Proposal for Legalizing Plundering in Server 54

[sinwarth]

Policy Overview:
This proposal sets forth a structured policy to legalize and regulate plundering activities within Server 54. It aims to enhance gameplay, foster alliance coordination, promote fair competition, strengthen our server, and work toward building an army with Level 27 HQs and Level 9 troops.

Eligibility and Guidelines:

• Players ranked within the top 150 on the leaderboard, based on individual power and HQ level, will be eligible to participate as plunderers.

• Eligible players must have headquarters at Level 25 or higher but below Level 27.

• Prior approval must be obtained from the President or Vice President of the alliance before initiating any plundering activity.

• The timing of plundering will be arranged through discussions between alliance officials and the designated plunderer, with the President or Vice President present in the chatroom to oversee the agreement.

• The plunderer may attack individual members of a targeted alliance only once per plundering session.

• Only the top 25 alliances with a city will be eligible targets for plundering.

• Designated alliances may defend only by using reinforcements. Direct attacks on the plunderer are not allowed.

• Once the top 150 players achieve Level 9 troops, they will no longer participate in plundering events.

• Rule violations will be addressed first in the chat room. If unresolved, a monitoring officer will intervene and may terminate the event.

Benefits:

• Defensive Improvement: Alliances will gain valuable experience in defending their cities, fostering better coordination and strategic planning.

• Offensive Skill Development: Plunderers will enhance their attack tactics and gain significant gameplay experience.

• Resource Gains: Successful plunderers will acquire valuable resources twice per week: once during the Enemy Buster Day event and once during a designated session within the server.

• Rule Compliance: Expected to reduce unnecessary rule violations.

• Enhanced Engagement: This initiative will introduce exciting and dynamic moments for all participants, enriching the overall gaming experience.

• Server Protection: The top 150 players will be better prepared to defend the server from invasions by external forces.

Potential Drawbacks:

• Resource Loss: Members of targeted alliances may lose approximately 2 million units of each resource type per plundering event.

Tips for Maximizing Your Opportunity to be Selected as a Plunderer

• If you have a Level 25 or 26 HQ and are ranked in the top 150 on the leaderboard, consider joining a top 25 alliance that has a city that has few or no other players with Level 25 or 26 HQs.

• This strategy will position you as a priority candidate for upcoming plundering events, giving you more opportunities to gain resources and experience, and progress toward Level 27 HQ and Level 9 troops more quickly.

[JAWAFACE]

Hello Sin

I have some few points to note here, lets go by line line

• Prior approval must be obtained from the President or Vice President of the alliance before initiating any plundering activity.

• The timing of plundering will be arranged through discussions between alliance officials and the designated plunderer.

No alliance will willingly agree to be looted, protected and un-protected included. Will foster more rampant chaos than cordial relation.

• The plunderer may attack individual members of a targeted alliance only once per plundering session.

Do you want to add a list of new set of infractions to an already long list of rule breakers? Some of them goes unpunished.

• If the defending alliance succeeds in burning the plunderer's headquarters (HQ), the plundering operation must cease immediately, and the attacker must withdraw.

• Players with headquarters at Level 25 or higher are not permitted to participate in defending their alliance during plundering events.

EDIT: People will still reinforce, people will still not care about the rule, take for example UN5 and KTL on the 8th Of May 2025, the rule clearly says no reinforcement, yet the culprit was reinforced and the entire alliance was mocked, and the loudest one in Un5 was looted by KTL, when there is no clear punishment for the already existing rule, this will create a lot of headache

EDIT: What if a strong 27-30 player gets ticked off? can the existing 25-27 stop him? The idea is good, but to enforce it is a challenge

All I forsee are the amount of rule breaks and the world chat getting flooded with constant noise of the attacked twice, he has T9s, we cant attack him back.

My proposal is simple, either reduce the number of top 3 affiliated alliance to 3. Or Implement a notorierity system, take the data from the name and shame section of the forum, compile it, to see who breaks the most rule. at the end of the week, the alliance that breaks the most rule will be subjected to a 48Hr loot.

This way many will think twice before breaking any rule, plus it incentivies them to come the forum and read the stuffs that are posted here.

EDIT: lets first enforce the already existing rule, before adding any new ones.

best regards
Jawa

[sinwarth]

• The benefits of this proposal significantly outweigh the potential losses. If alliances agree to participate, they will be assigned a scheduled time for plundering. If they refuse, plundering may occur at any time, as authorized by the President or Vice President.

• At present, rules are often broken because players urgently need resources. By approving this proposal, we aim to eliminate rule-breaking within our server.

• Reinforcing is permitted and is considered a legitimate part of defensive strategy. If one player is reinforced, the other targets will still be available for plundering.

• However, reinforcing during the execution of fair punishment (such as when a player is being penalized according to established rules) will also be considered a violation and subject to punishment.

[rocket84]

Thanks for coming up with a (what seems at first) great idea.
The unfortunate thing is as what jawaface has pointed out - the main thing, being people getting upset and taking things in to their own hands.

ultimately, there will be numerous complaints and people taking things too far.

But I do agree on all points brought up.

What is less complex for organising and managing (amongst players) - is just having private farms.
Everyone that is a HQ24 or above, should learn and put effort into creating one.

For the most part, if done right - you only need to level up to ~HQ15 and then make sure your heroes are all leveled up (EXP), along with troop load, etc - and you can then harvest from LVL6 mines with good results.
Back on S30, I've witnessed one player having six farms and is yielding 100mil of resources per day from them.
This is on a server, where there's basically no players left to loot from.... because everyone got sick of being looted.

And when rules for looting from X level in place, the moment there was some form of 'technicality' on things, the rules got abused and full on war almost broke out over it.
In the end, we all learnt to just produce our own food/wood/gold and then go do looting runs on the weekend during enemy buster (looting other servers).

I say all the above as an explanation as to the ultimate end result - where we all need to have our own farms pumping resources, etc.

Meanwhile, still keep a look out for players that 'drop off' from the active list to loot from - that will naturally happen anyway, as people get bored of the game.
And as for boredom - people will use any excuse to claim a reason to leave the game.
So in this server - better that they choose to leave from 'boredom' (which eventually happens with some players, no matter what you do), than frustration and upset from being looted or not understanding the rules.

Complex rules, that relay on multiple people to organise something (in a game where communication can be a problem sometimes) - will lead to people crying and upset.
Seen it before....

[sinwarth]

Thanks a lot for your detailed feedback and for sharing your experience. It really helps highlight the bigger picture. I completely understand the concerns about frustration, rule abuse, and people taking matters into their own hands. That’s exactly why I aimed to create a structured policy: to prevent random looting and minimize misunderstandings.

You’re right that private farms are a great long-term solution, and I fully support everyone developing their own resource farms, especially HQ24+. However, not every player has enough time, knowledge, or capacity to build multiple farms right away, which is part of the problem we’re facing now—people break the rules out of desperation for resources.

What I’m proposing is meant as a temporary and regulated way to provide resources for growth, while training alliances to defend effectively and reducing random looting. By having clear approval steps, limited targets, and strict rules (like one attack per player), we aim to keep things fair and prevent the chaos and abuse that often happen without a formal system.

I agree 100% that complex systems can backfire if communication breaks down, and that’s why this would need strong leadership oversight (President/Vice President approval) and clear communication within alliance and plunderer. I believe if we start small and adjust based on feedback, we can find a balance that works without overwhelming people.

Your point about boredom is also really valid. I hope that by adding structured plundering events, we can create engaging moments that keep people interested without crossing the line into frustration.

Thanks again for your input. It's super valuable to consider all sides before moving forward. Let’s keep the discussion open to find the best solution for everyone.

[Takemetochurch]

A system like this, even if the pros outweigh the cons, isn't realistic. It's just too hard to implement it smoothly. Okay on paper, impossible in practice.

Something achievable would be like jawaface's suggestion, where the alliance that breaks the most rules would be subject to looting for the entire server, however i think 48 hours is too long. We are in a phase where upgrades are very expensive, and our prominent players in the top 15-20 can easily eradicate hundreds of millions of rss in a flash.

Having such resources taken away from a growing hq 25+ player can be really crippling, and especially demoralizing if said player isn't really the main contributor to the rule break. Therefore I suggest a shorter window to plunder the alliance, not exceeding 12 hours. I appreciate everyone's work in keeping our server running. It's not perfect, nothing is. But we are doing pretty okay, all things considered.

[JAWAFACE]

@takemetochruch

I agree 48 hours is too much,