Elite Points for army

[Vincent]

I remember i read somewhere of suggestions like nation perks and etc

 

I was wondering if we want to promote war activity. Maybe we might need more incentives for those winning sides. cash and resources might not be enticing enough. And there is always risk of losing more than gain in war.

 

So maybe we can consider granting new item called . Elite military points that can be used to upgrade our army. Making them harder to get killed and inflict bigger damage compare to normal army we recruit.

 

Maybe each time we defeat ( i mean total 6 ground attack immense triumph) on an enermy we get one elite point to upgrade our army.or level up . But at the same time the elite point will expire when we get defeated by another nation . We can have a max of let say 10 elite points . Meaning can accumulate up to 10 straight wins thereafter additional victory do not bring additional elite points. Meaning to say we can only upgrade our army to the max level 10.

 

To avoid people exploiting. If the victory is achieved by raiding a nation that has not log in for the past 2 days then no elite point is granted. This make sure no one gain elite points by raiding inactive nations.

 

i think this way we can promote war activity. As if we want people to involved in war. They must stand to gain something that we cant gain by staying out of the war.

[stetonic]

I do like the idea of earning points for winning wars and the idea of nation perks but this idea is coming from a player.Who is in an alliance that do not engage in war and if i remember rightly you left DEIC before a war to join GPA.So for a nation who values his pixels so much its a bold move to suggest something that encourages war.

[Clarke]

He left to join a neutral alliance because he never wanted to see bloodshed again and he is in a neutral alliance now although not always.

As for his desires he clearly wants to fight people, perhaps he changed his mind but I don't think he ever was serious about wanting to be neutral. 

[stetonic]

Thats why i said its a bold move for a nation who upto now has chosen the path of peace.Rather than the more enjoyable path of destruction 

[Caecus]

I like the idea. Not sure if it would be too complex to add a tech tree based off the military points? For example, if you like ships, you can increase firepower for ships by adding points into the ship tech tree or something. It would be like perks, I suppose in that sense. 

 

I imagine this would also increase beiging as a viable option in wars, instead of just trying to zi everyone. 

 

 

I do like the idea of earning points for winning wars and the idea of nation perks but this idea is coming from a player.Who is in an alliance that do not engage in war and if i remember rightly you left DEIC before a war to join GPA.So for a nation who values his pixels so much its a bold move to suggest something that encourages war.

 

On a side note, whoa, bitterness much? lol, your idea is being undermined by the fact that you left DEIC for more peaceful times, haha. 

[Valakias]

You should question the idea not the man proposing it. I personally dislike flat bonuses like that as they tend to make someone unbeatable. But its not a bad one, it does need tweaks though. I wouldn t ignore a general system that levels up and gives some bonuses, and that can be killed by spies ( ye similar to (That terrible game that is totally irrelevant and I shouldn't be bringing it up anyways) ).

[LordRahl2]

Sounds fine. Cap it at a reasonable level and have it wear off over time (Soldiers retire or whatever in game shit you want).

 

Maybe add some to Soldiers/Tanks ability to carry loot as well.

[stetonic]

I was not knocking his idea or him.I even said i liked his idea.I merely stated that it was a bold move for a nation who for most of his time ingame has avoided war.To now want to have an update which would increase war activity.

Some  players may suggest his idea would benefit him.By all other nations fighting around him.Which would make it easier for his nation to climb the rankings untouched and maybe his nation profiting from more war.

 

He even suggested the other day that war range should be removed.Seems strange how now that he has 19 nukes he wants to have more war activity

[Clarke]

I recall something like this idea before and well it's bad, I don't know who suggested it but it pretty much revolved around military units getting experience which makes them better and thus makes it harder for that nation to lose battles and ultimately that is why it is a bad idea because it rewards the winner of a war even more than they're already rewarded making it tougher for the losers to complete which is counterproductive for the war system and discourages warring against those nations.  

[LordRahl2]

But it would encourage people to get those bonuses thereby increasing both activity and strategy. Which is good.

 

Also there are other thing that discourage attacking people like missiles and nukes. Shouldn't those be removed by your logic?

[Clarke]

The war system should be removed if you follow my logic closely, but no my thoughts is just on this small addition that is only there to reward winners. We already have enough of those things. 

Edited August 20, 2015 by Clarke