Acceptable behaviour for guild/area guardians.

Discuss general game topics or anything else that doesn't fit in the other forums
Forum rules
- Use common sense and be respectful towards each other at all times, even when disagreeing.
- Do not reveal sensitive game information. Guild secrets, player seconds are examples of things not allowed.
Creed

Re: Acceptable behaviour for guild/area guardians.

Post by Creed » 24 Apr 2010 18:50

As it is now, some knight or knights, would declare war on someone else, than then when they think they lose too much, they just stop playing, and leave the shit the created to the other members.

Thats much worse, in my opinion.

Then you manage to kill the whole guild, instead of just part of it.

Knuffel
Wanderer
Posts: 56
Joined: 04 Mar 2010 23:05

Re: Acceptable behaviour for guild/area guardians.

Post by Knuffel » 24 Apr 2010 19:12

War
Pronunciation: \ˈwȯr\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English werre, from Anglo-French werre, guerre, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German werra strife; akin to Old High German werran to confuse
Date: 12th century
Definition: A state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations

How can individuals declare war on other individuals ?
Even here in the lands of Genesis I always thought war is declared between Guild Councils and not mere individuals.

For sure the mortal act of one or more individuals can be the spark for a war, but it is the Guilds or Alliances that declare a war, and I must agree with Cherek it sounds most amuzing to have a war between some knights and some DA, where the rest of those guilds are in a state of peace.

That I would call a conflict :mrgreen:

Just my copper.
K.

User avatar
Cherek
Site Admin
Posts: 2871
Joined: 04 Mar 2010 04:36

Re: Acceptable behaviour for guild/area guardians.

Post by Cherek » 24 Apr 2010 20:51

Creed: Then your council should kick out players who start wars without the council backing them up? As Knuffel says, wars are declared between guilds. Individual players cant just go around and wage war against individual players of another guild. I certainly would expect my guildmates to help me out if someone decided to declare war on me personally... and I am sure they would.

Some knights fighting and dying while others stand by and watch would be incredibly silly in my opinion. But hey, its not my guild. I doubt many guilds would accept "partial" wars though... I certainly hope they dont.

As Ive always said, if you really dislike pfighting, join a guild where you dont have to risk getting drawn into a fight. There are plenty of options for that. Knights/DAs/Ranger/Calians etc who complaing when their natural enemies kills them is pretty weird if you ask me...

(Speaking in general here,not targeting you personally Creed).

Amberlee
Myth
Posts: 1395
Joined: 08 Mar 2010 19:50
Location: Kristiansund, Norway

Re: Acceptable behaviour for guild/area guardians.

Post by Amberlee » 24 Apr 2010 20:57

Creed wrote:As it is now, some knight or knights, would declare war on someone else, than then when they think they lose too much, they just stop playing, and leave the shit the created to the other members.

Thats much worse, in my opinion.

Then you manage to kill the whole guild, instead of just part of it.
You must be talking about Poet :lol:
The views posted by me on this forum is not the views of the character Amberlee in-game.
If you ask for my opinion here, you will get MY opinion, not that of my character.

Rhynox
Titan
Posts: 493
Joined: 04 Mar 2010 03:48
Location: Departed from here. Meet at Genesis!

Re: Acceptable behaviour for guild/area guardians.

Post by Rhynox » 24 Apr 2010 21:13

Well, this is offtopic regarding the thread at hand, but I think war should be system controlled:
  • First of all, create the Rules of War, a book with rules and expected behaviours for waging wars. For example:

    Code: Select all

    1. Consequences of War
       1.1. During a war, members of either guild are expected to die during confrontations.
       1.2. Members of warring guilds assume the risk of being killed during wars.
       1.3. Members of warring guilds understand that they are expected to attack enemies.
       1.4. During war times, members are expected to be careful and attentive when traveling.
       1.5. During war times, some members from each guild may not travel as often as previously.
       1.6. Unrelated persons to the warring guilds may themselves be attacked.
       1.7. Unrelated persons to the warring guilds may themselves be killed.
       ...
    
    2. Reasons
       2.1. An unprovoked attack is an attack done by someone on someone else during peace times, regardless of reason.
       2.2. A provoked attack is a retaliation attack done by someone on someone else after having been targetted by an unprovoked attack.
       ...
    
    3. Areas
       3.1. If the warring guilds belong to the same domain, the war is limited to such domain.
       3.2. If the warring guilds belong to different domains, the war is limited to the native domains of each warring guild.
       3.3. It is possible for the attacking guild to expand the war to other domains as they see fit.
       3.4. Hostilities will be limited to the domains in which war has been declared.
       3.5. A war that covers every domain is considered a full war.
       3.6. Attacks (see 5) done outside the area of war are to be considered unprovoked attacks (see 2.1).
       ...
    
    4. Duration
       4.1. War will be limited to a month time.
       4.2. It is possible for the attacking guild to prolong the duration of the war for an extra month.
       4.3. The war must end in the same day, at the same hour in which hostilities were declared, in one or two month time (if 4.2. has been chosen).
       4.4. Attacks outside the duration of war are to be considered unprovoked attacks (see 2.1).
       ...
    
    5. Attack
       5.1. Attacking is the act of trying to slay someone, usually belonging to an enemy guild.
       5.2. In war, the attacking guild is the guild that declares war on another guild.
       ...
    
    6. Alliances
       6.1. A guild that assists another guild in hunting enemies is considered a full ally.
       6.2. A guild that assists another guild in finding equipment or other items, information, donating items or money, is considered a trading ally.
       6.3. A warring guild may count with any amount of full and trading allies.
       6.4. For all intents, a full ally has the same rights and obligations as a warring guild member (see 2, 3, 4 and 5).
       6.5. For all intents, a trading ally is considered a neutral party in war.
       6.6. An attack on a trading ally is considered an unprovoked attack (see 2.1), and subject to its consequences.
       ...
    
    7. Invasion
       7.1. Invading is the attack upon an opponent guild hall.
       7.2. Invading during peace times is considered an unprovoked attack (see 2.1).
       7.3. Guild guards are NPCs situated within the guild area.
       7.4. Guild guards are expected to be more powerful than common guards.
       7.5. Guild guards can use non standard attacks, or can change attack patterns without warning.
       ...
    
    8. End
       8.1. War ends automatically one month (or two months if 4.2 has been applied) after the beginning of hostilities.
       8.2. An attacking guild (see 5.2) cannot launch a new war until a period equal to the duration of the previous war has passed (up to two peaceful months if 4.2. has been applied).
       8.3. A guild that has been subject of a war may decide to wage war on the attacking guild immediately after the original war has finished.
       8.4. War may be finished when all the leaders of the warring guilds accept a pacification.
       8.5. Truce is the act of stopping attacks for a limited period of time (up to the period of the war minus the amount of time the war has already been lapsed).
       8.6. A truce involves the guild of the signer. Therefore, it is possible to have a one-side truce (in which a guild decides not to attack members of another guild for the period it lasts).
       8.7. Peace talk is the act of guild representatives meeting in an area to discuss the possibility of peace.
       8.8. An attack during peace talks is considered an unprovoked attack (see 2.1).
       ...
    
  • Then, create a template of declaration of war.
  • When a guild decides to wage war, they must sign a declaration of war, choosing the options they see fit. The sign itself is done in one of the archiving offices, but the declaration itself is kept secret to allow for surprise attacks.
  • After the initial attacks (or before them, if they choose not to use the surprise element), they can make public the declaration.
It could also be considered that natural enemisties (Rangers/Angmar/Mages, etc) generate unprovoked attacks only when attacks are done outside the native area (therefore, an angmarin attacking a ranger would not be considered an unprovoked attack, but a natural attack).

Having a list of all war options allows war to be more flexible in both rewards and penalties. For example, a guild signing a full scale war may be subject of twice the death penalty when any of its members die (while the other guilds are subject to the common death penalty). A death because of an unprovoked attack may carry half the experience loss than a death within the bounds. Also, it ensures that the wars will be limited in time (1 or 2 months, if the guild that was attacked decides on counterattacking, they can choose to prolong the war for 1 or 2 months, and then will continue a period of peace equal to the amount of months in war to ensure both restoring of members who died, recruitment of new members and returning of old members).

Since there is no way to (easily) create a system that automatically calculates death penalty based on area, type of attack, scope of war, etc, requests should be done to the AoP (for example, when someone dies he will get the common death penalty, but if he can probe it was an unprovoked attack because he died in an area outside the coverage of the declaration of war) the AoP could then restore half the experience.

Just throwing an idea.

Knuffel
Wanderer
Posts: 56
Joined: 04 Mar 2010 23:05

Re: Acceptable behaviour for guild/area guardians.

Post by Knuffel » 24 Apr 2010 21:33

Rhynox wrote:... I think war should be system controlled ... just throwing an idea.
Why instate soooooooo many rules and inpact on how the game mechanics should control it as this is dynamic.
Why not agree that the mortals selected to council have the wisdom to act upon war.

Last time I checked we had Councils with Members in who can do all of the above without the need of system controlled mechanics (threat to start a war, declare a war, execute a war, declare end of hostilities, agree on a peace threaty with respected boundaries, punish own members when they inflicted conflict that endanger the balance, and so forth ...)

My copper.
K.

Rhynox
Titan
Posts: 493
Joined: 04 Mar 2010 03:48
Location: Departed from here. Meet at Genesis!

Re: Acceptable behaviour for guild/area guardians.

Post by Rhynox » 25 Apr 2010 00:20

Because it hasn't worked. When a war breaks, the amount of active players of each guild drops. When the vampires went after everyone, I was the only one active. No knight was around, no calian was around, no ranger was around. Now that the vampires are gone I find calians and rangers (and even other neidars) around.

Ilrahil

Re: Acceptable behaviour for guild/area guardians.

Post by Ilrahil » 25 Apr 2010 20:35

Of course blame it on the big bad scary vampires.

The guilds been closed for how long now? And you still can't let it go.

Creed

Re: Acceptable behaviour for guild/area guardians.

Post by Creed » 25 Apr 2010 21:44

It has nothing to do with the vampires.
That was just an example.

It also happened when MM and Calia was at war.

Or when any other wars have been in effect.
The only people playing, in those guilds, are those wishing to pfight..
Either because they are so big they are basically impossible to kill (if they are not fearing for their xp, and therefore also gone), or those who really like to pfight, who have probably been those starting the war.

The rest of the members just stop playing those chars, and play something else in the meantime, waiting for the war to end.
Because if you don't want to hunt others, or be hunted yourself, then there is no fun in a war, and makes you nothing else than annoyed and miserable.

Rhynox
Titan
Posts: 493
Joined: 04 Mar 2010 03:48
Location: Departed from here. Meet at Genesis!

Re: Acceptable behaviour for guild/area guardians.

Post by Rhynox » 26 Apr 2010 00:17

Yeah, when I joined the Clan I was the only neidar around at the time because it was in the middle of a RDA/Neidar/Knight war (the last one open war in Krynn) and huge teams would rumble around (I mean, Dionysos, Boroda, Beldin, Mariuz and Hawk, for example). If we could go to the post office in Iron Delving it was because they were wary of our boars and Blizzard (even if Blizzard was smaller than them, vibrato and chop would likely kill at least one of them before they were able to escape).

When the MM/Calia war broke, people stopped playing (and others like Mersereau prefered to leave afraid of dying).

And when the Angmarin reopened? The knights tried to fight back but they were overcame and decided to stop playing (which after some time forced wizards to restore block to them ahead of their balance to give them something to counter the angmarin's power).

I gave the vampire example because it was the closest one, but it has always been this way. When a war opens, small members stop playing.

Post Reply
http://tworzymyatmosfere.pl/przescieradla-jedwabne-z-gumka/