Another War System suggestion...

[~Tziki~]

Okay so i was talking to an admin of a different game similar to this. The admin knew about this game and asked me what would i like to see in the game, that gatewars currently doesnt have.
To which my response was, i dont want to see ever lasting wars dragged out over a matter of pride, i want to see a clear victor and i want it to be measured / declared so there is no debate over who has won.

This is a suggestion we talked about (i have made it more gatewars orientated as id rather it be implemented here) (please note the blue writing is for effect only and not an attempt to be percieved as a forum mod, as i am of no such a position)

- lets say members from x alliance, use x amount of turns, on alliance y

- If the amount of turns used, damage done is acceptable then an auto alliance war is declared.

- The opposing alliance can accept or decline the declaration

- BUT

- If they decline, and then retalliate anyway, they are automatically considerd to accept the war declaration

- Once war has started, there should be an amount of naq to be given to the victor, depending on the size, income, member count of the losing alliance.

- There should be a minimum fee to pay, that is auto deducted from the income of every member that was involved in the war, and paid to an alliance bank (can be withdrawn by leader) of the victorious alliance.

- When in war, if alliance y is completely owned, and some players do not build stats or attack to an acceptable magnitude, those players are auto declared as surrendering (stops everlasting wars fought by only 1-2 people)

- When surrendered, these accounts are forced to set peace with all members of opposing alliance, and vice versa.

- Surrendered accounts cannot trade with members of their alliance, to stop feeding.

(maybe add something about being unable to trade with an alliance in war if you have traded with a surrendered account, to stop transfer from peace member - neutral player - war member)

- Once all players, or a set percentage of the members in an alliance/empire, on one side of the war have been auto surrendered. The war is lost.

Please see thread viewtopic.php?f=13&t=105963 for further idea's on improving this basic outline of possible improvement (e.g how many attack turns / players to auto declare war)

Please keep all spam out of the topic. This is for discussion of the above mentioned suggestion.

Guidelines for posting:

- Post if you agree or disagree.
- Say what you agree or disagree with.
- ENSURE YOU POST WHY YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE, AND IF POSSIBLE HOW TO IMPROVE ON THAT REASON (aka be constructive, or dont post at all)

[~Tziki~]

After further thinking...

perhaps a vendetta option would be required also (to allow for that aspect of the game)

[Sol]

- lets say members from x alliance, use x amount of turns, on alliance y

- If the amount of turns used, damage done is acceptable then an auto alliance war is declared.

- The opposing alliance can accept or decline the declaration

You need to add a spacial limiter, i.e 300 attacks in 3 hours.

- BUT

- If they decline, and then retalliate anyway, they are automatically considerd to accept the war declaration

Needs to be similar to how a war declaration is started, e.g alliance A attacks alliance B multiple times and induces a war declaration, alliance B decline, and then alliance B find 3 trill on a member of alliance A, they should be aloud to take it without starting a war.

- Once war has started, there should be an amount of naq to be given to the victor, depending on the size, income, member count of the losing alliance.

- There should be a minimum fee to pay, that is auto deducted from the income of every member that was involved in the war, and paid to an alliance bank (can be withdrawn by leader) of the victorious alliance.

deducted from income? sounds too messy. Same goes with allowing leaders to touch alliance banks.
Rewards systems are good, but not that one Acknowledgement of winning a war against someone is usually merit enough.

- When in war, if alliance y is completely owned, and some players do not build stats or attack to an acceptable magnitude, those players are auto declared as surrendering (stops everlasting wars fought by only 1-2 people)

- When surrendered, these accounts are forced to set peace with all members of opposing alliance, and vice versa.

- Surrendered accounts cannot trade with members of their alliance, to stop feeding.

(maybe add something about being unable to trade with an alliance in war if you have traded with a surrendered account, to stop transfer from peace member - neutral player - war member)

- Once all players on a side have been auto surrendered. The war is lost.

The rest seem fine.

Although you should be planning for multiple alliance wars, 3 v 2 etc.

[~Tziki~]

[spoiler]

- lets say members from x alliance, use x amount of turns, on alliance y

- If the amount of turns used, damage done is acceptable then an auto alliance war is declared.

- The opposing alliance can accept or decline the declaration

You need to add a spacial limiter, i.e 300 attacks in 3 hours.

- BUT

- If they decline, and then retalliate anyway, they are automatically considerd to accept the war declaration

Needs to be similar to how a war declaration is started, e.g alliance A attacks alliance B multiple times and induces a war declaration, alliance B decline, and then alliance B find 3 trill on a member of alliance A, they should be aloud to take it without starting a war.

- Once war has started, there should be an amount of naq to be given to the victor, depending on the size, income, member count of the losing alliance.

- There should be a minimum fee to pay, that is auto deducted from the income of every member that was involved in the war, and paid to an alliance bank (can be withdrawn by leader) of the victorious alliance.

deducted from income? sounds too messy. Same goes with allowing leaders to touch alliance banks.
Rewards systems are good, but not that one Acknowledgement of winning a war against someone is usually merit enough.

- When in war, if alliance y is completely owned, and some players do not build stats or attack to an acceptable magnitude, those players are auto declared as surrendering (stops everlasting wars fought by only 1-2 people)

- When surrendered, these accounts are forced to set peace with all members of opposing alliance, and vice versa.

- Surrendered accounts cannot trade with members of their alliance, to stop feeding.

(maybe add something about being unable to trade with an alliance in war if you have traded with a surrendered account, to stop transfer from peace member - neutral player - war member)

- Once all players on a side have been auto surrendered. The war is lost.

The rest seem fine.

Although you should be planning for multiple alliance wars, 3 v 2 etc.[/spoiler]

wow, surprised with your reply.


I agree there should be a measure on how many attacks can be returned on the initiator before the original victim is forced into an auto war.

i quite like geisha's idea of x amount of turns, from x amount of members. so that it voids good raid hits from one member etc.

lets see what others say and i will edit my first post.

[Sol]

The main problem is getting admin to code it.

[doc holliday]

It's the one thing this game really needs but has never gotten

[Sarevok]

I see a problem mostly with this line:
- Once all players on a side have been auto surrendered. The war is lost.
In relation to your starting comment:
To which my response was, i dont want to see ever lasting wars dragged out over a matter of pride, i want to see a clear victor

Couldn't 2 people, out of pride, keep a war against an alliance going forever still? Perhaps when 2/3rds of an alliance auto-surrenders, THEN victory id declared to the other alliance. I think that would stop 2-3 members keeping the war going indefinitely.

Also, you may want to consider some sort of trading ban or something on those that surrender. Between the alliance and the surrenders that is. Sort of like a perg/main lock-out. Shouldn't be to hard I wouldn't think. Something like, If trade partner is in same alliance, and either party has surrendered (not both, so an XOR situation) to an ongoing war, then trade is restricted. Won't stop the putting resources in the open for them to farm/raid, same with a middle man being used, but makes it more inconvenient.

Anyway, there's my 2 thoughts/suggestions to the idea itself. And I think it has merit.

[~Tziki~]

I see a problem mostly with this line:
- Once all players on a side have been auto surrendered. The war is lost.
In relation to your starting comment:
To which my response was, i dont want to see ever lasting wars dragged out over a matter of pride, i want to see a clear victor

Couldn't 2 people, out of pride, keep a war against an alliance going forever still? Perhaps when 2/3rds of an alliance auto-surrenders, THEN victory id declared to the other alliance. I think that would stop 2-3 members keeping the war going indefinitely.

Also, you may want to consider some sort of trading ban or something on those that surrender. Between the alliance and the surrenders that is. Sort of like a perg/main lock-out. Shouldn't be to hard I wouldn't think. Something like, If trade partner is in same alliance, and either party has surrendered (not both, so an XOR situation) to an ongoing war, then trade is restricted. Won't stop the putting resources in the open for them to farm/raid, same with a middle man being used, but makes it more inconvenient.

Anyway, there's my 2 thoughts/suggestions to the idea itself. And I think it has merit.

Not sure i follow the requirement for your second idea.

as for your first one. if other players in the losing alliance are surrendered, and cant trade with them. Then it is only a matter of time before the remaining alliance members run out of supplies and are auto surrendered. (the idea is that you must be active and attacking / sabbing your enemy, or having a minimum defense for atleast a set amount of time before the surrender timer is reset for your account)

[Sarevok]

1) Not true. You can buy/trade with anyone else, as well as farm/raid other players for resources. Not to mention farming/raiding your enemy, who if an alliance, would have many members usually.
Unless I've missed something where the players are cut-off from the rest of the game essentially?

Also, if running out of supplies is what ends the war, than isn't it the alliance with the most resources in reserve the one that wins?

2)Well, in your idea you had:
(maybe add something about being unable to trade with an alliance in war if you have traded with a surrendered account, to stop transfer from peace member - neutral player - war member)
I was just suggestion methods to block the trading of resources. But also details that these can be by-passed by a few methods.

[~Tziki~]

1) Not true. You can buy/trade with anyone else, as well as farm/raid other players for resources. Not to mention farming/raiding your enemy, who if an alliance, would have many members usually.
Unless I've missed something where the players are cut-off from the rest of the game essentially?

Also, if running out of supplies is what ends the war, than isn't it the alliance with the most resources in reserve the one that wins?

2)Well, in your idea you had:
(maybe add something about being unable to trade with an alliance in war if you have traded with a surrendered account, to stop transfer from peace member - neutral player - war member)
I was just suggestion methods to block the trading of resources. But also details that these can be by-passed by a few methods.

The idea isnt to completely screw over people in war and stop it happening. It is to encourage people to participate in an actual war system / force it to happen so there can be a a measure of an actual victor/loser, and prevent players from remaining inactive except for occasional hits here or there to justify a war. The idea is that by systematically removing accounts one by one through inactivity, an alliance is left unable to trade amongst itself to build up armies to take down their enemy, and one by one the losing alliance will be overcome by the more powerful alliance forcing an account to surrender one at a time, either by starving of resources, lack of defense, or inactivity due to no longer having the will to go on. either way it creates a victor and an end.

Yes players can farm their enemies accounts to get resources or neutral accounts, but that will only get them so far. And if there is a set amount of turns to be used and stats to be built for a set time frame, it may well be players are unable to manage this or want to do this. If players adhere to these rules, then they are active in the war, and are participating. so no reason to foce their account into a surrender.

The idea of a trade block between surrendered accounts and active war accounts, and anyone that trades between the two (a neutral party) is that it creates difficulty in trading accross your alliance as you need to find a third party willing to help you win a war. which is diplomatically unsafe, and less likely to happen. There will always be loop holes around things, and to negate them all is damn near impossible, but you can make it difficult / tedious to do so.

[Sarevok]

Dude, I'm not trying to bring your idea down, if that's what your taking from what I'm saying.

All I was pointing out was that, it shouldn't be when all the alliance surrenders, but instead a percentage like 2/3rds surrender, and then the other alliance is the victor. To stop the people whom do have the capacity to say spend money and keep buying, holding their alliance in a never ending war, which is what your trying to prevent.

And second, was simply an idea to stop the trade between alliance members, that was all. Like you said in your original post, as an idea:
"maybe add something about being unable to trade with an alliance in war"
But I only did it for internal alliance transfers, not external transfers, and then pointed out the loop-holes in my idea, to stop the nit-pickers coming in and saying "yeah, but you can just trade with a 3rd party n00b"

[~Tziki~]

ahh i see. sorry it is late, and i was having difficulty understanding exactly what you were getting at.

yes there could perhaps be a a further precaution to stop complete and utter stalemate by $$ spenders spending a small amount each week (although it would certainly help admin hehe)

i will add that into original post, i think its a good addition.

[~Tziki~]

Update:

Added in the proposal that it should be a set percentage of surrendered players in an alliance that determines when an alliance has lost. Initial proposal percentage is set at 75% of players in one alliance declared as surrendered. Credit to Sarevok

Also an additional proposal is that

once a war has started, there should be an ability to invite additional alliances to the war, and the ability to accept / decline this invite (so that empires and training alliances etc can be included) This would also require that the invited alliance will be auto accepted to the war if they over step the initial value for acceptable hostilities towards the declaring alliance (to prevent the additional alliance from declining then proceeding to mass the alliance afterwards) but would not invite a third alliance to the same war if they where not previously invite by either side and accepted by the other. This invite function will also help the War System decipher the difference between two different wars fought by Alliance A, against 2 different Enemies, Alliance B and Alliance C (Alliance A vs Alliance B, and Alliance A vs Alliance C, but not Alliance A vs Alliance B + C)

Aplogies if this is confusing, its late for me

[Clarkey]

Please keep all spam out of the topic. This is for discussion of the above mentioned suggestion.

Although you say the blue colour is for effect only, such a phrase as the one above being in blue is Moderator-like and I kindly suggest you change your colour of "effect" to one of the other 100 types of colours you could have chosen. Thank you.

[~Tziki~]

BUMP