Tauri vs. Goa'uld roles.

[meteorswarm]

Who thinks that Tauri and Goa'uld roles should be reversed? It seems to me that the Goa'uld fit the profile of the aggressor more than the Tauri, and the Tauri would more likely be thought of as the "industrious" race. That's just my thought. I always find myself thinking of the Tauri as evil because their racial factors make them a natural aggressor who lives off of attacking other people.

[The Dalek Empire]

The Tau'ri 25% Attack bonus doesn't represent aggression. It represents human adaptability and the ability to use whatever is at hand to their advantage.

[Sleipnir]

Yeah, they always find a way to kick the crap out of the goa'uld in the show.

[Apocalypse.]

The Tau'ri 25% Attack bonus doesn't represent aggression. It represents human adaptability and the ability to use whatever is at hand to their advantage.

Exactly.

[meteorswarm]

I can understand that, but it seems like the Tauri are always handing me (no matter what my race) my arse on a plate because they can get a <sarcasm>250 billion attack</sarcasm>. They don't do anything but attack for money. Also, since their defense suffers they usually don't bother to build up much of a defense.

IMO by giving them the financial bonus that shows TRUE adaptability because then they can choose to be aggressors or defenders or spies because their financial bonus aids any of those.

Again I return to my original premise that the Tauri always seem to me to be evil because what they do best is attack everybody and steal their naq.

In fact I have been thinking very seriously about declaring that I (as a Goa'uld) would discontinue all attacks for the rest of the game, just because I could do so and it wouldn't strongly affect my ability to play the game. That's not really the action of an evil race is it?

Somebody rebut that please. Or just vote for the change .

[Apocalypse.]

I just stole more than 20 million in about an hour of striaght attacking that was pretty evil.

[meteorswarm]

I just stole more than 20 million in about an hour of striaght attacking that was pretty evil.

But that's not the point. Any race can choose to build up weapons and be an aggressor or choose defense and peace. My point is that the Goa'uld racial bonus makes it most logical for them to choose high unit production and defense, and the Tauri racial bonus makes it most logical for them to build up offense and attack.

Even when I was Asgard, 95% of the attacks on me were from Tauri.

[BleedBlack]

Sounds to me like your crying because the Tau'ri have an attack bonus, and the Goa'uld don't.
I'll give you a tip, change race, and pretend you are still playing as the Goa'uld.
Neat huh?

[meteorswarm]

Sounds to me like you're an ass. And you're not paying attention to what I'm writing. I don't care about attack. If I didn't need attack in order to attain a high rank I wouldn't waste my naq on it.

My POINT is... it strikes me as odd that the "good" race is the race that attacks everybody, and the "evil" race is, for the most part, the race trying to mind its own business and generate money by being industrious.

My appologies for the rude reply, but I'm not feeling well and that reduces my already low patience for people that can't be civil.

[BleedBlack]

Oh well.
Go program your own game.

Each race was assigned advantages that forum came up with, and the forum members agreed with a long time ago.
(Well, not so long actually, but, long enough)

"I think the Asgard should have and Attack bonus, and oh and Defence bonus, as well as extra Naq, because they do in the show "

Oh, and ass?
That's a little harsh.
*Cries in corner*

[NoDot]

To a degree, I happen to agree with him. After research and development is implimented, then the Goa'uld should get an attack bunus, and the Tau'ri should get a research bonus. The Asgard can keep their defense, and the Replicators would get some form of Unit Production bonus.

(Note I said some form of Unit Production bonus. I'm not deciding on what the form should be.)

(BTW, shouldn't this be in the Game Suggestons section, or am I insane? [edit] Don't answer that last one! [/edit])

[meteorswarm]

"I think the Asgard should have and Attack bonus, and oh and Defence bonus, as well as extra Naq, because they do in the show "

What you're still failing to grasp is that I'm suggesting that they trade roles completely. I'm not saying, "Add this to this and that to that." Rename Goa'uld as Tauri, and Tauri as Goa'uld. Is that spelled out enough?

I understand that you don't like my suggestion. I'm pretty sure you chose option #3. That's fine. However, you seem to get your kicks out of offending other people and being rude. That's not fine. Change your attitude or take it elsewhere.

[edit] NoDot: I probably should've put it there, I really just wanted to see how other people felt about it though.

[NoDot]

[edit] NoDot: I probably should've put it there, I really just wanted to see how other people felt about it though.

It fits best with the other Game Suggestions.

[yells for Mod] Slep, Goo, Psi, Forum, will someone come and move this thread already! (It probably should have been moved immidiately.)

[Psi Kiya Trist]

[edit] NoDot: I probably should've put it there, I really just wanted to see how other people felt about it though.

It fits best with the other Game Suggestions.

[yells for Mod] Slep, Goo, Psi, Forum, will someone come and move this thread already! (It probably should have been moved immidiately.)

sorry, it's late for me...

~_+Psi Kiya Trist+_~
-moved-

[BleedBlack]

"I think the Asgard should have and Attack bonus, and oh and Defence bonus, as well as extra Naq, because they do in the show "

What you're still failing to grasp is that I'm suggesting that they trade roles completely. I'm not saying, "Add this to this and that to that." Rename Goa'uld as Tauri, and Tauri as Goa'uld. Is that spelled out enough?

It appears you chose to miss my point completely.
My point being this isn't the TV show.
The bonuses aren't completely accurate.
Everyone had previously agreed that the bonuses, although according to some not entirely fair, were good, and well implimented.

Therfore, changing the game to fit your sugegstion would completely ruin the strategy of many long time players, just for the sake of a little more accuracy.

[edit] NoDot: I probably should've put it there, I really just wanted to see how other people felt about it though.

What stopped you?
This is a forum, where people express views and opinions, which is exaclty what I did, despite my sarcastic tones.
I still clearly made my point.
Disagreeing with reason is wrong now?