Pirate Code Wars/Union of Honor Wars (Large)

[sXs]

I dont see any issue with just plain refusing to adopt this means of scoring and have your war anyway : its just a way to add some flavor to the process, some entertainment and, once the scores go on the board, another point to argue about, maybe even to prolong the war over.
Personally, as long as the war-end meets my objective, I dont give two hoots about some scoreboard saying otherwise. Much like fame, if it matters, go for it, if it dont, ignore it and just play anyway.

That is why i removed my post. I personally would not initiate formally using this. War has a specific purpose. Scoring and war log may be of interest to observers, but my focus would be achieving the initial purpose. You could lose on the scoreboard and still achieve your goals.

I wouldn't use it.

[Sebena]

Me care not about points me care about shiney shiney gold coins...

[Banger]

My epeen is bigger than your epeen!

[DezNutz]

Spoiler: show

2.(Optional) Winner Bounty
Any of the sides, during the first 24hours, can choose a sum of Gold Coins to "bet" to the war. Once they do, the sum is immediately removed from the guild war chest (for guild wars) or player treasury.
The other side can choose to meet the amount or rise or bet a lower amount or call it off.
*Meet the ammount: The other side accepts the bounty challenge, bets the same amount and pays it.
*Rise the ammount: The other side accepts the bounty challenge, bets a higher amount and pays it. The initial side gets the same options now (Meet,Rise,Lower,Off)
*Lower amount: The other side accepts the bounty challenge but to a lower amount. A point bonus is issued to the other side (+10 points). The initial side receives the difference of gold coins back.
*Call if off: The other side rejects the bet and the other side gets a point bonus (+30 points). The initial side received the amount it bet back.

First, besides some grammatical errors, it looks good.

Second, you "raise" the amount of a bet. And when someone raises, you don't meet it, you "Call". I would change Lower to Counter Offer. I would also negate the accepting on the Lower/Counter. Counter is just that, counter offering, you aren't accepting conditions, you would be offering alternatives.

Third, can you clarify the point bonus in both Lower amount and Call it Off. Why would the Side B get a 10 point bonus for accepting the challenge but at a lower amount. The same with the rejection. It sorta defeats making a bet. The other side would just agree and "lower" and be ahead by 10 points or just reject it and be ahead 30 points.

If side A makes a bet offer, and side B rejects/lowers it, it is side A which get the 30 points/10 points.

And I'm not sure this is suh a good idea. Let's say Da Vinci declares war on a small/medium guild. He then bets 10B gc. That guild does not even HAVE such an amount, and is thus forced to lower the bet, giving Da Vinci an easy 10 points head start.

I think you have that backwards, at least on the Call Off, as it explicitly says the other side rejects and receives the 30 points.
The betting part needs to be examined. I see serious points that need to be considered and examined

First there a few things that need to be defined.

Initial Bet - Starting Bet. This is the first bet that starts the pot.

Baseline Bet - A minimum bet amount agreed upon during a raise.

Pot - Possible winnings from the bet.

Side A places bet of X. Bet is entered into a pot (escrow/holder account).
Side B has the option to decline, call, raise, or counter.

Decline:
-The side that decline places no bets,
-The side that placed the initial bet receives its funds back.
-No points awarded.

Call:
-The side calling the Initial Bet must have the funds to call the bet.
-The side calling a Raise, must have at least 50% of the raise amount to call.
-Matched funds are placed in the pot.
-If a call occurs on a Raise and the side that calls does not have sufficient funds to cover it all, the matchable funds are placed in the pot, with the difference being returned to the appropriate side. (Prevents larger guilds/players from gaining points by making large bets that smaller guilds/players could not cover.)
-No points awarded.
-No further bets.

Raise:
-Each Side can only Raise once.
-Must have at minimum the matching funds to the initial bet or previous raised bet.
-By Raising, the initial bet or previous raised bet is agreed upon and becomes the baseline bet. Baseline bet is matched and placed into the pot.
-The other side has the option to Stay, Raise, or Call-off

Stay:
-Declines the raise, but maintains the bet via the agreed baseline bet.
-Raised funds are returned to the appropriate side.
-No further bets
-No Points Awarded (Prevents larger guilds/players from gaining points by making large bets that smaller guilds/players could not cover.)

Call-Off:
-Declines the raise and the baseline bet
-All funds are returned to the appropriate sides minus fees
-The side that call-off the bet pays all fees.
-The other side is awarded points.

Counter:
-Declines the initial bet and returns funds
-Provides a new initial bet.
-Can only counter an initial bet.

Withdraw:
-Side can withdraw an initial bet at any time as long as the other side has not Called or Raised.
-Funds are returned.
-No points awarded.

[DezNutz]

I dont see any issue with just plain refusing to adopt this means of scoring and have your war anyway : its just a way to add some flavor to the process, some entertainment and, once the scores go on the board, another point to argue about, maybe even to prolong the war over.
Personally, as long as the war-end meets my objective, I dont give two hoots about some scoreboard saying otherwise. Much like fame, if it matters, go for it, if it dont, ignore it and just play anyway.

I agree, no one is required to use this. What one may see as a victory, another may not. Good example is the recent Rasputin-Shadowood Conflict.

This suggestion provides a good insight to wars and conflicts from the standpoint of plunder gain/loss, voodoo usage, etc. And provides additional options for those that like to have pissing contests.

[Shadowood]

I think this would add a fun new element to the game. Again its just a game.

Some put different values on things and gauge wins/loses differently. I don't think there will be a perfect solution to all, I just say implement it and lets have fun with it. (with fine tuning as we go)

Deznuts brought up the small conflict between Putin and myself. Who won? Putin would say he did, as he threw a fit like a toddler and "got what he wanted". But there are two sides to every story... 20 hours left on his MOW sale!

This Suggestion however, is for Guild Wars and not individual conflicts. We would need to compare it to the AYES - MERC war for the best recent comparison as to how this would play out. (the HELM - VUDU battle was to short lived and all we did was cast Drums of War! LOL)

I would lean on AYES and MERC players and that of OLD Vets who have been through major conflicts for more suggestions on this topic.

A point system is great. But at the end of the day, no one wins at war...

[Shadowood]

CJ is there a way to record the 'avg' amount spent in a war with this model?

Just thinking back to the HELM - VUDU conflict. HELM did lock some of our members down very well, casting time spirals, magpies. They also used some expensive plundering voodoo to steal a few ships. (booty master, ambush, levis).

The amount of voodoo that HELM used in relation to the small amount VUDU used during this short time was noteworthy. While under this model HELM would score more points, yes. But they spent (lost) a lot of valuable voodoo. VUDU, up until the ceasefire with the Valar Bug, was doing a good job at wasting HELMS voodoo (counter courses) by casting trash voodoo to clear it. A very good low cost tactic as Counter Curses get spendy when you go through 50+, 100+.

If we could use current market values on cards used to gauge how much was spent/lost on a war I think this would be a good gauge to see.

Just my two cents as wars are very much Voodoo heavy.

[Valar Morghulis]

Shadowood may have said something highly interesting
wich may provide a better gauge than a points system.
Points may be handed out afterwards as merit points.

May the game credits themselves be the gauge to
deem if a player is gaining or loosing? By now,
the developers may have a firm grasp about the
average credits a given card cost. Turns spent/lost
may be easily calculated.

Vessels lost/damaged/plundered should be
fairly easy to assess as well.

[DezNutz]

But at the end of the day, no one wins at war...

That's a load of crap.

[Shadowood]

But at the end of the day, no one wins at war...

That's a load of crap.

LOL. Its just a figure of speech. In a game setting we need winners and losers.