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

How do people view war in Achaea?

13»

Comments

  • AnedhelAnedhel Member Posts: 2,367 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    edited May 2016
    Nah, not instances. It can be done, with a little fore-planning. Those small skirmishes can be worked into larger 'campaigns' if you go about it right, too.

    For example:

    Anedhel + 2 targs fight X Hashani + 2/3 Hashani in the Darkenwood, objective getting 15 kills in 20 minutes for the Targs, objective for Hashan keeping the Targs out of the Darkenwood for 7 minutes.

    Other Targ + 3 Targs fight X Hashani +3 Hashani in the Northreach, objective for the Targs to complete a ritual that requires 10 minutes to complete, with yells reporting progress so the Hashani to say, Hashani objective to cut that ritual short (suppose a 5-7 minute wait between emotes/yells makes the Targs' ritual fail).

    Big Hashan raid in Targ, Hashan objective to blow up a room in the Bloodsworn Temples, Targs have to keep that from happening; no retreats on the Targ side.

    Depending on the outcomes, could have the sides roleplay some change in the Darkenwood, or maybe have actual public posts that mean something, instead of just spouting bullshit at the other side again and again, you know?

    Stuff like that can be fuel for on-going things, and it could be a lot of fun. Planning is always a pain, but no pain, no gain!

    ETA: The pre-established skirmishes gives people a chance to partake even if their times are not conducive to PvPing, usually, and can help put in a kind of 'rotation' so that everyone who wants to participate can, instead of the usual suspects raiding/counterraiding while people on the weirder schedules get left out, too.
    Exelethril
  • MinifieMinifie Member Posts: 2,371 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Anedhel said:
    Nah, not instances. It can be done, with a little fore-planning. Those small skirmishes can be worked into larger 'campaigns' if you go about it right, too.

    For example:

    Anedhel + 2 targs fight X Hashani + 2/3 Hashani in the Darkenwood, objective getting 15 kills in 20 minutes for the Targs, objective for Hashan keeping the Targs out of the Darkenwood for 7 minutes.

    Other Targ + 3 Targs fight X Hashani +3 Hashani in the Northreach, objective for the Targs to complete a ritual that requires 10 minutes to complete, with yells reporting progress so the Hashani to say, Hashani objective to cut that ritual short (suppose a 5-7 minute wait between emotes/yells makes the Targs' ritual fail).

    Big Hashan raid in Targ, Hashan objective to blow up a room in the Bloodsworn Temples, Targs have to keep that from happening; no retreats on the Targ side.

    Depending on the outcomes, could have the sides roleplay some change in the Darkenwood, or maybe have actual public posts that mean something, instead of just spouting bullshit at the other side again and again, you know?

    Stuff like that can be fuel for on-going things, and it could be a lot of fun. Planning is always a pain, but no pain, no gain!
    Finishing the ritual would award Targ 50% bonus experience on hunting in forest areas or something for a short time, or give them a favour-esque buff to each person who was apart of the event for 85% duration.

    The favour side would be good, that way cities with dormant gods could partake in some organised conflict AND get favours for it or something.


    (Mhaldor's Next Top Model): Taryius says, "Oops, thats not a foray. Thats two novices going at it in the wilderness."
  • AnedhelAnedhel Member Posts: 2,367 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    edited May 2016
    I'd rather not require Admins to have involvement in this kind of thing. If a tangible objective is necessary, can work in a reward (i.e. the Targs 'liberate' a wagon with some money in it, or the Hashani plunder a Targossian mineral cache, etc. etc.).

    ETA: To clarify, Admin involvement would be wonderful. Specially for the end-games. But given the pace of this (which I picture as being quick, like one encounter a day), I'd rather not have both sides waiting around for Gods to be present to move on to the next step, since They have a lot to do and it's unfair to chain Them to every encounter like that.
  • MinifieMinifie Member Posts: 2,371 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Anedhel said:
    I'd rather not require Admins to have involvement in this kind of thing. If a tangible objective is necessary, can work in a reward (i.e. the Targs 'liberate' a wagon with some money in it, or the Hashani plunder a Targossian mineral cache, etc. etc.).
    Wouldn't require admin involvement other than implementation. It wouldn't be a "truefavour", just "He/She is basked in glory from a conquered skirmish" sort of thing. 


    (Mhaldor's Next Top Model): Taryius says, "Oops, thats not a foray. Thats two novices going at it in the wilderness."
  • AnedhelAnedhel Member Posts: 2,367 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    But anything that gives experience boosts or buffs requires Admin intervention, and, really, that's a lot of work for something super minor.

    (I'm also kind of against relying on Admin for most player-driven things, they have their own plans they work so hard on getting done and they're so amazing that I don't want to detract from that)
  • BlujixapugBlujixapug Member Posts: 1,833 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Szanthax said:
    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...
    Admitting defeat is among the hardest things to do in this game. A lot of people would rather say, "You may have killed all our guards, sacked all our rooms, robbed all our shops, filled our log with killing all our NPCs on respawn, and killed each of us a hundred times - but you can never truly win! We will endure! We will prevail! Never surrender!" (And then they log out to avoid dying more.) You'd be forcing a huge group of people to submit - and then to play out the submission scenario for many days. It would get old in about 5 minutes. Most people log in to do a variety of different things, like bash, and they would not appreciate being kept from doing so.
    Taraus said:

    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.
    That's how all previous wars have gone. I guess that's the only new behaviour wars really enable - freely killing enemy soldiers.

    I was amazed when @Silas started a second after having already participated in one to experience how garbage they are. The system is so bare-bones, it offers nothing beyond the legitimacy of an official game message reading, "You are at war." Anything more, like win conditions, must be coordinated independently - and therefore doesn't require participation in the war system at all.
    image
  • JurixeJurixe Where you least expect itMember Posts: 1,678 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    edited May 2016
    I don't have much more to add to the general sentiment already expressed: having participated in a few wars, the system is unfun at best, it tries to reduce penalties for the constant fighting but gives no real objectives to achieve save those which players plan themselves - and in all my time playing, I've never been in a war that didn't end amidst lots of bad feelings and complaints and qqs, never mind predetermined objectives. We've already seen all the aforementioned with raids; protracted wars are x50 worse.

    That being said, however, Bal'met was a lot of fun for the Mhaldorian crowd (well, for me at least), especially on the day that Kastalia died and all five cities ganged up on us. There was just no way we could win, but it was amazing to see no one care about experience or dying and just try to take down as many as we could with us. We even managed to hold the gates in the first onslaught, which I still think was an incredible feat. It was a raid more than a war, I suppose, but it certainly felt like one.

    But the core of what made it meaningful is that it was part of an overarching plot. Everyone knew that what we did today would go down in history, and so we all put our best foot forward - everyone wanted to be a part of that moment, even knowing we couldn't 'win'. I think that is what many wars lack: a sense of purpose, an objective to achieve. That's not to say that wars, even those that began without any real reason, haven't created their own impact on the story of the game - but I think that can be better directed with some OOC setup to make it more enjoyable for all.
    If you like my stories, you can find them here:
    Stories by Jurixe and Stories by Jurixe 2 

    BlujixapugSherazadShirszaeMelodie
  • MagentaMagenta EuropeMember Posts: 160 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    Agreeing absolutely with @Jurixe there. Oh. Anybody remember Landmarking? :D
  • BorranBorran Member Posts: 845 ✭✭✭✭ - Eminent
    So much creativity in two pages of war ideas. 

    I think the key to a successful war is going to be divine involvement. If you have resistance fighters,  being able to interact with a wise old denizen that can secretly mark you as part of the resistance, shrouding you from oppressors notice. The oppressor having a coded RP goal that can be fluidly countered by the resistances goal. A holy ritual to summon a great angel to come smite those inhabiting the city...

    XP rewards, resistance armbands, a city statue,  honours lines for participation in the war of XXX AF.

    Raeijk
  • JurixeJurixe Where you least expect itMember Posts: 1,678 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    While divine involvement naturally always makes things more interesting, having to always depend on divines to 'legitimise' your cause is not ideal, especially for a perpetually understaffed administration where divines have to juggle their time between their RP and admin obligations. I think that we, as players, can and should shoulder some of the responsibility to contribute towards making an engaging world, which requires some compromise on all ends.

    Epic player-created narratives without divine involvement have been done before; there's no reason this can't extend to wars as well. It just requires more give and take than most people, I think, are willing to do - or simply that no one has tried thus far (from the conceptualisation effort itself, not halfway through when one side is already winning and thus less likely to agree to an unfavourable win condition, as we've seen so many times before).

    I'm generally not a fan of 'we need divine to do x' schools of thought anyhow. It's not sustainable, especially when gods come and go, and I believe players have more potential to shape the world than they think instead of just sitting around hoping a divine appears to magically make your game fun. Sure, they make it better, but I don't think we need limit ourselves with hardcoded goals if everyone can be civil and play along. However, there will always be that person that argues based on what's 'technically' possible, so that's easier said than done. But if you never try, we'll never know how to get it right.
    If you like my stories, you can find them here:
    Stories by Jurixe and Stories by Jurixe 2 

    ShirszaeSherazad
  • BorranBorran Member Posts: 845 ✭✭✭✭ - Eminent
    Ideally, yes. But same scenario without the gods would go as follows: public news post says "were gonna kill all yous guys", City comes under attack wrath full force. Defenders whine, flee to ships, disappear until attackers get bored. RPer runs around trying to recruit a Resistance. Newbie Resistance is squished. Raiders get bored, blow up some rooms and leave (bed time), all the qqers and ship fleers return and counter raid. Decent maybe one-sided raid occurs. All returns to the status quo.

  • BorranBorran Member Posts: 845 ✭✭✭✭ - Eminent
    House and City Patrons are there to help with those things which we can't do on our own.  The things that the game limits us to because we are players.  Like making a real war.

  • JurixeJurixe Where you least expect itMember Posts: 1,678 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    I agree that that, sadly, has generally been the case for most wars (raids, too, really) but I suppose we differ in our views on what is possible; I don't think it's so much that we can't create a meaningful war on our own, as in mechanically can't, because we certainly can with proper set out goals agreed on by both sides; but it becomes more of an issue as to whether we can achieve enough player restraint to make it happen in an enjoyable manner, and that I am perhaps less willing to be optimistic about.

    However, I am talking purely idealistically here, and I really do believe that if the leaders wanted to make it happen and pulled the reins tight enough on those who go overboard (and turn a necessary deaf ear to their inevitable rants), it is possible. I sincerely don't think (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) that any city has given it a fair go before, as far as agreeing on terms goes. I wouldn't know what sort of goals would be a fair fight for both sides, but I expect something along the lines of @Anedhel's suggestions. 

    I should add that the presence of divine has historically also not made much of a difference, since they never get involved in wars themselves, and rightfully so - they might give favours here and there, but that's about the extent of their involvement and doesn't change the fact that the onus is on the players to observe sportsmanlike behaviour, point fewer fingers (because there will be one or two who go overboard) and find a way to (either by themselves or work with their patrons) create a compelling narrative that justifies the reason for the war.
    If you like my stories, you can find them here:
    Stories by Jurixe and Stories by Jurixe 2 

    SherazadAnedhel
  • AustereAustere TennesseeMember Posts: 2,282 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    edited May 2016
    I really wanted to see a war between Ashtan and Targossas when I was first getting started as MoW. The timing felt perfect both with balanced timezones (mostly) and enough hardcore pkers on both sides to entertain one another without the need for novice ganking.  I think relations between Ashtan and Targossas were at an all time high during that time and I'm saddened that the idea just never took hold.  I know when I can sit down and manage an ic letter that boiled down to "We won't whore guards if you won't", the ooc communication and understanding is in the right place to formulate a conflict that both sides can come out enjoying. I've always wanted the type of open field killing that a war would bring but I can understand the hesitation when defeat almost certainly means reduced forces in your side.  Both sides just have to go into it with a certain mindset and they need to be prepared to call their own faction on any bs they are doing, they need to be prepared to surrender the moment they begin losing people over it,  and they have to be willing to have a little restraint. I'd still love to see any two factions go to war and I see it as a great opportunity to further a faction both numerically(people will bandwagon fun) and rp wise. 

    Edit: @Nicola needs to post a description so one of the lovely artists can draw up a picture for her to use.  Default vanilla pictures all look the same to me! 
    Anedhel
  • AntidasAntidas Member Posts: 1,497 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Jurixe said:
    That being said, however, Bal'met was a lot of fun for the Mhaldorian crowd (well, for me at least), especially on the day that Kastalia died and all five cities ganged up on us. There was just no way we could win, but it was amazing to see no one care about experience or dying and just try to take down as many as we could with us. We even managed to hold the gates in the first onslaught, which I still think was an incredible feat. It was a raid more than a war, I suppose, but it certainly felt like one.
    Still one of my absolute favorite Achaean memories is trying to defend Mhaldor when this happened haha. Good times.

    TreySherazad
  • KryptonKrypton shi-KhurenaMember Posts: 2,377 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Ya, bring back Landmarking. But this time have it influenceable on all four spheres (Good, Evil, Chaos, Nature).

    For the lulz.
    (Mhaldor): Herenicus says, "Apologies, I am in-and-out of hold with Verizon wireless customer service."
  • SkarashSkarash Member Posts: 76 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished

    I would say that war would be possible if the victory conditions were clearly established beforehand. That would prevent stubborn and useless resistance on the losing side (kill our guards we have plenty of money!) and extended griefing for the winning side (well if you insist). There's too much of a scorched earth element elsewise. With the victory conditions clearly delineated, you wont get a lot of ganking or creative punishment (well unless one of the victory conditions were player kills - patently a bad idea).  But really that was what the Reckoning was - a strictly defined conflict with clear winners and losers and a mechanic in place to restrict escalation, clearly designated combat areas, and a storyline to give it an organic feel.

    As an example of what I think a viable city-controlled war system - (and please this is very barebones).  You could have each city with five fortresses/strongholds each. To defeat a city in a war you must march your armies and take each fortress in order, with each fortress getting 'closer' to the city. Fortresses can be retaken and fortified by the occupying force.  Once all five of the fortresses are taken, that city's defenses are laid bare and the victorious army marches into the city, and takes victory spoils (some of the city's gold), does some damage (city destruction of certain rooms like the bank, city council chambers, newsroom, harbor and shops, and some damage to city upgrades). Each war would have a nominal time limit pre-selected by both cities (i.e both city leaders would have to agree to a period say 5 years or 10 years).  No occupation.  Fortress taking would be use the same city destruction/tank mechanic already in place, with the additional caveat that if you kill all the fortresses guards you may also take control of the fortress.  Fortresses could hold x guards hired by the security ministry in increments of 5 - so the first fort in the line could hold 5 guards, the next 10, and so on all the way to 25.  If there is no winner in the pre-selected time period the war is declared a draw.  City leaders could then set the storyline in whatever way they please.


  • TaelTael Member Posts: 1,197 @ - Epic Achaean
    edited May 2016
    Aodfionn said:
    It is 100% a cool storyline, 100% would not trust our playerbase with that mechanic
    Yeah, the idea definitely needs to be taken in-context where I suggested that this sort of thing could only work as an admin-run Event.

    There have been player-initiated "occupations" in the past and we definitely do not need any more of those. At all. Ever.

    I think it could be done in a way that was compelling for everyone involved. I don't think this crippling fear of ever allowing any faction to "lose" is healthy. I don't think the "losing side" just QQs if you do it right. Look at Shallam - Targossas is way better for the game than Shallam was and a ton of people have talked about how much they enjoyed the whole transitional period. Some people were lost, but I think most people would say it was a fun direction on the whole. Being abused by the "winners" would not be fun, but that's not what the occupied side's role would be - their role would be the (eventually victorious) resistance movement. Leave the newly-enslaved farmers and all that to the denizens, the same way most of the farmers in the world aren't adventurers either. There's definitely a way to design an event to function like that, it's just not something that can or should be left to the players themselves or to some pre-designed generic war system. It would have to be purpose-built and run as an event.

    I just don't think there's any good solution to player-initiated and player-run wars. It would be nice if players could come up with and initiate meaningful, deep, interesting warfare - that's always a good goal to strive for - but I don't think that will ever be a thing. We've been trying to do it for more than a decade and I don't think it's ever really been managed well. People have been trying to come up with systems for it just as long and no one has ever made a good system. I don't even necessarily think it makes sense to have a system for that. A big, notable war is an Event and that's how it should be handled. The sort of cold wars we have right now with small-scale skirmishes involving a dozen or a couple dozen people at a time aren't really wars. And a system that just turns that pereptual cold war into a warmer perpetual war isn't terribly interesting either. A big war should have memorable, dramatic turning points that a pre-designed generic system is just going to be hard-pressed to deliver in the way that Events can. And it's not an unrealistic expectation: admin already run events. Events are a part of the game. Why not occasionally have one of those big vaguely annual events be a war?
  • QwynQwyn Member Posts: 247 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    I disagree. I've seen warfare work well. Avalon (sorry @Sarapis) had a pretty basic, but compelling warfare system before Genesis did what Genesis does and screwed it up. It was simple, in concept - troops capture territory, troops could eventually assault a city - but players could build city fortifications using comms to make that final push very expensive and something that took RL years to build up to. In the interim, there were lots of border skirmishes and conflict over holding villages, which gave tangible benefits, in this situation gold tithes.

    IMO the trick to a good system is to offer conflict in graduated levels. Here is an example:

    - Short-term: border skirmishes, for individual rooms. Players interested in war can scout each day, and move very small troops to attempt ninja captures. This is micro-conflict, where only a small number of people are involved in the back and forth troop stuff and associated PK. Timeline: daily, troop size: tiny, counter: primarily vigilant scouting

    - Mid-term: village/territory conquest. This would be capturing an entire village and earning some tangible benefit for controlling it. This would involve a more concerted effort from cities to plan and execute. Cities would plan something like this for a few weeks to months, and then spend ~1-3 RL days on the execution. Troops would need to be guarded and assaulting them would take a strong push. This would be the real bread and butter of warfare. Timeline: multi-monthly, troop size: medium, counter: group combat/troop push

    - Long-term: city conquest. This would be a huge effort, and one that could really only be realized after either a strong string of military victories or extensive building of resources/troops or hardcore diplomacy/sneaky alliance building. This would be exceptional, and rarely seen. Timeline: yearly+, troop size: large/massive, counter: diplomacy, city defences, large number of reserve troops
  • TaelTael Member Posts: 1,197 @ - Epic Achaean
    edited May 2016
    While something like that would be really fun and a great addition to the game, offering a neat new arena of conflict that's more inclusive of different playstyles, would that really function the way people want wars to?

    I don't think a proxy war involving a few dozen people from these city-states with massive populations, where the only consequence is the loss of a MacGuffin, is what a lot of people want when they talk about wanting something better-resembling warfare in the game. I think a lot of people want to see largescale factional conflicts develop in new ways and meet with periodic resolutions, not what is basically a new, larger-scale, instanced Arena game.

    I think the game would absoltuely still want for actual warfare with lasting narrative and setting consequences - the sort of war that actually gets named. Almost all of the wars we've had that were notable enough to be named involved events. Think things like the War of the Divine Child.

    If we just want more conflict systems, and that seems like a good thing to want, I think that's a great idea. Really - that sounds seriously fun and my only suggestions would be maybe don't make it so infrequent given that it doesn't really interrupt normal city activities and maybe the Nishnatoba battlegrounds could be actual copies of the cities (ooh - maybe city destruction in the real world could cause city destruction in the battlegrounds to sort of tie the conflict systems together a little?).

    I just don't think it fills the hole that a lot of people are talking about when they say they want actual war.
  • ExelethrilExelethril Member Posts: 3,352 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    How about making war exp-loss free so we can kill each other without negative connotations? Make guards immune and constables permanently stationary during the war phase too. Future win/lose objectives can still be retained with these conditions.

    [ SnB PvP Guide | Link ]

    [ Runewarden Sparring Videos | Link ]
  • AtalkezAtalkez Member Posts: 5,047 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    I think removing XP loss and 'locking' guards/totems to be invulnerable would be interesting.


    You hug Aurora compassionately.
Sign In to Comment.