fruitbox
|
  |
| Joined: 28 Aug 2009 |
| Total Posts: 6005 |
|
|
| 02 Jul 2012 11:41 PM |
So the war system fails.
A screenshot war consists of all exploited servers.
A final war consists of everything up to that being worthless.
So I was thinking about this the other day..
What if each clan had a long set of bases.
You have to 'take over' each base in a set period of time. [Win at each of those bases]
3 days = wins at 10 different bases. Or something like that.
I guess having enough decent bases would be a problem.
Anyway, I thought something like this could make wars more orderly and reasonable.
-FB |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
Durash
|
  |
| Joined: 15 Jan 2011 |
| Total Posts: 382 |
|
|
| 02 Jul 2012 11:52 PM |
Oh my god...That sounds so much more efficient.
*MINNNDDDEXXPPLLOOSSSIONNNNN* |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 02 Jul 2012 11:54 PM |
| Occupying forts? Awesome idea. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 02 Jul 2012 11:54 PM |
F.E.A.R. is currently developing a new raiding system that we would like other clans to follow.
It incorporates some of the ideas listed here. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Alec3323
|
  |
| Joined: 28 May 2010 |
| Total Posts: 1125 |
|
|
| 02 Jul 2012 11:56 PM |
| Private servers that allow 2-5 clans only and each player must be over a designated rank. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 02 Jul 2012 11:58 PM |
Alec, Close.
Though, as an alternative for more bases, you have coordinated events at a certain place. If a base is won, it is considered inactive for the remainder of the war time. Team with greater ratio of won bases to lost bases wins, bascially.
Of Course, that is only one of the many systems we've developed.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Alec3323
|
  |
| Joined: 28 May 2010 |
| Total Posts: 1125 |
|
| |
|
|
| 03 Jul 2012 12:00 AM |
| It would bring more of a realistic feel to the wars. We intend on posting the full idea tomorrow afternoon and enforcing it during our next war. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 03 Jul 2012 12:01 AM |
Wouldn't it be possible to use DataPersistance to check which team actually won? And the group would have a GUI on the side that they can pop up, that shows the wins for the two groups. I'll use RAT and FEAR as an example, RAT - 50 FEAR - 1.
~Clans fall, people don't~ |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 03 Jul 2012 12:02 AM |
| Well, we are developing a universal DataPersistance GUI that woudl be set in each base. Now, It would show which battles have been won. This is some complicated technology so it is still in the works. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 03 Jul 2012 12:05 AM |
Yes, I think many groups are too caught up with making their bases exploit proof, and making it high tech and fair, that they realize, people lie. A majority of clan leaders lie about their groups wins/loses. It's silly because It's just a game, but it still happens. If this is implemented by all the major groups at least, I can see a better future for C&G.
~Clans fall, people don't~ |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 03 Jul 2012 12:07 AM |
| Exactly, I noticed the exact same issue. This Universal GUI will ensure that our information is accurate. Even in the event that coordinated raids are not held among a series of battle fronts, We may only need one base for each said then the DataPersistant GUI. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 03 Jul 2012 12:08 AM |
| Another idea that just came to me. On the GUI, It should also have the DEFCON levels. In the event that a mass raid is occuring, the DEFCON changes based on the amount of raiders in each server. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 03 Jul 2012 12:09 AM |
I also think, groups should have scripts that kick people if they aren't an enemy, ally of the enemy, defender, ally of the defender. It just annoys me when I see someone (usually a new person which is fine, but make a Rec. Center for them?) walking around getting shot and distracting troops on both sides.
~Clans fall, people don't~ |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 03 Jul 2012 12:10 AM |
| Nice idea. The Affinity Concord will get on it. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 03 Jul 2012 12:10 AM |
Sounds good. But what if clans just start raiding each other (Example: V O I D) without being in an actual war with the raided clan? Would their raid(s) against them count?
Your favorite polygon |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 03 Jul 2012 12:12 AM |
Yea sounds great.. lets make 10 bases and tell the raiders they have 3 days to win at all of them..
This is just going to cause rage...
~【UDC】- Chairman NeoEclipse of the United Defense Corporation -【UDC】~
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
fruitbox
|
  |
| Joined: 28 Aug 2009 |
| Total Posts: 6005 |
|
|
| 03 Jul 2012 12:13 AM |
| Obviously you have a better idea. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 03 Jul 2012 12:13 AM |
If engaged in a war and an allying clan of an enemy would like to assist, they must register into the system.
Also, I have made reference to few experienced scripters and they claim it is impossible to develop a Universal DataPersistant GUI across places.
So, as an alternative, We should create one for each place that cannot be accessed by the user to ensure that the number doesn't change. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 03 Jul 2012 12:13 AM |
The DEFCON idea could also be managed by how many raiders are inside the actual base. I'm not a master scripter or anything, but maybe have some bricks, presumably the floor and other things so it won't add on too much. It would check their teamcolor, and it if matches the raiders, it adds them to a table. When the table reaches a certain number, let's say 5 inside the base, it goes up 1 DEFCON.
~Clans fall, people don't~ |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 03 Jul 2012 12:14 AM |
| I've been trying to push this for 2 years. -.- |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 03 Jul 2012 12:15 AM |
| Ummmm... Nice idea. The DEFCON levels will be set based on the size of the threat within the base. So, you mean, if raiders have infilitrated, the DEFCON level may change? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 03 Jul 2012 12:15 AM |
| But of course my idea is a bit more complex. lol. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|