Mhaldor vs Targossas

Akri

I don't think bounties will realistically end in a sanction on their own. It's very easy to avoid a bounty as you're warned of it, and most people can only claim one bounty at a time. Having four or five people able to kill their target in a short span of time... well, I only see that happening in a skirmish that would have started a sanction during war anyway.

That said, aren't bounties really clunky as they are now? I don't even bother with most of them because people refuse to duel, rarely leave city or ships and just give no opportunity to settle it because they have no reason to.
So, why not change them to work like city-specific infamy? Slap a price on someone's head, first citizen to kill them gets the money (maybe deposited on bank account?), add a command like BOUNTYWHO to see who you're allowed to murder once, let the bounty decay after being posted. Or automatically generated, maybe? Might be better to keep it manual. 

Reyson

Doesn't using bounties encourage cause counting? If I bust in twice, does the other team only get to put out one bounty on me, or are Ministers supposed to track instances to ensure retaliation is commensurate? Trespass is already an offence in most places, so you could just get bountied for that, no?

Why not look at the infamy values and tone them down against war targets instead, if it's generating too much, instead of turning Ministers into PK lawyers? Infamy being visible and automatic is nice, as opposed to having to see who can hit whom for what, and having to track how many offenses have been avenged, I feel.

ETA: To say nothing of the 1v1 nature of a bounty, in which a target not engaging means a raiding team can't contribute to bringing the target down, as opposed to the case in infamy. 

Antonius

Makarios said:

I will note that groups mass hunting individuals down was one of the primary issues with the old war system, so we're not really interested in promoting mechanisms that encourage that: that is a situation where fun has to trump realism we feel.

The existing Infamy system seems to be allowing that right now, by all accounts. A large part of that could be the amount of infamy gained from guard attacks/kills, but even without guard bashing, if you're somebody with a limited amount of playing time and you spend most of that involved in PK, you'll probably be Infamous for the majority of the war anyway (based on my experience of how quickly I become Infamous during a group fight, and how many days afterwards I'm still Infamous if I'm only logging in a few hours each day [and not dying]). Not to mention that being Infamous tends to reduce your options for non-PK actions when logged in, so you end up with a sort of feedback loop.

Akri said:

So, why not change them to work like city-specific infamy? Slap a price on someone's head, first citizen to kill them gets the money (maybe deposited on bank account?), add a command like BOUNTYWHO to see who you're allowed to murder once, let the bounty decay after being posted. Or automatically generated, maybe? Might be better to keep it manual. 

The problem with allowing anybody from city X to attack an individual until the bounty is completed is that it will result in situations where a group of citizens from city X all attack that individual at the same time, and - almost inevitably - continue attacking after the first (burst) kill when those attacks are no longer justified by the bounty. With a single individual involved, it's less likely for post-burst attacks to take place, and even when they do occur, they're not likely to result in a second death.

Aegoth

Antonius said:

Makarios said:

I will note that groups mass hunting individuals down was one of the primary issues with the old war system, so we're not really interested in promoting mechanisms that encourage that: that is a situation where fun has to trump realism we feel.

The existing Infamy system seems to be allowing that right now, by all accounts. A large part of that could be the amount of infamy gained from guard attacks/kills, but even without guard bashing, if you're somebody with a limited amount of playing time and you spend most of that involved in PK, you'll probably be Infamous for the majority of the war anyway (based on my experience of how quickly I become Infamous during a group fight, and how many days afterwards I'm still Infamous if I'm only logging in a few hours each day [and not dying]). Not to mention that being Infamous tends to reduce your options for non-PK actions when logged in, so you end up with a sort of feedback loop.

Akri said:

So, why not change them to work like city-specific infamy? Slap a price on someone's head, first citizen to kill them gets the money (maybe deposited on bank account?), add a command like BOUNTYWHO to see who you're allowed to murder once, let the bounty decay after being posted. Or automatically generated, maybe? Might be better to keep it manual. 

The problem with allowing anybody from city X to attack an individual until the bounty is completed is that it will result in situations where a group of citizens from city X all attack that individual at the same time, and - almost inevitably - continue attacking after the first (burst) kill when those attacks are no longer justified by the bounty. With a single individual involved, it's less likely for post-burst attacks to take place, and even when they do occur, they're not likely to result in a second death.

You act like ppl don't already team for bounties/contracts

Archaeon

Like you? Lol

Stheno

I would much rather engage someone fairly than bash their guards and dance around bounties, discounting strategic raids where you have to bash through to get to a key location. Just like I would much rather a group engage another group than turtle in the city, return to ships, or wait for the lulls in playtime. If you bail on your citymates as the higher priority target, and if you wilfully give up on fighting, then yeah, they are probably getting hunted down and killed without you.

I don't think anyone likes wars of attrition over wars of substance, but the duration and mechanics point to exactly that. If we are going for fun over realism, and I agree that is the priority, please give us ways to facilitate that. "Surrender" is 100:1 odds in Pandora's book because it is just that unlikely for either city.

It's clear that declarations of war are in themselves a way to publicly put political, financial, and military pressure on another city. The other side of the coin is the risk of committing all your citizens to a war they may not want to fight. Why is that okay, and the consequences of a city accepting the challenge you made not? Is there even a mirage of political and social fallout at that point?

Santar

Stheno said:

If infamy was a deterrence against guard bashing, removing it just encourages it. What part of that seems enjoyable?

Can you address the concerns of burnout raised by everyone here?

All these complaints are just dancing around the issue, and people keep suggesting these tiny little band-aid fixes.

The root issue here, is that nobody wants 24 straight days of tension and PK where you have to pound monster energy drinks and stay up all night raiding/defending like you work for NORAD missile watch. 

To make everyone's stress that much worse, they're being tracked by invisible point values which they're going to lose out on if they DON'T engage in the above.

Even the old war system wasn't this bad, because if you get raided/PK'd on a bad day or time, it doesn't mean you lose the war.

I think the logical solution is that the system has to be developed more to provide some sort of concentrated times of conflict(perhaps some sort of event(s) on a rotating schedule to allow for all time zones, occurring a couple times per RL day), and shorten it to one IC year, so that people don't feel like they have to rotate their entire schedule around Achaea for a RL month. 

Reyson

Adapting the crusade system and re-skinning it to encourage set-piece battles seems like a good idea. 

Mhaldor has declared their intent to capture New Hope. 

Then, you have what's essentially the same as shards, except maybe like, an outpost, or a supply cache, or something, that you have to stay still for a while to dismantle or capture or whatever, same as subverting. 

3-5 spawns per area. Cooldown of X amount of hours so it can only be done so many times in a week. Fighting on neutral territory is a lot more fun, as opposed to having to be on your guard 24/7, and I feel like a heads-up would be neat for planning these battles. 

In addition, maybe these could spawn as targets of opportunity, unannounced, throughout the day, from one to three times, with only one or two spawns, and a 15-minute heads-up. 

If people know when they have to fight (and more importantly, when the fighting is going to stop), then we don't have this burnout happening inside a week, no? 

Adrik

Santar said:

Stheno said:

If infamy was a deterrence against guard bashing, removing it just encourages it. What part of that seems enjoyable?

Can you address the concerns of burnout raised by everyone here?

All these complaints are just dancing around the issue, and people keep suggesting these tiny little band-aid fixes.

The root issue here, is that nobody wants 24 straight days of tension and PK where you have to pound monster energy drinks and stay up all night raiding/defending like you work for NORAD missile watch. 

To make everyone's stress that much worse, they're being tracked by invisible point values which they're going to lose out on if they DON'T engage in the above.

Even the old war system wasn't this bad, because if you get raided/PK'd on a bad day or time, it doesn't mean you lose the war.

I think the logical solution is that the system has to be developed more to provide some sort of concentrated times of conflict(perhaps some sort of event(s) on a rotating schedule to allow for all time zones, occurring a couple times per RL day), and shorten it to one IC year, so that people don't feel like they have to rotate their entire schedule around Achaea for a RL month. 

Trust me when I say this.

Last time Targ went to war with Mhaldor, I had a god tell Farrah to tell me to go the fuck to sleep because it was non-stop vigilance that was required. We didn't have many (tm) ganks, though Proficy still did it on the occasion. We had to be vigilant for tanks, etc.

A RL Month of war is awful.  Even 2/3rds of a month is bad. Change it down to 12 days, or 15. It doesn't make sense in relation to IRL stuff (as irl wars take years)... but we're also not conquering anything. Dealing the the citizenry of said area. We pretty much raze as we please and there are no conventions of war stopping us otherwise.

12~15 ig month war. Get rid of infamy for anything outside of guard bashing*. Make it so destroyed rooms aren't permanent (or, at the very least, have SPECIAL TANKS that denizens can give to the city).

The last point on that is to make it so that if you tank someone's tank room-- they just have no ammo during the war unless they, themselves, go raid an uninvolved 3rd party to guardbash to their tank room / take their tanks. It's not fun for anyone.


* Note: If the guards are called with CALL FOR HELP, then the generation of INFAMY should be negated entirely. If you are just killing guards to kill guards: then you are a cockwomble.

Santar

Another option could be a system where you basically 'call your shots' as the attacker. Like you have to plan the raid 2 hours ahead of time, but when it happens, you get a free sanction and can plant your tank. Could make it where that ability is only available during war time. And you could make it where that's the only way you're allowed to put down tanks.

That way there's no crying or complaining about outcomes and no stress of having to fight 24/7. 

Kog

Daeir said:

Honestly, maybe we should just visit Aetolia and ask them politely if we can borrow a cup full of ylem, because the Major/Minor axis they use for scheduled conflict there works like a treat and is basically everything Achaean war needs.

Just don't borrow their war system, that lasted 2 RL months.

Sothantos

The invisible points is, in my opinion, worse for encouraging risk than transparent point counting. Hiding the scoring only means we're more cautious because we don't know what anything is worth.

Big Papa Jomi

Santar said:

Another option could be a system where you basically 'call your shots' as the attacker. Like you have to plan the raid 2 hours ahead of time, but when it happens, you get a free sanction and can plant your tank. Could make it where that ability is only available during war time. And you could make it where that's the only way you're allowed to put down tanks.

That way there's no crying or complaining about outcomes and no stress of having to fight 24/7. 

I like this idea.

And soldier PKs for war points only count during this pre-determined raid slot, which discourages Infamous ganking because there's no reason to do it other than ganking.

But you would also need to do something so that, if the enemy doesn't engage, increase passive tank ticks. Guarantee a blown tank after like, 45 min-1hr of no engagement. Increase it even more if defense activates font, so that they can't just sit around and wait

And also something with guards, maybe, to discourage just guarding people on both sides. I don't know a single person that likes guards, but they're always being used. Maybe have guard kills give tank %, but less than soldier PKs? Then it's like, "you can rush in with guards, but if you get trounced, then you have an even less chance than normal of getting everyone up and getting a strategy together before tank blows". Or just lower their health or something. /shrug

Soles

Cobault said:

Imagine:
Going out of your way to piss off the ENTIRE world, every single other City in the game being your variety battlegrounds of 'I'm bored. Imma destroy your shit'
Then, initiating a serious conflict with another City and then COMPLAINING because the rest of the world is biting and nipping at you like pilot fish following a shark. Mhaldorians could suffer from the Infamy system just the same, the difference is, somehow, the City of Evil doesn't have the rest of Sapience fuming at them and ready to get a little revenge. Like, no one is even trying to HELP Mhaldor in this matter - they just wanna fuck y'all up while you're preoccupied from what I've seen.

Reap what you sow. IC, every other City wants to see you guys lose.

Edit: To stay on topic though, the Infamy system is fine. Both sides are gaining Infamy at basically the same rate, there's just an unadjustable variable at play making Targossas feel like they're getting hit worse over it.

As Cardi B says: b*tches is mad, b*tches is sad, OSCAR THE GROUCH.

Entaro

Archaeon said:

Like you? Lol

lol

Vhaynna

Archaeon said:

Like you? Lol

And you. 

Saonji

Soles said:

Cobault said:

Imagine:
Going out of your way to piss off the ENTIRE world, every single other City in the game being your variety battlegrounds of 'I'm bored. Imma destroy your shit'
Then, initiating a serious conflict with another City and then COMPLAINING because the rest of the world is biting and nipping at you like pilot fish following a shark. Mhaldorians could suffer from the Infamy system just the same, the difference is, somehow, the City of Evil doesn't have the rest of Sapience fuming at them and ready to get a little revenge. Like, no one is even trying to HELP Mhaldor in this matter - they just wanna fuck y'all up while you're preoccupied from what I've seen.

Reap what you sow. IC, every other City wants to see you guys lose.

Edit: To stay on topic though, the Infamy system is fine. Both sides are gaining Infamy at basically the same rate, there's just an unadjustable variable at play making Targossas feel like they're getting hit worse over it.

As Cardi B says: b*tches is mad, b*tches is sad, OSCAR THE GROUCH.

Prolly not the best person to be quoting anything from.

Archaeon

Vhaynna said:

Archaeon said:

Like you? Lol

And you. 

Lol

Achilles

Biggest change I'd make right now is make city states warring indemnify each other (and guards).  Not much point in the open PK rules if everyone is essentially perma-infamous anyways.  This let's people go do non-war stuff.  Will have a lot more suggestions on what to do in future wars as I don't like making seeing big changes made in the middle of a event.

Santar

Makarios already fixed the primary issue of the guards giving too much infamy. I don't know why you guys are still whining about this. The point of the infamy is so that the people who ARE fighting are open PK. That part is already fine. The dev team never said they wanted all fighting between city soldiers to stop. You just are limited to only killing city soldiers that are infamous, rather than ganking anyone at any time.


And I've also seen NUMEROUS people in this thread claim 'everyone is perma-infamous'

As someone with a Jovan card, I can tell you that that could not be more false. Everyone in your city is being griefed by perma infamy, Achilles?

You draw forth a card depicting Boss Jovan from your deck, holding it before your face.

A shimmering document materialises before your eyes, and you quickly study it:

Doromath is one of the Infamous.

Damari is one of the Infamous.

Issam is one of the Infamous.

Saibel is one of the Infamous.

Entaro is one of the Infamous.

Halos is one of the Infamous.

Achilles is one of the Infamous.

Davok is one of the inveterately Infamous.

Crixos is one of the inveterately Infamous.

A card depicting Boss Jovan may be used 4 more times before its potential will need to be restored.

6053h, 4873m, 26620e, 21490w exkdb-

QW Targossas 

Achilles, Blive, Damari, Egareva, Fendrel, Halos, Icarius, Icraa, Issam, Jheniver, Kalogeros, Layta,

Niraaeth, Petraisxyros, Romaen, Saberlin, Shirim, Tianondria, Vruunak, Yen, and Zenita.

(21 total).


4/21. Huh?

Achilles

Easily half those names are noncoms or novices.  Check the list throughout the day, will have over half the city infamous around serenade.

Santar

Achilles said:

Easily half those names are noncoms or novices.  Check the list throughout the day, will have over half the city infamous around serenade.

because you're raiding non-stop. What kind of logic is this? 

Aegoth

It's Achilles math, Santar. Can't beat it

Minifie

How do non-comms get infamous?

Saonji

16/21 of those names are ones who regularly fight/have fought, as well (with another 2-3 I'm unsure of, then you have the sub-60 people which are fair enough). Yet only 3 are infamous... That's not really 'easily half'

Achilles

The only ones who have regularly fought have been Me, Fendrel, Halos and Issam.  Fendrel has died so many times he lost his infamy.

Damari and Romaen were present for one raid and still infamous from it 4 rl days later (and just double died about 20 minutes ago).

Just people looking for an excuse to kill people after the fact.  

Reyson

Imagine hitting big groups of people with room attacks/vibes/runes/harms/rites/breathrain/tooros, etc. for the better part of a week, and being confused about why you're really infamous. 

Minifie

That's a part of why infamy exists to my knowledge, so people can't move in roving gangs bigger than most of the rest of the game and just own it all, without there being SOME form of potential repercussions. Hell, after we shrined up Eleusis I was infamous for ~6 days, if you are infamous still it really means you barely died, and managed to do a lot of damage. 

Cooper

Let's cool down a bit before this turns into an argument no one truly wants to happen. I'm very proud of both sides being polite on the forums.

Sothantos

I don't have a strong opinion on this myself, but I think there may be a discrepancy in intent and comprehension here of the infamy problem. I don't think people are saying that the problem is infamy between Mhaldor and Targossas. Obviously, if Romaen and Damari are fighting Mhaldor, they should be open to Mhaldor. The stated issue is everyone else. It does seem rather discouraging for midbies if participating in the war opens them up to everyone and their grandmother.