Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

War System Upheavel.


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
81 replies to this topic

#1 Pana

Pana

    Phoenix King

  • Administrator
  • 6090 posts
  • LocationKazama HQ, plotting more terror while feeding the evil Batcat.

Posted 16 June 2016 - 06:28 PM

War System. Start from scratch. Anything that we have now can be ignored basically.

Initiating to War

Rewards, the "what's in it for me" section

All following buffs go into effect when the war is over. No sooner.

  • 10% bonus regen for 7 days.
    • In case of multiple against one, the bonus is distributed based on SP destroyed. IE if Shine destroyed 45% and Silence 65%, Shine gets a 4.5% regen bonus, and Silence 6.5%
      • Bonus reduces by 2% for each previously won war. This is counted after Regen bonus is calculated in case of multiple against one and can reduce the bonus to 0 (But not less)
        This reduction counts back indefinitely. Each Win reduces the 10% by 2%, each Loss negates one win. This buff is never more than 10%!
      • Only villages that are still at War when the War is eventually finished can claim the Regen bonus. IE if Shine, Silence and Shroud fight Samui, and only Shroud survives, only Shroud would get their share of the Regen.
  • War immunity for 14 days
  • War immunity prevents decleration on and by the village
  • Bonus VF
    • Every 3rd VF gained by the vassal goes to the Owner
  • Enemy territories are set to Neutral.
  • Enemy village becomes a vassal. See Below.

Drawbacks, the "Why shouldn't I go to war" section

  • Structure Damage
    • Based on the damage dealt to the village they lose a number of points distributed over all structures that were upgraded. No more points can be assigned than there are available.
      • Each warring village loses 1 point by default.
      • If aggressor, each full 10% of SP lost equals 1 Upgrade damage. Losing a max of 11 points.
      • If victim, each full 25% of SP lost equals 1 Upgrade damage. Losing a max of 5 points
  • Closed village
    • Nobody can leave or join through regular means while a village is at war.
  • No Territory battles
    • As long as a village is at war, no Territory battles can be initiated by the village. However, they can still be challenged for a territory.
  • War Upkeep
    • If declaring village, 5% per day of current VF. If the target is already at war, this increases to 7.5%
    • If targeted village, 2% per dag of current VF. This increases by 2% for each additional war a village is in.

How to go to war?  

  • Enemy must have equal or more Territories.
    • This includes home territory
  • Enemy must have equal or more Village upgrades
  • Enemy must not be on War Immunity.
  • Enemy must not be allied to any ally.
  • Enemy must not be the most recent village that was declared on by the declarer.
    • Example: A village can't attack Konoki if they previously declared against them.

Joining a war.  

  • A village can join any war, but takes a 10% reduction to Max village SP per village already at war with the target or that was already at war with the target.
    • IE If Samui already defeated 2 villages and another village declares, they still get cut based on the first 2 villages + the current war. IE 30%
  • Cannot join a war if they previously won against the target (See: How to go to war?)

Structure Points. The "How To Handle Those" section.

  • Sabotage
    • Destroy 1 SP per minute when out of combat. When this timer is over, the page gets forced refreshed.  
    • SP destruction Buffs:
      Army General (Kage) – 10 SP/min

      Lieutenant Generals (Kage Assistants [2 max]) – 8 SP/min

      Major Generals (ANBU Leaders) – 5 SP/min

      Colonels (ANBU Members) – 3 SP / min

       

      Effects that need to be activated.:

      SP Destroyed while on Enemy Village:

      A.G. – 10 SP/ min

      L. G. – 8 SP/ min

      M. G. 5 SP /min

      C – 3 SP / min

       

      SP Enemy heals if players of declaring village killed on Enemy Village

      A.G. – Normal SP healed  * 5

      L.G - Normal SP healed * 4

      M.G. – Normal SP healed * 2.5

      C – Normal SP healed * 1.5

       

       

      Activation Costs:

      Have all ranks assigned prior to war, but labeled as ‘inactive’.

      Kage can choose to discuss options with their villagers and choose which ranks to activate.

      Can only activate when 0.75*Initial SP < Current_SP ≤ Initial_SP to limit players from activating these ranks at lower SP values, thus paying less for the same effect.

      Open for Discussion.

      While inactive, war sabotaging acts as normal. To be activated, villages pay these costs,

      A.G. (Kage)– Pay 8%  SP

      L.G. (Kage Assistants [Max of 2])– Pay 4% SP Each  (8% total)

      M.G. ( ANBU Leaders) – Pay 2% SP Each  (up to 16% for Samui [8 ANBUS])

      Colonels (ANBU Members)- Pay 2.5% per ANBU.

       

      Total SP paid for activation – 46.5% of SP if Samui chose to activate ALL ranks.

       

       

      While the numbers are subject to change, this is just more of an idea to allow better strategy to the War System. Especially now that players are in mid or end game status, this will act as a new aspect of strategy that will give players more options on how they want to play the game. Also it will allow for more teamwork to take place as players will need to coordinate and decide who they want to be in each position to allow for maximum efficiency.
       

  • Profile SP
    • Is reset when a village first goes to war.
    • Does not reset when another village joins.
    • Any user with -75 or less SP is not worth SP when killed.

Surrendering. The "I don't want to die!"

  • Surrendering ends the war and has the following effects.
    • Ends the War.
    • Abolishes the 1 automatic Structure Damage from war.
    • All current VF of the Surrendering Village is distributed depending on the % destroyed by each village. IE Shine (1000VF) vs Silence and Samui. Samui deals 44 and Silence 56, Samui would get 440 VF and Silence 560.
    • No regen bonus.
    • Surrendering village is Vassalized if initial Aggressor is still partaking in the war.
  • Surrenders have to be sent to EACH active enemy. Only if all accept will the Surrender be true.

 

Vassal. The "Notice me senpai" section

  • A Vassalized village counts as an Ally in all respects and purposes.
  • A Vassal stays like that for 7 days.
  • A Vassal can buy themselves out of it buy spending activeVillagers*days left VF. This immediately ends the Vassal status and returns the Village Territory to it's owner.
  • Only the Village that Declares the initial war can vassal a village. Anyone who joins later on cannot claim the village as a Vassal. Even if the initial village drops out.

  • Slayze, Keyla, Rakusai and 2 others like this


da70a035141689477464498375_700wa_0.gif


#2 Purringles

Purringles

    Chuunin

  • TNR Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 443 posts

Posted 16 June 2016 - 06:43 PM

 

 

SP destruction Buffs:
Army General (Kage) – 10 SP/min

Lieutenant Generals (Kage Assistants [2 max]) – 8 SP/min

Major Generals (ANBU Leaders) – 5 SP/min

Colonels (ANBU Members) – 3 SP / min

 

Question: How does Lieutenant Generals get chosen? And can an ANBU Leader be chosen as a L.G.? If for example I was chosen as a LG but Silence also activated the Major Generals (Anbu leaders), would I be destroying 8sp, 5sp or 13sp ?

 

 

 

  • A Vassalized village counts as an Ally in all respects and purposes.

 

So does this mean after a war is complete the two villages can no longer interact in PvP with eachother? (regular everyday raiding)


  • Nuktuk and Delorin like this
- Purr

... and meow and things. KAYO!!

Spoiler

#3 Samiam

Samiam

    New Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 264 posts

Posted 16 June 2016 - 06:45 PM

If you are on the short side of a 2v1 war, and you manage to win, defeating both enemies, do you only get 10% for winning against two people, or would you get more regen than that?


  • Delorin likes this

#4 Pana

Pana

    Phoenix King

  • Administrator
  • 6090 posts
  • LocationKazama HQ, plotting more terror while feeding the evil Batcat.

Posted 16 June 2016 - 06:51 PM

I'll get back on that Purr.

 

Ally = Ally. You can kill them, but it will hurt you.

 

Doesn't matter how many vs 1, it's still just 1 war.


da70a035141689477464498375_700wa_0.gif


#5 Delorin

Delorin

    Potential Spambot

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 18 posts
  • LocationBrunei

Posted 16 June 2016 - 06:55 PM

 

Doesn't matter how many vs 1, it's still just 1 war.

 

 

Question: How does Lieutenant Generals get chosen? And can an ANBU Leader be chosen as a L.G.? If for example I was chosen as a LG but Silence also activated the Major Generals (Anbu leaders), would I be destroying 8sp, 5sp or 13sp ?

 

 

I guess that also applies to MPvP situation ?  


Edited by Delorin, 16 June 2016 - 06:55 PM.


#6 Raios

Raios

    Potential Spambot

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 16 June 2016 - 06:57 PM

How to go to war?  

  • Enemy must have equal or more Territories.
    • This includes home territory

Just this, rest is clear to me and it looks good. IMO there shouldnt be territory barrier:

-Village with small territory is by no means weaker - but due to that it wont be possible to declare on them. If the idea is to keep "dying" villages from vanishing it should be reworked. How? My idea is that village with smaller territory would get more defense bonuses. Less terrain, means focused forces, which means greater defense capability(in real life but its game so just little tweak of numbers would be needed). 


  • Delorin likes this

#7 Pana

Pana

    Phoenix King

  • Administrator
  • 6090 posts
  • LocationKazama HQ, plotting more terror while feeding the evil Batcat.

Posted 16 June 2016 - 07:02 PM

Delo, those points apply to SP per Minute by sitting in a village, not by killing a user.

 

Flat defensive boosts are useless. As explained multiple times over the age of TNR a raw boost has 2 stages: Broken or Useless.


da70a035141689477464498375_700wa_0.gif


#8 Authiel

Authiel

    Chuunin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 442 posts

Posted 16 June 2016 - 07:10 PM

So if this was implemented right now, Samui could not declare on anyone, Silence could only declare on Samui, Shine could declare on Silence or Samui and Shroud/Konoki could declare on anyone? If you are going to persist with a territory based deceleration system like that territory will need to be overworked. I would say necessary additions would be a longer countdown for territory battles, more benefits for territory battles and an option to surrender a territory to syndicate (with a penalty Ofcourse)
Also being challenged for a territory while at war seems like a bad idea. Although under these current guidelines it will not be a problem because no village will actually want territory.
  • Slayze and LadrenGildaer like this

#9 Samiam

Samiam

    New Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 264 posts

Posted 16 June 2016 - 07:12 PM

 

 

  • Bonus reduces by 2% for each previously won war. This is counted after Regen bonus is calculated in case of multiple against one and can reduce the bonus to 0 (But not less)
    This reduction counts back indefinitely. Each Win reduces the 10% by 2%, each Loss negates one win. This buff is never more than 10%!

 

 

This means that for villages like Samui, who don't lose wars, we have the incentive to win taken away from us, and we're actually encouraged to intentionally lose wars so we can go back to winning wars and getting regen again. 

 

I feel like this encourages people to create shady deals, such as intentionally having a village declare on them just so they can forfeit to them, and reduce their win counter so they can go back to earning bonus regen.


  • Slayze, Zenith, LadrenGildaer and 2 others like this

#10 Authiel

Authiel

    Chuunin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 442 posts

Posted 16 June 2016 - 07:22 PM

Or it encourages the top village to stop obscene levels of player recruitment. There are various ways to look at that. You say you don't want people to join Samui for regen? The lack of possible bonus war regen would help that cause.

#11 Nepgear

Nepgear

    New Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 144 posts
  • LocationHyper Dimension

Posted 16 June 2016 - 07:36 PM

The territory limit is a bit weird imo because to be honest, territories are not that useful. Villages will simply give up territories so they can never be declared on. 


  • Slayze and LadrenGildaer like this

#12 Ronkiro

Ronkiro

    Chuunin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 587 posts
  • LocationUncharted Territory

Posted 16 June 2016 - 07:47 PM

Just a thing that still has no sense for me

 

 

 

  • Surrenders have to be sent to EACH active enemy. Only if all accept will the Surrender be true.

 

Why not create a real way to surrender, where the village will just accept the loss, instead of that?

This kind of surrendering could be called as a peace pact, not as surrender. The enemy doesn't needs to accept if you are surrendering, if you are surrendering probably you are sure you have no way to win anymore, so you just accept the loss trying to minimize deaths, if the enemy will continue destroying you or not they decide that.

 

Also, getting out of the subject above, why not implement Syndicate's sabotage? Something like:

A village on war (i.e Silence vs Shine) can be targeted by Syndicate's members. Those when sitting on the village (for example, on Silence) would remove 3 village funds (idk if 3 would be a high number, but that is not the point, this you guys can change) every minute.

This way, for example, a village can pay Syndicate's members to break another village as a help. And there would still be an way for it to defend itself.



#13 Nuktuk

Nuktuk

    New Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 104 posts

Posted 16 June 2016 - 08:01 PM

Purr lieutenants generals are going to be chosen by the kage.

We can either make it so that LG cannot be ANBU leaders or make it so that ANBU leaders chosen as LG would have to pay the higher amount and thus destroying the higher amount of SP.
  • Rakusai and Purringles like this
Posted Image

#14 Shikayaru

Shikayaru

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 477 posts

Posted 16 June 2016 - 08:18 PM

I like that under this suggestion the Territories of the loser go back to their original owner after the vassalage is done. 

 

I like the idea of SP Sabotage Buffs, but it needs tweaking. I don't especially like the kage and kage assistants having more buffs. First, because it adds an unwanted level of exclusivity to wars when we want participation. Second, because it would help villages who have strong kages and kage's assistants and would hurt villages who don't...

 

Here's what you could do instead. Give an automatic buff for anyone in an ANBU squad. Then you could give added buffs for squad's who've reached certain benchmarks in assault and defense points. Which would be awesome because we've been waiting for those to mean something. Exactly what those benchmarks are could be worked out. 

 

Authiel has a point. With the suggested system, those who want to war and can win wars aren't going to be able to declare war on anyone. The only way they could be involved is if, like Gengar said, they abuse the system and work out some shady deals. Yea, losing wars sucks, but if we're going to have them, they shouldn't exclude people just cause they're strong.

 

Here's a suggestion that has come up before that I would still like to see implemented: I'd like it if rather than having to fight wars entirely inside villages, if territories were involved. If say, each territory has 100-200 SP that needed to be destroyed to capture. Any home village kills in the territory would heal some SP for that Territory. Then you could set the village territory SP to something like 500-1000.

 

This would add a level of strategy to the game, but another added benefit is that it would make it easier to include players who can't win battles, but want to participate. It would also help weaker players participate in war because now instead of waiting in a village for a minute to destroy 1 SP while hoping that someone doesn't bot you, now your opponent might have to move around their territories trying to catch you. (Note: you'd still have to stay in the same space for 1 min, not saying you can just move back and forth within the same territory....)

 

On that note, I'm most likely not interested in participating in any wars until botting has been properly addressed. It's pretty commonly known that Nellis, Gengar, and other players used a javascript add-on to their browser to refresh the page to automate the sabotage process. I'm pretty sure I heard that Gengar even admitted to that. The same type of Javascript bots have been used to auto-attack people. Catching players who use these is very difficult, but preventing them from using these bots isn't incredibly hard. You just need to understand how they're using the bots and then use the PHP server to dynamically change the code of the page. 



#15 Arphee

Arphee

    New Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 542 posts
  • LocationPhiladelphia, PA

Posted 16 June 2016 - 10:54 PM

I have a couple of points of contention with this new suggestion format, not to knock the whole thing, this is definitely a "the good, the bad, and the ugly" sort of situation with different bits falling into each, so lets start with what the new outline does right.
 

 

THE GOOD

 

SP Destruction percentage based rewards fairly distributes gains and prevents exploitative warring practices

14 Day cooldown after wars conclude- assuming that the condition applies to all parties at the conclusion of a war, wouldn't make sense to give shorter or less cool-down to a/the party who just got the crap kicked out of them.

The changes to upkeep are reasonable, and make sense, tacking on additional costs when taking predatory actions such as ganging up on an individual villag- and i hope that this carries over to the daily SP damage "costs" as well

 

Preventing villages from declaring on the same target back to back is also a positive change, so is the additional change to profile SP display when parties enter / leave ongoing wars (Though i really wish we'd get a Lifetime SP section) and setting lost territories to neutral versus just handing them over uncontested to the victor is a major improvement.

The changes to the vassal system are also welcome, forcing actual ally status discourages winning villages from just sitting on vassal territory and killing everything with scout access until the vassal-ship ends, and giving villages the option to buy-out (Though id much rather see an option to fight our way out) is certainly a welcome change from the status quo.

There are also good aspects of other suggestions that just don't work in their entirety, for instance the repeat winning penalty of 2% is EXTREMELY heavy handed, and the "lifetime" bit is way too intense, and while i think contents heart is in the right direction with the war declaration requirements, it just doesn't hold up in practice.

The BAD/UGLY

Locking out territory declarations but enabling other villages to snipe territory during wars seems like a terribly unfair idea, and makes no sense given that territories go neutral when a party loses anyway, furthermore the new war dec. requirements severely discourage villages from taking on additional territory  anyway-

And the war declaration changes are probably the biggest bad on this list, war farming has already been severely discouraged by other items on this potential update, your hearts are in the right place, but in practice it just doesn't work, territories and and village upgrades are a terrible metric of village capability, and definitely shouldn't be the deciding factor in who can actually declare- it'd be one thing if it were an SP Penalty or something for declaring on a "weaker" village.

Id highly suggest rethinking these metrics and use something more telling (Like Average PVP, or Average SF of players with PVP) to apply penalties rather than out right restriction given the nature of other intended updates- Such as. . . 

2% Penalties to gains per war lost on a PERMANENT counter only lowered by losses- this is great idea, with terrible implementation, i know our player base, YOU ALL KNOW OUR PLAYER BASE, so i'm going to be frank, others have already addressed this issue threefold before i even began reading, its unreasonable, and will force even those who would prefer legitimately to do whats necessary to make the best of the situation, the same way people are with jutsu XP farming,

The 2% penalty is fine, i love the idea, but having the only way for it to be lowered by a loss will force people to just trade wins and losses,  where as a sensible implementation would be something like setting a hard limit with a counter being taken off every 30 days, or hell even 60 would be sensible, encouraging players to war responsibly taking time to wait out the cool-down rather than trading a win to play the system.

Another thing that's a good idea with terrible implementation is the new sabotage system- flat out the suggested costs (While at present are just examples to my understanding) are far too high- 40+% of village structure? God no. and the arbitrary LG rank? Makes no sense, neither does damaging village health as an activation cost- even VF wouldn't make much sense, TNR has been struggling for a way to make ANBU relevant and important again, and already has a system in place where war boosts could be implemented, and both of these facts have been completely glanced over.

ANBU /should/ naturally and inherently do more damage / be more efficient during war, thats common sense, players who raid actively usually are already ANBU members or leaders, applying sabotage bonuses to them is something that /needs/ to be done given the slugish pace of war in TNR.

Apply static boosts to Kage, Squad Leaders and Squad Members, 10/5/3 sounds fine, But cost activated bonuses? we have a system for this, one thats often neglected, and has also been struggling to find a real purpose, why not allow clans to purchase the same benefits inherently given to ANBU? with clan leader getting the 8 co leaders getting the 5 and normal members getting the 3 or a lesser number given the nature of clans?

Either way damaging SP as an activation cost is a terrible idea, but improving sabotage output especially given the vulnerability and how long wars take at the previous values is always an improvement.

Furthermore i agree with the sentiment that surrender shouldn't need to be begged for, if a village surrenders i see no reason for parties to need to agree to it, id be far more supportive of something like clan leaders needing to A-OK the surrender, or A-OK war decelerations if TNR were trying to be more socially bureaucratic.

All in all this is a step in the right direction but there are dozens of potholes in front of TNR, TNR has been drinking heavily, and its a a very windy day- even going in the right direction if it doesn't keep its footing steady it may wind up eating dirt.


  • LadrenGildaer likes this

Arphee

 

Bearer of the beard, Lord of the Scrubs and Crowned King of Shitposts 

I tell you, I tell you the Beardokiin's come . . .


#16 Ven

Ven

    Jounin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 781 posts

Posted 17 June 2016 - 12:48 AM

Just because you want to surrender, that doesn't mean I'll stop attacking. Allowing villages to back out of war without their opponent's consent is silly.  

 

I like most of these changes, though as it's been stated already, territories are mainly for bragging rights anymore. Perhaps if they were given some real value I could see this system working better.



#17 Arphee

Arphee

    New Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 542 posts
  • LocationPhiladelphia, PA

Posted 17 June 2016 - 02:04 AM

Just because you want to surrender, that doesn't mean I'll stop attacking. Allowing villages to back out of war without their opponent's consent is silly.  

 

I mean, unless your Nazi's or something who don't care about standards or practices in war, there are rules and conventions that should be followed *COUGHjustsatingCOUGH* i think its silly to continue senselessly murdering every man, woman, child, and infant, even after an enemy has laid down their arms in entirety. But thats just like, my opinion though man.


  • LadrenGildaer likes this

Arphee

 

Bearer of the beard, Lord of the Scrubs and Crowned King of Shitposts 

I tell you, I tell you the Beardokiin's come . . .


#18 Ven

Ven

    Jounin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 781 posts

Posted 17 June 2016 - 02:37 AM

Right, but the opponent would want their terms met first. And in a 2v1, the second village might want a chance to do some damage first.

 

Because the terms are set in stone, I'd imagine the party accepting surrender would want it to be favorable to them before accepting. After all, the entire point of a surrender is admitting the war is lost and foregoing the part where people fight and just giving the enemy what they wanted when they started the war.

 

Considering a surrender has significantly different end results than a conventional victory, both parties should consent.

 

This is also my opinion, and I'm not trying to start a debate. I accept your opinion as valid and am just expressing my own.

 

On another note, I'd like to see something done with territory battles during war to make things more strategic/interesting between the warring parties.

 

Maybe a mixture of Shika's idea, and that one thread about assaults? Could spice things up a bit. Each territory receives a % of the villages overall SP, and can be attacked during war time.


Edited by Ven, 17 June 2016 - 02:38 AM.

  • KENSHlN likes this

#19 Rakusai

Rakusai

    Chuunin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 324 posts
  • LocationPana's spy network hideout

Posted 17 June 2016 - 03:31 AM

I don't really want to say this, but usage of the Geneva Convention in relation to war is misplaced.
As far as treatment of civilians, POWs, using of mass destruction, etc., it doesn't state that when a whenever a losing state or party offers surrender, it is mandatory for the victor to accept such surrender. Even in the advent of its creation of the Convention, it was never settled when does one actually "surrenders". I can make a very long and boring discussion of it, but pls don't make me :(

It may be harsh to some, but as long as it is within the bounds of the rules, I have to agree with Ven that the winning village must accept first the losing village's surrender before it can be deemed complete. (plus why use Geneva Convention? LOL)

 

How to go to war?  

  • Enemy must have equal or more Territories.
    • This includes home territory

 

I find this somewhat weird too. Is this made to protect small villages against big villages in terms of territory? (Say, Samui going after Konoki or Shroud or both for LOLS?) I am interested on reason behind this so as to see the big picture I might have missed. Other features, I'm good. :)


Challenge accepted!
judith-620x454.jpg


#20 KENSHlN

KENSHlN

    Chuunin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 586 posts

Posted 17 June 2016 - 07:02 AM

These requirements look ridiculously overcomplicated. And unneeded. 

 

Why can't war become a win-win situation for all sides? 

 

Losers: Gain 5% regen for 7 days. War immunity for 2 weeks. And cannot be declared upon again by the same village. 

 

Winners: Still get those extra VF, gains a vassal, loses less structure levels, 10% regen. 

That 10% regen will still decrease by 2% for successive war wins. 

 

Thus, all this territory requirement stuff to declare is crap and unnecessary. Weak villages will still want to war if they can reap some useful benefit, while winners still gain the most out of it. 

 

 

Army General (Kage) – 10 SP/min

Lieutenant Generals (Kage Assistants [2 max]) – 8 SP/min

Major Generals (ANBU Leaders) – 5 SP/min

Colonels (ANBU Members) – 3 SP / min

 

 

 

Love, love, love this idea. 

 

However the activation costs are also extremely unnecessary as well. Why not just let these benefits stay as is by the people who earned those spots? Would give more meaning to being an anbu leader/member anyway. 

 

So I don't see the point in 'activation costs' when this should already be passive effects by such people that hold those positions. 

Only issue here is that a village may have more Anbus than another, so I propose that the top 3 Anbus should have these benefits. 

 

So to summarize, why overcomplicate so many aspects of the war system when you can let all sides get something that's useful? 


Edited by KENSHlN, 17 June 2016 - 08:41 AM.

  • ShiroYasha and Delorin like this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users