Genesis Forums

Currently the discussion lately has been mostly about PVP and RP. So... one idea I've been thinking about that I think would be both helpful for PVP and RP interactions between guilds and players is:

Coded diplomatic statuses between guilds. (Occupational guilds with leadership, not free guilds without official leadership, or layman guilds).

So that by setting a diplomatic status (a global guild leader item / command) you can declare whether you are at war, at peace, or allied with a guild. Or "no status". No status would simply mean there are no defined rules between your guilds. Yet.

So if you are at peace with a guild, attacking a member if the other guild would be an act of war.

Guilds who are at war can then negotiate peace treaties with different terms (coded), and time limit (coded), and if broken there is some type of penalty (coded) for the part that breaks it.

When guilds are allied (coded minimum time limit), it would also mean if someone declares war against your ally, they automatically declare war at your guild too. And as a bonus allied guilds could perhaps get small benefits, like maybe a shared who-list to make teaming easier, or something else small, but useful.

So... if I am a member of the Calians, my "diplomatic status" screen / device / chart, well however you wanna code it thematically, could look something like this:

Knights of Solamnia - Allied
Rangers of Gondor - Peace
Morgul mages - no status
Red Dragonarmy - Peace
Blue Dragonarmy - no status
Priests of Takhisis - no status
(etc)

So, suddenly an RDA attacks a Calian. This means their status changes to war with Calians, and also to war with knights since they are allied. But since RDA had a peace treaty with Calians the RDA guild suffers a penalty for breaking it (the type of penalty is defined in peace treaty terms). Now Knights and Calians are officially at war with RDA. RDA then talks to BDA and Pots, who ally themselves with RDA, and thus also automatically goes to war with Calians. And off we go, until a new treaty eventually is signed. Maybe. Some guilds may have a constant war status at all times if they cant agree on peace terms, or dont want to.

Well you get the idea. Now all these guild leaders would need to negotiate some type of peace again if that is what they want. And of course you can attack and kill members of the guild you are at war with to force a treaty with better conditions for your own guild. And we could add nice rewards and/or small penalties for killing/being killed by the other side in a war. Hopefully making PVP more fun and rewarding, but also hopefully there would less "random murders", and more of a targeted thing between guilds who are at war. Now you can still attack and kill others too, but as it would have no reward hopefully those who enjoy PVP would be drawn towards guilds who often are at war. People who dont like PVP would be drawn towards guilds who stay out of conflicts, and doesnt ally themselves with guilds who enjoy wars.

Members of free guilds will not suffer either boosts or penalties for wars, but can still join in of course if they want to.

Well there's a lot of possibilities.

Anyway, I think it sounds like fun. In theory at least. I definitely think a politic system where things are changing and stuff happens would both make guild leaders more active, but also encourage all members of all guilds to actually RP some when meeting each other, depending on their diplomatic status. And considering we are simply too many guilds with too few players to have any lasting 1 guild vs 1 guild conflicts, it makes it possible to ally with any guilds you want, and gain some benefits from doing so, but it also makes any conflict bigger, and automatically involve more players. Which is a good thing with our current player numbers. Any war now would more or less mean PVP between 2 active players of each guild is probably gonna be a bit... dull.

Uhm. Yeah. Thats my idea. So wiz and code it? Well... no. But I'll throw it out there anyway. Who knows!

Nice idea
I thought of something like that for a long time.
Usual reply of wizard: "You want alliance - do it. Don't bother us with your mortal things"

Two points:
1. If we want to inspire Guild conflicts, diplomacy and RP, it would be GREAT tool to do so.
2. Small suggestion: teaming with ally - bonus in damage/tanking/healing (10%)
teaming with enemy - penalty in damage/tanking/healing (25%)
It will be another tool to encourage alliances and to discourage bad RP teams

zar wrote: ...teaming with enemy - penalty in damage/tanking/healing (25%)
It will be another tool to encourage alliances and to discourage bad RP teams

Yeah, that would probably work. Good idea.

I like the ability for guild leaders to be able to ally/peace/war with other guilds. I don't think attacking should be immediate war, war/peace/ally/ceasefire should be only settable by real people. possibly if someone attacks another in a peace/ceasefire/ally state it should change the status to negotiating, in violation, or limbo, untill the status can be addressed by guild leaders manually.

Guild leader should also be able to "disavow" a player if they violate rules of engagement as a temporary punishment allowing allies to hunt/punish said person without negative reactions. this would be easier than having to kick a person out of a guild.

I do like the buffs and penalties idea and also a penalty for attacking allied/peace guilds
Their also should be an "Your guilds are allied/at peace are you sure you want to do this?" warning where people have to type Yes I do. to reduce bot attacks.

Snowrose wrote:Their also should be an "Your guilds are allied/at peace are you sure you want to do this?" warning where people have to type Yes I do. to reduce bot attacks.

If you're botting and start a war, that's your own problem. I'm not 'disavowing' you, that's enough reason for me to kick you out of my guild. Please do not code in ways for botting to be easier. If people are going to bot, make it hard for them.

Otherwise, I don't necessarily disagree with anything. I'm wary of the whole 'buffs' system as a whole, in any setting it's raised. I think conflict is an important piece of this game and it really blows my mind some of the "alliances"/"agreements" that exist to try to avoid it. A general war system could help encourage that a bit.

It is not about botting.

Lets say you in goblin caves and going to attack goblin ("kill goblin" or even "kill massive goblin") and massive goblin Calian enters the same room.
What happens? War because of such incident?

yup, this mean WAR

zar wrote:It is not about botting.

Lets say you in goblin caves and going to attack goblin ("kill goblin" or even "kill massive goblin") and massive goblin Calian enters the same room.
What happens? War because of such incident?

Obviously there should be a warning before attacking. Like Snowrose said. A simple "Are you sure, this will mean war" would work fine. Although I definitely think botting around and accidentally attacking another player is perhaps the poorest excuse you can have for attacking someone. If I was a guild leader I would not accept such a silly excuse! At least make something up about confusion due to too many hit sin the head, or vision problems, or something. If you make a mistake when botting, its no excuse, on the contrary in my opinion, and we definitely should not make it easier to bot.

But... like Zar said, there are situations where you could accidentally attack another player even without botting. Quite a few actually. Problems when assisting that leads to team accidents, typing "kill race", items that takes over you mind, etc. So yeah, a "type twice" warning is probably a good idea! There would of course be no warning when attacking someone you are already at war with.

Another thing that would need to be solved is that you should have the ability to fight someone without starting a war. Sparring without causing a war. So yeah, might need a global "spar" command that both players have to accept... or something.