Eddren
|
  |
| Joined: 31 Mar 2008 |
| Total Posts: 7430 |
|
|
| 11 Apr 2013 05:28 PM |
Stop using the FBs at a set time. Start using them based on Raid Win differences. For instance: A 40 Raid-Win difference. Every week or so, compare official raid-win lists. If ever there's a 40-win difference, you know it's time for a FB. Keeping that in mind, stop allowing the losing Clan to WIN from an FB. If they win the FB, then the 'Official' raid wins are set back to 0, and both clans add their Raid Wins to a list that includes ALL of them. If the winning Clan wins, well, the war's over. Everyone knows who's won. That way, you force one side to actually participate or else face constant FBs until finally the other side wins, and they can't ever win by simply not raiding. They have to regularly raid and win in order to have a chance of winning a war with an FB.
Ideally, you'll end up with a very, VERY long war. Because both clans SHOULD be evenly matched before they get into a War, or else it's basically a school bully picking on the little kid, they'll both score quite a few raid wins. Perhaps it'll be something like: Clan A gets 15 Raid Wins a week. Clan B gets 20 Raid Wins a week. Based on that, the first FB will be when Clan A has 120 Raid Wins, and Clan B has 160 Raid WIns. That's a total of Eight weeks of fighting, or two months.
In a NON-Ideal situation, where one opponent isn't trying or otherwise is very weak, you'll end up crushing them quickly and moving on. And then there's the other non-Ideal situation, where nobody scores any raid wins, perhaps because the other side has an unraidable base or some such. For those kinds of things, it might be best to put somewhere in your war agreement something along the lines of: 'Before the War truly begins, a neutral party will raid both clans' primary bases, in order to evaluate the possibility of them. If a base is not deemed to be capable of being won, or else unreasonably difficult, then they will be asked to make changes as posed by the neutral party. Failure to change the base in the recommended ways will result in an automatic loss for the Clan in question. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 11 Apr 2013 05:32 PM |
Or a truly revolutionary idea:
STOP TRYING TO REGULATE WARFARE |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Eddren
|
  |
| Joined: 31 Mar 2008 |
| Total Posts: 7430 |
|
|
| 11 Apr 2013 05:37 PM |
Lol, Commander. Don't you know, silly? ALL games have rules to combat. Only a moron tries to play using perfect chaos. After all, the real reason that Planet Side 2 is inferior to Planet Side 1 isn't JUST because it's not too terribly well-optimized, but also because you can no longer CONTINENT LOCK. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 11 Apr 2013 05:39 PM |
Actual warfare doesn't have rules, despite the "bans" and such on certain types of weapons. And plus, most (obviously not all...) people here would agree that clan warfare was much more fun before people started trying to regulate it. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Eddren
|
  |
| Joined: 31 Mar 2008 |
| Total Posts: 7430 |
|
|
| 11 Apr 2013 05:43 PM |
Except for, you know, the Geneva Convention. Those totally aren't rules of war, or anything. Anyway, the deal isn't that it's about fun, it's about the fact that most clan leaders, the people to whom this is aimed towards, don't like the moronic flame-wars over who won or not. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 11 Apr 2013 05:43 PM |
| A better Idea. STOP FB AND LET RAID WIN DETRMAN WHO WINS THE WAR. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 11 Apr 2013 05:44 PM |
Minor Threat made the idea of Final battles ^HAHAHAHHAHA |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
Eddren
|
  |
| Joined: 31 Mar 2008 |
| Total Posts: 7430 |
|
|
| 11 Apr 2013 05:46 PM |
@Xythar, http://www.roblox.com/Minor-Threat-Warzone-place?id=26960218 "5/10/2010"
Would you like to know when the Solstice City place used by CT for the first official FB was made? Would you like to know where he drew inspiration? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 11 Apr 2013 05:46 PM |
"Except for, you know, the Geneva Convention. Those totally aren't rules of war, or anything."
"Moreover, the Geneva Convention also defines the rights and protections afforded to non-combatants, yet, because the Geneva Conventions are about people in war, the articles do not address warfare proper — the use of weapons of war — which is the subject of the Hague Conventions (First Hague Conference, 1899; Second Hague Conference 1907), and the bio–chemical warfare Geneva Protocol (Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, 1929)."
So really, not very many rules directly related to how it's decided who wins a war. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Eddren
|
  |
| Joined: 31 Mar 2008 |
| Total Posts: 7430 |
|
|
| 11 Apr 2013 05:47 PM |
"Actual warfare doesn't have rules, despite the "bans" and such on certain types of weapons." Tell me where that says about how it only pertains to rules related to how it's decided who wins a war? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 11 Apr 2013 05:50 PM |
"Tell me where that says about how it only pertains to rules related to how it's decided who wins a war?"
I'm having a bit of trouble understanding that. Sorry. What? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Eddren
|
  |
| Joined: 31 Mar 2008 |
| Total Posts: 7430 |
|
|
| 11 Apr 2013 05:53 PM |
""Tell me where that says about how it only pertains to rules related to how it's decided who wins a war?"
"Tell me where" Where the eff
"that says" Does it say
"About how" Anything about
"How it only" Only talking about
"Pertains to rules" Rules
"Related to how" About
"how it's decided who wins a war?" Winning wars
Where the eff does it say anything about only talking about rules about winning wars?
If you can't understand that, I can't help you. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 11 Apr 2013 05:54 PM |
"Where the eff does it say anything about only talking about rules about winning wars?"
Your entire OP is on that topic. Even those ideas not directly related to victory status are about forms of achieving said status. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Eddren
|
  |
| Joined: 31 Mar 2008 |
| Total Posts: 7430 |
|
|
| 11 Apr 2013 05:55 PM |
Lol. I included a quote in the previous post. You brought up that wars don't have rules. I pointed out that that's wrong. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 11 Apr 2013 05:58 PM |
| I concede that, but my argument is that they really shouldn't. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Eddren
|
  |
| Joined: 31 Mar 2008 |
| Total Posts: 7430 |
|
|
| 11 Apr 2013 06:00 PM |
| Personally, I like the idea that I'm not going to have gasses pumped into my school by an enraged Germany years from now. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 11 Apr 2013 06:02 PM |
| If you say so. It's not like Germany and other combatant nations in WWI broke just about every rule in the Hague Conventions I previously mentioned. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 11 Apr 2013 06:10 PM |
| Your idea is horrible. Let the clans decide if they are having a FB or not. And let THEM decide how soon. Don't control warfare unless your ACTUALLY in it. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|