Mhaldor vs Targossas

Farrah

Cooper said:

Farrah said:

How is Hashan tanking Mhaldor even relevant to the war, though? It's not a Targossas tank. I can't imagine it'd help Targossas in any way...

I mean, one permanent room destruction, I suppose. But it's fairly minor. Mostly it was not intended at all, though. Just a spur of the moment thing Adrik decided to test on his own that presumably will be fixed.

Our general interference has been very minor, as well. Mostly just completing contracts. Mezghar has been attacking Targs. I've been attacking Mhaldorians. No one seems to take issue with Dunn helping quite a lot more. It seems like a silly gripe.

You're right that overall what you guys have done hasn't affected much.

It is frustrating to have to deal with, though, and seems to be a common theme of parts of Hashan and Targ to unofficially attack at the same time.

Sneak tanks are also very annoying to deal with, and now having to pay attention to multiple cities trying to do this just makes that worse.

All valid actions to take IC, but frustrating to players. I don't think you would appreciate it happening to you. 

I can genuinely say that I haven't minded in the past when people (including Mhaldor) have done similar, low level things to me. It was slightly annoying when Mhaldor came into our raid on Targ in full force to oust us. I still didn't significantly complain. But it should be obvious we've deliberately been avoiding doing that during this war. We have like one person hitting each side. It's not very harmful.

You should be mad at the people hiring on you if anything tbh. There's no opportunity to complete these contracts usually outside of engagements with Targ. I've tried to go after people in Mhaldor outside of engagements too and gotten 1v6 stomped right away each time (understandably) but that leaves few options for us marks other than interference.

Cooper

Saonji said:

Farrah said:

No one seems to take issue with Dunn helping quite a lot more. It seems like a silly gripe.

Probably because Dunn is allied to Mhaldor, and in the process of joining the city, as Reyson's already said. City allies actually count towards the war, so why would anyone gripe over it?

This is not the type of information to share on the forums, please don't do this in the future.

Saonji

Cooper said:

Saonji said:

Farrah said:

No one seems to take issue with Dunn helping quite a lot more. It seems like a silly gripe.

Probably because Dunn is allied to Mhaldor, and in the process of joining the city, as Reyson's already said. City allies actually count towards the war, so why would anyone gripe over it?

This is not the type of information to share on the forums, please don't do this in the future.

ThIS Is nOT thE type of INFoRMAtioN TO share oN thE FOruMs, pleaSe don't do THiS In THe fuTURe.

It's not secret information buddy, when Dunn has been counting towards the war. KINDA obvious he's allied.

Reyson

I assumed it was pretty obvious, given Mhaldor doesn't allow allies except in super specific circumstances, but Cooper's probably right. That's my bad, sorry, bud.

Atalkez

Farrah said:

Atalkez said:

Sobriquet said:

Syndra said:

This war stuff is already exhausting enough without having to deal with Targossas and Hashan teaming up. Why is this allowed again?

By Hashan, you mean 4 people, right?

Yes, this is true. Like you said in another post, though, one of them is your CL and two others are Regents. Hard to say it's "outliers" at that point, you know?

It doesn't bother me too much, it is what it is. Slightly annoying but it introduces some random wildcards, which can be fun to change up the monotony of the war.

Also, I don't even know what four people we are talking about at this point. I only know Mezghar, Adrik, and me and Adrik is not a Regent.

We did have that suicide rush with a couple others to try to save the tank but who whines about five people trying to take on ten in guard range? We were obviously and easily slaughtered.

I'm not sure who Sobriquet was alluding to with his four people, but specific to that tank battle it was you/Krizal/Mezghar so 3 Council members.

I'm also not sure why you choose to characterize what's been said as whining, instead of light criticism. Maybe this was directed at some of the previous posts, unsure.

Archaeon

Saonji said:

Archaeon said:

sure is taking a while

Almost as if some cities have standards, rather than unenemying and immediately letting whales join not even 2 days after they were doing guardbashing/raiding sprees.

i'll take atalkez for 500 alex

Saonji

Archaeon said:

Saonji said:

Archaeon said:

sure is taking a while

Almost as if some cities have standards, rather than unenemying and immediately letting whales join not even 2 days after they were doing guardbashing/raiding sprees.

i'll take atalkez for 500 alex

That was actually RP'd with the city's divine. Not "I wanna join the war and play priest pls unenemy"

[Deleted User]

Archaeon said:

Saonji said:

Archaeon said:

sure is taking a while

Almost as if some cities have standards, rather than unenemying and immediately letting whales join not even 2 days after they were doing guardbashing/raiding sprees.

i'll take atalkez for 500 alex

Not at all the same. Sartan said do it, it was done.  Most of us, had we a say in the matter, would have preferred a much much much longer wait time, as with Dunn and others.

Archaeon

ok lol    

Farrah

Atalkez said:

Farrah said:

Atalkez said:

Sobriquet said:

Syndra said:

This war stuff is already exhausting enough without having to deal with Targossas and Hashan teaming up. Why is this allowed again?

By Hashan, you mean 4 people, right?

Yes, this is true. Like you said in another post, though, one of them is your CL and two others are Regents. Hard to say it's "outliers" at that point, you know?

It doesn't bother me too much, it is what it is. Slightly annoying but it introduces some random wildcards, which can be fun to change up the monotony of the war.

Also, I don't even know what four people we are talking about at this point. I only know Mezghar, Adrik, and me and Adrik is not a Regent.

We did have that suicide rush with a couple others to try to save the tank but who whines about five people trying to take on ten in guard range? We were obviously and easily slaughtered.

I'm not sure who Sobriquet was alluding to with his four people, but specific to that tank battle it was you/Krizal/Mezghar so 3 Council members.

I'm also not sure why you choose to characterize what's been said as whining, instead of light criticism. Maybe this was directed at some of the previous posts, unsure.

Krizal wasn't there I'm pretty sure... She logged in while we were raiding Eleusis after.

Adrik

Farrah said:

Atalkez said:

Farrah said:

Atalkez said:

Sobriquet said:

Syndra said:

This war stuff is already exhausting enough without having to deal with Targossas and Hashan teaming up. Why is this allowed again?

By Hashan, you mean 4 people, right?

Yes, this is true. Like you said in another post, though, one of them is your CL and two others are Regents. Hard to say it's "outliers" at that point, you know?

It doesn't bother me too much, it is what it is. Slightly annoying but it introduces some random wildcards, which can be fun to change up the monotony of the war.

Also, I don't even know what four people we are talking about at this point. I only know Mezghar, Adrik, and me and Adrik is not a Regent.

We did have that suicide rush with a couple others to try to save the tank but who whines about five people trying to take on ten in guard range? We were obviously and easily slaughtered.

I'm not sure who Sobriquet was alluding to with his four people, but specific to that tank battle it was you/Krizal/Mezghar so 3 Council members.

I'm also not sure why you choose to characterize what's been said as whining, instead of light criticism. Maybe this was directed at some of the previous posts, unsure.

Krizal wasn't there I'm pretty sure... She logged in while we were raiding Eleusis after.

Krizal absolutely wasn't there for that tank. Becuase it was me, Eryl, Farrah, Mezghar. (Eryl might be substituted for Vessil. IDR tho).

I was literally just checking, and then it dropped and I went. "FARRAH I DID A BAD!" immediately afterwards. I then tried to capture it to bring it back-- butttt it's treason to do such.

Vhaynna

Archaeon said:

ok lol    

Nt sure why you're 'ok lol'ing, when Sartan has confirmed this very thing in the ATA forum. Are you saying Sartan's a liar?

Saonji

Vhaynna said:

Archaeon said:

ok lol    

Nt sure why you're 'ok lol'ing, when Sartan has confirmed this very thing in the ATA forum. Are you saying Sartan's a liar?

It's Archaeon. You're better off not trying to understand him.

Atalkez

Adrik said:

Farrah said:

Krizal wasn't there I'm pretty sure... She logged in while we were raiding Eleusis after.

Krizal absolutely wasn't there for that tank. Becuase it was me, Eryl, Farrah, Mezghar. (Eryl might be substituted for Vessil. IDR tho).

I was literally just checking, and then it dropped and I went. "FARRAH I DID A BAD!" immediately afterwards. I then tried to capture it to bring it back-- butttt it's treason to do such.

Alright, my mistake! These things run together

Archaeon

Vhaynna said:

Archaeon said:

ok lol    

Nt sure why you're 'ok lol'ing, when Sartan has confirmed this very thing in the ATA forum. Are you saying Sartan's a liar?

lol ok

Big Papa Jomi

heheheh

Reyson

If you're gonna reduce guard bashing infamy, fine, but don't make dying to a guard reduce it further. No one should be able to take part of a guard bash for over an hour and not be infamous for a few days. 

[Deleted User]

So Farrah comes in with Targossas and gains a sanction FOR HASHAN by killing for her bounties + infamous. Targossas then drops their tank. I can't help but feel this is a bug that is being abused. Why can a city lay tanks in sanctions that aren't their own? 

Astarod

Syndra said:

So Farrah comes in with Targossas and gains a sanction FOR HASHAN by killing for her bounties + infamous. Targossas then drops their tank. I can't help but feel this is a bug that is being abused. Why can a city lay tanks in sanctions that aren't their own? 

it's already addressed. This seems exploitable, and should be changed (post-war if neither side exploits this too much). Can sanctionblock a city by having another city casually kill four of your people. Hrm......

Saonji

Astarod said:

and should be changed (post-war if neither side exploits this too much).

Uh. No this is definitely the kinda thing that should be fixed during. That is a really weird thought process.

Thankfully it already has, if what Daeir said is true.

Vinzent

He means the fact that multiple cities can't sanction in another and that can be easily exploited. Not what happened.

Minifie

Sanctionblocking seems fine, no one has even tried to abuse it yet.

dropping a tank from another sanction though is a bit dodge

Davok

I wouldn't be adverse to tertiary systems in which allies not of your city (rogue mercenaries, cities allied with eachother) could contribute to war efforts. That could translate to politics mattering but not devolving into just co-raiding. I dunno, pipe dream I guess.

Stheno

Do you know what I love most about war themes? A bunch of soldiers sitting around bored, because the enemy soldiers who raided their city a day or two ago aren't infamous enough in Sapience's eyes. I like to observe the endless paperwork of these soldiers deciding who takes what bounty, like they're swapping shifts at the Achaean Dairy Queen. What cause would we have to fight them otherwise, right? Gets my blood pumping for another fight!

Rackham

We want conflict to be more impactful to the world!

'How bout uhhh, 2 million gold, and the winner gets their face on the front door of the loser's city?'

Gotta sacrifice some when you're balancing thematics and mechanics. So yeah, seems silly when you put it that way. 'There's the guy that was literally destroying our city yesterday! Oh, well, if he comes back THEN he'll be sorry'. But Full pk all the time isn't everybodies cup of tea either.

Ya know what would be cool? There's all this 'permanent destruction during a war'. How bout scrap the BS 2 mil in war reparations (who's going to make this happen in medieval times huh? Ancient United Nations?) and make some form of permanent destruction. Maybe losing city has to decide on X rooms that are just junk now. Denizens there have to move, shops get relocated, etc. City gets smaller. Take enough losses, you gotta start making decisions about what's worth keeping. Do you really need that third bar, or maybe scrap the casino? Eventually, lose enough times, city gets deleted, you all become transients, and gotta start up a village from scratch.

-That's- impactful.

Calira

Rackham said:

Ya know what would be cool? There's all this 'permanent destruction during a war'. How bout scrap the BS 2 mil in war reparations (who's going to make this happen in medieval times huh? Ancient United Nations?) and make some form of permanent destruction. Maybe losing city has to decide on X rooms that are just junk now. Denizens there have to move, shops get relocated, etc. City gets smaller. Take enough losses, you gotta start making decisions about what's worth keeping. Do you really need that third bar, or maybe scrap the casino? Eventually, lose enough times, city gets deleted, you all become transients, and gotta start up a village from scratch.

-That's- impactful.

That would be impactful, but I don't think it would be impactful in a good way. Even if we ignore the potential for abuse, there is the simple fact that destruction is far less interesting than creation. Various IRE games have gone the route of trying to build tension or stakes by killing off player factions, NPC factions, or deities, and it rarely works out in a net positive way. The only times I've seen it work have been when that destruction was necessary to create something new, such as replacing Shallam with Targossas.

I'd much rather see permanent, lore-appropriate incentives introduced to reward the winners of wars, rather than taking things away to punish the losers. Monuments, plaques, accolades, deeds, bardic NPCs telling your tale across the lands. Changes that add to the world and make it more interesting, not emptier. Rewarding participation, even if you come up short, would work far better than punishing it.

Mathonwy

Rackham said:

How bout scrap the BS 2 mil in war reparations (who's going to make this happen in medieval times huh? Ancient United Nations?)  

 I'm gonna stop you right there, chief. Battle of the Allia. Gauls sack Rome. Woe to the vanquished.

Akri

Stheno said:

Do you know what I love most about war themes? A bunch of soldiers sitting around bored, because the enemy soldiers who raided their city a day or two ago aren't infamous enough in Sapience's eyes. I like to observe the endless paperwork of these soldiers deciding who takes what bounty, like they're swapping shifts at the Achaean Dairy Queen. What cause would we have to fight them otherwise, right? Gets my blood pumping for another fight!

Yeah I'm not really sure the infamy reduction(elimination?) was necessary. Being infamous at least gave risk later on, now it seems there's pretty much no downside to guardbashing. Don't get me wrong, I don't care much that people do it. I just also don't think bounties are really adequate answers to it. Did raid infamy get lessened too? It's just so weird so few people are infamous with all the back-and-forth raiding. Except me. I've been infamous the whole war. Do I get a "most infamous" accolade? 

Stheno

There was already an imperfect system for determining who would be open to attack in a full-blown war. The army, the same system that handles tanks and sanctions. That's why we take oaths as soldiers. You get called to serve. That is a natural complement to, if not the crux of, war as a story construct. Of course, some people would prefer to just have the title of Legionnaire and not back it up with play. This is hard for me to understand or agree with, as someone who got ganked regularly as a young conscript with no combat awareness for a good, long time. The complaint then was that soldiers were unduly suffering for the choices of a few in leadership, and that this wasn't a desirable part of the game, even if it fits the definition of a war of attrition. Quitting the army wasn't a solution to this because...?

But we have infamy! That will solve it, and no one will complain this time about getting hit for choosing themselves to hit things. That seems fundamental.

(This lasted three days, or one-eighth of a standard war.)

For some reason, no one wants to engage the mandatory conscript city on equal ground. So you get this weird cat's cradle of decisions that blunts the impact of any meaningful choices, any actual edge, and loops around OOC player complaints and demands, but only if they encourage the path of least resistance.

It's frustrating to be told it's all about the story, in light of that.

Entaro

I'm just laughing people had issues with Dunn, who is an ally and has been working on joining Mhaldor before this war even began, but totally ok with disarming one tank and placing two of their own on dodgy grounds.