As I have posted a LONG time ago, one of the most gaping of faults in this game is the lack of a way to have formal wars with a termination. as a game with infinite lives, having a termination to a PvP war is impossible and will go on as long as both Legions are willing to disable/be disabled by the same people OVER AND OVER again. ginormous problem with gameplay. I think the base combat was supposed to do that, but due to reasons unknown, it was just made into another "boss" battle, thus removing ANY utility to it (other than giving high level Legions something to do besides NPCs).

so... whats your proposition? that we let our ships be destroyed and have to start from square 1? or that our bases are shattered and have to be rebuilt? your idea is interesting, but i dont really want to have everything i've worked for destroyed just because some guy who outranks me felt like he needed a kill...

if you have a decent idea though, please post it, because your op DOES intrigue me...

I think what he means is a sort of way to measure how well lwgions are doing in a war or a 'Declare War' tab on the legion page.

because he states termination here, i feel like he is asking for some way to perform some major detrimental action on another player... similar to how eve is.



with this, i think he expresses his disapproval at the current game mechanics having infinite lives, and that he wished somehow players could be completely and utterly destroyed in some way.



here, i think he is expressing how he was hoping legions could build bases, and then other legions can come along and completely destroy everything the base's legion had worked for... which, i must say, i can somewhat agree...

if bases had their requirements reduced many times over, to where it wouldnt be that big of a deal if the base was completely destroyed and the legion had to start from scratch, then it would be kind of cool... it would allow the most powerful legions to have the biggest bases, instead of how it is now where anyone who started building up their legion base since the beginning has at least a level 5... and its never going to go down in level. So, in other words, it would be you build your base, and if the base gets destroyed it goes down in level... if the level hits zero then you have to reinitiate construction and cannot be targeted again until you are level 3. or 2. whatever it is.

but yeah... i'm not a fan of changing anything in the game with the way it is set up now. However, if a new system was introduced, this would be fun... it would let legions determine who really is the strongest (if you couldnt already tell from the strength leaderboards... )

Amazing, had no idea I had stated so many nefarious schemes. my idea is simply to have a "war" mode and when ( just as an example not saying this is my intention since I have so many words put in my mouth) all members of a Legion are disabled or truced and there is one left of another undisabled or untruced, that Legion wins. rough concept, by no means fleshed out. and as for the BS that I want someone destroyed, please don't put your motives with my words. perhaps in war mode we could have maybe 3 disables in one day you are unable to PvP for 24 hours? once again, simply suggestion. I played another Sci-fi game before I played GL and in it one attack by another player destroyed everything you built and any ships you had near your planet were destroyed with no ability to defend, so that got real stupid real quick with having to send ships out for 18 hour missons just so you would have some left when you logged on next time. so that ain't even close to my Idea.

i do not wish to insult you, but perhaps next time you can give a bit more detail in your original post. The way i picked your op apart was to explain how my reasoning was based off of each individual part of your idea. You had no actual thoughts fleshed out, as you said, and as i interpreted it from lack of information provided, you wanted some way to permanently destroy people.

Also, because all you are suggesting is a war mode function, i must say that the idea for this has been suggested before. many times, with many variations. If all you want is a war mode with a scoreboard, then i'm all for it, and may necro the war mode with scoreboard thread later today.

But, if you would, next time you mean to suggest something, say it outright. from your op, it just sounded like you were complaining that this game wasnt the type of game that allowed you to completely destroy your enemies. From your second post, you made your idea much clearer. If you had posted that in the op, i would have seen exactly what you meant, and avoided all this confusion.

Vekno has a point we weren't putting words in your mouth we were simply trying to elaborate on your idea which was a little sketchy.

Still the best idea for legion wars--

I love that idea darth but maybe 1 point for a hack and 3 points for a raid as hacking is so much easier.

No. Raids should be lower because (1) Someone already would have gotten 5 points for the disable and (2) One big-gun can make the kill and everyone else just piles on for the raids. Hacks have the potential for gaining or giving a planet scan so they are more valuable during a war.

Communication is on both the part of the conveyor and the receptor.
Perspective is a very interesting thing. I read the same original post and didn't infer that he was saying destroy ships at all. It is clear he could have been more clear to start, but it is also clear you assumed some ideas based on your own starting point. Very interesting.

I'm thinking the lvl of the bases should gauge what legion you can declare war on bases 1 lvl in either direction you can declare war on. Doign it by strength score or lvls just wouldn't work so well after all just because your bigger and stronger does not mean you win. The other legion should have no choice in the war either they fight back or not same as any war. Also should cost 20 reds to lock the enemy legion and can only be done every 2 days. Base disable should be added to that dark Flagitious. 1/4 of your total number of pacts is how many wars you can have with other legions.

Haha!

I've always thought that this would be a good idea... my own 0.02 -

War can be declared on one legion at a time.
Leaders of both legions must agree to be at war.
War lasts 48 hours from the moment both legions agree.
War can be cancelled early if Leaders of both legions agree.
There is a cool-down of 48 hours before another war can be declared.

During war the war, two new combat rules are in effect when you are dealing with a ship in the legion you are at war with:

1) You gain 10% more EXP for disabling that legion's ships.
2) You may gain badges for hacking, raiding, and disabling ships of the enemy legion who are more than 40% below your rank, if that ship performed an aggressive action against your ship.

Example of #2 - A level 100 ship is alerted and a level 900 ship attacks and disables - No Badge. But, a level 100 ship throws a disarming bomb at the level 900, who then attacks and disables - BADGE.

Finally, a count of all "war related" badges earned by both warring legions is done. If the battle goes the full 48 hours, the legion who earned the most badges gets a crate similar to base crates, called "War Spoils" that provides 4 hours worth of minerals, artifacts, and research.

RIGHT ON, RIGHT ON. Very well written Thread.
I would only advocate for two more additions.
First, no ships can enter or leave the legion during the time of the war (this prevents "ringers" from arriving; unless it is done before the leaders agree.) Doing so forfeits the contest.

Second, there needs to be a war tab added. We have all seen it and said it over and over. We tend to see the same enemy ships and even most so called wars are really just 1/3rd of the legion. Twenty maybe 25 ships out of 60. There needs to be a way to push those scanning hiders into the action.

Maybe cloak becomes redundant to the other legion except when hacking.

I think members of the legions should be allowed to opt-out of participating as well as a multiple week cool down

I wouldn't want to see cloak become negated for the other legion. Cloaking is how someone could reasonably hide from the battle. That, or of course staying Halc'd.

"I think members of the legions should be allowed to opt-out of participating as well as a multiple week cool down"

-1/-1. Cool down period too long and opt-out should count against the legion.
I will say more why in a minute.

"I wouldn't want to see cloak become negated for the other legion. Cloaking is how someone could reasonably hide from the battle. That, or of course staying H"

Here is the problem with supposed Wars that allow hiding or halc, it becomes waaaaay too easy for one legion to let just a couple of ships do all the fighting and effectively "win" the War. Let me give an example based on the scoring system proposed by earlier posters. Suppose 1 disable = 5 points. If legion A has 20 ships in the War, and legion B only has 5 ships in the War, then B will win simply by having more targets to attack. Legion A logs on and hits all 5 alerts for 25 points. Legion B logs on and hits all 20 alerts/ people in their own logs and gains 100 points! Legion B wins because they can keep the kills to death ratio higher. And even if you count hacks/raids so as to zero someone out, the same tactic still will win the day. All the smaller number force has to do is at least match your number of hacks/raids each day; while at the same time being able to do 4 times as many disables. Keep in mind also, it would be much much easier for a small commando force to coordinate their playing time so as to maximize their attack runs while simultaneously minimizing their times to be hit.

Ironically, you provided my other key reason why Wars need to compel more ships to fight, because some ships will not want to! This puts necessary pressure on the leadership to avoid declaring needless conflicts and at the same time pushes leadership to resolve conflict (though in this case, we are talking about a clear cut timed engagement). If there were more decisive "winners and losers," there might would be less flaming. It wouldn't be a case of "he said vs he said;" but rather, "check the score board." Leaders might be quicker to discipline a wayward ship if it meant holding off a legion wide conflict. The same goes for the big ship "bully." If a hot head leader or the 1000 ranker knows that the rest of the legion will pay the price if she/he takes their aggression too far, then you come up with a more palatable game.

And, as my final argument, it is just more fun! If you are into the pvp, then you know it sucks to log in and find only 5 enemy targets already zeroed. Maybe I am blending too much of the current game scenario. If War is added as an additional pvp feature with its own badge rewards, then folks will be rushing to fight not to back down; though I could see its benefits either way.

The key to avoiding lopsided wars is to have both leaders agree to a war, as I suggested. If you are a leader of a legion o 5 people, it makes no sense at all for you to fight with a legion of 30 people.

Unless you want to show that your legion can take badges from a much bigger monster.