The Problem with BC and HUGE alliances.

[BigFoot 375]

6 hours ago, vhnh167 said:

This can easily be fixed. 1 account per IP and no player under a certain level (146 for instance). Also, inactive players for ~20 seconds straight are kicked out of the war.

I said all active, no mule. You can’t fix the human problem in this case.

100x100:

- 100 players team A has 50 from small alliance and 50 from big alliance.

- 100 players team B from big alliance.

If 50 players of team A from big alliance don’t want to help team A (assume that they are just running around and trash talk - still active),  it will always be 50x100. 

Edited December 9, 2021 by BigFoot

[vhnh167 284]

46 minutes ago, BigFoot said:

I said all active, no mule. You can’t fix the human problem in this case.

100x100:

- 100 players team A has 50 from small alliance and 50 from big alliance.

- 100 players team B from big alliance.

If 50 players of team A from big alliance don’t want to help team A (assume that they are just running around and trash talk - still active),  it will always be 50x100. 

Well, you can define active in many ways. If a player doesn't move away from the safe zone for 30 seconds: inactive, kicked out of SW, automatically move one player from team B to team A; if a player is in the danger zone but not dealing/receiving any damage, simply running around: inactive. Besides, once you deter team A - big alliance players from staying in the safe zone for too long, they will participate in the war anyway for two reasons. First, there should be lucrative rewards for being in the winning side (A versus B, clan rewards are separate). Second, they will take loads of damage from their allies once forced into the danger zone, so they either kill or die. 

 

Of course, in the extremely unlikely scenario where all big alliance players in team A are willing to sacrifice all their BPs to help team B, then you can create punishments for those saboteurs, one of such is banning them from SW for a month. In short, there's always a solution; it's the matter of whether you're willing to make the change or not. 

[BigFoot 375]

24 minutes ago, vhnh167 said:

Well, you can define active in many ways. If a player doesn't move away from the safe zone for 30 seconds: inactive, kicked out of SW, automatically move one player from team B to team A; if a player is in the danger zone but not dealing/receiving any damage, simply running around: inactive. Besides, once you deter team A - big alliance players from staying in the safe zone for too long, they will participate in the war anyway for two reasons. First, there should be lucrative rewards for being in the winning side (A versus B, clan rewards are separate). Second, they will take loads of damage from their allies once forced into the danger zone, so they either kill or die. 

 

Of course, in the extremely unlikely scenario where all big alliance players in team A are willing to sacrifice all their BPs to help team B, then you can create punishments for those saboteurs, one of such is banning them from SW for a month. In short, there's always a solution; it's the matter of whether you're willing to make the change or not. 

You are blowing my mind with your solutions, kkk :))) You can’t kick player from bc because they only running around, it’s ridiculous. How can you decide who is the sacrifice and who doesn’t (simply die too much) to make your punishment? You report, take video and make GM watching it? That’s a hard and tired work, i’m pretty sure they won’t waste time to do it. Nonsense punishment btw.

I’m telling you again that you can’t fix the human problem in bc. The alliance thing is the human problem, players decide who they be friend and who they don’t. It’s not the gameplay problem.

Edited December 9, 2021 by BigFoot

[DeadlyWarrior 688]

Nerf AS