Well this would avoid me going mad to create a balanced system.
If i understood correctly, the system would be the old one but with categories (Goals) that would give resources bonuses.

Thoughts

- Do not like the idea that we war can be bought, atleast it should be a much higer price
Instead of more attacks , alliances could farm to get the resources needed to buy the war.
- Like the idea of a CashBox but how would this be shared? Depending of damage of each member? Payed to the capo that should share it?
- Winning points, how many of these are needed to win?

The system i was working on, was not perfect but i think what most user liked was the Goals.
Maybe have some Main goals that if gained will win the war, no payout for them and some side goals that do not help to win war but have payout, for example Top3 that have killed most troops, etc.

So i like alot of these ideas however....

+7 days war buyable for 5% of War Cashbox1 ( only possible in last 24hrs of war and when war wasn't lost for one side )

This i believe should be 100%. Reason being any alliance wanting to continue a war should be doing it because they want to continue the destruction. It should not be based on the cost in resources and so no matter how much has been accumulated on captured resources by an alliance they should be willing to give this up to continue.

However I believe resources based on ships killed should always be kept separate and the winning alliance should get the resources accumulated by the losing alliance and their own and this will always add up and never be touched until war is over, plus all of the resources that the losing alliance accumulated in war once it is declared they lost.

If you understand my reasoning would be because this would make a war purely about making attacks rather than being profitable based on farming. This will force people to attack more and there for make the game more interesting

In the end basically the alliance that destroyed more would end up with the huge profit at the end which will make attack that much more important.

It also means 1 alliance could pay to keep the war going 2 more weeks but in say the 4th week the other alliance could do so well that they force the other to surrender. That is the risk the alliance takes when continuing the war

War payout The resources won, will be payed out directly to each alliance member in relation to their participation in this war. So when a player filled 50% of the alliance war cashbox with his fights, he'll receive 50% of the war reward.The war reward will be added directly to the players cashbox. ( at the moment the bounty cashbox )

Finally on this point i believe resources should be shared equally. Reason being that you work together as an alliance and so should gain equal rewards.

Just because you kill less does not mean you did less it may mean you just had less fleet in the first place. If I did the biggest HOF and also gained the most resources it means i did it for my alliance and not for my personal gain. That is what farming is for

Therefor I believe as the resources should be equal that also bring into question how is this resources delivered.

To 1 planet only (then the question is what if you cant store it all).

Maybe winning resources should shared into a "depot" as such which we each have and can access if and when we like almost like a savings account that can only be filled by winning wars

Stubigman wrote:

+7 days war buyable for 5% of War Cashbox1 ( only possible in last 24hrs of war and when war wasn't lost for one side )

This i believe should be 100%. Reason being any alliance wanting to continue a war should be doing it because they want to continue the destruction. It should not be based on the cost in resources and so no matter how much has been accumulated on captured resources by an alliance they should be willing to give this up to continue.

Stubigman wrote:

War payout The resources won, will be payed out directly to each alliance member in relation to their participation in this war. So when a player filled 50% of the alliance war cashbox with his fights, he'll receive 50% of the war reward.The war reward will be added directly to the players cashbox. ( at the moment the bounty cashbox )

WoW thats what happens when i scan a post and dont read it fully
Missunderstood the first and didnt even see the second.

Like Stubigman, says.. Cashbox at end of war that is payed out should be equal to ever member, this would help growth of small members.
I think those payout for categories/goals should be depending of each members effort or even a payout to the member that acomplishes the goal.

I like the direction, my main thought on the cashbox is just that if its goal is to increase the number of attacks that happen by offering a reward, we need to be sure that the reward is comparable to what that person could have accomplished during that time without war. If I could have built 200 sentih during that time, but instead war, and lose half of them, and my reward is resources to rebuild say 50, in the end, i net a loss, and have little to no reason to go to war.

I really liked the idea once upon a time of a temporary bonus to research speed, or production speed, or building production. These are things that could not be earned during this time anyways, so they give alot of incentive to going to war.

Like Stubigman, says.. Cashbox at end of war that is payed out should be equal to ever member, this would help growth of small members.I think those payout for categories/goals should be depending of each members effort or even a payout to the member that acomplishes the goal.​

I believe a way around this would be.

50% of the total winnings would be shared equally to each member. (as i say having a deposit box each as such is where these resources could be and we can collect them as and when we wish).

2nd you can then give say:-

25% to the person who creates the biggest battle of the war and then the other
5% to the player who caused the most damage throughout the war completely
5% to the player for most resources accumilated during war
ect ect

so long as you can see the understanding of the idea.

​I like the direction, my main thought on the cashbox is just that if its goal is to increase the number of attacks that happen by offering a reward, we need to be sure that the reward is comparable to what that person could have accomplished during that time without war. If I could have built 200 sentih during that time, but instead war, and lose half of them, and my reward is resources to rebuild say 50, in the end, i net a loss, and have little to no reason to go to war.

This one im sorry cannabis i disagree in a way because war is not about profits or gaining what you'd have lost on producing ships because a lot of the time people make wars to protect their members or show if you keep attacking us we will fight back which is more of a forced decision. It is more about honour rather than thinking a war is for profits because i think any wars we have are always hard work anyway and nobody would just go to war unless their are good enough reasons to do such in most situations lol

However i like the idea you said about having a reward based on how many attacks you made. That could be like one of the 5% bonuses

I understand your touch for the way things have been in these games before, but the problem has ALWAYS been the "flower" players that collect points, and sit at the top of the ranks in a way no-one can reach them, and it affects the whole server, causing players to quit and inactivity to take over. The point of trying to create more reasons for war is to make it benefit the people who are fighting as well to grow. An alliance that is at war over and over for the first 6 months of the server will be far behind at the end of that time, but may have been the only people doing anything. Having heard your personal experience of S4K, I can say, its extremely necessary to create another way for lower ranked players to catch up (war systems with a final reward that is a boost for example.)

My ideas were not based on any previous games just my own ideas

absolutely a boost could be an idea for the winning team but then if for example.

allaince A has war with alliance B and alliance A wins and receives boosts.

If these are production boost or speed of building ships then yes it may encourage wars to happen more often....

however it also means that during a war the winner being alliance A wins and has boost to catch back up, the other alliances grow as normal and alliance B then struggles the whole time because they will be far behind on both ships and production due to the war.

How do we make sure they dont get bored and leave.

RaVenC wrote:

When we'll implement a warsystem with a boost, it will end in "pseudo" wars. Than every alliance will declare wars with friendly alliances to win such boosts for the players of the alliance.

For the war payout, we can handle it so:
50% of the won resources will be splittet to all active players in the war ( minimum 1 fight? ). The other 50% will be splittet related to the activity in the war.

That is why i say boosts may not work.

I will war anybody to help protect my alliance but I would not choose to go to war just for the sake of war as it's a very time consuming thing and war should not be taken lightly

But thats what I mean, the game stagnates and people get bored and leave in droves. Look at the inactives list in stiddari. This is a War game, not a troop building game. There are alot of ideas to implement a high-score list that takes into account real battles.

As to preventing "pseudo-wars", I would make the bonus that is gained on a sliding scale, that is based on the damage done in the war, and maybe a couple possible accomplishments.

EX:
50% of opponents beginning troop total destroyed (in battle reports on board) earns you a .05% increase to research speed (example)
100% of opponents beginning troop total destroyed earns 1%
200% of opponents beginning troop total destroyed earns 2%
500% of opponents beginning troop total destroyed earns 3%

One player having 3 HOF as attacker earns 1%
One player having 3 winning HOF as defender earns 1%
Defending team winning war earns 1% (they did not prepare for war the same way declarers usually do)


With the implementation of a point based war system, it will ensure that wars are actually fought out in order to end, and the bonus be earned, so even if there were friendly wars, they would be significant wars, that would provide constant growth on the HOF list and give a reason to not be a pure point collector. It also sounds like the direction of the war system is to put minimum requirements to enter the war, so we can easily prevent issues of the #1 alliance declaring to the #25 alliance as well.

What happenes with an alliance of 1 member or even 2 members?

RaVenC wrote:

Winning Points

• 1 point for each resource category of looted resources for the alliance with the highest value of this resource
• 1 point for each resource category of destroyed units for the alliance with the highest value of this resource
• 1 points for the most destroyed unit points
• 1 point for the most players reduced to 0 unit points ( only will be counted when player had some unit points before, at the time of killing the last units )
• 1 point for the most count of won fights where units was destroyed
• 1 point for the most fights where units was destroyed

Last two points: Maybe except Units like Trading Ship, Transporter (and Noah)?

First of all i have to say that I like the idea of this system.
But...
I don't like the idea to buy more wartime. Neither with 5% of the cashbox nor with 100%. A war should have a defined duration. Defined by the declaring alliance. But there should be a min and max time between they can choose. There I conform with Raven. 2-6 weeks are a good duration.
And in case of an draw, the war should be extended automatically by one week until there is a winner.

The idea of boost I don't like.
The idea of taking out tranding ships and nohas I don't like as well... this is the onliest chance for smaller players to annoy bigger players,

Perhaps "1 points for the most destroyed unit points" should be two, because its the most important. But this is just an unimportant topic and I'm not totally sure if it would be good. Just think about it

This is basically all I have to say to the ideas for now.

I understand your touch for the way things have been in these games before, but the problem has ALWAYS been the "flower" players that collect points, and sit at the top of the ranks in a way no-one can reach them, and it affects the whole server, causing players to quit and inactivity to take over. The point of trying to create more reasons for war is to make it benefit the people who are fighting as well to grow. An alliance that is at war over and over for the first 6 months of the server will be far behind at the end of that time, but may have been the only people doing anything. Having heard your personal experience of S4K, I can say, its extremely necessary to create another way for lower ranked players to catch up (war systems with a final reward that is a boost for example.)

But thats what I mean, the game stagnates and people get bored and leave in droves. Look at the inactives list in stiddari. This is a War game, not a troop building game.

Thats an important point, but I think it can't be solved with boosts. I would prefer a possibility to attack together (and defend by stationing your troops on a alliance members planet for a few hours). So that you can unite your alliance fleets to attack an higher ranked player. I know that this would be a big change in the game (and I think a lot of programming work ) but with this system noone could sit untouchably on the top of the highscore.
(Perhaps you can add a new building like a space-harbor which can limit the possible troops per planet (including friends troops) and you have to extend it, if you want to station more troops... awww. There would be so many ideas... perhaps i should learn programming and help Raven )

hate the idea about a war chest reward system as most know when in big wars you need all the res you gain to try to rebuild or fuel your next attack
losing a percentage will reduce your ability to rebuild or wage war.
But it would be fair on both sides during the war but after could make losing even more of a penalty for the loser (too much of a penalty perhaps)
how would you give out this war chest as you could have members who did nothing at all gaining billions for doing nothing yet those who did all the winning yet ended up almost fleet less gaining no greater an amount or even worse small players having thier planets overflow with upto billions going to open space.

Also the ability to buy more bashing time could force some players out of the game.

surely the simplest method for working out who is winning is by total alliance points or fleet points

I do like the ability for fleets to be joined together as it promotes teamwork and would allow smaller players to take an active role in wars.
the other question this rasies is the ability to station fleets on other members planets to protect them or ninja an incoming fleet that is sent to intercept a players returning attack fleet.

I love you Demo

.: warned by RaVenC :.
Reason: Spam