Forums

War system 3.0

Open Archived Joe opened this discussion on

Joe -

Posting a Dev thread to see what our players think of it ;)

War system.

Main idea: Every action in war helps in winning or losing a war.
Measurement: 'War progress meter' measuring something like 'war points' or so.

----------------------------------------

1- Victory conditions:

Create a war point gap of x points. (i.e. Alli A has x more warpoints than Alli B)

X = Own Alliance size at declaration / 3. This counts for both declarer and declaree.

This means: Declaring on a smaller alliance means that the smaller alliance needs a smaller gap to win the war than the declaring alliance. Declaring on a bigger alliance means that the bigger alliance needs a bigger gap than your alliance.

Actions producing war points:

1- Killing tribes. Every tribe killed, no matter the size, earns you 1000 warpoints. (bonus over the actual damage done for getting the kill). This means for small alliances that a single kill can be enough to win a war (which is imo a good thing since small alliances shouldnt be damaged too much by wars. Ending a war after 1 kill seems ok. The bigger the alliance gets, the less the killbonus is worth).
2- Grabbing acres. Every acre grabbed earns you a warpoint.
3- Destroying buildings. Every building destroyed earns you a warpoint.
4- Killing military. Every 1000 military off/defpoints killed earns you a warpoint.
5- Killing resources. Every 10k gold stolen earns a point. Every 6667 food poisoned earns a point. Every 588 wood destroyed earns a point (impossible atm). Every 100 soldiers killed earns a point. Every 500 citizens killed earns a point.
6- Spellwork: Every spell voided or disabled earns 5 warpoints.

A rough first sketch. Ofcourse balancing might be needed.

----------------------------------------

2- Possible war endings:

Victory/Defeat: Defeated alliance pays war spoils to the victorious alliance. These war spoils are of height Y where Y is:
Y= defeatedalliancesize (at the time of defeat) * 7500 = creditworth transfer. If an average acres yields about 750 credits per update in defended economy-mode this means 10 updates of deffed income which is not so much but the gains do also lie in the damage done to the enemy alliance.
Both the victorious and the defeated alliance gain fame proportionate to their damage done in war. Every warpoint yields 1 fame to the alliance, distributed evenly over all tribes regardless of size.
Both the victorious and the defeated alliance gain science proportionate to the damage done to them in war. Every enemy warpoint yields 10 research points to the alliance pool (this reflects the way one needs resistance in order to find new strategies and technologies).

Diplomatic Victory/Surrender. Surrendering alliance pays war spoils to the victorious alliance. These war spoils are of height Z where Z is:
Z= victoriousalliancesize (at the time of victory) * 15000 = creditworth transfer.
Surrendering alliance pay fame to victorious alliance. The height of the fame to be paid is 'warpoints needed till defeat * 2' (the less damage done to you the higher the cost to surrender in fame; on the verge of defeat, surrendering costs almost no fame but war spoils for surrender are ALOT higher than for defeat + some other conditions)

Standard Truce. A standard truce can be proposed by either alliance with a duration of 8 hours. The opposing alliance can accept this truce during those 8 hours. A truce proposal can not be withdrawn once made and times out after 8 hours.
Apart from the truce, nothing else happens.

Negotiated Truce. A negotiated truce can be proposed by either alliance with a duration of 8 hours. This truce type consists of a truce + creditworth transfer up to (-)7499 credits per acre of the proposing alliance. This means that a 'winning' alliance can propose a truce if they get paid to a certain extent or that a losing alliance can propose a truce and 'pay' along with it for peace. The height of the payment can be set manually but can not be changed for the duration of the proposal. The other alliance is allowed to propose a counter-proposal ofcourse. Only 1 proposal at a time is possible for each alliance.
No fame or science is generated in a negotiated truce.

Automatic truce. After 72 hours of continual war, an automatic truce will kick in.
Fame and science are attributed according to the victory/defeat scenario. No credits are transferred.

----------------------------------------

3- War declaration restrictions.

My idea would be to keep the current criteria for war declarations (both size and numbers of tribe based). Maybe needs revision/evaluation on the minimum cooldown times inbetween two wars? And possibly hard-code a 12-tick truce between the two ex-warring alli's (block all except intel) to make sure that a war truly ends when it ends (no ongoing killing after a surrender).

Also possibly a timer before war kicks in after declaration (but this is less vital in this system. Making the warpoint gap bigger isn't easy once your enemy starts hitting back + see proposal in 4)

-----------------------------------

4- Special features in war (partly depend on a possible delay time before a war starts).

A: Defiance special spell. The declared alliance is granted the defiance spell automatically. This spell, which always lasts 8 updates, halves the building and training time and doubles the mp/tp regeneration and can not be voided (should be 'effect' rather than spell)

B: Bonuses. No more bonuses on kills. No increased famegains during war. In war, everything deals slightly more damage though (25%?) unless stated otherwise (maybe things like TR/HR/Jura/tunneling can have double damage in war; or defensive stuff like the burn mp/tp ones)) (maybe certain ops do too much damage in war, gaining warpoints at a too easy rate (PW, FB and sortalike stuff) so they might need a tunedown in war (or in general))

C: Random events. There are currently some random events giving or taking mp/tp randomly and lengthening/shortening army returntime. I find these quite annoying.
Maybe some events raising extra resources for the war or complaining about the war could be nice though. I think especially food-related events are nice since food IS important yet does not kill people straightaway (so reacting to such a message is good but if you fail to do so it's not disastrous).

Joe -

Evaluating the war system is scheduled for age 45 so it's unlikely that anything will happen to war soon.
This is mainly posted to see if people would like a (balanced version of the) system as pictured above so we can eventually start balancing it at some point. Also if people feel this makes a big difference we might even be able to make some haste with it and introduce it sooner than planned.

Frisbee -

A: Defiance special spell. The declared alliance is granted the defiance spell automatically. This spell, which always lasts 8 updates, halves the building and training time and doubles the mp/tp regeneration and can not be voided (should be 'effect' rather than spell)

if the alliance that get declared on is at WM already they will have a big benefit from this spell that's the only thing i can think about that's not good with this system :)

Joe -

Quote
if the alliance that get declared on is at WM already they will have a big benefit from this spell that's the only thing i can think about that's not good with this system :)


Actually I liked that. It means that if both alliances are warmoded they can be deterred from declaring war and might kill eachother without it ;)

On the other hand, the gains of destroying eachother in war are quite significant (in fame and rps). The cost might be heavy as well though :D

Frisbee -

would be kinda hard to kill a tribe if he is active and he have 2 hours build time and if u have Research that lower the build time 1 hour u will suddenly have 1 hour build time for 8 ticks that's is really good.

ScorpiAS -

Quote
would be kinda hard to kill a tribe if he is active and he have 2 hours build time and if u have Research that lower the build time 1 hour u will suddenly have 1 hour build time for 8 ticks that's is really good.


Basically you are correct. But should you see that your supposed victim is active and they have sci you should just not declare. Out of War kills are still an option.

Quote
And possibly hard-code a 12-tick truce between the two ex-warring alli's (block all except intel) to make sure that a war truly ends when it ends (no ongoing killing after a surrender).


I specifically liked this one.

Now on the down side:
You make the game favoring the small allies too much. I do understand that this is intended in order to get more wars but I am afraid that this will not happen. If I see a huge big ally what will stop me from staying half their size, always being able to declare while they cannot and just wait for one of them to pump or make a misstake - declare and win the war with just one kill..... Being big starts to be a real pain in the ass..

farnold2 -

If you declare on an alliance that is in warmode already then you didnt do your homework prior to declaring and thus i think the declaree should have that advantage.

Joe -

Quote
Being big starts to be a real pain in the ass..


Yes. That's a very good concern. Although I think the war system would make this more visible rather than enhance it (it is already true without the war system).

Joe -

Quote
I do understand that this is intended in order to get more wars but I am afraid that this will not happen.


Other goals are actually that wars make more sense and that it's easier to participate in war, even when your coordination sucks.

Killing tribes is still by far the best thing to do since it gives you a bonus AND removes potential damage from your enemy. But completely crippling is almost as good while in current war it is simply worth nothing. Also in current war attackers can contribute solo by grabbing acres but a solo t/m cannot aid an alliance at all in war (unless he is able to kill solo).

So the idea also kinda is to make war more senseful in non-top alliances (6 vs. 6 hurting eachother as much as possible even when kills are impossible).

rEdL|nE -

I already see one bug: very small alliance declares on a huge one. 1 overpumped suicider makes one grab and wins the war. that's not war, that's just lame. plus again, killing one big tribe shouldn't win one's war! This is a kind of system that really makes growing hard and that would discourage me to continue playing.

Another thing: why should crippling a tribe be awarded? I've always known that there's no prize for 2nd best! and dmg on PW + FB? what kind of noobish crap is that???

IMHO only kills and grabs should be awarded! TMs are not there in order to famerape better in war, but to KILL!

And the defiance spell - REALLY?!?

Just make a normal delay (see classic) 'til all the war bonuses come into work and 'til the kills start mattering!

Sonix -

Also, imo (and i didn't read it very in-depth cause i'm running late), I don't like that all tribes count for the same amount no matter what the size.

Joe -

Quote
I already see one bug: very small alliance declares on a huge one. 1 overpumped suicider makes one grab and wins the war. that's not war, that's just lame.


So let's do some calcs. 20k alli declares at 30k alli (max range). 20k alli needs 6667 warpoints for win. You want to grab 6667 acres at once with a bunch of 2k tribes? Good luck ;)

Quote
plus again, killing one big tribe shouldn't win one's war!


So let's take a look at the differences.

Currently: Take 32% land from the enemy (% based on your own size)
Proposed: X = Own Alliance size at declaration / 3. This counts for both declarer and declaree.

As you can see, the difference is a 1% increase in difficulty to win the war by pure grabbing. Killing becomes worth less at larger size, because the old way counted a kill as 'acreage' while the new one counts only 'destroyedacres + 1000' which gives less points for a kill on average on 3k+ tribes.
Secondly, your enemy can 'delay' your win by hitting you back at 'any' point in time, striking at pretty random targets simply to earn points. To me it seems that winning a war would become harder rather than easier (which is why the maximum duration is increased to 72 hours) simply because winning a war would not only mean killing but also minimizing the damage against you.

Quote
This is a kind of system that really makes growing hard and that would discourage me to continue playing.


I'm happy to hear how exactly this would be the case so please elaborate.

Sanro -

Does a 3 min lasting 1 kill REALY qualify as a war?

Joe -

Quote
I don't like that all tribes count for the same amount no matter what the size.


The act of killing counts the same. Killing a 10k tribe means taking out at least ~3k buildings probably, earning at least 4k points in the process (depending much on efficiency). Killing a 1k acre tribe would take more like 200 buildings, giving 1200 points total. (both rough estimations)

fear -

i like it

Sonix -

Quote
The act of killing counts the same. Killing a 10k tribe means taking out at least ~3k buildings probably, earning at least 4k points in the process (depending much on efficiency). Killing a 1k acre tribe would take more like 200 buildings, giving 1200 points total. (both rough estimations)


That would fall under the “I didn't get a chance to read it in detail :)” [8)]. Yea, re-reading it, i don't have a problem with it. [:D]

In this case, what if we take out the decreased spell and op success rate for wars? With this new system, a random huge tribe (10k) in an alliance is just a big war points target to tribes between 5k-5.999k acres (against an alliance that has tribes smaller than 6k) since they have full success rate and the 10k tribe has 60% success rate (or however much).

Plato -

And what if the poor 10k tribe survives 3-4 ka, and because of that they still win...

Sonix -

But the KA doesnt matter. Since the tribe is 10k acres, even if it survives, the amount of homes/farms/acads/guilds/markets/etc damage will be a lot more per spell than if they were targeting a 6k tribe.
Since the building damage now counts towards points, the 10k is essentially a war points target since they can't do as much damage back to the lower than 6k tribes.

Edit: Wait i just re-read your post, now i'm confused :P. If you're agreeing with me than thanks. If your not agreeing with me, read above [:p]

Bolle -

Quote
And what if the poor 10k tribe survives 3-4 ka, and because of that they still win...


Possible. But in a normal war the survivors would get some kills in the enemy's alliance, which yields quite some points [;)]

Things like Locusts vs Rookies would still be an easy win for the Locusts though, if they just keep on hitting the Rookie 7k spirit.

So that spirit will probably just have a huge turtle mode. The problem here isn't so much the spirit as the small size of his alliance mates, giving him no backup.

Sonix -

Quote
The problem here isn't so much the spirit as the small size of his alliance mates, giving him no backup.


That still doesn't change the fact that the spirit is just a big target unless we do remove the reduced success rate for wars so the bigger tribes can contribute. They'll do more damage but shouldn't they be able to for successfully getting big to begin with?

[EM] -

Famerape for the war wiiiiiinnnnnn!!

Cecil -

u woulda loved the early stages, u could get vps for visions

[EM] -

Lawlz. I like the “idea” of the system.. but I think it needs to be refined to the point that crap like Poisons dont help a victory. It should be limited to “war” spells.. like Fireball, DM, EQ.. that type of stuff, with MS and the more “economical” tools being worth much less. Whereas, Poison and such are worth none.

Plato -

Turtlemode would not do much. Gh. And ch are easy to take out and count towards win aswell...

Sonix -

I kind of agree with EM. Especially since a lot of WM converters get rid of farms too so poison would be easy points.

Also, we could reduce the amount of damage done to GH and CHs with tunneling and w/e destroys GH (Xene?). That or we can make GH and CH not count towards the win either.

Bolle -

damage done to GH and CH is already low, so it certainly won't count considerably towards win.

Tunneling destroys acads.

And we're thinking on splitting up church 'damage reduction' and church 'spell blocking', same for guard houses.
Page 1 2 3 4