Server War/Empire/Alliance War "Victory" suggestion

[TheRook]

Originally posted in SGW General I've posted it here to get peoples opinions... and to get it seen hopefully by admin.

EDIT

I have tidied up this post/suggestion the original (constantly editted version can be found in the spoiler tag at the bottom of this post - TheRook

END EDIT

I have added a poll so PLEASE VOTE AND POST WHY YOU VOTED THAT WAY

To modify this for Alliance wars you will not have the Optional Settings (described below) but the surrender point system can still apply and would work well for determining a winner rather than basing it on most stuff destroyed.

But the Alliance War can be classed as an Empire War (using the "Faction System") and can include all of your alliances e.g. EoB ( Warlords of Briton, Warriors of Briton, Knights of Briton) vs Omegan Empire (Omega, Alpha, Delta, Pi, Mayhem)

Hmm well i hope when admin makes the next update there comes a way to find a winner and so on in wars.

If the way the game decides a winner isn't in favour of the other alliance I'm sure war will just be redeclared... even if the game implements a way of making it so war cant be redeclared on the alliance who "beat you" you dont need an alliance war to mass people...

So technically no matter how a fantastic idea the alliance war update for main is you will still have "unwinnable wars"

The only way to possibly have something like this is have a "Server War"

So you would get

Server War
Faction System
Allows multiple alliances to be entered into the war requiring a request from the Faction Leading Alliance (the one organising the war) and acceptance from the Alliance leader for the other alliances.

Faction 1 - Chosen Faction Name
Faction Leading Alliance
Faction Alliance 1
Faction Alliance 2
Faction Alliance 3
Faction Alliance 4
Faction Alliance 5
Faction Alliance 6
and so on.

Faction 2 - Chosen Faction Name
Faction Leading Alliance
Faction Alliance 1
Faction Alliance 2
Faction Alliance 3
Faction Alliance 4
Faction Alliance 5
Faction Alliance 6
and so on.

Once each faction alliance has confirmed there are joining that faction, and the Faction Leading Alliance's Alliance leader confirms that faction is ready for war. All ID's (On Main and Ascended are logged). This is going to be used for setting everyone to war on both servers. (This will mean before the war starts you can set all your relations to neutral and when it starts all your War relations will be everyone involved in the Server War - on both servers (no hiding behind different names on ascension anymore).

Optional Settings

External Trading
External Trading can be chosen to be blocked by either side to receive a Surrender Point bonus(see Surrender Points below)

e.g. Faction1 chooses to allow external trading - they get no bonus from this other than free trade.
Faction 2 blocks external trading - this is seen as brave and they receive a bonus to their Surrender Points (say 0.2 extra Surrender Points for every member in the Faction - 15 extra surrender points as they have 75 members but at 75% total thats 11.25 extra points)
So it gives them a way of boosting the number of surrender points available by being self sufficient.
Its a nice bonus which doesnt give them a huge advantage and doesnt put the faction who chooses to allow external trading at a loss.

Nox
An alliance/faction/Empire can choose to not use nox this gives them a surrender point bonus(see Surrender Points below)
Nox can still be applied to reduce the income & time between attacks is still there but halved so instead of 15 seconds max its 8 max (rounded up) and the accounts cannot be phased... this will speed up warring and allow for mass destruction to occur. Again this is optional on both sides and will give a bonus to Surrender Points (similar to external trading bonus)

Trade Brokers/Give Function
This will be limited to those ONLY in the server war (if you Faction CHOOSES - explained - Surrender Points Bonus given). At the start of the server war all trade brokers external to the Server War will be cancelled/rejected. If that means your sneakily holding more than your allowed 10k AT on the broker and the person it rejects it to also cant hold that many they are given to the market... (that will teach you)

The Server War declaration would not have an end date of 5 days. This would stay as a constant war recording all stats from all alliances until the Surrender Points are dropped down to 0

External Alliances/Players cannot be hit/traded with (if your Faction chooses not to - Surrender Points Bonus given). Once the war has started additional alliances CANNOT join in (the original war declaration/alliance/empire adds the alliance on both sides and then the one who war was declared on gets to confirm and add others where necessary this then goes back to the original war declarer to confirm and add any they have missed on there side then the Surrender Points start).

Those who go on vac on either server are counted as a lost "surrender point" (this counts for EVERY instance of VAC on both servers and if people vac more than once (on the same server)) they are automatically kicked from the alliance from the duraction of the war incase they are purposely subtracting "surrender points" so one faction loses. Those who quit/leave there alliance also subtracts a "Surrender point". When someone is descended a "surrender point" is subtracted as the "ascended being retreats".

Surrender Points

This is the method for determining a victory in the Server War/Empire/Alliance wars.

How it works
Recorded in the same way as the rest of Military XP
Surrender points are counted at the Faction Level.

Total Surrender Points
Is calculated based on number of players in the faction e.g. 103 in Faction1 and 75 in Faction2

The winning "Surrender Points" total is defined at the start of the war as a percentage (max 200%) of your faction players.
So if both sides suggest 75% that means Faction1 has 77.25 Surrender points total and Faction 2 has 56.25 Surrender Point total.

This means that each side has to get the other factions surrender points to less than or equal to 0.

Before you come along and say Faction 1 has a higher surrender point they also have more people so its technically still only 75% and with the crit/nox surrender points more people means more PPT's and as such the surrender points going down quicker each week or possibly by the same % as Faction2's.

For working out what things should remove a faction point I have gone for things that aren't easily done to make the war a challenge rather than massing a players defence 1 surrender point as someones defence can be massed many times and massing a 3bill defence is really nothing to be that proud of in a big server war.


A surrender point(s) is subtracted from the faction when:-
A player quits the alliance (and as such the server war) (3 points)
A player goes on vac in main (1 point)
A player goes on vac ascension (1 point)
A player is descended. (1 point)
A player clicks the surrender button (added on the Server War page)
- This keeps them in the alliance but sets all the players in the war to peace and cannot change that until the war ends this also sets all the enemy relations to peace with this player which cannot be changed until the war ends (2 points)

Defcon Changes Crit/Nox. (0.01 points)
- When a player changes their defcon and/or places themselves on nox this removes 0.01 points of their faction total.
So when a player PPT's they are going to take themselves of crit/nox to make the most of their turn income when they come off PPT they will turn it back on removing 0.02 points off the total. (if they do 4 days of ppt in one go it will only cost 0.02 but if they do them at 2 different times it will cost more as they will come off crit/nox and go back on twice)
(This is a way of adding points for those in main as you cant give a surrender point for massing an MS/planet/defence etc as thats just common part of war but it does mean it will cost your faction points for constant switching on off crit/nox. Which may mean people will leave crit/nox off making for a more entertaining war/more naq)
If 20 people go on PPT at 2 different times a week (one at start and one at end) thats each player taking 0.04 points of the Surrender total. 0.04x20 = 0.8 off the surrender points.

Alliance Disbands (1 Surrender Points per player in the alliance)
taking into account the Total Surrender Points % (mentioned below)
So 15 member Alliance disbands is 15 points (75% Total Surrender Points = 11.25 Surrender Points removed from the starting total)
This will make it cheaper in Surrender Point than an each individual quitting an alliance/surrendering) so it adds a tactical edge to disbanding your war to minimise loss of Surrender Points rather than have your members quit. You also get the shame of your alliance disbanding

Addtional Surrender Points
AT Expenditure- To stop to empire abusing this a certain amount of AT are required to be spent from each alliance.
This is the equivilant of the AT available through 1 MT and AT generation per week spread over the 7 days - (approx 2k AT per player)
This has to be used by EACH player in the alliance or 1 person in the alliance can make up the numbers for another player by using 4k AT and so on. But the equivilant number of AT used MUST equal 2k per player a week or (285 AT per day)

This only counts for those NOT on PPT as you cant hit anything on PPT. For "not fighting" you remove surrender points from your factions total. This can apply to all players. So if your alliance only uses enough AT for 5 people andyou have 7 members you lose 0.5 points for each person "not fighting" (0.5 points per person deemed "not fighting")


Cheers

TheRook
[spoiler]Originally posted in SGW General I've posted it here to get peoples opinions... and to get it seen hopefully by admin.

I have added a poll so PLEASE VOTE AND POST WHY YOU VOTED THAT WAY

To modify this for Alliance wars you may have to remove the block on external trading/hits/raid but the surrender point system can still apply and would work well for determining a winner rather than basing it on most stuff destroyed.

But the Alliance War can be classed as an Empire War (using the "Faction System") and can include all of your alliances e.g. EoB ( Warlords of Briton, Warriors of Briton, Knights of Briton) vs Omegan Empire (Omega, Alpha, Delta, Pi, Mayhem)

EDIT

I have removed (strikethrough) the blocking of external hits/trading from the requirement of this as it wont have any effect on the Surrender Points - A bonus to Surrender Points is given IF the faction chooses to not have external trading.

This (surrender point bonus) can also be given if they choose to not allow external hits as they are keeping the war focused soley on their enemy.

END EDIT

Hmm well i hope when admin makes the next update there comes a way to find a winner and so on in wars.

If the way the game decides a winner isn't in favour of the other alliance I'm sure war will just be redeclared... even if the game implements a way of making it so war cant be redeclared on the alliance who "beat you" you dont need an alliance war to mass people...

So technically no matter how a fantastic idea the alliance war update for main is you will still have "unwinnable wars"

The only way to possibly have something like this is have a "Server War"

So you would get

Server War
Faction System
Allows multiple alliances to be entered into the war requiring a request from the Faction Leading Alliance (the one organising the war) and acceptance from the Alliance leader for the other alliances.

Faction 1 - Chosen Faction Name
Faction Leading Alliance
Faction Alliance 1
Faction Alliance 2
Faction Alliance 3
Faction Alliance 4
Faction Alliance 5
Faction Alliance 6
and so on.

Faction 2 - Chosen Faction Name
Faction Leading Alliance
Faction Alliance 1
Faction Alliance 2
Faction Alliance 3
Faction Alliance 4
Faction Alliance 5
Faction Alliance 6
and so on.

Once each faction alliance has confirmed there are joining that faction, and the Faction Leading Alliance's Alliance leader confirms that faction is ready for war. All ID's (On Main and Ascended are logged). This is going to be used for setting everyone to war on both servers. (This will mean before the war starts you can set all your relations to neutral and when it starts all your War relations will be everyone involved in the Server War - on both servers (no hiding behind different names on ascension anymore).

Once the Server war starts you will only be able to Attack/Raid/Spy/Sab etc those who are in the Server War.
Trade Brokers/Give Function - this will be limited to those ONLY in the server war (if you Faction CHOOSES - explained - Surrender Points Bonus given). At the start of the server war all trade brokers external to the Server War will be cancelled/rejected. If that means your sneakily holding more than your allowed 10k AT on the broker and the person it rejects it to also cant hold that many they are given to the market... (that will teach you)

The only way for a Server War to have a possible ending is for resources (AT mostly) to be restricted. 1008 is the number of user generated AT per week. Using all 3 MT on AT will get you about 2.4k AT. So once the initial large stockpiles of AT are depleted only 3.4kAT will be available to each player per week (IF they use all 3 MT for AT).

The Server War declaration would not have an end date of 5 days. This would stay as a constant war recording all stats from all alliances.

External Alliances/Players cannot be hit/traded with (if your Faction chooses not to - Surrender Points Bonus given). Once the war has started additional alliances CANNOT join in (the original war declaration/alliance/empire adds the alliance on both sides and then the one who war was declared on gets to confirm and add others where necessary this then goes back to the original war declarer to confirm and add any they have missed on there side then the Surrender Points start).

Those who go on vac on either server are counted as a lost "surrender point" (this counts for EVERY instance of VAC on both servers and if people vac more than once (on the same server)) they are automatically kicked from the alliance from the duraction of the war incase they are purposely subtracting "surrender points" so one faction loses. Those who quit/leave there alliance also subtracts a "Surrender point". When someone is descended a "surrender point" is subtracted as the "ascended being retreats".

Surrender Points

This is the method for determining a victory in the Server War/Empire/Alliance wars.

How it works
Recorded in the same way as the rest of Military XP
Surrender points are counted at the Faction Level.

A surrender point(s) is subtracted from the faction when:-
A player quits the alliance (and as such the server war) (3 points)
A player goes on vac in main (1 point)
A player goes on vac ascension (1 point)
A player is descended. (1 point)
A player clicks the surrender button (added on the Server War page)
- This keeps them in the alliance but sets all the players in the war to peace and cannot change that until the war ends this also sets all the enemy relations to peace with this player which cannot be changed until the war ends (2 points)

Defcon Changes Crit/Nox. (0.01 points)
- When a player changes their defcon and/or places themselves on nox this removes 0.01 points of their faction total.
So when a player PPT's they are going to take themselves of crit/nox to make the most of their turn income when they come off PPT they will turn it back on removing 0.02 points off the total. (if they do 4 days of ppt in one go it will only cost 0.02 but if they do them at 2 different times it will cost more as they will come off crit/nox and go back on twice)
(This is a way of adding points for those in main as you cant give a surrender point for massing an MS/planet/defence etc as thats just common part of war but it does mean it will cost your faction points for constant switching on off crit/nox. Which may mean people will leave crit/nox off making for a more entertaining war/more naq)
If 20 people go on PPT at 2 different times a week (one at start and one at end) thats each player taking 0.04 points of the Surrender total. 0.04x20 = 0.8 off the surrender points.

Newly Added
Alliance Disbands (1 Surrender Points per player in the alliance)
taking into account the Total Surrender Points % (mentioned below)
So 15 member Alliance disbands is 15 points (75% Total Surrender Points = 11.25 Surrender Points removed from the starting total)
This will make it cheaper in Surrender Point than an each individual quitting an alliance/surrendering) so it adds a tactical edge to disbanding your war to minimise loss of Surrender Points rather than have your members quit. You also get the shame of your alliance disbanding

Addtional Surrender Points
AT Expenditure- To stop to empire abusing this a certain amount of AT are required to be spent from each alliance.
This is the equivilant of the AT available through 1 MT and AT generation per week spread over the 7 days - (approx 2k AT per player)
This has to be used by EACH player in the alliance or 1 person in the alliance can make up the numbers for another player by using 4k AT and so on. But the equivilant number of AT used MUST equal 2k per player a week or (285 AT per day)

This only counts for those NOT on PPT as you cant hit anything on PPT. For "not fighting" you remove surrender points from your factions total. This can apply to all players. So if your alliance only uses enough AT for 5 people andyou have 7 members you lose 0.5 points for each person "not fighting" (0.5 points per person deemed "not fighting")


Total Surrender Points
Is calculated based on number of players in the faction e.g. 103 in Faction1 and 75 in Faction2

The winning "Surrender Points" total is defined at the start of the war as a percentage (max 200%) of your faction players.
So if both sides suggest 75% that means Faction1 has 77.25 Surrender points total and Faction 2 has 56.25 Surrender Point total.

This means that each side has to get the other factions surrender points to less than or equal to 0.

Before you come along and say Faction 1 has a higher surrender point they also have more people so its technically still only 75% and with the crit/nox surrender points more people means more PPT's and as such the surrender points going down quicker each week or possibly by the same % as Faction2's.

For working out what things should remove a faction point I have gone for things that aren't easily done to make the war a challenge rather than massing a players defence 1 surrender point as someones defence can be massed many times and massing a 3bill defence is really nothing to be that proud of in a big server war.


edit

As a note for Empire Wars (more than one alliance on either side) blocking external trading/giving will be optional for a SP Bonus
For Alliance Wars (1v1) external trading etc will be allowed and no option to block it.

The surrender point system still applies for both.

end edit

edit 2

As a note for those concerned about the blocking of external trading/hits the Surrender Points system as it would log the ID's of all involved would not count external descensions (from someone not involved in the war declarations) so technically those two dont need to be in as part of the update but blocking external trading could be something which supplys a bonus to those who choose to go it alone.

e.g. Faction1 chooses to allow external trading - they get no bonus from this other than free trade.
Faction 2 blocks external trading - this is seen as brave and they receive a bonus to their Surrender Points (say 0.2 extra Surrender Points for every member in the Faction - 15 extra surrender points as they have 75 members but at 75% total thats 11.25 extra points)

So it gives them a way of boosting the number of surrender points available by being self sufficient.
Its a nice bonus which doesnt give them a huge advantage and doesnt put the faction who chooses to allow external trading at a loss.

end edit 2

edit number 35

Nox - An alliance/faction/Empire can choose to not use nox this gives them a surrender point bonus like the no external trading... Nox can still be applied to reduce the income & time between attacks is still there but halved so instead of 15 seconds max its 8 max (rounded up) and the accounts cannot be phased... this will speed up warring and allow for mass destruction to occur. Again this is optional on both sides and will give a bonus to Surrender Points

end edit number 35

Cheers

TheRook[/spoiler]

[TheRook]

Poll added and I've voted I like it...

I think its a good way of assessing victory (as much as you can in this game) without relying on damage only as an alliance with 0 stats can come in and destroy an alliance with stats and claim it as a victory just because they had nothing to lose...

TheRook

[IceBreaker]

Complicated but nice ... support this idea and i would vote but no vote out their

[butt_h3ad]

i like your idea. i hope it will be voted. but i'm a little player, only. the bigger players i'm sure will disagree. they are too selfish to let pass this. especially the trading idea. how will they mass the hell out of the others?
what about the pergatory issues?

[TheRook]

hopefully everyone will like it and it will get implemented after all we need a system of deciding a victory thats fair to all involved and is based on activity in the war and people putting an effort into fighting...

not based on damage as its too easy to win if you have nothing to lose.

^^ Good point butt_h3ad about purgatory.

For those in purgatory they can exchange AT they have to get out of purg or they can fight in purg against others there but for the AT usage based surrender points another member in your alliance outside of purg can use extra AT to make up for the fact that your not able to attack anyone as your saving AT to get out of purg.

TheRook

[Juliette]

It's brilliant!

Well worked out, nicely put, and in general a good idea.

[Sex Panther]

Good job buddy. There needs to be a clear calculated way to win a war!

[Legendary Apophis]

This is very good!
I really like the surrender points, that is the only system to determine a winner without creating stupid updates.
With this it will enable to find a winner from actions done by players, which is really logical to be honest. If a side has all of its troops running from battle, it's clear it's enemy who wins. Since armies here can't run, it's players who replace them.

[TheRook]

If you like it please post a link to this thread on your alliance forums for people to come and have a look and the more people we get voting on this and interested in it the bigger the case we will have for admin

So please spread the word

even if you dont like it spread the word

TheRook

[teesdale]

okies, i was the first to vote against it (sorry i didnt read it all, most of it though... i dislike LOOOOOONG posts, lol)

the fact that other alliances CANT hit you and you cant trade resorces... well the trade market is a primary feture of the game, this would be essentialy killing its perpouse, if u wanted a war like this, take your alliances into perg... if u are too big, then u are big enough to fight with a constant ammount of AT comin at ya.
and also, i see nothin wrong with vultures, if ya have no defence, and naq out, hell! take it! consequences will come yes, but this is the point of the game. build a strike bigger than thier def... if thier def is down for some reason, THEN FARM THE HELL OUTTA THEM!!
well thats just my point of view anyway... take them away, and your restricting the game too much.

[Colos]

I really like it, just one thing:
Maybe I got it wrong but, it claims that no outsider alliances are allowed to bring in. Which means alliances have to create factions before the war. For the starter faction, it is okay, but what about the target? They are unlikely to know about the upcoming assault, so they wouldn't join up into a faction.

Alliances A-B-C-D are in Faction1
Alliances E-F-G-H are not in a faction, but just allies.

So Faction1 can hunt down E-F-G-H alliances one by one.

Again, I might have misunderstood something, so correct me if I was wrong.

Colos

[TheRook]

the fact that other alliances CANT hit you and you cant trade resorces... well the trade market is a primary feture of the game, this would be essentialy killing its perpouse, if u wanted a war like this, take your alliances into perg... if u are too big, then u are big enough to fight with a constant ammount of AT comin at ya.
and also, i see nothin wrong with vultures, if ya have no defence, and naq out, hell! take it! consequences will come yes, but this is the point of the game. build a strike bigger than thier def... if thier def is down for some reason, THEN FARM THE HELL OUTTA THEM!!
well thats just my point of view anyway... take them away, and your restricting the game too much.

ok the reason for not allowing people from the outside to attack is for example an external player who is incredibly strong on ascended could come along and start descending people causing losses to the Surrender Points by external influence.

The trading could be allowed I placed that in before I fully finalised my ID for surrender points technically the surrender points are a way of finding a victory which wouldn't be affected by excessive AT etc so the stopping trading could be dropped... I just think it takes more skill/effort to co-ordinate your strikes if your limited by AT... rather than having more AT than you can shake a stick at...

other than the "trading ban" which probably isn't necessary and the stopping of external attackers. it could be done that external people descending dont count as it logs the ID's of players involved...

So after thinking about it the "trading ban" isn't necessary it will just add a bit more skill/tactics required because of limited AT's and also the external attacks can be ignored by the Surrender Points system as ID's are logged.

In that case do you like the suggestion without the trading ban/ stopping external attacks?

I really like it, just one thing:
Maybe I got it wrong but, it claims that no outsider alliances are allowed to bring in. Which means alliances have to create factions before the war. For the starter faction, it is okay, but what about the target? They are unlikely to know about the upcoming assault, so they wouldn't join up into a faction.

Alliances A-B-C-D are in Faction1
Alliances E-F-G-H are not in a faction, but just allies.

So Faction1 can hunt down E-F-G-H alliances one by one.

Again, I might have misunderstood something, so correct me if I was wrong.

Colos

Well for the Server/Empire based war you are going to have to select your choices and put forward your enemy alliances (by alliance ID)

So if this was in place before the TJP vs FUALL war started FUALL when creating the war declaration would have added all the TJP alliances they know of and all the FUALL alliances then declare war then TJP would confirm there alliances involved or add the ones missing and confirm the war which would have already been in full swing so not delaying the war and but giving them the chance to confirm it.

When both sides have confirmed (FUALL would have confirmed first upon starting hte war) and TJP would confirm when the Faction Alliance Leader and then all teh war settings etc and all of the Surrender points would be calculated and the war would official start.

It would still give a head start on massing and working away at ascended accounts etc but its unlikely it would take TJP longer than 9 hours to confirm the war (9 hours being the "minimum" time for someone to be descended on full LF and reserves).

hope that clears it up a bit

TheRook

[VirusJC]

I like it, there needs to be a way of winning the war with out it being a questionable win.

[TheRook]

Teesdale

I have changed the poll so you can change your vote if you so feel but please post that you'd prefer it to be without the blocking of external attacks/trading.

but if you like the idea (which is what I'm after ) i'd like it to go as liking the idea and the finer details can be tweaked (points deducted for different things etc and the values attached to those).

As I said the blocking of external attacks/trading wont actually effect the over all system which is the Surrender Points as a way of determining the end of a war.

Additionally I could add alliance disbanding as a deduction of surrender points equal to the number of players in that alliance.

e.g. Faction Alliance 3 disbands with its 15 members those points are deducted from the starting Surrender Points total.

TheRook

[serrin]

I think the premise is a good one. The idea of having a clear cut winner in a war is probably desired by any alliance or faction who's finished a questionable war with Destruction being the only denominator in the result. There are many variables that don't get accounted for in a victory/loss.

I am concerned that something like this will over complicate things though. Will it take out surprise factors? While no one wants to wake up to find their alliance was massed in a sneak attack war starting event, it is a valid tactic.

I have also seen over cumbersome rules ruin web based games in the past, so I say look into this but use caution.