Town Wars

DeletedUser22575

indeed, everyone gets their hpback at the end, so theres no loss for any players as such
just pride.
looks like some are scared to lose their pride?

a town crushes another, so what? alliances crush other alliances in fort wars, that doesnt seem to bother you considering how many times you both have flamed any attempts at ideas correcting this issu WITHOUT bringing any ideas to the table yourselves.

so a town beats another in dueling, i think what is left to discuss is what is won and what is lost?
i quite like the using enemy forts idea as a reward, that way a dueling town can aso get the advantages of forts too, this would most likely help in evening out the fort fight playing field?

i think that there should be some kind of dueling advantage for the winner and a dueling disadvantage for the loser.
I actually said I found the idea interesting and ask a couple of questions about what I saw as a couple of problem areas or flaws.

That is not flaming.

But apparently you seem to think it is ok for some maxed out town with maxed out top duelers to be able to go beat on some town 1/3rd their size composed mainly of workers and adventurers with a few low level duelers and massacre them and consider that a "dueling war" entitled to rewards to possible include the loss of their fort.

I disagree with that approach.
 

Speed Killz

I am going to edit the original post to where the challengers send as many players to the fight as they want, but the defenders do not have to show up.
 

DeletedUser9470

enemy accepts war?
lol doesnt make sense to me
germany invade france and then ask them if they accept?
i dont think so.
a war is a war.

if not then what is the point of it?
might as well just duel normally and keep them ko that way.

the way i see it is that war is declared on another town, and the winner gets an advantage from the losing side, like USAGE of their fort.

i dont see any problems with big dueling towns declaring war on small towns.
at the end of the day war is declared to gain an advantage.

i dont see any countries declaring war on crappy countries like Luxenbourg for example...
 

Speed Killz

enemy accepts war?
lol doesnt make sense to me
germany invade france and then ask them if they accept?
i dont think so.
a war is a war.

if not then what is the point of it?
might as well just duel normally and keep them ko that way.

the way i see it is that war is declared on another town, and the winner gets an advantage from the losing side, like USAGE of their fort.

i dont see any problems with big dueling towns declaring war on small towns.
at the end of the day war is declared to gain an advantage.

i dont see any countries declaring war on crappy countries like Luxenbourg for example...
Yeah that makes sense. If big towns come in and own little towns who cares? they will do it anyway. And it doesn't hurt the small towns any, they get the hp back.
 

DeletedUser33353

I like the idea....and as far as the reward goes?
How about having town prices for their store items for awhile, 24 hours perhaps?
 

DeletedUser9470

Yeah that makes sense. If big towns come in and own little towns who cares? they will do it anyway. And it doesn't hurt the small towns any, they get the hp back.
yee but that's not the point im trying to make.
small weak towns would be pretty safe should there be no reward for warring them.

so if the reward of a duel war be the ability to sleep in that towns owned forts, only towns who own forts would be targeted.

i would speculate that big alliances would then give all their forts to duelling towns.
idk if that is good or bad.
mind you forts tend to be owned by alliances who can defend themselves anyway.
so really i don't see any issues with this reward.

it gives a meaning to using aim and dodge again too which also makes people respec more often which means more premium sold, everyone's a winner!
 

Speed Killz

And it is not like you would lose your forts. It would only make the game more interesting. More interesting game leads to keeping more players, which makes the game better for everyone. And besides, aim and dodging are used in fort battles, they changed dueling so that fort fighters would do better.
 

DeletedUser25802

nice idea i like it :D

but as some have pointed out, the rewards cant be too good or big duelling towns would just attack smaller weaker duelling towns, but if the reward was the use of their shops.....! :D :D
 

DeletedUser30224

In fort fights there is space for players( 50 - 100 - 140 attackers and 42 - 82 - 120 defenders), yet if there are only 15 players attacking and 15 defending the rewards are really crappy.

So why not make it the same? The max is 50 players in a town...maybe a 50-50 shoot-out would gain biggest rewards, while a 30-30 shoot-out would be considered medium rewards and 15-15 small rewards. Anything below would be just ... well waste of time really, same as a fort fight.

The rewards I'd suggest would be products, buffs and maybe throw in a box or two for a great turnout. Which player will get the biggest reward? (say an iron box) ... the player that Ko'd most players, even if his/her town lost. But the other winning prizes go to winners only.

Ehh, something along these lines anyway...
 

DeletedUser9470

In fort fights there is space for players( 50 - 100 - 140 attackers and 42 - 82 - 120 defenders), yet if there are only 15 players attacking and 15 defending the rewards are really crappy.

So why not make it the same? The max is 50 players in a town...maybe a 50-50 shoot-out would gain biggest rewards, while a 30-30 shoot-out would be considered medium rewards and 15-15 small rewards. Anything below would be just ... well waste of time really, same as a fort fight.

The rewards I'd suggest would be products, buffs and maybe throw in a box or two for a great turnout. Which player will get the biggest reward? (say an iron box) ... the player that Ko'd most players, even if his/her town lost. But the other winning prizes go to winners only.

Ehh, something along these lines anyway...
i like this idea, keeps big towns from going for easy targets, whereas use of shops promotes bullying, and why would a town go to war with another town because one player wants to get a cheap fancy jacket?...

rewards suggested so far:
1) use of enemy town owned forts
2) some sort of system similar to fort fights whereby players win boxes, the higher the rank of the town attacked, the better the boxes.

I like 2 because it favours the smaller towns and keeps the big towns on their toes.
 

DeletedUser26344

I think it a great idea to put in the-west. should be in the next up date .
 

Elmyr

His idea is for more than a dueling tournament than a war, so making it somewhat friendly makes sense. The attacking town is challenging the defenders, not actually attacking them. When you look at it that way, ignoring DL isn't as much of an issue
 

DeletedUser9470

His idea is for more than a dueling tournament than a war, so making it somewhat friendly makes sense. The attacking town is challenging the defenders, not actually attacking them. When you look at it that way, ignoring DL isn't as much of an issue
if it is friendly there isnt much point.
we know who beats who already.

peeps who prone the friendly war are the people scared to lose them.
 

Hellstromm

Chill -Neo-, the idea has some merit, but it also has a lot potential for exploit.

Recommendations:

Option 1 - War
A town initiates a war against another town. No paricipant limits are imposed, but duel level restrictions are maintained. Rewards will need to be commeasurate with the challenge. Not merely in number of participants, but their respective duel levels. Participants include all persons that dueled or were dueled during said war. War lasts a set 48 hours, at which point a winning town is automatically determined and the participants are rewarded.

Option 2 - Challenge
A challenge could be posed, and must be accepted before the contest is initiated, which provides a set reward, chosen from a list as posed by the challenging town. Duel level limits are disengaged, the challenged chooses the amount of participants (i.e., 5 = five from both sides, 10 = ten from both sides, etc. If the number chosen exceeds the number of residents in a town, oh well, which means a larger challenged town could get a numbers advantage in a challenge if they set the limit above that of the challenging town's residency). The set time is 24, 48, or 72 hours, chosen by the challenger. Otherwise, as above.

Only founders or counselors may initiate a war or challenge. Only a founder or counselors may accept a challenge.

Rewards will need to be reasonable. You need to work this out before expecting this to go to the next stage --- the voting stage.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser31859

If the reward is using the losing town's shop then the bigger towns can attack them only for that purpose i think....Rewards must be experience.....or money or something....and it should be like, the loser has some loss.

another thing i ask : if the player from an attacking or defending passes out or loses a duel, can the bounty be collected?

in other places, this is a great thing and should be included in the west! It will make the dueler's life worth something :)
 

Speed Killz

Chill -Neo-, the idea has some merit, but it also has a lot potential for exploit.

Recommendations:

Option 1 - War
A town initiates a war against another town. No paricipant limits are imposed, but duel level restrictions are maintained. Rewards will need to be commeasurate with the challenge. Not merely in number of participants, but their respective duel levels. Participants include all persons that dueled or were dueled during said war. War lasts a set 48 hours, at which point a winning town is automatically determined and the participants are rewarded.

Option 2 - Challenge
A challenge could be posed, and must be accepted before the contest is initiated, which provides a set reward, chosen from a list as posed by the challenging town. Duel level limits are disengaged, the challenged chooses the amount of participants (i.e., 5 = five from both sides, 10 = ten from both sides, etc. If the number chosen exceeds the number of residents in a town, oh well, which means a larger challenged town could get a numbers advantage in a challenge if they set the limit above that of the challenging town's residency). The set time is 24, 48, or 72 hours, chosen by the challenger. Otherwise, as above.

Only founders or counselors may initiate a war or challenge. Only a founder or counselors may accept a challenge.

Rewards will need to be reasonable. You need to work this out before expecting this to go to the next stage --- the voting stage.
That is a good idea. I think I will change it to having to be a founder to initiate a war, but counselors may initiate a challenge. I had been editing my post last night, but each time I forgot to save it. I really think this may be set to the next stage, but we will see. For the rewards, I think that maybe have a town reward that everyone from the winning side receives, and a participation award for both. But have an individual score that players may be given rewards based on their performance.
 

DeletedUser9470

so what hapens when a player is out of duelling level?
without taking away duel level limits there will never be a victor...

imo not having levels would bring strategy into the war having to gang up on the biggest first... or not...
:)