The War: Ideas not rants.

Jurixe

As everyone who has ever tried to run some kind of large scale contest will have realised by now, rules tend to have to be convoluted out of necessity because you have to leave as little room for interpretation as possible if you want to be 'fair'. Otherwise you get arguments like these where people try to exploit loopholes and start accusing the other side of 'not playing fair' when they don't play the way the other wants them to.

Having said that, super props for the people who worked hard for this very first war with goals and an end, and trying to keep it as fair as it can be. I guarantee you no matter what you did there would have been complaining anyway so don't take that to heart (now you know how the admin feel when they release brand new stuff). It's going to take a while to get there, so everyone will have to be patient during trial and error as it's just impossible to account for all possibilities to start with.

I do think making it such high stakes for the first one put more pressure on winning than there should have been for a new system - and consequently people care more about winning than 'system testing', as it were - but it is what it is and it is nice, story-wise, that a consequence of the war will be more than back and forth public posts. I wish everyone good luck, hopefully it will lead to better wars in the future and don't forget, at the end of the day it's just a game.

Torinn

@Skye that is great.  Only suggestion I have is some limitation on the person doing the challenging to be within 50 ranks of the other person.  Or 100?

Sayenna

Skye said:

The complaint about people cherry picking their duels and there 'only being two fighters willing to engage' makes me think that there should be a system in place for it.

Those penalties seem really... Bad- no offence; they just seem a tad too punishing.

I'd rather the board worked like ranked spars do, where it automatically places you into a sanctioned fight when a person from either side signs up to it, but like...

Put board at NoT. Once a person from each side is on it, they're notified it's their turn. They then have 3 mins to TOUCH BOARD. Once both are there, port them to the arena (but disable the 'curatives aren't used in the arena' part) and peace them for 30s to prepare. If they're not there before the timer ends, they can't again until Serenade and the other side gets a point.

Rules simple:
 >15-20 minute timer, if it expires then no side gets points and neither can queue again until Serenade.
 > Loser gets 1 point for actually fighting and not sitting around, winner gets 2 or 3.
 > Loser can't fight again until Serenade, winner can't for 1-2 Achaean days.

To prevent the better duelists constantly facing lesser ones, make a tiered system that activates when the war starts:
 - CL/MoS/MoW/Army Rank 5 are A-grade,
 - Army Rank 3/4 are B-grade,
 - AR 2 is C,
 - Everyone else (that's enlisted) is D.
--->To counteract mass-demotions, it'll base off of the highest rank you've been in the army.

You'll never fight above your grade (you also won't know who you're fighting until you join). Winning 2 or 3 in a row will raise you a grade (make it visible on the board or something, idk)... Start at D > win 2 fights > you're C-ranked now. If you lose more than 3-4 in a row, you get demoted a rank.

Rather than the suggested penalties, make it something like this:
 - If there's not at least 1 A-rank fight before Serenade then both sides lose a point. If no A-ranked people from a city queued then that city loses another 1-2 points. That way the ones who started the war actually have to fight in it constantly.
 - If you're queued longer than ~30-45 minutes then it'll expand and you'll get matched vs people +/- 1 from you. B will fight both C and A, for example.

--------------------
Alternative to the touch board thing, get Aegis to make a curator denizen of some sort that you can send a tell, and the denizen will summon you from anywhere to the arena (provided it's your turn).

Skye

yeah I think i like your penalties better too. However, why the discrepancy in cooldown times for winner/loser?

Sayenna

Skye said:

yeah I think i like your penalties better too. However, why the discrepancy in cooldown times for winner/loser?

Mostly a lack of trust for certain individuals

Doesn't make much difference either way, I figured the winner would be encouraged to continue fighting and gaining points; the loser would be prevented from costing their side more points.

In addition to the post above, make it so that you're not told/notified when people from the other side join the queue. To stop others from just keeping an eye on the board to see when people queue, could even have it so you can join from your city's bounty board rather than going to NoT.

Skye

Are CL/MoS/MoW also vulnerable to being demoted or will their rank sustain them perpetually in the A rank tier?

Sayenna

Sure. Could make it so A/B have to lose double the amount to get knocked out of their grade or something, just so there'll always (probably) be someone at that rank to queue, and they don't suffer the daily penalty (unless said person decides not to queue).

Ysela

Perhaps keep the war terms purely OOC rather than make them IC? E.g. in order to reduce griefing simply do not make it a declared war per the CITY RELATIONS system, and to keep it measurable have only the leaders of each side OOCly be aware of exactly what actions give exactly what amount of points. They could give vague indications of what way the score is leaning at any time, ensure the standings are reflected in the atmosphere of their faction, and indicate to their what must be done to turn things around (should that be the case).

($Farrah says, "We must break their momentum. Serial oathbreaker Atalkez, take a squad and put pressure on Blackrock. Once their supply of mean dwarves is disrupted, we will strike at the glorious city proper")

When the war ends, the leader of the losing side will concede defeat, likely as per OOCly predetermined.

It puts a great degree of responsibility on the leaders to be mature individuals, excellent organisers, and have plenty of time, but that is already the case, isn't it? It would also make these leaders more of GM:s than players for the duration of the war, reduce their immersion, etcetera, but could increase it for the playerbase at large.

Aegoth

loled @ serial oathbreaker atalkez

Nazihk

Sayenna said:

To prevent the better duelists constantly facing lesser ones, make a tiered system that activates when the war starts:
 - CL/MoS/MoW/Army Rank 5 are A-grade,
 - Army Rank 3/4 are B-grade,
 - AR 2 is C,
 - Everyone else (that's enlisted) is D.
--->To counteract mass-demotions, it'll base off of the highest rank you've been in the army.

Basing that off of army rank is a bad idea because army rank has nothing whatsoever to do with how good you are at dueling. I got my army rank by being good at group combat and because Targossas needed more people with the ability to disarm tanks. Dueling isn't involved in the army system at all, and so army rank is a terrible way to organize a dueling system. 

Also, I feel like a war is the wrong place to try to emphasize 1v1 duelling. If you want to do that kind of thing between cities arrange some kind of a tournament of champions or something. Wars should primarily focus on group combat and objectives.

Tahquil

What about if the ranking tiers were based on these sanctioned duels? Everyone starts even, then through the victory and losses they are separated out into their tiers?

Reyson

I much prefer there being a hard limit on the amount of times an individual can duel during the war period. That means that you have to use your duels strategically; sure, you can burn your big guns on sure wins, but you could gamble on spending them on the enemy's big guns and hoping your less seasoned hands can win you some points. Makes it a bit more strategic, like, instead of just a rehash of combat rankings: outside the arena version.

Khel

Reyson said:

I much prefer there being a hard limit on the amount of times an individual can duel during the war period. That means that you have to use your duels strategically; sure, you can burn your big guns on sure wins, but you could gamble on spending them on the enemy's big guns and hoping your less seasoned hands can win you some points. Makes it a bit more strategic, like, instead of just a rehash of combat rankings: outside the arena version.

It could even be set up like a tournament. Get a list of people willing to duel (since hopefully the next war isn't 24 days) from each city, then work with a neutral third party to develop a roster of who duels who. If we have 10 fighters willing to duel and Targ has 33, Targ starts the list by nominating 'Atalkez', then Mhaldor replies with like, 'Medi'. And then it's Mhaldor's turn to name one, and Targ gets to reply with their nomination to fight that person, etc. etc. Then the list is developed, you got your list of people to fight. If you don't fight your duel, the neutral third decides who gets the win. Obviously 23 of Targ's people wouldn't get to play, but you could also allow extra duels for the less populated side.

Reyson

I'd like it if there were a channeled action non-combatants could do during a raid for tanks to charge faster or to slow down the progress of the font, or something not-game-breaking but tangible and advantageous like that.

It could work -like- the font, in that you have to have the mechanism primed with something (can be a gathering quest, can be kill-a-denizen like eidolons, can be anything you want) that requires a time investment before battle-time and a don't-move action during battle for a tangible advantage that non-coms can safely engage in, to give their warrior pals an advantage during big group combat.

Antonius

Reyson said:

I'd like it if there were a channeled action non-combatants could do during a raid for tanks to charge faster 

That's literally how city destruction used to work and it was awful.

Reyson

Oh. Some other advantage, then? Maybe slows down the rate at which guards march, or cuts down the amount of guards that can be called into a room, or slows down the font, or gives a small damage boost on damage for the raiders or something.

Just something that contributes, isn't super duper crazy, and involves people that wouldn't ordinarily get involved.

Austere

Antonius said:

Reyson said:

I'd like it if there were a channeled action non-combatants could do during a raid for tanks to charge faster 

That's literally how city destruction used to work and it was awful.

People messing up the channel right before tick sucked. I never minded the exact mechanics, though.  I think a secondary method of getting sanction could be cool.  

Nazihk

Eh.

I am sort of opposed to that, if just because that's the kind of thing that's basically designed to straight up enable offhours/offnumbers tanking. "We're gonna tank you 10v5 and now there's no way to deny us the tank."

Austere

Nazihk said:

Eh.

I am sort of opposed to that, if just because that's the kind of thing that's basically designed to straight up enable offhours/offnumbers tanking. "We're gonna tank you 10v5 and now there's no way to deny us the tank."

Im an "off hours" player. I've not been involved in a tank in probably three months.  As a player, it's incredibly disheartening to try to raid a city with 2 friends, have twelve people on their qwho, and not get any sort of defense because everyone just so happens to be going to bed at that exact moment every night. I basically shut down Targ, Eleusis, and Hashan the other night, just by entering the city with Jadys and Seragorn. Three factions completely cleared out almost. Would you rather me just uproot twenty totems? I can swing some gauntlets..

As for this "everyone's afk" bullshit, I really miss the days being afk was against the rules..

Kyrra

Afk folks is just more opportunities for marks to get contracts!

Mathilda

Were all the Nish melees in Ret or was that just lag? 

Greys

Severe lag. Every time was dead in a massive influx of text.

Cooper

The first fight was definitely massively laggy for everyone. I didn't really lag after the initial one though.

Melodie

First fight was huuuuuge lag. I lagged on and off after that too, though. Phew.

Kiet

First fight is obv the one they targeted me first tho

Nazihk

I think that future wars should have no duels and no raiding component, and they should be entirely designed around structured group battles and naval warfare.

The problem with duels and raids is that they both emphasize smart play over fun play. You're much better off if you evacuate the city and deny sanctions, and you're much better off if you play the dueling game conservatively and only take duels you're confident about winning. This is unfun and boring and shitty and it's also hands down the best strategy available, which means that both sides are going to do it anyways and everybody involved will hate it.

The structured battles work so much better. They're at a preset time, so there's none of the need for the kind of constant vigilance that sanction-based warfare requires. Failure to show up is forfeiture of all the points involved and a worst case scenario, so there's no value in refusing to fight at them. When they're over they're really over, so that people can relax afterwards. They can be scheduled to allow offhours people to participate in the war. All sorts of advantages, and you can come up with a lot of different kinds of battles with the advantage that, if one of them sucks you just don't have to do that type of battle anymore.

Kiet

If we wanna do raids, we should have a victory condition for defenders beyond 'disarm tank.' X number of attackers slain, or a time limit, or something like that. No raids is better though.

Also, if we do naval battles again, let's decide on a format before the war, admirals were arguing about how to do this for a while.

Nazihk

Maybe some sort of combined battle, even. Naval battle where the losing side has to fight a ground battle at a disadvantage of some sort. Ground battle that determines how many ships can be launched by each side. Run a blockade to land on an island for a ground fight, where ground fighters have to be carried in on ships and ones who are on ships that sink don't get to participate. Etc.

Kiet

Yeah that'd be fun!

Sayenna

If you really want duels as part of a war, have them organised and not 'go at it when you want' because it's just going to result in what happened this war, every time.
 -> Each side puts x people in, neutral party ( Aegean or whatever. I dunno if I'd trust Shield for this, personally ) pairs them for what they think would be the fairest, and they go at it.
Every win nets 1 point, simple. If anyone refuses to fight, then the other side wins by default.