[Guest]

Personally, I like the first response from Mudpies. When a gang surrenders, no additional respect can be taken from them for a limited time. The surrender should have a fuse of 72 hours during which time the two gangs have to agree on terms. If they cannot, the offer and counter-offer are sent to an arbitrator who weighs out the two offers and makes a binding decision. The arbiitrator can accept only one or the other option and cannot manufacture a deal of his own or settle on middle ground. The gang that surrenders has 72 hours to pay the terms decided on by the arbitrator or the attack can be resumed and the gang destroyed.

The arbitrators have to be players who are not with a gang. Similar to a moderator, they will be designated as arbitrators. They receive compensation which is paid for at 50% by each gang. The compensation would be approximately $2000 per arbitration. The individuals wishing to be arbitrators apply for the position and Zenith chooses ten or twelve of them. Over time, because this game is so social, the good arbitrators will be separated from the bad.

[Guest]

And then I'll just pay off the good arbitrators!

[Dingus]

I like the Gang Shame idea. How bout the option to walk away from a fight you started. If surrender not issued in 72 hours the losing gang loses another 5 respect, winner gains 5, and the war is over. Last war I was in basically had to pull a surender out of the pres, I came real close to doing them in just because of the lack of response. During that 72 hour wait time no other gang can declare on them pending Shame results. Of course the shame request can be rejected by attackee.

[Druchii]

the gang shame is a nice idea, but not many will do that, some people actually declare a war to destroy gangs, they wont leave the gang in shame just cause they got the option to do so.

maybe the odd gang will be saved cause members doesnt read mails from Precidents or VP, but I think there are other and better solutions.

Zenith which ones do you fancy so far? so that we know which ones to twist our heads around to fit more for the community

[Guest]

You know the 72hour surrender thingy? There would be a problem because you could just keeep surrendering.

[Guest]

there are 6 pages or replys, don't have much time to read it all, so i'll just say what i think about this matter.

when u declare a war u get some points (lets say 100) when the first gang who comes to that amount of killing gets some percentage of the other gangs respect, or some percentage of its own gang but from the other gang (e.g. gang A has 100 respect and gang B has 200 respect. A wins and gets 10% of B's respect = 20 respect (A=120, B=180) | or if A wins, A gets 10% of its on but from the other gang (A=110, B=190). but offcourse people like to surrender, some some fewer percentage from the gang who surrenders.

This way it will be much harder for a gang to die. It would be even better if a gang could be in a limited amount of gang wars at the same time 8)

[Guest]

i also agree with the gang shame idea,and the arrbitration idea as well

[Guest]

Soney09 Wrote:It would be even better if a gang could be in a limited amount of gang wars at the same time 8)

strongly dissagree. If a gang is daring and wants to declare on 8 gangs near their level/strength I'd love to sit back and watch that (or take part)