Page 1 of 1
Name individual battles
Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 5:20 pm
by Balladbird
This is like when your alliance declares war, and gives the war a name. The diffrence is, you could give single attacks a name, for example
'BUILD A DEF!' Balladbird N00B 3,000,000,000 Naquadah stolen 17,000,000,000 2,000,000,000
See, you could name individual naq hits, massings and such. For example, you could name one attack in your logs "This is where your weapons were destroyed" etc. This wouldnt change the game much, just make attack logs more fun to look at.
Posted: Sat Nov 11, 2006 6:19 pm
by Teal'auc of the Void
I'd prefer declaring PERSONAL wars...that would be fun...
They would be similar as alliance wars, except they would be declared against 1 player. You would be able to see the 'score' as it is in alliance war. It would enrich the game for new aspect and it would give people reasons to fight 1 vs 1 battles.
(Well, to me for sure... 
)
Teal'auc
Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 1:36 am
by Neimenljivi
I agree with Teal'auc, it'd be better to name 1 vs 1 war, for naming every battle you have in attack log it would take you soooooooooooooo much time so it's better to or leave it as it is or to make what Teal'auc suggested
Regards Neimenljivi
Posted: Sun Nov 12, 2006 2:01 am
by Zeratul
we likes this... could be used to explain massings and such...
like "player A"'s revenge for "victim" having farmed "player A"'s officer...
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 1:45 am
by Sleipnir
Most likely it would be another outlet for immature n00bs to spread more profanities.
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 3:16 am
by Zeratul
that too... unfortunately...
perhaps there should be sort of classifications like:
part 1 type of action
______revenge, war, plain attack
part 2a reason
______for farming, for massing, for backstabbing, plain attack
part 2b target of reason
______friend, ally, officer, specific player
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 9:03 am
by R3B3L
Sounds all-right, as long as you dont have to specify the details. Some people are just too lazy to give reasons for farming a few pages worth of farms.
So if there was a default "Not specified" then that would eb fine with me
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 9:14 am
by Balladbird
You wouldnt have to name every attack, just certain ones. It would help pass the time and get more clicks for Forum.
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 9:18 am
by Zeratul
under the above idea, the standard setting would be the "plain attack", which is unspecified...
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 3:52 am
by Sleipnir
I do remember that a similar functionality is used in Times of Conquest. There you can add a battle cry to every attack. It does add some flavour to your attack logs. So long as its good flavour, not bad taste, I'm OK with it. It's just that I don't trust some players to behave.
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:09 am
by Puck
Yeah, I do like this idea lot actually...
Back in the day when I'd have personal wars against another alliance (remember the UTA farming policy?
) it would've been nice to be able to name the conflicts.
Posted: Wed Nov 15, 2006 8:06 am
by Chris M
Teal'auc [Tok'ra] wrote:I'd prefer declaring PERSONAL wars...that would be fun...
They would be similar as alliance wars, except they would be declared against 1 player. You would be able to see the 'score' as it is in alliance war. It would enrich the game for new aspect and it would give people reasons to fight 1 vs 1 battles.
(Well, to me for sure... )
Teal'auc
totally agree