StarGateWars Forums

Well, since server war is boring, pointless and only need a finnish now, i thought this could be a way to end it? and would determine a winner...

Each side would pick x(xx) of their best players, they would go create a new alliance named FUALL and HR/TTF/whatever you want... The rest of both empires would cease fire for that period of time (or not, but at least against those players).

Those 2 alliance would fight a x days long war with pre set rules (or enter blood realm if it's not bugged). There would be pre-determined rules and alliance that would win, would bring a win for their empire.

Clearly i can't see any other win and if there is any interest for war to end, this might be it...

opinions? any other ideas?

~H

Nice idea, although the war will still rage on probably and one can always argue the fact about choosing "wrong" players to fight this war in case their team loses and that this losing means nothing..

~N

seems a bit boring to me...;

terrible idea

nothing can.t accept surrender from the looser and the war is over
i.m continue to fight for this

HA HA - if you like out leave.

Neimenljivi wrote:Nice idea, although the war will still rage on probably and one can always argue the fact about choosing "wrong" players to fight this war in case their team loses and that this losing means nothing..

~N

lol if they did that then that's more than a little silly

you really think fua would chance a loss and if they lost they would never accept it

and work it out doesn't matter who plays what way fua will always say they are winning

Tbh it won't end, as pride is too much at stake as neither side will settle for anything less than a win...unfortunately.

But its an interesting concept nevertheless, however i don't think its actually fair either side suffers anything less than a win either, a draw is insufficient. What options are left?

i think the idea has potential but there is too much at stake for it to be determined in a single battle like that. its like saying how about all the world leaders fight each other instead of using their armies lol

would be fun to do it anyway though

edit @tropic i like that last bit about both sides being winners. i think compared to every other war taht has gone on both sides can claim to be victors in fighting for so long and remaining wiht their sides thus winners in that sense

R8 TDL wrote:i think the idea has potential but there is too much at stake for it to be determined in a single battle like that. its like saying how about all the world leaders fight each other instead of using their armies lol

would be fun to do it anyway though

edit @tropic i like that last bit about both sides being winners. i think compared to every other war taht has gone on both sides can claim to be victors in fighting for so long and remaining wiht their sides thus winners in that sense

lol
u told u world leaders are the best fighters?

bebita i dont think you understand in the way i implied it. if wars were fought with 1-2 people representing each side then there would be no need to have armies. you get me now.

R8 TDL wrote:bebita i dont think you understand in the way i implied it. if wars were fought with 1-2 people representing each side then there would be no need to have armies. you get me now.

like back in B.C. times one champion Vs one champion

R8 TDL wrote:bebita i dont think you understand in the way i implied it. if wars were fought with 1-2 people representing each side then there would be no need to have armies. you get me now.

neah
OE proposing was very nice
but we know the result from now so is pointless to talk about a pro or against opinion when we know where is the power
better some mod close the topic
is pointless because they does not have fighters
they all left in the first days