Wars

[Ravenlord]

The problem with that idea is it's too logical - & presumably simple to implement !!!

 

[Christopher-Outlaws!!]

I concur and thanks for the feedback, you really should get warring, despite the negativity you see here it is a great way to get to know, play with, and help one another within the game. The problem with the old method was their was an exploit, so tie-breakers were based on total destruction, the exploit; people were able to manipulate the system to get over 100% destruction. and the resolve for this is in the event of a tie there is no winner. I'm happier with this method than having an open exploit. In the long run however, I would like to see the tie-breaker put in place.

 

[QuébecGlory]

102% still happening...happened today...but no idea how it happens.

 

[Christopher-Outlaws!!]

thanks for the update QG... , pain in the butt.

 

[Norcaltone]

2nd tiebreaker in stalemate wars could be average attack duration it is something that is already listed on the battle report and there is little possibility that this indicator would be a tie.

 

[Max_imus]

Its not The same as before. It doesnt affect the final result (even if there is few 102% in one team). There is a code which doesnt allow more than 100% in the final table. Quick fix solution, but good enough.

 

[QuébecGlory]

You're right, just noticed the 100%, not 100,1% ....it's a start!

 

[AmbriaJT]

It works one way but not the other. Had a 175 star performance at a 99.6% avg destruction. We had a 5 star at 96% and it knocked the average down. The war before that was a 200 star performance at a 100% when we had a 104% 5 star. So the fix for being over 100 is there but not under 100.

 

[GailWho]

Wow! Great post!

 

[Mr Suplex]

Except l don't see people walking away - l see people making a stand and banding together against the exploiters. I think that speaks volumes about the integrity of the players. Well, most of 'em anyway .....

You are mixing things up. Many players have integrity, but the integrity of the game itself was in question.

Regardless, Nexon acknowledged the problem, thanked the community for pointing it out, and is fixing it. The entire premise of your thread was invalidated. GG.

 

[Manifesto]

As time went on more information became available, situations changed. Or do you actually expect the OPs to be clairvoyant or psychic?
Anyone can be smart in hindsight.

 

[Christopher-Outlaws!!]

someones from the internet!

 

[Warlord1981]

I have a question that relates to the overall purpose of this thread.

Let's say an unnamed alliance "GOP Patriots", oops, was to use something a little different than stacking. Let's say they simply don't update their bases, so a level 134 industrial is ranked at #13 out of 15 because his base reads lvl 92. How is that considered okay? This Alliance had a bottom 5 that is as strong offensively as their top 5, they basically are stacking right, not iron age stacking to be sure, but they are padding their average isn't that just as bad?

Now this was not intentional, but I had 5 new medieval players that we put into this war because they were new and war participation breeds retention.

In this instance I guess we also stacked, unintentional because I didn't realize I added 5 high powered industrial and 5 maxed Gunpowder who are all ready for Enlightenment. My point is we Will win, but some other alliance would be destroyed.

Isn't that also frowned upon? What do call that when a team has high leveled players, that use both attacks, so they are clearly active, not update their bases?