If i recall the reason why people disliked the n1 system was it became a numbers game, he who had the most people wins, which this system technically cannot happen. As for a 4x point bonus that sounds like a great way to blitzkrieg a battle, have as many people as possible. I also disagree with your views on reversals, there's been very few times where the idea of waiting to get the reversal was ever considered, its either cap and defend or not risk a reversal and defend. Unless you massively outmatch your opponent you cant reverse the flag 100% of the time, and if you could you wouldnt need to wait for the reversal anyway you could just take the banner and hold. Theoretically its more points but in reality its way too risky to do that.

N1 siege system goofy aahhhh

A major fix for the wait-until-near-the-end reversal problem, was included in the last plugin release. Assuming CCNET will soon deploy the fix, almost all of the stated justification for this suggestion is shortly about to evaporate.

Scorpius, if you manage to steal 1/4 battles in last 7 wins and do nothing else, you are gonna win , also, i do this all the time, like, idk how didnt you notice this happening, people being locked out of capping the banner for like 3 sessions straight out of fear of reversal often happened, Goosius1 just admitted to this being a problem, also, how can you "blitzckrieg" a battle if it lasts 3 days regardless, it would only be "blirzkrieging" it if it was a race to like 20k points and then its instantly over, if your enemy doesnt lose a chance to fight after your "britzkrieg" is over, and they in fact, still have opportunity to use the bonus too, its simply not a possibility. about numbers advantage, you essentially have the same thing now, its not removed in any way, like however you put it, as long as someone can just cap for more sessions he is gonna earn more points. and the "numbers game bad" mindset is just wrong, basically, if enemy has more players/invested more time, they are going to have an advantage, and that is not even wrong by any means, you can argue that there are people with more free time and those with less free time, but their time should be equally worth regardless, N1 System was simply based on who can actually take the banner and keep holding it and on manhours spent , why would a hour of my time be worth less than a hour of your time just because i decided i gonna play minecraft for 4 hours today and you got fed up with just 1 hour of it, that doesnt mean you are now entitled to win because it was "unfair" that i spent more time and therefore got more points. and if you had smarter things to do, like homework, and couldnt cap banner like "no-lifer" , that doesnt mean the "no-lifer's" time spent should be worth less and you should win anyway. its as simple as that, everyones time is worth equally.

also i would like to add, it simply makes on sense to apply "its unfair if one side spent more time and therefore won the war" logic to sieges, but somehow its perfectly fine to grind armors all day or build movecraft and still end up with advantage, like hell, if you have enough time and patience to play PvP on hub entire day, you are going to end up with more PvP skill, and then somehow the "its unfair because they spent more time" logic suddenly doesnt apply anymore, its simply evident that no amount of attempts to "nerf no-lifers" worked and it simply made the whole siege system needlessly complicated and broken and the "Time spent" advantage remained the same

I see 2 main parts to this issue.

PART 1.
Can we fix "no-life-sieging" ?
Look at the track record of SW:
1. Before SW existed, people thought it was evident that no such war system like it was possible.
2. Then it was done.
3. Then other issues problems up which appeared unsolvable.
4. Then they were fixed.
5. Just recently we've probably solved the banner control problem which you found (justifiably) serious.
6. So I'm pretty confident we can eventually fix (hopefully in a good enough way that no servers seriously consider reverting the entire system)
7. Further, we are working on a new fix in that area today. (and no, not every update is related to this area. Think Wall Breaching and Neutral towns)

PART 2
Should we fix "no-life-sieging"?
1. The point is not to punish those who play extra time
2. The point is to keep the online-time-bar low so as not to discourage regular players.
3. If a server were to allow the online-time-bar to be as high as it would naturally get to,
obviously this would demoralize nations who cannot play overtime,
knowing that true power is effectively beyond their grasp.
4. This is not a Zero-Sum game for overtime-players.
With other players demoralized and not so interested in war,
they would have less people to fight (boring),
and geopol would probably be more boring too, with a few super nations,
and the rest just being peacefully occupied by their overtime overlords....

I dont see logic in assuming 1 person who plays "overtime" is going to be able to make everyone who doesnt do it irrelavant, like, even if i was playing minecraft as a full time job, 8 hours per day, just 4 people with 2 hours play time would be able to match me and thats assuming its all just afk cap contest, im not saying its impossible to fix "overtime playing" problem, im just saying that concept of fixing it means making time and effort invested into the siege not directly proportional to the gain , which leads to progress feeling abstract and non-linear which ends up leaving players tilted and feeling like they can not contribute, think of capping entire session just to get reversed, or being told by your nation leader not to cap because risk is higher than the reward so you end up standing there not knowing what to do, just for the "overtime player" to simply come over night and cap anyways while both you and your nation leader are sound asleep , essentially, whatever you can do, the "overtime" player can mirror and simply do more after you are not there anymore, so , if there is a solution to that problem, it lies in giving buffs for few initial sessions so that you can do your part and call it a day, OR by allocating more total points earned into kills rather than banner capping(which i find to be detremental due to nation leaders going as far as to prohibit town leaders to bring new players into wars due to them causing more harm than good) so in my opinion, if complete revert to older system is out of question, the improvements should be focused on making the system feel more linear and instantly rewarding rather than an abstract mess of choices that may lead to you giving more points to the enemy if you play it wrong.

A few points in the above analysis appear flawed:

1.
> even if i was playing minecraft as > a full time job, 8 hours per day,
> just 4 people with 2 hours play
> time would be able to match me

The above logic is wrong or incomplete, because no cause has been given for assuming that one team would be better than the other at recruitment.

Rather we must assume that both teams are equally good at recruitment, meaning that (if we were to crunch the numbers), overtime-playing teams cannot be countered in this way.

Rather, the simplest available counter is for team B to increase its overtime, to match team A who are already at max play hours.

This is the key problem with a linear capping methodology: it drives an "arms race" of ever-increasing sieging overtime. Can any team theoretically win? Sure, but they need to grind more and more.

2.
> im just saying that concept of
> fixing it means making time and
> effort invested into the siege not
> directly proportional to the gain ,

This is wrong, because solutions exist which do not affect this proportionality. A new solution with this characteristic is actually in code-review today.

3.
> think of capping entire session
> just to get reversed

The reversal feature doesn't work like this anymore

---

But more than specific issues with the analysis, I don't think Sw will ever be fully linear and instantly rewarding. There are too many competing yet legitimate points of view. IMO the mess of choices can be seen more optimistically, as a chance to beat an enemy strategically.

---

Now though, I must leave my analysis there, right or wrong, and get back to coding aaaagh!