New War rules

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • New War rules

    Which principle should be used in the new war rules ? 22
    1.  
      Time Limit - 1 month (3) 14%
    2.  
      Time Limit - 45 days (0) 0%
    3.  
      Time Limit - 2 months (1) 5%
    4.  
      Fixed Troop Damage Limit (75 % of all opponents AVERAGE Troop points ) (11) 50%
    5.  
      Leave unchanged . (2) 9%
    6.  
      Leave unchanged but remove War restrictions (the end of war in 7 days without CRs ,War breach , time before redelaration etc ) (5) 23%
    Well , I think we need new war rules , cause current rules lead us nowhere ... Some ally capo's here have too much "ego" and don't accept the defeat even if they apparently losing .
    I think these rules should be made a bit more "technical" rather than "negotiable" , so the outcome would be evident without a "human factor "

    I have a couple of variants for new rules , which will depend wholly on mathematical relation..
    If we look through finished wars we can see that total "lost points " of any of 2 sides involved in the war was barely 45-55% of their "initial battlepower" (troop points before the war ) .

    I am suggesting a new rule that will have a "Troop loss limit" which will eliminate any kind of "rebuilding factor" and will put an end point to the war.

    Ok , I think it will be the best solution to end the war ,immediately when one ally inflicts a total 75% damage (of opponents "initial battlepower")...

    for example war between 2 allies
    Initial troop points .
    Alliance A ---- 10 000 000 troop points
    Allinace B ----- 8 000 000 troop points

    so the war ends immediately if either Alliance A inflicts 6 000 000 damage(75% of ITP B) or Alliance B inflicts
    7 500 000 damage (75% of ITP A) ...
    any sort of "rebuilding points " or "final position " of alliances after the war don't have any role in this kind of rule...

    however these rule might change if there will be a 3 rd party who joins the war..

    If anyone else has better options , comment here .

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

  • Or we can put a limit which will be equal for both alliances using the mean arithmetical value ..
    So the limit would be 0.75*(ITP "A"+ ITP "B") /2
    and it will look like this ..

    Initial Troop points
    Alliance A - 10 000 000
    Alliance B - 8 000 000

    the mean Arithmetical value is 0.75 *(10 000 000 + 8 000 000)/2 = 6 750 000

    so if any of allies inflict 6 750 000 troop damage , it is the winner
  • Stv3N wrote:

    I dont like science :S
    but something should be done until there is an ingame system to control this...
    @DemoN thoughts?

    Simple math , not such a difficult science mate :D

    and I think it will make wars more exciting..Cause every single troop damage will play a role In determining the winner.

    Imagine one side needs 100 k troop damage to be winners and another side needs 125 k troop damage ... And players will know that these are last hours and battles of this war...
  • I personally don't think that we need rules to regulate this. If either alliance actually wants to win the war they can simply try harder if the other alliance is "too stubborn to accept their defeat". Not everyone has to share your opinion on when they're defeated or not.

    That being said I'm not here to discuss the overall need for new rules. I just wanted to point something out that seemed odd to me:

    Xplorer wrote:


    Initial troop points .
    Alliance A ---- 10 000 000 troop points
    Allinace B ----- 8 000 000 troop points

    so the war ends immediately if either Alliance A inflicts 6 000 000 damage(75% of ITP B) or Alliance B inflicts
    7 500 000 damage (75% of ITP A) ...


    It feels weird that the "weaker" alliance should have to kill more troops in order to be granted a win against a "stronger alliance". You might want to rethink that. (Or maybe elaborate on why you think the weaker alliance should have to kill more troops)

    One day you'll say "Why is everyone dead?
    Why didn't we just do what Kim Jong Il said?"
  • Illia5 wrote:

    I personally don't think that we need rules to regulate this. If either alliance actually wants to win the war they can simply try harder if the other alliance is "too stubborn to accept their defeat". Not everyone has to share your opinion on when they're defeated or not.

    That being said I'm not here to discuss the overall need for new rules. I just wanted to point something out that seemed odd to me:

    Xplorer wrote:


    Initial troop points .
    Alliance A ---- 10 000 000 troop points
    Allinace B ----- 8 000 000 troop points

    so the war ends immediately if either Alliance A inflicts 6 000 000 damage(75% of ITP B) or Alliance B inflicts
    7 500 000 damage (75% of ITP A) ...


    It feels weird that the "weaker" alliance should have to kill more troops in order to be granted a win against a "stronger alliance". You might want to rethink that. (Or maybe elaborate on why you think the weaker alliance should have to kill more troops)


    well I can understand your question .
    Look my 2 nd post ,this is a variant for equal troop damage limit..

    The reason why I firstly choose the method which is in 1 st post (where "weaker" ally should kill more units ) , this is because of a fixed 75 % troop points damage , The weaker alliance should know that they enter into the war with more "stronger " alliance , so there is this difference , though they can win the war if they have better trained Mercs .
  • Good point, but think points per player vs large alliances. I think xplorer was trying to prevent an alliance from taking on 20 new players for advantage if both allies need to destroy same amount. There are flaws in all ideas, but what is NOT WORKING is the current lack of real rules.
    no you cannot just "try harder". There is a finite amount of resources to gain each day and number of times you can send attacks out. We have all experienced weeks of 8 plus attacks a day. The defender has too big of an advantage in dodging cost vs attack cost. Wars go nowhere without a goal. Please understand this.
  • I am also for a limit rule, somehow limit the war, via damage, time or anything that has an END, becouse waiting for someone to say "i quit, you are better" we all know where that leads. I think there should be put a vote about how wars should be limited, but there should be some LIMIT!

    I know that war is normal in this kind of game, but without some limit rules it can go like forever...
    [Blocked Image: http://i.imgur.com/jV1WIIN.jpg]
    [DT] DREAM TEAM
  • In old vendetta there was less crying when your opponent dodged your attacks.

    I think there should be a list of options that are made, and the capos of the warring alliances agree on which terms to use during the war at declaration time. This way both teams agree on a scoring system or outcome goal beforehand. Xplorers suggestions are good for certain allies vs certain allies, but not all wars. There could also be an agreement on losing team paying restitution or punishment after war ends.

    we need to spice up this war game. Our war with NR was lame. There was never a time that both sides agreed on the current condition of the war. This is like north Korea winning the FIFA cup. We need a system that shows the current status. There's only a cpl hundred people playing still. The goal should not be to make people quit because they are tired of never ending wars (as we've seen so many do lately.) alliances should decide on better terms than just "I quit" or bash to inactivity.
  • Just a small question , how many wars happened since the begging of server ? About 8-9 I think..
    Did any war finish by the "official surrender" of one of sides ? - None of them , and never will do.
    What we saw all the time., the alliance which were losing tended to drag the time as much as possible , or taking any kind of measure just to avoid the loss.
    I think many of players here have the motto -"never surrender" .

    The War outcome should not be manipulated by ally leaders , Only and Only "the fixed troop damage" ...
  • Xplorer. A fixed percentage of troop points works in only some situations. Just as all other ideas have the same flaw. Letting the capos hash out that they are going to agree on:
    x time period
    x troop damage taken
    x hof attacks
    x players having hit 0 troops during war
    x resources stolen
    x opponents on vacation
    x opponents leave ally
    x opponents vote to surrender
    x members of each team vote to tie
    etc etc etc

    keep in mind under this, both sides have chance to declare what concerns they have of "equality" in war, and any conditions are agreed upon to avoid later claims like "well we are farming you alot even if we aren't hitting"

    if some groups want to enter "I quit" wars, they should be allowed to do so, but I want a goal in mind for my wars, and won't play this game if I'm forced into stupid wars like that. Terms agreement should be a requirement as part of declaration. Maybe we also need a fixed setup for wars only one party wants to partake in, so vengeance wars can happen, but don't force more players to quit the game.

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

  • I don't see any serious flaws in the idea mentioned on 2 nd post . It look quite fair Imao.

    The only flaw could arise , when weak players of losing alliance intentionally go to U mode , so they couldn't be hit . So the ally which is losing can put 90% of their players to u mode, to drag the time .
    But it has a solution too. Just can put a limit that only 50% of ally players can go to U mode during the war and that would work . Cant see any other flaws in that idea.
    And it will take quite reasonable time for one of the allies to reach that Fixed Damage .
  • $INM$ wrote:

    I thinks a new rules for the war:

    Include the time for This battle, exemple a war during maximum two months.

    It could be one of variants together with the ones I mentioned above , we need more of them so we have a list of very diverse options , then players will choose the best .
    i just don't know how to open the poll here , but before we need at least 5-6 variants of new war rules
  • I do not know much about the subject and knowing @RaVenC i think he is firstly interested in the updates before that "war system" is implemented.
    All i comented is that RaVenC has the intention of implementing one to make Wars more automatic and not based on the Team to make a decision.
    I do not know what his ideas are or when will this be done.
    Only he knows that.
    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."