Inactive Topic A New War System

  • Thread starter A Sense of Place
  • Start date

DeletedUser

Guest
This is one of the best ideas I've seen yet. +rep for all your effort put into it.

If I had to offer a suggestion I would change the BP bonus to be proportional to how much the winning alliance is by. Lets say Alliance A declared war on Alliance B and the objective is City Taker. No side would start off with a BP bonus but if one side starts conquering more cities off the other alliance they start to receive the BP bonus proportional to the percentage the winning alliance are winning by, so if Alliance A has conquered 150 cities and Alliance B has conquered 100 cities then Alliance A would get a 50% BP bonus over Alliance B. Or another example would be if Alliance A has conquered 34 cities and Alliance B has conquered 43 cities then Alliance B would get a 26.5% bonus to BP over Alliance A (if my math is correct).

It also works in reverse as well so the Alliance B could get the bonus if they start winning, it kind of acts as a punishment to the one declaring war if they start losing. The bonus could then be capped at 50% for the one that is winning.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
A good suggestion Dies Xerxes, and thank you and the rest for more positive feedback.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
As i said in an earlier version of your proposal, i don't agree. I somehow feel upset you decided to start another thread with this and discarded the no's you received and expect us to repeat ourselves.

I will not try to repeat myself, if i do, it's because the reasons are the same.
Therefore, to start, some reasons to no:

1. "When spying on a city, you have the option of keeping a spy in the city for as long as you like, providing a new spy report whenever you need it. However, to do this you must give a spy more than have of the silver in you targets cave. For example, if my opponent has 10000 silver in his/her cave, for my spy to stay there I must give it over 5000 silver everyday for it to remain unseen. If I am out of silver for any reason, I have the option to recall my spy before the day is over. If I give the spy coins but do not give it more than half, the spy is discovered and your cave loses the amount of silver in your target's cave."
So, we need to guess the silver amount... ok, when is the "discover" process made so i "give" the spy money? 0:00? 12:00? 15:45? Server time or GMT+0? What do you mean "give"? Do i send silver to somewhere? stack it in a new "long distance cave system"? And for what purpose as i can send spies whenever i choose?
Why would this complicated thing be implemented when everyone can send spies whenever they chose?

"Now we're getting to the juicy parts.". And indeed we are.

2. "You can declare war on another alliance, giving a more tactical feel to war, and make sure your enemy is punished for losing."
Ok, let's see. Alliance A plans 2 attack B. They prepare all their attack forces make the plan and they declare war for let's say 10.000 ABP. They send the war invitation and wait for B to accept. Now B, not being noobs, they know what's up, so they do the same, prepare the attacking force, make a plan. but not accept the war invitation right away. Why, because they're not stupid. So they wait let's say 12 hours so they are ready for launching at the time T. and quickly 1 minute before time T, they accept the war declaration, then send all their attacks. Alliance A falls under their own scheme because B gets the ABP in the first hours, before A even knew what happened. Case closed for A.
Ok, you will say A will only make "serious" war declaration. By that meaning only big ABP, or other conditions are met. But that's like marriage, A will ask to be in a "relationship" with B for maybe a long long time. Imagine C, asked by A to be their ally, involved in a long long thing they didn't even asked. Probably they'll go no way.
Maybe, just maybe, alliances do switch sides. Don't tell me it didn't happened before. But won't happen again as they'll be stuck in a war for as long it will take place. What misery....
My point is: lots of changes, lots of problems but for what reason?

3. Here comes the reason. Punishments and gains. Or gains and punishments.
"When you win a war, your opponent needs some sort of punishment for their loss. For a punishment, you can choose one of the following:
>Forced Diplomacy- The losing alliance(s) cannot attack a winner alliance for 1 week, and cannot declare war for 1 month.
>City Takeover- The losing alliance cannot conquer a city for 3 days, and cannot colonize for 2 days.
>Troop Limit- The soldier population of the losing alliance(s) cities is at a maximum of 700."
Forced Diplomacy - Ok, so alliance B, loosers, are now punished to not fight back. Lovely. Usually people do want to fight back, but no-no, they will not be able to do so. Because a message like "you cannot attack this alliance, they're the bosses, they owned you, now you sit in your place and eat your pain in silence. you looser." will pop up? Don' like this.
City Takeover - Better, they lost and now they can't even expand for a while? Shot in the leg they are for playing a game.
Troop limited - now this is interesting. They can't even rebuild. Great, now A can attack them without them being able to actually defend.
Should an alliance accept the eventuality of punishments? Yes, if they want to risk being their last presence on the game's world...

As said previously to the initial proposal of this, making war is not a "Gentlemen agreement". War tends to create angry mob, dislike, resentiments. And adding the "gentlemen" part doesn't quite suits war.

4. Abuse prevention. Is there really none?

Ok, let's see A and B alliances are palls. You know, really good friendly alliance. And A and B have ghost players. THey decide they DO want to take over their own dead weight. Why not make some great bp from this? So, A and B decide to create a war for bonuses. Yep, A send their dead list to B and B sends their dead list to A. They create the war declaration based on let's say 150.000 bp. Then, they start attacking dead players. They get 50% more abp attacking the other alliance dead players than they normally would by attacking their own players. They also keep the score internally, how many abp each one has (in order to not end the war before each get the most possible), and what towns are cleared. The war ends, offcourse they didn't set any punishments, they're palls and palls don't do that! And now, they killed troops worth of 100.000 bp but got 150.000 because of the "war declaration benefits". Satisfied, each alliance now sends the list of the cleared towns to the other alliance, and internally take over the dead players.
Rinse and repeat. Each time A and B have dead players or want some free bp, they just "create a war" and abuse the world as they please.
Prevention? None.
Abuse? A lot.


Having said the above, i don't want 2 write more. My fingers hurt. Let's not ruin the game with this, at least in current form. Please.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
Alright, I will give gradual and numerous responses here. I do think your war system is based on a (assumed or relatively) great idea, but it is too simplistic and subject to a lot of ambiguity and abuse. I know there is no 'perfect' way of getting such a system about and you're bound to step on the toes of someone no matter which direction you take this, but I think by adding some more transparecy and (easy to follow) complexity, you may get a winner of an idea here.

First of all, would you agree that the war system you are setting out to achieve is to encourage competition, conflict, and people putting in more effort than simply simming it up or logging in less than a couple of hours a day to put on some buildings in a queue? If this is your fundamental premise; then we can have a serious discussion about it. I agree there should be added benefits for going to war, but shouldn't a similar scheme be applied for a good defender?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser23516

Guest
I agree. There is no perfect system to war. There will always be people who hate it and there will be those who abuse it. I think this is a step in the right direction
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Age of Enlightenment said:
First of all, would you agree that the war system you are setting out to achieve is to encourage competition, conflict, and people putting in more effort than simply simming it up or logging in less than a couple of hours a day to put on some buildings in a queue?
Click to expand...
That and to give a little more spice to war in grepolis.

Age of Enlightenment said:
but shouldn't a similar scheme be applied for a good defender?
Click to expand...
I do agree that the advantages are only useful if you are an offensive player and that something should be done about it.

As for you goldfinger, when you said a step in the right direction, do you mean my idea or AoE's statement?
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Adding to your ideas.

Alright, before we get on to the finer details (numbers) of this, I'll make a response dealing with the flawed nature of this idea, in order to get a better idea of where you are coming from and whether it can be changed a bit.

Details point 1:

A great idea, but needs expanding. Getting a ratio of BP based off what goal your alliance achieves and to what extent it has succeeded in attaining it; whether it be taking or defending cities would probably be a good place to start. If this is going to be a system that rewards hard work, encourages conflict, and adds more interesting factors to war; we should try to figure out how the BP rewarding is going to be metered out during a war while minimizing as much abuse as possible. For the sake of simplicity, just have a number of cities as a goal for war, and not specific cities as that would be too in favor of a defender. You should have amounts of BP collecting for the number of cities taken (attacker) vs those that are retained (defender). The problems with this is that there are a lot questions when embarking on this are too many.

What you apply for an attacking alliance must also be fairly applied to the defender. If you wanted to give a BP bonus to either side of this equation, what factors would you use? Would '35%' be the only bonus one can get, or is the bonus going to be based off how successful they are at achieving their goals, and this number being the highest? Is there a time limit on capturing these cities, and would it effect the kinds of BP bonuses either side gets based on how well they succeeded? Would there be no time limit, and it is only based off whether or not Alliance A can take (for example) 100 cities off Alliance B, and the BP for either side will be split based on how many were taken or retained vs what was the original goal? Would you be able to declare war without having the other side agree to it, and have your own terms without them accepting them? Some people may not like that idea, but it adds another important and realistic dynamic to the game, I would argue it would be more fun if it was included.

What about coalitions or multiple alliances declaring war on one or more other alliances, and what if they have differing goals? How will BP, rewards, and punishment be given? Shouldn't this idea also include a morality or reputation system for alliances based on their actions to determine how trustworthy they are in all of these and other respects? Do ghosts or players kicked from alliances count as being part of this war? What about colonizations either of island slots or ghosts? Could building wonders or capturing cities on islands with wonders on them be factored in somehow for a reward or punishment?


Details point 2:

This idea needs to either be scrapped or redone completely, if I sent 5k silver and kept my spy in an enemy city; I no longer need the spy anymore as now I know how much silver is in that cave (10k), unless of course you mean that by keeping the spy there; you get information of that city without having to spend over the defenders cave limit, which is arguably worse. What if I decided not to pay the silver one day, does the spy 'fail' giving the defender a report, or does he simply return without being noticed? Would this idea mean that I no longer have to wait for my spy to arrive in order to get a report, which in turn would defeat the point of Espionage research in the academy? Could I pay the spy by putting silver in the cave of the city I sent him out from, and if I need a report, put the relative amount in there to get that report?

I have many more questions, but right now after attempting to add some equations to help you out that I subsequently had to backtrack due to these questions playing on in my mind; I'm worn out and can't think of anything else for now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
No response? The questions were sincere, but a bit grating as I wasn't in the best of moods when posting that. I would like this idea to succeed, but it needs some work and fine-tuning.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Sorry AoE, but I've been really busy and have forgotten all about this. I swear by the end of tomorrow I will have your questions answered.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Ok, I finally can get to this. I hope I managed to understand and answer your questions.

Details point 1:

1. I agree that we must have a bp bonus for a defender too. However, since the main point of this is to encourage attacking and aggressiveness, I've come up with this:

An attacker that attacks a city but does not clear a city gets 25% more bp.
An attack that attacks a city and does clear a city gets 35% more bp.
A defender will get will get 25% more bp for wiping out an attacker's force
A defender will get no extra bp for being cleared.
A supporter will get 10% extra bp in any circumstance.

2. As to declaring war and having your terms without the opponent accepting them, I will take that into consideration. There needs to be some limit on how many times you can do that and against whom.

3. If multiple alliances declare war on the same one, then everything is still the same (no extra bp or anything). However, punishments will be dealt after the wars end, with added time for each loss.

4. You may want to go a little more in depth on the reputation system.

5. Ghosts do not count as a city taken, only cities belonging to the alliance. If a player is kicked or leaves, his cities are no longer valid takes, however any cities taken beforehand from the player still count.

I do not completely understand point 2, however I hoped I answered most of you questions.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
A Sense of Place said:
Ok, I finally can get to this. I hope I managed to understand and answer your questions.

Details point 1:

1. I agree that we must have a bp bonus for a defender too. However, since the main point of this is to encourage attacking and aggressiveness, I've come up with this:

An attacker that attacks a city but does not clear a city gets 25% more bp.
An attack that attacks a city and does clear a city gets 35% more bp.
A defender will get will get 25% more bp for wiping out an attacker's force
A defender will get no extra bp for being cleared.
A supporter will get 10% extra bp in any circumstance.
Click to expand...

The last point I think is fine, having a simple constant like that would be better than creating another algorithm as it may require too much coding or game changing (support point). As for the previous points, so the goal in that sense is just to beat your opponents forces to get a bonus amount of BP? Would this be placed under the goal of capturing a certain amount of the enemies cities or just being able to clear them? This is a bit vague. I have another suggestion, but I would like to probe this discussion out more to see where it goes.

A Sense of Place said:
2. As to declaring war and having your terms without the opponent accepting them, I will take that into consideration. There needs to be some limit on how many times you can do that and against whom.

4. You may want to go a little more in depth on the reputation system.
Click to expand...

These two are more interlinked than meets the eye, a reputation system would be actions taken in game that lower or higher your public standing (either as players or alliances) based on what actions you take in game. For example, you could have a system between -50 or +50 and starts at 0; where the positive value represents overall higher standing, and a negative number shows some level of infamy. This can go higher or lower based on actions done in game, for example; if I attack an alliance without a war declaration, it goes down by a certain number, same if you declare war without agreement (alliance reputation diminishes), but supporting fellow alliance members increases individual reputation, and alliance reputation would also increase if you supported a friendly alliance during a war; Alliances A and B are at war with C, C revolts cities in B and B then gets supported by A. Reputation would go down if Alliance A was not at war with C or part of B and C's war. This is probably an idea that would require its own thread, but it would add an interesting morality dynamic to the game, and would help fit with your idea and many others if done right. It would take quite a large amount of work to perfect though, as is probably the case with yours.

A Sense of Place said:
3. If multiple alliances declare war on the same one, then everything is still the same (no extra bp or anything). However, punishments will be dealt after the wars end, with added time for each loss.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about (for example) if alliances A, B, C, D, and E declare war on alliances F and G, would the goals be shared, and by extension, the BP ratios on either side... or would the goals be individual for each alliance and be more complex? Yet again we need to pick an example of what would be an appropriate goal to start with and work from there, rather than be all over the shop and confuse the subject in question.

A Sense of Place said:
5. Ghosts do not count as a city taken, only cities belonging to the alliance. If a player is kicked or leaves, his cities are no longer valid takes, however any cities taken beforehand from the player still count.
Click to expand...

Agreed, be sure to add that to your OP under the abuse section. :)

A Sense of Place said:
I do not completely understand point 2, however I hoped I answered most of you questions.
Click to expand...

Neither did I really. :p I could re-word what I have said, but it might be easier if you ask further questions to clarify and get on the same page.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top