Your war system ideas

2»

Comments

  • I might be overshooting this a bit, but I feel like it'd be really neat if the new war system could be something all organizations (except orders, since they have their own methods) could participate in.

    Since obviously it might be a bit unfeasible for a guild to go to war against a city, I'd suggest an alliance system along with it that would allow multiple organizations to join up in the fray.

    What this could potentially do:
    - Guild versus guild wars on a more official level.
    - Allow clans the ability to have more bite behind their bark since they could also wage war.
    - Allow guilds to form coalitions to war against a city.
    - Create intricate alliances between guilds, clans, and cities.
    - Allow some separation between guild and city, which assists in identity development. If a city goes to war, the individual guilds could choose to involve themselves as well, since most times the people in a particular guild aren't all part of the same city.
    image
    Feelings, sensations that you thought were dead. No squealin' remember, that it's all in your head.
    AngweMoireanHavenIshin
  • HavenHaven World Burner Flight School
    @Aldric: I like where your head is at but... Mm...I think it'd be better to just give guilds/clans/houses their own mechanic separate from city mechanics for conflict. Most if not all guilds have some sort of coveted relic or something that a system could be worked around for them to engage one another. Infernals had that legendary sword (I think Carni's still have it, not sure), Daru/Lumis have their spark things, etc.
    ¤ Si vis pacem, para bellum. ¤
    Someone powerful says, "We're going to have to delete you."
    havenbanner2
    Ishin
  • ArekaAreka Drifting in a sea of wenches' bosoms
    Some check-and-balance system for declaring with registered reasoning, since war is a pretty significant thing and 'We're bored and want to kill everyone' will burn out the receiving orgs as they have in the past, and continue to with holywar. It needs to have meat to it, otherwise it's just another headache. It needs to have RP and story beyond 2-3 people being invested in it.
    image
    Ashmer
  • IshinIshin Retired Lurker Virginia
    I need an Awesome or 'I Heart' button for you, @Lucie.
    Tell me and I forget, teach me and
    I remember, involve me and I
    learn.
    -Benjamin Franklin
    ZsadistHavenAshmerRiluo
  • IshinIshin Retired Lurker Virginia
    Lucie said:



    I got'cha!

    For you, bae. <3
    Tell me and I forget, teach me and
    I remember, involve me and I
    learn.
    -Benjamin Franklin
    Ashmer
  • HavenHaven World Burner Flight School
    Areka said:
    Some check-and-balance system for declaring with registered reasoning, since war is a pretty significant thing and 'We're bored and want to kill everyone' will burn out the receiving orgs as they have in the past, and continue to with holywar. It needs to have meat to it, otherwise it's just another headache. It needs to have RP and story beyond 2-3 people being invested in it.
    I understand your concern but that route won't really solve the issue. I'd rather see more content implemented that'd draw their attention away from that meaningless boredom war (like the 5th npc city that's warable) instead of introducing helicopter approval systems for war.
    ¤ Si vis pacem, para bellum. ¤
    Someone powerful says, "We're going to have to delete you."
    havenbanner2
    ArekaIshin
  • AshmerAshmer Barefoot Adventurer Life
    Lucie said:

    Zsadist said:

    I like the ideas as I agree it would add alot of conflict and get both PKers and non-PKers to join in for such a large scale conflict and actually be fun. However, and this may just be me, but wouldn't that still leave the crafters (non-PKers) open to PK? I mean, if I know Aryanne or Lucie is crafting arrows for the ballista to attack a towne that is controlled by BL, I'm going to target them and kill them in order for them to be unable to supply the arrows for Enorian.

    While I like the idea of getting non-PKers involved in a primarily PK conflict, I can't help but feel they would likely still be targetted by association laws and helping the PK scene.

    This might just be me (and it probably is!)... But I am fine with getting targeted if I am assisting in war efforts (even in a non-PK capacity). I mean, in reality, dying just doesn't mean much in the game anyway so if I get flattened like a pancake - oh well! I go to the mirror and come back and keep doing my thing. Is it fair to pick on the non-com? Probably not. But life isn't fair and it really shatters my immersion to start thinking that I am somehow above repercussion for my actions just because I don't pk. It would probably even encourage me to care more about getting at least competent enough to run well. :smiley:
    Can we save this post forever, please?

    the way she tells me I'm hers and she is mine

    open hand or closed fist would be fine

    blood as rare and sweet as cherry wine

    ZsadistIshinJensenDraimanRashar
  • edited February 2015
    Personally? This might be slightly off-topic, but in a war, I always believed there is defined 'roles' people basically end up going into and all of them make you susceptible to being PK'ed. Combat Roles: Basically? What you do to help out!

    -Scavengers--Someone has got to be a supplier of goods, and the goods got to come someplace, usually off a rotting corpse! Least likely to see arm get ripped off, but at same time, competition to make most out of what you get.

    -Merchant--The profiteer who pays for (not always) quality items that are easily obtained to exploit the masses at price holding both sides greedily to exploit. Gold is like liquid booze, you can never get enough, and it passes many people's palms back and forth during war.

    -Militia--Your typical individual city scouts, soldiers, engineers, commandeers, political con-artists, commanders, and officers split into each specific individual place you belong to, fighting to capture areas of interest to each specific party.

    Recruiters--Every city needs citizens willing to join the war-front! Villages, towns, underground run-away Mhun....There is always someone that should be sent to represent their side to try to convince the masses to sway them to fight on their behalf...

    Detainment Officers--Every decision has consequences. Sometimes people simply get CAPTURED! Someone's got to bloody watch them!

    PC's can fit into all these roles, people who perfer not to PK can easily fit into first two supplying their city, Recruiters simply talking to the masses by a soap-box maybe though a debating system of politics to convince villagers without confrontation can be targets simply BECAUSE they supply them. Mind you, this is just how I personally think, there's hundreds of not thousands of other things could be added here. However if a war-themed future is in for Aetolia, all I have to ask, is what is going to keep it interesting in the first place? IF it turns out like lessers, ((or how face-roll dull Midkemia gets bouncing territory back and forth with very little actual influence on you're city beyond fact locked it down temporarily in pvp just cause)) I respect the fact it could really turn out fun role-playing investment, but I'd rather just have fishing if the next RL year or two is drawn-out war. War should be saved for moments when we need key-defining destruction of our little lovely cesspit we claim as a home in Aet ((tee hee!)). Some decisions should come with incredibly important consequences, could even re-define things in the lands.

    I'd sooner like see more testing right now, so we can make sure to do it right. Something can work hard to satisify and make Aetolia incredibly unique in how it handles conflict.
  • I haven't read anything past Razmael's initial post. If any of this has been said before, mark it down as a "I second that idea!"

    1) Tangible Benefits
    Both personal and city-wide. For example, and this has been "done before" (think WoW), I get to collect the rank insignia from whoever I kill. Non-army = 1 pt, Private = 1 pt, Corporal = 2 pt, Sergeant = 3pt, Captain = 5pt, etc. It would give meaning to city army ranks as you don't want every person in your army to be a Grand Marshall because you'll give your opponent a ton of this arbitrary currency. Then, you can trade them in. Small, limit-time buffs perhaps. Like, 5 pts for a 1 hour +10% exp boost. It doesn't have to be completely amazing, but if I get *something* that will actually make a difference in my other activities, then it makes my participation in the war system worthwhile.

    2) Multiple ways to participate
    Don't make it all or nothing. Not everyone can play at the same time, so if every war happens at 1900 EST, I would prefer you DON'T implement it because I'll never benefit from it. But that's just me being completely self-centered. Mining, cutting lumber, gathering food, cooking, cleaning the barracks, stupid things like that would actually fit with other people's characters more than jump in the front lines.

    3) Archery
    I want to grab my darkbow and jump in and lead a group of archers and rain death upon the so-called good guys. This sort of falls under the "multiple ways to participate." And not necessarily with other players like we theoretically could do now, I want my bowmanship to actually mean something.

    4) Sabotage
    I want to be able to sneak into the enemy camp and blow something up. Because who doesn't love explosions? I'll even settle for stealing supplies or poisoning the watering hole.

    5)Story
    Eh, it would be nice, but having it both ways would be just fine, too. Story sometimes, probably requiring a GM to run, other times it's player initiated and whatnot.

    Just a few thoughts. I'm going back to sleep.

    SakylIshinRazmael
    1. A way that requires multiple people to be involved. Be it a cap on how many troops a person can command, some kind of bonus in coordination for smaller units, whatever - some kind of mechanical reward that lets people be in charge of their own group. I like the idea of multiple people having to work together to get stuff done.
    2. Also related to the previous, exp/stats for groups. For example, Achaea's seafaring system had a morale/crew exp stat that helped determine performance. As you fight more and more, your troops get better and better at fighting. A tactically skilled leader should have some kind of stats to reflect their skill, rewarding risk taking that doesn't end in disaster.
    3. Again related to the previous, not every single soldier should die in a fight. Before, 200 vs 200 until only 1 stack of soldiers remained. I'd rather battles end up with killed/wounded and one side or the other being driven back. Soldiers from a unit who are killed can be replaced with fresh recruits, though they drag the overall experience level of the unit down (and the morale down too, if they consistently take casualties!) - this means you want to push your troops to a certain point so you get stuff done, but not so harshly that their morale tanks and they lose all their experience.
    4. Some kind of history thing (though this can probably be done on the RP side) associated with each sub-group of soldiers. Name them, give them their own culture/focus/style/whatever to make them slightly more unique - maybe @Alissandra's unit specializes in archery and they go by a name, with their own banner, so there's some company spirit. Maybe @Xenia's are known for their loud parties and don't get combat bonuses, but they get a base morale boost by virtue of always having lots of booze.
    5. I'd also kind of rather battles take place on some sort of 'battle map' akin to chess/a tabletop, vs taking place room by room, with players perhaps having optional quests to do in the area to 'assist' - skirmish over who controls a key stronghold somewhere until the fight starts, then lock out and let troops march off of orders they were given. Probably too difficult to code, but I can dream!

    Arbre-Today at 7:27 PM

    You're a vindictive lil unicorn
    ---------------------------

    Lartus-Today at 7:16 PM

    oh wait, toz is famous

    Karhast-Today at 7:01 PM

    You're a singularity of fucking awfulness Toz
    ---------------------------
    Didi's voice resonates across the land, "Yay tox."
    ---------------------------

    Ictinus11/01/2021

    Block Toz
    ---------------------------

    limToday at 10:38 PM


    you disgust me
    ---------------------------
    (Web): Bryn says, "Toz is why we can't have nice things."

    SetneIshinXeniaAlissandraMoirean
  • JensenJensen Corruption's Butcher
    Not sure if this should replace the war system or be its own thing, but here we go.

    War camps:
    Each city has a war camp area adjoining it's city. This space is ciem style with an npc general at the top of the encampment. War ministries can declare a raid on these camps and in 24 hours the conflict starts. Both sides are notified when it will begin.

    The participants will be militia and war ministry members only, anyone else gets kicked out like you would a novice area. Fighting is determined by the attacker and can be purely ciem style with npc troops aided by players to attack and defend. Capture the flag style. Or could be like the Juxa event with troops and fortifications.

    Ylem research trees can buff your troops for battles, give access to fortification and trap options, and or new troop types. Unit speeds should be increased to limit the conflict time down to something manageable.

    Winners might get ylem, gold, resources, or a low number of credits. (Not necissarily from the loser, particularly if it's credits)
    image
    AldricTozXeniaIshinKendri
  • Seir mentioned Necroing this thread so I'm going to beat him to it.

    1) Reintroducing old versions of the landmarks wouldn't work for obvious reasons but introducing landmarks that have individual weight for opposing guilds could be fun though the detrimental affect would have to be toned down.

    2) To combat off-peak fighting during wars, you can always scale troops to a ratio of active militia online. You can have a crown of omens type effect for lone militia etc.

    3) Beyond the Sect of Blades, I think another 1v1 mechanic that revolved around a group of people who would be randomly matched to fight each other or suffer a drawback would be fun. Think fight club / lottery.
  • AishiaAishia Queen Bee
    One thing Valingar and I say to each other all the time when we're just talking in circles about things we've discussed 10000 times is it'd be nice to have a conflict mechanic geared towards/limited to smaller groups. I find for group fighting the most fun is somewhere around 3v3.
    Ishin
  • edited July 2015
    I have a very long response to this thread, one that likely cannot be detailed in a single post. That said, I can try to present my idea in summary, such as it stands. The reason being, that I've actually made an insanely detailed and nuanced analysis and solution to the issues surrounding conflict in Aetolia. So if what I'm saying seems a bit short on details, I could certainly provide more, but the entirety of it would be a rather lengthy read and might become extremely technical for some folks. I started writing it a month or so ago, but I was intending to discuss it when I had the proposal more or less completed. I hate analysis without providing a solution to the problem, so... I started writing out a solution.


    The gist of my perspective is as follows:

    We do not need a war system. War in and of itself is only one means of conflict and is insufficient by itself to fulfill the needs of the game as a whole, or to be compelling enough to be the sole aspect of what needs to be done.

    We need an entire conflict system, that incorporates Economic Conflict, Personal/Ideological Conflict, and Military/Armed Conflict into a single interlocking set of mechanics, skills, and abilities.

    It needs to cover multiple scales of conflict as well, from the personal/individual level, to the medium/guild/clan/order/city level, to the massive nation-state/total culture levels of organization.

    It needs to be a self-moderating system, one that requires a minimal level of input or interference from the gods.

    It needs to provide for different player types, not just PK/PvE orientated players.

    It needs to have meaningful and new types of binding agreements with outcomes and consequences that are automatically enforced by game mechanics.

    We need to have an influence system and much more advanced economic process, that includes high-level, macro-scale, abstract resources, which can be translated into military and/or economic power.

    I realize all of that sounds great, and also insanely ambitious, but the fact is that I am suggesting this with about...75% of a system* written that would very likely do all that I just listed and more. While I'd like to share the details with folks, it still has more writing to do and that will take a while yet. But... I can still try, if anyone is honestly interested at looking over my little pet project.

    *I'm sorry, I mean one of the three segments of the system. The others I've outlined and know how they'd work, but I haven't actually written out the specific details yet.
    Kerryn
  • OleisOleis Producer Emeritus Administrator, Immortal
    Sarkis said:

    I have a very long response to this thread, one that likely cannot be detailed in a single post. That said, I can try to present my idea in summary, such as it stands. The reason being, that I've actually made an insanely detailed and nuanced analysis and solution to the issues surrounding conflict in Aetolia. So if what I'm saying seems a bit short on details, I could certainly provide more, but the entirety of it would be a rather lengthy read and might become extremely technical for some folks. I started writing it a month or so ago, but I was intending to discuss it when I had the proposal more or less completed. I hate analysis without providing a solution to the problem, so... I started writing out a solution.


    The gist of my perspective is as follows:

    We do not need a war system. War in and of itself is only one means of conflict and is insufficient by itself to fulfill the needs of the game as a whole, or to be compelling enough to be the sole aspect of what needs to be done.

    We need an entire conflict system, that incorporates Economic Conflict, Personal/Ideological Conflict, and Military/Armed Conflict into a single interlocking set of mechanics, skills, and abilities.

    It needs to cover multiple scales of conflict as well, from the personal/individual level, to the medium/guild/clan/order/city level, to the massive nation-state/total culture levels of organization.

    It needs to be a self-moderating system, one that requires a minimal level of input or interference from the gods.

    It needs to provide for different player types, not just PK/PvE orientated players.

    It needs to have meaningful and new types of binding agreements with outcomes and consequences that are automatically enforced by game mechanics.

    We need to have an influence system and much more advanced economic process, that includes high-level, macro-scale, abstract resources, which can be translated into military and/or economic power.

    I realize all of that sounds great, and also insanely ambitious, but the fact is that I am suggesting this with about...75% of a system* written that would very likely do all that I just listed and more. While I'd like to share the details with folks, it still has more writing to do and that will take a while yet. But... I can still try, if anyone is honestly interested at looking over my little pet project.

    *I'm sorry, I mean one of the three segments of the system. The others I've outlined and know how they'd work, but I haven't actually written out the specific details yet.

    When @Razmael and I say war system, we are referring to something like this. Not something for the minister of war to do.
    You say to Slyphe, "You're so freaking smart."
    [---]
    "^," Slyphe agrees with you.
    KerrynSarkis
  • IshinIshin Retired Lurker Virginia
    @Oleis That sounds pretty legit. I'd really like to see a 'war system' that allows participation on multiple levels, other than 'Hey Concoctionist, come fill our vials pls'.
    Tell me and I forget, teach me and
    I remember, involve me and I
    learn.
    -Benjamin Franklin
    AarbrokSarkis
  • edited July 2015
    Oleis said:


    When @Razmael and I say war system, we are referring to something like this. Not something for the minister of war to do.

    That makes me feel considerably less ambivalent than I had before. Not that I doubted you guys, but Aetolia's track record with conflict systems has been pretty spotty and, please forgive this, I've only had the past to go off of for reference.

    So I guess I can go more into detail about my conflict system ideas.

    I was writing an entire proposal to actually send to...someone (I have no idea who, I was still writing it and trying to work up the courage to send it) to look at and at least consider, if not actually implement. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that what I was writing was to help spark ideas/debate/development for a conflict system and I while I'd love the idea of it being partially or wholly implemented, I also am not so married to it that I'd be hugely disappointed if it was turned down.

    Anyway... I'll provide a more detailed outline and some idea of specific features and functions here. If anyone really wants to know more, once again...I can seriously provide waaay more detail than what'll be provided in this post, so if you're curious to know more about how I'd envision a particular aspect of it functioning, by all means ask. I will probably be able to drown you in specifics and the reasoning for them. Some might be specifically vague, as they might require wider consideration or tweaking than what I may imply or state and thus remain very flexible (and prevents me from being too invested in a specific mechanic or detail and lose my objectivity).


    If you want to TL;DR, just read the main bullet points and skip smaller ones. I honestly kept this as short as I felt I could; the document I've been working on as the more detail proposal is already more than twenty pages of single spaced, 10 point font writing, and really only got most of the way through the basics of micro and meso-level contracts...


    ===========================================================
    Insanity said:
    -----------------------------------------------

    That's about it, folks. If you want more, I could provide it. Provided I haven't broken the forums or people's patience with my bloody unicorn huge post of unicorning doom. Cheers!

    Edit: Oh sweet baby bunnies in a basket, it doesn't like preserving my formatting. WHY!? I'll provide a link to a Googledoc later, with proper formatting. My apologies.

    Edit of an edit (Edit edition): Here's the GoogleDocs link that is formatted in a legible manner: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KyFcIGDHc3eskRlRV_QtN3WeYuNPXTEjBW7GvzfTUNY/edit?usp=sharing

    You should be able to read it there.
    Kerryn
  • edited July 2015
    Sarkis, I think your proposal is interesting, though I can't help but think the scope is overly grand (requiring a total revamp of the game's economic and organizational structure).

    But since people seem to be posting here again I'm going to dig up some stuff I jotted down years ago, after the old war system got shut down.

    Basically, my thoughts at the time was that the old war system failed for a couple reasons:
    • It was fundamentally a numbers game with limited room for tactics. Since troop recruitment was fixed, once you were sufficiently behind you were likely going to lose no matter what.
    • It relied on an annoying marching game that relied on constantly keeping tabs on enemy marching characters (emphasizing hood artifacts) and babysitting of divisions to prevent them from getting wiped by a surprise attack.
    • It always devolved into Total War scenarios. The only meaningful way to end a war was the total occupation of the loser, dragging the conflicts out into long slogs even after the end result was basically decided. Similarly, you were either in the militia and hence at war 24/7, or out of the militia and thus altogether removed from the conflict.

    With this in mind, I drew up some requirements for a good system:
    • It should offer a variety of ways to contribute through the war effort, some of whom should not be directly linked to pvp combat.
    • It should be fun for those involved, whether or not you enjoy constant pvp combat, taking part in more sporadic battles, or contributing without taking part in pvp combat.
    • It should always reward actively contesting disputed territories or other goals of the conflict, over sitting passive while enemies do their thing.
    • It should reward strategic war planning during peacetime, and tactical dispositions and decisionmaking during wartime.
    • It should be powered partially by the game's economic systems. The aftermath of a war should have meaningful impact on and interaction with the game's economy and distribution of resources.
    • It should limit the length of conflicts and include a robust system of diplomacy for working out peace deals.



    My idea for the implementation goes something like this (warning, longish):


    [spoiler]First, the current militia system should be split in two: The army and the militia. Membership in the militia opens up the ability to participate in wartime activity, without being subject to constant open pvp status. Membership in the army is similiar, except that members of the army can freely attack members of the army belonging to cities they are at war with at any time.

    Second, rather than messing around with game objects (divisions) that are ordered around individually and capture individual rooms, the war system should be reimagined as an abstract system on the macro level where the map is divided into regions that each contain troops from zero or or more city-states. During battles, having troops represented by mobs is fine, but it's unnecessary and unwieldy on the strategic layer of conflict.

    A region being a number of rooms that together form a larger territory which cities can compete over. How big these regions should be is debatable- personally I'd argue each one should consist of at least one current area. The reasoning here for the necessity of a new subdivision of rooms is that many of the game's current areas are too small or otherwise problematic stages for conducting a campaign (roads and rivers, mostly).

    Each region that contains troops from only one city would be considered to be owned by that city, producing resources (comms or whatnot) and a supply route that links to its adjacent regions. Cities could deploy troops in any region it can trace a supply route to through its owned regions. If two or more cities have troops deployed, it is considered to be contested, producing no resources and no supply lines for either side. Deploying troops to a region owned by another city would start a war.

    When two cities are at war, high-ranking members of either city's army or militia can muster the troops for battle in a contested region. A global echo goes out. Ten minutes later, a battle starts in the contested region. During a battle, the troops of the cities involved duke it out on the field, while players try their best to aid the troops and lead them against the enemy. To get the imagination going, there could be goals like:
    • Killing enemy scout npcs that randomly spawn in the region
    • Leading friendly regiments of soldiers (think divisions) in engagements with enemy regiments
    • Scouting enemy raiding parties moving about the region.
    • For the ranking officer, issuing orders from a fortified war camp.
    • And, finally, preventing enemy players from doing their jobs. Once a militia member enters a region with an active battle, they're open PK to members of the enemy militia until the battle ends (regardless of whether they die or leave the region in the meantime).

    A basic look at a conflict zone from a ranking officer of Bloodloch could look like this:
    You discern that you are standing in the Liruma Scrubland, in the Liruma region.
    Your environment conforms to that of Grasslands.
    You stand upon the Continent of Sapience.
    You are in the Prime Material Plane.
    
    You take a moment to assess the military deployments in the area:
    You are standing in the Liruma region.
    The region is contested by troops from Bloodloch and Duiran
    Your city has deployed 235 skirmishers, 190 infantry, and 188 cavalrymen to this region.
    Your troops have established a war camp at A bridge across the Pachacacha River.
    You estimate that Duiran has deployed around 350 skirmishers, 100 infantry, and 220 cavalrymen to this region.
    Their troops control defensive fortifications at Atop the great rock.
    The last battle in the region occured on the 24th of Niuran, year 452 of the Midnight Age.
    
    Your city's troops control 59% of the territory in the region
    Your city's troops' morale stand at 103%
    Your city's troops' supplies stand at 35%
    Your lines of supply ensure your troops currently gain 20% supplies and 25% morale each day.

    And a new Warfare miniskill could look something like this:
    
    You possess the following abilities in Warfare:
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Scouting             A basic overview of the battlefield
    Command              Take charge of a regiment of troops.
    Inspection           Assess the combat readiness of your forces.
    Defense              Lead a defensive battle from the war camp.
    Tactics              Set your troops' priorities straight.
    Intelligence         Estimate an adversary's true strength.
    Strategems           Outsmart your enemies.
    Offensive            Plan and lead an offensive battle.
    Fortifications       Protect your holdings in times of peace.
    Siegeworks           Rain fire on their defenses.
    Deception            Your stratagems are more difficult to detect.
    Loyalty              Customize your own loyal regiment of troops.
    Frontline            Lead from the front.
    
    You can make use of the following tactics:
    Retreat              Yield territory to conserve manpower.
    Assault              More meat to the grinder.
    Flank                Envelop their formations.
    Skirmish             Harassment tactics keep the enemy on their toes.
    Raid                 Opportunistic attacks that target morale.
    Infiltrate           Enter the enemy's backyard.
    
    You can make use of the following stratagems:
    Phalanx              Tightly packed infantry
    Charge               The cavalry has arrived.
    Feint                Diversionary strikes to confuse the enemy.
    Testudo              Turtle formation to deflect arrows.
    Encirclement         Cut off slow infantry formations.
    Ambush               Strike from concealment.
    [/spoiler]
    Illidan said:
     if you ever see me killing someone (newbies especially) it's because I've had good reason to do so
    SerriceDidiAarbrokXeniaSarkis
  • edited July 2015
    It would add new organizations and expand upon existing mechanics, but not revamp the entire game as you claim. It would add new types of organization and formalize existing structures, as well as generate a proper context for extremely large scale conflict, like war and trade, two major sources of potential conflict. Despite how complex the systems sound, it's actually comprised of three systems that could be implemented over time, starting with the contracts and treaties/influence system, followed by the economic system overhaul, and then finally adding the military/armed conflict system.

    The contracts and treaties bit would be pretty easy, systemically, to create. Standings and how those would work would be pretty straight forward. Influence and reputation calculations might require some extended testing and tweaking, but I can't imagine it being insanely difficult to actually create the basic system. Certain aspects or features could be 'locked' until the complimentary systems are ready for release, such as economic contracts for shipments.

    If anything, the most complex thing would be the actual trade networks between NPC and player factions and orgs and determining what trade goods and commodities are unique to which area of the continent.
  • AarbrokAarbrok Breaking things...For Science San Diego, CA
    Man....I do miss @Luna and wartime whatnot once in a while.

    I was just an angsty novice back then who enjoyed drama more than mechanics, but before everything was shut down and the steam ran out of the engines on alot of folks who got kinda upset the main conflict point of the game (I dont consider ylem conflict, because its just part of everyday unicorns) I remember lots of plotting and planning for an entire part of the playerbase who enjoyed tactical shit.

    Playing Aetolia with economic and territorial risks is fun, and would require a bit of learning...education, revamping old military clans and promote some roleplay between the PKer mindset and the RPer mindset which this game has become. Having conflict again in a manner that is not just punch the opposition will really help bridge the gap between two sections that drift apart from one another.

    I like the plans, I however am no mastermind to creating of conflict but I am interested to see what else comes from you, so far @Sarkis and @Luna have given some pretty decent insight.
  • OleisOleis Producer Emeritus Administrator, Immortal
    Yipes! And I thought my drafts got wonky ;)

    Good reads and thoughts, @Luna and @Sarkis. When we eventually launch this beast, I'm going to really enjoy sitting down and talking through the design process on the forums or in a stream. The likelihood that we will adopt any of these concepts in a complete, recognizable form as you've presented them is extremely low. But elements, repurposed or approached a different way, are already in place in our drafts, and I'm sure we'll incorporate further elements with this inspiration.

    It's always interesting to me in this thread and those of similar intent ("what would you change about X..?") where our analyses and wishlists for Aetolia line up and diverge. We use much of the same terminology and approach things in similar ways. I'm excited to begin sharing these elements (and the reasoning behind them) as we nail down what we want and continue development.
    You say to Slyphe, "You're so freaking smart."
    [---]
    "^," Slyphe agrees with you.
    KerrynSarkisAarbrokIshinXeniaLunaReva
  • -positively vibrates with excited anticipation-
    Aarbrok
  • JensenJensen Corruption's Butcher
    Would be nice if troop comms were more diverse, economically it turned into a big game of horde the wood and steel.
    image
    DidiIshin
  • Working name: Combat Lottery

    Signup: 100k gold and required Sect membership/level TBD

    Perks: Gold per victory, blessings, stat bonuses, weapons, tons of experience, pride etc.

    How it works:

    Serrice, Valingar, Yettave, Aishia, Konai and Conner are the only members. Each week all members are actively paired to fight one another at random.

    Those selected to fight one another MUST fight resulting in a death by one from the hands of the other by the time the next fight is selected. Failure to fight to the death will result in a penalty for both parties, the more "failures" you have the worse they get.

    The positive aspects are easy to work. You win, you get a blessing for that week, or more damage to NPCs for that week or one stat is increased to maximum at random for that week etc.

    It's random, it's fair and it's fun. You can opt out at any time but depending on when you do you still get the detrimental affect.

    Why would anyone do this who isn't a cold blooded PKer?

    It will provide a lot of opportunities for roleplay and strife where it may not have existed before.

    E.G.

    Serrice must kill Conner or vice versa. They are friends and council members. They could arrange for one to win but how soon would that arrangement turn into resentment? Will one hide in a city and the other risk enemy status to collect the bounty and avoid the repercussions?

    Aishia and Valingar get paired to fight. They are married and that in itself is a can of worms.

    The rewards can get insane. You've been successful in the past five lottery fights. You've always had a blessing for 5 weeks, you get gold, herbs, elixirs, amulets etc. Then one or two weeks you get busy and can't fight, you lose all your momentum and end up getting the "cowardly" debuff for a bit and the negative aspects start to pile up.

    You have to fight an you have to win. Cold desperation breeds ingenuity and I think we'll see some exciting things happen when people have a reason to think outside of the box.


    Optional Aspects:

    If you have five members one can not be paired to fight and so they automatically get the resulting buff OR they can choose to kill any other member that they know of, which could result in both of those paired to fight getting the "cowardly" debuff.

    Outside of Foci, if the paired fighters are engaged in single combat and someone else interferes for the kill then both get the cowardly. You could get paired fighters working together to preserve the integrity of their single combat.

    At the end of the week all of those who have lost their single combat fight can have one final chance to preserve their "honor" by competing in a real-world FFA in which the last man standing does not have to suffer the negative drawbacks or can gain the same positive aspects as if they won their weekly fight.

    Finally. Once every ten in game years the wins and losses can be tallied and those who are eligible can enter into a tournament to qualify for immunity and perks for the next ten years.
  • Murad said:



    Aishia and Valingar get paired to fight. They are married and that in itself is a can of worms.

    This one won't matter at all. @Aishia kills @Valingar all the time and nothing ever happens! I figure Aishia just gets mad at Valingar and decides to teach him a lesson. So this scenario is kinda voided already. Lol.
    (Oasis): Benedicto says, "There was like 0.5 seconds between "Oh hey, they're in area. That was quick." and "OMFG THEY'RE IN THE AREA STAHP STAHP!""


    Serrice
  • ArekaAreka Drifting in a sea of wenches' bosoms
    It's her mating dance.
    image
    ZsadistSerriceRiluoXeniaObynSarkis
  • TragerTrager Raiding your underwear drawer.
    If by 'get's angry and kills him' you mean 'Valingar goes AFK and Aishia decides to "test" reclamation speed for the ten thousandth time', yeah, she gets uber mad at him.
    Indoran'i is back baby. It's go-... Oh.


    DidiDristinZsadistRasharAarbrok
  • AishiaAishia Queen Bee
    It's much more nuanced than any of that.
    ZsadistTragerSarkis
Sign In or Register to comment.