Welcome to the Achaea Forums! Please be sure to read the Forum Rules.

A War System Proposal

TraelorTraelor Columbia, SCMember Posts: 70 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished

This war between Eleusis and Mhaldor made me think of what Achaean war means. I would love to see some sort of system that offers real, tangible rewards to players.

I'd like to propose an idea of an official War System for Achaea.

This War System could be used by any organization versus any other organization. Clans, cities, Orders, Houses, etc.

WAR IS AN OPEN PK EVENT

In order to enter into a war versus another organization:

1. Your organization must be an IC org. No OOC clans.

2. Your organization must declare a person to be their War Secretary.

3. The War Secretaries of all participating organizations must agree to begin the war and what the terms of the war will be.

Terms

1. Organizations must declare winning conditions before War begins.

2. Conditions can be: number of player deaths, a time period, organizational gold loss (for repair rooms, etc.), or surrender.

3. Once the conditions are met, the War ends. If one War Secretary surrenders, the other War Secretary/Secretaries can accept immediately. If they don't, the War will end after one Achaean month has elapsed.

4. An organization must wait 3 Achaean years before entering into a new War after the previous one has ended.

5. Up to 4 Organizations can participate in a War.

6. Organizations can declare themselves allies to another Organization for the duration of the war. For example, two cities could be united against one other city.

Rewards

1. Winning a War means loot and plunder! To begin a War, and organization must put up a number of credits or gold. The losing side forfeits this amount to the winners. The spoils of War are passed out, evenly, to all participants on the winning side.

2. During a War, all kills a participant gets versus the opposing side will be worth double XP. Dying to an opposing player during War would mean no loss of XP.

3. The winning participants all receive a base amount of EXP (scales with level) when they win.

4. The winners of the War will receive a commendation that is view able by checking WAR HONOURS <person>.

5. The War's name will either default to Organization-Organization(-Organization) War of <year> or can be named by a joint agreement by the War Secretaries before War begins.

Participants

1. You must declare yourself as a participant in a War before it begins or within one Achaean month after it begins.

2. You will be considered Open PK for the entire duration of the War.

3. You must be logged in for X number of Achaean days during the War to qualify for spoils (set by the War Secretaries before War is declared).

4. You must be a member of the organization for the entire War.

5. The organization's War Secretary can remove you as a participant at any time.

I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts on my ideas.

Traelor - Saving the day since 594

KerriaAchimrstJhaeliRohai
«1

Comments

  • IofielleIofielle Member Posts: 1
    I really like this idea. I think it would make war a little more realistic. I also like that those who do not want to participate in a war can opt out while those who can are able to take part. I think it would bring more of a world-wide feel to the wars, especially with multiple cities forming formal alliances.

  • DaslinDaslin The place with the oxygenMember Posts: 2,492 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Just about the only bit I don't like is this.

    2. During a War, all kills a participant gets versus the opposing side will be worth double XP. Dying to an opposing player during War would mean no loss of XP.

    Double XP bit. The no loss of xp is fine, some might disagree with me, but lets put this in perspective. At lv85, if I get the killing hit on a dragon level person, I get around 3%, so we double that, there's 6% off one kill with no chance of losing that 6%. If it were double xp, I'd prefer if you could lose half of the doubled. I hope I'm making sense, cause I feel like I'm not.

    Kerria
  • TraelorTraelor Columbia, SCMember Posts: 70 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished

    I'll be honest, I struggled with that part of it myself. I settled on that because it encourages people to participate and allows the losing side to still get some benefits along the way. Remember, in this system, if you lose and your organization puts up 100k gold, you're not getting anything on the other side. Erasing XP loss and giving everyone double XP for the duration helps make up for the fact that everyone on the other side is about to pocket gold/credits and XP.

    Traelor - Saving the day since 594

  • AchimrstAchimrst NatureMember Posts: 3,608 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Daslin said:
    Just about the only bit I don't like is this.

    2. During a War, all kills a participant gets versus the opposing side will be worth double XP. Dying to an opposing player during War would mean no loss of XP.

    Double XP bit. The no loss of xp is fine, some might disagree with me, but lets put this in perspective. At lv85, if I get the killing hit on a dragon level person, I get around 3%, so we double that, there's 6% off one kill with no chance of losing that 6%. If it were double xp, I'd prefer if you could lose half of the doubled. I hope I'm making sense, cause I feel like I'm not.

    I have to say if everyone was worth double XP and I lost none while at war, I would be begging to be at war with everyone and find gank parties to run around in.

    TraelorMelodiePraxides
  • TraelorTraelor Columbia, SCMember Posts: 70 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    Achimrst said:
    Daslin said:
    Just about the only bit I don't like is this.

    2. During a War, all kills a participant gets versus the opposing side will be worth double XP. Dying to an opposing player during War would mean no loss of XP.

    Double XP bit. The no loss of xp is fine, some might disagree with me, but lets put this in perspective. At lv85, if I get the killing hit on a dragon level person, I get around 3%, so we double that, there's 6% off one kill with no chance of losing that 6%. If it were double xp, I'd prefer if you could lose half of the doubled. I hope I'm making sense, cause I feel like I'm not.

    I have to say if everyone was worth double XP and I lost none while at war, I would be begging to be at war with everyone and find gank parties to run around in.

    That's the idea :smiley: 

    Traelor - Saving the day since 594

    Achimrst
  • MelodieMelodie Port Saint Lucie, FloridaMember Posts: 4,913 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    I'm also very very iffy on the double xp gain/no loss thing. There should be some danger. I wouldn't mind a -reduced- loss and a marginal buff to the gain instead of the current system (1/3 loss and gain), but I'm not sure admin are going to agree to that.

    Beyond that, it seems like an interesting idea, though I am uncertain how some of it would be hardcoded in (meeting for conditions, for instance). 

    "You have had an extraordinary adventure, my dear. Extraordinary! One that few people could ever imagine. Treasure it. Keep it safe and secure, tucked away in some special place in your heart. 

    But... don't spend the rest of your days chasing a ghost."
    Karai
  • TraelorTraelor Columbia, SCMember Posts: 70 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished

    Plus, when you died to said gank party, you would see something like, "You were killed as participant of the Ashtan-Mhaldor War of 645. Your side has 30 kills left until they lose. Your opponents have 30 kills left until they lose." which would encourage you to grab some friends and  do some ganking of your own.

    Traelor - Saving the day since 594

  • TraelorTraelor Columbia, SCMember Posts: 70 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    I completely agree with everything you said. I don't think the current system is really all that bad, but I want a system that gives people more of a reason to fight than just being liked. If there are real spoils of war available, more people will be inclined to participate in PvP, organizations will have more reason to be involved in realm-wide politics, and players will have more reasons to log in.

    In the end, I want a system that makes people eager and willing to participate, not one that punishes them because someone else made decisions they don't have control over. Yes, that's different than Achaea has been in the past, but I'd like to see things evolve.

    Traelor - Saving the day since 594

  • AnedhelAnedhel Member Posts: 2,367 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    edited August 2014

    Mishgul pretty much hit the nail on the head- at the moment, war is neither important nor meaningful, which means that people can participate or skip out on it as they'd like. Your suggestion is basically modified PK rules, which is fine, but without a modification of everything that war affects, it's just that, modified rules.

    To be honest, what should distinguish war from the constant state of skirmishing the Cities all enjoy, I think, is a way to make war count. Whether you want to propose battles, where Cities field armies based on a pre-appointed time (i.e. Overseer gets a letter one day from his spymaster, saying, "Targossas is marching with an army on Petra, we estimate they'll arrive in X months/days"), which have a more meaningful effect than City raiding (perhaps taking gold from the loser if you win, or imposing a weakening of the losing City's guard numbers, or somesuch, such that war isn't infinitely sustainable without consequence). It gets complicated when you try and get into that kind of thing, though; while I think it'd be neat to tie nearby areas to Cities for certain advantages/detriments, such that attacking targets that aren't the City is fruitful, I certainly know how much trouble that'd cause.

    In the end, a war system defeats the point of Achaea because, as Mishgul said, since it's a game that never pauses, and a game that people come to enjoy, not to work at; any system more involved or complicated than the current one very much treads on a lot of toes- the people who do not like pvp, those who are unaffiliated with conflict but affected by it, the losing side, etc. It's a tough reality, but I enjoyed the game more when I learned to accept it.

  • AchimrstAchimrst NatureMember Posts: 3,608 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Traelor said:

    Plus, when you died to said gank party, you would see something like, "You were killed as participant of the Ashtan-Mhaldor War of 645. Your side has 30 kills left until they lose. Your opponents have 30 kills left until they lose." which would encourage you to grab some friends and  do some ganking of your own.

    So...whoever could gank the most wins?

  • TraelorTraelor Columbia, SCMember Posts: 70 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    Achimrst said:
    Traelor said:

    Plus, when you died to said gank party, you would see something like, "You were killed as participant of the Ashtan-Mhaldor War of 645. Your side has 30 kills left until they lose. Your opponents have 30 kills left until they lose." which would encourage you to grab some friends and  do some ganking of your own.

    So...whoever could gank the most wins?

    Isn't that what war is all about? Killing more of their side than your side?

    Traelor - Saving the day since 594

    Nim
  • AnedhelAnedhel Member Posts: 2,367 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Traelor said:
    Achimrst said:
    Traelor said:

    Plus, when you died to said gank party, you would see something like, "You were killed as participant of the Ashtan-Mhaldor War of 645. Your side has 30 kills left until they lose. Your opponents have 30 kills left until they lose." which would encourage you to grab some friends and  do some ganking of your own.

    So...whoever could gank the most wins?

    Isn't that what war is all about? Killing more of their side than your side?

    No, that's a uniquely Achaean way of looking at war, and exactly why war is pointless and meaningless in Achaea to begin with. War ought to be a way of achieving a goal that you can't achieve through bribery, diplomacy, or intimidation.

    Nim
  • AchimrstAchimrst NatureMember Posts: 3,608 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Traelor said:
    Achimrst said:
    Traelor said:

    Plus, when you died to said gank party, you would see something like, "You were killed as participant of the Ashtan-Mhaldor War of 645. Your side has 30 kills left until they lose. Your opponents have 30 kills left until they lose." which would encourage you to grab some friends and  do some ganking of your own.

    So...whoever could gank the most wins?

    Isn't that what war is all about? Killing more of their side than your side?

    Hitler didn't start WWII to kill the most people in the world, if he did than he probably won that war. Although I am very sure some other notable historical figures could have killed more than him, like maybe Ghengis Khan.

  • TraelorTraelor Columbia, SCMember Posts: 70 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    Achimrst said:
    Traelor said:
    Achimrst said:
    Traelor said:

    Plus, when you died to said gank party, you would see something like, "You were killed as participant of the Ashtan-Mhaldor War of 645. Your side has 30 kills left until they lose. Your opponents have 30 kills left until they lose." which would encourage you to grab some friends and  do some ganking of your own.

    So...whoever could gank the most wins?

    Isn't that what war is all about? Killing more of their side than your side?

    Hitler didn't start WWII to kill the most people in the world, if he did than he probably won that war. Although I am very sure some other notable historical figures could have killed more than him, like maybe Ghengis Khan.

    Hitler started the war because he convinced the Germans that Europe was theirs by birthright. Until we're given a system that allows organizations to take over other organizations they dominate militarily, then war won't be about the things it is in real life.

    The goal with this system is to provide meaningful PvP with tangible rewards to those who are interested in participating. It doesn't need to mirror real-world war to be meaningful, it just needs to provide players with reasons to log in and fight each other.

    Traelor - Saving the day since 594

  • AchimrstAchimrst NatureMember Posts: 3,608 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    edited August 2014
    Traelor said:
    Achimrst said:
    Traelor said:
    Achimrst said:
    Traelor said:

    Plus, when you died to said gank party, you would see something like, "You were killed as participant of the Ashtan-Mhaldor War of 645. Your side has 30 kills left until they lose. Your opponents have 30 kills left until they lose." which would encourage you to grab some friends and  do some ganking of your own.

    So...whoever could gank the most wins?

    Isn't that what war is all about? Killing more of their side than your side?

    Hitler didn't start WWII to kill the most people in the world, if he did than he probably won that war. Although I am very sure some other notable historical figures could have killed more than him, like maybe Ghengis Khan.

    Hitler started the war because he convinced the Germans that Europe was theirs by birthright. Until we're given a system that allows organizations to take over other organizations they dominate militarily, then war won't be about the things it is in real life.

    The goal with this system is to provide meaningful PvP with tangible rewards to those who are interested in participating. It doesn't need to mirror real-world war to be meaningful, it just needs to provide players with reasons to log in and fight each other.

    Killing the most people sounds like an OOC goal not an IC goal. I mean what do you get from it? More XP? These all seem like OOC goals and rewards. Maybe you can get bragging rights for the forums and special protected status for anything you say.

    Edit!
    I mean if you think about it, you can just decide one day. I want to kill a bunch of Cyrenians so the city can get a huge morale boost and a bunch of rewards for killing a bunch of bashers or , not as combat oriented, citizens who just happen to be in the military. Alternatively, they could all just quit the military and then your whole war goal is smashed to pieces.

  • TraelorTraelor Columbia, SCMember Posts: 70 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    edited August 2014
    Achimrst said:
    Traelor said:
    Achimrst said:
    Traelor said:
    Achimrst said:
    Traelor said:

    Plus, when you died to said gank party, you would see something like, "You were killed as participant of the Ashtan-Mhaldor War of 645. Your side has 30 kills left until they lose. Your opponents have 30 kills left until they lose." which would encourage you to grab some friends and  do some ganking of your own.

    So...whoever could gank the most wins?

    Isn't that what war is all about? Killing more of their side than your side?

    Hitler didn't start WWII to kill the most people in the world, if he did than he probably won that war. Although I am very sure some other notable historical figures could have killed more than him, like maybe Ghengis Khan.

    Hitler started the war because he convinced the Germans that Europe was theirs by birthright. Until we're given a system that allows organizations to take over other organizations they dominate militarily, then war won't be about the things it is in real life.

    The goal with this system is to provide meaningful PvP with tangible rewards to those who are interested in participating. It doesn't need to mirror real-world war to be meaningful, it just needs to provide players with reasons to log in and fight each other.

    Killing the most people sounds like an OOC goal not an IC goal. I mean what do you get from it? More XP? These all seem like OOC goals and rewards. Maybe you can get bragging rights for the forums and special protected status for anything you say.

    Winning the war is a very IC goal, as is the loss of whatever the opposing organizations have to give up as part of the War terms. Gold is a completely IC thing so I'm not sure how you see it otherwise. I'm confused as to how killing other players is an OOC goal instead of an IC goal, though.

    In this system War has to be agreed upon by both organizations and only those who agree to fight for their organization get rewards at the end.

    Traelor - Saving the day since 594

  • AchimrstAchimrst NatureMember Posts: 3,608 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Traelor said:
    Achimrst said:
    Traelor said:
    Achimrst said:
    Traelor said:
    Achimrst said:
    Traelor said:

    Plus, when you died to said gank party, you would see something like, "You were killed as participant of the Ashtan-Mhaldor War of 645. Your side has 30 kills left until they lose. Your opponents have 30 kills left until they lose." which would encourage you to grab some friends and  do some ganking of your own.

    So...whoever could gank the most wins?

    Isn't that what war is all about? Killing more of their side than your side?

    Hitler didn't start WWII to kill the most people in the world, if he did than he probably won that war. Although I am very sure some other notable historical figures could have killed more than him, like maybe Ghengis Khan.

    Hitler started the war because he convinced the Germans that Europe was theirs by birthright. Until we're given a system that allows organizations to take over other organizations they dominate militarily, then war won't be about the things it is in real life.

    The goal with this system is to provide meaningful PvP with tangible rewards to those who are interested in participating. It doesn't need to mirror real-world war to be meaningful, it just needs to provide players with reasons to log in and fight each other.

    Killing the most people sounds like an OOC goal not an IC goal. I mean what do you get from it? More XP? These all seem like OOC goals and rewards. Maybe you can get bragging rights for the forums and special protected status for anything you say.

    Winning the war is a very IC goal, as is the loss of whatever the opposing organizations have to give up as part of the War terms. Gold is a completely IC thing so I'm not sure how you see it otherwise. I'm confused as to how killing other players is an OOC goal instead of an IC goal, though.

    A wargoal like kill the most people is not IC, that's clearly an OOC PvP mechanic to force combat. At least in my view it is.

  • TraelorTraelor Columbia, SCMember Posts: 70 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    Well the terms I listed can be a part of the war, or not. It could also just be a War that lasts a certain amount of time, or until one side or the other surrenders. Other terms could be a part of it, those are simply the only ones I came up with.

    Honestly, the idea of a "kill count" feels very CoD to me and I almost didn't include it.

    Traelor - Saving the day since 594

    Achimrst
  • AustereAustere TennesseeMember Posts: 2,225 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Dear Lord,  stop with the quote boxes. 

    PraxidesNim
  • AchimrstAchimrst NatureMember Posts: 3,608 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    edited August 2014

    Ooo, if it was a Holy War where an order sacrificed the bodies to a shrine, that could make the kill count declaration of war thing neat. I'm sure people can come up with good IC reasons for war, not like RL wars ever make that much sense when you look back at them. Sometimes they are just started over stupid crap!

  • DaslinDaslin The place with the oxygenMember Posts: 2,492 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Achimrst said:
    Daslin said:
    Just about the only bit I don't like is this.

    2. During a War, all kills a participant gets versus the opposing side will be worth double XP. Dying to an opposing player during War would mean no loss of XP.

    Double XP bit. The no loss of xp is fine, some might disagree with me, but lets put this in perspective. At lv85, if I get the killing hit on a dragon level person, I get around 3%, so we double that, there's 6% off one kill with no chance of losing that 6%. If it were double xp, I'd prefer if you could lose half of the doubled. I hope I'm making sense, cause I feel like I'm not.

    I have to say if everyone was worth double XP and I lost none while at war, I would be begging to be at war with everyone and find gank parties to run around in.

    i'm a little late on the reply here, but the thing is, gank parties only serve to grief people in the end. It'll drop the pbase even more. If that's how it goes, they'd have to put in rules against more than 2 people in a group against the opposing forces and that's basically stop all conflict.

  • AchimrstAchimrst NatureMember Posts: 3,608 @@ - Legendary Achaean

    I would love to see people screaming out things to taunt the city when they start to raid. "Blah blah blah of Mhaldor demands you bow to Lord Sartan!" Kind of stuff and then they start attacking guards/citizens/NPC's in the city.

    Traelor
  • AnedhelAnedhel Member Posts: 2,367 @@ - Legendary Achaean

    Trust me, after the second or third time, there's nothing novel or clever about it, whether you're on the giving or receiving side.

    NimFlorentinoChiam
  • BukariinBukariin Member Posts: 438 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished

    We can either

    1) Trivialize war by making it some sort of XP farming event without anything at stake, or

    2) Create some additional outlet for city vs. city conflict that allows for both RP and Combat that isn't straight-up 24/7 raiding party extermination war.  The other kind of war will still exist as an option, but there should be some kind of intermediate conflict driver.

    TraelorStrata
  • JhaeliJhaeli Member Posts: 541 @ - Epic Achaean
    edited August 2014

    You know what my favourite part of the Neraeos-Vastar war was? The two Gods set rules ahead of time, terms of victory, and even a prize to be won. Fighters got to duel each other and non-coms had debates, for example, with points going to the winner's side. While I honestly had to go dormant before the end of that war, which turned into something else, the whole set up allowed for people to choose to do what they felt was fun.

    Now, I'm not saying that this has to be the same for a war system, but having some sort of tangible victory conditions or some sort of control on skirmishes so it doesn't become "grief the other side into losing" is definitely heading in the right direction, which is what I can appreciate about Traelor's proposal. 

    Incidentally, I see nothing wrong with someone having a problem with being ganked all day long despite having joined the army. Some people like to enjoy various aspects of the game and sometimes too much is too much. Saying that they shouldn't join the army if they don't want to be involved in combat the WHOLE time they're online for multiple days on end is just dumb, frankly, even in war situations.

    "Gilgamesh, where are you hurrying to? You will never find that [everlasting] life for which you are looking. When the gods created man they allotted to him death, but life they retained in their own keeping. As for you, Gilgamesh, fill your belly with good things; day and night, night and day, dance and be merry, feast and rejoice. Let your clothes be fresh, bathe yourself in water, cherish the little child that holds your hand, and make your wife happy in your embrace; for this too is the lot of man." 

    TraelorMelodieAnedhel
  • BukariinBukariin Member Posts: 438 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished

    And I get that joining the army shouldn't necessarily exclude you from having some "free time" to fatten your wallet and refill your vials.  That's why I think there needs to be an intermediate alternative to war that is shorter and less likely to culminate in a city simply not logging in.

    Traelor
  • NimNim Member Posts: 2,015 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Anedhel said:

    Trust me, after the second or third time, there's nothing novel or clever about it, whether you're on the giving or receiving side.

    Doesn't have to be novel or clever; most roleplaying isn't all that amazing in general anyway. It's a degree of roleplay that takes very little effort and allows for interaction beyond killing each other. Why does that need to be novel or clever?
    Jhaeli
  • ZukoZuko Member Posts: 730 ✭✭✭✭✭ - Grand Achaean
    No need for a War secretary when we have Minister of War though!

  • TraelorTraelor Columbia, SCMember Posts: 70 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    Zuko said:
    No need for a War secretary when we have Minister of War though!

    For a city, sure. But Orders/Clans would need to designate someone as a spokesperson.

    Traelor - Saving the day since 594

«1
Sign In to Comment.