i like the way req created the team game with color coded players (blue vs. red).... and something similar could actually be a way to eliminate gang banging completely...

the game would only allow say red to fight with blue...until one of the two colors is eliminated/quits...

green could only fight with say yellow...until one of the two colors is eliminated...

purple vs pink

white vs black

after the first round...
if red beats blue it fights winner of green/yellow

if purple wins it fights winner or white/black

the final two colors go at it!

this way it allows each player to fight only one color at a time...totally eliminating double teaming... making it fair for all players

im not saying to eliminate the maps they have now....but create an alternate way of having a camp that is fair to everyone playing... 8 , 16 , or 32 players... color coded fair camp! it would create time problems such as when one person defeats his opponent quicker than others... but the quicker the better...it gives the person time to build a force for the next round....and maybe the next color they fight is random... maybe 40 turns per round...at turn fourty...if red has a higher score...he wins and advances to round 2...then fights winner of green/yellow etc....

Last Edited : Saturday, 27 February 2010 - 22:58

Interesting idea, Its like having a tourney but all on one map,and keeping the spoils of war each round...

We could try this idea out if eight players want to try ..



The fights would be done by either a draw or the map split into prearranged areas rather than by colour.


Who fancies it ?

Trouble with this idea is - you are effectively advocating a duel tournament. If that's what you want to play, just set up a dual tournament, that way you'll avoid the following problem:

If player A beats player B quickly, but player C & D have a long costly war, A has to twiddle his thumbs why they fight it out, and when C finally beats D, A will easily win the war with C.

The current more free-for-all approach allows A to fight E (who also finished his fight with F quickly) for a fair round 2 fight. Then, when C finally beats D he can fight another similarly matched player.

Of course, eventually in a campaign you will be left with sides of unequal strengths. This is just as true in your "tournament-style" campaign as it is in a "free-for-all". Best thing is for the players involved to organize alliances of roughly equal strength, or when you're down to 3 players and this isn't possible, just vote for the draw.

it is very much like a duel tourney...but you don't have to restart the game after each win(round)... maybe soon as RED wins then RED will face next available winner...

regardless of the outcome....most camps will end with the better (skilled) players going head to head...how they get to the finals is up to them... either way a win will be earned... a fair win...

hambone, that is essentially what all these people whining about gangbanging were getting at in the first place. I brought it up before that if you don't want to get attacked by more than one person then play a duel or a battle. When I play ANYTHING that consists of more than 2 players and there are no teams I plan on having to take on more than one opponent as should anyone playing in a free for all campaign.

if it is an anything goes camp... then yes...anything goes...
but most camps are not... there are unwritten rules to follow or you become labeled a gangbanger etc... newbs are unaware of these rules... so gangbanging sometimes takes place by chance... other times it is multi account users... other times its just two ppl ganging up on one person because they hate that person! as long as the game allows it to be possible, it will happen...

Last Edited : Monday, 1 March 2010 - 16:06

If they are unwritten then they are not rules but techniques. I HATE most of the players here's techniques(they make no sense at all!).

I don't know if you threw in that flamebait post after the last time i read this thread but, seriously?! Someone needs anger management and to get off her high horse. WAIT!!! was that flame baiting? Please delete this, i don't care if any one else see's it you just need to know that you are being completely ridiculous.

lol klyph judge judy is going to get ya!

wow, ganging is STILL an issue even after all these years? I do believe we discussed this in length and it was decided that the MEASURE of what IS or IS NOT a gang-affair is by the number of castles on one "team" as compared to the other. with single players ownership of multiple castles counting for 1/2 of a singe castle player.

ie: mighty Mog has 8 castles - rated as 1 + 7x(1/2) = 4.5
Princess has 2 castles = 1.5
poor me, I have 1 castle = 1
disturbedyang has 1 castle = 1

thus if we ALL attacked Mog (sorry my old friend but your going down!) it would effectively be 3.5 vs 4.5 and still im Mog's favor. thus not a bang. Besides, Mog would kick our butts anyway.

to continue...

Maybe a small adjustment could be added that tracked each players effective "power" as mentioned. a war declaration option in game could be added in some manner that warned you if the intended opponent was a fair target or not based on existing conditions of his fight and some negative reprecussion to engaging him/her could exist.

the down side is that this might provide free intel on who is weak, so it might not work as intended. MOST LIKELY it would not work as intended and someone is sure to exploit it. But we might be able to come up with something between us all if we stop griping at eachother and work towards a viable solution.

Viable = one that is easy enough to implement that Req will do so, and one that adds depth, playability, and most importantly ENJOYABILITY.

lol... good luck finding your viable solution! and thanks for the definition

I like the simple castles count half method. Total gold income would be more accurate.

Still more accurate would be to place a gold value on the entire army and all the buildings a player owns, then add that to the total gold that a player would get from their income for the next, say 50 turns (or till end of game if that shorter).

the "castles" methos was intended as a measure os gold income. Im not sure how the income rates may have changed since 2005 (I was away on deployment from '05 to '07 and just recently returned to WOL). In 2004-2005 times i think each "captured" castle provided 1/2 the income of the starting castle.

I agree that income would be a good measurement of power for banging calculations but disagree on using existing army value in that calculation. Primarily since someone with 1 castle who hid out all game could amass a huge army while the others have better long term power projection (income) but may have a battered and ineffective fighting force (thus of little gold value). the figures could be lopsided if this were a factor

Not really, more th reverse:
If 2 players quietly sit building up a large army, then gang up on a player that has taken 3 castles, but a great cost, the castle count says they are equal, but the team will have an equivalent income but much larger army.

a single player generates about 5.6k base income with 1k from a castle. So a person with 3 castles will have about 8.6 k. Two players attacking him would generate roughly 11.5 k together. so about a 3 k discrepancy per turn.

I'd say this is actually a fairly even fight especially considering the castle bonus + the player with 3 castles would have a larger army than either player with a good chance to eliminate one army before the other.. after all they don't share a zoc. The biggest detrement is that there is almost no way a player with 3 castles could hope to expand when faced with these odds.

With the current castle defence set up I'd argue that a player with 3 castles could probably hold up against 3 on the point scale to his two so long as only one castle was under seige at a time(he would also get all the experience from the multiple combatents who would only take a token share each).

Crimson - you're forgetting gold mines - if there are 2 gold mines per castle (e.g. Dragon Lakes) then each castle size territory is worth 2500, not 1000. Thus a player gets an income of 4600 + 2500 per territory.

Thus a player with 4 castles has 14,600 gold/turn. 2 players with 1 castle each have 7100 + 7100 = 14,200 - pretty similar income, but problems of coordinating operations together.