StarGateWars Forums

In all games. This would save me (and no doubt others) hours going through the list of my alliance and the alliances my alliance is at peace with and setting each of them to "Peace".

In Chaos, I'm in Lost City, and LC has over 100 members...that would take me hours to make the clicks...and I feel equally sorry for anyone in AK or Team Bono who wants to declare peace with the members of LC.

Or any relation.... Can't hurt, can it?

wat a good idea, declaring peace with every one is very tidious and annoying , making a button to do this wont cause any harm so i vote yes if there was a poll

Already suggested in MANY other threads.

Love Bad Wolf Lots'n Lots wrote:Already suggested in MANY other threads.

and nothing ever done after being posted in MANY other threads...

Obviuosly this is something the people want...so why not add it?

I have added this thread as a link to Item 17 in the Common Suggestions topic.

Guys its a priority thing. Yes there have been lots of things suggested that would be really good ideas, but there are only so many things that Forum can work on at one time. Fixing the server and keeping it running is a big job in itself.

Give it time, I am sure that some of these ideas will get implemented one day, its just going to take time and patience to get it done.

Alliance relations can be stored a couple of different ways:
Player-Player : A new record is made everytime a player sets war with someone. Pros: Very simple to access. Cons: high amounts of data in database. If war is set with an entire alliance, new additions to the alliance will not be added to the war list by themselves.

Player-Alliance : The record stores your player ID and an alliance ID. Every player whose alliance is set to that ID is automatically at war with you. Pros: Less data. Relations update as players join/leave an alliance. Cons: requires more complex queries

Alliance-Alliance : The record contains two alliance ID's. If your alliance is at war with their alliance, players are automatically at war. Pros: Minimal data. Gives alliance leaders more control over relations. Members will no longer be able to override alliance relations. Shouldn't be too difficult to implement. Cons: Only alliance leaders will have access. Lone wolfs not included.

From my point of view, if the second option could be added, it would add a lot to the game. The third option would also be nice as an update to my alliance stats page idea. It would really become sort of an alliance home. Buttons for setting the relations would be there, and with this addition, an area listing friendly/enemy alliances could also be added.

maybe should be poll on this as it is an idea i would dearly love to see happen

maybe an automatic setting ie acceptance into an alliance means automatic peace with members in that alliance, leave that alliance and setting resets to neutral.

also listings of who you have declared peace or war with should be available at a glance similar to attack log. so you can change settings when needs be and you may have forgotten who/what/when.

c.c

cleo_catra wrote:maybe should be poll on this as it is an idea i would dearly love to see happen

maybe an automatic setting ie acceptance into an alliance means automatic peace with members in that alliance, leave that alliance and setting resets to neutral.

also listings of who you have declared peace or war with should be available at a glance similar to attack log. so you can change settings when needs be and you may have forgotten who/what/when.

c.c

even if we had a poll that said 100% yes - it doesn't mean it would be implemented.

I expect this will be a feature of the upcoming alliance wars update...

yes an "all in an alliance peace" option would be good.

also an automatic resetting of relationships to others, after say a month ( i dont know if this already happens)

as I was once taught to set to war with someone before attacking gave you more naqs...so I dont know if I'm still set as war with them too long ago?

Sleipnir wrote:Alliance relations can be stored a couple of different ways:
Player-Player : A new record is made everytime a player sets war with someone. Pros: Very simple to access. Cons: high amounts of data in database. If war is set with an entire alliance, new additions to the alliance will not be added to the war list by themselves.

Player-Alliance : The record stores your player ID and an alliance ID. Every player whose alliance is set to that ID is automatically at war with you. Pros: Less data. Relations update as players join/leave an alliance. Cons: requires more complex queries

Alliance-Alliance : The record contains two alliance ID's. If your alliance is at war with their alliance, players are automatically at war. Pros: Minimal data. Gives alliance leaders more control over relations. Members will no longer be able to override alliance relations. Shouldn't be too difficult to implement. Cons: Only alliance leaders will have access. Lone wolfs not included.

From my point of view, if the second option could be added, it would add a lot to the game. The third option would also be nice as an update to my alliance stats page idea. It would really become sort of an alliance home. Buttons for setting the relations would be there, and with this addition, an area listing friendly/enemy alliances could also be added.

Option 1 = A bit too limited in scope...

Option 2 = The best suggestion IMO, but would need careful thinking about as you may want to set a specific player in an alliance to a different relation than the main alliance relation.

Option 3 = Will change how alliances are run hugely. I would predict that over a period of time, a lot of people will leave their current alliances due to disputes with their leaders over who they can and cannot attack (I know I would), frankly it's dictatorship, but there's little stopping people simply walking away and forming their own alliance. I would recon that if this were implimented then within 6 months there will be many more alliances that are on average a lot smaller. (I'm not neccessarily saying this would be a bad thing, but it would be a big change, whether it would work out alright... Who knows..)

'''Support''' ~~~~

Damn this Wikipediholicism.