StarGateWars Forums

I couldn't find a thread on this-if there is one feel free to lock this and point me to the existing thread.

Anyways-I find it a bit annoying that there is no way to see if a person is at war with another alliance. Currently some people will put it on their planet names. Of course there are those who leave it there even if their not at war-just to deter attacks. Also, not everyone does that-and some people don't have planets.

But if you happen to hit someone (say from the one click full attack button) you can sometimes be massed for being a "vulture" even when it was unintentional. Yes, the coliseum has threads for some of the wars-but you'd have to find a target-then search the coliseum-and by the time you were done searching they already would have been hit by someone else. I think there needs to be a way for you to see whether someone is at war or not. After all-a declaration of war is a public statement.

I see a couple different options for this:

1) A modifier after their name in the attack pages for example that would show me as:
First Prime cyberblade [recruiting][ The Great Races ]
Prior of the TOLAH
At War with XXX

2) An extra entry on their spy logs (surely your spies would notice the evidence of someone being at war and note who they were at war with during any successful recon). Say after Unit Production (currently the last entry on the military stats column from a recon) there could be an entry that would be "War Status" and would say "at peace with the universe" or "at war with XXX".

Anyway, the wording/formatting could be changed for either of these options. But I think this would be a realistic and beneficial addition to the game.

I'd love to see some feedback.

i agree

yea thats a great idea! i full agree..

but then again.. youd get some people who would abuse the privilege.. and "vulture" them on purpose.. there are some people who do that.. lol

I don't know if this could be "abused" I mean, all you see is whether they're at war or not.

And yes, there will always be vultures. But this those of us who are honorable can stay out of trouble, and those who are vultures can't claim ignorance.

The war status could kick in automatically when a trigger amount of hits from a single alliance arise in 1 day.

generaloneill wrote:The war status could kick in automatically when a trigger amount of hits from a single alliance arise in 1 day.

Hmm... I hadn't thought of that. It would be a nice piece of code to add-but it would be a bit more complicated. I was thinking of just tying it in to wars declared by the alliance. But yeah, that is a nice idea.

Perhaps there could be an automatic war declaration? As in-if there's X amount of attacks from one alliance on players in another alliance war would be declared? Although thinking about it that would allow anyone in the alliance to start a war. I think its better the way it is where it has to be declared by either the alliance leader or their second in command.

Anyways, thank for the input-what do other people have to say?

Awsome cyber This might help with players getting farmed as much when at war.

Good idea, so alliance wars would have again a goal!

Any chance I could get more support on this so we can see it added?

(bump)

Well,I agree with that idea,but you actually didn't write how to put the state of each member that they are in war.
Admin doesn't have so much time.
Correct me if I understood it wrong.
I think it would be the best do it this way.
The leader of the alliance has a function to declare war on an alliance.
After that the game system could put below each member's name on the attack page they are currently in war - however not to the agressor alliance,but the suffering alliance.
This would prevent the leader to just randomly declare war on some weak\inactive alliance and have the benefits being in war ...
And when the other leader does that,the same thing happens for the other side.
But also they should write in GC to prove they are indeed in war,but this whole idea can be abused by the players\alliance leaders.


However this is only for alliance wars and not one on one.

_Thakallus_ wrote:Well,I agree with that idea,but you actually didn't write how to put the state of each member that they are in war.
Maybe I wasn't clear-I said in my first post that it could show up after the name when you're looking at the attack pages
Admin doesn't have so much time.
Correct me if I understood it wrong.
I think it would be the best do it this way.
The leader of the alliance has a function to declare war on an alliance.
After that the game system could put below each member's name on the attack page they are currently in war - however not to the agressor alliance,but the suffering alliance.
I agree-thats an important thing
This would prevent the leader to just randomly declare war on some weak\inactive alliance and have the benefits being in war ...
And when the other leader does that,the same thing happens for the other side.
But also they should write in GC to prove they are indeed in war,but this whole idea can be abused by the players\alliance leaders.
I'm sure someone could abuse it somehow-as (unfortunately) people try to do with every feature...


However this is only for alliance wars and not one on one.

thanks for your feedback!

cyberblade wrote:1) A modifier after their name in the attack pages for example that would show me as:
First Prime cyberblade [recruiting][ The Great Races ]
Prior of the TOLAH
At War with XXX

I agree 100% That'd make finding good farms much much easier

of course if people do try to abuse it declaring war just to stop them from been farmed then im sure some itchy finger people would be glad to show them proper conduct

stephen sarsfield wrote:

cyberblade wrote:1) A modifier after their name in the attack pages for example that would show me as:
First Prime cyberblade [recruiting][ The Great Races ]
Prior of the TOLAH
At War with XXX

I agree 100% That'd make finding good farms much much easier

Thank you very much! Thats what I think also... Because I often end up giving back quite a bit of naq-and losing the turns and men from hitting these people...

cyberblade wrote:Any chance I could get more support on this so we can see it added?

(bump)

i agree this would be helpfull