Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: Winning Wars!

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lubbock, Texas baby!
    Posts
    20

    Exclamation Winning Wars!

    Here is something i hope is worthy of a sticky.

    I'm not sure if this has been brought up before. I think there should be some way of winning a war. Everyone is always declaring wars and attacking senseless at each other. On and on it goes until someone gives up and either disbands or joins the opposing alliance.
    Maybe we can change the way we war, I suggest making a winner! One way to know a player is loosing is their loyalty, how about adding the loyalty of the entire alliance, then the alliance who reaches a designated point, like 10% looses. Then the winner can have bragging rights
    Players are always boasting and bragging on the forums how they did this and that, now we can be sure as to who the winner is.
    I dont want any rewards or anything to come out of it, I know most players want cents, I just want to be recognized as the winner or looser

    As to the after effects of the war, how bout a 24hr cooldown the loosing alliance can have to pick themselves back up. Not too good with details but im sure everyone can agree we want winners. and loosers

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    in Evony
    Posts
    596

    Default

    10% losses on what? On total troop counts? I constantly loose 80% or so of my army per day on farming npcs or attacking other people and just killing them off because i don't feel like supporting the high upkeep.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lubbock, Texas baby!
    Posts
    20

    Default

    Im talking bout making a total alliance loyalty, and whoever looses loyalty and is down to 10% looses. Thats 10% loyalty to clarify, not troop count.
    And yes there are times when one alliances dominates another, but im talking bout in cases where both alliances are matched equally its hard to decide a winner.
    Everything is BIGGER in Texas!

  4. #4

    Default

    on server 25 it is a well coordinated and organized battle. it is very clear who the winner is and the looser as cities are taken and loyalty decreased. maybe what people need to do is learn how to defeat an enemy. how to capture their cities and take strategic places. many nalliances were formed on that server but only 40 rmeained ageter 1000 and the nattle still continues as more alliances fall. those who know how to fight and win will prevail.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    washington (united states)
    Posts
    344

    Default

    thatd be kinda cool
    or keep tab on how many cities have been tooken, and if maybe like 5-10 of citys the alliance has have been taken they loose? idk a possibilty, but yaa i like the idea of having a winner, as im very competitive lol
    Forgive, but dont forget, girl keep yuh head up.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,521

    Default

    I understand where you are coming from but 10% might be a bit too low, especially if both alliances have 100 members and are fairly evenly matched.
    I'm not sure what value it should be, or if loyalty is the best factor on which to make a decision. Perhaps it would require a new value that is specific to wars, somewhat similar to honor, that starts at zero when a war is declared and the winner is the first alliance to reach a certain point.
    Another idea would be something similar to a meter that shifts from side to side depending on wins or troop losses. If it swings past a certain point, a winner can be declared and a message displayed for the whole server to see.
    PEACE

  7. #7

    Default

    I would like to see a time frame on wars. like two or three weeks. Then who ever has won the msot battles taken the most cities etc etc, would be declared the winner.

  8. #8

    Default

    seems like a good idea, but could you still end the war before the "10%" Like still have diplomacy during a war?


    Head Bartender at the King's Bar, and rep is always welcome as payment.



  9. #9

    Default

    Horribly open to abuse... Alliances could cycle players so that the low loyalty players leave, and are replaced by high loyalty new chars while the old ones recover. Also, single city chars with all warehouses perma-comforting to keep loyalty high.

    The metagaming will block out the sun....*

    Also, what happens when you win? What does victory mean? You need to be able to enforce some terms on the loser or this is just more work for the alliance host to declare war again when the victory is 'won' and war ended.


    (obligatory 300 quote*)

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,521

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hypno44 View Post
    Horribly open to abuse... Alliances could cycle players so that the low loyalty players leave, and are replaced by high loyalty new chars while the old ones recover. Also, single city chars with all warehouses perma-comforting to keep loyalty high.

    The metagaming will block out the sun....*

    Also, what happens when you win? What does victory mean? You need to be able to enforce some terms on the loser or this is just more work for the alliance host to declare war again when the victory is 'won' and war ended.


    (obligatory 300 quote*)
    I agree that loyalty is not the right value to use to decide the outcome of a war. As I suggested it should be a new value, specific to war and based on the outcomes of battles between the warring alliances. There may also need to be a limit placed on the number of wars your alliance can declare at any time (one sounds good) and a limit to the number of alliances that can declare war upon you (based on the number of allies you have?).

    Regarding the benefits of victory, that could be a prestige boost for all members of the winning alliance and even a prestige loss for the vanquished.
    A losing alliance might also have a restiction placed upon them in regard to declaring war for a period of time, perhaps seven days?

    Going back to another question raised, I think diplomacy should still be an option during a war. Diplomatic solutions to wars would result in no gain or loss to either side.

    These are just a few ideas that I have had after reading the OP. I am not saying that this is the way it should be. These are just suggestions.
    PEACE

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •