StarGateWars Forums

Ok every1 this is my 1st post ,so don't go crazy at me if this has already been suggested . My idea is that players should be allowed to make agreements or pacts with other players:

There would be 3 basic types:

1-Offensive
2-Defensive
3-Trade

(1) Offensive – a player invites another player to have a Treaty, this treaty means that when either of the players attacks another player a percentage of the player with whom u have a pact with’s attack power is added to your own .
e.g. player A has an agreement with player B. A attacks C and a % of B’s attack is given to A in order to help in a battle. After the battle A and B are both returned their troops & weps and have to repair there damage! This is then repeated next time either A or B attack another player.
(2) Defensive – see above, same idea but with defense.
(3) Trade (players with SS only) – with this agreement players who have pacts between them can transfer resources without the usual 1% desertion rate. Also the receiving player is given a bolstered def, like a temp Defense treaty so that the resources are not stolen, or temp PPT (5mins) instead, this is only an idea so don’t bite my head off as I know many people won’t like it!

Now that I have given a brief outline of my idea I will list any possible pro’s and cons and how I will combat cons.
Pros: you get better chances of winning battles with help from m8’s
You would no longer have to worry abt losing 1% of transferred UU and also your trades would be more secure, although some people won’t like this.

Cons: Many people would make multiple treaties with loads of players, e.g. Alliances using it to make themselves unbeatable, my solution: impose a limit on the no. of treaties u can have ie 3 of each.
If u r a strong player many weaker players would seek to make treaties with u (if u didn’t already have the max) solution: treaties MUST be by MUTUAL AGREEMENT!!!
If u r a weak player then u will want to make treaties with more powerful players, but they might aready have the max no. of treaties. Solution any1?
U might be in a 1 sided treaty ie u defend them and then they break the treaty, solution: must be 2 way and have a 24hr (or more) obligation (like with commanders).

Ok that’s all I can think of, I know this suggestion will have holes in it and u will try to tear it 2 shreads, but that’s to b expected . So please make any comments u feel r neccesarry.

The biggest con of all is that the trade treatycould be massively abused by players with multi-accounts. And before someone says it can't be because of the new code that stops transfer of resources between any accounts that have ever used the same IP - it is not difficult to set up different accounts on your home/work/friends pc.

Additionally, the other types of treaties may be misused - for instance - player A may attack player C, therefore unwittingly involving player B - player C subsequently gets his buddies to sab player B to the stoneage -player B logs in and wonders what the hell happened! You're essentially talking about giving someone a degree of control over your account - and this has massive implications for abuse.

Ah, yes gd point abt the IP thing, do u have any ideas of how to counter that?
Also i think that the fact that player B would not be mentioned! e.g. player A attacks, with additional support units, not specifying who from! This would mean that C could not attack B as he/she wouldn't know who they where! Also the player who is aiding u could recieve a PM or addition to his/her attack log! What do you think?

If player B is not mentioned then it could work - but I believe something would need to be in place so that player B could pre-select other players that he would not allow his forces to attack.

And, yes - he should definately have a new section within the attack log.

What about the damage player B takes he will log in and every thing will look normal and relize that player A has attack around 50 guys before he could log in and player B lost units I think we should have something to where player A clicks something and it ask player B if he wants to help (yes or no)then he would get to choose when his units were used and when they weren't and wouldn't player B use his own weapons so that would save him from having his weapons damaged or destroyed.Besides that sounds good.

Only problem with that is that atatcks happen instantly - what if Player B is not online?

lmao, sure give me a % of RasterBlasters weapons for def or att.....I'll never lose. I like the idea, but it would be abused SOOOOO much.

Bill

why dont u make it that both players have to be online at the same time, but only for attacking other ppl, that way u wont log on and find u have a ton of troops to train and a load of naq to spend on repairs, but with def it doesnt really matter if ur online or not cause u dont no when player A or B is getting attacked by player C. also both players should agre 2 it otherwise the treaty doesnt come into play. i like the idea, it would make this game more realistic

this could get annoying tho ... some n00b attack you and suddenly the rank 1 attack power is following him

also could be abused because people could put there account on PPT then make a multi and attack using there main account attack power just sending the naq to there main account ...

ok guys, these are very valid responses and i thank you for them.
Firstly the player B in the example, would not be able to attack (a) people who are in his peace list and (b) if he was on PPT. I believe this covers that. if u can think of anything else or i have forgotten anything then tell me!

i dont think ur ideas would work really. However a non-agression pact mad between alliance and players would be good, as peace doesnt sstop you attacking someone. And this pact thing would make non agression treaties which are made between alliances a lot more effective.

Leader of alliance A makes non aggression pact with alliance B, leader of b accepts, no members from either alliance will be able to attack someone from the other alliance, (using tags to check alliance).

Guy A non agrerssion to guy B, Guy B accepts, They can no longer attack each other.

sgt.johnkeel wrote:Also i think that the fact that player B would not be mentioned! e.g. player A attacks, with additional support units, not specifying who from! This would mean that C could not attack B as he/she wouldn't know who they where! Also the player who is aiding u could recieve a PM or addition to his/her attack log! What do you think?

Why not make it so that he isn't mentioned in the battle, but is metioned if player C spies on player A successfully. Or even just if player C's spy skill is higher than player A's when the battle takes place?

I also think that any damages (not counting lost units) should be automatically subtracted from player A's earnings. Only if he loses the battle and has like 0 naq will player B have to pay for his damages.

About the units, you could even have player A automatically transfer his own equivelent units over to player B; it may be a little unrealistic, but no more than trading uu. And, like uu, they would just instantly be converted to that race's type unit to reduce complexity of the game. Or at least coding. Any of you guys seen the attack error message on quantum? THE CODING FOR THAT ONE PAGE IS MORE THAN 350 LINES LONG!!!

arrrgh!!! i must disagree with u KnightValor i think that A should not suffer a penalty for losing (doesn't happen normally) and B shoul DEFINATELY NOT have to pay any naq loses to C as this battle is not taking place on B's land...etc i dunno abt the changing of troops to different races though, might be gd might not, i am of the opinion it would not be gd.
the fact that C may be able to see B if he has a high enough spy level is gd though. As it could make it interesting e.g

alliance A and alliance B's leaders have a pact, alliance B is also allied to alliance C, however A and C are Enemies . A attacks C, and B helps. C can see that A has attacked him, but then as he has a better sy level sees that B has attacked also. This could make the game VERY interesting indeed! This could add an extra element to alliance relationships and make it very gd and more realistic. Or it could confuse things a lot and start lots of wars!!! BUT this is Stagate WARS we r playing so...

BUMP

erm Encore y does ur account sig say

Encore sig: Encore The Ultimate Cheat/Scammer Of Stargate

wierd is this him admitting to being a cheat?