May I humbly suggest that there be more CTF (Capture the Flag) events? Not only more, but on regular basis. Why?

CTF every 24 days (that's example, biannual in game) would help channel in-game ideological conflicts and enable a somewhat meaningful way to temporarily resolve them until next one. This could somewhat (maybe) diminish the importance of raids which are tiresome when done as often as now and which as it's been established, are extremely hard to make fun for all involved. It would slightly open possibilities of new sorts of interaction among players between those two events in which they could devote themselves for preparation for the next CTF, if not for more peaceful stuff. More CTF would make organisational relations more dynamic and easier to change in less time.

Knowing when CTF would take place is another advantage because interested players on all sides would know where this would happen and would be prepared. This way, it's easier to make sure all sides have their forces at considerable strength and not only a few competent defenders. Novices could stay safely away, those who are not into combat also, but everyone could help.

The reward should be made slightly more beneficial for the winner.

People would get tired of them very quickly if they were every 24 days.

every 40 days with a 5-10 bound credit prize for every citizen of the winning citizen that logged on during it(or similiar) would be alright.

40 days is a pretty good time frame.

This would be pretty nice, actually.

Assuming all normal CTF stuff applies (no XP loss, essence loss, cause, etc).

I've railed for this for a while and the answer was a pretty solid negative if I remember correctly. Penth said he'd bring it up to Maya long ago, so I can only assume she said no.

While ideas like this are cool, not everyone wants to have Achaea basically time-freezed for an hour/two hours for a CTF. Though I suppose a CTF every 40 days for 2 hours is not a large amount of time. Hmm.

The people that would oppose two hours of their time being taken up for the purpose of, most likely, letting the rest of Achaea have no-exp loss fun can be ignored, quite easily.

Or, how about a better idea, try to figure out a way to make raids more fun and less meaningless?

CTFs don't really make a whole lot of sense immersion-wise, they're fun, but they don't really contribute to the atmosphere at all. They kind of break it for me. Also, the fact that nothing can change aside from who gets the prize is kind of annoying: better to try to make people a little less covetous of their precious textp than to simply say "Oh, you don't like losing experience, here you go, you don't have to anymore". Achaea doesn't need to make conflict any more pointless. And finally, putting them on any regular schedule like this would probably eventually get boring and tiresome (-cough-landmarking-cough-). I don't really ever see this happening and I'm pretty happy about that.

Oh, also, how would this resolve conflicts? I really don't see Shallam suddenly deciding to cease hostilities with Mhaldor because they held more flags for two hours.

The reason CTF's are so fun right now is because they are such a big event that doesn't happen all that often, so you can plan around them and they become sort of central to the politics at the time, and give a good update to how the landscape of Achaea has shifted. Every 40 days on a schedule is sort of meh... even though that is a long time.

Addendum: How is two hours of scheduled forced combat (people tend to be expected to participate regardless of ability thanks to the lack of consequences) with almost no consequences for participants and no real RP motivation ("the gods said that we should try to capture some flags, that they'll be tallying points, and that the winner will get some small prize" is not really compelling RP motivation) reasonable and preferable to RP-motivated fifteen-minute to half-hour raids with mostly optional participation and some actual risk involved?

The other reason CTF's are fun is that people know in advance that they're going to happen. Participants on all sides actually have a chance to, well, participate. They can join in, and even hope that they might actually have some friends to fight alongside them. Unlike raids, where the raiders get to decide when they occur. Which is why most raids are so lopsided, aside from sheer boredom or perhaps stupidity there's no reason to launch a raid when you don't hold a clear and decisive advantage.

http://forums.achaea.com/index.php?showtop...p;hl=war+system


This is a good idea for conflict in my opinion, to make raids more meaningful

Because at some point we all have to realize this is a game. Lighten up a bit, realize that not everything has to be 100% roleplay-motivated, and have some fun. It's amazing how we all spend hours a day playing a game, yet 98% of us treat it like a 9-to-5 job.

As for being forced into combat during a CTF... uh, no. I'm pretty sure that you can always QQ away.

That sounds sweet

Here's my idea for CTFs, have new categories.

- Gold CTF. This would be the current CTF between all cities.

- Silver CTF. Only 4 cities participate (the current Gold award holder stays out, plus one city in rotation). Flag sites are reduced accordingly. The award earns less XP.

- Bronze CTF. Between 3 cities (Gold and Silver holders stay out, plus one city in rotation). Flag sites reduced, smaller XP bonus than Silver.

The CTF schedule would go Gold - Bronze - Silver, and you could step it up a bit more than it is currently because not every city would be in every CTF.

@Korben: The cities not participating would just send people to the aid of cities participating. A CTF with Mhaldor, Ashtan, Hashan, and Shallam playing would just see Eleusis and Cyrene help Shallam.

Yes, but what if Mhaldor and Ashtan are both out, who do they help ? Or Cyrene / Shallam / Eleusis ? Interesting combinations can still come up.

Besides, it's not a given that everyone in a city would show up to help another in a CTF. Remember when Ashtan and Mhaldor had a deal going but Ashtan citizens pulled out when there was nothing in it for them ?

Korben, your idea is dumb because it will just cause dogpiling.

If Mhaldor and Ashtan are both out, then Hashan will win.

Interesting, that was sort of my point actually. It is a game. More specifically, it is a roleplaying game. My point is that you can easily enjoy and have fun without being so concerned with winning. I'm saying DON'T treat it like a job and lighten up a bit. You can still have PLENTY of fun while your side is "losing".

Also, retaining the ability to QQ is not the same as simply making a system that doesn't force people into things quite so much. It's the exact same problem as landmarking with people either being gang pressed into participating or avoiding the game entirely during that time. Neither of those is really a good thing in my mind.

Yes, please!

Sorry, I must have just misunderstood you.

More CTF please

that is all...

Anything can become RP motivated with a little help from the Garden or leaders. Instead of a 'mini Effigy of Victory', I like that the winning city would receive some gold income, perhaps some credits, with which it could use to strengthen the city or citizens. In that light, the flags could be gold mines, as was stated earlier, and the event becomes much more RP relevant than capturing flags.

Instead of focusing on the fact that CTFs have 'no consequences', focus on the fact that CTFs allow mediocre combatants who do enjoy fighting do so, but without having to lose 7 levels because Mhaldor/Ashtan will likely always be at the top of the food chain. This gets more people involved, and that in turn makes it more fun. The event becomes all about the battle, not about who won or lost the most experience, and that is truly why they are enjoyable.

I'd personally prefer a war system that resembles an actual war, but cosmetic changes are vastly easier and also make a huge difference. There is something of a point to it all once it's grounded in RP, even if it's the exact same system as before.

Cosmetic changes could help somewhat. But really what we're talking about here isn't just having more CTFs, it's having CTFs used as the main mode of inter-city conflict (see the title of the thread). While more CTFs wouldn't necessarily be bad and giving them some cosmetic changes would improve them, I think that making them the main mode of conflict is restrictive, hurts immersion, and dumbs things down unnecessarily. Also, I'm generally in favour of conflict being as player-generated as possible. Give players interesting new routes to create and resolve conflict aside from and in addition to raids (there are a few, like trade embargoes, though, as mentioned, they don't mean a whole lot in light of autoclass) rather than simplyifing conflict and making it into a periodic game of capture the flag.

Also, if CTFs like this are meant to slow down or stop the raids, there will need to be some sort of limit on raiding to go with it. Mhaldor is probably never going to say "Hey guys, we already beat Shallam in a CTF a RL month ago, we don't need to raid them". Admins would have to actually outlaw or severely restrict raiding in addition to providing more CTFs. This is not really an ideal solution in my mind as it not only takes conflict-generation and puts it in the hands of the admins (more CTFs), but also REMOVES some of the conflic that players can create right now (raids).

@Aerek Please, more thinly-veiled whining about how Mhaldashtan will always win and no one else should ever bother trying. It really improves your posts. Also, if you lose seven levels during a fifteen minute raid (try actually reading the post), or any raid really, I don't know how I can help you.

Edit: Thought I should add that I am a mediocre combatant and it is still very possible to enjoy raids (and I've been on both the winning and losing sides of them many times since I've been playing Achaea, so don't give me any of that nonsense about only saying this because I'm currently in Mhaldor). I have never lost more than a single level in a raid (and that was when I was on the cusp) and I generally find that being on the losing side of a raid is actually more fun.

Reminds me of a time when I was losing the Battle of Hoth badly on Star Wars: Battlefront II. I was kind of irate about how horribly I was losing until about halfway through, when I was hiding in one of the trenches in front of one of the Rebel command posts I'd just managed to retake when an AT-AT came and started blasting everything. I hid in the trench to get out of its range while the player controlling it moved it right over my trench to put a respawn point right next to the post I'd just captured.

I can still remember how awesome it felt to be crouching in that trench with one of the AT-AT's feet directly above me while snowtroopers popped up all around, heading towards the bunker holding the command post just before I jumped out of the trench and sprinted away as fast I could. I can still remember how awesome it felt, in other words, to be losing.

Now, that little rant was mostly me just reminiscing about an awesome moment I had playing an FPS a while ago, but it brings up two very important points, I think. First, if you've got the right mindset, losing can be awesome. Second, that mindset comes because you get properly immersed in the world, which happens because the battle itself feels awesome independent of the awesome feeling of winning. Losing felt good in the above example/narcissistic rant because there was a huge AT-AT bearing down on me and a half-dozen hostile soldiers unloading to seize a bunker I'd just secured. If it had been a half-dozen hostile soldiers killing guards or uprooting a totem, I don't think it would feel nearly as cool. They were trying to seize an actual position which, while technically had inherent value because of game mechanics, felt like it had indirect value by virtue of being a vital defensive position.

Meaning that losing is only fun when it feels like you're losing a battle, not losing a game.

I lost 2 levels in a raid on Eleusis..7 deaths and having to pray 3 times. All it did was make me bash more today and want to work on combat so next time I die less.

I agree that all conflict shouldn't revolve around the CTF similar events, and I, too, would like to see a new, in-depth, and effective war system. We've been waiting for one of those for years, though, so if that's not possible, smaller CTF-like events might go help vent some of that competitive agnst.

Also, spare me your sarcasm and work at your reading comprehension, I was pulling numbers out of the air to illustrate a point. What I was trying to get across is that every city has a fair number of folks that may enjoy combat and conflict, but are not really skilled enough at it to keep from dying repeatedly from the talented warriors and raiders, whatever side they're on. This prevents them from participating. The experience-less combat in the CTF events removes that inhibition, which pulls more people into the fighting, which makes it more fun.

My comment towards Mhaldor and Ashtan was meant to illustrate that those cities always bring a strong game, and dislodging them usually takes some doing. Thus, throwing yourself against those cities' defenses repeatedly is a daunting task, and you'll likely lose some folks that don't want to die so much. If you remove the 'loss', you gain more participants, so it just comes down to what you'd rather have: a large battle or a smaller one with XP gains and losses.

I, too, am a mediocre combatant, though I've always participated in the raids, wars, and other conflicts that flare up. I enjoy those, whether I win or lose, but I see plenty of folks QQ because they value their XP more than I do. I don't want to see this mini CTF idea replace Achaean conflicts and wars, but it seems everyone enjoys them, and if they bring more players to the table, why not have them more often?

I apologize for the double post, but it struck me that the Capture the Flag event is also fun because the battle is fought on several fronts. Generally, in raids and events, the battle is fought over one room, an item, or some other individual goal. The conflicts that I remember as the most fun tend to be the ones where the battleground moves, or where we have to split our resources to cover more ground.

Xhaiden Dale was fun because (as I was told) it was mostly small groups fighting other small groups. The battle for the Underworld was fun because, after the initial charges, the two groups split into smaller pockets of warriors that fought all around the Underworld, not just at the root. The CTF, of course, is fought over multiple locations at once.

My point is that if we could emulate this in the standard event battles that take place, and other forms of conflict, it may improve the feel of Achaean conflict all around. By forcing the opposing sides to hold two or three locations at once, you have a longer battle with better flow and more options than repeated 20v20 melees. Is this merely my opinion?

Well, losing at shooters, RTS's and TBS's is always more fun because when it's done you reset to zero and are ready for another go. Losing at persistent games means that when you come back you have that loss to recoup, whether it's in terms of rebuilding shrines, buying back guards, regaining exp/essence or fixing totems. So if you're constantly losing you get a tedious rebuilding process after each loss which eventually wears you down, rather than the loss itself.

Like Bleak said, it's like dying in a videogame with the last savepoint hours ago.

Which is also part of the problem. The targets in a battle are things that get destroyed and then must be rebuilt, not things that get captured and must be retaken. Guild Wars, for example, has a PvP system on Cantha wherein two different warring factions gain or lose territory depending on which side is currently winning the PvP battles. I enjoy Faction PvP much more than normal PvP explicitly because territory can be gained or lost and everything isn't just reset to zero after it's over. The problem here is not so much that things aren't being reset to zero, but rather the nature of what is lost when you lose a battle. Instead of conspiring to take it back, you roll your eyes and head back to the grind to rebuild it. We need some method of capturing/retaking things, I think. This has the double advantages of giving more purpose to conflict and leaving non-fighters pretty much completely out of it, except in that winning cities might be able to harvest essence/gold/comms/whatever from whatever it is that's been captured.