Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ScreamingDingo

YOUR VIEW - WARS

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, WuHanXianShi14 said:

I don’t care what the nitty gritty of war rules is anymore.

 

Just make it so it doesnt end in the total destruction of a nation and their tile, except in the most absolute extreme of circumstances.

 

War becomes a lot less toxic, and OOCly spiteful, when you remove the edgy kid’s tools to destroy communities, and communities don’t have the tension of having their entire existences at risk.

 

I agree, we need to take away your tools. 🙂

 

In all seriousness, nothing should result in the destruction of a whole nation unless they did something equally extreme to actually deserve that. Rebellion, skirmishes, etc isn’t a valid reason to destroy them. It is a valid reason to SUBJUGATE them repetitively but not destroy them outright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, xxx said:

I think recent warclaims have proven that it’s high time for LoTC to ditch the current system and move to a system of dynamic war. I genuinely lament for anyone who thinks they’re going to reform warclaims by adding more red tape, more rules no one can understand, more terms and conditions for people to lawyer with until wars are no longer won by RP or PvP but by who has the favor of the mods. 

 

The current system satisfies nobody; it doesn’t give the PvP-oriented playerbase enough excitement while essentially subjecting people’s RP to the constant looming threat of annihilation by whoever gathers enough inactive shitters into their rally chat. If anything the sheer number of revisions to our war rules should tell you this. There’s something deeply flawed with war on LoTC and it could be improved so much.

 

I’d like to suggest an entirely different way to do war, where war zones are laid out over stretches of the actual map, and territory is gained and lost by who can hold onto it in minute-to-minute skirmishes. Basically, nations agree on a place and it’s set to freebuild, with the same rules we have now except that buildings can be burned down and razed, fields can be salted, and chests can be lockpicked, with proper RP. Objectives are placed in the warzone around forts and towns. Once one side holds the objective for an hour, it flips to their side, controlling all objectives expands the warfront, adding adjacent forts and settlements as new objectives. If both sides agree, a time can be set where the warzone is inactive, so that GMTs don’t get fucked by Americans and vice-versa. But I think this system will self-regulate a lot better than warclaims with a lot less stress added for the GMs.

 

Spontaneity and RP hold sway in this system. Nations can still organize skirmishes and pitch battles, but maintaining your troops and your supply line ultimately decides the course of a war. Map awareness, and strategy win wars, rather than crude, easily-rigged, GMs-pick-who’s-allowed-to-fight warclaims. It’s the ultimate fair system, rewarding consistent activity and ridding LoTC of inactive powermongers and goons. It gives strategies like asymmetrical and attrition warfare, which do not exist in our current system, a chance to shine. Nations which have been fucked by their inability to organize rallies for massive battles they don’t want would have a chance to defend themselves. Not only that, it does this while satisfying our PvP playerbase 24/7, with almost none of the maintenance we currently do for wars. Can I hear some counterarguments?

 

 

Alright, I agree with you on certain points about this but I made these rules and systems with the intent of keeping a realistic restriction on things that the server isn’t mature enough to deal with. This system I’ve made is meant to encourage those pvp-orientated playerbases the option of non-absolute wars while giving the opportunity and extension of diplomatic and conflict RP to something that isn’t filled with toxicity.

 

Your proposal of having a constant war-capture point system is something we cannot do as LotC as a whole. Essentially giving a freeform constant system will allow for abuse and loopholes, trust me if I wanted to do war rules of how ‘I’ truly wanted them, they’d be bare minimum with little to no staff intervention. I’ve tried with this system to add attrition warfare and strategy with the tile system in a way that’s accessible to people but simple enough to allow for the mobility of strategy and different approaches allowed to it.

 

This is my best compromise to try and create an RP based and orientated system that removes the drawbacks of the OOC toxic wars we’ve had for the last few years. Though I need to ensure it’s not abusable and that means the rules will have to be complicated. These rules and terms are objective for a reason, to stop this subjective mod bias. They’re fairly clear cut and can be explained in simple terms by people. I’m trying to do what you’ve suggested with the Grand Strategy system, sorry if I don’t live up to the expectations that you wished for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

War.

 War never changes.

 

Unless you return ScreamingDingo into power.

Then it changes and we all will be yeeted out.

 

(And I'm still the "who the **** even are you guy")

 

Anyway. Only thing I could complain about is the pillage part, which would require massive sums of money to be payed out.

I'm fine with the idea, but amount of cash suggested is imo a bit too large for start of the map. It may cause a massive gobbleup of the money by big powers like empire, essentially blocking every nation from being able to start a war. 

 Perhaps smaller amount for start, or a certain limitation on each nation (2 pillages allowed for 3 months?) Would be a bit more useful.

 

 Rest I'm really happy about. Always admired more "strategic" approach to warclaims, instead of "HURR instapvp yur cupitul is muin"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, ScreamingDingo said:

 

 

Alright, I agree with you on certain points about this but I made these rules and systems with the intent of keeping a realistic restriction on things that the server isn’t mature enough to deal with. This system I’ve made is meant to encourage those pvp-orientated playerbases the option of non-absolute wars while giving the opportunity and extension of diplomatic and conflict RP to something that isn’t filled with toxicity.

 

Your proposal of having a constant war-capture point system is something we cannot do as LotC as a whole. Essentially giving a freeform constant system will allow for abuse and loopholes, trust me if I wanted to do war rules of how ‘I’ truly wanted them, they’d be bare minimum with little to no staff intervention. I’ve tried with this system to add attrition warfare and strategy with the tile system in a way that’s accessible to people but simple enough to allow for the mobility of strategy and different approaches allowed to it.

 

This is my best compromise to try and create an RP based and orientated system that removes the drawbacks of the OOC toxic wars we’ve had for the last few years. Though I need to ensure it’s not abusable and that means the rules will have to be complicated. These rules and terms are objective for a reason, to stop this subjective mod bias. They’re fairly clear cut and can be explained in simple terms by people. I’m trying to do what you’ve suggested with the Grand Strategy system, sorry if I don’t live up to the expectations that you wished for.

 

Hey, I didn’t mean to criticize your post. I agree with everything you suggested 100%, I just think we could push it a lot further. Ultimately, it’s not your revision that’s what’s wrong with warclaims, it’s just the sheer scope of these battles and the slow feature creep of rules like “casus belli” and mandatory rosters and scaling war costs that make them difficult to organize and un-fun for the community.

 

I don’t get it, though – our current system is rife with abuse and loopholes. It relies on communication between staff and players that’s difficult to facilitate. It’s organizing 100-200 people for an event, every single time there’s a battle, requiring devs and GMs to put together a battlefield. The stakes are too high, and people are driven to cheat, to abuse the rules, to subvert RP in favor of OOC power-mongering. Wars end on hairs being split about what a certain CB means, people get banned for breaking technicality rules by showing up without signing up on a roster. 

 

I hate to say it, but balancing warclaims is an impossible task GMs have inherited. Warclaims in Anthos worked so well because they were based on two sides consenting to fight somewhere at a given time and working together with the help of the GMs to organize a large, decisive event. The current system is not built on mutual consent. It pits two sides against each other while forcing GMs to work with both sides, all the while trying to build a massive server-lagging PvP event. In the best case this isn’t too bad but when things go badly you get stuff like the Orc fiasco. 

 

A constant war-capture point system is something that’s easy to automate, taking for granted some technical expertise from our dev team. The largest undertaking would ultimately be deciding the warzone and its objectives, which could be largely put in the hands of players. 

 

Part of what makes it good is the anarchy – the dwarf trench wars were full of technical rulebreaking, but nobody remembers them for the time they lost a suit of iron illegitimately 5 years ago. They were one of the highlights of my LoTC experience and I don’t think I’ve met someone who was there for them who DIDN’T like them. Ultimately we’d be trading occasional, but catastrophic problems (oh, an entire playerbase got annihilated by a rigged pk duel/2500ms lag during a warclaim) with the current system for much lower-stakes issues on a more frequent basis (oh, jimmymc2000 lost his iron set, have the other player give it back to him) for the dynamic option. I’m not sure which one sounds more appealing to you as a GM but as a player I’d much rather have the latter.   

 

Edited by xxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going to close this Your View on the 20th of February. If you have any more thoughts or opinions please contact me beforehand or post below.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×