War rule

    • War rule

      Ok, i'll try to be short and get to the point.

      I think a war should have some kind of limit, like 2 weeks, or even a month, and then the losses on both sides should be calculated.

      Offcourse all losses can not be calculated, like some scout attacks, and with all the rebuilding it would be a little more difficult.

      So let's for example just take some bigger hits that are posted on two teams War thread in politics, and HOF hits between that teams players,
      get them all calculated and see who was the better side, so teams can declare Win/Losing on their alliance page

      And in the future if they have war with that same alliance it should also be some time between two wars of the teams that allready had it,
      let say for example 2 months after the war that teams cannot get again in the same war.
      Then they can get in the fight again and after the war it can be written second war, or War No2 ( or whatever ), win/loss, the time it started and the time it ended.

      This way game will get action back,
      becouse like this, people make hits, other team rebuild, and it goes in circle to forever, both sides have pride, neither side will said they lost the war, and it goes on, and on, and on, and people lose interest in fighting after few months, you see players down, whats the point on keep hitting, it does not give you any pleasure as you know you are not closer to winning becouse of it, this way we have a way to end war, this alliance can recoup and have a second chance after some time to fight back the winners.

      I dont see a point in hitting one player all days long so he cannot rebuild, hit him and let him play again, you have your points that are calculated in war points, that you need to win war, now let him rebuild maybe to hit him again and gain more points to win the war.

      I think something like that can be easy to implement, and it would be a lot more fun then this wars dragging forever.

      Cheers
      Cesc

    • gute idee . besser wenn ein spieler 0 einheiten hat . so ist er raus ^^ . sehe es bei uns . 12 gegen 4 spieler . 4 spieler können nicht gegen 12 gewinnen wenn sie immer neue einheiten produzieren . es darf auch kein unendschieden geben . der den krieg anfängt muss auch für berichte sorgen sonst hat er ihn verloren finde ich .
      Vendetta
      S2 Der Bünder Mitglied der Allianz 300
      S7 Bulldog Bünde Capo der Allianz Wir kriegen euch ALLE

    • Creo que implantando en la guerra un contador de bajas y ataques realizados como en el vendetta-plus, se acabaría todo el rollo que nos estas contando.

      Una guerra NO debería tener de limite, lo que se debería es la opción de rendirse sin que el que declare la guerra acepte dicha rendición ( después de un tiempo mínimo de guerra, unas dos o tres semanas ), y una vez aceptada se den 2 o 3 semanas mínimo de tregua para poder crecer en paz.

      De todos modos ese mes que dices que debería de durar una guerra, no es lo mismo atacar con 600 mercenarios que atacar con 60.000.... ahora podría valer pero en el futuro no lo veo eh
      :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

      The post was edited 2 times, last by txoni ().

    • Ok, firstly,
      i could of wrote this in my own language so noone of you would not understand it,
      but i didn't.

      I put an effort to write it in english, so that we can all have discussion about what is the best, and now everyone is speaking in their own languages, so if you are not to lazy you can all translate it first and copy it here, becouse many of your slang words google translator can not translate and i don't understand a half of the things you are saying guys :D

      Ok, txoni, i guess you said war should not have a limit.
      For the rest i don't quite understand.

      So, then you will have your war with PDC and KL few more years, hitting rebuilding and again, allways same players same hits, we will have with NR, and the rest of alliances will have their wars, endless wars lasting for years between 8 alliances.

      And NOONE will surender, i know if someone would farm me 24/7 i for sure would not get the white flag out and surrender, i would rather watch TV, forgett the game, and there will be no winner, ever.

      I think alliances should have many wars, so you can see against who they lost wars and against who they won wars, and that would show their reputation.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Cesc ().

    • Originally posted by txoni
      Creo que implantando en la guerra un contador de bajas y ataques realizados como en el vendetta-plus, se acabaría todo el rollo que nos estas contando.

      Una guerra NO debería tener de limite, lo que se debería es la opción de rendirse sin que el que declare la guerra acepte dicha rendición ( después de un tiempo mínimo de guerra, unas dos o tres semanas ), y una vez aceptada se den 2 o 3 semanas mínimo de tregua para poder crecer en paz.

      De todos modos ese mes que dices que debería de durar una guerra, no es lo mismo atacar con 600 mercenarios que atacar con 60.000.... ahora podría valer pero en el futuro no lo veo eh


      Translation


      I think that we implement a counter of casualties and attackes like in Vendetta-Plus, the problem your telling us would be over.

      A war should NOT have a limite, what there should be is a opcion to surrender without the need of who declared the war to accept this surrender (After a minimun time of war 2 or 3 weeks), and once accepted there should be 2 or 3 weeks without the abilitie to declare a war so we can grow peacefully.

      Anyway that month you say that a war should last.. Its not the same to attack with 600 Mercenerys than to attack with 60.000...
      Now this could work, but in the future it wont.


      Ok, my opinion on this subject.
      There should be a War System implemented within the game, where the total troop points lost is logged and once one of the sides loses 60% troops give the opcion to surrender, if the do not decide to acept surrender once they reach 90% troops lost (there is allways someone with movers,etc no need for all to be at 0) the war is lost & won

      I know RaVenC has intention of making a war system but i do not know how this will work, as seen in [0.11.0] Planned Features

      Originally posted by RaVenC
      Planned Features:
      • war rework (with benefits for the winner)
      FACEBOOK | TWITTER | BOARD | GAME
      Mail: Stv3N@gmx.es
      Skype: Stv228

      Allways remember, follow the rules, respect others and most important have FUN! :thumbsup:
      "Give your hand and they will take your arm."

    • Oh, i missinterpeted something from txoni, as i said, google translator sucks.

      It is almost impossible to destroy 90% troops of whole alliance, even if you put someone to zero, they can make some troops over the night with the res in the storages and fleetsave them forever.

      And there will allways be a players who are allways fleetsaving, or dodging the attacks, so it leads us again to never ending wars. :rolleyes:

    • For example if an Alliance has 1.000.000 Troops Total Points (carefull only Troop Points) then 90% would be 100.000 Total Troops Points, i dont think its would be that hard.
      So if there would be 10 Players in that Alliance that would be 10.000 troop points per player...

      But of course if we have a war Systme it would have basic rules, if all members are at 0 points and they dont kill any troops in a week they lose, so if there is a case of fleet save they lose anyway... there should be rules to force players to battle if not they should just surrender.
      FACEBOOK | TWITTER | BOARD | GAME
      Mail: Stv3N@gmx.es
      Skype: Stv228

      Allways remember, follow the rules, respect others and most important have FUN! :thumbsup:
      "Give your hand and they will take your arm."

    • Originally posted by Illia5
      Original von Cesc
      It is almost impossible to destroy 90% troops of whole alliance


      So simply count every player individually.


      same thing Illia.
      Alliance have 20 players, you have to kill every one of them to only 10% troop points, but in the meantime when you hit one, and go to another one, the first one rebuilds, becouse you cant keep hiting 3 players.
      Its get harder if another alliance have more members then yours too.

      Originally posted by Stv3n
      For example if an Alliance has 1.000.000 Troops Total Points (carefull only Troop Points) then 90% would be 100.000 Total Troops Points, i dont think its would be that hard.
      So if there would be 10 Players in that Alliance that would be 10.000 troop points per player...

      But of course if we have a war Systme it would have basic rules, if all members are at 0 points and they dont kill any troops in a week they lose, so if there is a case of fleet save they lose anyway... there should be rules to force players to battle if not they should just surrender.


      Yeah, i just say, it should be some system how to win.

      Hmmm. If alliance have 10 000 000 troop points, when their accumulated losses of troops get to 10 000 000 they lose the war.
      So the number of troops when the war started, the first team that kills that amount of troops wins.

      Just brainstorming =) thats why i opened the thread, so we can share ideas.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Cesc ().

    • Original von Cesc
      Originally posted by Illia5
      Original von Cesc
      It is almost impossible to destroy 90% troops of whole alliance


      So simply count every player individually.


      same thing Illia.
      Alliance have 20 players, you have to kill every one of them to only 10% troop points, but in the meantime when you hit one, and go to another one, the first one rebuilds, becouse you cant keep hiting 3 players.
      Its get harder if another alliance have more members then yours too.


      I was obviously implying that once a player falls below 10% they're out of the war. Once 85% (6 out of 7) or more players of one alliance are out of the war the war is over.

      One day you'll say "Why is everyone dead?
      Why didn't we just do what Kim Jong Il said?"

    • Originally posted by Stv3N
      For example if an Alliance has 1.000.000 Troops Total Points (carefull only Troop Points) then 90% would be 100.000 Total Troops Points, i dont think its would be that hard.
      So if there would be 10 Players in that Alliance that would be 10.000 troop points per player...

      But of course if we have a war Systme it would have basic rules, if all members are at 0 points and they dont kill any troops in a week they lose, so if there is a case of fleet save they lose anyway... there should be rules to force players to battle if not they should just surrender.



      steven te lo dire en español xk se que me entiendes, el 90% de 1.000.000 son 900.000....

      el 10% restante son los 100.000 que has escrito :rolleyes:


      I think they should implement the adder points. It would end all problems.

      cesc, I think you're right and you have to make an effort to speak all the same language.

      I think the POLLOS VS PDC and KL war should be over, but things are so good ....
      :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

    • You are sayn if a player gets 90% of more of his troops destroyed that he is out of war. Its an ok propositon, but then all palyers would only fleetsave and watch troops points. Who would attack ?? I tink there should be a point or time limit..lets say 2 weeks, 1 month, a few monts. Or the first team that scores lets say 5M of troops damage, fut only from HOF hits! So we dont need to calculate those shity scout attacks and stuff like that.
      [Blocked Image: http://i.imgur.com/jV1WIIN.jpg]
      [DT] DREAM TEAM