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

How do people view war in Achaea?

2

Comments

  • XadenXaden Member Posts: 2,315 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Saea said:
    I think a war between Mhaldor and Targ could be really fun! We seem to be pretty evenly matched.

    And might help to revitalise a currently stagnating playerbase in both cities (though I'm only guessin' at Mhaldor, here)
         He is a coward who has to bring two friends as backup to jump people hunting.

  • SaeaSaea Member Posts: 35 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    Stagnant? No, silly. @Aegot and @Melonie and I are in the process of staging a coup. We're hoping the old and slightly daft leadership of Mhaldor will be too blind to recognize the difference.
    AhmetDalranHalos
  • XadenXaden Member Posts: 2,315 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Rohai said:
    Xaden said:
    So yeah, bring on war. Targ should always be at open war with someone, hell, make it a yearly cycle, Ashtan713, Mhaldor714, Hashan715, rinse and repeat. Set agreed goals OOCly if need be. Or ICly if at all possible and just have at it.
    I tried this a while back. No one was into it, so I dropped it, but we could give it another shot if you think it might gain traction this time around.
    It might be worth talkin' to Taurus OOC about it, then ICly set terms or what have you. As  I said above to Saea, I do think it would at least get some alts/n00bs into the city. Maybe draw some oldies back in from other cities. It'd make it hard for n00bs who can't fight, but the solution there is to discharge 'em from the army. 
         He is a coward who has to bring two friends as backup to jump people hunting.

  • SobriquetSobriquet Member Posts: 2,286 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    We already have a "war" by simple virtue of the opposing factions and beliefs. What we have is a series of battles fought in cities, "skirmishing" outside and combat in open PK areas. "War" as it stands in Achaea is just an acknowledgement on both sides of what we already know with the added element of soldiers being open PK. This doesn't work well because the combatants have fresh meat to play with and will.often see it as a way to get easy kills, thus reducing it into a gank fest which gets people turned off and Xbox's turned on.
    image
    Shirszae
  • PatroklosPatroklos Member Posts: 213 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    The problem I have with the current war system is that it's no longer about keeping the fight contained. Once you start using radiance to force people to leave the city (not by one room or two, but multiple areas distance) and then kill them, five on one, then you're there just to be assholes. I can see real world applications for that sort of thing, but in a fucking game? C'mon, we're all here to try and have fun; don't be Manu.
  • AmranuAmranu Member Posts: 725 ✭✭✭✭ - Eminent
    War needs siege mechanics so it has an actual point and way to finish it without people deciding they're tired of it.
  • GrandueGrandue Member Posts: 382 ✭✭✭✭ - Eminent
    Two Year War.

    City leaders write out concession speeches before war starts and it gets approved by other city leader. Whoever loses the war has to publicly post the concession speech and give the winner 1-5 million gold. Losing city's MoW has to step down and cannot take up the position for another 5 years. The entire ruling council of the losing city will be publicly executed and their Council Room, city entrance, bank, news room, and library will be destroyed in a glorious victory parade. X amount of essence donated to the divine of the winner's choosing. All participants in the war will be unenemied and hostilities between the two cities will cease for 2 years to allow things to settle down and for people to get a breather. 

    1 point for each destroyed room
    2 points for key rooms like the bank, library, etc. 
    perhaps 1 point for each city owned ship sunk by another city owned ship (no points for sinking personal ships or for using a personal ship to sink a city ship)

    For a room to count as a point it has to be destroyed between the hours of X and Y GMT (maybe a 6-8 hour window) This prevents middle of the night raids and still gives some bit of rest from the constant onslaught during the war. 

    Obviously this would be customized for each war/city but it would have a definite ending point and a definite winner/loser. 
    DalranAilea
  • ExelethrilExelethril Member Posts: 3,350 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    No one likes losing factionally, that's why me and Iakimen got raided 2-20 by Mhaldor and all guards wiped/tanks stolen/rooms blown/totems uprooted. 

    Current war system is basically just legal permission to gank anyone that steps outside or see who can grief harder/beat the other team's morale down harder.

    [ SnB PvP Guide | Link ]

    [ Runewarden Sparring Videos | Link ]
  • PatroklosPatroklos Member Posts: 213 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    No one likes losing factionally, that's why me and Iakimen got raided 2-20 by Mhaldor and all guards wiped/tanks stolen/rooms blown/totems uprooted. 

    Current war system is basically just legal permission to gank anyone that steps outside or see who can grief harder/beat the other team's morale down harder.
    This is the bullshit I'm not okay with. At least when Tanris was running the A-Train, he would realize when the fight was over and pull out instead of the shenanigans I mentioned above. It's one of the big reasons I don't participate in Eleusis raids and left the army. I'm not okay with every raid being a grief fest where the raiders outnumber the defenders 3 - 1. I give Ashtan credit that they were outnumbered almost 2-1, but once it was clear that the leadership wasn't going to be able to fend them off it they should have just bounced. Adding insult to injury by forcing people to wing/gare/universe out to kill them is pretty uncool.
  • YselaYsela Member Posts: 119 ✭✭✭✭ - Eminent
    No one likes losing factionally, that's why me and Iakimen got raided 2-20 by Mhaldor and all guards wiped/tanks stolen/rooms blown/totems uprooted. 

    Current war system is basically just legal permission to gank anyone that steps outside or see who can grief harder/beat the other team's morale down harder.
    Glass houses are fragile. Careful.

    I do agree with your main point though (in theory, haven't seen one in practice).
    Aegoth
  • CooperCooper IowaMember Posts: 5,000 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Patroklos said:
    No one likes losing factionally, that's why me and Iakimen got raided 2-20 by Mhaldor and all guards wiped/tanks stolen/rooms blown/totems uprooted. 

    Current war system is basically just legal permission to gank anyone that steps outside or see who can grief harder/beat the other team's morale down harder.
    This is the bullshit I'm not okay with. At least when Tanris was running the A-Train, he would realize when the fight was over and pull out instead of the shenanigans I mentioned above. It's one of the big reasons I don't participate in Eleusis raids and left the army. I'm not okay with every raid being a grief fest where the raiders outnumber the defenders 3 - 1. I give Ashtan credit that they were outnumbered almost 2-1, but once it was clear that the leadership wasn't going to be able to fend them off it they should have just bounced. Adding insult to injury by forcing people to wing/gare/universe out to kill them is pretty uncool.
    That's actually not true. When Tanris was in his prime he was extremely known for over staying in raids and being fairly griefy about it. He got talked to and told by admin to lay off several times. He would listen to some people if he was oocly contacted though. 

    SherazadAnedhel
  • FarrahFarrah Member, Secret Squirrel Posts: 2,329 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    War with Mhaldor could be fun. Any other city would just do that thing where they have 2 times as many people as our scrub army of half non-tritransed people. :(

    Targossas really needs to wake up some fighters.
    Atalkez
  • TaelTael Member Posts: 1,197 @ - Epic Achaean
    edited April 2016
    I think the current system of raids instead of "wars" actually makes a lot of sense - adventurers are a small fraction of the established population of each city, so some fraction of that fraction "going to war" is sort of a silly concept. We're talking about "wars" between dozens out people out of huge, populated city-states.

    Raids make a lot more sense - guerilla warfare, blowing stuff up, sabotage, etc.

    If we ever get an actual, meaningful war system, it will be pretty silly if it doesn't involve commanding large numbers of troops. And while people have tried to come up with designs for that before, I don't think I've ever seen one that was both impactful and fun for everyone involved. Most systems also tend to be wildly overcomplicated, basically bolting a whole other game onto Achaea. It sounds like Tecton and company might be trying again, but I honestly just don't know if it's doable. More "war-like" conflict systems would be nice, so combatants have more in-character reasons to fight in general, but I just don't see how you get the kind of largescale consequences everyone thinks of when they think about actual full-on wars without giving people the power to make the game periodically really unenjoyable for a lot of people.

    What I really wish we could see more of is "wars" run as Events. Instead of events always being about some neutral third-party so everyone can participate, it'd be neat to see more big events that actually play into the big organisational dynamics that have always been Achaea's greatest strength. We've had things that were close, like proxy warfare in Shala-Khulia, but never direct warfare and I think there's a lot of untapped potential there. Even without a character in Mhaldor or Targossas, I would love to see an event that is basically "shit gets real between Mhaldor and Targossas" with big marching armies, breaching the walls of a city, negotiation of actual consequences (where the losing side can't just say "Why? What are you going to do, kill us? We'll just respawn."), maybe even a brief period of occupation and some fun sub-events for La Resistance. I wouldn't mind not being a part of it because it would add a lot to the feeling that the world is mutable and alive, though I can also think of plenty of ways that other cities and individuals could be made a part of the event too (I want to see Cyrenian blacksmiths smuggling weapons to Targossas behind the Senate's neutrality order!). Or hell, involve everyone with a nice world war! Kick it off with the assassination of a duke for extra fun, we have a few lying around!

    I'd love to see events like actual wars where players had input like in the Reckoning (Imagine having goals like trying to raid and blow up certain rooms! Or maybe noncoms need to build supplies or forge weapons? There's a ton of possibility!), but where players weren't the ones necessarily conducting the actual warfare. So we'd see things like troops travelling and camping or whatever, and big dramatic sub-events like one city breaks through the gates of the other and invades, and players would influence the course of warfare and participate, but they wouldn't instigate and determine it. That seems like the best way to make wars meaningful, distinct, and fun, while keeping enough in admin hands to prevent griefing and manage frequency and all that.
  • AodfionnAodfionn Seattle, WAMember Posts: 1,216 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Life in occupied Targossas or Mhaldor would be beautifully dystopian and sounds like an absolute blast of a concept
    Aurora says, "Are you drunk, Aodfionn?" 

    (The Targossian Academy): Halos says, "Go on! I need to feel the wind in my hair!"


    TaelHalosDalranDaeir
  • QwynQwyn Member Posts: 247 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    I think Lusternia hit a good note with the village revolts, and that same concept of punctuated, timeboxed territory skirmishing could be a good basis for a warfare system. From my experiences in other games, complete conquest of an enemy tends to be very demoralizing to the losers and eventually boring to the winners - slogging through war, being on non-stop alert, open PK, under assault, etc, for weeks at a time just isn't fun gameplay, especially now that the average player age is older and we tend to be busier. Most people just don't have the time, nor do they want to do war 24/7. Look at Aetolia's war system as an example - it basically ended up with people QQing for weeks.

    Focusing, instead, on campaigns to capture bits of territory (eg villages, forests, etc)  gives players tangible goals/victories/losses and physical impact (eg fly the winner's flag or tithe comms/gold or control the bashing zone, whatever), while delineating the combat within a short, clear-cut amount of time. I've seen that work quite well in other games, where troops and combat were more about small skirmishes to defend territory, or 1-2 day long campaigns to capture new territory, versus marching on another city for weeks and completely conquering them.
  • BlujixapugBlujixapug Member Posts: 1,833 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Aodfionn said:
    Life in occupied Targossas or Mhaldor would be beautifully dystopian and sounds like an absolute blast of a concept
    Maybe if you were one of the ragtag band of desperate rebels who triumph against overwhelming odds to save their homeland. In reality there's a 97% chance you'd be one of the dead littering the streets, or the demoralised masses occupying the slave camps, potato farms, cannibal pits, breeding stables, or laboratories of profane experimentation.
    image
    Qwyn
  • SzanthaxSzanthax San DiegoMember Posts: 1,906 @ - Epic Achaean
    Aodfionn said:
    Life in occupied Targossas or Mhaldor would be beautifully dystopian and sounds like an absolute blast of a concept
    Maybe if you were one of the ragtag band of desperate rebels who triumph against overwhelming odds to save their homeland. In reality there's a 97% chance you'd be one of the dead littering the streets, or the demoralised masses occupying the slave camps, potato farms, cannibal pits, breeding stables, or laboratories of profane experimentation.
    I think that's the idea.. imagine a few months where targ was mhaldor2. Most of the loyal dead or converted.. the player base being forced to convert... Citizens unable to speak for fear of retribution... Guards stationed in the city that track down heretics. I dunno...could be fun playing a slave city...



  • KietKiet Member Posts: 3,142 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    edited May 2016
    It would be cool RP but I suspect most people would just qq for the occupation unless it was guaranteed to be short.

    Occupation would also get pretty uninteresting after the like... third time it happens to you/because of you.
    HalosSherazadSzanthaxQwyn
  • SarathaiSarathai Member Posts: 2,139 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Fun RP for the oppressors, probably not so much for the oppressed. I don't think people would be having fun after maybe a couple of days at most.
    - (Eleusis): Ellodin says, "The Fissure of Echoes is Sarathai's happy place."
    - With sharp, crackling tones, Kyrra tells you, "The ladies must love you immensely."
    - (Eleusian Ranger Techs): Savira says, "Most of the hard stuff seem to have this built in code like: If adventurer_hitting_me = "Sarathai" then send("terminate and selfdestruct")."
    - Makarios says, "Serve well and perish."
    - Xaden says, "Xaden confirmed scrub 2017."



    PenwizeQwyn
  • MelodieMelodie Port Saint Lucie, FloridaMember Posts: 5,008 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    edited May 2016
    Occupation would definitely have to be shortish to remain interesting, more than a week and people are just gonna qq and not log in, which is against this whole idea. That said, roleplaying being the loser (if the winners are interesting and not just douchy about it) can absolutely be interesting, but does require some form of restraint on the playerbase's part (and we know how that goes historically, for everybody).

    I love the actual storyline behind it, but I struggle conceptually/mechanically with it. Lot of holes that could get some real abuse.
    "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."
    HalosShirszaeExelethrilRohai
  • MinifieMinifie Member Posts: 2,255 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    taking over a city for a month would be pretty fun. Of course, in return for being occupied once the occupation ends the invading city is ejected and can't declare occupation for a certain time, and the city itself is returned almost all the resources (guards etc) they lost at either free or a very low cost. If you take back the city in that time, you get it all back for free and win a small prize for your city :D.

    My ideas are horrible and I'm a bad person.


    (Mhaldor's Next Top Model): Taryius says, "Oops, thats not a foray. Thats two novices going at it in the wilderness."
  • PenwizePenwize Member Posts: 1,494 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Melodie said:
    (if the winners are interesting and not just douchy about it)
    So ... if we were playing a different game then?
    ShirszaeQwynExelethril
  • MelodieMelodie Port Saint Lucie, FloridaMember Posts: 5,008 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Penwize said:
    Melodie said:
    (if the winners are interesting and not just douchy about it)
    So ... if we were playing a different game then?
    I've seen (and been apart of) isolated incidents where there are very very clear winners/losers (this is used a little loosely) done well and interestingly. But these were small-scale. So it's possible, just, the more people involved, the more intensely difficult it becomes.
    "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."
  • TydasTydas Member Posts: 232 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    Just some random ideas that I came up with under the influence of some pretty decent scotch:

    What about territory that's under control of a certain city, nearby. That territory gives the city resources on a monthly basis, something small enough that it's not a huge deal, but big enough to think about. If an enemy city wants to, they can somehow mechanically take control of, partially or wholly, and not only deny the city those resources, but also gain those resources for themselves instead.

    You can have villages (Tasur'ke for Hashan, Thera for Ashtan, etc.) that pay taxes in gold, so the city has a small, steady income of gold. More "natural" locations can offer up other resources like stone, wood, silver or gold, etc. If an enemy city wishes to stop that gold, they must "take" the city, through mechanics I've not yet thought of.

    In addition to the areas assigned to the city, you can also have neutral areas that also have resources that can be claimed partially or wholly by one city, partially by several cities, and must be worked at by citizens in order to increase/decrease influence and therefor resources gained. I'd want a difference between the assigned and neutral areas, though I'm not entirely sure on it.

    You can do the same for "neutral" villages: have citizens go and "proselytize" to villagers, attempt to persuade them that their city and general alignment is the best and so should give money to that city. I guess it's sort of like Lusternia, but without the additional skill investment. Just the number of citizens that go to persuade a village in a month, at decreasing returns. I'm not sure on the rate or anything, but you don't want it to be a purely numbers game. Have feelings of a village decrease if a villager is killed by someone from that city, so hunting that village would be a VERY bad idea for a city that wants to capitalize on them. The village would provide gold to every city with influence, proportional to the amount of influence they have in respect to the other cities.
    Qwyn
  • DortheronDortheron Member Posts: 343 ✭✭✭✭ - Eminent
    Tydas said:
    Just some random ideas that I came up with under the influence of some pretty decent scotch:

    What about territory that's under control of a certain city, nearby. That territory gives the city resources on a monthly basis, something small enough that it's not a huge deal, but big enough to think about. If an enemy city wants to, they can somehow mechanically take control of, partially or wholly, and not only deny the city those resources, but also gain those resources for themselves instead.

    You can have villages (Tasur'ke for Hashan, Thera for Ashtan, etc.) that pay taxes in gold, so the city has a small, steady income of gold. More "natural" locations can offer up other resources like stone, wood, silver or gold, etc. If an enemy city wishes to stop that gold, they must "take" the city, through mechanics I've not yet thought of.

    In addition to the areas assigned to the city, you can also have neutral areas that also have resources that can be claimed partially or wholly by one city, partially by several cities, and must be worked at by citizens in order to increase/decrease influence and therefor resources gained. I'd want a difference between the assigned and neutral areas, though I'm not entirely sure on it.

    You can do the same for "neutral" villages: have citizens go and "proselytize" to villagers, attempt to persuade them that their city and general alignment is the best and so should give money to that city. I guess it's sort of like Lusternia, but without the additional skill investment. Just the number of citizens that go to persuade a village in a month, at decreasing returns. I'm not sure on the rate or anything, but you don't want it to be a purely numbers game. Have feelings of a village decrease if a villager is killed by someone from that city, so hunting that village would be a VERY bad idea for a city that wants to capitalize on them. The village would provide gold to every city with influence, proportional to the amount of influence they have in respect to the other cities.
    That sounds like a mixture of the old landmarking system achaea had, mining, and lusternia's influencing system
    You know, that one thing at that one place, with that one person.

    Yea, that one!
  • TarausTaraus The Gypsy WindMember, Seafaring Liason Posts: 889 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Saea said:
    Stagnant? No, silly. @Aegot and @Melonie and I are in the process of staging a coup. We're hoping the old and slightly daft leadership of Mhaldor will be too blind to recognize the difference.
    lol let me know how that works out for you

    Also, regarding my actual thoughts regarding war - I have several. Closely guarded, too! It's one of those things that I (pipe-dreaming) have particular ideas about, ways I'd like to see it unfold, specific avenues I see pursuing it down, and I'd love to -- as long as I get an opposing faction on board with the same mentality. If a fellow leader wants to possibly discuss semantics, hit me up. (Tried this before though, usually goes no where.)

    Otherwise: Right now, war in Achaea would be a fucking disaster. Without being spearheaded, and controlled by, a handful of individuals of intelligence, restraint, and a genuine desire to create a fun atmosphere for the playerbase at large (and not just their faction), it'd just wind up being a license to gank.

    ShirszaeMelodie
  • AnedhelAnedhel Member Posts: 2,367 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    edited May 2016
    I wanted to read a few people's opinions before going ahead and spitting out my own, which I'm glad for. Interesting to see where people fall on the spectrum.

    Honestly, my biggest problem with war (and conflict, in general) in Achaea is that there's no real point to it. You can't actually achieve anything except inconveniencing the other side (textp, or gold for repairs/new guards, time to put up shrines, and so on). Without objectives, there's never and end game, and the whole 'play until one side gets fed up' thing seems like a terrible way to measure victory.

    I'd really love it if there were objectives established before-hand, arranging battles and such OOCly (could use the roleplay avenue of military intelligence to 'keep track' of the enemy's movements, and anticipate battles, as well as limit numbers. This is an idea I played around with for a bit but no one ever really went for it, that I found- something like grabbing 3-4 people and roleplaying a bit with a similarly-sized band of enemies in an area, then duking it out and maybe roleplaying some afterwards, when the pre-established objective's completed. Could be something like one side has to avoid losing X amount of people for a certain amount of time, while the other just has to achieve a kill count, or one side protects a denizen while the other tries to kill it, etc. etc.) so that the game is both fun -and- fair.

    But, alas, that's not the game we play. It's pretty hardwired into Achaea's game style that people'll jump in and stuff escalates even if you don't want them to, which is a big barrier to anything like this. What a shame.
    Shirszae
  • AhmetAhmet Wherever I wanna beMember Posts: 3,370 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Hmmm, perhaps instanced battlegrounds, with a maximum of five, or ten, or whatever people fighting for each side? Take away from the skirmishes and raids and add a bit of "proper battle" feeling?

    Dunno. I guess you could do this in arenas, but it just seems weird to me to do that. Maybe someone would go about setting it up.
    Huh. Neat.
Sign In to Comment.