Suggestion for ending war stalemates which also discourages stacking

[Althalus]

Hi,

Reading through a lot of the threads on war and sandbagging/stacking, one of the things that's apparent is the need for a 3rd level after stars and avg destruction to settle wars, so here's my shot...

If the war is tied on Stars and Avg destruction, then the winner is decided on the results of their bottom 3 players (could be more or less depending on the size of war.) First, take into account the stars of those players, then Avg destruction and finally stars per second. This all uses metrics existing already in the war and should be reasonably straight forward to bolt on?

Why not just add stars per second for the whole alliance, well for that you'd need to add something in to account for no show attacks/crashes or it's just unfair on those who make all their attacks. That's a measure not needed when just accounting for a set group of players with stars first etc.

This also has the beneficial side effect of making those bottom end players attacks valuable, so stacking with Iron Age accounts then becomes a more risky business.

For me this is a sticking plaster over the current system but hopefully something that could be reasonably swiftly implemented as major changes need making. Thus giving Nexon time to give us a better war system.

Over to you guys...

 

[Vixen]

Althalus ... good thinking out of the square. Not that stalemates really affect us, other alliances may do what we do... we rotate out babies/learners in the wars in the bottom spots to give them a taste for war and war loot. It helps them become engaged in the game much quicker and the loot helps them grow. We don't expect anything from them except to have both attacks. But if it creates better wars for all then yes it is a great idea!

 

[Glacier]

How about the average time it takes to destroy a base? Aren't the better attackers faster? This might also bring more spotlight on base design as well as its defensive strength.

Im just saying, if my base gets flattened every war, I'll be redesigning it till I find a design that isn't completely destroyed.

 

[Green Master]

If each base must be attacked 2 times, every attack counts. Thus the small guys will become more valuable and inactive player wont be used for sandbagging anymore. Easy to make that change

 

[poop_]

Use the average destruction of all attacks not just the best attacks (an unused attack is 0% destruction). With the crashes that still happen, I am sure there would be complaints about this.

It might solve some of the current problems with stalemates and stacking (I don't foresee those iron agers getting a very high % destruction.).

 

[RodneyNorris]

A single bonus star for each teammate that has at least one of their two attack that wins at least one star would help both of these problems. This would completely illuminate the stacking issue with barely a program change. And seriously reduce the number of double ties (stars & destruction). Way easier fix to both problems. It would also be a huge incentive to an alliance to engage their weaker bases in wars instead of the "top dogs" getting the loot 90% of the time.