StarGateWars Forums

How does one alliance beat another?

Do you consider a win is only when one surrenders?

Or is a win when you have completely dominated and continue to sit on an alliance?

How can one win a war if the over side sits around with nothing to kill?

depends on the situation mate. if its a war with rules or just a shedueled war than the rules specify. if its by other means than its really in ones opinion of what they intended to do to said alliance and if they actually did it.

Currently working on a new Fun War method of deciding on who wins.

3 alliances against each other. they war. each member of the alliances votes for which of the other two alliances they think were better. Votes are counted at the end and the winner is the alliance with the most votes.
Any attempts to fix the results means a -15 votes penalty.

This means people will be going all out for the war in order to win. People will try and mass each person in order to get the vote so nobody will be left out. Doing stupid stuff gets you noticed so gets you votes. (Like building a 10t defence, or massing a 10t defence with a huge ms when yours is tiny)
The rule on fixing results means there is room for politics, double, and even tripple dealing so adds an extra layer.

Man Called Jim wrote:Currently working on a new Fun War method of deciding on who wins.

3 alliances against each other. they war. each member of the alliances votes for which of the other two alliances they think were better. Votes are counted at the end and the winner is the alliance with the most votes.
Any attempts to fix the results means a -15 votes penalty.

This means people will be going all out for the war in order to win. People will try and mass each person in order to get the vote so nobody will be left out. Doing stupid stuff gets you noticed so gets you votes. (Like building a 10t defence, or massing a 10t defence with a huge ms when yours is tiny)
The rule on fixing results means there is room for politics, double, and even tripple dealing so adds an extra layer.

I like that idea. would need a bit or work(work out the weak points etc) but it could lead to some fun, competitive wars.

Man Called Jim wrote:Currently working on a new Fun War method of deciding on who wins.

3 alliances against each other. they war. each member of the alliances votes for which of the other two alliances they think were better. Votes are counted at the end and the winner is the alliance with the most votes.
Any attempts to fix the results means a -15 votes penalty.

This means people will be going all out for the war in order to win. People will try and mass each person in order to get the vote so nobody will be left out. Doing stupid stuff gets you noticed so gets you votes. (Like building a 10t defence, or massing a 10t defence with a huge ms when yours is tiny)
The rule on fixing results means there is room for politics, double, and even tripple dealing so adds an extra layer.

Sounds like an interesting concept. The problem is, everyone is going to vote for their own alliance, regardless if they won or loss.

Maybe if you brought in an outside party and kept fantastic statistics, it could make it truthful.

The point is, you cant vote for your own alliance...

Kinda depends on the war. If it`s a "normal" one then the current meters are fine.

If it`s a "personal" one, the only way is to brake the guy behind the account. And untill you do that (if you can do that), no objectifialbe qualification admin or public oppinion comes up with will work. So even thinking of them is a waste of time.

I think G.W. conclusivly demonstrated that unilaterar declarations of victory are ineffective some years back hehe...

dazman wrote:How does one alliance beat another?

Do you consider a win is only when one surrenders?

Or is a win when you have completely dominated and continue to sit on an alliance?

How can one win a war if the over side sits around with nothing to kill?

In open ended wars game mechanics make accounts/alliances unbeatable, only the will power of the players can be beaten, and in the case of hard core players that will power will never falter. Such wars will only end when everyone either grows up, moves on from the game or have what drunks call 'a moment of clarity' and realise the truth

The only truly winnable wars ( as in best alliance/accounts/players can gain true victory ) are when winning conditions and time limits are agreed up front.

When someone admits defeat...I(My alliace) won."Sitting" on an account doesn't make you aything but someone with too many ATs...

You show them with resuming your normal game play?

The war is won when you have reached the goals you set for this war. Everything after that is just plain stubbornness of a few people in charge that can't have a mature, unbiased, view and shall never grow up.

~N

they must admit defeat

Man Called Jim wrote:Currently working on a new Fun War method of deciding on who wins.

3 alliances against each other. they war. each member of the alliances votes for which of the other two alliances they think were better. Votes are counted at the end and the winner is the alliance with the most votes.
Any attempts to fix the results means a -15 votes penalty.

This means people will be going all out for the war in order to win. People will try and mass each person in order to get the vote so nobody will be left out. Doing stupid stuff gets you noticed so gets you votes. (Like building a 10t defence, or massing a 10t defence with a huge ms when yours is tiny)
The rule on fixing results means there is room for politics, double, and even tripple dealing so adds an extra layer.

but if one alliance has alot more members than the other two, they are at a disadvantage?

i have suggested this a couple weeks back.
the idea is having a set time for the war, and the winner is determined by averaging the ranks of the sides.

bebita wrote:they must admit defeat

only way it should be done