MRPolo13
The Arbiter of the Gods
I mean I take it back, we had murder in our camp today XDI don't even know anymore. Worst part is that I didn't have anything to do with either of the cases.
Greetings Explorer, Navigate into the Lobby!
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Be sure to "Get Whitelisted" to join the community on server!
I mean I take it back, we had murder in our camp today XDI don't even know anymore. Worst part is that I didn't have anything to do with either of the cases.
It was probably plotted in our camp ((I mean I take it back, we had murder in our camp today XD
Don't give the game awayIt was probably plotted in our camp ((
I think that more depends on how many people are fighting in said war, I know the Anhald vs. Coalition war only had 1 life allowed for the war, and that went fairly well from what I heard. Though I do agree that, should each side have only had 1/2 as many people, more lives should be allowed.Might want to add an option for the two parties involved to have more than one life in the war. Basically they agree or not on a set life limit for each person, whether that be temps or waiting for revival if possible. If agreed upon then decide on how long wait should be before replacement can arrive ect.
With the number of players the server has this allows for actual warfare rather then the few skirmishes it otherwise will be as once fighting starts people drop like flies then standoff ensues because lack of people.
For both sides.Ehhhhhhh I'm not a fan of more lives
>anhaldFor both sides.
Anhald has 20 players, each with two lives.
Hawklight has 15 players, each with two lives.
Means more battles can be fought with more people instead of one battle wiping out 80% of both factions.
I wasn't implying you would, just giving an example.>anhald
>being wusses and reviving
Trick enemies into falling on your sword>Not winning wars in one battles instead of 10
>Not being the MASTER TACTICIAN
lrn2war
That would work then yes. I thought it was meant as a way of making up the huge number disadvantage for some folks.For both sides.
Anhald has 20 players, each with two lives.
Hawklight has 15 players, each with two lives.
Means more battles can be fought with more people instead of one battle wiping out 80% of both factions.
No, I'm with you here. As a relatively large faction, I wouldn't want that work we've put in to get a large, active playerbase of three players go to waste in war.That would work then yes. I thought it was meant as a way of making up the huge number disadvantage for some folks.
This might shock you, but I like these. Have you tested them? Cukie1 mentioned something about shaking out siege weapon ranges, but I don't know if this was part of that.Exactly a year later this seems relevant again. I still think it solves most of the issues we're facing trying to manage our current war in terms of travel and who gets to do what - there's no objectivity, currently.
They were used for one war that ended early on OOC agreement that one of the sides was stressing out over the conflict far too much. The main feedback I got from that was that having set travel times when both sides wanted to get there faster was counter intuitive. Knowing this now, I've added the portion about being able to cut travel times if both sides are in agreement or are trying to make a certain date for an event that the majority of both factions can make.This might shock you, but I like these. Have you tested them? Cukie1 mentioned something about shaking out siege weapon ranges, but I don't know if this was part of that.