War System Changes

Farrah

Micaelis said:

Farrah said:

Micaelis said:

I like the idea as it mitigates the cost of losing while maintaining the benefit of winning, I just don't think tinkering with the gold portion is the most successful idea. 

The entire addition of gold as an incentive (as a boon or a loss) doesn't make much sense as who honestly cares about losing someone else's gold? Sure, it may be your city's, but you don't ever see it or feel it. Most aren't even aware of how much gold their city has or what it's used for. And, even if you do know these things, it's just an arbitrary number that floats around for years and years. It rarely affects any avenue of your life. If the winning city decided to give that gold to those who fought it might raise some greedy eyebrows but, even then, how much are we talking over the course of a war and time necessary to win it?

I think you touched on the core of the issue with people's inability to lose, and that this system only reinforces that concept by giving you a tangible number you're supposed to not lose. I, for one, have no real problem losing if for the right reason. The banners, as an example, I personally love. I love the idea of roleplaying a loss with tangible things I can see, hear, and speak about IC. It brings to mind Trevian Shea, the bitter defeat at the hands of those you despise. I think if the pool of what is won and lost bent more towards tangible roleplaying effects (banners, environment emotes for a given time period, denizens changing or adapting after a win/loss, etc) I'd be far more interested in not only winning, but actually losing. 

There's something to be said about playing the underdog and if the system brought that out with things people might be able to work with on a roleplay level, I think people would be surprised how willingly others would participate. 

I don't disagree with this at all, but there's a somewhat weird aspect to me from an IC perspective where war is voluntary and it's weird to accept it if you know you're going to lose. If I was a city leader, what would be the reason I'd provide to my city for going to war, to rally them behind it, rather than just taking all the punches they can throw without war? For example, Ashtan was clobbering Hashan for a while and it definitely felt like being an underdog, and we absolutely rallied and fought back, but I couldn't really fathom accepting a war that essentially amounts to "we're going to keep fighting this losing battle but let's increase the stakes so we lose more."

It just feels too irrational and difficult to justify. It's easy to justify fighting when it's forced upon you - resist the oppressors, etc etc. But why would you agree to give them more? That's why I think some kind of incentive is important. If we could have some goal that would be achievable for us by going to war but otherwise not possible, even though we're otherwise going to get smacked in the war, it would make sense to say "let's do this, it's worth the cost." Similarly, if war wasn't voluntary, and was just forced upon us from time to time, we could roleplay and fight it out. But I have a hard time IC justifying choosing to lose big IC for no rational reason.

That's a good point. My point was more from an OOC perspective, if taken IC things change as you mention. 

I'm ignoring the gold incentive as personally I don't agree with it.

But let's assume another incentive. What if the victory for the challenging city lead to smaller rewards/higher losses (I lean towards more roleplay-centric losses here so as to not discourage challenging in the first place) than the accepting city which had the chance to win higher rewards/smaller losses? As to what those rewards/losses are exactly I'm not entirely sure, but something other than gold.

This would reduce the risk of the target (who is more than likely undermanned versus the aggressor) and increase the incentive to compete.

I think I'm more thinking along the lines of it shouldn't just be absolute win and absolute loss. It should be possible to lose the war but gain something from it. The gain doesn't have to be free.

It is hard to think of something with the current system, but you could, for example, earn some kind of "influence" when you do successful military actions (maybe anything that earns war points). People hear of your successes and think you are great. Then you can expend that influence for benefits related to denizen villages or your city or something. It has to be something desirable enough.

Think crusades, in a way. How the dominant faction gets a bunch of essence but other people who come can pick up bits and pieces in the chaos and slowly build their own reserves, and it can be expended for things that are great for pk, bashing, and rp like Avatar. If going to war meant we could build reserves of something off our little victories here and there, even if the other side was gaining far more of it and ultimately winning the war, it could absolutely be worth it to pursue to seek some ultimate goal. Avatar is a good example because it often leads to cool rp accomplishments as well as other benefits.

Then the war for an underdog might be about detonating as many tanks as you can for your city, knowing you won't do more than the other team and win the war, but caring nonetheless because it matters.

Krizal

I think if there were a series of battles during the war which each gave both sides a chance to win something tangible whether they win or lose the overall war, that'd help give a reason to go to war, depending on what that something is of course.

Silas

Krizal said:

I think if there were a series of battles during the war which each gave both sides a chance to win something tangible whether they win or lose the overall war, that'd help give a reason to go to war, depending on what that something is of course.

Could do more with denizen alliances. Targossas declares war on Ashtan and the two cities can battle over Thera/Jaru/Petra(?)/New Hope, and maybe also add in some non-combatant goals like in the epic Xhaiden Dale event between the Church and the Occultists for the athame. Mhaldor and Eleusis could go to war and fight in the forests and... somewhere that Mhaldor cares about. Blackrock? The Ivory Temple? Sartan's statue on Great Rock? Who knows.

Have a few battles like that over the course of the war, culminating in a final battle or series of battles in the city(/cities) proper, with home advantage depending on how the previous battles turned out (obviously the loser being given home advantage to give them a chance to even the odds with guards if they're getting stomped).

Requires a lot more admin oversight, but would be much more fun and memorable than being kicked in the nuts and having to pay 5m gold for the pleasure.

Jinsun

I think the biggest lost opportunity for war is siege weapons, tbh.

Eril

Silas said:

Krizal said:

I think if there were a series of battles during the war which each gave both sides a chance to win something tangible whether they win or lose the overall war, that'd help give a reason to go to war, depending on what that something is of course.

Could do more with denizen alliances. Targossas declares war on Ashtan and the two cities can battle over Thera/Jaru/Petra(?)/New Hope, and maybe also add in some non-combatant goals like in the epic Xhaiden Dale event between the Church and the Occultists for the athame. Mhaldor and Eleusis could go to war and fight in the forests and... somewhere that Mhaldor cares about. Blackrock? The Ivory Temple? Sartan's statue on Great Rock? Who knows.

Have a few battles like that over the course of the war, culminating in a final battle or series of battles in the city(/cities) proper, with home advantage depending on how the previous battles turned out (obviously the loser being given home advantage to give them a chance to even the odds with guards if they're getting stomped).

Requires a lot more admin oversight, but would be much more fun and memorable than being kicked in the nuts and having to pay 5m gold for the pleasure.

This is something I could get involved with.  It kinda ties into a much earlier comment by Farrah about alliances with villages and the bonds there.  I've felt for a while that the village relations and alliances have been an area of lost opportunity for rp with the cities.  Really, expanding them beyond "city states" and broadening them into "nations" with their influence over villages could be a lot of fun, with both combat and non-com opportunities if there was ANY inclination to go that way.  Just an idea of mine.  I like that the admins are working to improve it though, and trying to add negatives and benefits to war, but yes, Cyrene ever agreeing to war under these circumstances is...laughable at best...even more so then usual.

Torinn

First iteration.  Looking forward to more!

Asmodron

I've been pleading for more involvement of war into the actual areas of the game for some time. I really would love if allied towns as well as areas could be sieged, looted, etc.

One of my main pulls to Achaea was the world-scale war represented in its story and lore. I would just really love to have be able to play IN that concept..

Torrent

Targ - Jaru, Shastaan
Mhaldor - BlackRock, Enwerren
Hashan - Tasurke, Sunderlands(?)
Ashtan - New Thera, Petra
Eleusis - Forests(?), Garden of the Dryads.
Cyrene - Dwarf villages(?), Caer Witrin(Though would need to remove the archers).

It can be done, it would expand outward combat aside from shrine combat, and other then Exteminations and Vivfications. I am sure Eleusis and Mhaldor would enjoy some other forms of combat.

Minifie

@Nicola @Makarios @Ictinus if cities ally will we once again see cross-faction factionals? Hopefully not but clarification would be reassuring on this.

Ererean

Torrent said:

Targ - Jaru, Shastaan
Mhaldor - BlackRock, Enwerren
Hashan - Tasurke, Sunderlands(?)
Ashtan - New Thera, Petra
Eleusis - Forests(?), Garden of the Dryads.
Cyrene - Dwarf villages(?), Caer Witrin(Though would need to remove the archers).

It can be done, it would expand outward combat aside from shrine combat, and other then Exteminations and Vivfications. I am sure Eleusis and Mhaldor would enjoy some other forms of combat.

For Targ, I'm pretty sure it's Jaru and New Hope. 

Micaelis

Yeah it's New Hope. And Zaphar Isle.

Rangor

I wanna tank Thera now.

Atalkez

I don’t know if this is intended but please leave it. I’ve been saying for months that I think something geared towards skirmishing is needed.

Raiding is not the primary conflict mechanism that most people enjoy, most people prefer to skirmish outright. No guards, totem, font, just team versus team. I like this, and would prefer to keep the aligned area possibility that synergies with shrine warfare. 

Save the raiding for the important times.

Astarod

Atalkez said:

I don’t know if this is intended but please leave it. I’ve been saying for months that I think something geared towards skirmishing is needed.

Raiding is not the primary conflict mechanism that most people enjoy, most people prefer to skirmish outright. No guards, totem, font, just team versus team. I like this, and would prefer to keep the aligned area possibility that synergies with shrine warfare. 

Save the raiding for the important times.

It definitely adds a layer of significance to city raiding then. Yes, it should be harder because that's a capital, etc. Now there's lower tier raiding which will also help people like Ashtan, or even Eleusis, who are trying to have low-key raids without guards/font/etc.

Farrah

I'm confused. Keep what? I thought we were proposing adding some kind of village system. Not that it already exists.

Namino

It exists, Farrah. It seems to exist on accident but it's a happy accident and we're preemptively asking for it not to be reverted.

Mhaldor tanked Jaru last night. 

[This also led to a vigorous discord brainstorming session about tanking Underrealms that sadly didn't pan out  ]

Farrah

How do you get a sanction on a village to place a tank?

Micaelis

It might be entirely a bug and the fact that Mhaldor happened to kill Targossians in Jaru just fit nicely into a little niche. 

The question is whether Mhaldor can kill Targossians anywhere and get a sanction, or if Mhaldor can kill anyone in Jaru and get a sanction. 

Seems to fit into the allied city idea, though. I think that allied status just happened to extend to villages as well. So if Eleusis/Targossas are allied and you kill Targossians in Eleusis you get a sanction, and I guess if you kill Targossians in Jaru you get a sanction. 

Here's hoping we take this concept and expand upon it with some depth. Now that village raids are actually a thing (presumably they elect to allow it to remain) there's a whole lot of potential to be had for the future.  

Micaelis

Farrah said:

How do you get a sanction on a village to place a tank?

They killed Targossians (who are allied with Jaru) in Jaru. 

Namino

So killing Ashtani in Petra, Mhaldorians in Blackrock, Hashani in Underrealms (let's gooooo), should all work.

Atalkez

It definitely seems like a bug, but I hope it stays.

Farrah

Ohh, because of the change where allies allow sanction. Interesting.

I'm not sure I am pro-this, without changes in implementation. Sanction stuff is really designed for cities. But I do want a village combat system.

I'd rather it be more like shrines where you don't have to get a sanction. As is, you basically have to defile and shrine skirmish to get the sanction anyway so while I know some people find it exciting, it seems a bit poor design (which is natural, since it's obviously a bug). A village system shouldn't rely on shrines. It should have its own independent mechanic to attack the village, and I don't think tanks will really be necessary if that exists.

Micaelis

I'm going to reference it IC as an intended mechanic so to change it you'll have to walk it back. Hurry before the admin wake up.  

Namino

I'll post a 'where were you when Jaru fell' country song to the poetry board to immortalize it.

Farrah

When are you ever going to find Hashani in Tasur'ke to kill, though, or Cyrenians in Caer? People are excited because this works for Targ and Mhaldor, but it works solely for them because they have shrines in allied villages.

I think the excitement over this proves how much people want a village conflict system of some kind, but I don't think this itself will really work for most factions.

Presently, I doubt tanking allies "counts" for war score, either.

Lenn

If you're consistently refusing to protect an allied village, and I mean very consistently not just the occasional "ugh they have 2x our numbers and I have work in the morning," maybe they should stop being allies.

Micaelis

Farrah said:

When are you ever going to find Hashani in Tasur'ke to kill, though, or Cyrenians in Caer? People are excited because this works for Targ and Mhaldor, but it works solely for them because they have shrines in allied villages.

I think the excitement over this proves how much people want a village conflict system of some kind, but I don't think this itself will really work for most factions.

This is a system for real factions.

\s

Namino

It works really well if the defenders want to participate, which is... sort of the point, really.

If a stack of Ashtani show up in Tasur'ke and you and yours take a look and say "could be fun", then all the PvPers in Hashan and Ashtan get to have a cool brawl without inconveniencing all the people idling at Crossroads or whatever, while simultaneously ignoring all the city defenses that make raiding unfun, or the expensive loss of guards to a guard bash, or the cost of repairing the room for the city ministry.

The only thing this lacks is a little bit of a carrot for the defenders to go out to the villages (though I guess the potential to disarm a tank maybe?).

Micaelis

Well you'd clearly have to add some things to make it viable in the first place. At present it's entirely reliant on shrines, which as Farrah says you need a city in coordination with Orders (aka theocracy, of which there are two). 

So I don't think this solves anything but, imo, it's a step in the right direction. And it's something interesting to build off of. And, most importantly, the fact that people are excited about this stupid bug more than an entire system devised around a complex War system says something about what the populace wants and/or needs. 

Farrah

Namino said:

It works really well if the defenders want to participate, which is... sort of the point, really.

If a stack of Ashtani show up in Tasur'ke and you and yours take a look and say "could be fun", then all the PvPers in Hashan and Ashtan get to have a cool brawl without inconveniencing all the people idling at Crossroads or whatever, while simultaneously ignoring all the city defenses that make raiding unfun, or the expensive loss of guards to a guard bash, or the cost of repairing the room for the city ministry.

The only thing this lacks is a little bit of a carrot for the defenders to go out to the villages (though I guess the potential to disarm a tank maybe?).

When you consider how people generally treat pk, this does not work as well as you think unless the people are mark/dauntless. Neither side has pk cause to attack unless they see you bashing denizens, warn you, and you keep doing it.

This may seem silly to point out but people get dumb and issue over all kinds of silly things. I would not feel comfortable going after people standing in Tasur'ke without more. I also might not notice them. If you really wanted to, I suppose you could shout "We claim Tasur'ke for the Malevolent One and no one will stop us!" and then we'd have rp cause. But otherwise it's hard to tell whether people want to fight or will throw pk rules at you when what you're doing is outside the formal system and not technically permitted by it.