Rank war scoring overhaul

Territory war is dead, and ranked war is almost dead.

today ranked wars happen in a few ways. Either the leaders make a deal and everyone attacks each other whilst the defenders are naked etc

or one faction flies and self hosps into oblivion and tries to sneak a win with a quick chain and a single bonus hit on the opponents.

rarely, incredibly rarely, a real war breaks out but it’s usually a long slog of power periods depending entirely upon when the top statted player of each side is on.

dull dull dull.

id like to propose the scoring system is re-vamped to encourage action.

the scoring for who wins remains the same. The winner still has a base advantage in how war rewards are divided. 

but the scoring for payouts should be adjusted - and hidden - but basically payout scores are determined by how much time your players are in torn and NOT in hospital, as well as respect earnt and hits done. This means both sides need to stay out of jail/hosp and avoid flying. Which also means both sides have a chance of scoring points to actually win the war.

now.. the sceptics will suggest that this will lead to more “deals”. And larger factions having an advantage when it comes to income.

but small factions will have a huge advantage if they don’t want to do deals, with more targets to hit.

and you might never be able to get rid of deals, but at least if the scoring mechanics are balanced deals won’t be any better off - we will just be rid of turtling and yawn fests.

This suggestion just doesn't do it for me for some reasons

• The factions have top end and high end and what makes a faction a colourful place is the mixture. During RW lower stats can contribute to a war by chaining abroad. That is a team effort. What you suggest means newer players should just be cannon fodders, they can't self hosp or fly but have to accept the fact that they will not be able to contribute and just log off. What you call to be "encouraging action" only encourages it for the strong members while everything a weaker member does would cause in loss of points.

• When a weaker faction matches a stronger faction, by careful strategy and self hosping/chaining etc the faction might win the war. What you want is just to remove any strategy completely (which you define as "sneak a win") and give the win to the stronger faction by default. This won't end up with more real wars, it will just end up with more deals because the result is predictable.

Writing a suggestion to make wars more real while sitting in a cache farm is also an interesting touch :-)

Have a wonderful weekend otherwise.

I've argued for a 100 slot wall, with maybe a 24 hour finish time, highest score wins.

Let RW reflect how "actual" warring is supposed to be in Torn, and if you're not actively fighting for the wall, you'll lose.

Id say the wall needs to be based on the smallest factions maximum number of members. assuming you are talking for RWs

For normal TT wars 24hrs isnt really enough when 1 of the factions has had time to stack e then surprise the other.

Yeah I meant for RW, I had assumed that was pretty apparent from the post, no?

Id have to ask though, why would a smaller faction limit the size of the wall?

The matchmaking is based on rank, not on size, cache farms and baby factions should naturally have a disadvantage, no?

Not really. Smaller factions should have an advantage to promote diluting the mega factions.

Limit the cache farms for sure though - if faction members aren’t taking part in the war then the income from a war should be minimal.

i guess it all boils down to what the intent of ranked wars are. They should determine which faction is the strongest, most active and smartest. The last part of course is very open to interpretation and the mechanics are the bit which need to be tweaked so at least smart tactics are FUN not irritating or requiring your faction online 24:7

1> this isn’t a cache farm, if it is then it’s run realllly badly

2> I get your point about giving smaller players a chance to contribute, but that’s not how the mechanic is used by most factions at our end of the spectrum. The mid players are sent flying to keep chains alive, smaller players duck out and make a hit then self hosp again.

it actually suits me to keep things as they are - I just camp there opponent and it becomes whack a mole for me. But it’s still boring AF. Maybe I’m just being nostalgic for when the game was more about attacking rather than self hosping for days or having fake wars to get a better $/hit

If you want to reduce turtling, fix the matching algorithm.

My faction just finished a war in which the opposition had recently dropped from 4 ranks higher than us (through a series of losses) and had us massively outgunned.

So we did what you would do in real life and used Asymmetric Warfare tactics. Turtling is a big part of that. We still lost, but they had to work for it. If the opposition had lost focus, we might have squeaked out a win. To their credit, their big guns stayed on task for the whole weekend. They were impressively well organized. But that's how it goes.

We only war every couple of months. But if you're a faction that thrives off of war and goes to war weekly, perhaps work up a strategy to mitigate turtles. I'm sure there are some top tier factions that have already solved that problem. 

Part of this is factions lose on purpose as it benefits more than winning as many as they can. So matchmaking problems are a side issue from holes in the way rewards are given.

for some reason it was deemed necessary to reward losers who try at a faction level, where as I think all active participants should be rewarded directly with points - caches then remain with faction armoury and only for winners.

ideally faction awards would stay in faction.. but that’s another story

jeeze, you could have just DM'd me :p