Jump to content
The Ninja Forum
Pana

War System Upheavel.

Recommended Posts

CFH options? Adding more variables doesn't make it more accurate. If a village has 10 capped EJ who are active while another has 30 active EJ with 3000 - 4000 SF than by your system the second village would have the advantage. Spoiler, that would be far from the truth.

 

So if they're smart, 10 ubers get battle held and possibly cfh'd on, while 20 others sap and pick off weaker users. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using SF or any other measure of player strength like that to gauge a villages strength is too messy. It doesn't work well for CFH (re: CFH is broken arguements) and definately wouldn't work well in war situations.
​As people have mentioned there's also other variables for raiders, such as internet speed, availability, computer vs. mobile etc.
​It wouldn't work.

​I'm more in favour of discouraging war on smaller villages with less territory and structures through lower gains. It isn't perfect, but it's less messy and complicated.
​We need a war system with rules we can understand, so we aren't debating and arguing over bugs and if something is allowed, while still being some measure of "fun".
​Trying to make something 100% fair is impossible. War isn't fair.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just throwing an idea to be formulated by you guys, what about "Perfomance Points"?

Like, all villages would start at 0 perfomance (Or Standard). Once they war, the perfomance would start counting.

The perfomance would be based on players score, village SP destroy and village's SP remaining.

Let's make an example, Silence wars Samui, samui wins but with 10% sp remaining. A example would be Silence with 900 PP and samui with 1000PP.

Then samui wars Konoki and Konoki wins with 30% remaining.

Konoki would end with 1000 points, Samui with (1000+700)/2, Silence with 900 PP.
(this is just an example) With the time, all villages would have more realistic perfomance. Also, if a village wants to lower their PP they would need to give a free win to another village, something i think most villages wouldn't do. Btw, i gave my idea, if anyone wants to implement anything... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the point of a more complicated system when territories have always been an accurate indicator of village strength?

Samui didn't accidentally control 98% of the map for all that time. There's a reason Shroud and Konoki don't have any territories. 

Edited by Ven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the point of a more complicated system when territories have always been an accurate indicator of village strength?

Samui didn't accidentally control 98% of the map for all that time. There's a reason Shroud and Konoki don't have any territories.

but back when Shine started taking back their teritory and Silence still has not, does that mean Shine is stronger than Silence?

 

Edit: But now that I think about it Territories owned + Village updates could make for an acurate Village strength guage, unless that village hoards VF.

Edited by ShiroYasha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but back when Shine started taking back their teritory and Silence still has not, does that mean Shine is stronger than Silence?

 

Word-

 

What's the point of a more complicated system when territories have always been an accurate indicator of village strength?

Samui didn't accidentally control 98% of the map for all that time. There's a reason Shroud and Konoki don't have any territories. 

 

Territory and village upgrades in no way indicate village power, territory battles have a litiral 5 minute cooldown, and are extremely dependant on avilability and peoples schedules, plus have little to no benefit, fact is territory isnt even worth the VF it costs to declare, the only reason silence even has territory right now is we thought itd be fun and the all yellow map was depressing.

 

PS: Konoki hasnt even tried to do a territory battle to my knowledges, and Shroud only made one attempted at a bad time and got blocked hard by a fleet of retired players.

 

Cant stress this enough, but territory is litirally in NO way shape or form an accurate representation of village stength, not to mention it would be LAUGHABLY easy to exploit, give me ONE good reason why any village wouldnt just intentionally lose a war to neutral their territory and have dec rights against everyone while being unable to get attacked? AND they get the added bonus of taking a counter off of their wins so they get higher regen for their next war.

 

And VF in no way amounts to war effectiveness either, just activity, even if Amnesia runs around getting thousands of kills a month, it doesnt mean their an effective block or counter to portions of Samui's retired player pool or Silences current roster, even if he brings in like five times the VF and kills i do despite my loyalty bonuses.

 

Whats the point of implementing a system if its got glaring problems before the first line of code is even written, you can already see how easily its exploitable, and its a poor representation of the factor its supposed to gauge when determining available targets?

 

Maybe im just bias because im from one of the "Mean big villages hue hue hue" but i feel like if your going to impose restrictions on who can fight who based on "Who's better" you should do it properly or not al all.

 

"Samui is moar effective at war because map yellow and [insert regen value here]"

 

Is in no way shape or form an accurate representation of the current power climate, if you agree to that statement, then you agree that this is a poor metric to judge a villages worth,

 

Counting the veins in an E-peen measuring competition to determine ranking is autistic when things such as length and girth exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a different idea that I've been mulling over a little, which may make territories as a gauge of strength a little more workable and less abusable, but it changes things a little.

 

-Villages are ranked 1-5, based on their strength calculated through Structures and Territories.
-The higher ranked a village is above you, the higher gains. The lower the rank below you, the lower gains from winning war.
-When war is finished the loser's terr is distributed as follows: 1 terr becomes neutral, the remaining terr is split between the winner and loser. The winner gaining 30-60% of the remaining terrs. If there is only one terr it becomes neutral. If there is only a single terr after that, depending on the roll, either side may receive it. (So in the end, the winner might not get any terr at all)
 
For this to work, terrs may need a bit more value to them however.
This creates less abuse of the system. Depending on the roll, the loser will not always end up with less terr than the winner meaning they may not drop significantly on the strength list. This also creates less incentive for a weaker village to purposely win, since they can end up with a target on their back if they get increased territories and increase in rank on the strength list
If a village is genuinely weak, then having terr you can't defend isn't good...so why risk attacking above you if you paint a target on yourself afterwards? Unless it's a genuine win.
IF you genuinely beat them, you can defend the terr properly so no worries about that.

For example Samui makes a deal with Shine to purposely lose to them and Shine gains the max amount of territories the system allows. Samui drops on the list, and Shine ends up higher. Chances are Silence can attack them, and get a higher gain from beating them if they win. While Shine may get some gains from winning against samui, they might put themselves in a worse position later on.

So if a village wants to try abusing the system by purposely losing, HOPING to lower their rank... it is much riskier.

This does not consider alliances fully, though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The flaws inherent in any kind of stat-based system would be much worse than a territory based system, if territories are given real value. Make it beneficial to hold territories for longer periods of time, and counter-productive to lose them.

 

The thought of wars being declared often enough that villages want to 'throw' them for the sake of declaring more is appalling to me. The rewards from the war itself shouldn't justify that. War should be over territory and resources, not some concocted rewards system made to benefit warmongers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few things:
Yes, we're still actively following this thread. Since the thread is progressing and ideas are being shared in a (largely) civil manner we chose to observer over intervene.

 

 

Territory and village upgrades in no way indicate village power, territory battles have a litiral 5 minute cooldown, and are extremely dependant on avilability and peoples schedules, plus have little to no benefit, fact is territory isnt even worth the VF it costs to declare, the only reason silence even has territory right now is we thought itd be fun and the all yellow map was depressing.

  • Territory battles have a 6 hour cooldown. This has been so since the start of C3 to prevent C2 scenarios, where a village would take over the entire map in the downtime of another village.
  • Territories reduce all upgrade costs.
  • Territories reduce costs of ramen, hospital and item shop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The flaws inherent in any kind of stat-based system would be much worse than a territory based system, if territories are given real value. Make it beneficial to hold territories for longer periods of time, and counter-productive to lose them.

 

The thought of wars being declared often enough that villages want to 'throw' them for the sake of declaring more is appalling to me. The rewards from the war itself shouldn't justify that. War should be over territory and resources, not some concocted rewards system made to benefit warmongers.

 

VF and Regen are "Resources" And realistically the focused attention on one area and increased activity netting more kills and relative safety are "resources" and rewards in and of themselves, were playing a game where the sole means of gameplay is competitive PVP for the sake of competitive PVP, by your standards this entire game is "Apalling" based solely off of concocted reward systems made to benefit warmongers.

 

And people say "Make territory valuable" or "Make them relevant" but i see no one making legitimate suggestions on how to do that outside of as a means to justify or balance war, fact is there isnt much that can be assigned to territories, ESPECIALLY as a long term or permenant bonus without causing massive issues with game balance.

 

And ive still yet to see anyone adress the glaring issues with the way territory battles are currently handled either while making suggestions on how they'll play into war.

 

 

-Villages are ranked 1-5, based on their strength calculated through Structures and Territories.

-The higher ranked a village is above you, the higher gains. The lower the rank below you, the lower gains from winning war.
-When war is finished the loser's terr is distributed as follows: 1 terr becomes neutral, the remaining terr is split between the winner and loser. The winner gaining 30-60% of the remaining terrs. If there is only one terr it becomes neutral. If there is only a single terr after that, depending on the roll, either side may receive it. (So in the end, the winner might not get any terr at all)
 
For this to work, terrs may need a bit more value to them however.
This creates less abuse of the system. Depending on the roll, the loser will not always end up with less terr than the winner meaning they may not drop significantly on the strength list. This also creates less incentive for a weaker village to purposely win, since they can end up with a target on their back if they get increased territories and increase in rank on the strength list

If a village is genuinely weak, then having terr you can't defend isn't good...so why risk attacking above you if you paint a target on yourself afterwards? Unless it's a genuine win.
IF you genuinely beat them, you can defend the terr properly so no worries about that.

 

I like the route your going but i still see issues with this, even if you balance via territory gains, and randomly distribute territory as a win/loss condition nothing prevents people from making deals to have other villages claim territory, or throw territory fights to lower their ranking and up war gains.

 

This is again another issue of "Territories need more value" But how? and what? without overshadowing war itself or ruining balance.

 

If war > territory people will shed territory to get war benefits

If territory > war people will just claim and hold territory until they no longer get benefits from war (Compunded by the -20% per win)

 

But i do like where your heads it, if people can make suggestions that can make it work, and balance it im all for it, and im all for helping refine those ideas

 

 

 

A few things:

Yes, we're still actively following this thread. Since the thread is progressing and ideas are being shared in a (largely) civil manner we chose to observer over intervene.

 

  • Territory battles have a 6 hour cooldown. This has been so since the start of C3 to prevent C2 scenarios, where a village would take over the entire map in the downtime of another village.
  • Territories reduce all upgrade costs.
  • Territories reduce costs of ramen, hospital and item shop

 

Probably shouldnt have used the word cooldown there, but i had assumed people would know what i meant, The 5 minute declaraction timer for people to "prepare" is what i was reffering to, which im sure even you can agree is laughable, the two numbers should be switched or better yet make the notification 6 hours and the cooldown 6 hours 5 minutes > . >

 

Towards the effects of territories i know what they do, so does everyone else in this thread i would assume, most are veteran players, and as you can see they all think those "benefits" are irrelevant and "not gud enuff" and there isnt much  you can tack onto that.

 

Do we just massively inflate the numbers amke it a 2% redection cost per territory? Add additional village walls per territory? Throw in +5 village regen per territory held?

 

Theres only so much that can be done or tacked on especially given the state of the system as is, hecki m pretty sure the last two of those above would require code revisions, and even if we did start inflating numbers and adding effects to make territory "relevant" the way people want it to be, it would need to reach a state in which territory is inherently as, or more valuable than war itself with its passive effects- and i just dont see that happening.

 

Not to mention that would be terrible for activity in and of itself which war is a huge driving factor of war in the first place.

 

 

At present it stands that from what ive seen most people agree a hard "can and can not declare" is a terrible idea, but people heavily favor ranking weighted rewards, with a focus on territory.

 

Which on paper im more than down for if the issues with it can be adressed because i earnestly enjoy the territory system far more than ive ever liked war, and even if we can nail down something that works, change the way and rewards of territory, theres still the other war conditions to contest with

 

1- You cant declare on the same village back to back (Which is more than fine under the suggestion for open declaration availability)

2- Each Win gives -20% gains from the next war to a hard cap of 0% only lowered by losses (This needs to go, or be given a natural decay like -1 per 30 days)

 

TBH id really like to hear your input so far, we can theory craft until were blue in the face and red in the eyes but it will mean nothing if were working in a direction that isnt feasible to implement, or just outright wont be because of staff prefference, if something is an absolute bust we definately need to know so we can focus attention elsewhere.

 

 

 

 

PS: If there are terrible gramattical etc errors and  this post seems like its shite even compared to my normal ones i apologize, its 5:20AM, i havent slept, im definately not at peak condition, and i dont even have acess to spellcheck right now i can only imagine how horrific everything above has turned out as ive written it- so if youve made it this far, my condolances, have a cookie to ease the pain.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanting to throw something out there, the whole Idea of a war in general not just in tnr is usually because the declaring side wants something, correct? Like America wouldnt just Nuke Russia "for the heck of it" so I think it should be similar with TNR I think that Territory's should be given more value as in Idk each territory adds some regen? this way yes the stronger villages would keep getting stronger. the other reason could be economical so as in they get more VF another point to throw out there is that. No one comes out of a war in good shape think of WW2 or WW1 even though france did win they had some SERIOS damage so I think that in the short term war should be a loose loose situation HOWEVER in the long time it could provide some benefits. Some food for thought just some of my raw ideas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically what this dude is saying is

 

 

Tl;dr We need to add nukes into the game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe add a PvE concept to war also. Sitting and sapping is just meh.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^This

I'd like to see wars concluded in a few tactical battles rather than a 48 hour sitfest by an OP village, or a drawn out 3 week hit and run contest between 2 evenly matched villages.

Some kind of "Assault" feature for initiating a special battle would be nice.

Perhaps a Kage can declare an Assault, and the other village receives a notification that an Assault is incoming. After 30 minutes the assault begins, and it lasts 8 minutes. Each village receives 1 Assault declaration when a war begins, and receives a new one every 24 hours, on a charge based system. Assaults will have an 8 hour cooldowns to prevent spamming during a villages downtime. An Assault may be accessed anywhere within any enemy owned territory, home territory, village tile, or otherwise.

During the Assault there will be a page players can open which will allow them to participate in the Assault. The Assault page will display all of the village structures, and allow players to pick which structure they would like to Assault.

When a player chooses a structure they will enter combat with the enemy structure, along with any of their allies who chose that structure. Defenders will receive a similar page, and may choose which structure they would like to defend, and will enter combat against the Assailants.

Dying in battle sends a user to their respective village hospital. Both Assailants and Defenders will only be allowed to attack/defend each structure once. An Assault lasts 8 minutes or until all enemy structures are destroyed. SP destruction during an Assault will be distributed based on the damage done to a structure by the user. Assaults may be declared at any time. When alliances are formed, the alliance Assault declaration number will be Village A + Village B / 2. If there is a fraction, the number will be rounded down(for example, 2 + 1 = 3, 3/2= 1.5, this will round down to 1 Alliance declaration). To declare an Alliance Assault, one Kage may propose the assault and the other Kage must consent. I like the idea of Kages being allowed to appoint a Kage assistant who can make limited war decisions in their stead to allow for more flexibility. When an alliance is declared, the Alliance Assault number is set, and the countdown to another Assault point begins at that moment. The countdown to another Assault point may be viewed in the kage panel. Villages fighting against an alliance may declare an Assault on either village, but not both.

Structures will be assigned HP dependent on the overall upgrade level of each structure. Damage to the structure will translate directly to SP damage to the village. Completely destroying a structure during an Assault will result in the maximum possible SP destruction assigned to that structure, and reduce the structure level by 1. Any structures that receive downgrades in this way can not be downgraded again.

Without drawing up actual numbers, I'd say the values should be scaled to allow wars to end in 2-5 days without necessitating 4+ hours of sabotaging a day. I still think sabotaging should be an included feature, just not the main aspect of war.


TLDR : Let us have cool big battles during war not sitting and 1v1 sniping. (Pretty pls)

Edited by Ven
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically a more complicated form of a territory battle. @_@
But in this case, EJ could end up fighting chuunin based on who picks what. 

 

I think war is fine the way it is as far as sapping goes. Nobody kills you, there you go doing damage to the structures. 

 

I'll update the first post into this spoiler to my understanding of what most people want. 

 

 

 

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%
      • 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 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. (this already stops the abuse of noob villages, so no need for more complications)
    • 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 the most recent win was 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      
      -edit-
      (only top three anbus: to prevent OPness from occurring considering villages can have a different amount of anbus)

       

    • 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.

^ ^ ^

Does that look better? 

Edited by KENSHlN
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a more friendly PvE scenario in wars, I think adding specific AI that are dedicated for wars would be fun, instead of risking your life inside the village where you sap because you know there's someone defending, we could have specific AI that spawn in areas around the village within their territory, like for example hmm..

 

  • Supply Cart + Bodyguards, killing these would damage the enemy village's or allow the next countdown for SP sapping in the village for the player that killed them be reduced an X amount of time for like 50 SP ( not counting kills ).
  • Villagers/Repairers ( or something ? ), all of these could have the same effect but varying degrees of benefits that they could give the player encountering them and defeating them
  • Guards

 

In my opinion this would make wars slightly more interesting, these AI could be a rare encounter when in a village territory (Home village territory) of the enemy villages and the benefits one could get from defeating them would hinder the enemy village.

We could also make stuff like the Guards AI be similar the chuunin EM quests where you need to use a specific rotation of say... AoE, AoE, single target, single target, so this way players that are speeding through the village and encounter them might not realise that they encountered the guards and end up messing up the first round, only to realise that they will now die to the guards who are defending the village. I mean the enemy village needs a chance as well right?

 

 

This way even players that feel like they are to weak to help in wars vs uber players can still somehow participate by doing this PvE scenario, which is not a guaranteed way to destroy a villages SP but instead bonus content?

Of course I'm just spitballing the whole idea.

 

Leave your feedback, I'd like to hear everyones thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Kenshin

 

Nothing to stop the top village from rotating between the weakest villages to farm them if you remove the limitations to a declaration.

 

@Purringles

 

I feel like if you make it a rare encounter it will encourage people to run around mashing travel. Maybe every time you successfully sabotage, there's a % chance to get a PvE encounter? Could encourage players to sabotage even if there are defenders if there's a chance to destroy more SP than the defenders can heal. The focus of war should be PvP, and if you're standing on the enemy village and nobody is defending it then throwing some PvE at you to simulate ransacking the village sounds fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

also highly annoying as Sabotage only triggers if you're char is marked Awake. Any battle will turn your Char-marking to Battle, preventing sabotage, prolonging the war

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, when I look at the proposed changes I see the potential to fix a lot of issues with the old war system. Maybe concepts like Territory battles/Assaults/PvE will be pointless when you can appoint war generals, etc. I can see how that could make wars end quicker and involve some strategy, so maybe I'm being greedy with some of my ideas.

 

I predict a Samui 2.0 within 3 months if war declaration restrictions are removed in favor of scaled rewards, though. I only get 1 PvP, 1 jutsu use, and 1 VF from killing a fresh jounin, but I do it anyway. Why? Cuz it's easy and it's something to do. Can't expect the TNR userbase to "play fair" when it comes to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Kenshin

 

Nothing to stop the top village from rotating between the weakest villages to farm them if you remove the limitations to a declaration.

 

While true, might be rare. This is also possible: 

Konoki loses war to Silence. 2 week immunity. Silence can't redeclare right away either. 

So let's say a month passes by and Silence finished up another war against Shine. 

To avoid another war with Silence, Konoki can be smart and declare upon another village to grant further immunity. 

So it really isn't a problem. The biggest problem before was the lack of cool downs and them not working correctly. 

Edited by KENSHlN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Nothing to stop the top village from rotating between the weakest villages to farm them if you remove the limitations to a declaration.

 

That's not a problem if there's also nothing to stop the weak village to team up against the strongest village with second strongest village, no?

Edited by Evianon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

That's not a problem if there's also nothing to stop the weak village to team up against the strongest village with second strongest village, no?

Whats wrong with that? It's happened several times in the past with no complaints, even when it was a legitimately unfair war. (Silence/Shroud vs. Samui, Everyone vs. Samui etc.). If a village is strong, of course people will want to target them. That's part of being on top of the food chain.

Unless I've interpreted what you've said wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing wrong with that as that's what I used as an argument against overly complicated declaration rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So...any updates? ;~;

We want warrrrr. xD

Edited by KENSHlN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

correct to 40% and 60% on your first point? You can't have 110% :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...