Project Danehammer.

[Knox213 10]

I will address the concerns you have posted when I'm home.

[TJBMinecraft 821]

This actually sounds father cool and fun.

[Britannicvs 2508]

With battles lasting for 6 hours these battles are going to divert attention away from roleplay to pvp. Which isn't good for a Roleplay server.

[seannie 7443]

6 hours ago, InfamousGerman said:

saturday moshpits > whatever this is

^

[Abeam 511]

I work 60 hours a week, as much as people complain about Saturday warclaims n all, I have a feeling people will complain about 18 hour long commitments during the weekdays of all things.  I can barely pop on during the weekend, and greatly enjoy warclaims, but this just seems too much tbh.  Its a roleplaying server, running around pvping for 18 hours isn't role play.  Just fix the casus-belli system to be less red-tape bull.

[Nathan_Barnett36 1564]

get out of here nordicgod!

[Ixli 1472]

I thought this said project banhammer and I got excited 

 

this is cool too I guess 

[Medvekoma 2073]

10 hours ago, Xarkly said:

You could address these more significant issues by getting rid of literal pretend red tape like the alliance rule, and perhaps take an alternate approach to CBs. Maybe simplify the process, but look at reducing the outcome of war from total destruction so nations won't fight tooth and nail to deny CBs and you're not left with a lot of unhappy and displaced players.

 

This. Implement a new system of CBs / Wars that limits the OUTCOMES from the wars and not the wars themselves. If orcs want to prove themselves better & raid a nation for loot, then let them do it, but limit them to humiliation/pillage instead of total nation destruction. Player vs Player conflicts are backed by the revivals & are controlled for meme-y / troll-y RP through blacklists. Why not do the same for wars?

 

12 hours ago, Raomir said:

Why not have the fighting take place Friday/Saturday/Sunday, instead of spread out across the week?

 

My main concern here is that the vast majority of staff members are American, and as such I dread these battlefields will take place in ungodly hours for European players. This wouldn't only further deter European players from playing on the server, but would also severely cripple nations with a decent EU-time player population (Krugmar, Kaz'Ulrah).

[zaezae 1098]

Man but like, why can't we just do a great big fight and just get it over with?

[Knox213 10]

I will break the responses down so that I don't have to repeat myself multiple times.

 

17 hours ago, L0fi said:

Looks interesting. Though I don't know if I'm reading this wrong; will there no longer be fort/keep sieges? And only the capital of a nation?

@L0fi There will be, though they will fall under the standard warclaim system.

15 hours ago, Raomir said:

Why not have the fighting take place Friday/Saturday/Sunday, instead of spread out across the week?

 

In addition, is there any way these battles could take place in the real world? I'm personally not a fan of this whole new era of having battles take place on separate servers. I miss the days when you could actually escape the battle alive even if your side loses, or that some random guy can just accidentally happen on a huge battle taking place. The lag shouldn't be too intense now that the fighting is a lot more spread out. 

That would cause a community burn out for both players and staff. I don't think you realise how time consuming it is for our staff team to moderate this.

 

As for the second statement, absolutely not. I don't want players being able to just return to battle and the problems which previously occurred from the real world coming back.

 

 

10 hours ago, TheWitherKingHD said:

With battles lasting for 6 hours these battles are going to divert attention away from roleplay to pvp. Which isn't good for a Roleplay server.

It's your choice to go to the battlefield or not, nobody is forcing you to leave role play.

 

8 hours ago, Abeam said:

I work 60 hours a week, as much as people complain about Saturday warclaims n all, I have a feeling people will complain about 18 hour long commitments during the weekdays of all things.  I can barely pop on during the weekend, and greatly enjoy warclaims, but this just seems too much tbh.  Its a roleplaying server, running around pvping for 18 hours isn't role play.  Just fix the casus-belli system to be less red-tape bull.

 

Ultimately this is only a trial period and feedback will be reviewed towards the end of June before potentially being implemented. 6 Hours was the initial idea put into place to allow people across different time zones take part, but we'll see. 

2 hours ago, zaezae said:

Man but like, why can't we just do a great big fight and just get it over with?

This is why.

0

 

On that note, don't knock it until you try it.

[Anderssn 1115]

3 hours ago, Medvekoma said:

 

This. Implement a new system of CBs / Wars that limits the OUTCOMES from the wars and not the wars themselves. If orcs want to prove themselves better & raid a nation for loot, then let them do it, but limit them to humiliation/pillage instead of total nation destruction. Player vs Player conflicts are backed by the revivals & are controlled for meme-y / troll-y RP through blacklists. Why not do the same for wars?

 

 

My main concern here is that the vast majority of staff members are American, and as such I dread these battlefields will take place in ungodly hours for European players. This wouldn't only further deter European players from playing on the server, but would also severely cripple nations with a decent EU-time player population (Krugmar, Kaz'Ulrah).

 

 

Agreed, and additionally for the battlefields, 6 hours is way too long and it will force everyone to camp and sit for several hours and will probably get really boring as soon as the other side stops trying, while taking a break will put the flag at risk. So lower battlefield times please. Also another concern of mine is that unless we get a mechanic way to set the respawn timers, it would be very hard to keep track of everyone's 10 minutes.

 

As for CBs, one issue is that right now there are no different types of WAR. It's always conquest or destruction. CBs should be the base for different types of War, not a way to limit war. And with several different types of CBs combined you can make out your war goals.

 

Religious Wars: Schism/Crusade with relative CB(s) where goals may be limited to forcing or banning a certain religion. Aggression Wars: Conquest for territory or subjugation etc. War of Succession/Civil wars, when the seat of power is contested by many. Rebellion/Revolution/Independence War. Humiliation and Pillage. You get the idea.

 

 

Also will the sides have forts like in warzones and how will you tackle retreating from battle(/mainsend?) Personally I'd prefer no forts or very limited forts, something you can't just camp or hide in, but works as a spawn location.

 

[Britannicvs 2508]

@Knox what I meant was with these long battles to decide how wars end out there will be less players in nations and activity decreases. It also alienates European players as they won't be able to decide the outcome of the battle.

 

 

[Medvekoma 2073]

1 hour ago, BenghisKhan said:

As for CBs, one issue is that right now there are no different types of WAR. It's always conquest or destruction. CBs should be the base for different types of War, not a way to limit war. And with several different types of CBs combined you can make out your war goals.

 

 

[PeachLova 585]

Having attended various warclaims in the past, this new concept sounds interesting! Can't wait to see it in action. 

[Christ 939]

I very well respect this idea, good to se some new changes, shoutout my nibba Knox. He hollin' It down for the hood B, REP YO SET HOMIE! FREE MY NIBBA OCEAN (Although he deserved his ban)