War system questions

[Rig]

Also, can we agree that Hasp sucks? I agree to that.

[hasp]

I second that!

[Tandrael]

Also, can we agree that Hasp sucks? I agree to that.

I’ll also agree to that, even though I’m pretty sure that I suck worse.

[hasp]

Challenge accepted, friend.

[Kaan]

Question: was the war system intended to be similar to a smobbing competition?

[hasp]

Well we pk when the numbers are even. Seems one side vastly outnumbers the other though.

[Paj]

Perhaps give a way for clanned defenders present to improve the defenses during an attack.

If attack is active and fewer defenders in zone, summon 1-2 general guards for the defender's use?

if a defender rings a warning in certain rooms with enemy present, guards come a calling?

[Elysia]

Question: was the war system intended to be similar to a smobbing competition?

It aims to promote group spirit and clan activity. It also aims to give groups something to do that is more worthwhile than say, ganking the hell out of a lone opponent.

[Mhaliah]

Multiple Factions:
Suppose the Red Eagles join Andor in their war against the *oL. Each faction is separate, so no hitching free rides to demands by ganging up on one enemy.

E.g. *ol vs Andor and Red Eagles can result in *oL winning from Andor, but losing to Red Eagles. That would mean that Andor has to concede to some *oL demands, but *oL will have to concede to some Red Eagle demands.

This means that players can't get their alts involved without risking they lose something. E.g. if someone has a Red Eagle and a Lion Warden, they have to pick a side and playing the one will not ensure a win for the other.

While this addresses clans joining one side of a war in order to tip the balance after a war is declared (which I support), it goes too far and favors aggressive warmongering clans. I would like to suggest radical changes to this section.

First,this system completely negates the advantage of alliances. Alliances are hard to form and should be rewarded. Clans that work with other clans should be rewarded for being able to get along with other clans. Clans that decide to break alliances, declare unjust wars (in the eyes of other clans not their own clan) and in general be warmongers, should face the consequences of that. For example if RE, LW, and Defenders were to form a defensive pact, that should be taken into account in the war rules. Such that if a clan were to declare war on Defenders they would know that would be met with a group retaliation from multiple clans and those clans would combine score to determine the outcome of the war. These rules make that work a null. I spent a long time working with multiple clans to get an alliance to stop CoL aggression. This makes all that RP work I did useless.

Second, According to this system it is advantageous to declare multiple wars (especially against low active clans). This basically splits their player base and makes it to where the defending clans that are fighting the same aggressive clan are further divided. For example there are enough of two defending clans online to take the general combined, but not enough of either clan to do it solo. This system makes it to where one clan gets all the points (banner turned in to their general), the other clan gets nothing. This rewards the aggressive clan for declaring war on multiple fronts. That is the opposite of good strategy. Multiple front wars should get a strong negative penalty for the aggressive clan. If a clan declares war on multiple clans all those clans points should combine to determine the winner. This should basically be an "all in" move for the aggressive clan. Either they win and get the demands met from all target clans, or they loose and have to cede demands to all targeted clans.

Basically this is a good idea to prevent "after the fact" alliances but it goes too far.

[hasp]

Valid options but then you could end up in a bunch of defensive alliances and no one able to start war.