The War: Ideas not rants.

Nazihk

Aerek said:

Yeah, looks like I had a brain aneurysm there and it's too late to edit.

As long as higher-level tanks aren't worth more points, should be fine, since the threat of higher level tanks is generally what discourages defense. Though I would still advocate for contests other than raiding to settle a formal war, since raiding can be done any day without justification.

The scores are based off of rooms destroyed, so higher level tanks earn more points.

Zackery

Sayenna said:

Tysandr said:

Sayenna said:

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

Difficult

Not really, I'm confident someone like Morthif could pair people fairly and not have matchups like Proficy vs Aralaya, or Atalkez vs Zackery etc.

I wouldn't accept that duel anyway. I'd have to ask for a more difficult opponent, just to keep things fair.

Sayenna

Zackery said:

Sayenna said:

Tysandr said:

Sayenna said:

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

Difficult

Not really, I'm confident someone like Morthif could pair people fairly and not have matchups like Proficy vs Aralaya, or Atalkez vs Zackery etc.

I wouldn't accept that duel anyway. I'd have to ask for a more difficult opponent, just to keep things fair.

Yeah that's what I mean. Wouldn't be fair for Atalkez to have such a skilled opponent, since he's a scrub and all.

Aerek

Nazihk said:

Aerek said:

Yeah, looks like I had a brain aneurysm there and it's too late to edit.

As long as higher-level tanks aren't worth more points, should be fine, since the threat of higher level tanks is generally what discourages defense. Though I would still advocate for contests other than raiding to settle a formal war, since raiding can be done any day without justification.

The scores are based off of rooms destroyed, so higher level tanks earn more points.

Yeah, that seems to discourage defense more than points for disarming encourages it. The aggressors already get to choose where and when to attack, so unless the aggressors chose a "bad" time to attack, "smart" play for the defenders is almost always better off not risking deaths.

Dochitha

Aerek said: 

Nazihk said:

Aerek said:

Yeah, looks like I had a brain aneurysm there and it's too late to edit.

As long as higher-level tanks aren't worth more points, should be fine, since the threat of higher level tanks is generally what discourages defense. Though I would still advocate for contests other than raiding to settle a formal war, since raiding can be done any day without justification.

The scores are based off of rooms destroyed, so higher level tanks earn more points.

Yeah, that seems to discourage defense more than points for disarming encourages it. The aggressors already get to choose where and when to attack, so unless the aggressors chose a "bad" time to attack, "smart" play for the defenders is almost always better off not risking deaths.

When are you coming back to game?

Savatha

just set up a bunch of places around the world that would be notable landmarks and force players to do something arbitrary like pick lillies or catch special butterflies to gain control of these places.

whoever controls the most of these landmarks wins.

Jonathin

No to landmarking. Just no

Alrena

So while randomly talking about how it doesn't matter if you're 1 point or 10 points ahead right now... maybe it's an idea to make that matter after all, to prevent one side from turtling if they get ahead, and also to make the consequences seem a lot lighter if you put up a good fight. I'm also a fan of making the terms, win or lose, good RP possibilities and not punishments like restricting tanks or preaching. Just food for thought.

Example:

1 point ahead: losing side posts defeat

3 points ahead: losing side's MoW gets executed

5 points ahead: losing side must host a dance party

10 points ahead: slaves are freed or citizens enslaved!

Farrah

We couldn't really change that now without points being equal, since we've been operating under the belief that it doesn't matter and giving away points we wouldn't if it did.

But it also wouldn't change the turtling behavior at all. Nothing will, other than turtling not being optimal play.

Reyson

Making it a race to score points kills turtling but brings its own issues.

Nyderrasethi

Turtling will always be a strategy when points are involved. It is strategically advantageous to avoid giving your opponents points just as much as it is getting them yourselves. It will be a part of any contest, but so far in Nishnatoba it didn't show up. 

Farrah

That's not really true. It depends what points are awarded for. When you can deny points by not engaging when you don't have the advantage, it's optimal to do that. Nish is different because while each city could just sit there and not engage, the teams are locked in place so there's no advantage to doing so unless you literally want to sit there until your opponents have to go to bed/work/etc. and think you can outlast them in that regard. It's not really like sanction avoidance where you can ship/qq and come back later. You'd have to sit there the whole time waiting. Most people are going to draw a line there out of sheer boredom.

Torinn

Yeah it'd be difficult but maybe awarding progression for engaging when it's not ideal. Of course how do you judge that objectively?

Khel

You have to make attack the only way to directly gain points, while providing an indirect boon to defenders for successful defense. Plant a flag, hold for 45 min, get a point. Flag on cd for x hours after. You can now only score y points a day, you reward/allow for conflict with cooldowns and defense is required to deny attackers. If the defense undoes your flag they get their flag back immediately/sooner so they can counter. This rewards defense and encourages smart attacks - but the side who attacks MOST successfully has the win, you can't only attack with a 20 stack and expect to win if they're fighting and risking losses against even because they'll outpace you.

It'd require a coded system unfortunately, but that sort of idea - gain for doing not reacting - is what is necessary IMO. Requiring the defense to opt in like sanction does isn't feasible, nor is expecting people to want to fight fair - neither side is really willing to lose or else there'd be way more for glory war duel where some plucky Targ up-and-coming fighter calls out Proficy or some noob Mhaldorian tries to go at Farrah. The points punish trying, so people don't want to try.

Ysela

I still think having the details of the points system known only by the leaders of the factions (and they would only know them OOCly), and having them relay progress and score through vague statements ("We've been hit hard for the last few months, and find ourselves on the defensive. We must regain momentum", or what have you), would be best.

Again, it would demand a lot from those leaders OOCly in terms of time, integrity, etc., as well as plenty of communication between the two, but I trust they would be up to the task.

EDIT: one word too many

Ailea

Points in raids/defenses have been a major cause of avoiding on both sides (don't say otherwise, it's been very obvious during this war). I also think that those raiding with huge more odds than necessary (again both sides) makes it much more tedious and unfun for the other side. Sure there may be five people online for the city, but the real question is how many of those five are seasoned veterans and know what they are doing? How many understand how to properly coordinate their skills. Numbers are one thing, but factoring in different skill levels really is another thing. 

Really I don't think a point system works in terms of a war, I think it's a good idea for a tournament. However I think we should have stuck with the big battles such as the naval and nish in terms of the combat side and try to factor in a more non-combat side for religious purposes. 

Still though, definitely kudos for trying things this way. 

Micaelis

If we don't want to try to change the obvious in-place mechanics of raids themselves, while at the same time punishing turtling, you could do something like official challenges for raids.

For example: A raid, as defined by the terms, requires at least 5 Army members of the opposing city. The attacking city can only attack the defending city with +25% of the total number of Army members currently around. So, if there are 10 Army members of Targossas, then Mhaldor can raid with 10-13 raiders. These are just arbitrary numbers. This would require some means of identifying who is an Army member and who's around, and would require some sort of integrity on either side, so doubt that's an issue.

On top of that, once an official raid has begun (meaning there are 5+ Army members around and the attacking force is within 25% of that number) then the 'raid' is on. From the moment the attackers enter the defending city has 1 hour/Achaean day to kill them. This is somewhat subjective in what it means (for example, a serpent phased and running around to bypass the intention of the system would be an issue, and not intended). If the enemy, as a whole, remains in the city after 1 day has passed then they are awarded x points. If a sanction happens, then the time aspect is thrown out the window and a regular raid commences, but with the same limitation on numbers.

I think something like this could work, if handled properly, because it A) Encourages defense, but not suicide defense against ridiculous numbers and It removes any incentive to not engage. You're going to lose no matter what, so why not try? If you remove the decision process of whether to engage or not, then the conflict itself becomes entirely more fun.

I'm unsure of whether the points for a no-defense should be less than, greater than, or equal to a sanction/tank blow. I can see the argument for all three.

EDIT: Might have to play around with what would happen if x entered y, y killed all of x, then they returned. Would the time restart? Could just keep throwing yourself at it until sanction, etc. Not sure about that but I'm sure there's a solution.

Morthif

You would then need to have a mechanic that punishes low army enrollment to stop that work around.

Micaelis

Yeah, could enforce a freeze or something like that. In this war that'd just be Targ, I think. Pretty sure Mhaldor has being Army as a req.

Micaelis

Though probably a good idea to combine it with Ailea's idea and make the points OOC. I think that really took away from the intention, even if it was the real and actual method of tracking.