Rhisereld 317 Share Posted October 6, 2012 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. Yes, just yes. I am concerned that the new warclaim system won't address the issue that small peaceful factions are completely vulnerable to obliteration by nations. Consent is required for most other roleplay - I don't see why it should be waived so easily for warclaims. If they act in a provoking way, then sure. Knock yourself out. Just remember that if you're looking for an excuse to file a warclaim with the sole purpose of getting moar lootz/vast tracts of land, you're doing it wrong. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narrogan (Nathan1506) 42 Share Posted October 14, 2012 I think wars in general, as in real life, destroy the whole experience. If you come here to role-play and to be peaceful and such you should be able to opt out of wars or something. Its silly when you live happily then some douchebag decides he wants your land and there's nothing you can do because he has more people than you. pathetic. I also hate the idea of PvP. That people can engage in conflict with people who they disagree with. If this is allowed then those people should be punished accordingly, with REAL jailtime (not like 1 minute). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
no longer active 734 Share Posted October 14, 2012 I think wars in general, as in real life, destroy the whole experience. If you come here to role-play and to be peaceful and such you should be able to opt out of wars or something. Its silly when you live happily then some douchebag decides he wants your land and there's nothing you can do because he has more people than you. pathetic. I also hate the idea of PvP. That people can engage in conflict with people who they disagree with. If this is allowed then those people should be punished accordingly, with REAL jailtime (not like 1 minute). So your saying how you want to be able to RP should be more important than how someone else wants to RP? My char that I have been playing for 15 months is a warrior. But you think it ruins the experience! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordOctopus 8 Share Posted October 14, 2012 I really like this idea, but a side should be able to decline no matter what if they have less than 25% population of the opposing army. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acornlad 206 Share Posted October 14, 2012 I say that there is a private Sub-forum put up which only has visibility to the person who posted a thread, Forum Moderators, Global Moderators and Admins. In this Sub-Forum, war claims would go here with the place, time and reason. This would keep wars happening for no reason as well as stopping meta-gaming for approved war claims. If this is possible, I would love to see it implemented. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteelMarshall 190 Share Posted October 14, 2012 From what I have read on the forums it seems as if warclaims were generally regarded as something that turned good RP into mindless death, and that warclaims would then ensue simply out of OOC hatred. This system seems as if it will work because it promotes RP and makes it a lot harder for players to meta and get away with it. I say, despite whatever insignificant weight my personal opinion may carry, go for it. If there are problems, they'll come to light soon enough. Worse comes to worse, we know what to work on for next time. Trying something new, even if success isn't guaranteed, is better than continuing with something we KNOW doesn't work. In the famous words of the revered (at least by dwarven RPers) Gimli, son of Gloin; "Certainty of death, *small* chance of success... What are we waiting for?" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groobs03 297 Share Posted October 14, 2012 Regardless of what you do, wars are always going to be very hectic and the losing side will always call faults. The point in my mind is what makes more rp sense, I don't feel there is much rp sense in war claims in the fact that if you are taking a group of people to attack someone for say.. an insult on your family. Are you going to be angry about it two years later when your war-claim is allowed to go through and such, it doesn't make rp sense to me that you would wait such a long time for a whip lash like such. BUT, if we want to go on claiming other people's lands, then I feel there should be a bit of a waiting time, as rply you would need to ready the men and supplies, and oocly you would need to work a time where everyone can be on for such an important event, although if we were to have a siege and make it last a rather long time rply, say a week or so rply, that would make for much rp fun. Finally, as I said, you will never have a war where both sides are completely happy with the outcome, the only thing you can do is make it as rp sensible as possible and try to balance a bit of fairness with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beneh 227 Share Posted October 16, 2012 I think the poll speaks for itself to be honest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
shiftnative 3103 Share Posted November 7, 2012 War-claims were meant to be like event proposals, where players decide the terms, show off roleplay & images in the thread and eventually act out various scenes of war. This oldschool method might prove more useful, but I will be anticipating some forum posts with details about the battles! :] 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aryon 679 Share Posted November 7, 2012 So uh, we free to set up fights? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorum© 623 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Does that make this official? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jchizz 115 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Question. What is the limit of attacking players allowed before these regulations will have to go into affect? For example, say a criminal group is plotting an assassination of a high-profile political figure. The assassination and ensuing escape/battle might end up involving at least half a dozen people... and warning the target in advance could (and in the past has) lead to instances of meta-gaming. Would this criminal group be required to follow regulations, or is it only necessary with, say, 10 or so players, or is it only necessary for formal raids or invasions? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 2232 Author Share Posted November 8, 2012 Question. What is the limit of attacking players allowed before these regulations will have to go into affect? For example, say a criminal group is plotting an assassination of a high-profile political figure. The assassination and ensuing escape/battle might end up involving at least half a dozen people... and warning the target in advance could (and in the past has) lead to instances of meta-gaming. Would this criminal group be required to follow regulations, or is it only necessary with, say, 10 or so players, or is it only necessary for formal raids or invasions? 5. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.png.4e5370fc69f142d96a905e477cd5dd97.png)
Recommended Posts