War mode abuse

[BlackWolf]

I am cool with war mode... hell its very cool, but I do not agree with one thing.

* There is no insurance or injuries in any combat with an alliance you are at war with (whether they declared on you or you declared on them).

With current change of 6 ticks warning it means you wait 2 ticks send ETA 5 attacks when target alliance preferably smaller one is offline and you own them 100-0 without them getting anything back.

I dont think this is the way this kind of system should work. Either there must be some kind of cool down time before no insurance/injuries hits in or war declaration must have longer warning time. Now this allows way too big possibility of abuse of alliances weak times combined with too fast war declarations... hell warring is fun and killing is fun but there must be insurance/injuries for those who are taken by surprise.

If you want to surprise attack other alliance you can do it by normal means, if you want real ingame war then targetted alliance must get their warning and have time to pull up their troops and stuff before this kind of thing hits in.

 

[DarkSider]

Usually war is declared if you "hate" an alliance. If the declaring alliance is much stronger they have no reason to cut insurance from their attacks or push you quick out of range.
If they want your ass just fight back all the ways you can, defence, retals, diplo propaganda etc. If a bigger alliance attacks a smaller one usually the big one wins anyway so just try to pwn a couple of their members and use the no insurance in your favor as much as possible They can't declare on allies smaller than 80% of their score right ?

 

[BlackWolf]

What has the reason of declaring war has to do with that how abusable war declaration system is? As I said it is ok to declare war, it is ok to have normal wars.

All I complain about is how you can declare war tick-two before you launch your mass attack and target doesnt get any warning yet loses their ability to get insurance.

 

[f0xx]

So, you say that if you had a warning of lets say 30 ticks, instead of 6, you would get your whole ally online and prepare to defend against a *possible*?

Then perhaps when this *possible* incoming doesn't come, you will whine how some ally declared war and didn't attack while you bothered getting all your members online?

My point is, weak times will always be exploited, that is part of the game and the war system has nothing to do with it.

 

[BlackWolf]

No, my point is that you can abuse peoples weak times as much as you like, but not get to attack others without them getting insurance. If you get 30 ticks warning time then you can at least strike before that alliance, while both gets insurance. I have not on any point complained of getting attacked or losing units. I have not complained of anyone abusing weak times. I have only comlained of 6 ticks time between alliance war declaration and that moment when insurances doesnt count anymore. Which makes launching mass attack 1 tick after war declaration possible and targets wont get insurance anymore.

I so knew some mofos like f0xx would come here to whine how I am wrong of everything, well sorry to dissapoint this is gripes thread and I have my right to gripe of loophole in game which makes attacking alliances to kill without them getting insurance ridiculously easy.

I see difference in that you attack some alliance and they lose units/acres and get insurance.
And in that you declare war to kill alliance you hate. If you hate alliance and declare ingame war in my opinion that is supposed to be open war declaration as such targets are given warning before they lose their insurance. Not that you are told you lose insurance same tick that incs appear. I always thought ingame wars were not supposed to be some kind of use this to kill alliances by surprise system, but more like 2 alliances competes whos really who on lets not say fair fight but something like that.

If you want to be sneaky go ahead plan surprise attack, but your targets shall get insurance... if you want war then give them warning time and then you shall have war.

 

[Garrett]

the war system was part 1 of 2 of which 2 never materialized. i guess he had some idea and never worked on it. he should have never put in the war mode without overhauling the alliance and hq.

war mode should be removed until he's fixed hq/alliances.

 

[BlackWolf]

Thanks Garret first guy who actually read the idea behind it all not only whom it was from.

I play this game to have wars, I want wars, I love wars. But I also think if we have system that removes insurance completely then we have right to get heads up notification way before we get our alliance page full of red or that me and my alliance cant just decide to declare war to some poor *******s tick before we send our attack.

 

[f0xx]

Firstly, I would love tell you how full of **** you are, so if you want to insult me, please do it via PM, no need to make everyone witness how you get humiliated by me.

Now, if we put that aside and try to be constructive, people do not declare wars like you say in real life. Most of the time they do not declare wars at all. They just invade.

What is the point of a system which gives so much of an early notice? After all, the war system was introduced to motivate attacking. Organised attacking. With an early notice like the one you suggest people would hardly use the war system since the element of surprise will be lost.

 

[BlackWolf]

As I said you have element of surprise when you attack normally. When you want to attack without them getting insurance then they get warning.

If you can attack with so much power as no insurance gives you then hell yes they need early warning and hell yes it would be used anyways.

I see it as simple as 2 options.
1. You use surprise attack = insurance for them.
or
2. You use war = no insurance but early warning.

You can first use surprise when you declare war and finish them off when they get no insurance or something... but current system gives way too much power for declaring alliance.

 

[Garrett]

well I believe it was one of my suggestions that said to bring the declaration time down to 6-8 ticks from wherever it was (72 ticks? 144?). it was part of a broader overall HQ redesign (one of 3 i've posted over the past couple years). so I agree with the quick setting.

i also agree with no insurance/injury while at war... (well no injury when it was only injury...) but this is where the agreement ends...

now that injury applies to INN/generics that you initally start with, i don't think injury should be turned off. getting 35% of your inn back helps restore seed production. tis a small and fair thing, imo.

however, war mode settings should be disabled period until more is done with alliances/hq's. yes there will always be a way to tweak systems and have unintended consequences... but the HQ and alliances should have more to them if you are going to disable insurance/injury. the smaller alliance needs something to offset this loss.

no not a complete offset, but now alliance 'a' gets to turn off alliance 'b' insurance benefits. alliance 'a' usually being a bigger alliance and in the middle of attacking alliance 'b'. so the big bad attackers get bounty PLUS their enemies get 0'd with no insurance/injury.

the system isn't even close to being equitable. I'm surprised that the 'war' setting in this abysmal state, isn't used at a more alarming rate... other than this game and it's playerbase has stagnated beyond complacency and no one cares to attack anymore. 90 attacks this round puts you in the top 2-300 for 'most agressive' stat. there aren't appropriate words for the sad state of activity and attacking these days.

 

[Hobbezak]

the system isn't even close to being equitable. I'm surprised that the 'war' setting in this abysmal state, isn't used at a more alarming rate... other than this game and it's playerbase has stagnated beyond complacency and no one cares to attack anymore. 90 attacks this round puts you in the top 2-300 for 'most agressive' stat. there aren't appropriate words for the sad state of activity and attacking these days.

Perhaps the powerblock made loads of people restart, and in this way lowered the average "attacks sent"-stat?

 

[Garrett]

several hundred people restarted? i'm basing this off my attacks sent stat (because I started really really late in the round) and i'm woefully inactive... (not quite 2 hrs a day. some days not at all)

far fetched but ok. they restarted to not attack? 90 attacks is ~1.2 attacks per day for a full round. Assuming the reason to restart is to fix a route choice, or change your tactics to enjoy the round... then you still would attack to catch up on acres. bots readily available.

but people changed routes and still aren't attacking any more than they were.

123 attacks lands me currently at rank 229 on attacks sent. 54 days since round start for 2.27777 attacks per day. i've had an id for maybe 14-21 days. (i think 13-14, but i don't remember so providing a range) so I've sent anywhere from 6-9 attacks per day since starting. (several days i can tell you were no attacks. so probably inflated from me gathering seed grabs and initially sending 4-5 bot attacks at a time from the first few development days). 6 attacks is nothing. you can achieve that with sending 2 attack groups of 3 mobs each. I'm not saying everyone should attack 6-9 times a day, but alot used to and now they aren't. if they restarted a month ago, 3 attacks a day would put them at 90 and if it was anyone in the top 10 alliances... they would have needed to attack more than this to reach their rebuilding goals for their ally. Lets not even talk about the hippies i've sent to gauge defense or the stealth fakes i've done that also inflate attacks sent. so easy to get an attack sent counter... simply one must go to the military page and choose to attack. that's my point, people are choosing not to attack in a war game.


Now as far as war abuse!!!
attackers will almost always have the advantage in a war situation and they should because they took the initiative, but the war system needs to be more than what it is because it cuts the neck of the defenders and removes all the things that were in place to help 0'd people rebuild.

 

[DarkSider]

Total hostile mobs launched: 86 321
Oops

 

[Garrett]

tis a sad day when the warmonger doesn't attack

 

[Mattheus]

He's been busy whoring starcraft match wins from me and BW ¬¬

 

[Azzer]

I see no problem with giving the INN injuries in alliance defences - but perhaps not in the alliance attacks? Or for both, whichever players perceive best, if players do in fact agree with injuries still being in place during a war declaration system.

The original idea for a war dec system was going to be have a way of the game automatically deciding when an alliance had "won", and simply give them a little stat recording total wins/losses. Based perhaps on damage done. But complications arise with things like members being kicked, members leaving, new members joining, minimum or maximum time periods, what limits are actually used to decide a "win" or "loss", alliances that want to rescind their war declaration, whether the war dec was one way or two way and does that affect winners/losers etc... it was worked on but to date there's been no finalised and workable solution for a way for the game to automatically say "This alliance won this war!" and give them a "wars won" point and the losers a "war lost" point... so at this stage the war declarations are now being utilised as a way for alliances to be able to properly "smash eachother up" without everyone having all their injuries and insurance... since people complained about the inability to ever kill anyone anymore (well with war decs, you can kill someone... and a war dec requires their ally to be within 80% of your own ally)... so that's where the war declarations feature has been targetted towards now.

As for the abuse Blackwolf mentions - perhaps one fix would be the cooldown time of using a war dec after you've already made one war dec - so you can declare war and it triggers "speedily" - but then you can't make a new war dec for at least a week, so you really want to think about and plan your war decs?

(PS: Quick note... there's been more restarts this round than many rounds previously, and most of the feedback I've gotten from restarters who messaged me personally does seem to relate in one way or another - directly or indirectly - to the powerblock. Lots of very late "restarters" too, not just simply people who made a mistake with their first tech and restarted within the first week, but that's all unrelated to the topic I think)

 

[Twigley]

Seems some of you dont know how to use the war mode.
Or have forgotten how to war at all.

Few waves with the element of surprise, whack a war mode in the 3rd wave or so which is when the waves of land grabs start.

Thats the only reason i ever used war mode.
Nothing about injuries or insurance.
Purely to not be capped

Id prefer people to get insurance if im waving them so we can go back at land as all that matters in the past few rounds is whoring land, staying out of range or in range by whoring seeds.


However, i agree that war mode NEEDS to be linked more with the HQ.

 

[BlackWolf]

NOW I AM ****ING MAD!
Thu 26th Sep, year 4. Noon War declaration ended Our alliance score has dropped so low that the war declaration from Evolution has been removed.
Sat 28th Sep, year 4. Early hours
Died: 10,763,380 [£79,773,190,000] enemies dead. 17,846,846 [£344,439,722,200] friendlies dead.

You gained 166,793 effectiveness.

No insurance...
WTF! War was over.... I want my money!

 

[Azzer]

Blackwolf - the war declaration from evolution had dropped, however you had declared war on them too - an alliance is able to declare on a target of any size bigger than themselves (eg alliance X can declare on an alliance three times their size).

So Evolution's war declaration on you disappeared when you dropped out of their range, but as you had also declared war on them, there was still a war declaration in place that you and your alliance had actually decided upon and agreed upon. If you did not want a war with them, you should have removed your declaration for them and dropped out of range.

It's all well and good whining about the way war declarations work, but when it turns out you'd declared war on them yourselves I have to say - you asked for it.

 

[Alcibiades]

:rofl:


Moderated by Pinpower
Reason: Spam