4.0 War Ideas

[_pok_ 1768]

Preface: I read Native's 4.0 Update #3 and as I was reading the section about war, my heart dropped a little bit when I saw that consensual war was making a triumphant (or not so, in my opinion) return. However, I'm willing to accept this fact but I think I have a better alternative to it that will make everybody happy. There will be a poll attached to this to vote on the idea as well. Also, this is sort of my random ideas for war in general in 4.0.

 

 

Consensual vs. Non-Consensual War

 

So the problem with full on consensual war is that a group of players can do essentially whatever they want and hide behind the rule that they must accept a war claim for it to follow through. I see why there are people that think this is good because now they don't have to worry about their actions, but overall I think this just stagnates a lot of RP that could potentially be happening but is restricted due to rules. I will not call out any specific groups, but large arguments have come out of situations where a group has done something and then been able to deny outright any war claims put against them. The alternatives Native had to an attack were also very weak because as it stands trade really doesn't matter on the server and won't hurt anybody else to the point of wiping out a settlement. 

 

The usual counter argument to consensual war is flat out non-consensual, war claim for any reason what-so-ever idea. I also see this as incredibly flawed because it allows for very weak claims and casus belli to be pressed that could potentially lead to a lot of anger as well. Again, there have been many arguments that have stemmed from this type as wars have started over a seemingly minor incident.

 

My solution is sort of a half and half compromise between the two above ideas. First off, anything outside of a MAJOR (this will be defined as a major attack of more than 10 people) offensive does not require consent but rather is classified as a raid. Settlements can be raided once a day by a nation but require a small warning (to avoid meta but allow for people that would be in the settlement to get there, 20 minutes) to the highest ranking official online (so nation leaders could just post a list of contacts should they not be online to warn). A siege or pillage of a larger scale requires a war claim with consent, but there are some exceptions. A team of maybe four active players would be set up to decide whether the casus belli is valid and if they deem that the defending side's action was justifiable enough for a war claim, the defender would be forced to go through with it. A post would be made to set up what clearly defines a larger scale attack (ie. kidnappings, small murders, thieving, and small raids would not justify a war claim but some type of horrific national insult or event would justify such an attack). Also no more BS rescue mission crap because that just leads to so much rage that both parties get pissed off. 

 

Poll Question: Which one of the three war claim systems listed in this post would you like to see implemented?

 

Sieges

 

Sieges should be an epic, long term event that is actually a big deal and does not occur once every weekend. A siege should be serious and devastating to a settlement that is being besieged. They should last no less than a week and be massive in scale. The attacker should have to set up camp outside of the city and take a day or two to set up their siege equipment, the whole time the defender is able to sally out to try to sabotage the builders. When they do this though, they risk losing equipment that they can't get back when the final assault on the city occurs. Civilians should be able to participate in Siege RP as well. Non-military citizens of a city should be able to experience what it is like to live in a city under siege with the constant threat of an attack while those on the attacking side could go out to the war camps to assist in hunting, cooking, smithing, and other civilian RP. The defender can also hire smugglers to help get supplies into the besieged settlement while the attackers can hire spies to infiltrate and sabotage the defender's own weapons. 

 

This type of system would allow for an exciting, large scale event that allow players on the server could participate and have fun playing out. Now a siege becomes more of an RP event and less of an all out PvP battle for a few hours. 

 

Poll Question: Are you for or against this type of siege system (basically would you like to see it implemented)?

 

Raids

 

I sort of addressed this when I discussed war as a whole, but I feel as though it deserves it's own subsection. Raids right now are sort of discouraged and most players are afraid to go on them because they fear that they could be ban reported for any reason at all. 

 

I'll give my idea first this time, and present it in the form of a story. When I was under Mog as an Orc in Aegis, there were no war claims or raid rules or anything. It was essentially a free-for-all that the nation leaders really had to moderate. While we welcomed a more organized system, the spontaneous and exciting action that came from raids disappeared. What I propose is a semi-return to this system, allowing for a nation to raid a settlement once a day, with that settlement being able to counter raid the nation that just attacked them with similar restrictions. A raid would consist of 10 players and the raiders could get GM assistance to place ladders to enter a settlement. However, only a GM can place the ladders so no-GM means that they will have to find their own way in. A counter-raid can consist of 15 players so that when a nation raids another there will be consequences on at least a small scale. This also allows for more spontaneous RP to occur between two nations or factions.

 

An alternative to that would be our current system, which I feel restricts spontaneous roleplay and discourages groups of players from even considering visiting another nation for fear of a ban report. We could also go full on Aegis, with no rules what-so-ever. 

 

Poll Question: What type of raid system would you like to see?

 

Conclusion

 

That's it. I might add more later as you guys come up with more stuff but otherwise this is everything I have in my head right now. PLEASE do not turn this thread into a war between RP and PvP or something of the like, this should be a civilized discussion where we can talk about ideas for war in 4.0 and how to make it beneficial to the most people on the server.

 

Also, +1 diz $hit cuz want more rep than Aislin 

 

 

[AlmondTree 418]

Non-consensual mixed with the custom idea. No OOC barrier should stop it.

[_Kyle_ 2]

Raids should never ever have limits. Remember that one time in Aegis where we raided Galahar I believe. Then 1hour lately the Elven, Dwarven and Human army where waiting for us at our gates. That was fun and it was spontaneous + it lead to diplomatic RP.

[mmat 7460]

Whatever happens, lets please get rid of stupid unfair traps like retractable lava pits and floor falls during sieges.

[_pok_ 1768]

Raids should never ever have limits. Remember that one time in Aegis where we raided Galahar I believe. Then 1hour lately the Elven, Dwarven and Human army where waiting for us at our gates. That was fun and it was spontaneous + it lead to diplomatic RP.

 

I agree but I see a lot of players that can't handle the constant threat of being raided or being under that kind of stress. It's kind of disappointing but I can also understand why there are limits. I would like to see for a more free system as well, but I get why most players need some sort of rules system to stand by. 

[Hiebe 2493]

Remember in Aegis when we had no problems with war and people taking regions, I think no region taking rewards. Make various other rewards for winning a battle be allowed, ie New leader, money, and such

[Fredfort (jens6851) 283]

People that argue that we shouldn't mix OOC and RP need to keep in mind that people play this game for the fun of it. In our spare time. 

 

If constant raids stress a group of players said raiders should respect that and leave them alone. We're a lot of people on this server. We NEED to make space for all of us, despite our differences in order to do any good for the server. Which we all want. We all want to make this server the best possible place. For ourselves. :I

 

._:

[Emp 209]

Great thoughts; praise pok.

 

Though I'm ill-informed in regards to the war system, I support the ideas presented concerning sieges and raids - especially sieges. I think it's best to have a bit more fun with these things, and make the most engaging RP out of such situations.

 

That's all I can offer for now... I'm not intimately familiar with all these war systems flying about.

[Cyndikate 2303]

I'm going to note. This isn't aegis anymore. We can't go back to the golden days without fixing the community, because last I checked aegis was remembered for its community. We can't loosen up the rules as it is because the playerbase has proven over several occasions that they lack respect for one another

[Hunter (sckolar) 50]

Sorry, I know you didn't want it to be debate of RP and PVP of the sort, but that is what people are having trouble with regarding the topic Many of the OOC ideas around wars hurt RP, and many of the ideas for RP hurt the OOC side of it.

 

And I'd like to say something very important before continuing. As Shiftnative said, often times, during wars, players can end up leaving the area until it is over. I'm not so sure if that's fun for defenders or invaders. If things stay the same, that probably isn't going to end up changing.

 

 

I wonder if it is only the raiders who have an issue with consensual war. I think that people need to be able to weigh out when it is important to use OOC reasoning and RP reasoning. If there is a way to solve the issue through RP, then I want to know what it is. OOC indeed should be the last thing we should have to resort to, but if necessary, then I think it should be considered. Maybe using OOC reasons wouldn't make sense in RP, but it's not worth destroying fun over. Keeping it RP reasoned isn't quite that important

 

My problem with siege lasting a whole week, is not everyone knows how to RP correctly in this situation. Some people will get frustrated that they can't leave/enter the city. This is why elves were getting angry in OOC when the White Roses were around. Constantly being stopped on the road and told what to do, getting attacked, and bossed around in RP and in some cases OOCly as well. And people would cheat. Because people would be packed into one city (The defenders) arguments would happen very close by and often. I do not believe having them last so long would make things better. Now some invading players would be reasonable about this, but not all. And to all defenders will handle this well either Give a good person power, and it will make them a better person. Give a bad person power, and it makes them worse

 

Now I'll admit that I also feel iffy about consensual wars, as it really does not make sense. But I believe it should also be understood that excessive, constant attacks OOCly gets old, Especially for the defenders why the defenders specifically? Because invaders are in the place of power often times, making it exciting for them. Raids should not happen so often. In Asulon, things seemed alright from where I was. I rarely saw raids. I think over a course of 4 months I only saw 4-6 raids (maybe less). This was in Malinor, and although players got attacked every now and then while traveling, it didn't happen every time we tried to go out. It actually happened quite rarely for me. Enemies didn't always choose to attack you either. Most of the long term effects form wars, were not as devastating as they seem to be now. When Normandor got invaded, and taken by Oren, they did not stay, and actually take the city like the orcs did to Salvus a while back. Sieges would be fun for invaders, but not as much for a lot of the people under attack. 

 

I do not believe the whole "No rules in war" is a good idea at this time with all the arguments that happen. I don't think wars should go away, but they need to cut down significantly if everyone wants to have fun since people clearly have been getting sick of them. Perhaps consensual would be best for now. Maybe not all the time, but under certain conditions, consent needed. For example "Sorry, you guys just invaded us yesterday. Players are not going to handle it well if you invade every day, maybe later" Doesn't sound great, but it's better than angry players.

 

 

 

-snip-

._:

 

 

 

Very well put by the way!

[_pok_ 1768]

I'm going to note. This isn't aegis anymore. We can't go back to the golden days without fixing the community, because last I checked aegis was remembered for its community. We can't loosen up the rules as it is because the playerbase has proven over several occasions that they lack respect for one another

 

I agree, and I also agree that the community is nowhere near on par with what we had in Aegis. That's why when I was writing the ideas I tried to accommodate both our current and past community, because I feel like we could handle it. Maybe I'm just too optimistic. 

 

Sorry, I know you didn't want it to be debate of RP and PVP of the sort, but that is what people are having trouble with regarding the topic Many of the OOC ideas around wars hurt RP, and many of the ideas for RP hurt the OOC side of it.

 

And I'd like to say something very important before continuing. As Shiftnative said, often times, during wars, players can end up leaving the area until it is over. I'm not so sure if that's fun for defenders or invaders. If things stay the same, that probably isn't going to end up changing.

 

 

I wonder if it is only the raiders who have an issue with consensual war. I think that people need to be able to weigh out when it is important to use OOC reasoning and RP reasoning. If there is a way to solve the issue through RP, then I want to know what it is. OOC indeed should be the last thing we should have to resort to, but if necessary, then I think it should be considered. Maybe using OOC reasons wouldn't make sense in RP, but it's not worth destroying fun over. Keeping it RP reasoned isn't quite that important

 

My problem with siege lasting a whole week, is not everyone knows how to RP correctly in this situation. Some people will get frustrated that they can't leave/enter the city. This is why elves were getting angry in OOC when the White Roses were around. Constantly being stopped on the road and told what to do, getting attacked, and bossed around in RP and in some cases OOCly as well. And people would cheat. Because people would be packed into one city (The defenders) arguments would happen very close by and often. I do not believe having them last so long would make things better. Now some invading players would be reasonable about this, but not all. And to all defenders will handle this well either Give a good person power, and it will make them a better person. Give a bad person power, and it makes them worse

 

Now I'll admit that I also feel iffy about consensual wars, as it really does not make sense. But I believe it should also be understood that excessive, constant attacks OOCly gets old, Especially for the defenders why the defenders specifically? Because invaders are in the place of power often times, making it exciting for them. Raids should not happen so often. In Asulon, things seemed alright from where I was. I rarely saw raids. I think over a course of 4 months I only saw 4-6 raids (maybe less). This was in Malinor, and although players got attacked every now and then while traveling, it didn't happen every time we tried to go out. It actually happened quite rarely for me. Enemies didn't always choose to attack you either. Most of the long term effects form wars, were not as devastating as they seem to be now. When Normandor got invaded, and taken by Oren, they did not stay, and actually take the city like the orcs did to Salvus a while back. Sieges would be fun for invaders, but not as much for a lot of the people under attack. 

 

I do not believe the whole "No rules in war" is a good idea at this time with all the arguments that happen. I don't think wars should go away, but they need to cut down significantly if everyone wants to have fun since people clearly have been getting sick of them. Perhaps consensual would be best for now. Maybe not all the time, but under certain conditions, consent needed. For example "Sorry, you guys just invaded us yesterday. Players are not going to handle it well if you invade every day, maybe later" Doesn't sound great, but it's better than angry players.

 

 

 

 

 

Very well put by the way!

 

 

I see some of your points, and I think Asulon was the best time for raids because there were very few restrictions however the nation leaders were able to communicate effectively when dealing with raids. In my opinion, the biggest problem with our community and nation leaders especially is communication. 

 

Every nation/order is hung up in their own little clique and they don't want anybody else in their "inner circle" so they forget that in order to have fun that we need to work together. In Asulon and Aegis, communication between the leaders was constant. When I was Rex I was constantly talking to the leaders of the Elves, Dwarves, and Oren. We communicated to each other and if there was a problem we would discuss it and carry on. 

 

Communication needs to return to some degree for a lot of the problems to really work out well. 

 

As for what you said about sieges, I kind of disagree but also see the point you are trying to make. What that ultimately falls down to is the maturity of both sides. Are the defenders able to be mature enough to understand that their actions in RP have led to this and that now this is just another new situation for them to RP in? I mean the whole point of a siege is to keep the defenders in and keep aid out, so while I see that some people might get frustrated by it isn't that a new dynamic RP scenario that their character can use to grow and develop?

 

The biggest problem I've seen with individual players lately is that very few characters really have backstory. Most characters do not allow for the situations they face to affect them and become part of their story. The siege type I am proposing allows for a situation that allows a character to develop in RP and rather than complaining about not being able to get out, a character should find interesting ways to sneak out and RP. Do you understand what I'm getting at? These are a lot of IC problems we can be solving through IC solutions. 

[Hunter (sckolar) 50]

-snip-

 

You are likely right. If leaders are not communicating, then it can get messy, This can result in leaders not knowing what happened in their enemy's territory, and not knowing how the other players handled things. On top of that perhaps everyone should create a bio for new characters (Even if they don't plan on showing it to anyone) that way they know their characters a bit better. The last character I made, I didn't type up backstory, and I didn't use him long at all. The one I'm working on now I like much better. Perhaps people forget to think "What would HE/SHE do" and instead think "What should I do" You have a point.

[Cjmate 1270]

It is in my great wisdom and love that I promote the Crusader Kings 2 rules for war. Not only will this solve needless wars, but it will create more immersive roleplay for warclaims since they will have to have a valid cassus belli.

 

http://www.ckiiwiki.com/Casus_Belli

[Aelu / Rel (Combustionary) 1540]

I'm certainly more on the side of consensual war. But, only for battles where land would change hands.

 

Pillages, raids and what not, shouldn't require consent - RP is RP. In fact, unless I misread the 4.0 post, only conquest will require consent. The issue with invasions and what not is that (with very few exceptions, like Gronkkston) the land that changes hands isn't put to use. A town that may have served as an rp hub will be taken, razed... and given to some player who more than likely won't use it or will make a town without players.

 

Were 4.0's systems not so set in place, I'd suggest a 'borderlands' system, where the core of each nation was protected from invasion, but the area at the borders (100 blocks on each side, to give an arbitrary example) would be free for conquest. Nations would have room to build without worry of it being torn down, and people building in the borderlands would know what they're getting into.

 

Past that, though, I like 4.0's system. Wars (Particularly invasions) do nothing but cause drama - Conquest most of all. Conquest will be done by getting players to move elsewhere, and I am fairly certain that a willing move will be much more free of drama.

 

As for Raid Rules - I think that they could be removed, with the addition of a few smaller things.

First, make capitals are safe from raids (Unless there's war). Saw this idea elsewhere, it would consolidate rp for nations, and provide a haven for people who dislike raids.

Second, have the staff come down harder on exploit-abusers. People who blockjump and otherwise glitch should get harsher punishments.

[TheBareSheet 194]

Moved to the Great Library. It shall be sorted into appropriate category shortly.