Jump to content

War System Issue


RainbowColor
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello, 

I am writing this complaint with my best (lol). I noticed that the war system is bull and unfair. I see many and many nations are held by the opposite players when the opposite players will not fire any attack on others in the wasting 5 days. In addition, the opposite players will not fire any attack and wait for the war to end in 5 days later is avoiding others to get beige mode. Whatever the opposite players have low resistance, they will not fire any attack each other and waste the 5 days to avoid to get beige mode dues to the low resistance. 

Today, I see this major issue in the war system. I just nicely ask you ( @Alex ) to tell others this opinion. I have an idea to effect all the wars. Utter failure effect applied on all the military units except the missile and nuclear weapons. utter failure will effect the wars if attempted will lose 5 resistance.

If the opposite players is attempt to attack but get a utter failure effect, he or she  is losing 5 resistance herself or himself.  Whatever military units they are attempt to attack but get utter failure will lose 5 resistance themselves which allows them to choose to lose the war or win the war than waiting for the war to be expired.

For example,

(UTTER FAILURE)

(Username) of (username's nation) order an airstrike upon the nation of (Username) and eliminated 0 Resistance. The attack was an utter failure. (Username's nation)'s forces lost 200 aircrafts, while (Username)'s defenders lost 67 aircraft. the attack destroyed 0.00 infrastructure in the city of (name). The attack result effects you eliminated 5 Resistance yourself.  

(IMMENSE TRIUMPH OR PYRRHIC VICTORY)

(Username) of (username's nation) order an airstrike upon the nation of (Username) and eliminated 12 Resistance. The attack was an immense triumph. (Username's nation)'s forces lost 200 aircrafts, while (Username)'s defenders lost 350 aircraft. the attack destroyed 696.96 infrastructure in the city of (name). The attack result effects you eliminated 0 Resistance yourself 

 

Attack but Utter failure (itself) - Max Resistance Eliminated: 5 

 

Respectfully,

Rainbow of Color

Edited by ✯Rainbow✯
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Better idea to fix this problem:

Instead of having wars merely expire once their duration is up, wars are won by whoever has the highest resistance at the end of the war. That winner is given loot, and the loser is turned to beige just like if the war had been completed with an attack.

Expiration would still occur if both nations had exactly the same resistance at the expiration of the war.

  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Better idea to fix this problem:

Instead of having wars merely expire once their duration is up, wars are won by whoever has the highest resistance at the end of the war. That winner is given loot, and the loser is turned to beige just like if the war had been completed with an attack.

Expiration would still occur if both nations had exactly the same resistance at the expiration of the war.

Very good!

I certainly never thought of that

  • Upvote 1

                                             New Project.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nations who are on the loosing side of war can use the fact that they can't be turned to beige by their opponent as a general rule can easily use this to their advantage. When fighting a war by attrition, which is what most large scale global conflicts are on here, nations are going to be stuck in awkward or loosing positions. Part of the war process in this game is dealing with that and working out a way to try and overcome it. We've seen this war nations who spent the entire first round being locked down and having their nations taking some hefty damage, but then coming in round 2 and winning against opponents. Nations can use utter failure attacks to wear down opponents for when counters come in to assist them. Being stuck on the loosing side for a round in a war is not an issue that needs to be fixed; it's something players need to overcome. 

 

  • Upvote 1

"LMFAO nazi Goomy is the best Goomy" - Kyubey  "Goomy is Perfect" - Ripper

Some sort of gov for CoS

#RollBezzers2k18

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. Why didn't you find these to be ''bull and unfair'' when you yourselves were doing similar, if not the same things, during DDR/69 Day War?


At any rate, the proper solution to beige denials would be to have a beige happen regardless of resistance reaching 0 or not, such as is Scarfalot's proposal (Sketchy had proposed it earlier this year with some differences). And an easy failsafe to people declaring and not attacking would be that, if at the time of expiry each party still has 100 resistance, the attacker would be granted a defeat, and suffer the same penalties nations suffer when losing, but without being beiged (this is to prevent people abusing said mechanic in order to gain beige time).

  • Upvote 4
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You arrogant. please read the comment again

"I just nicely ask you ( @Alex ) to tell others this opinion."

This is opinion i offered for the war system. that does not mean i do ignore your opinion and demand alex to fix the war system. at the point, I just asked for your opinion. I do not ignore your invalid opinion. we get more opinion to improve the war system which we can get more players to get more war and fun; not shitty multis.

17 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Better idea to fix this problem:

Instead of having wars merely expire once their duration is up, wars are won by whoever has the highest resistance at the end of the war. That winner is given loot, and the loser is turned to beige just like if the war had been completed with an attack.

Expiration would still occur if both nations had exactly the same resistance at the expiration of the war.

Today, Sir scarfalot has an alternative idea for this war system. I am supporting his idea over mine.  I hope this idea is good way. I agreed with your idea of high resistance effects and expiration effects.

16 hours ago, Insert Name Here said:

No offense OP, but why are you making war system suggestions while you're in VM?

Furthermore, some of the things you're complaining about (utter failure attacks that are mostly suicide airstrikes to help lower the other player's aircraft so someone else can take them down and beige staggering) have always been common tactics in P&W warfare.

no offense taken. RL is first thing to do. I set the VM a month ago. last week, the war broke out.

I see that your opinion is about teamwork on one. This is different issue. At the point, I am talking about the war system that many nations are held until the time of expiry, and it affect many nations to quitted and never play it again or make another we never know. this war system is really rigged. Read Sir Scarfort's idea. 

 

10 hours ago, Shiho Nishizumi said:

Interesting. Why didn't you find these to be ''bull and unfair'' when you yourselves were doing similar, if not the same things, during DDR/69 Day War?


At any rate, the proper solution to beige denials would be to have a beige happen regardless of resistance reaching 0 or not, such as is Scarfalot's proposal (Sketchy had proposed it earlier this year with some differences). And an easy failsafe to people declaring and not attacking would be that, if at the time of expiry each party still has 100 resistance, the attacker would be granted a defeat, and suffer the same penalties nations suffer when losing, but without being beiged (this is to prevent people abusing said mechanic in order to gain beige time).

At the first paragraph, I am not involved in the last war whatever you said. it is not my fault for did not make this issue in the last war. I just pop my idea about this issue few days ago. today, Scarfort's idea is better alternative idea than mine.

In the second paragraph, in this part, I disagreed with you, I don't see how do people abusing mechanic in order to gain beige time. Please explain how do people abusing mechanic in to order to hold the war with 3-5 days without an attack when low resistance and left nations in bloodlust for nothing in weeks. that reason I see this different view is many nations are quitted the game is killing PoliticsandWar down dues to the war system rigged.

In another part, I am still disagree with you about the attacker would be granted a defeat when the time of expiry. both of defender and attacker will not gain the beige mode because they are stalemate which is same resistance they had like Scarfort's idea.

 

 

Edited by ✯Rainbow✯
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ✯Rainbow✯ said:

In the second paragraph, in this part, I disagreed with you, I don't see how do people abusing mechanic in order to gain beige time. Please explain how do people abusing mechanic in to order to hold the war with 3-5 days without an attack when low resistance and left nations in bloodlust for nothing in weeks. that reason I see this different view is many nations are quitted the game is killing PoliticsandWar down dues to the war system rigged.

In another part, I am still disagree with you about the attacker would be granted a defeat when the time of expiry. both of defender and attacker will not gain the beige mode because they are stalemate which is same resistance they had like Scarfort's idea.

An attacker that doesn't attack (either for slotfilling or sitting) being treated as the loser (and losing infra/loot as a result) of a 100-100 resistance stalemate would be there to prompt the attacker into at least doing something in the war, rather than just end up filling a slot. Them not getting beige time out of it would be there to prevent people from deliberately declaring wars, not attacking and taking the loss that would usually grant them some beige time, which would allow them to rebuild military.

The entire reason why people stagger beiges or deny them in the first place is to prevent people from being able to rebuild and mount a counter offensive. In one hand, I get that it's frustrating for the one that's on the receiving end of it (I've been there). However, it's been a common military procedure since resistance has been introduced, which is why I question the timing of your post (and no, I don't buy your excuse when you were merrily shitposting [and were in tCW] during that war).

Furthermore, you're not abusing anything by not beiging (except for when people declare and don't do anything with their war, which I've already addressed). This notion that you *have* to beige your opponent is quite silly. You're not breaking any rules or abusing any mechanics by not beiging (particularly if you have a blockade on your adversary). You are forfeiting loot and destroyed infra for the sake of allowing a neutralized enemy to remain neutralized, which is ultimately what wins a (conventional) war. I'm highlighting conventional because there's unconventional ways to keep fighting, but that's up for the involved parties to find out.

And no, some people delete or quit right away because they can't handle seeing stuff that took them a while to build go poof, and this tends to happen plenty before they get in the perma-pinning part of the war, so these changes wouldn't address those people, if that's your concern.

  • Upvote 1
 
G3.gif.d8066d8dc749ad2d0835fe69095fa73b.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give them an incentive to beige you.  If you’re sitting there zeroed out, you’re most likely doing something wrong.

Join The Golden Horde, I’ll teach you some stuff~

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ✯Rainbow✯ said:

no offense taken. RL is first thing to do. I set the VM a month ago. last week, the war broke out.

I see that your opinion is about teamwork on one. This is different issue. At the point, I am talking about the war system that many nations are held until the time of expiry, and it affect many nations to quitted and never play it again or make another we never know. this war system is really rigged. Read Sir Scarfort's idea. 

 

I wouldn't call it rigged, I'd say it's a bit counter-intuitive due to the fact that in coalition warfare winning individual wars and beiging is bad for you since it allows the enemy to rebuild. However, it comes at a price: using no ground forces and allowing the enemy to loot and eventually beige at will doesn't come cheap.

As for the quitting part, one that can't withstand a beating shouldn't really be playing this game imo. Everyone gets rolled eventually, so if one can't take a beating, regardless of how long it is, it's probably a matter of time till they see themselves in a situation they deem strong enough for them to quit.

Nobody should care about their pixels, otherwise the game is likely to become a source of concern rather than enjoyment.

Edited by Insert Name Here
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Better idea to fix this problem:

Instead of having wars merely expire once their duration is up, wars are won by whoever has the highest resistance at the end of the war. That winner is given loot, and the loser is turned to beige just like if the war had been completed with an attack.

Expiration would still occur if both nations had exactly the same resistance at the expiration of the war.

I think I'd agree with this only if it requires someone to be below 50 resist. I don't think the 100 v 90 should result in a victory.

Another big problem is that it doesn't really account for comebacks, the attacker may knock them down to 10 resist and then run out of gas or munitions and end up falling to 12, yet he'd still get a victory and loot despite failing to finish and obviously would've lost if it continued

Nebthet Seshat Asetneferu-Meritra Satsekhem Netjeretkhau

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Princess Seshat said:

I think I'd agree with this only if it requires someone to be below 50 resist. I don't think the 100 v 90 should result in a victory.

Another big problem is that it doesn't really account for comebacks, the attacker may knock them down to 10 resist and then run out of gas or munitions and end up falling to 12, yet he'd still get a victory and loot despite failing to finish and obviously would've lost if it continued

Look, wars last for five days; in that time period there's enough actions to complete the war twice over. If there's ever a 100/90 situation then both sides were sitting on their asses or launching failures and that's tantamount to slot-filling. Someone's got to take the penalty for fighting less efficiently, so even if their resistance is as high as 90... they still should take the beige/damage/get looted.

As for comebacks, well, if they ran out of munitions then all that needs to be done is the defender attack just a tad more. Really, wars last long enough to where if such a thing happens, then the counters can just finish the job. In the end, his initial victories were enough to gain him one victory... which, strategically speaking, didn't help him anyway.

I don't think either of these things are really problems, is all I'm saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.