[Proposal] War Guidelines

[MRPolo13]

I don't even know anymore. Worst part is that I didn't have anything to do with either of the cases.

I mean I take it back, we had murder in our camp today XD

 

[Jeroxia]

I mean I take it back, we had murder in our camp today XD

It was probably plotted in our camp ((

 

[Pandora12Q]

It was probably plotted in our camp ((

Don't give the game away

 

[Electric]

Old-Seadog we might need this info

 

[Heie]

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.

 

[CyberChaosV2]

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.

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.

 

[Immerael]

Ehhhhhhh I'm not a fan of more lives unless the side that is at an advantage also agrees. It kind of negates a big advantage of having a big faction. What good is it to make a huge faction of 20 players if a faction of 2 players can revive 10 times and beat you that way.

 

[Jak]

Ehhhhhhh I'm not a fan of more lives

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.

 

[Cap]

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.

>anhald

>being wusses and reviving

 

[Jak]

>anhald

>being wusses and reviving

I wasn't implying you would, just giving an example.

I certainly wouldn't revive my character were he to die, and that's the opinion of many in Hawklight too.

 

[The Courier]

>Not winning wars in one battles instead of 10

>Not being the MASTER TACTICIAN

lrn2war

 

[CyberChaosV2]

>Not winning wars in one battles instead of 10

>Not being the MASTER TACTICIAN

lrn2war

Trick enemies into falling on your sword
Best tactic
"Hey, you get cookies if you do this."
"Aw hell yeah!" *runs self through*
"Jokes on you, they're oatmeal raisin."
"YOU SCUM OF THE EARTH!"

 

[Immerael]

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.

That would work then yes. I thought it was meant as a way of making up the huge number disadvantage for some folks.

 

[Jak]

That would work then yes. I thought it was meant as a way of making up the huge number disadvantage for some folks.

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.

 

[Heie]

Note that I suggested it as an optional rule, that both sides would have to agree to before war is started.

Also yes, both sides would have to get same amount of revives. Unless someone felt particularly boastfull and gives themselves a handicap.

 

[Rygan]

hey uhhhhhhhhhhhh i wrote this

 

[Rygan]

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.

 

[Somnastra]

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.

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.

 

[Rygan]

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.

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.

 

[Tomato150]

Was there any inclusion of other mechanics outside of battles? I.E., A legendary smithy or alchemist on one side giving the usage of better swords/potions in battle, or is it whatever they can scrounge up? I'm just curious to see how other such measures are (or not) taken into account