1 hit made in a RW in exchange for massive rewards

If it's not intended to be a respect farm, then why is the whole scoring criteria based on respect?

Instead, why shouldn't it be a function of the time your opponents spend in the hospital + some high multiplier for hosp time due to your faction? Because then, it would be the surest sign of people actually winning, activity, and how many attacks you are making.

Offensive mercs then make no sense because of ED (or at least less sense), defensive mercs are now dead for sure, and there is incentives for both medding out of the hospital + making attacks against your opponent.

It is absolutely wrong because there is no counterplay to the mechanic.

I will simply stop responding to you because clearly you have a vested interest in this, as a lead of a cache farm lol. Of course you would be defensive.

None of what I said is controversial, it is just your bias that is bleeding through.

I'm not sure what would war be based on if not respect. Ched simply meant Ranked warring is meant to be to place faction in certain ranks as per their ability and not sole respect farming which seems to the point.

I agree with Ched vision but not the way it's carried out.

Simple - just make it a ticker towards victory that moves faster or slower depending on how many people are in hosp at any given time, with more weight given to hosps due to your faction.

Make it a % of the faction, so factions aren't punished for member count, and rewarded for it.

You need to play with the multiplier/ticker speed so that offensive mercs are disincentivised, but that is already easily a better answer than what we have now.

This is a dumb idea with no consideration for balance, but maybe RW could be reformed with the following changes:

1. Ranked War Leagues

On the 1st of each month, the top 10 scoring factions are promoted to a higher class, for example Gold I to Gold II. The bottom scoring 10 factions are demoted to the previous class. Factions are ranked on the table with a formula of (Points Earned/Points Conceded) * [Member Count].

This would change it so that factions are encouraged to score as highly as possible in order to remain in the higher leagues, and also make it so that smaller factions are unable to effectively compete with larger factions beyond the lowest leagues, encouraging active investment into faction upgrades.

2. Regulated Minimum Activity

Each league has a stricter ruleset for what unlocks the rewards, with the rewards being greater it makes more sense for them to be more difficult to unlock. My thinking for this is that as the leagues get higher, the expectation for number of points earned per member increases. At the higher tiers rewards will only unlock if every member takes part in the war and earns a minimum number of points as determined by a formula which I am not clever enough to devise, but which reflects both the higher standard expected of participants in the high tiers and the relative value of the rewards compared to the lower tiers.

3. Hospital/Flying Nerf

Being in hospital for any reason other than being attacked by an opponent, or flying abroad, during the war will steadily cause the faction to leech points to the opponent. The power of the effect increases as more members do so. This disincentivises "turtle war" attrition victories, causing wars to be quicker and sharper.

4. Communication Embargo

Members of warring factions are unable to message, chat or send items to each other for the duration. This effect applies from the second that factions are matched to the second that the war is over. This is to make it as difficult as practically possible to negotiate the outcome of the war. Obviously it's impossible to stop people from talking on for example Discord, but classifying it as cheating with heavy in-game punishment and the awarding of significant whistleblower bonuses will hopefully deter the practice.

Why not create a better system instead of one that needs constant manual babysitting.

So, to be clear, bans will be handed out in instances where factions have a pre-determined, "rigged", result or deal? How do you intend to detect and enforce that consistently?

Is there no concern about this being a fail in the system, not an opportunity to just lazily ban and nerf rewards?

I completely appreciate that this is a reasonable short-term solution but it's clear the system itself wasn't necessarily as thoughtful in the way it would be used. This isn't a long-term solution and there needs to be some compelling reason to war while simultaneously forcing people to war and having real consequences to loss. Right now, there isn't actually much consequence to losing -- only reward. Hence why you're trying to just see both sides trying to figure out how to game the system. Likewise, ranked warring's matchups don't have a natural conclusion where there may be a random ability to balance risk vs. reward in participating if the system does have consequence. There will, eventually, be a faction(s) at the top with the ability to simply collect money with no consequence.

Dude, you can't make a perfect system. Any system can be exploited.

Manual babysitting would not be needed if all players would behave in good manner. Be use they don't, like in any real life situation, restriction must be made. It's in human nature.

That's great news! Hopefully makes for some exciting wars!!

Hopefully there will eventually be minimum hit quotas etc. Or atleast a way to ensure that there has to be atleast X amount of hits per hour in the warring parties going forward to ensure full rewards.

How will this be monitored?? If a faction determines the opponent is too strong and it's not worth attacking them then does that count as rigging? Will there be hit requirements from either side or what?

Or they could just nerf the rewards AKA stocks...

For the most part, I think it's painfully obvious when they're rigged. Having a deal is one thing, but when it's a relatively even match up and you see 3 hits across the entire war that lasts 3days is a bit ridiculous.

Change the system ched. You’re threatening bans and consequences for people using your system “wrong”. If there’s a way to use it wrong, that’s indicative of your design being flawed.

You’ve asked the player base not to participate, except if they met certain conditions first, but you’re asking the player base to use their own judgement for what is “rigging”, while also threatening bans.

Accept responsibility for the flaws in the design and quit passing on the blame. This is your game. You are saying it’s broken, yet blaming the player base for using it in its broken state. Just fix it man…

The hilarious part is that some of these aren't even rigged wars. They're wars where both factions want to lose and are refusing to hit because they literally can't agree to someone winning. This is becoming really common in diamond because if you rank up too high you end up being unable to match for months at a time.

If your system can be rigged so easily it is a shit system.

Don’t let this distract you from the fact that Hector is going to be running three Honda civics with spoon engines, and on top of that, he just went into Harry’s and bought three t66 turbos with nos, and a motec exhaust system.


tldr: fix the matchmaking so those at higher tiers don’t have to purposely drop in rank to match an opponent.

Rewards based on energy spent (interrupted attacks need to count) is a nice way to exchange for reward value.


A faction that spent 100,000 energy to win the war, should have better rewards than a faction that spent 5,000 to win a war.

Even if the result is "rigged" you still needed to get your members to spend all that energy, when they could of otherwise been training/mugging/etc.