StarGateWars Forums

So anyway. I was thinking again to myself "What is the most common rule in place for wars/vendettas"

It seemed to be "You must have a defense when log on of X"

So, what about a war system to which the winner is decided, based on whom has the highest defense for the longest? I'll explain in detail below.

Each turn, during turn change is probably best, the military defensive power of each player in an alliance/team is calculated (This does NOT include MS power, not power granted by planets). This is then summed together, and added to the cumulative total for the alliance/team. The winner, is the team whom has the most accumulated points over the period of the war. Whilst a player is on PPT, their defensive power is NOT added to the over all total for the alliance/team. This allows them to rebuild their defense, but NOT build massive ones, to allow them to gain point boost, as it will not count whilst on PPT.

An exploit i considered, was the training/un-training of units, and buying/selling of weapons. However, this is not really an exploit. If a player was to buy and sell weapons each turn, to protect them from being massed, then they will loose 1/2 the cost of the weapons each turn, as it is now. Similarly, training and un-training units also inflicts a cost. Whilst this is lower then the weapons cost, the weapons can still be easily killed by anyone, as they have no units to use them.

So, what are peoples thoughts?

Sarevok wrote:So anyway. I was thinking again to myself "What is the most common rule in place for wars/vendettas"

It seemed to be "You must have a defense when log on of X"

So, what about a war system to which the winner is decided, based on whom has the highest defense for the longest? I'll explain in detail below.

Each turn, during turn change is probably best, the military defensive power of each player in an alliance/team is calculated (This does NOT include MS power, not power granted by planets). This is then summed together, and added to the cumulative total for the alliance/team. The winner, is the team whom has the most accumulated points over the period of the war. Whilst a player is on PPT, their defensive power is NOT added to the over all total for the alliance/team. This allows them to rebuild their defense, but NOT build massive ones, to allow them to gain point boost, as it will not count whilst on PPT.

An exploit i considered, was the training/un-training of units, and buying/selling of weapons. However, this is not really an exploit. If a player was to buy and sell weapons each turn, to protect them from being massed, then they will loose 1/2 the cost of the weapons each turn, as it is now. Similarly, training and un-training units also inflicts a cost. Whilst this is lower then the weapons cost, the weapons can still be easily killed by anyone, as they have no units to use them.

So, what are peoples thoughts?

seems good

Its a great Idea and I would be willing to support it 100% to see it added to the game.

Seems very good

It'll be biased towards $$$ spenders, and those who have more armysize imo.
It instead should take % of Army used as def supers into account. (As to, not include planets)

SuperSaiyan wrote:I'd rather the calc's for alliance wars get fixed first

Maybe once the alliance bank update is brought out

CABAL wrote:It'll be biased towards $$$ spenders, and those who have more armysize imo.
It instead should take % of Army used as def supers into account. (As to, not include planets)

ANY war is advantaged by $$$.
% of Army used as def supers: Have to disagree here. If an alliance of players whom lets say have ONLY 30 units, and there ALL trained into super defenders. Then as you should know, the last 39 super defenders are NEVER killed. Thus, they would win hands down in ANY war.
Also, you could just broker your UU away for the war. And get it back as needed/have the brokers rejected.

First fix the war types in place already, but I guess thats coming up right after the alliance bank update.


Its not an accurate measure by any means either. A 3 mill army size can not replace a defense like a 30 mill or a 300 million army size can. Secondly it favors those with the most "online time". So just like all the other bugged, never tweaked, and left to rot, war types it will never be used because it is exploitable and the winner will be defined before the war ever starts.

I am still amused at what people are willing to do for nothing more then a piece of red ribbon.

Not knocking the idea, just stating its only useful to a very select few, and falls far short of doing things like just fixing the game systems in place now.

Sarevok wrote:So anyway. I was thinking again to myself "What is the most common rule in place for wars/vendettas"

It seemed to be "You must have a defense when log on of X"

So, what about a war system to which the winner is decided, based on whom has the highest defense for the longest? I'll explain in detail below.

Each turn, during turn change is probably best, the military defensive power of each player in an alliance/team is calculated (This does NOT include MS power, not power granted by planets). This is then summed together, and added to the cumulative total for the alliance/team. The winner, is the team whom has the most accumulated points over the period of the war. Whilst a player is on PPT, their defensive power is NOT added to the over all total for the alliance/team. This allows them to rebuild their defense, but NOT build massive ones, to allow them to gain point boost, as it will not count whilst on PPT.

An exploit i considered, was the training/un-training of units, and buying/selling of weapons. However, this is not really an exploit. If a player was to buy and sell weapons each turn, to protect them from being massed, then they will loose 1/2 the cost of the weapons each turn, as it is now. Similarly, training and un-training units also inflicts a cost. Whilst this is lower then the weapons cost, the weapons can still be easily killed by anyone, as they have no units to use them.

So, what are peoples thoughts?

i have 3 things:
1) nox/defcon should affect the score gained.
2) i would make it based on rank, not raw power. to be honest, i don't have any good reason to back this up, just seems more reasonable to me.
3) i still think it should be based on the overall rank, taking into account attack, cov/ac and MS (and probably a penalty for a sent out MS).
other than that, sounds very good to me.
now pitch it to jason

Hitchkok wrote:i have 3 things:
1) nox/defcon should affect the score gained.
2) i would make it based on rank, not raw power. to be honest, i don't have any good reason to back this up, just seems more reasonable to me.
3) i still think it should be based on the overall rank, taking into account attack, cov/ac and MS (and probably a penalty for a sent out MS).
other than that, sounds very good to me.
now pitch it to jason

1) Well, to that end, I'm not so sure. Since both sides can use it, it's not really a bias to a side is it? Weather you have it or not, the losses you take, are proportional to the units/weapons trained/built (unless I'm mistaken). I cant see why it should, have you some reasoning for it?
2) Why would rank be much different? It's not really fair, if someone build a rank1 defense of lets say 50T, and the other side build a rank2 defense of lets say 30T. That's almost 50% power difference, for a single rank. UNLESS you were to have a logarithmic scale. Sorta like the G&R is. Top10 grants you say 100 points. Top 11-50 gets you 75 points. 50-100 40, and 100-500 25 or something.

3) I have a personal bias AGAINST attack being included. Considering the easy at which they can be build, and difficulty to bring down (unless it had the blood realm rule, whereby attack units can be killed once all defenders (or less then 100k) are killed off).
The others i don't mind. But considering it's almost a certain rule that defenses are kept, defense i feel should be the main point-scoring stat.

Sarevok wrote:1) Well, to that end, I'm not so sure. Since both sides can use it, it's not really a bias to a side is it? Weather you have it or not, the losses you take, are proportional to the units/weapons trained/built (unless I'm mistaken). I cant see why it should, have you some reasoning for it?
2) Why would rank be much different? It's not really fair, if someone build a rank1 defense of lets say 50T, and the other side build a rank2 defense of lets say 30T. That's almost 50% power difference, for a single rank. UNLESS you were to have a logarithmic scale. Sorta like the G&R is. Top10 grants you say 100 points. Top 11-50 gets you 75 points. 50-100 40, and 100-500 25 or something.

3) I have a personal bias AGAINST attack being included. Considering the easy at which they can be build, and difficulty to bring down (unless it had the blood realm rule, whereby attack units can be killed once all defenders (or less then 100k) are killed off).
The others i don't mind. But considering it's almost a certain rule that defenses are kept, defense i feel should be the main point-scoring stat.

1) so is PPT, for that matter. that was my reasoning.
2) like i said, can't really come up with a logical explanation, but this is kinda why i think it should be based on ranks. seems to me it would make things more dinamic. logarithmic scale might be intresting, only thing is, what if everyone is in the same range?
3) i know you have a bias against attack, but let's face it, including it brings a new level of tactics. if it's only defence that counts, the returns for sabbing an opponent are greatly reduced.

now, let me be honest here, i have no idea what the real effects of this suggestion will be, and as such i have no real objection to it.
i think my ideas will work better, but can't really back them up.
as it is not likely to just create something perfect on the first attempt, my vote is on putting anything up for trial, seeing how it fares, then ammending it

Hitchkok wrote:1) so is PPT, for that matter. that was my reasoning.
2) like i said, can't really come up with a logical explanation, but this is kinda why i think it should be based on ranks. seems to me it would make things more dinamic. logarithmic scale might be intresting, only thing is, what if everyone is in the same range?
3) i know you have a bias against attack, but let's face it, including it brings a new level of tactics. if it's only defence that counts, the returns for sabbing an opponent are greatly reduced.

now, let me be honest here, i have no idea what the real effects of this suggestion will be, and as such i have no real objection to it.
i think my ideas will work better, but can't really back them up.
as it is not likely to just create something perfect on the first attempt, my vote is on putting anything up for trial, seeing how it fares, then ammending it

Based off what you said, proposed amendments:
1) The points lost is proportional to the income lost when on Nox/Realm Alert (Eg, Nox + Critical only give 27% of the points)

2) Thats fine. Just means the war points will be close, and the team that wins can't boast as much, if they only win by like 5% lol

3) I'm not so sure attack does. If it would, considering it's extreme difficulty to remove, would only be at a maximum 50% point gains compared with that of defense

You wanna make it interesting, i see a few enemies with 2trill strikes and little to no defense, i suggested along time ago that either link attack and defense, ( which may make it harder for some, and easier with those with planets )

Or

If the enemy has 0 def, sabbing of attack weapons is 5x-10x as powerful, that would hurt the enemy, instead of 30k weapons it be 150k-300k sabbed out.

That way you can do maximum damage, and it still involves a certain level of skill.

GC, is that just a general suggestion? Or a rule change for the War. And then make attack points earned similar to defense points?

SuperSaiyan wrote:

Lore wrote:First fix the war types in place already, but I guess thats coming up right after the alliance bank update.

Zing!

oooh it must be soon then!
Right after Q resets and he can finish up the last bit of the alliance bank update!
Only 45% to do...
lets calculate...
55% took him a year and a bit...
so 45% should only take a year!

Man Called Jim wrote:

SuperSaiyan wrote:

Lore wrote:First fix the war types in place already, but I guess thats coming up right after the alliance bank update.

Zing!

oooh it must be soon then!
Right after Q resets and he can finish up the last bit of the alliance bank update!
Only 45% to do...
lets calculate...
55% took him a year and a bit...
so 45% should only take a year!

That's terrible logic.

Everyone knows, then further along you get, the LONGER each % takes to get finished.
If 50% took a year, then the next 25% will take another, the following, 10% another year, and so on