Solution for wars?

[Raven]

What about if you can only mass someone if you got atleast half the def they got ......
Now before shouting no or yes hear me out....


The advantage of this:

1.People cant just go around massing while they themselves keep zero
2.Wars would be alot more interesting, not to mention that wars would actually have a winner.

I think these 2 are some of the main things SGW is going downhill.
I like to hear every opinion but plz give a motive why you vote yes or no


Why would this make wars have a winner? And why would this make wars more interesting?

In current wars nobody builds something because someone could easily just build a small strike and take their defence out again and then just sell the weapons.....
With this implented people have to actually be prepared to lose something while they are massing someone and actually build something......in the end their will be a party with Defences while one gives up or just simply runs outta resources.

[Sphinx42]

Easy... player A (or alliance A), attacking first, masses player B (or alliance B) and then makes sure they don't get to fight back by sitting on their accounts for as long as he/she/they wish.
Bottom line, don't like the idea.

[Tivadar]

i woudl go further a bit:

you can´t have only one super stat (like 1T strike) and none of the others ...
teh stats should be always balanced .... sumthing shoudl be implented ... just an idea


MODO (my own damn opinion)


edit: ok, maybe not ... because its kinda coll: only an ACer can mass a attacker with huge strike .... like paper, scissor, stone .. if you get me ...
but it would change sgw ....

[Raven]

Easy... player A (or alliance A), attacking first, masses player B (or alliance B) and then makes sure they don't get to fight back by sitting on their accounts for as long as he/she/they wish.
Bottom line, don't like the idea.

If thats so true how can people build strikes while people sit on them? If your online the chances that you are getting massed is almost Zero becuase you can just turn nox on and keep repairing......If you think you cant fight back then give up or be prepared to get into a real war instead of the wimpy things going on these days

[Lore]

Actually tie this to the "Alliance War setting" and its a good idea. The war cant officially start till both sides agree to it. Then this comes into effect.

Of course it will pretty much be like it is now, no one will use it. Everyone seems to prefer striking first and the turtleshelling and claiming victory since they did the most damage.

Also you could use the preveious idea about requiring a Super manned defense to get a PPT when at war.

[Tivadar]

i´d agree that in an alliance war both sides should agree before the actual war starts .... i mean, of course ppl could attack eahc other before that, but it wouldn´t count to the allaince war points ....
and i think the alliance war *points* shouldn´t be counted on weapons/units destroyed but on *accounts destroyed* , or *phased accounts*. much more logical as i think ....

[repli**cator]

that means the one who lands the first strike almost always wins since the other side can only PPT to try build up their def to match 50% yours before they can strike back.

while this may interest some veteran players, i believe the more newer (i mean to say less experienced warmongers) won't like it, imo

[Raven]

Plz read my suggestion before giving your thoughts about it......

Adding it to alliance war is just stupid nobody uses it anyway so im not sure what your on Lore.....

@Rep

the first strikers always have an advantage but even then just think for a while.....if they strike and get striked back that would mean they also have to rebuild once more to take out the beginning party again........in other words the one using its resources the best will win [and yes it will also give the bigger one an advantage wich is how it suppose to be....]

Im just tired of SGW this is not a war game its just a wait game the only real thing i have seen in all my time playing SGW is the beginning of the CoP vs CIA war then there was war but even that war became stupid cause nobody has to do anything besides building a strike take down the enemies def and sell it again.......

Making your massing availability tied to the number of supers of your opponent would be a way to make wars count......and a way for people to get actually in a war game instead of the boring stales we have right now....

[InTuItIoN]

What about if you can only mass someone if you got at least half the def they got ......
Now before shouting no or yes hear me out.....

I don't like this idea. There would still be a handful of players who would become untouchable.

In current wars nobody builds something because someone could easily just build a small strike and take their defence out again and then just sell the weapons.....

I agree; that's the problem. What if Jason introduced something whereby the realm defence has to be proportionate to the number of miners making naq. If the defence falls below this level then the miners die off because they no longer have any protection from the defence. This would stop players sitting with either very small defences during a war and they would have to build something to protect their miners.

This is not to say that miners can be killed or stolen by the enemy....

[Zeratul]

no death of miners... but perhaps miners stop working/slow down work out of fear?

[Raven]

good to see a discussion is coming up cause we really need to make 'wars' wars again

[Saber]

A problem I see is that someone wouldn't have to declare war ingame to just go mass everyone so they could get around the war feature. I believe TL disbanded for a short time during the CoP war do to some of the war features that were added. So if anything were to be brought in then it would have to be that only one side of the war needs to declare war to have these features work for both.

[Draleg]

I was thinking more in the lines of ,

" Your attack army refuses to fight for you as they now going in to battle now wil leave there homeworld undefended. "

i wont go in to the details of numbers and % but it sounds logical.

[Raven]

I was thinking more in the lines of ,

" Your attack army refuses to fight for you as they now going in to battle now wil leave there homeworld undefended. "

i wont go in to the details of numbers and % but it sounds logical.

Thats exactly my point ....... or atleast i tried to lol


@saber:

I never said anything about adding it to alliance war system it should count for everyone ....... something has to be done to make wars and 1 vs 1's more interesting

[Lore]

No miners dieing or you will see ascended all over again with the unlimited AT in main, everyones accounts will be reset back to 1 mill army sizes ( not that thats a totally bad thing)

I do like the miners slowing or stopping work, But that has a bad side to as the farmers cant farm to get repair naq from the enemy. Of course if both sides have no weapons or income maybe wars will end????


And yes Raven I agree, Wars in SGW are a total joke. Unfortunately as long as you can sell up and untrain and hide a MS and cant "Kill" every part of an account, they will prolly stay that way.