Penalties for not fighting in TE

[DevilDog]

I find it kind of strange that you are penalized in SE for staying in peace mode too long yet there is no penalty for not fighting in TE.

I thought TE was the fighting version of SE.

 

I have seen multiple posts from people complaining about how much money some nations in TE have now a days and it seems to me that penalizing those who hardly fight in TE might be a step in the right direction to help with this problem seeing as how most get that cash from not fighting for prolonged periods of time.

Which in itself should be unacceptable in TE.

Depending on the round length you could make it after 10 days or so of non fighting your tax collections would be cut in half or something like that.

I realize this might cause increased raiding of nations and I am not sure how to get around that one unless the penalty was for the entire alliance or something along those lines and not just based on individual nations.

[hartfw]

I find it kind of strange that you are penalized in SE for staying in peace mode too long yet there is no penalty for not fighting in TE.

I thought TE was the fighting version of SE.

 

I have seen multiple posts from people complaining about how much money some nations in TE have now a days and it seems to me that penalizing those who hardly fight in TE might be a step in the right direction to help with this problem seeing as how most get that cash from not fighting for prolonged periods of time.

Which in itself should be unacceptable in TE.

Depending on the round length you could make it after 10 days or so of non fighting your tax collections would be cut in half or something like that.

I realize this might cause increased raiding of nations and I am not sure how to get around that one unless the penalty was for the entire alliance or something along those lines and not just based on individual nations.

 

This is pretty interesting.  As it is, the community tries to self police this but its inherently limited with some nations or entire alliances slipping through the cracks

 

I would go with 20 day; maybe 15 but for a 60 or 90 10 days between highly destructive wars isn't that long and I like it better as a constraint meant to catch the outliers versus force a pace of action on most people). People might game it with gentle skirmishes.  Still, a peaceful penalty for TE greatly please me as a concept, hopefully more people weigh in.

[Auctor]

Not having generals as a result kind of accomplishes this.

[hartfw]

Not having generals as a result kind of accomplishes this.

 

Only if a round is short enough.  Even in a 60 day round, you can fight at day 10, get generals then skip war the next 40 days.

[Lord Hershey]

Only if a round is short enough.  Even in a 60 day round, you can fight at day 10, get generals then skip war the next 40 days.

 

He's got a point, perhaps purpose a "peace" penalty for nations that have not fought more than 10-15 days, depending on how long a round is. The longer you avoid from warring, the weaker your economic income becomes. After all, TE is meant to be a fighting round, not a round where people avoid from fighting.

[Syracuse]

Moved to TE Suggestion Box

[DevilDog]

Moved to TE Suggestion Box

Thanks.

My bad on that one.

[Daenerys Targaryen]

I find it kind of strange that you are penalized in SE for staying in peace mode too long yet there is no penalty for not fighting in TE.

I thought TE was the fighting version of SE.

 

I have seen multiple posts from people complaining about how much money some nations in TE have now a days and it seems to me that penalizing those who hardly fight in TE might be a step in the right direction to help with this problem seeing as how most get that cash from not fighting for prolonged periods of time.

Which in itself should be unacceptable in TE.

Depending on the round length you could make it after 10 days or so of non fighting your tax collections would be cut in half or something like that.

I realize this might cause increased raiding of nations and I am not sure how to get around that one unless the penalty was for the entire alliance or something along those lines and not just based on individual nations.

First, its not fair to penalize an entire alliance for the mistakes of one or a few so I'd completely avoid that part.

 

I'd rather the game gives more incentives to encourage nations to fight because not everyone can be active enough so penalties will be a burdensome for nations unable to be active for days at a time and may lead to nations having little incentive to even play. Instead of punishing those for not fighting, why not reward those for fighting. If nations are turtling because its more beneficial to do nothing rather than fight then I'd focus on increasing incentives so its more beneficial to fight. A relatively easy solution would be to increase the bonuses for the generals in accordance with increasing the XP needed to obtain.

[Konata Izumi]

Perhaps it would be best to penalize someone economically for not involving themself in a war their alliance is in? x amount of alliance memebers fighting x amount of enemies = x amount of economic penalty. Of course, this would mean the person you fight to offset the penalty be someone in the same alliance as someone an alliance member of yours is in.

 

Naturally, if you are in a small alliance then the penalty would be negligible, but you would be an easier target.

[Daenerys Targaryen]

Perhaps it would be best to penalize someone economically for not involving themself in a war their alliance is in? x amount of alliance memebers fighting x amount of enemies = x amount of economic penalty. Of course, this would mean the person you fight to offset the penalty be someone in the same alliance as someone an alliance member of yours is in.

 

Naturally, if you are in a small alliance then the penalty would be negligible, but you would be an easier target.

You'd also be penalizing peolpe for not being active as well. Many players have busy RL schedules and they shouldn't be penalized for it because it may drive them away. The other option is to reward people for participating in wars which is why generals were added.

[Konata Izumi]

You'd also be penalizing peolpe for not being active as well. Many players have busy RL schedules and they shouldn't be penalized for it because it may drive them away. The other option is to reward people for participating in wars which is why generals were added.

well, it would only penalize them if they collect, which means they are active. All they have to do is declare > collect.

[Daenerys Targaryen]

well, it would only penalize them if they collect, which means they are active. All they have to do is declare > collect.

So if they missed the alliance war they then have to find other wars so their collections aren't penalized. That wont be happening and it defeats the purpose of wanting them to fight in the alliance war so it still doesn't work.