Page 1 of 2
Going to war cost
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 12:20 pm
by Elemental_FIRE
I realize that there is a 24 hour commitment.
How about we make it though that if 2 players are at war with each other, it takes up some of their income, since war is costly, even during cease fires. When at peace, there is a higher income. Of course both are really small, and it is cummulative. Lets say for every 100 friends there is a 1% bonus.
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 12:22 pm
by god
I have got 21 pages of farms, you can kiss my a$$ if you think i am going to agree to losing income for having the ability to easily find my farms...
no offense, but this idea just doesn't make sense
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 12:33 pm
by Elemental_FIRE
Okay, remove the part where you get an income bonus.
This idea was to slow down farming.
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 12:54 pm
by god
and why would we want to do that?
I <3 my farms
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 1:50 pm
by Balhaar
god wrote:I have got 21 pages of farms, you can kiss my a$$ if you think i am going to agree to losing income for having the ability to easily find my farms...
no offense, but this idea just doesn't make sense
setting war just for naq..how dishounerable. in my and my alliances opinion it is abusing the system of war. War is meant as such. ALL OUT WAR!!
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 2:56 pm
by Elemental_FIRE
So war should have consequences.
If people want money they dont just randomly killing people and looting their wallets do they? There are consequences if they do that.
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 3:15 pm
by CthulhuSpawn
god wrote:I have got 21 pages of farms, you can kiss my a$$ if you think i am going to agree to losing income for having the ability to easily find my farms...
no offense, but this idea just doesn't make sense
21 damn.....I have to agree with god on this one man, the idea is stupid.
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 3:21 pm
by Cmdrproger-Reborn
god wrote:I have got 21 pages of farms, you can kiss my a$$ if you think i am going to agree to losing income for having the ability to easily find my farms...
no offense, but this idea just doesn't make sense
To quote Brian the dog, "god. is. pi553|)!!!"
I wish I had the patience to find farms...
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 3:24 pm
by psychotic terrorist
just like KGC he sent war on me just for my naq. what a loser!!!
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 4:30 pm
by god
Balhaar wrote:god wrote:I have got 21 pages of farms, you can kiss my a$$ if you think i am going to agree to losing income for having the ability to easily find my farms...
no offense, but this idea just doesn't make sense
setting war just for naq..how dishounerable. in my and my alliances opinion it is abusing the system of war. War is meant as such. ALL OUT WAR!!
give me some time and Ill probably get over it
.
.
.
.
ok, that was enough... I'm over it
Posted: Thu Oct 13, 2005 5:31 pm
by Lord_Olokun
You go to war to get naquadah so that is the point. If I had no naquadah in the bank then I can't go to war then even if I have 1000000 turns?
Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 1:46 pm
by MAsterp
this isnt the best idea i have heard lately
Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 3:40 pm
by the arbitrator
i like the idea and make sense, but it wouldn't work in the game at all, it would unbalance it to much.
Posted: Fri Oct 14, 2005 11:40 pm
by Wolf359
Well, the error in the argument is that it already costs more if both sides are set to war because more troops are lost and more damage is done to weapons.
So, if somebody sets you to war, there are 3 ways to protect yourself:
1. Threaten them
2. Try Diplomacy
3. Set them to war to increase their attack costs.
Posted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 4:33 pm
by Elemental_FIRE
Well a lot of people attack me for naq and set me to war.
Yet, if I counter by setting to war destroying everything they have but not taking a single naquadah, I'm considered a jerk. Hmmm... I think the meaning of going to war is getting lost.