Alliance war system

[ThunderCat]

problem is that the alliances would just keep redeclaring war over and over, and you would still have the same stalemate.

[sneferuthegreat]

less turns.... less farming..... less raiding.....less war.....
the biggest problem is there are unlimited turns.....

and every way of winning war is not really fair....

You can base it on UU loss, but army size is not everything....someone may have sold UU to build up their mothership.....

You could do it on damage done....
But all you have to do is have a large strike in the alliance.. and keep that person attacking none stop......

you might as well just play a game of checkers to win the war....
cause it is a fair as any system that is being suggested.....


Now I do like the idea about having to have X ammount of defense for X ammount of strike...

however...
this favors players that have a big army size and have been playing for a long time...

if you want a server like this that does not restart.. you have to give new people a chance...

right now being active is the best way to grow and win a war....
and I do not think that is bad thing

[TacticalCommander]

The whole system revolves around obtaining Victory Points
Victory points only apply when both sides are at war with each other.


Gaining Victory Points
1. Strike Supers Trained (per 100,000)
2. Defense Supers Trained (per 100,000)
3. Naq Stolen (per 10 billion)
4. UU raided (per 10,000)
5. MS volley/shields destroyed (per 5,000)
6. Strike Supers killed (per 100,000)
7. Defense Supers killed (per 100,000)
8. Weapon Value sabbed (per 10bil)
9. Covert Agents killed (per 100,000)
*these only apply to those killed from accounts you are at war with, ie.. stealing naq from a random person not in the war, doesn't count toward your total for victory points.

Amount of Points Gained
1. 1 Point
2. 5 Points
3. 1 Point
4. 1 Point
5. 1 Point
6. 1 Point
7. 1 Point
8. 1 Point
9. 1 Point

Number 2, Defense supers trained, gets more points, as it is the hardest to maintain in war. This is also to encourage people to build Defenses. As with 5 Points, if you train a defensive army of 100k units, then in 1 turn you will earn more points than what they can earn massing it that very next turn.


Favoring
1. Favors the big, more to train
2. Favors the big, more to train
3. Favors the small, more to steal, less to have stolen
4. Favors the small, more to raid, less to have raided
5. Likely favors the big, because big can afford big
6. Favors the small, more to kill less to have killed
7. Favors the small, more to kill less to have killed
8. Favors neither
9. Favors the small, more to kill less to have killed


What victory Points do (for alliance)
-You accumulate them together to reach your personal total
-Each personal total is added together to form the alliance total
--Perhaps there should be a way for alliance members (or at least the leaders) to see who has earned how many points)
-At the end, who ever has the most, is declared the winner.

What victory Points do (for personal)
-You accumulate them together to reach your personal total
-Convert Victory Points to naq via the market
--Only when war is over and winner has been decided.
-maybe 1 victory point = 5bil naq.
-Even if on the losing side
-Perhaps winning side, each person gets an extra 5 points or something.
-This isn't accumulative thing, you can't store up victory points from war to war.
---You have 5 days to convert them or something.

That is needed for 2 good reasons
-One, to give players a desire to earn victory points
-Two, to give players something to help get them back on their feet after the war.

Victory Points and PPT
-When on PPT, You do NOT earn victory points
-This stops players from massing then doing an 8 day PPT to get a bunch of points and in the lead.
-When on PPT, your troops aren't fighting for victory.

Leaving a War
-If you leave, you lose your victory points, you don't get them back.
-Your alliance total in victory points would also lose any victory points you may have gained



Forced War
-What Geisha said looked pretty good.

Limitations
-There needs to be some form of limitation where it won't declare a forced war here Alliance A is X greater than Alliance B whether its total army size, power, whatever.
-Why?
--Prevents very big from warring on super small player just to get a bunch of victory points
--More importantly, stops players who would create a multi with an alliance tag from "warring" with it just to get points.

Declared War

Limitations
-Again there needs to be a limitation in place to prevent big on the super small, and to stop multies.
-Also there this another version of the problem.
-Alliance A declares war on Alliance B and vice versa, two don't fight, just sit and earn victory points from having troops trained.

I have no idea how to put something in that prevents it, but theres a very remarkably easy way to catch it.


War Scoreboard
-This is just a screen that keeps list of all on going and maybe past alliance wars.
-Any player can view.
-On the board
--Name of the war
--Alliances involved
--Total number of attacks each alliance makes.
--Total number of Victory Points each side has earned.
--number of people in each alliance

Simple stuff, anything goes really, as long as isn't stuff that gives stat info for the other side to see or something

The most important is the number of attacks, as if that is a low number, then it would be pretty obvious that no one or just a few are fighting to give points for everyone else in the alliance who just sit back with defenses.

This would allow players to see, monitor and check it all for Forum, and then they can report it to him via forums or admin meeting.

Thats all my ideas...for now....
TC

[Laar]

Maybe there should be a minimum of turns per player*time used in the war against the enemy. But in this way it would just increase multies (just add a bunch of multies too your alliance and the other alliance can attack those, while you are gaining points). Therefor there must be a certain rate of spreading of the attacks on players, say 25% of the attack turn should be used evenly among the players.
(e.g. there are 5 members in an alliance there are 1000 turns used against this alliance, then from the 1000 25% is 250turns, evenly distributed among 5 players is 50 turns against every player)

Though the rates should be dependent on:
Time, longer is less distributed, but with a minimum (some people are less hit due to there account size and growth rate), the war should last a certain amount of time (as is suggested in the original post), otherwise wars are just declared for the victory points.
Number of people, more people would make it harder to hit them all as much (not exactly), so more gives a lower percentage.



TC, the rates might need changing, say I steal 10 bil in a war, after the war I can get another 5 bil, seems a bit crazy to me (though I don't have a lot of experience in wars).
Secondly, PPT should rule out point earning for a longer time. I could use my naq and units directly after the PPT has ended and the I could earn a lot of points by training units, which is relatively safe IMO.
Thirdly, the overall rate should be a bit down graded (e.g. divide all rate by 10 000) (assuming you can't get half points or less), because very small alliances wouldn't benefit from it.
Fourthly, it might be nice to make a ranking on the most victory points earned in (the past year), or some other "time", so new players can get up the list by being in a lot of wars for a certain time.
Fifthly, there might be a need to reduce the amount of points gained while you are on nox? because all people on nox are harder to hit in a war, and shouldn't be awarded by the system.

[TacticalCommander]

TC, the rates might need changing, say I steal 10 bil in a war, after the war I can get another 5 bil, seems a bit crazy to me (though I don't have a lot of experience in wars).
Secondly, PPT should rule out point earning for a longer time. I could use my naq and units directly after the PPT has ended and the I could earn a lot of points by training units, which is relatively safe IMO.
Thirdly, the overall rate should be a bit down graded (e.g. divide all rate by 10 000) (assuming you can't get half points or less), because very small alliances wouldn't benefit from it.
Fourthly, it might be nice to make a ranking on the most victory points earned in (the past year), or some other "time", so new players can get up the list by being in a lot of wars for a certain time.
Fifthly, there might be a need to reduce the amount of points gained while you are on nox? because all people on nox are harder to hit in a war, and shouldn't be awarded by the system.

1. agree, the rates may need changing, I'm not the best at math to decide what those rates are there, but I do try to give at least good starting points.
2.how much longer? they are already losing points for 4 days out of 7 if they do PPT for four days.
3. what rate are you referring too? what do you mean small alliances won't benefit from it? I'm not following you here.
4.I suppose a persons total number of victory points earned could be added to the military exp. but I don't think having a ranking is needed.
5. Does not apply. Nox only works when you are NOT at war with the a person. You only get victory points if you both alliances are set to war with one another. So if you are at war with them, even if it is a forced war, then you are not protect by nox and it really doesn't matter if your nox or not. At least I think thats how it works.

TC

[grimgor]

The whole system revolves around obtaining
Gaining Victory Points
1. Strike Supers Trained (per 100,000)
2. Defense Supers Trained (per 100,000)
3. Naq Stolen (per 10 billion)
4. UU raided (per 10,000)
5. MS volley/shields destroyed (per 5,000)
6. Strike Supers killed (per 100,000)
7. Defense Supers killed (per 100,000)
8. Weapon Value sabbed (per 10bil)
9. Covert Agents killed (per 100,000)

i think 1, 3 and 4 need to be increased alot
and 5 to be double

-maybe 1 victory point = 5bil naq.

hmmm maybe nothing to do with naq cause that could easly be abused eg 2 people on differnet side keep stealing 500B off each other if you do the math 1 hit and that 250B profit they make per hit and if they do it 50 times each that 12.5T each in about 60 seconds

maybe the point could be use for increase bank space, MPDSD, PPT, name change, make a planet, non-transferrable turns

[TacticalCommander]

The whole system revolves around obtaining
Gaining Victory Points
1. Strike Supers Trained (per 100,000)
2. Defense Supers Trained (per 100,000)
3. Naq Stolen (per 10 billion)
4. UU raided (per 10,000)
5. MS volley/shields destroyed (per 5,000)
6. Strike Supers killed (per 100,000)
7. Defense Supers killed (per 100,000)
8. Weapon Value sabbed (per 10bil)
9. Covert Agents killed (per 100,000)

i think 1, 3 and 4 need to be increased alot
and 5 to be double

Understandable. Since in 1, the troops can't be killed. 3,4 I can see why those would need to be increased. I could live with 5 being double. I almost had it set to to 10k originally.

-maybe 1 victory point = 5bil naq.

hmmm maybe nothing to do with naq cause that could easly be abused eg 2 people on differnet side keep stealing 500B off each other if you do the math 1 hit and that 250B profit they make per hit and if they do it 50 times each that 12.5T each in about 60 seconds

maybe the point could be use for increase bank space, MPDSD, PPT, name change, make a planet, non-transferrable turns

I agree, a non naq solution would be better. I only disagree with is the PPT. Perhaps they could be converted to MT's, but these MT's can only be used for the bank space increase, MPDSD etc, like you mentioned.

of course that doesn't solve the problem of 2 people just stealing back an forth.....I'm going to have to think on that.
TC

[Laar]

TC, the rates might need changing, say I steal 10 bil in a war, after the war I can get another 5 bil, seems a bit crazy to me (though I don't have a lot of experience in wars).

Secondly, PPT should rule out point earning for a longer time. I could use my naq and units directly after the PPT has ended and the I could earn a lot of points by training units, which is relatively safe IMO.

Thirdly, the overall rate should be a bit down graded (e.g. divide all rate by 10 000) (assuming you can't get half points or less), because very small alliances wouldn't benefit from it.

Fourthly, it might be nice to make a ranking on the most victory points earned in (the past year), or some other "time", so new players can get up the list by being in a lot of wars for a certain time.

Fifthly, there might be a need to reduce the amount of points gained while you are on nox? because all people on nox are harder to hit in a war, and shouldn't be awarded by the system.

1. agree, the rates may need changing, I'm not the best at math to decide what those rates are there, but I do try to give at least good starting points.

2.how much longer? they are already losing points for 4 days out of 7 if they do PPT for four days.

3. what rate are you referring too? what do you mean small alliances won't benefit from it? I'm not following you here.

4.I suppose a persons total number of victory points earned could be added to the military exp. but I don't think having a ranking is needed.

5. Does not apply. Nox only works when you are NOT at war with the a person. You only get victory points if you both alliances are set to war with one another. So if you are at war with them, even if it is a forced war, then you are not protect by nox and it really doesn't matter if your nox or not. At least I think thats how it works.

TC

2. I was only thinking of a turn or maybe 2, just to allow the opponent to see and hit them.

3. rate is not the best word. What I'm pointing to is that if you have to train 100 000 supers for one victory point that might give the bigger players an advantage (supposing you can only gain full points), because for me, and I think a lot of the smaller players, training 100 000 super is a lot, so the idea is to divide all number by a certain amount. e.g. divide all by 100, then you would get
1000 supers
0.1 bil
etc.
for one victory point, but if you can gain naq by selling them (i like the idea) then you would gain only 0.05bil naq per point

4. that's just something that might be nice, but I don't think the mods would place it in the game, more coding for little purpose, though a certain thread on the forum will appear for ppl to compare there number of points (not by me, but I think someone will), I expect.

5. I'm not a nox expert and I think I didn't think of that it would cancel nox, but you are correct with that, in other words just don't read that part

[Am Heh]

Why do we not just do a player based fix to this issue

Establish a Council from alliance across SGW, example each alliance gets delegates based on their alliance power every month. The purpose of this council is to evaluate the wars going on and determine if one side has clearly beat the other side. Some things that could be determined would be number of people that have left or army size or alliance power. Once Council issues a order that one alliance has beaten the other then a NAP is issued between the two alliance and failure to accept the Council's order results in all the Council's alliances to raise up against the alliance failing to accept the order by the Council or it could be made a amendment in game rules that you must accept the Council's orders

[ThakalluS]

Why do we not just do a player based fix to this issue

Establish a Council from alliance across SGW, example each alliance gets delegates based on their alliance power every month. The purpose of this council is to evaluate the wars going on and determine if one side has clearly beat the other side. Some things that could be determined would be number of people that have left or army size or alliance power. Once Council issues a order that one alliance has beaten the other then a NAP is issued between the two alliance and failure to accept the Council's order results in all the Council's alliances to raise up against the alliance failing to accept the order by the Council or it could be made a amendment in game rules that you must accept the Council's orders

I dont like that at all....

This is a game and you can do whatever you want ....

Yes,wars should be winable....but no matter anything the game system shouldnt prevent someone from destroying someone else .... it's just stupid.

[Am Heh]

Why do we not just do a player based fix to this issue

Establish a Council from alliance across SGW, example each alliance gets delegates based on their alliance power every month. The purpose of this council is to evaluate the wars going on and determine if one side has clearly beat the other side. Some things that could be determined would be number of people that have left or army size or alliance power. Once Council issues a order that one alliance has beaten the other then a NAP is issued between the two alliance and failure to accept the Council's order results in all the Council's alliances to raise up against the alliance failing to accept the order by the Council or it could be made a amendment in game rules that you must accept the Council's orders

I dont like that at all....

This is a game and you can do whatever you want ....

Yes,wars should be winable....but no matter anything the game system shouldnt prevent someone from destroying someone else .... it's just stupid.

Its not preventing you but if you go against the Council orders then there are penalties just like in the real world. And also it would not be a game system it would be a player based system. Same as the way NAP's. If you want to continue to destroy them just leave alliance and start massing

[ThakalluS]

Its not preventing you but if you go against the Council orders then there are penalties just like in the real world

So basically what you're saying is that there would be massive alliance made of leaders which would determine stuff ...

If they decide you lose,then you can fight back, but you have entire massive alliance on your back ...

I mean you lose freedom by this method.... and do just what others will tell you and if you stand up,then you're warring whole game...sorry but not - it's free so far and I hope it will be.

This is a game and you can do whatever you want .... and by this what you're suggesting it's like you cant do anything unexpectable and this is the best thing in sgw ....

EDIT: dont get me wrong, I want wars to be winnable,but not by this method ...

the tying strike and def is the best one and by that, the weaker one will surrender,trust me.

and limiting alliance wars to some period of time is not very good either.

you saw in WWII that Hitler told Stalin that we're warring for 4years and losses will determine the winner ?

[Am Heh]

Its meant to be a big war game. So would be fitting.

And you have freedom you can either accept the ruling or not but it has penalties

[ThakalluS]

Its meant to be a big war game. So would be fitting.

And you have freedom you can either accept the ruling or not but it has penalties

Penalties like we'll sit on you forever if you disobey the council,eh?
Still no from me

what I'm saying the game shouldn't be controlled by some ppl ...

[Am Heh]

Its meant to be a big war game. So would be fitting.

And you have freedom you can either accept the ruling or not but it has penalties

Penalties like we'll sit on you forever if you disobey the council,eh?
Still no from me

Well as it stands a alliance just has not to build anything for you to destroy and take no losses but build a strike and mass your alliances defenses and refuse to accept that they lost which makes this game completely worthless if there are no standards for when people have lost so a something like a Council is needed to establish what is victory and what classifies defeat.