Team server has always been broken and just causes problems for the admins. It makes sense to shelf the server until solutions to the endemic problems are found.

I propose as a replacement a solo 'war' server. The metric for winning would be 'fame' or 'domination' (or whatever name) which is a composite score of attacks made/stuff destroyed plus networth. A good formula would make the value of attacks based on the maximum size of attacks made in the round so that way the slide scores with each round is not based on some arbitary fixed setting.

Thoughts?

I think the metric for scoring should just be the sum of all "NW losses your attack/spy caused to the target you just attacked/spied" which I'll just call "NW Damage". Meaning, it also counts landgrabs as NW losses that you caused.

This forces players to choose carefully:
Should I grab to grow (and minimally increase my score)?
Or should I mass BR (the attack that causes the most NW loss)?
But if I BR too much, at some point, GSes become better scoring as the turret and building count gets too low.
And likewise, I need to prevent myself from being crippled so I can continue to cripple others, so I can't GS away all my troops and leave none behind.
Or maybe I could mass Demo then BR. Or mass Bomb Jets/etc.

This completely takes away the focus from killing countries at all, because there is little incentive to kill a country, you don't get much "NW damage" score out of it, and focuses on strategic crippling.

If this becomes a solo server mode, then high "NW damage" scoring countries would become targeted for crippling. Might be interesting.

Yup, exactly. The scoring system you proposed sounds very promising for the type of environment I am envisioning.

Yes, because to score high, you want to attack LARGE countries with large defenses, and small countries get to grow.

I do see some potential problems though, and these need to be tweaked or adjusted for such a server mode:


1. Lemming special attacks (attacks that fail) currently causes 50% more losses for the defender. So a strategic way to play would be to lemming against huge countries all the time. However, lemming attacks cause additional readiness loss, so this might not be too big of an issue.

2. Topfeeds are encouraged since you want to score big, why not score really big? Again not necessarily a problem, since this also means small countries are left alone. It could lead to a situation people go all-jetter, because if you have 0 troops/tanks/turrets, then people cannot BR/AB/GS you for high NW damage... but there's always bomb jets.

3. No country can really keep a lead. That is, a country ahead in NW Damage score cannot stay ahead easily, the game might become too chaotic and winning isn't as strategic as imagined.

YOu can give players 5 countries and sum their score.

I support ANY suggestion for revamping team server

we are scraping it :P

mini-FFA?

I think a addition of NW damage and final NW would do well.

You can count NW damage across all countries of yours killed that set, and the final NW is only the final NW of the last country alive.

Also: NO MISSILES or Warfare Tech.

If War is what you want, then stop the math.


KING OF THE HILL SERVER. SERVER DOES NOT END UNTIL ONLY ONE COUNTRY IS LEFT ALIVE. NO RESTARTS. NO ALLIES. NO VACATION.

few (or 1 if its mini-ffa) could wait and grow until most are gone and then finish rest and then start killing eachothers.

the thing with waiting though, is others could kill you.

and everyone can think of that strat, so most would wait, some explore, some grab, and we'll start seeing more random things.

when it's about last one standing, it will be a different game

Last man standing does not strike me as a viable concept
1) The server would drag on as there were fewer and fewer countries.
2) Effective killing really requires multiple people so this would encourage people to collaborate on a solo server.
3) As Marshal pointed out, the best strategy would be to grow (or at least stock) and not actively kill. Waiting until "the end" would be the soundest strategy but there would be no motivation to get to "the end". Sure there would be a few people who went all out from the beginning, but they would end up being small and easily killed while the majority of people would be trying to be the last standing.

Last man standing server could be a server option with MULTIPLE servers inside it. just keep running new ones as old ones get stagnant.

It will provide a different culture. Players will go and grab and try to defend retals to gain a better long term game. Some will try and stock as lower acres levels, but they would be the prime target for the grabs.

You then have vultures that aim at the crippled countries to take whats' left, and obviously, warmongers who will do anything for fun.


It's definitely not aimed to last a short time.

Warmongers always have claimed that the game isn't done for them, because the rankings are for networth based results and cater to netgaining alliances.

a last man standing server, is a warmonger's server.

war-oriented members of an alliance can work together to try and win the title, and when it's only their members left, they can have fun to find out who is the biggest backstabber =p