StarGateWars Forums

From various comments of many long standing members of this community, they point out a core problem in the member base decline of this game: The players.

Throughout the ages, there have always been unwritten rules and laws on how involved parties of a war behaved in certain situations. Great examples being no attacks during during certain festivity days, or medical aid after large battles.

What Gatewars seems to lack in my eyes, since a few years, is something alike.

Though these rules tend to be unwritten and classed as ‘obvious’ they no longer apply in our little universe as simply too many people with enormous egos can’t let go of certain things and feel the need to portray themselves as bad asses trying to make other people believe they can do whatever the hell they want at the cost of anything.

I’d like to suggest something that might help in bringing a better atmosphere in game.
A code of conduct.

Though I might not be the best example of how things should be done, I guess most players with a bit of common sense will agree to the fact that this game could do with some unwritten laws, accepted and followed by the majority of this community.

But, what should be in these laws, and how could they be upheld? Its rather easy and hard at the same time.

Step 1: gather list of points which could be classed as a code of conduct.

Step 2: getting as many alliances and individual players as possible willing to confirm (sign) and trying to follow such a list.

In my opinion it boils down to simply stating possible rules in this thread. which could be added to such list, and once complete, I’ll make a new thread with the list posted where hopefully as many players as possible will scribble down something in an expression to support such a thing. Of course I don’t expect such a list to be followed and adhered to the letter from the get go, but if no one makes an effort for it to get such a thing of the ground, it will never happen.

What do I expect (hope) will happen with this thread ?
I hope that many players/community members will post simple short statements which could end up being additions to the code of conduct. These will hopefully turns out to be guidelines for game play behavior for players and alliane, not rules. By creating a majority of acceptance for such a list, I hope to see that the atmosphere between alliances and players grow to a level where we can all call it decent game play.

Now, I could be totally off, and simply not see that every player in this game rather plays with a passionate level of frustration, hating their enemies like there is no tomorrow, instead of good wars which has room for acceptance and acknowledgement.

Dodgers

Yes, let's hold hands and sing Kumbaya.

(This is a "HELL NO" to this concept. Quite on-topic.. I will explain my position later.)

DaDeuceIsLoose wrote:Even though I'm freshly back from a long hiatus, I'd support this, and as would my alliance (all 6 of us at the moment.)

I haven't gotten to participate in a war on GW in a about 2 years(and they were even more fun about 3-4 years ago), but thats one of the reasons I came back was because they used to be so much fun. If that has changed, then I definitely support "going back to that". The wars on this game were easily the best part of the gameplay, and has one of the better alliance v. alliance warring systems as far as MMORPGs go (IMO).

So, you get my vote/John Hancock

My .02

From my week of playing now again since '09 there has been alot that has changed. People made up 'onliners' (No clue what the point of them is, since they did not exist in my time.) to keep wars fun. Massing someone while they would be online would be pointless back in the day. Also because sabbing was pretty useless.
There is still alot i have not experienced yet so far, but things like alliance PPT cant seriously make wars better. The element of suprise was one of the reasons people would still fear smaller folks.

I have to get into it abit more to give my final answer, sabbing seems OP though, and everyone who is fully ascended seems to just sit and save for the next cov level. Losses in wars are nothing compared to the old days. If you lose 200mill UU, you could just raid it back in 1 day, or even simpler buy it for a mere 200trill. (To comparise, none had the amount banked to fully restock your armysize in the old day, banks were not big enough, saving like now was not needed, because cov wasnt that important. UU was more valuable aswell.)

As long as you don't force this on others (i.e. binding to signatories only)

Duck Dodgers wrote:
...
Great examples being no attacks during during certain festivity days, or medical aid after large battles.

What Gatewars seems to lack in my eyes, since a few years, is something alike.

Though these rules tend to be unwritten and classed as ‘obvious’ they no longer apply in our little universe as simply too many people with enormous egos can’t let go of certain things and feel the need to portray themselves as bad asses trying to make other people believe they can do whatever the hell they want at the cost of anything.

...

Dodgers

for my return, it's very funny to see DDE posting about "code of conduct", former members would be mad if they read this topic

but, for the time i was playing, i never saw any "peace time" for festivity or any "recovering time" after wars. When DDE was finishing a war, they where most of the time starting a new one agaisnt people who farmed them during first battle.

And about people who are able to do what they want at any cost, it's a wargame... the stronger u are, the most irritating u are (remind BLAHH:) )

ps : Me make war so that we may steal your cookies

Sylus wrote:As long as you don't force this on others (i.e. binding to signatories only)

*grin* Exactly. Otherwise, this will only lead to people whining at others that "they are playing the game wrong". (Then again, binding only to signatories will lead to 'rogues' who are to be attacked at every turn, and who 'do not deserve respect'. Case and point to prove that this kind of police-state guidelines is nonsense. Either people have common sense and decency, or they do not. Dividing them in these two camps based on their signatures in some thread is just a waste of attention.)


Regarding the war system.. lol. Did anyone even check the BloodRealm? War between active alliances is never going to be the same again. No Alliance PPT in BloodRealm, so when that first strike launches, "everyone gunna die!" Then the losing party is cursed for a while, stats halved, making it almost impossible to wage long-ass wars. *chuckles* Yes.. there will be blood and guts, and it will spill out into the forum. As it should be.
(Of course, just making posts full of personal insults, stalking someone on MSN / Facebook is just being a complete prickwad, no guidelines will ever fix that, as some of us well know. Right? )

As promised..


This idea of a 'Code of conduct' is exclusivistic nonsense, will only lead to ruin.
How do you propose your 'Codists' will respond to people in game who are not on the forums?

You would get situations like HVE had a while back (not anymore, credit to SS and his comrades), where small members PM people outside their alliance telling them that 'attacking them is against the rules' (lol).
Marcus is playing the game, but steers clear of the forums because of .. whatever reasons. He has no idea of this 'Code of conduct' which dictates how he is supposed to play. He attacks some random Codist, and gets named and shamed on the forum. Marcus has no idea. The full force of the Codist Army now marches on Marcus to either convert or destroy him. Marcus quits, because the bored TUKs bear down on his account making his game a living hell.

Any attempt to force players to 'behave a certain way' beyond the regular game's rules will lead to nothing but disaster for the majority (and fun for some; bored TUKs with nothing better to do than bother people for any reason - this providing them with a perfect reason).

As for showing this 'Code' in game.. lol. Sure, it would remove the earlier 'I had no idea' argument, but it is a nonsensical attempt to control people and to create a divide along which a war will be fought at some point. All in all, this Code of Conduct is a suggestion that will expedite war and bring about ruin for all who stand in the way of the Codists.
Time to join Sylus in Pergatory..

Jules, keep your offtopicness and annoyances out of this thread please.

Sylus wrote:As long as you don't force this on others (i.e. binding to signatories only)

I mentioned it being mere guidelines and not set rules.

Defense Forcefield wrote:

Duck Dodgers wrote:
...
Great examples being no attacks during during certain festivity days, or medical aid after large battles.

What Gatewars seems to lack in my eyes, since a few years, is something alike.

Though these rules tend to be unwritten and classed as ‘obvious’ they no longer apply in our little universe as simply too many people with enormous egos can’t let go of certain things and feel the need to portray themselves as bad asses trying to make other people believe they can do whatever the hell they want at the cost of anything.

...

Dodgers

for my return, it's very funny to see DDE posting about "code of conduct", former members would be mad if they read this topic

but, for the time i was playing, i never saw any "peace time" for festivity or any "recovering time" after wars. When DDE was finishing a war, they where most of the time starting a new one agaisnt people who farmed them during first battle.

And about people who are able to do what they want at any cost, it's a wargame... the stronger u are, the most irritating u are (remind BLAHH:) )

ps : Me make war so that we may steal your cookies

I dont think 'former' members would be mad quite the contrary actually

The peacetime I mentioned was an example of real life exampled bud

And, form your statement, I may assume you class yourself as one of those annoying ones, yes ?




The idea behind this is to get try and get a more decent behavior amongst players in game and on the forums.
But, what I see from most reactions, you all give squad about that.

Andy! wrote:

Juliette wrote:

Raven wrote:Im not sure, so correct me if im wrong, but doesn't bloodrealm need to be accepted by both parties? Hows a suprise attack gonna work then? And why would an underdog in a war accept Bloodrealm?

Nope.. 100% vs 100% => BloodWar. (See: http://dev.gatewars.com/bloodwar.php - also test it..)
Underdogs usually do not get 100% on their 'big dog enemy'. And if they do, then they brought their deaths on themselves. *grin*


But we are veering off course; let's stick to Duckie's intention.

You have to confirm your willingness to enter bloodwar though

I have read the explanation on the link, and i must it seems like another attempt to put something in SGW wich is not doable.
Simply because there will always be a side losing out using bloodwar. Wich then will simply not accept it.
Forum should take the focus off Cov levels, and bring back the focus on real war. War where losses are felt and not just rebuild after 1 or a few days.
The sync is out of the game abit. Not all the caps are properly growing with the other caps. Wich causes inflation etc to get into a state like SGW is right now.
Also the black market did not help i suppose.

On topic. I do think most people are interesting in more decent behaviour from the crowd in general. But it is probably impossible to achieve.
There are a certain group of top players who feel the need to go further then just the game. It was like this before and it is still the same.

Raven wrote:
On topic. I do think most people are interesting in more decent behaviour from the crowd in general. But it is probably impossible to achieve.
There are a certain group of top players who feel the need to go further then just the game. It was like this before and it is still the same.

If no one attempts anything to gain it, it will never happen.
In the past they didn't stick out that much as there were so many people playing, and those that did, were accepted out of fear for them I reckon.
But now, not so much anymore.

If a majority would support the idea, and even contribute guidelines and thoughts about it, its at least a step in the right direction.



keep the blood realm discussion where it belongs, NOT in here

Duck Dodgers wrote:

Raven wrote:
On topic. I do think most people are interesting in more decent behaviour from the crowd in general. But it is probably impossible to achieve.
There are a certain group of top players who feel the need to go further then just the game. It was like this before and it is still the same.

If no one attempts anything to gain it, it will never happen.
In the past they didn't stick out that much as there were so many people playing, and those that did, were accepted out of fear for them I reckon.
But now, not so much anymore.

If a majority would support the idea, and even contribute guidelines and thoughts about it, its at least a step in the right direction.



keep the blood realm discussion where it belongs, NOT in here

Well let me ask you this, what is exactly inapropriate behaviour. Its different for everyone, some will say farming a small player actively is bad behaviour. Others will say maybe random massing is inapropriate. As far as i can see you are an honourable player. But dont take Defence forcefields words so lightly. There was a day where DDE had little to no code of conduct. Not saying thats per definition a wrong thing, a code like this can be explained in to many ways.

Raven, DDE has rules, and quite a few, you even need to sign those after being accepted, has been so for years and years. I have been in and around DDE for over 4 years.

But its more in how people behave and how and what they talk in public and what they do when things go bad. Or what to do when something goes very wrong.




Keep your trash talk to yourself Rudy, do you have to spam crap everywhere ?
I thought you were told before to post that stuff in the appropriate sections or cry to admin about it. Or is that ETL again accidentally posting on the wrong forum account ? (of the last one there IS proof)

Well, there are many things I could say here but I will remain on topic and keep to the opening post.


I agree with Jullie this one.. She nailed it right on the head. I do believe that the concept of the first post is nice, but in "internet reality" it is not possible. We can only try to control ourselves. If we try to start dictating actions of others other than trying to enforce actual game rules, it will become something along the lines of "play our way and do what we want or we will have the majority of the players in the game make your experience here hell". It seems to be a concept that has a war going now because of...

[spoiler]http://talk.gatewa.rs/viewtopic.php?f=68&t=194678[/spoiler]

Don't get me wrong here, wars that both sides feel they are right make for good fun.. but has its down side also... ppl take things too seriously and take it way too far at times.

I would have to say no, I would not sign up for something like this. Not because I want to be a disruptor, I think the idea is good in theory, but only theory. I play honorably in my opinion. I do not sit on small players. I follow the rules. I am polite in my PMs. I do not sit on ppl in game often, but have in the past because someone insulted me personally in a pm. The concept of forcing certain behavior and beliefs on people.. wasn't that the reason for the crusades? That didnt end well for anyone.. I don't think it will here if we have a coalition of people trying to dominate everyone else. I feel we should just try to watch our own behavior and try to act like asses. Treat people how you want to be treated and be polite.. Seems to work for me in most cases. Even if a majority agrees to some sort of code of conduct, I am sure I already follow most of what would be in it, but i would not sign it and try to push my own personal code on others.


I dont agree, but its a nice theory. Keep it theory.

Raven wrote:

DaDeuceIsLoose wrote:Even though I'm freshly back from a long hiatus, I'd support this, and as would my alliance (all 6 of us at the moment.)

I haven't gotten to participate in a war on GW in a about 2 years(and they were even more fun about 3-4 years ago), but thats one of the reasons I came back was because they used to be so much fun. If that has changed, then I definitely support "going back to that". The wars on this game were easily the best part of the gameplay, and has one of the better alliance v. alliance warring systems as far as MMORPGs go (IMO).

So, you get my vote/John Hancock

My .02

From my week of playing now again since '09 there has been alot that has changed. People made up 'onliners' (No clue what the point of them is, since they did not exist in my time.) to keep wars fun. Massing someone while they would be online would be pointless back in the day. Also because sabbing was pretty useless.
There is still alot i have not experienced yet so far, but things like alliance PPT cant seriously make wars better. The element of suprise was one of the reasons people would still fear smaller folks.

I have to get into it abit more to give my final answer, sabbing seems OP though, and everyone who is fully ascended seems to just sit and save for the next cov level. Losses in wars are nothing compared to the old days. If you lose 200mill UU, you could just raid it back in 1 day, or even simpler buy it for a mere 200trill. (To comparise, none had the amount banked to fully restock your armysize in the old day, banks were not big enough, saving like now was not needed, because cov wasnt that important. UU was more valuable aswell.)

Yea, this is the kind of stuff I'm talking about.

yh ppl should stick to the old fashioned faked coma/deadly illnesses/died or the pretence of being a female when they are a male..

It wouldn't be online gaming any other way! Remember kids, GIRL = Guy In Real Life!!!!

You would get situations like HVE had a while back (not anymore, credit to SS and his comrades), where small members PM people outside their alliance telling them that 'attacking them is against the rules' (lol).

That is just noobs being noobs. Cure = Mass them yourselves. Or, use that as an opportunity for war with whoever they are messaging

I mentioned it being mere guidelines and not set rules.

This is how I read it as well

Forum should take the focus off Cov levels, and bring back the focus on real war. War where losses are felt and not just rebuild after 1 or a few days.

I've noticed this.... war isn't really war anymore as much as it is something to do to pass the time. I remember being in wars were it took over a month to rebuild... easy =/

And now the thread has turned into a flame war... lol... Not that I am denying anything that is being said about Duck, just way off topic?

I simply supported the idea thinking it would make warring more fun, and more old school ^_^