[Poll] YOUR View: Warclaims

[Danny 2232]

Two to twelve hours is fine DEPENDING on the attack. If it's a minor sneak attack where no one is allowed to know about the attack, then two hours. If its a bank,robbery, then one to two hours. If its an all out war, 6 to 12 hours. The GM in question will decide the amount of time allowed before the attack. No one should have to wait twelve hours.for what could have been a petty attack.

I love how you guys want to reduce metagaming by removing warclaims, but are actually just encourage metagaming, by forcing players to notify the town owners oocly, which alone increases metagaming risks, and allowing them too much time to prepare for something their characters have no knowledge of.

So I'm going to ask again. What's going to stop these players to metagame an attack that their characters should have no knowledge of? Such as closing the town gates when it's not normally closed, or rallying diamond armored players who dont even live in that town.

This is not a matter of wanting to win, and not wanting to lose, it's a matter of the opposing parties playing fair. Some players cannot be trusted to play fair and do the right thing.

The fact that a GM is informed before the defending party stops the metagaming; that GM is there to watch the defending party before the battle, and to aid the attackers with ships or equipment, and then to deal with anything during the battle. It is the GMs responsibility to ensure that metagaming does not occur, and if it does - to stop it.

[Aerinyes 402]

The fact that a GM is informed before the defending party stops the metagaming; that GM is there to watch the defending party before the battle, and to aid the attackers with ships or equipment, and then to deal with anything during the battle. It is the GMs responsibility to ensure that metagaming does not occur, and if it does - to stop it.

Here's an interesting question.

What happens when 100 people pour in out of nowhere (Like they do in current wars and in the Aegisian ones)? Once the fighting starts, its not a secret anymore.

Also it seems impractical to punish a large number of players.

This is why I suggest a more casual approach. No winning or losing. And even if the event is metagamed, it isn't ruined. Its just an excuse to go get a little bout of fighting in once in a while.

When you structure things too much, it becomes a competition and that leads to winners and losers, and people trying to bend the rules. Which will lead to drama.

When I played in league play, there was always drama, but we ignored it because competition was the point of the reason we were playing it. LotC and RP aren't competition, and neither should wars. It should be a RP event that furthers plot. Not a means to get items and land.

I say change wars to a consensual agreement between two groups and let them have their fun. I dare this community to try it, just try it for a few weeks and see how they like it. You lose nothing by trying. And its better then not having any wars at all like it is currently.

[Danny 2232]

Here's an interesting question.

What happens when 100 people pour in out of nowhere (Like they do in current wars and in the Aegisian ones)? Once the fighting starts, its not a secret anymore.

Also it seems impractical to punish a large number of players.

This is why I suggest a more casual approach. No winning or losing. And even if the event is metagamed, it isn't ruined. Its just an excuse to go get a little bout of fighting in once in a while.

When you structure things too much, it becomes a competition and that leads to winners and losers, and people trying to bend the rules. Which will lead to drama.

When I played in league play, there was always drama, but we ignored it because competition was the point of the reason we were playing it. LotC and RP aren't competition, and neither should wars. It should be a RP event that furthers plot. Not a means to get items and land.

I say change wars to a consensual agreement between two groups and let them have their fun. I dare this community to try it, just try it for a few weeks and see how they like it. You lose nothing by trying. And its better then not having any wars at all like it is currently.

The person responsible for the metagaming would be punished, and the GM would know who due to them being watching.

Consensual wars wouldn't work - wars are a matter of winning or losing, whether we want them to be or not. You say that war shouldn't be there to gain land, but surely if a war is done correctly and land is gained that benefits roleplay? If we were to make things consensual, then people would simply say no - because they don't want to face losing something, such as land - even though it makes more roleplay sense for them to lose that land, and it would in fact likely benefit roleplay.

It seems to me you simply dislike the idea of war - however, it is a fundamental part of the Lord of the Craft, and is something that does improve roleplay, due to the channels it can open.

[Aislin 4354]

I'd like to propose a change to this, Danny; temporary conquest. It's not bound by as many rules, and the land has to be defended by the original attacker again at some point within the next forty-eight hours to keep the land. Or something like this. Basically, the attackers don't need a navy or bordering land, it could just be a large group of really angry Orcs setting up a temporary camp.

I like this.

[Aryon 679]

By the sounds of it, you don't like battles occurring on a weekday, during the evening (EST evening that is). Honestly, I can't see them not happening on a weekday evening (EST). Even though weekdays are hectic as they are, you'd still find that a substantial amount of players will still be able to get on a join in on the battle. The only people that would be affected are players in Asia/Oceanic/Australian regions. Whilst there is not many people who play from those regions, let alone have RP reasoning to fight in these battles.

Furthermore, I would also like to say something that concerns people who like to preference their own time and date by posting on the warclaim post. This will possibly drag onto the "No war-claim system", and especially for battles that consist of nations. First and foremost, its borderline selfishness, please don't do it, you come here for RP not PVP, if you miss out on a battle tough cookies. (Aryon, this means you, and "It must be on weekends" is said by you, a lot.)

/endrant

First off, I am in the majority of wars, simply because my character would be there. Orcs seem to get in a lot of wars, and I was an Orc. Secondly, if it's something like 8pm EST, that makes it 12 am GMT. Most Europeans won't be allowed to stay up until midnight on a weekday, let alone play MineCraft at that time, and scream on TS. As selfish as it may seem, I actually think of others.

[Lock 'eed Ironheart 120]

I don't want a nation leader gm assisting in a war. Fact of the matter most game communities require, no its a rule. That you can't be a guild leader or ruler and a game moderator at the same time, unless of course they own the server/game. There is and always to much at risk and question for favouritism and biased regard to his/her friends or their enemys.

If at the time of a war is thrown up who's to say it isnt hosted by the nation ruler and no other gm is on at said time? You can relate that at certain times there are 0-1 gm's on at certain time frames. Then there is the question of stagged wars where the group gets things lined up for when no one would be on and they all go online and throw a war up. Metagaming I know but you can't prove it, the group would claim they did it at the last minute yadayada and no one would get punisihed.

Gm's being both leads to stress and boredom, don't give me that bull that anyone can do it. Because the fact and track record in the past has shown people in power usually flip out months down the road or do some questionable things or just up and quit and pull a big bang at end. Being a leader for large groups of people and then being a moderator for a even larger playerbase is worse. Needs to be a gm application rule from now on. And last, wars need to have a spot on week to be allowed so everyone would know "oh the weekend is comming up thats war time got to get on and make sure no one I ticked off is comming".

Gm's, pick one or the other.

Make wars on weekend only where the week is a time to prepare and ready relations.

Less stress, drama and work equals more enjoyable playing. I have nothing against said ruler gm's but if you pull completed war claims and take an hour to read through them, you can see there is a breaking point on them and it shows.

Thats my two cents, my opinion.

[Danny 2232]

I don't want a nation leader gm assisting in a war. Fact of the matter most game communities require, no its a rule. That you can't be a guild leader or ruler and a game moderator at the same time, unless of course they own the server/game. There is and always to much at risk and question for favouritism and biased regard to his/her friends or their enemys.

If at the time of a war is thrown up who's to say it isnt hosted by the nation ruler and no other gm is on at said time? You can relate that at certain times there are 0-1 gm's on at certain time frames. Then there is the question of stagged wars where the group gets things lined up for when no one would be on and they all go online and throw a war up. Metagaming I know but you can't prove it, the group would claim they did it at the last minute yadayada and no one would get punisihed.

Gm's being both leads to stress and boredom, don't give me that bull that anyone can do it. Because the fact and track record in the past has shown people in power usually flip out months down the road or do some questionable things or just up and quit and pull a big bang at end. Being a leader for large groups of people and then being a moderator for a even larger playerbase is worse. Needs to be a gm application rule from now on. And last, wars need to have a spot on week to be allowed so everyone would know "oh the weekend is comming up thats war time got to get on and make sure no one I ticked off is comming".

Gm's, pick one or the other.

Make wars on weekend only where the week is a time to prepare and ready relations.

Less stress, drama and work equals more enjoyable playing. I have nothing against said ruler gm's but if you pull completed war claims and take an hour to read through them, you can see there is a breaking point on them and it shows.

Thats my two cents, my opinion.

GMs participating in wars would be removed temporarily from their rank during the battle. The GM overseeing the battle would be neutral. GMs can be contacted at all times of the day - contact one via Skype, TeamSpeak or the forums if one isn't online. The matter of GMs not being allowed to be Nation Leaders is un-related to this topic.

[Aerinyes 402]

The person responsible for the metagaming would be punished, and the GM would know who due to them being watching.

Consensual wars wouldn't work - wars are a matter of winning or losing, whether we want them to be or not. You say that war shouldn't be there to gain land, but surely if a war is done correctly and land is gained that benefits roleplay? If we were to make things consensual, then people would simply say no - because they don't want to face losing something, such as land - even though it makes more roleplay sense for them to lose that land, and it would in fact likely benefit roleplay.

It seems to me you simply dislike the idea of war - however, it is a fundamental part of the Lord of the Craft, and is something that does improve roleplay, due to the channels it can open.

Where have I ever said I disliked the idea of war? I supported warclaims when they first came out. I don't support the vitriol and drama they have caused however.

And I think you misunderstood what I have been saying. Players aren't going to simply say no because under the suggestions I have been making, they wouldn't lose anything for losing the battle.

Also you're not giving enough credit to our current nation leaders. Out of the five, which ones would cause issues with what I am trying to suggest?

[Lock 'eed Ironheart 120]

GMs participating in wars would be removed temporarily from their rank during the battle. The GM overseeing the battle would be neutral. GMs can be contacted at all times of the day - contact one via Skype, TeamSpeak or the forums if one isn't online. The matter of GMs not being allowed to be Nation Leaders is un-related to this topic.

Good to know that's where it stands.

[Danny 2232]

Where have I ever said I disliked the idea of war? I supported warclaims when they first came out. I don't support the vitriol and drama they have caused however.

And I think you misunderstood what I have been saying. Players aren't going to simply say no because under the suggestions I have been making, they wouldn't lose anything for losing the battle.

Also you're not giving enough credit to our current nation leaders. Out of the five, which ones would cause issues with what I am trying to suggest?

Wars aren't limited to Nation Leaders - guilds, house and nations all are able to go to war.

[Kanrath 190]

Honestly, the servers whole idea of "sneak attacks" is frigin silly... I mean, 20-30+ players (which would be likely mean 100+ theoretical support npcs for food and such) suddenly showing up at a nation through the nation's fast travel boat? You can't march an army over any real distance without a great chance of being spotted. The fact is right now people when they want a sneak attack simply say "Oh and you can't know about this at all". That is silly, any nation would have lookouts on their walls and scouts and such patrolling their lands. Sneak attacks should have a maximum number of attackers say 5-10 and not be allowed to bring siege, cannons or any kind of military hardware because bringing any of that clearly makes you out as an attacking army to any passer by and would slow down your ability to evade scouts and outposts. The only exception could be when the attack occurs over a very short distance from the attackers home location or Base of Operations, say after they have captured part of nations outlying lands already and set up a war camp within a short distance of the target.

It should also be required that you may not use a location's fast travel to suddenly port into the nations front yard, since this is silly and I doubt a dwarven boat would allow a bunch of armed orcs onto it to sail to dwarven city. Any subsequent fast travel would need to be set up by the gm overseeing the battle at a location appropriate to the conflict and at least outside any enemy territory.

As for being unable to attack land that is not bordering, I agree with this as it is only theoretical that the land that splits you would be an allied nation, in most cases it will not be and trying to hold a land over long distances is extremely difficult as many nations learned during the colonial years, as ships can be blockaded, supply lines cut and many other things like such make this kind of military op a nightmare.

As for not needing the ok of nation leader, I'm sorry but as soon as you remove the option for a nation leader to require a greater review of an attacking nations rp you make wars extremely one sided and unpleasant. And don't give us any of that "if done right its fun rp for everyone" because it's never done right, I've been in numerous wars over the months and the only time each side enjoys it tends to be when the defenders win, because the attackers don't loose much and the defenders don't loose months worth of work to someones half done rp. And even then its rare, most times no matter who wins a lot of people are not happy and shouts of bias and such get thrown around. I would almost prefer we actually did war like wars were done back in the old times, on a field somewhere where two clashing armies met and did battle on a field. The idea of every battle holding the fate of someones land and work is kind of silly, I mean if you look back to med-evil times most wars were over forts and Castles, very rarely did a nation hang in the balance, and when it did it was often because many enemies had gathered together to attack, much like Salvus.

I would honestly prefer if we had a designated war battlefield, where nations could war for resources and such by taking keeps and castles that were in fact built under the idea they were to defend against an attack instead of everyone being forced to deal with the tendencies of the few groups of players who enjoy pvping to ruin the work of others often at the expense of the enjoyment of many players. This would allow for a more controlled battle simulation, where battles didn't just suddenly show up at a nation's doorstep or a town's doorstep. Of course we would still have to have exceptions under the rare situation that a nation has angered the greater population of the world into seeking their destruction and perhaps we could set it up so where only after defeating a nations war borderland keep you could move onto their actual territory. This could be done through a multi world or such.

Sorry if my thoughts are a bit scrambled, just woke up.

[Lago 2572]

Multiverse wars? Not sure how workable that would be, but it sounds like it has potential.

[Sultan 3953]

To skippy all those wars no one lost anything in them

And Sythria that the only way I think it would work, we would let some land be taken but it would be disgnated but inward land of a nation the ones around the captial can not be taken.

[Sporadic 2844]

Well, a lasting belief of mine is that for Warclaim RP, as for any sort of RP, OOC consent must be given from both parties. I think that both nonconsensual warclaims as well as miscommunication cause complications. In addition, the former often leads to the latter, e.g. The offending party does not wish to reveal anything about the attack because they fear the defenders will sabotage it due to being disgruntled OOCly.

There is a viewpoint out there, championed by Gaius Marius, which states that the Defending faction's failure to comply with any Warclaim put against them is a case of 'egocentrism'. One should properly react to attacks no matter what the circumstances. This holds even if the Attacker's purpose is complete obliteration.

I personally think this errs on the extreme side, especially because it is followed by giving a great number of advantages to the offending party (e.g. surprise attacks --> miscommunication). This is defended by such advantages being 'realistic', a word I'm not a fan of because this server is forever unrealistic.

I do believe there is such a thing as 'general consent', however. In this theory, as long as a faction has 'opted in', the Gaius Clause is valid for them and should be obeyed. But 'general consent' is given in more ways as once. Oren and Orcs are a given, because these nations are build on warfare and conflict. A similar argument could be made for the Dwarves. High Elves have ALSO given 'general consent'. They have never aggressed against anyone, but their racist attitude and expressed disgust for Orcs flags them as 'welcoming conflict'. High Elves can be warclaimed for any reason, not just 'punishing racism', simply because they opted in.

General consent should be a clearly defined thing, and every faction, town and nation should be fully aware if they have given it or not. A few examples that might be equivalent to a faction giving general consent:

• Creating a warclaim of your own.
  
• Hosting a raid condoned by faction leaders.
  
• Open declaration of hostility or unfriendliness towards another party.
  
• Slavery, smuggling or other criminal acts condoned by faction leaders.
  
• Holding base on conflict hotspots or strategically important areas

Not an exclusive list, obviously. The gist is that if you give people a valid reason to attack you, you are open to attack for any reason. The difference is that players will know, prior to the deed, that they are a valid target. This will give factions far less of a reason to sabotage because at one point, implicitly but with explicit knowledge, they have already consented.

If general consent is given, you cannot simply opt out. This should be obvious. You would have to go about it the way the Mori did- drastically change lore, abolish slavery and raids and cease outward aggression.

Of course, not having your character age beyond 20 is not sufficient for giving general consent (Dawn's 'witch' justification. The Ordinators are a different story.)

If general consent is not given, a defender is free to accept or decline a warclaim put against them. This is conditional consent. If their reason to decline is "we don't have a military and we don't feel like getting our peaceful RP ruined by 200 armed men", that is their right. The halflings would be an example. If Oren wishes to conquer them again, it is by their honor and dedication to good RP ONLY that halflings would have to accomodate this. Nothing can force them.

[Aerinyes 402]

To skippy all those wars no one lost anything in them

And Sythria that the only way I think it would work, we would let some land be taken but it would be disgnated but inward land of a nation the ones around the captial can not be taken.

Alot of Asulon isn't designed with that in mind. All three elven nations for example are just capitals. They don't have any outlaying territories (unless you count Elandriel). But I guess its a boon and a curse. No territory to lose, but no expansion either.

Though 3.0 could be designed with that in mind. Maybe 2-3 areas inbetween capitals for nations to squabble over.

But that doesn't solve the issue now of course. But my idea does require the least amount of work and the least amount of rules to put into play. The downside is there isn't any meaningful change of hands to actually show on the map who's 'winning'. But who knows? Perhaps the leaders will make it interesting.

Players of the month shows that the server has some players that come up with neat ideas and excellent RP. So I have no doubt that some interesting things could come of this.

Yes, there might be some orc attacks thwarted by a simple 'no' here or there. But I'm sure once the leaderships can talk things out OOCly that things can happen. Besides what guild leader out there wouldn't agree to an attack? Usually players don't see their characters in leadership positions because they're unreasonable.

Of course it is the attackers responsibility to make sure their attack makes sense and is fair. Also I'm thinking from an attackers point of view. What fun could 100+ vs 10 be? Well for many it is fun because they are getting land out of it. Thats not fun at all for the defender. The odds are more likely to be closer when the idea is to have fun with the fight itself, rather then trying to get spoils.

In other words, you get more bragging rights when you beat a 20 v 20 rather then a 100 v 20.