[Poll] YOUR View: Warclaims

[Aerinyes 402]

Wars were done very well in Aegis from what I can remember. They were focused more on the event rather than the taking of territory. The winners got bragging rights, nothing more.

I think something similar should be added in here. Let the ownership of territories be decided OOCly between the two leaders. I'm sure things could be worked out that way. There shouldn't be any sort of OOC rewards such as territory or items given by default, that should be worked out OOCly. I saw some of the Orcs and Dwarven conflicts resolved that way and it seemed they had fun with it.

The emphasis should be on fun. If one side isn't having fun, they shouldn't be told 'tough luck, you're losing territory'. Thats when drama, banreports, and resentment set in. If they can't work it out, then they talk it out with a GM and see about a compromise (and fix the OOC resentment that is happening).

If you can't be friends OOCly with your IC enemies, then it shouldn't be allowed to continue.

[Nefarious Aus Shitpost 891]

Will the five-man raiding rule still apply? (no GM/alert required)

[Thu'um 530]

Due to the fact I had participated with the war (Subudai v. Skravia) I can attest to the coherent misuse and metagaming that occurred. The event was a mess and lead to the blatant metagaming from Skravia about the Subudai attack. Several people were mistakenly banned and it was a mess. I vote for the claims to be removed.

Danny, let us dance in the meadow.

[The Victor Blair Project 36]

IT would make great sense do do this.

[Dio Astóre 69]

A tincy-wincy addition to the new format - which I mostly support - would be permitting overseeing GM's to create a temporary non-PvP region if it is appropriate; more for the larger battles. It gives the players a phase where they can focus on emoting without having to worry about that zealous archer breaking sprinting records along the rampart. Call it horrible aiming in-character that those pointy tips don't do anything. A quick flag enable / disable and some local announcement to denote the progress.

Town leaders I should like to think are responsible enough to care about not only the experience of their own players but also the other party's. If they need some extra help managing it or an outside opinion than a GM opinion is perfect. Common courtesy would dictate a fair warning; where's the fun in raiding Silent Hill? Make a screenshot of a PM being sent be mandatory; if there's no response then a war-claim of sorts might be a viable end solution should further attempts at communicating prove infertile.

[Temp 2006]

I'm ALL for the new system. It restricts OOC conflict. Heavily. Most individuals leading groups, are mature, decent RP'ers. Hopefully this will work out for the best.

[sir lusty 15]

2 hours? I say atleast a day, to allow his players to be online and such. Because isn't it metagaming if not all the players can be potentially online..

Also a good example of why Warclaims were implemented in the first place is because back in Aegis when the Orcs fought the Dwarves, the dwarves came randomly EVERY day when we usually had 1 or two people online and would declare attack, that is just rediculous even with the 2 hour notice because sometimes people can't have all there players on, etc.

Agreed 2 hours is not enough time

i myself have a +6 hours timezone from Americas and that means i could be sleeping while my city was under attack it would also be unfair to choice a time like 9 pm Americas time because then its 3 am in my country and almost the same time in rest of Europa. I believe that if your system should happen then battles should still be plant out but maybe just between a gm and leaders from both sides.

[Sultan 3953]

Wars were done very well in Aegis from what I can remember. They were focused more on the event rather than the taking of territory. The winners got bragging rights, nothing more.

I think something similar should be added in here. Let the ownership of territories be decided OOCly between the two leaders. I'm sure things could be worked out that way. There shouldn't be any sort of OOC rewards such as territory or items given by default, that should be worked out OOCly. I saw some of the Orcs and Dwarven conflicts resolved that way and it seemed they had fun with it.

The emphasis should be on fun. If one side isn't having fun, they shouldn't be told 'tough luck, you're losing territory'. Thats when drama, banreports, and resentment set in. If they can't work it out, then they talk it out with a GM and see about a compromise (and fix the OOC resentment that is happening).

If you can't be friends OOCly with your IC enemies, then it shouldn't be allowed to continue.

No Wars were not done at all in Aegis. Because there was no such thing as proper war there was no threat of losing something, there was no threat of losing your capital or any of your land.

I was one of the two people that made a lot of wars in Aegis Gaius made more than me. I recall Gaius being frustrated many times over people just saying you can not do this and no you well not attack and when he did attack and take a city he was not allowed to keep it.

It was never relay an event it was just a large pvp there was also mini rp once the war started.

So in fact everything was the same.

Now the difference between that way and the way of the War Claims, in the war claims you lose and when you lose you may lose land and even your nation. And there were more rules to abide to with War-Claims..

The main reason people disliked and hated war-claims is because if they lose a war they would lose there land, buildings, money, and items. This brought in another problem hate when someone takes another's things the victim starts hating the attacker.

War-Claims well never work for most if it was up to two people to consent. Because no one wants to lose.

And that's why we can not have nice things. The only way War's well work is to remove the losing aspect.

[Aryon 679]

-snip-

No, people hated War-Claims because we had to get our hands held by GM's to do the simplest of things.

[Aerinyes 402]

No Wars were not done at all in Aegis. Because there was no such thing as proper war there was no threat of losing something, there was no threat of losing your capital or any of your land.

I was one of the two people that made a lot of wars in Aegis Gaius made more than me. I recall Gaius being frustrated many times over people just saying you can not do this and no you well not attack and when he did attack and take a city he was not allowed to keep it.

It was never relay an event it was just a large pvp there was also mini rp once the war started.

So in fact everything was the same.

Now the difference between that way and the way of the War Claims, in the war claims you lose and when you lose you may lose land and even your nation. And there were more rules to abide to with War-Claims..

The main reason people disliked and hated war-claims is because if they lose a war they would lose there land, buildings, money, and items. This brought in another problem hate when someone takes another's things the victim starts hating the attacker.

War-Claims well never work for most if it was up to two people to consent. Because no one wants to lose.

And that's why we can not have nice things. The only way War's well work is to remove the losing aspect.

No one wishes to lose, and I will ask this, Why should anyone lose? If Roleplay happens and everyone has fun, everyone wins.

In all of the RP I have done in MMOs in the last decade, there was no 'losing'. When a character defeated another, the one that fell did not die. They did not lose items.

Most combats were settled with a /duel. In EQ and WoW this puts two players into PVP with one another with the loser simply dropping to 1hp and the 'winner' is announced. The one who lost the duel would simply depart in some manner, either being carried off in RP or being left for dead. Larger combats were settled with /guildwar or arenas (open PVP areas), or if different factions in WoW, /pvp.

Actually going for a killing blow was considered godmodding, a form of powergaming. This was considered taboo in MMO RP.

Wars were handled in a similar faction. In WoW we would simply show up in the enemies city and fight with any who flagged up and attacked. This would last for about 10minutes to an hour until one side obviously overpowered the other and then we all went our merry ways.

Now with that said, I do not understand why we cannot have similar things here. In LotC I have seen more ban reports within a week then I have seen or heard of /petition or /report in that decade of RPing.

A Week vs 10 Years. I think its something worth trying for.

The idea of a RP server is to cooperate and generate stories. Not compete with one another for land or items.

When the Warclaim system was put into place, I thought it was a good idea. I have previous experience in Planetary Leagues in MechWarrior that use a similar system, with Assaults, Scouting, Raiding, ect. You have planets which effectively function as regions here. You try to take as much territory as possible using your military might. You can also use diplomacy to work with other factions/nations to accomplish these goals.

LotC, like those leagues has the motivation driven by OOC desires and interclique motivations. The difference is in those planetary leagues, that was the whole idea. To simply take the things away from people you liked the least. RP was not a goal or a concern.

LotC should instead be focused on the RP. To effectively have RP conflict, communication has to happen between both sides. There has to be an understanding between both parties. I have seen this work before, back in MMOs where you weren't forced to RP with people. However the villainous actions and the wartype conflicts were done far more smoothly and with people not getting upset. It wasn't perfect, but the amount of serverwide drama caused was minimal.

I say give it a shot. Implement a system where the region owners talk to each other OOCly and agree to a terms of a conflict. This would eliminate the need for warclaims or any sort of modreq (GMs have enough to do already). If they want to trade territory depending on the winner, that could be up to them. It could be a sort of wager between them like in a poker game. Or they could simply have a battle for bragging rights.

There's nothing to lose by trying this. And in RP, when no one loses and everyone has a good time, everyone wins. When players argue and get upset, everyone loses.

I'd rather have everyone win.

[Danny 2232]

People concerned about timezones - like it states, if an attack is to be done at a time when the server has a low population online the GM may refuse it.

And Mogroka, the main reasons people hate War-Claims is that it restricts them further and makes them make another application. It opens the door to metagaming massively and it removes the aspect of spontaneous wars people used to enjoy. People lose with both systems, in fact there's no change in what they can lose with the new one, its the same as with the War-Claim losses?

Aerinyes, the point about no ModReq is the one part I've got to disagree with there - A GM is really required to be present in case of arguments, false kills, if something goes wrong and to also be there to provide support for any artillery being used, etc. If the GM team is made aware at least two hours in advance it gives us time to make sure there's appropriate amounts of staff online to deal with the battle and with regular players just roleplaying.

[Ever 2648]

No Wars were not done at all in Aegis. Because there was no such thing as proper war there was no threat of losing something, there was no threat of losing your capital or any of your land.

Purge vs Galahr war.

Purge lost their base of operations, including everything in their armory.

Had the Purge won, they would have taken the city of Galahar.

[domainoft 191]

Will War party leaders be exempt from the "don't return to the battle after death" as they were in Aegis?

[Danny 2232]

War-Party leaders will still be bound by that rule - meaning they'll be a strategic target in wars.

[Jexdane 213]

War-Party leaders will still be bound by that rule - meaning they'll be a strategic target in wars.

*cackles loudly*

Otherwise, I completely agree with this. I have never even been involved in a warclaim, but the arguments and fights that I have seen caused by them are enough to make me vote to change to this new system, because honestly, some of the worst drama on this server has been caused by poorly executed wars, which happen far too often than anybody should be comfortable with, ie. the dwarf vs. teuton war, for an extreme example.

[EDIT]

Does anybody remember the attack against..gosh, what was it..Wraths Clutch in Aegis? At least, it was a fortress owned by Wrath. A battle to attack that place was suddenly planned one day, and the White Ravens got called in within..probably about three hours, where they built a quick FOB, and the battle started, with the Malinor Wardens working in the background to set up walls. Suddenly, a druid came in, and he grew a ton of massive trees to help scale the castles walls, which we quickly took.

In the end, it was extremely fun, and the whole battle lasted about two to three hours, even though it was only planned a few hours before. I want to see more battles like that, than these ridiculous warclaims. If we had had warclaims in Aegis, I have no doubt that more than just the Malinor Wardens would have been there, and the entire thing would have just dragged on and been meta'd, to the point where I just would have avoided it completely.

The fortress was made into ruins soon after the battle, with vines and broken walls, which I used regularly to set up secret meetings, because it was a nostalgic location for my character. I mean, he practically helped spearhead the assault (most of the wardens were offline come battle ._. ).