Jump to content
World Warfare
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
Sign in to follow this  
BWAR

The Vote

Recommended Posts

Ok so, as most players in the game know, after 5 days of fighting (or shielding) there is a vote.

The vote begins when the top league i.e first place, declare victory.

generally when this happens the map is mostly over and the first place league rules the entire or most of the map, but sometimes when you get a great map it'll go back and forth and multiple leagues will fight over it for the entire 8 days.

Now going over the the amount of votes that are needed.

50%, now how does that make sense, if the top league owns 50% of the map, that clearly means there is another 50% that they can fight or are fighting them, 50% is a terrible number to decide who the champion of an intense map is.

Switching back to the previous 80% will be a great idea, it'll prove if a league dominated a map (or allied the entire map), and it'll make late game a lot more interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now don't get me wrong switching the amount of votes required to end the map back to 80% is a step in the right direction there is no argument there. However it does nothing to address the real issue. 

 
It will not make the game more competitive, people will always chose the path of least resistance and do what they always do, namely find more allies to end the map sooner.
 
Just a few months back the regular BF length was 8 days and you could vote to extend the map another 2 days. So why was this changed, to voting for the map to end after 5 days? Here is where the real issue lies, the devs were getting too many requests in contact us to end the map early which generated workload for them.
 
Instead of asking the question why are we getting so many bloody requests to end the map early? Had they bother they would have quickly realized the problem is how the majority of the leagues play the game. Bring in sister leagues, ally half the map, ask devs to end map early, lather, rinse, repeat.
 
Thus instead of making a positive change such as limit the amount of allies a league can have, or rework the end of BF rewards system, which would make the game more competitive, they instead dumbed the game down by instituting the vote to end map early. 
 
Can we blame the players for taking the easy way out? Not really if the game mechanics allow such broken dynamics to exist, people will abuse them. It may be lazy and border line unethical but such concepts are outdated now days. So the blame rests squarely on Joykiller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is an excllent idea. I think perhaps the entire rewards system would need a revamp, it is retarted that your gold rewards are dependent on how many cities you control at the end of the BF. This promotes bad play, bad habbits and takes away from the grand strategy of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bloodmancer said:

I actually submitted an idea for this a while ago. They should be putting a penalty on rewards for the number of allies they have.

I think that would be a step in the right direction. However That does not change the fact that leagues can still  ally 3/4 of the map. it should be a hard number, maybe 30 players maximum can be allied or neutral. It would also cut down on the lag during large battles by reducing the n8mber of troops in a given area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Sykes said:

I think that would be a step in the right direction. However That does not change the fact that leagues can still  ally 3/4 of the map. it should be a hard number, maybe 30 players maximum can be allied or neutral. It would also cut down on the lag during large battles by reducing the n8mber of troops in a given area.

Yeah but it would certainly detour big leagues who don't need it from allying the whole map. Even then they will find ways around the max allies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t agree with you, put it at 51%, if you have the majority it should rule.  If you don’t want the top league to have 51%, beat them and take cities away from them.  At 80%, a minor number of leagues are provided with a disproportionate amount of power holding everyone hostage,  if the majority want to end the field, it should be over and move on to the next field.  

 

Too much is given to a few in the current scenario.  Your concept about only having a small number of allies is narrow minded.  That is like saying, the English and french should only be allowed to bring a couple friends into WW2, and you can’t let the Americans in as they would represent too many friends, so they just have to be neutral.  It wouldn’t be fair to the Germans and Axis allies.  This is is an absurd idea and has no merit.  If you can make allies, make allies, if you don’t like it, make allies yourself and defeat them on the Battlefield.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DevilDog3 said:

Too much is given to a few in the current scenario.  Your concept about only having a small number of allies is narrow minded.  That is like saying, the English and french should only be allowed to bring a couple friends into WW2, and you can’t let the Americans in as they would represent too many friends, so they just have to be neutral.  It wouldn’t be fair to the Germans and Axis allies.  This is is an absurd idea and has no merit.  If you can make allies, make allies, if you don’t like it, make allies yourself and defeat them on the Battlefield.

I don't think you understand the issue of entire leagues allying entire maps just for the win because your one of those teams who does that, thus your say doesn't mean jack to me.

The fact that a 20 person league can go into a map and ally the entire map is absurd, we aren't saying no allies were saying lower the amount allowed as the current system is broken and enforces the play of sister leagues.

3 minutes ago, DevilDog3 said:

I don’t agree with you, put it at 51%, if you have the majority it should rule.  If you don’t want the top league to have 51%, beat them and take cities away from them.  At 80%, a minor number of leagues are provided with a disproportionate amount of power holding everyone hostage,  if the majority want to end the field, it should be over and move on to the next field.

51%, what a stupid number to put it at that's still basically half the map and doesn't enforce people to go and claim the entire map and more enforces people to ally the entire map to end It. The purpose of it being at 80% is that at that point it is proven that you have defeated mostly the entire map and you hold first place, but the system of 80% also comes with the need to reduce the amount of alliances as to not make it just a more allies sorta map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We will agree to disagree.  If you can control half the map, then you have the majority and the majority should win.  Majority should be in control, so if you are the majority so be it.  

 

Your argument about only having a set number of allies is also misplaced.  If you and your friends can go in and dominate a field, good for you,  If your league doesn’t work well with others and can’t, then it can’t.  Your argument above or in another post was about it being a team game, but you then want to limit how big of a team if can be.  

The process of being able able to renter the field after being defeated should go away as there should not be a circumstance where you are beaten but can just displace to another area within the map.  That is something that should be taken away.  If you die, you die, not a feee pass to move to another sector and fight some more..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you fail to underatand this is a WARGAME not a popularity contests if you only control 51% of the map then the war has just begun and there is plenty of fighting left to do.

To use your WW2 analogy the allies did not stop when they liberated 51% of Europe they kept fighting until they liberated all of it and eliminated all the Axis forces not half of them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately most people here have valid points across a number of issues. One of the main problems is that the devs are constantly changing the goal posts in maps which will either suit the masses or a few leagues in the game for easy wins.

Who and why changes are made nobody knows as there’s no transparency from JoyCrafter.

I’ve won and lost at a 50% vote as you scrap enough votes to end the map. Or on the other hand you can lose because some leagues can’t be bothered to play anymore and just want out... But I do feel the extend option was a better idea in the 1st place so it creates more urgancey and the map doesn’t drag on for another 2 days because a leagues doesn’t want to end.

And the other issue mentioned in this post is one that annoys a lot of people with leagues/sister/alts and allies in map. My most recent one I witnessed was in liberty rising where it’s a 10 team map.. So I gathered 10 players for a chilled map and ally a few friends I see there and see what happened. So it’s a 10 team map... GODz bring 5-6 leagues with around 35+ accounts into map, so does the limited amount of players in a league work? You will probably agree with me and say NO (unless you in GODz with many accounts and sister leagues).

So I bring 10 players of all skill levels in new and old so we can try a few things out.. instantly 2 of my guys quit because on this instance the GODz league bring in a excessive amount of players to control the map at some point. So my league is at disadvantage after a few hours because now we have 2 dead spots in my team because of players leaving.

So I would like to ask who’s at fault here?

Or is it my fault for playing in a smaller league that was created to play with friends and have fun.. And challenge the bigger leagues and players who have been here since day one.

The developers for making the game so you can have as many accounts as possible and allied teams or bigger leagues not actually wanting to test there selfs in a 10 player environment with out there sister league with the same amount of players plus alts and friends to help? “Then boast how great we are” 

Or are these problem that will always be here to stay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/1/2019 at 9:55 PM, Immel said:

I said it before and I will say it again. The majority of people do not want a fight they want easy victories, gather rewards, gain rank and do it allover again. Hence the popularity of the big league, sister leagues and allying half the map. Once more I will say I do not blame the people, its the system that allows them to play and be successful in this fashion. Albeit boring, lazy and unimaginative if the game mechanics allow such dumb behaviour why shouldn't people abuse it...

Something needs to change such as how allinaces work or motivate people to play differently by changing the end of BF rewards system.

Getting back on subject the 50% vote is stupid and should be altogether removed, there is no voting in war you do not get vote to end. Alternatively if you insist on keeping the stupid vote then change the way it works. The league in first place can initiate the vote but CANNOT vote. Basically it should be up to everyone else to decide if they concede defeat or if there is still fight left in them and they want to wrestle for first place, just like in real life. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing I want to point on is the issue of getting a victory at the end of a map (Without vote) or still getting the majority of your rewards upon a defeat. Essentially players can just in a map and do nothing or instead of fighting "Attempt to recover lost cities" As I've been told before, before the map ends. So they do solo raids while you are off and try to get ranking and cities for more easy gold and Global Ranking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎1‎/‎2019 at 5:20 PM, DevilDog3 said:

We will agree to disagree.  If you can control half the map, then you have the majority and the majority should win.  Majority should be in control, so if you are the majority so be it.  

 

Your argument about only having a set number of allies is also misplaced.  If you and your friends can go in and dominate a field, good for you,  If your league doesn’t work well with others and can’t, then it can’t.  Your argument above or in another post was about it being a team game, but you then want to limit how big of a team if can be.  

The process of being able able to renter the field after being defeated should go away as there should not be a circumstance where you are beaten but can just displace to another area within the map.  That is something that should be taken away.  If you die, you die, not a feee pass to move to another sector and fight some more..

This is absolutely a horrible idea. What makes you think they shouldn't be able to come back and fight you again? Its not like they surrendered. They are allowed to keep playing the map until they feel as if they've been defeated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...