DeletedUser
Guest
I support. Anything to prevent turtling. Bah
DeletedUser
Guest
1. I like the idea of a reputation system.
2.I dislike the idea of gained BP increasing with winning. Think about it. Alliances A and B wage war with the goal of, say, 150,000 BP. Alliance A gains an early lead, say, 4000 to 1000 BP in the first wave of attacks. then B up their game, 2000 to 2000 in the next wave. But alliance A actually get, say, 2500. So B win the next 2 waves, 2000 to 2700 and 2000 to 2500. But with A's bonus, A wins these 2 waves, 5400 to 5200. If a further 2 waves go like this, well, you can see how this is a little unfair.
3.These punishments: I hate them. Forced diplomacy is good, but the other 2 are too hurtful to the total losers, and not advantageous enough to the folks who owned them. I think something like channeling resources from the loser's mines to the winner's warehouses for a day, no conquering the winners by the losers for x amount of time, and forced labor: citizens of the opposition's town build up the winner's farms. These farms can support, say, 20 more residents apiece, but halts building construction in the losers city for x amount of time.
2.I dislike the idea of gained BP increasing with winning. Think about it. Alliances A and B wage war with the goal of, say, 150,000 BP. Alliance A gains an early lead, say, 4000 to 1000 BP in the first wave of attacks. then B up their game, 2000 to 2000 in the next wave. But alliance A actually get, say, 2500. So B win the next 2 waves, 2000 to 2700 and 2000 to 2500. But with A's bonus, A wins these 2 waves, 5400 to 5200. If a further 2 waves go like this, well, you can see how this is a little unfair.
3.These punishments: I hate them. Forced diplomacy is good, but the other 2 are too hurtful to the total losers, and not advantageous enough to the folks who owned them. I think something like channeling resources from the loser's mines to the winner's warehouses for a day, no conquering the winners by the losers for x amount of time, and forced labor: citizens of the opposition's town build up the winner's farms. These farms can support, say, 20 more residents apiece, but halts building construction in the losers city for x amount of time.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
I think this is a very interesting idea. Can't wait to see what it leads to.
DeletedUser
Guest
BP is the only reasonable way, with minimal abuse, in which a player or alliance can be rewarded for achieving their goals. It is all good and well to have an opinion, but is there a functional alternative that doesn't lead to simming, or something completely unfair?
Forced diplomacy is bad, as you are limiting the tactics of a game that should have more free rein for players to decide their tactics, which is why a reputation system was suggested in the first place. Going to war without warning can be seen as bad, but it penalizes players in a trustworthy sense, instead of limiting game options.
This was a great idea, but the OP stopped responding and this has died since then, which is a shame as this has potential.
Forced diplomacy is bad, as you are limiting the tactics of a game that should have more free rein for players to decide their tactics, which is why a reputation system was suggested in the first place. Going to war without warning can be seen as bad, but it penalizes players in a trustworthy sense, instead of limiting game options.
This was a great idea, but the OP stopped responding and this has died since then, which is a shame as this has potential.
DeletedUser
Guest
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. If you need to be able to attack this other alliance at will and think you might lose the war, perhaps forced diplomacy isn't the punishment for you. As for increasing BP bonus', does this seem fair to you:
?
DeletedUser24356
Guest
I like everything but the punishments 
ro:
ro:DeletedUser
Guest
The percentiles for BP bonuses was something I was going to go into greater depth with the OP, but he disappeared months ago.
DeletedUser
Guest
I like the idea of declaring war on alliances (instead of listening them as enemies). However I believe some changes would be in order:
* "Declaring War" replaces listing someone as an enemy but has its own tab (after "Pacts" called "War").
* An alliance can be at war with multiple alliances and no declaration has to occur as to which allies are at war with whom.
* After you declare war you must declare a "Campaign" against one or more alliances that you are at war against.
* When declaring a campaign you must list any allied alliances that will join the campaign.
* A campaign is for 7 to 14 days and lists objects in the campaign.
* Objects may include "Battle" (taking X battle points), "Clearance" (killing X units), "Conquor" (taking X cities), "Elimination" (alliance surrendering & disbanding).
* Each objective option has a minimum setting (eg: 10,000 BP, 1000 units, 10 cities) except elimination which has no input.
* When the objective is entered, the winning and loosing terms are listed automatically (these can not be altered).
* When confirmed the Battle Request is sent to all allies that you listed on your side.
* Your allies may accept or reject the campaign. If any ally rejects the campaign, the campaign is rejected and must be established again.
* Any ally (including yours) can reject the campaign prior to all allies accepting the campaign. All allies need to accept within 24 hours otherwise the campaign is rejected.
* When all allies agree to the first campaign in a war then the war is declared between the Allies and the Enemy. At this stage any enemy alliances that were listed by the Allies are then informed that they have been declared on and have the campaign details in their "War".
* Enemy alliances only have to stop allies from getting the objective and they will win the campaign.
* If Allies get the objective before time limit then they receive the winning conditions and enemy receive the loosing conditions.
* If Allies fail to meet the objectives before time limit then the enemies receive the winning conditions and allies receive the loosing conditions.
* Enemies can start a counter-campaign as soon as war is declared on them. This counter claim can include other alliances that will be their allies (enemies-allies). The counter-campaign uses similar approach as creating a campaign (with allies agreeing and other side not seeing until is finalised). Counter-campaign lasts for the same period of time with lower consequences for failure.
Some types of winning conditions maybe:
* Battle: BP gained from campaign increases by 50% to 100% (minimum to maximum objectives) & similar for next week.
* Clearance: Barracks & Harbour costs to build decrease by 25% to 50% (min to max objectives) for next week.
* Conquor: Farm Demands increase by 50% to 100% (min to max objectives) for next week.
* Elimination: Winning conditions for Battle, Clearance & Conquor all apply for next two weeks.
NOTE: Winning counter-campaign is half of the above winning conditions
(ie: Win both campaign & counter-campaign, you win 150% of above).
Some types of loosing conditions maybe:
* Battle: BP gained from campaign decreases by 25% to 50% (minimum to maximum objectives) & similar for next week.
* Clearance: Barracks & Harbour costs to build increase by 25% to 50% (min to max objectives) for next week.
* Conquor: Farm Demands decrease by 25% to 50% (min to max objectives) for next week.
* Elimination: Loosing conditions for Battle, Clearance & Conquor all apply for next two weeks.
NOTE: Loosing counter-campaign is half of the above loosing conditions
(ie: Loose both campaign & counter-campaign, you loose 150% of above).
If a player leaves an alliance during a campaign, that player experiences the consequences of a failed campaign (but other members of his former alliance continue the campaign).
NOTE: A declaring alliance can withdraw from a campaign (or receiving alliance from counter-campaign) at any time but receives a portion of the failed campaign/counter-campaign (eg: 10 day campaign, withdraws after 5 days, receives 50% of failed campaign penality).
NOTE: No penality is received for withdrawing alliance (in above note) if campaign is withdrawn within first 12 hours (but enemy may have received notification).
* "Declaring War" replaces listing someone as an enemy but has its own tab (after "Pacts" called "War").
* An alliance can be at war with multiple alliances and no declaration has to occur as to which allies are at war with whom.
* After you declare war you must declare a "Campaign" against one or more alliances that you are at war against.
* When declaring a campaign you must list any allied alliances that will join the campaign.
* A campaign is for 7 to 14 days and lists objects in the campaign.
* Objects may include "Battle" (taking X battle points), "Clearance" (killing X units), "Conquor" (taking X cities), "Elimination" (alliance surrendering & disbanding).
* Each objective option has a minimum setting (eg: 10,000 BP, 1000 units, 10 cities) except elimination which has no input.
* When the objective is entered, the winning and loosing terms are listed automatically (these can not be altered).
* When confirmed the Battle Request is sent to all allies that you listed on your side.
* Your allies may accept or reject the campaign. If any ally rejects the campaign, the campaign is rejected and must be established again.
* Any ally (including yours) can reject the campaign prior to all allies accepting the campaign. All allies need to accept within 24 hours otherwise the campaign is rejected.
* When all allies agree to the first campaign in a war then the war is declared between the Allies and the Enemy. At this stage any enemy alliances that were listed by the Allies are then informed that they have been declared on and have the campaign details in their "War".
* Enemy alliances only have to stop allies from getting the objective and they will win the campaign.
* If Allies get the objective before time limit then they receive the winning conditions and enemy receive the loosing conditions.
* If Allies fail to meet the objectives before time limit then the enemies receive the winning conditions and allies receive the loosing conditions.
* Enemies can start a counter-campaign as soon as war is declared on them. This counter claim can include other alliances that will be their allies (enemies-allies). The counter-campaign uses similar approach as creating a campaign (with allies agreeing and other side not seeing until is finalised). Counter-campaign lasts for the same period of time with lower consequences for failure.
Some types of winning conditions maybe:
* Battle: BP gained from campaign increases by 50% to 100% (minimum to maximum objectives) & similar for next week.
* Clearance: Barracks & Harbour costs to build decrease by 25% to 50% (min to max objectives) for next week.
* Conquor: Farm Demands increase by 50% to 100% (min to max objectives) for next week.
* Elimination: Winning conditions for Battle, Clearance & Conquor all apply for next two weeks.
NOTE: Winning counter-campaign is half of the above winning conditions
(ie: Win both campaign & counter-campaign, you win 150% of above).
Some types of loosing conditions maybe:
* Battle: BP gained from campaign decreases by 25% to 50% (minimum to maximum objectives) & similar for next week.
* Clearance: Barracks & Harbour costs to build increase by 25% to 50% (min to max objectives) for next week.
* Conquor: Farm Demands decrease by 25% to 50% (min to max objectives) for next week.
* Elimination: Loosing conditions for Battle, Clearance & Conquor all apply for next two weeks.
NOTE: Loosing counter-campaign is half of the above loosing conditions
(ie: Loose both campaign & counter-campaign, you loose 150% of above).
If a player leaves an alliance during a campaign, that player experiences the consequences of a failed campaign (but other members of his former alliance continue the campaign).
NOTE: A declaring alliance can withdraw from a campaign (or receiving alliance from counter-campaign) at any time but receives a portion of the failed campaign/counter-campaign (eg: 10 day campaign, withdraws after 5 days, receives 50% of failed campaign penality).
NOTE: No penality is received for withdrawing alliance (in above note) if campaign is withdrawn within first 12 hours (but enemy may have received notification).
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser30490
Guest
well i support this +1
DeletedUser
Guest
Lets hope that this get up. I would love the idea of "Declaring War" and having "Campaigns". Doing this would make the game much more attractive to players as there is more then just taking down another alliance in one hit. Most operations that teams make is two weeks long. Longer "operations" is more of longer term battle tactics which is a seperate issue.
DeletedUser
Guest
Brilliant idea however you cannot punish an alliance for losing a war, this will unbalance the game, and members of the loosing alliance will possibly quit the alliance before the war is over or even worse quit the world.
A loosing alliance is already punished by loosing cities and troops due to the war.
Both sides of the war should gain or lose the same way due to participation in the war but one way of wanting players to focus on the war itself might be to lessen the battle points gained when attacking cities /alliances not participating in the war and as such making it less attractive and I will give an example…
When you attack the opposing alliance in the war you receive your + 50% BP and so does the defender, but if you attack someone not part of the war you only receive 75% of the BP you normally will get and the defender gets 100%.. If you are not part of a war at all and you decide to knock on a non warring cities door you will receive your normal 100% BP and the same for the defender. If you are attacked by an alliance that is part of a war that you are not part of you could either receive your normal 100% BP where the attacker will only get 75% BP or another option might be a defensive buff although I would rather go for the 100% BP
This will give alliances not part of the war a bit of comfort that they won’t be dragged into a war they don’t want or be left alone as the focus will be not on them but it doesn’t take them completely out of line of fire, they may still be a target, just less attractive. The alliance not part of the war can then focus on their own thing e.g starting a war with someone else?
Also on the other hand if an alliance that is not part of a war attacks an alliance who is participating in a war the attacker will receive only 75 % BP where the defender who is busy with his own war might receive 100% BP. This will possibly prevent a loosing alliance to get someone who is not part of the war to assist to give them the advantage and the same goes for the winning alliance. If either side needs help from alliances who is not officially part of the war then they need to be made part of it or be invited.
A loosing alliance is already punished by loosing cities and troops due to the war.
Both sides of the war should gain or lose the same way due to participation in the war but one way of wanting players to focus on the war itself might be to lessen the battle points gained when attacking cities /alliances not participating in the war and as such making it less attractive and I will give an example…
When you attack the opposing alliance in the war you receive your + 50% BP and so does the defender, but if you attack someone not part of the war you only receive 75% of the BP you normally will get and the defender gets 100%.. If you are not part of a war at all and you decide to knock on a non warring cities door you will receive your normal 100% BP and the same for the defender. If you are attacked by an alliance that is part of a war that you are not part of you could either receive your normal 100% BP where the attacker will only get 75% BP or another option might be a defensive buff although I would rather go for the 100% BP
This will give alliances not part of the war a bit of comfort that they won’t be dragged into a war they don’t want or be left alone as the focus will be not on them but it doesn’t take them completely out of line of fire, they may still be a target, just less attractive. The alliance not part of the war can then focus on their own thing e.g starting a war with someone else?
Also on the other hand if an alliance that is not part of a war attacks an alliance who is participating in a war the attacker will receive only 75 % BP where the defender who is busy with his own war might receive 100% BP. This will possibly prevent a loosing alliance to get someone who is not part of the war to assist to give them the advantage and the same goes for the winning alliance. If either side needs help from alliances who is not officially part of the war then they need to be made part of it or be invited.
DeletedUser31931
Guest
This would turn grepolis into a completely different game. Maybe the next version of grepolis could be like this, but if they updated all the current worlds with this idea, the game would be changed far too much.
DeletedUser
Guest
Super late to the party. The only flaw I can see in the proposal is that there really is a balance problem with individual attackers going after their enemy alliance's members IF the member they go after is significantly LESS in power than they are. Because they get the bp boost no matter who they attack on the enemy's side, the lower-point players will be descended upon like bait for easy points, quickly driving them off the server, or out of the game if they're new. This could also potentially create a culture of new players being discouraged from joining an alliance out of fear of becoming easy targets with benefits which would cause a loss of community/group learning that would otherwise come from joining an alliance after getting the hang of things, or some more seedier alliances to suddenly begin sending out invites to one-city players to use as fodder against enemies in war, etc. The amount of bp gained with the boost should be directly proportional to relative size of the enemy being attacked- if they're half your size, maybe you only get 1/3 of the total possible points. If they're on par with you, then you get 100%. If they are above your point level and you beat them, you get 110%, or something of that nature. Incentive should be to look for worthy opponents to battle, not players who are newly in the throes of expansion with only one, two, or three cities to their name. So, I feel that there's potential abuse with that one hole.
Otherwise I do think it's a good idea. Unfortunately I'm contributing way too late for this issue to count now. Because of that, I'm abstaining from voting yea or nay on this development in the poll.
EDIT: After looking over some of the finer points on previous pages more carefully, my suggestion here would satisfy the concerns of thefbiman and others who were worried about similar issues albeit for different reasons. If reward bonuses, or even rewards, in war mode depended more on your point value versus their point value, it would help even the playing field out a bit- new players wouldn't get harassed for being small and on the 'wrong side', and going after ghosts for bp would be almost a waste of time since you'd get very little, if anything, for it. Instead of making it an alliance score vs. alliance score, making it player score vs. player score would tailor the fighting better to appropriate matches. This could also encourage alliances to recruit a more varied player base, because the closer and more appropriate the match, the more gains for the alliance. So you wouldn't need an alliance full of 20k+ players to more quickly further the alliance- if you're in war and your enemy has a 4k player and you have a 4k player that attacks that 4k and wins against them, that would gain the alliance and themselves more bp than if a 10k went after them instead. If that makes sense.
Sorry for the essay.
Otherwise I do think it's a good idea. Unfortunately I'm contributing way too late for this issue to count now. Because of that, I'm abstaining from voting yea or nay on this development in the poll.
EDIT: After looking over some of the finer points on previous pages more carefully, my suggestion here would satisfy the concerns of thefbiman and others who were worried about similar issues albeit for different reasons. If reward bonuses, or even rewards, in war mode depended more on your point value versus their point value, it would help even the playing field out a bit- new players wouldn't get harassed for being small and on the 'wrong side', and going after ghosts for bp would be almost a waste of time since you'd get very little, if anything, for it. Instead of making it an alliance score vs. alliance score, making it player score vs. player score would tailor the fighting better to appropriate matches. This could also encourage alliances to recruit a more varied player base, because the closer and more appropriate the match, the more gains for the alliance. So you wouldn't need an alliance full of 20k+ players to more quickly further the alliance- if you're in war and your enemy has a 4k player and you have a 4k player that attacks that 4k and wins against them, that would gain the alliance and themselves more bp than if a 10k went after them instead. If that makes sense.
Sorry for the essay.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser33530
Guest
I like most of it but i think there should be a surrender button in the war. There should be a peace button that you can click and a report it sent asking for peace and some different flag is over the enemy city. There should be no delete war only surrender, peace, and add an ally. Also for the surrender have unconditional surrender were the lose must agree to the punishment right away and have a conditional surrender that both sides can send to each other (as in the winning side asks a surrender but has new lighter or heavier terms for a surrender or the loser says the will surrender but they want to have different terms and have all the terms put out in reports. All of this having buttons and being done through reports just to be clear). An unlimited number of allies that can be added and each side sees each others allies. For punishments when the war is being started both sides should try to agree on the punishment yes but one of the chooses should be the looser must dissolve.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
Abuse potential is huge though..
It would be very different if the alliances were smaller, 20 or so..
100 Person alliance against 20 declaring war and ravaging their cities, then getting extra bp and/or making guys even faster seems a bit cheap doesn't it?
I would tend to think if the larger alliance declared war on the smaller one then it would be more fair to give them extra BP sure, but have the smaller alliance receive barracks and harbor upgrades as an inverse. This would stop alliances from recruiting 50 players that are 2k pts and having 3 that are 100k.
Calculate the numbers based on the average points of the alliances and the number of members
It would be very different if the alliances were smaller, 20 or so..
100 Person alliance against 20 declaring war and ravaging their cities, then getting extra bp and/or making guys even faster seems a bit cheap doesn't it?
I would tend to think if the larger alliance declared war on the smaller one then it would be more fair to give them extra BP sure, but have the smaller alliance receive barracks and harbor upgrades as an inverse. This would stop alliances from recruiting 50 players that are 2k pts and having 3 that are 100k.
Calculate the numbers based on the average points of the alliances and the number of members
DeletedUser33530
Guest
How about you can only declare war on alliance that have a total bp about equal to your alliance.
DeletedUser
Guest
Doesn't sound unreasonable..
Also, I think there should be some kind of mandatory war period of 7 days for instance and have a daily quota of attacks..
It'd be really annoying having an alliance declare war so 1 player in the alliance can attack 1 person in another alliance..
Also, I think there should be some kind of mandatory war period of 7 days for instance and have a daily quota of attacks..
It'd be really annoying having an alliance declare war so 1 player in the alliance can attack 1 person in another alliance..
DeletedUser33530
Guest
That just how the game is without a war people just conquer. I would be really helpful if this tab in the alliance section kept track of war stats though i hate trying to keep track of things like that.
DeletedUser345
Guest
If this isn't too dead and this helps you then I had an idea about spying which works like yours but was a bit more developed and only just got rejected - http://forum.en.grepolis.com/showthread.php?14351-Spying-Changes