Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

War System Upheavel.


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

#21 Koro

Koro

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 551 posts
  • LocationCanada

Posted 17 June 2016 - 12:04 PM

"Losers gain 5%"

are you the reason why they give out participation awards at public schools now?
  • Shikayaru, Nepgear, Authiel and 1 other like this

#22 Aelin

Aelin

    Chuunin

  • TNR Advertisement Staff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 363 posts
  • LocationBehind you

Posted 17 June 2016 - 12:14 PM

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

This is war. Not a fun fair with prizes for second and third place. I'd rather go without war for a whole eternity than have the losing village win stuff for the winning village's work. Not that it hasn't happened before~


  • Slayze and Nepgear like this

13 Reasons Why I wasn't banned:

That smile, that damned smile

tumblr_noo7dpJ4Q61tp27a4o1_500.gif


#23 ReploidZero

ReploidZero

    New Member

  • TNR Moderator
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 276 posts

Posted 17 June 2016 - 12:28 PM

I really don't mind the whole mercy rule concept, cause honestly the bottom tier villages don't need their morale crushed any further than it already has.


Posted Image

#24 Arphee

Arphee

    New Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 542 posts
  • LocationPhiladelphia, PA

Posted 17 June 2016 - 01:06 PM

"Losers gain 5%"

are you the reason why they give out participation awards at public schools now?

 

I mean thats technically constructive criticism on the state of schools in recent years....right?

 

 

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.

 

I don't think with the current state of territory battles its feasible to  implement it as a core war system mechanic, at present its wait until no one is online, then declare on 5 min notice to sweep your enemy, most of the time you can hardly even call them a "battle"

Provided that changes were/are going to be made to the way territory battles are conducted most importantly longer notification periods before battles happen, i still don't know if this would be a good implementation for war, just further bridges the power gap into literally unwinnable situation, for assumptive sized chunks of SP per territory battle won.

and trying to branch out village SP to portions of territory just doesn't work either, battles outside of home territories and villages are rare, and predatory usually only resolved by BH, not to mention the glaring issues with spreading war activity across the map rather than consolidating it- not to mention the loss of PVP and PVP Jutsu XP gains under that new suggested focus.

Plus realistically speaking its hard enough to coordinate and rely on people with designated areas most players don't even know their co-ordinates half the time on light layout, dragging random territory battles into the war SP occasion will just be scouting your territories for defense and picking people off one by one.

So distributed SP dedicated to PVP combat within Areas- Hard no IMO
SP allocation for territory battles during war between the engaged parties, and only the engaged parties set to something like

[SP Total * .25] / [Total Territories - 2] = [Territory Value] (-2 for Village + Home territory EX. Konoki Village, Fireheart Forest)

Winning a territory battle Damages enemy village SP by [Territory Value], reclaiming a contested territory heals [Territory Value * .5]


Example: 20,000 SP before all modifiers  Shine has 4 territories, 5000 SP worth of damage / activity would be dedicated to territory battles 1250SP per  territory.

 Silence attacks shine and wins say Southern Desert, shine takes 1250 SP damage, they wait until mid day and declare on silence so that the actual battle occurs in the early morning when player availability is limited due to IRL schedules and sweep us taking it back, they recovered 625SP

The real issue i see with this kind of system being implemented however is the current cost of territory battles, as they're prohibitively expensive, and it takes a fair bit of time to bankroll the VF to initiate, so id suggest setting war specific costs  in the form of  lower VF, or forcing people to use / bet SP on making territory plays.

EG [1 + Territory War Wins - Territory War Losses]% of current SP to make a territory battle declaration.

Like i said, IMO this just widens the power gap, but if people wanted to try it out / prefer having it implemented, thats how id go about trying to do it, besides, it does admittedly add a meaningful level of strategy and coordination to the war system.


Arphee

 

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

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


#25 Nuktuk

Nuktuk

    New Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 104 posts

Posted 17 June 2016 - 03:43 PM

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? 

 

I'm really happy you like my tier system Ken. As for the activation cost, the reason I included those in this proposal was because without it, these effects are TERRIFYINGLY op, so I wanted some kind of price or drawback to using these effects. However, as I told the content team, this aspect of the tier system is open to discussion. While I do not want to completely throw out the idea of activation costs, I am willing to discuss tweaking the activation costs to something everyone deems to be more reasonable, if they do not find it to be already. One thing that someone did point out to me is that with the 0.75 < initial SP < 1.00  limitation wouldn't even allow a village to activate all the positions, so maybe we could adjust the limitation to be 0.5 < initial SP < 1.00.

 

I will have to put more thought into this and make some tweaks, but I want to wait until I see what all of you users have to say about it. So please, continue to give constructive criticism on this thread. 

 

 

 

Thanks guys!


Edited by Nuktuk, 17 June 2016 - 03:45 PM.

Posted Image

#26 KENSHlN

KENSHlN

    Chuunin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 586 posts

Posted 17 June 2016 - 05:08 PM

"Losers gain 5%"

are you the reason why they give out participation awards at public schools now?

You miss the point. Why would war ever come back if weaker villages reap no benefits at all? And that's the only positive thing that they would get out of it. 

 

This is war. Not a fun fair with prizes for second and third place. I'd rather go without war for a whole eternity than have the losing village win stuff for the winning village's work. Not that it hasn't happened before~

Win 'stuff' as in only one thing. The 5% allows weaker villages to have a chance in catching up in power. Losers won't be completely raped this way and discouraged. 

 

 

If we can't have a losing village gain something useful out of war, then there's no point and you may as well keep things the way they are.

 

So have fun only being able to declare on Samui. With these harsher requirements for the villages that declare, there's no way in hell Shine is declaring on Samui or Silence. xD



#27 Authiel

Authiel

    Chuunin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 442 posts

Posted 17 June 2016 - 05:14 PM

They are removing benefits from spamming war against a weaker village. If both villages gained an advantage from a 1v1 war then villages will enter wars on a weekly basis. At that point what is the point of war? It becomes way too common.
  • Slayze likes this

#28 KENSHlN

KENSHlN

    Chuunin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 586 posts

Posted 17 June 2016 - 05:22 PM

They are removing benefits from spamming war against a weaker village. If both villages gained an advantage from a 1v1 war then villages will enter wars on a weekly basis. At that point what is the point of war? It becomes way too common.

 

  • War immunity for 14 days
  • War immunity prevents decleration on and by the village

So it wouldn't be too common. Maybe twice per month?

And if that tier system is implemented, wars should be ending much more quickly. 



#29 Authiel

Authiel

    Chuunin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 442 posts

Posted 17 June 2016 - 05:30 PM

you would probably get all 5 villages involved in wars twice a month. That is still a bit excessive. War should be a big deal in my opinion. I like the concept of stronger villages being limited on who they can declare on (although if this is pursued territories need an overhaul) and I like the limitations on spamming war. limiting what stronger villages can gain makes more sense than letting the weaker villages earn participation prizes. That is my opinion anyway,

#30 Koro

Koro

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 551 posts
  • LocationCanada

Posted 17 June 2016 - 06:13 PM

You miss the point. Why would war ever come back if weaker villages reap no benefits at all? And that's the only positive thing that they would get out of it.

Win 'stuff' as in only one thing. The 5% allows weaker villages to have a chance in catching up in power. Losers won't be completely raped this way and discouraged.


If we can't have a losing village gain something useful out of war, then there's no point and you may as well keep things the way they are.


-Learn to adapt.
-Hate and cling to life like a little maggot and countine to get stronger
-Endure it.
-Survivial of the fittest.
-Only the strong survive

What do all of these have in common?
They're not implying they need benifit the weak/ lazy/ slow at training.

What I'm trying to say here is

Git gud

Edited by Korotoi, 17 June 2016 - 06:19 PM.

  • Nepgear, LadrenGildaer and Aelin like this

#31 Ronkiro

Ronkiro

    Chuunin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 587 posts
  • LocationUncharted Territory

Posted 17 June 2016 - 11:09 PM

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.

Exactly what i think is wrong on surrendering.

IMO, wars, when a village gets completely destroyed (i am not considering the thread neither the war before this update) should receive a perma damage, because they got completely destroyed, and a village that surrenders should just receive less destruction. TNR is a game that allows a lot of possibilities, so if some village still wants to kill another village, they can simply sit on it, but the surrender would just stop the village stats destruction (I dunno if you can understand what i mean)

And my pc is horrible today, so i jumped to the commentaries i saw, sorry if i skipped any that said anything like that



#32 Purringles

Purringles

    Chuunin

  • TNR Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 443 posts

Posted 18 June 2016 - 12:04 AM

Exactly what i think is wrong on surrendering.

IMO, wars, when a village gets completely destroyed (i am not considering the thread neither the war before this update) should receive a perma damage, because they got completely destroyed, and a village that surrenders should just receive less destruction. TNR is a game that allows a lot of possibilities, so if some village still wants to kill another village, they can simply sit on it, but the surrender would just stop the village stats destruction (I dunno if you can understand what i mean)

And my pc is horrible today, so i jumped to the commentaries i saw, sorry if i skipped any that said anything like that

 

Correct me if I'm wrong Ron, but what you're trying to say is if a village knows they have no chance in winning they will surrender to prevent further damage to their structures, but the enemy will still have to sit on them to bring their SP to 0, however surrendering to prevent the structure damage will auto cancel any chance you have at winning the war, possibly even remove the ability to heal or damage SP?

 

It's not a bad concept in general but if a village surrenders to prevent structure damage I don't think the enemy village will still fight just because "They want to sit", when a village doesn't accept a surrender they do it because they know they can win easily and they want the enemy village to suffer as much damage as they can.

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

 

In my opinion, the only way to make it so surrendering didn't require the enemy village to accept it, it would need to have serious downsides to it, for example, yes you would save your hard earned structures, but you would receive -20% regen (THIS IS JUST A RANDOM NUMBER) and only every 3rd kill from the village would grant a VF (Sort of how vassal works towards giving VF to the winning village but reversed I guess?), it would allow villages who might regret starting a war to still keep their structures at a cost.

 

Feedback?


  • Rakusai likes this
- Purr

... and meow and things. KAYO!!

Spoiler

#33 teni

teni

    Chuunin

  • TNR Advertisement Staff
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 311 posts
  • LocationBehind the bar in Shine's tavern

Posted 18 June 2016 - 02:13 AM

I personally don't like that weaker villages can't be attacked at all. This will make war a near non existant feature.
​Since you get harsher penalties for starting a war, and chances are you will lose since you can only declare on a stronger village, this makes the benefits hardly worth the risk of losing as an agressor. Why bring it back at all?

Instead why not impose less benefits to winning a war on a weaker village (instead of getting 10% regen you get 5% or 2.5%) and far less VFs. So if you're going to war them, it better be worth those limited gains. So instead of preventing war, you make it less worth it.

​Why would a weaker village want to get stronger, if they know they can't be warred on?

​Also, on surrendering.

Why not give the surrendering village something they can offer, so the winning side will consider accepting?
 ​I was thinking what if there were say, 5 options. Things like a slightly smaller regen boost than a complete win, a territory chosen at random, a percentage of the surrendering villages current VFs etc. (Just random examples)

​If the surrendering village is above 50% sp, they can offer one.

If they are above 30% they can offer 2.

If they are below 30% they can offer up to 3.
That way the winner has an incentive to accept surrender, and the loser can go back to normal play sooner than they could if the war came to a full conclusion.
​In war, winners don't HAVE to accept a surrender and if they do there are usually conditions to the surrender.

​Just a couple of my thoughts.


  • Rakusai, ShiroYasha and Sten like this

giphy.gif


#34 Ven

Ven

    Jounin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 781 posts

Posted 18 June 2016 - 02:57 AM

What about being able to declare down 1 power level? As in, current power list :

  • Samui
  • Silence
  • Shine
  • Shroud/Konoki

Samui can declare on Silence.

Silence can declare on Samui and Shine.

Shine, Shroud, and Konoki can declare on anyone.

 

Kinda like the current rank system. It prevents the stronger villages from farming the lower ranked ones, while still allowing for some flexibility in war declarations.



#35 KENSHlN

KENSHlN

    Chuunin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 586 posts

Posted 18 June 2016 - 03:53 AM

-Learn to adapt.
-Hate and cling to life like a little maggot and countine to get stronger
-Endure it.
-Survivial of the fittest.
-Only the strong survive

What do all of these have in common?
They're not implying they need benifit the weak/ lazy/ slow at training.

What I'm trying to say here is

Git gud

 

Nothing about this was constructive, nor was there any other ideas given out except to 'git gud.'

This is a war feature. With villages, not individuals. 

So it'll be nearly impossible for a village to 'git gud' if their crap constantly gets destroyed. 

And the mainstream option nowadays (and in the future) would be to 'git gud'  by joining Silence, so you can be 'gud' in wars? xD wut?

 

The 5% idea at least provides a chance for villages to get stronger. They're already losing everything else. 

This idea could even bring about village balance if people choose to utilize it. 

So refrain from posting if your best idea to make war a useable feature is only to 'git gud'


Edited by KENSHlN, 18 June 2016 - 03:53 AM.

  • Delorin likes this

#36 Ronkiro

Ronkiro

    Chuunin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 587 posts
  • LocationUncharted Territory

Posted 18 June 2016 - 05:16 AM



It's not a bad concept in general but if a village surrenders to prevent structure damage I don't think the enemy village will still fight just because "They want to sit", when a village doesn't accept a surrender they do it because they know they can win easily and they want the enemy village to suffer as much damage as they can

I agree with you, but this can also be solved.

For example:

Shine vs Silence, Silence surrenders

Shine will receive a choice, instead of accepting or declining Silence's surrender, they would receive "Declare win" or "Keep Destroying". But to do that (I don't know MUCH about the current war system, correct me if i do any errors) we would need some changes, to make who surrender get destroyed less than normally.

Take as an example:

Silence vs Shine, Shine feels that won't win this war.

Shine is 70% SP (Or 30% SP Destroyed) then they surrender.

[I am not following the thread]

Let's say that the village (Shine) would lose 5 fixed points of regen or anything (5 is an example number) for getting completely destroyed (0% SP or 100% Destroyed)

Thinking on this way, let's say that every village on war will lose 1 points (minimum).

Shine for surrendering at 70% SP should be receiving just some damage (which means 1+1 from default, for example) but not it fully. Or what i mean, receive less damage because they surrendered early. But also, they would receive a loss, lose all their VF and other things of normal war. Let's say, is a way to get safe, not to avoid warring.

But also, some people could try abusing it (surrendering at 3% for example, to receive less damages.

How can we solve that? Simple.

i.e. A village has >80% SP still (Or <30% destroyed) = Losing 1 point (+1 look behind)

A village has >50% but also <80%SP = Losing 2 points (+1 look behind)

A village has >20% but also <60%SP = Losing 3 points (+1 look behind)

A village that has less than 20% or less SP would receive 4 damage or total (look behind).

 

But how do we apply the concept of war after surrender?

Simple also, i.e. if a village that is above 80% surrenders, and the other wants to keep the war, the other village (If totally destroyed) will lose 1 bonus point. Both villages would still be able to keep fighting, but the winner village would still be able to be attacked, same to victim.

.

But, what if they surrender and the other declares the war as finished?

The war would end normally, it would recognized as a win to winner village normally, the winner village would receive no problems for declaring it as ended.

 

What if a village surrenders, then win?

This is a problem. But also simple to solve. If the winner village gets behind 10% SP they would receive all the normal damage to structures, but the system would stop the war and recognize as a win declared.

 

Why would a village want to keep warring another?

If a village wants to destroy another village more, even if that costs a bit more of it's own village.

Basically this is the same thing would occur in reality, if someone keeps warring, they want to destroy another nation, and the other nation can still defend itself, even after declaring surrender. Also, the winner village can accept the surrender at ANYTIME.

 

This basically makes surrendering viable, and also allows a realistic way to war.

 

All numbers/data/anything used here came from my mind, feel free to change anything.

Also, the regen thing Purr mentioned could be adaptated here too



#37 Evianon

Evianon

    New Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 279 posts
  • LocationSilence

Posted 18 June 2016 - 09:57 AM

Reducing winner's rewards each win - just no, better make it so the aggressors risk something more by declaring and still losing, they should be afraid to declare (multiple villages gangin up on them, make them lose all terris while attacked village doesn't lose all from a loss, stuff like that)
 
Make a different reward than regen. It doesn't feel fun to fight for regen for end gamers. On other hand 1 or 2% damage buff for a week sounds really cool. Or remove loser's village walls effect for a week. Less AI for a week. Just examples.
 
Try to simplify as much as possible. Make those ranks automatic based on anbu position like mentioned, don't make super balanced rewards/penalties. My first point simplifies stuff too. Remove war upkeep completely. Remove activation costs completely. Dont scale every penalty based on SP damage. Those 10% about joining war.. just remove all the conditions. Everyone wants to understand the war rules, and the reaps/losses too, so they know why they're in it. If you make too many rules, people will just wave their hand over it and not care. Make them interested by enhancing rewards. Make them scared by enhacing penalties. And don't be scared of unfair wars, it's not nice world.. shinobi world. What I mean is.. Let the diplomacy be important thing about it. Making alliances should be left completely to players. Remove restrictions where they are not necessary and just trying to make "things fair". Let players do "fair". Will help with simplicity anyway.
 
And make sure that those healed points are balanced with the kage/anbu/cfh.

  • LadrenGildaer and Aelin like this

#38 KENSHlN

KENSHlN

    Chuunin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 586 posts

Posted 21 June 2016 - 09:42 AM

After chatting about war with a couple of people on Skype, I kind of liked Akum's idea...

 

Instead of limiting who can declare war on whom, you can rather control what the war rewards become. 

 

So a concept similar to PvP exp.

A weaker player gains a ton of PvP exp if beating an uber, while an uber gets very small amount of PvP. So the reward can scale in a way like SF affects PvP exp. 

 

Only question now is how would village strength be determined? SF average based off active users isn't accurate enough. 

How about simply adding up all active villagers' SF (chuunin through EJ)  to determine a village's overall strength? 



#39 Ronkiro

Ronkiro

    Chuunin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 587 posts
  • LocationUncharted Territory

Posted 21 June 2016 - 03:46 PM

After chatting about war with a couple of people on Skype, I kind of liked Akum's idea...

 

Instead of limiting who can declare war on whom, you can rather control what the war rewards become. 

 

So a concept similar to PvP exp.

A weaker player gains a ton of PvP exp if beating an uber, while an uber gets very small amount of PvP. So the reward can scale in a way like SF affects PvP exp. 

 

Only question now is how would village strength be determined? SF average based off active users isn't accurate enough. 

How about simply adding up all active villagers' SF (chuunin through EJ)  to determine a village's overall strength? 

It sounds like a good idea. But there is also a problem. Villages with not much people (actually you can understand that as Shroud, for example), but with some capped people, would probably have insane amounts of SF, what wouldn't represent exactly the strenght of the village, what we have as different to pvp exp (Which the numbers affect less, IDK if you can understand me).

 

Also, a village that has much new people per amount of capped people (lets say, idk, 10 new people appearing per one people capping? Idk) would probably have lower SF than it should.



#40 KENSHlN

KENSHlN

    Chuunin

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 586 posts

Posted 21 June 2016 - 04:41 PM

That's exactly why I said the 'average SF' wouldn't be accurate.

Rather, all SF added up (active chuu-EJ) is a better representation of overall power. 


Edited by KENSHlN, 21 June 2016 - 04:41 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users