Conquest Ladder Zero

[AlteSocken]

33 minutes ago, rediii said:

So it will move to next round means the points you get at the end of the round are the points you start with at the 2nd round

Funny thing is, i understood it in the opposite way :-/

[Vllad]

3 hours ago, The Red Duke said:

I hereby suggest that the Conquest Ladder be "wiped" and all Nations start from ZERO points before the end of the present cycle of 7 days.

It is proper, it is fair and it permits a clean test of the system.

Totally agree. Leaving it as is would be a total waste of time to test.

[admin]

3 hours ago, Anolytic said:

Every cycle should start at zero, so only successful attacks or successful defences give points. Otherwise just wiping it this one time you're just taking away from those who have worked hard up until now and have already conquered a lot.

Starting at zero gives a bit more options for region trading using capture points and control points
As if you are only rewarded for wins/losses than port trading is easier

of course the system might get updated if we have not foreseen something - community as a whole is always ahead in thinking and finding things

[admin]

2 hours ago, Cmdr RideZ said:

 

You should not get any points from won/lost battles, just from regions controlled at the end. If you fight multiple times from the same region and it finally ends for the original owner, no points should be granted or taken.

Win/lost points are only valid during the round.. for the next round they are burned and next round starts only with control points.
negative lost points are (should be) a great idea because it discourages port trading and actually gives some benefits to come and defend ports.

 

 

There are some things that can be added to the future to improve the system

Points only taken from the existing pool of points.

• For example - to encourage nations to attack bigger targets we can implement that points can only be gained from the positive points another nation has.
  • If another nation has 2 points then taking 2 ports from them gains you 2 win points + 2 control points. 
  • If another nation has 0 you gain nothing by attacking them because they have nothing to subtract it from - this will give small weaker nations some breathing rule. And improve their chances

Wild card alliance (forced alliances)
Another interesting idea is forced alliances. This feature could work like this

• By the end of the round 3 weakest nations (by points) will sign an alliance (forced alliance) and will act as one nation for the next round 
• Using current situation on PVP EU as an example
  • Three lowest nations by points are France - 6 pt, VP - 6 pt, and US - 3 pt
• If they remain in the bottom on the list by end of the round
  • the game will force an alliance on them
  • combine their points 15 pts
  • and consider them 1 nation for the leaderboard placing them in the 3rd place in the leaderboard as one nation
  • nations will be allied and will be able to use each other ports and join each other port battles on one side (won't be able to attack each other of course)
• By end of the next round the alliance will be disbanded and new force alliance will be calculated for the nations having lowest individual points

 

 

 

[Daguse]

1 hour ago, admin said:

Win/lost points are only valid during the round.. for the next round they are burned and next round starts only with control points.
negative lost points are (should be) a great idea because it discourages port trading and actually gives some benefits to come and defend ports.

 

 

There are some things that can be added to the future to improve the system

Points only taken from the existing pool of points.

• For example - to encourage nations to attack bigger targets we can implement that points can only be gained from the positive points another nation has.
  • If another nation has 2 points then taking 2 ports from them gains you 2 win points + 2 control points. 
  • If another nation has 0 you gain nothing by attacking them because they have nothing to subtract it from - this will give small weaker nations some breathing rule. And improve their chances

Wild card alliance (forced alliances)
Another interesting idea is forced alliances. This feature could work like this

• By the end of the round 3 weakest nations (by points) will sign an alliance (forced alliance) and will act as one nation for the next round 
• Using current situation on PVP EU as an example
  • Three lowest nations by points are France - 6 pt, VP - 6 pt, and US - 3 pt
• If they remain in the bottom on the list by end of the round
  • the game will force an alliance on them
  • combine their points 15 pts
  • and consider them 1 nation for the leaderboard placing them in the 3rd place in the leaderboard as one nation
  • nations will be allied and will be able to use each other ports and join each other port battles on one side (won't be able to attack each other of course)
• By end of the next round the alliance will be disbanded and new force alliance will be calculated for the nations having lowest individual points

 

 

 

I have to say, I love the creative thinking here. You want to reward the victor, however you don't want to make it so that no other nations can compete with them. 

[Jean Ribault]

Rounds

Rounds should not be an even week or two weeks, or something else.  Balance would be better achieved over time if you made them something like 10 days, so it doesn't always start or end on a weekend.  Sometimes you will get two weekends in, and other times 1 weekend.  Sunday to Sunday, or something similar to that, is a flat way of proceeding.

[Sir Texas Sir]

7 hours ago, monk33y said:

But if the score reset between cycles back to 0 taking into consideration the ports a nation owns.

If gb with cycle one with 100 ports, at the start of cycle two everyone who wants to win will be forced to attack gb. 

I know it's hard attacking your friends 

I may be mistaken but that is pretty much how it currently works. You want to win you need to attack folks. If your not the big bad mother Ucker out there than you need to get friends and take that one person down.  The issue isn't the game mechanics right not as we really haven't tested it, it's the players that want to be carebears and super allainces and not fight. 

Now what I hate compared to the old Conquest Marks is this awards every one in the nation.  Sorry I do all the hard work and take the ports with my clan mates than why should the lazy Mort Rat that does nothing get a reward?   We use to have Conquest marks as our reward for our hard work and we would tell them if they want some, they need to get organized and go flip there own ports.   We do try to rotate a few of them in and out of the port battles that help us with screening, but sorry the rest shouldn't be rewarded.  Now what I think a great reward for those that win port battles and isn't OP is give us all a paint chest when we win a port battle.  That way the RvR guys have something the lazy folks that doesn't get.  This could be the reward for the PvP leaderboard too.  Top 15 guys get a paint chest.   

[Hodo]

7 hours ago, monk33y said:

But if the score reset between cycles back to 0 taking into consideration the ports a nation owns.

If gb with cycle one with 100 ports, at the start of cycle two everyone who wants to win will be forced to attack gb. 

I know it's hard attacking your friends 

Or everyone will just create alts in the leading nation and just farm the marks that way?   

Which is more likely.

[Sir Texas Sir]

2 hours ago, Jean Ribault said:

Rounds

Rounds should not be an even week or two weeks, or something else.  Balance would be better achieved over time if you made them something like 10 days, so it doesn't always start or end on a weekend.  Sometimes you will get two weekends in, and other times 1 weekend.  Sunday to Sunday, or something similar to that, is a flat way of proceeding.

Every three weeks would be a good number.   Every one gets one point no matter what place they come in.   The winner gets 3 points (3 or 4 total depending if you count the every one gets one point separate from the victory points) and the second place gets 2 points (2 or 3 total).   This way all nations get points no matter what, just some get more than others so the aren't completely crippled.

46 minutes ago, Hodo said:

Or everyone will just create alts in the leading nation and just farm the marks that way?   

Which is more likely.

Rewards shouldn't be given out unless your rank 3 are above (your rank enough to man a shallow water port battle ship).   This will help with the instant alt that jumps nations and never ranked up.  

[Koltes]

6 hours ago, admin said:

Win/lost points are only valid during the round.. for the next round they are burned and next round starts only with control points.
negative lost points are (should be) a great idea because it discourages port trading and actually gives some benefits to come and defend ports.

 

 

There are some things that can be added to the future to improve the system

Points only taken from the existing pool of points.

• For example - to encourage nations to attack bigger targets we can implement that points can only be gained from the positive points another nation has.
  • If another nation has 2 points then taking 2 ports from them gains you 2 win points + 2 control points. 
  • If another nation has 0 you gain nothing by attacking them because they have nothing to subtract it from - this will give small weaker nations some breathing rule. And improve their chances

Wild card alliance (forced alliances)
Another interesting idea is forced alliances. This feature could work like this

• By the end of the round 3 weakest nations (by points) will sign an alliance (forced alliance) and will act as one nation for the next round 
• Using current situation on PVP EU as an example
  • Three lowest nations by points are France - 6 pt, VP - 6 pt, and US - 3 pt
• If they remain in the bottom on the list by end of the round
  • the game will force an alliance on them
  • combine their points 15 pts
  • and consider them 1 nation for the leaderboard placing them in the 3rd place in the leaderboard as one nation
  • nations will be allied and will be able to use each other ports and join each other port battles on one side (won't be able to attack each other of course)
• By end of the next round the alliance will be disbanded and new force alliance will be calculated for the nations having lowest individual points

 

 

 

Please no more nation vs nation alliances. We really need Clan vs Clan instead. Even if clans from the same nation cant attack each other, clan vs other nation clan will work much better. We already running this game like that making alliances and agreements between clans. Just help us to enforce it.

In one of the universities when it was built (might be Oxford from top of my memory) they haven't made walk paths. They waited for students to make their own and then asphalted.
Same principle need to be applied. Else you would build beautiful straight and proportional walk paths that no one will use, or will use and feel unnatural and there will be plenty of ugly shortcuts all over the place.

[Hethwill, the Red Duke]

1 for Control, 2 for Conquest, 3 for Loss.

[Ink]

17 hours ago, Hodo said:

Or everyone will just create alts in the leading nation and just farm the marks that way?   

Which is more likely.

Some actions will be taken in the next hotfixes to prevent abuse of it.

[elite92]

23 hours ago, admin said:

Win/lost points are only valid during the round.. for the next round they are burned and next round starts only with control points.
negative lost points are (should be) a great idea because it discourages port trading and actually gives some benefits to come and defend ports.

 

 

There are some things that can be added to the future to improve the system

Points only taken from the existing pool of points.

• For example - to encourage nations to attack bigger targets we can implement that points can only be gained from the positive points another nation has.
  • If another nation has 2 points then taking 2 ports from them gains you 2 win points + 2 control points. 
  • If another nation has 0 you gain nothing by attacking them because they have nothing to subtract it from - this will give small weaker nations some breathing rule. And improve their chances

Wild card alliance (forced alliances)
Another interesting idea is forced alliances. This feature could work like this

• By the end of the round 3 weakest nations (by points) will sign an alliance (forced alliance) and will act as one nation for the next round 
• Using current situation on PVP EU as an example
  • Three lowest nations by points are France - 6 pt, VP - 6 pt, and US - 3 pt
• If they remain in the bottom on the list by end of the round
  • the game will force an alliance on them
  • combine their points 15 pts
  • and consider them 1 nation for the leaderboard placing them in the 3rd place in the leaderboard as one nation
  • nations will be allied and will be able to use each other ports and join each other port battles on one side (won't be able to attack each other of course)
• By end of the next round the alliance will be disbanded and new force alliance will be calculated for the nations having lowest individual points

 

 

 

and what if all the enjoy left to a poor french player is to hunt VP trader? do u really want to kill also this PvP with forced alliance?

stay on the good street man!