War Convention

[Loonies]

Sorry it’s a bit long.

We’ve all seen the horrors of war: sandbagging, long match times, and lopsided matches worth little glory or no chance of victory. The reasons for these have to do with BHGs “expert system” to coordinate wars, and frankly the “experts” behind the system just aren’t very good at playing their own game (sorry TinSoldier and Ash).

The solution to these problems is to bring the real experts (the players) into the process. Just as the horrors of WW1 led to the Geneva Convention for executing war, I would like to see a War Convention feature added to Planning Day for each world war.

The War Convention feature would allow leaders from the two sides to offer limitations on their side’s execution of the war in exchange for shifting the glory split toward their side. And they would be able to propose limits on the opposing team in exchange for shifting increased glory to the opposing team. In this way, the expert warmakers would have opportunity to remedy any failure in the game’s war coordinating system.

For example, say I am an alliance and I get matched up with an opponent that I can easily beat but it’s only worth +15 or -985 glory. It might be worth our while to make it a contest by limiting myself to 0SH in exchange for changing the stakes to +115 or -885 glory. I would gain the potential to win greater glory from a basically throwaway match and they would gain a better chance to win. Perhaps the opponent could counter propose a 200 glory shift for the same limitation. We could offer and propose additional limits that level the playing field. Between expert warmakers, limits could be negotiated that would make the glory an even split.

For the War Convention to work, BHG would have to make the game apply the limits to each side. If 0SH is agreed, then any SH donations would be ignored. The limits would have to be within a defined set, including the conventions for war most desired by the warring player community. Perhaps a collaborative BHG/player Geneva Council could work together to manage the set of conventions.

I think a War Convention that involves the expert players during the Planning Day of every war would add an exciting new dimension of negotiation and fair play to the world war feature that so far BHG has failed to consistently deliver.

 

[Mcnasty]

Awesome idea loonies.

 

[Festivus]

Intriguing idea. But it sounds like work. For us and the developers. Would we get paid for this work?

 

[Tsamu]

Great idea! The obvious features for negotiation are defensive/offensive troop tactics/coalitions, mercenary troops, and alliance troops. You could even offer an extra star per successful attack.

 

[Pepyto]

Frankly, i think its horrible idea...

 

[Mcnasty]

Do you have any reasons why?

 

[yemen]

Loonies, I would love to see something like this. Not to balance glory (don't care about that much), but to allow us to agree with other teams to play a certain way and have the game enforce it.

I'm thinking 0SH, 0TT, no coalitions, no bazooka sentries, no EA stables (or just all event buildings inactive). All as options that apply if both team leaders agree.

 

[polo1967]

I personally would rather BHG make use of the 3 base layouts and allow each alliance to activate all 3 for war and give each player an additional attack. Then have the bases placed randomly (like they are now) without ranking them (like they are now). When the bases are ranked it does take away some of the planning that we do during war. Not ranking them makes planning day all the more like preparing for a real war. Bases will still be numbered, but they wont have anything to do with rankings. It will only be used as a way for players to identify the bases. Leaders then have to decide which bases should be attacked by which alliance member. So far those are just the basics. Next each player from the alliance must choose 1 of their 3 bases to be their PRIMARY base. The reason for this is that the PRIMARY base will be the only base of the the 3 that can hold stronghold troops. The alliance will know but the opponent wont. As far as coalitions go they will be in effect for all 3 of the bases activated. Next the scoring system. The 5 star scoring system will still be in effect but the value of the stars for each base will be different. For example each star gained against an industrial base would be worth 3 points each, each star gained against a global will be 4 points, atomic 5, cold war 6. Anything below industrial will be just 1 point each. If you attack a base that is in a higher age than you, you get an additional point for each star. If you attack one lower, you just receive the value for what age that base is. This scoring system will help to avoid high level players from picking off easier targets just to pad their point totals and give value to lower level players attacks. I do like Loonies idea, but what happens if you go against an alliance with different language barriers. It would be harder to negotiate unless of course they use some kind of check box system and of course there is no guarantee that they would want to negotiate anyways. What I propose is just a rough draft and I'm sure there may be ways to add to or tweek some of the ideas I presented.

 

[Pepyto]

Basically because nexon/BHG will never support 0SH/0TT concept in game, in that way they are only losing money, so its pointless to fantasize about that. Obviously they want to keep pay2win concept instead.

 

[yemen]

Fancy. But I would not be interested in leading or participate in wars with that much complication. Remember that many alliances do most coordination via the rather limited in game chat and message system - coordinating something like you describe across a 20+ man war would be a nightmare.

 

[Quovatis]

Nexon will never support 0SH in any form, even though the majority of the playerbase hates paid-for SH. But I like the proposals.

 

[Dvicious]

I agree with Yemen. This sounds like a neat and well thought out idea, but far too complicated for all but the most active alliances. Even if the leaders were on board the less active half of the alliance would be overwhelmed with the complexity.

And Loonies, again well thought out but it sounds like this idea could work in theory but im scared to think of all the ways this could get buggy or manipulated by the tech savvy. With the rate of bug fixes for main content i dont see this being a high priority for the devs (no $$).

 

[sileepuppee]

It sounds great but it will hurt the bottom line of the game so they would never support and that would be also asking the top alliances to give up their advantage or the reason they got to the top. Mainly there's too many working parts in your proposal and there's language barriers as well. I've seen plenty of 0SH wars but they still sand bag so there's no way anyone would completely do away with either. Like a lot of alliances, our leader is mostly afk and I'm the co leader so I take of everything except I can't even change our group to 0SH so that's a problem as well.

 

[Quovatis]

You think top alliances are only on top because they WANT to pay for SH troops? You are wrong. We would gladly go back to pure skill-based wars and no pay to win aspects. If both teams could agree to 0SH and the game make sure that actually happens, top alliances would be all for that.

 

[sileepuppee]

Well I agreed with you that Nexon would not support 0SH wars and I did not say that top alliances WANT to pay for SH troops, I said they would not want to give up their advantage over another alliance so don't twist my words around. I also mentioned sandbagging which you didn't address which is something that people hate as well. 0SH wars already go on now because many alliances agreed to the terms and that's fantastic. I know because I watch replays on youtube to help improve my attack skills as well. There are a few people Ive watched on youtube religiously for several months because they've taught me soo much about the game and suddenly I've seen that every war for the last month they are able to use 2-3 elephant archer troop every war for 2 battles, they are obviously using a game glitch unless you're telling me they suddenly dug a hole and found 30-40 elephant archer troop cards lying around. Is this the pure skill base you speak of? Before that they were only using impis or other troops you would get from the troop chest. I love the no troop card attacks which almost don't exist now, at least not in the higher glory alliances because every is trying to get better times. Even with max out troop cards either in their strongholds or used on their attacks, you can win. What you can't win against is an alliance that has 30-40% iron age sand bagging bases. You could have a 0SH war but the level differences would just be enormous and I know alliances go though that hell everyday.

I know that my alliance has the luxury (If you'd call it a luxury) that our wars aren't decided by time because we don't have unlimited troops cards as 95% of the time it just who has more stars and that's more of what you said, to just have skill based wars and that's what I enjoy about the game.