enemy), then why fight? This is a snipers dream come true, perfect for 1 hit wonders and all strike accounts.

you got it all wrong.
losing has never and will never be defined as sustaining more losses than your opponents.
losing on the tactical level is failing to acomplish your mission and or to prevent your enemy from accomplishing his.
on a strategic level it is failing to achive your political goals.
if your opponnent is a tenth your size, you can sustain 5 times the losses, and still force him into submission, thus winning. in this game, as mentioned countless time, it is near impossible to force an opponnent of reasonable size into submission, since the attrition isn't high enough. so artificial means have to be interduced.
one might also ask, even if you're going to win, why fight? you just lose units and resources.
and since this system is based on sustaining rank, how exactly is it beneficial to snipers etc.?

Lore wrote:which is more important to you? haveing the words "winner" on your screen, or having an account left when its done?

by all means, having the word winner.
cause accuont sizes come and go, and frankly, it gets boring real fast to just sit there with an account all built up and frightened to do anything with it.
and you might want to look at this here post.
especialy the last paragraph.

Lore wrote:All this does is make it so the one "losing" more resources wins the war, and I don't really care anything about winning under those conditions.

care to give me an argument to rebut?
for now, this will do: "no, it doesen't."

Posted: **Thu Dec 03, 2009 3:25 am**

hitchkok wrote:3) what sarevok suggest in his post.

here's the rebuttle

3)it is alot more abuseable, since the margin in each field would count to nought. kind of like the electoral system in the USA, where a candidate can theoritacly have just over 25% of the popular vote and still be elected

I'm unsure how that works in relation to what i said. Perhaps you misunderstood, or perhaps i did.
The idea was more based on, average the alliance power in an area, compare the 2 between the waring parties, and you receive a point if you have largest, or none, if you are not largest. Whilst it's true, you can win by simply holding 3/5 stats highest for the longest. You also need to keep that form the enemy, and other opportunistic vultures

Posted: **Thu Dec 03, 2009 4:35 am**

point i was making is that a win in one area by a margin of one cancels a lose by any margin.
so you leave out two areas, focus on the other 3, hoping that your enemy divides his attention equally.
now, lets say you focus on attack, MS, and AC.
your attack can't be killed, neither can your AC's and you conveniantly chose to planet search right now.
no military tactic in the world can beat that. only economic one.

"what if your attacked is sabed?" you might ask.
well then, let's look at the user guide's calculations section:
Sabotage Success Calculation: Your Covert Action must be higher than their covert action (adjusted by their defcon rate).

Sabotage Damage Calculation: Your Covert Action minus their covert action (adjusted by their defcon rate) to a maximum of 5900 weapon power, or 2 percent of their total weapon power -whichever is greater. This is doubled if both parties are at war. The damage goes from lowest strength weapons, upwards, destroying as many as possible until you have no damage potential left, or your damage potential left is smaller than the strength of the next weapon.

covert action ( ( (sqrt(2^spyLvl) x spies x %increase techs x %increse race ) + spies ) * 10 )

the important thing to realize is that past a certain point, adding spies doesn't add to much to your covert. it take 5 spies to double your action if you only have 5, but it takes 1 mil to do it again if you already have 1 mil.
your spy level, on the other hand has a tremeandous affect. it multiplays the action by over 1.4 per level. and that can't be taken away. get prepared long enough in advance, have a reasonable amount of spies (whice your opponnent won't AC, because he wants to keep his ACs save), and your home free.
once again, it all boils down to NAQ.

BTW, i just edited my last post to include a rebuttle to lore's post

Posted: **Thu Dec 03, 2009 5:53 pm**

hitchkok wrote:

Lore wrote:Am I missing something?

What good is this if the armies are not equal?

10 member alliance with 50 mill average size versus a 40 member alliance averaging 250 mill size? This system wont work.

am i missing something?
should 0.5 bil soldiers be even a match to 10 bil?
all's fair in love and war. small alliances shouldn't get over their head.
so its going to be ok for larger alliances to go around bullying smaller ones and Forcing them to lose? I still say its to exploitable in those reguards. Only way it "might" work is if it is agreed upon by both sides, and then its still exploitable as will be shown below.

Lore wrote:Secondly, this is completely backwards in thinking. To WIN the war you have to give your opponent MORE to kill? Heck I would rather Lose the war and see my opponent having lost 3 to 4 times as much as me in men and resources.

to win a war you have to have a stronger army (should have gone without saying, actually). since a stronger army means a larger army, yes, your opponent would have more to kill.
So you agree with me then, it would be pure stupidity for a stronger opponent, or one who maintains stats to even fight this style of war against normaly or presently used tactics?

Lore wrote:Point is, if your going to "lose" (lose as being defined as substaining more losses then your enemy), then why fight? This is a snipers dream come true, perfect for 1 hit wonders and all strike accounts.

you got it all wrong.
losing has never and will never be defined as sustaining more losses than your opponents.
Umm, if that is your opinion/definition then I accept that, but many many people, myself included, think that is EXACTLY what losing means. Yeah you made a guy 100th of your size submit, but now you are the same size as him, so who Realllly won?

losing on the tactical level is failing to acomplish your mission and or to prevent your enemy from accomplishing his.
on a strategic level it is failing to achive your political goals.
if your opponnent is a tenth your size, you can sustain 5 times the losses, and still force him into submission, thus winning. in this game, as mentioned countless time, it is near impossible to force an opponnent of reasonable size into submission, since the attrition isn't high enough. so artificial means have to be interduced.
one might also ask, even if you're going to win, why fight? you just lose units and resources.
and since this system is based on sustaining rank, how exactly is it beneficial to snipers etc.?
It benificial to sniper as explained below

Example, I and 4 friends start a war with another alliance consisting of 25 members all 10 times stronger with 10 times total size. We maintain nothing but strike and use gorrilla tactics, they maintain stats and rebuild after every attack for a red ribbon that says "winner" on it. At the end of the war, they are declared the "winner". It is also noted that the 5 of us are the same total size and power of the 25 because we lost practicaly no resources where they lost everything.

Now who really won?
And even if they got a bit of coloered ribbon, I still achived my goal or ruining them ingame while not suffering any myself, so again I ask, who really won?
Lore wrote:which is more important to you? haveing the words "winner" on your screen, or having an account left when its done?
by all means, having the word winner.
Then you are one of a few, I do not know where to think you heroic or stupid, and that is not an insult, so dont take it as one. Personally if everyone fought like that the game would be awsome, but they don't so this tactic is suicide. JMO
cause accuont sizes come and go, and frankly, it gets boring real fast to just sit there with an account all built up and frightened to do anything with it.
Why are you frightened? There is a difference in a hard fought battle with men of honor, and blindly and stupidly throwing resources at a ME hound who can suck up everything you throw out to be destroyed. Q proved he could kill 50 mill men and only lose 2 mill men doing it. You really want to expend that kind of resources? You really want to piss away 500 mill men to kill 50 mill?
and you might want to look at this here post.
especialy the last paragraph.
Please elaborate more, because I am honestly sketchy as to your meaning.

Lore wrote:All this does is make it so the one "losing" more resources wins the war, and I don't really care anything about winning under those conditions.

care to give me an argument to rebut?
for now, this will do: "no, it doesen't."

Gues we can agree to disagree, because that is exactly how I see it. ONLY way its not, is if its a battle between 2 players who actually agree to fight in this manner. If anyone reverts back to the tactics commonly used today, then this is worthless to me, but its JMO.

Posted: **Fri Dec 04, 2009 3:48 am**

All the areas you mentioned are based, again on resources. And resources SHOULD be what wins a war, apart from tactics. However, since this game doesn't really have advanced tactics (like flanking, or long ranged to prevent damage) then resources it is.

Sure, you want to train 100m AC units to win that area. But what happens if a few people NOT involved in the war, see your generous donation to their ME?
Why is sabbing attack hard? You didn't focus on covert, so sabbing with like 10 units, is a piece of cake to take down your attack.
You keep sending your MS out, and they can keep using their damaged one, to kill off more spies, or defense units. Or take planets from you, reducing your stats, if you have any planets.
Maybe they'll farm you all the time, cause you have no defense, which would allow them to boost the areas they lack in.

Also, so what if you win the point by a tiny margin, boost your stat, and when you beat them by the same margin, it doesn't seem so bad. If it becomes such an issue, just use a percentage to work out how much of a point (or 100 points to make it easier) you get, rather then out right?

StarGateWars Forums

(yet another) way of deciding the winner of wars

(yet another) way of deciding the winner of wars

Re: (yet another) way of deciding the winner of wars

Re: (yet another) way of deciding the winner of wars

Re: (yet another) way of deciding the winner of wars

Re: (yet another) way of deciding the winner of wars

Re: (yet another) way of deciding the winner of wars

Re: (yet another) way of deciding the winner of wars

Re: (yet another) way of deciding the winner of wars

Re: (yet another) way of deciding the winner of wars

Re: (yet another) way of deciding the winner of wars

Re: (yet another) way of deciding the winner of wars

Re: (yet another) way of deciding the winner of wars

Re: (yet another) way of deciding the winner of wars

Re: (yet another) way of deciding the winner of wars

Re: (yet another) way of deciding the winner of wars