In regards to RP wars


#1

In light of the recent ‘‘its just a game, bruh’’ wanna be meme declaration of war on ebongrasp today in chat which everyone except the declarer got hyped for, I thought about how it would eve look like. So this is my, simple idea:

There are 3 stages of a war, and they are basically:

  • Cold War - No Pvp, no battles, is a political stalemate, tensions are high, diplomatic meetings, forum side RP.
  • Active War - Occasional and un-organized pvp matches between players just for fun, no stakes. Behind the scenes ‘‘dick measuring’’ of in-game RolePlay war assets, like fortifications, economy, ships/roads/efficiency of transport, etc.
  • All out War - Orginised Pvp events. In-game battle ‘‘dick measuring’’ of who has the best gear.

I know pvp doesn’t smell good to staff, but let me explain:

A cold war can be declared by anyone at any time, but a war can only escalate to the next level, if all faction leaders involved agree to it. And a war can be concluded while still in the cold war phase. There doesn’t have to be a victor, it can end with a truce, or white peace.

Faction leaders should not expect much from declarations of cold war, because it can just serve as a faction marker of ‘‘we dislike you, and in RP (just in lore), we are actively working against you, subtly.’’

If a war escalated to the state of an active war, it can be just for fun pvp, and in RP measurement of RP assets takes place.

  • This means that the guy with the most in-game built crap in combination with the best logistics, would eventually win. Its just ‘‘oh so you think you have more and better shit than I do huh? lets measure’’ kind of thing, while the more hyped faction members fight each other around the corner in the mud, for fun.
  • After its decided who has ‘‘the biggest D’’, the faction leaders decide to what point the conflict will go on. This means, will there be a truce, will it be a small victory/defeat. Loosing a conflict in any way pretty much can be quite humiliating to the looser, and pleasing to the winner, simply because of the fact that he is superior. There doesn’t have to be material gain or loss. Oh, and the RP war can go on for as long as it has to for the leaders of the factions to decide what kind of an end it will have and be in agreement, which could result in a long stalemate for the stubborn ones. Fun! :smiley:

If a war escalates to all out war, then organized pvp battles take place. There should be at least a couple of rounds of this, and the victor of each battle gets to write the RP battle report on the forums. The reason for several pvp rounds were to decide how easy or tough it was to beat the opposing side. Say, if the Vanguards beat the Vangles 3 out of 5 times, it was really difficult, and they barely did it, and they should write the RP battle report accordingly, with many casualties, falling morale, failing tactics, etc.


But then ask yourself… what’s the point of wars?..

Simply put, its either to settle a score between rivaling factions, just for fun, or to see who really is better.
Note that the ‘‘settle a score’’ one is just ‘‘they think they are good and we are going to prove them wrong’’ kind of grudge. Neither side should gain or loose anything else in any conflict but that satisfaction, EXCEPT if the members of the faction WILINGLY bet on the outcome.


One last bit, bare with me, here comes the nerd part.

There is no RP war without diplomacy, there MUST be a legitimate RP reason for a faction to declare war on another. It could be as simple as ‘‘we hate their faces’’, but that would require you and them being in bad relations for quite some time in lore, and no, writing ‘‘we have been in bad relations for quite some time now’’ is not good enough. I mean that you are legit rivals, maybe even as notorious as Ebongrasp and the Vanguards. You don’t get to like them one day and then your mad at the next because they wouldn’t let you borrow a cup of sugar.

Another legitimate reason I guess could be ‘‘they politically insulted us’’. Either verbaly or a RP action, like ignoring borders, or harassing traders, or what not, just make something up. This excuse is for those factions who really do want to just fight eachother and don’t want to bother really roleplaying about it. Basicaly for those who think war is the only fun part of roleplay, and we shouldn’t limited them. This is why a faction should only ‘‘politically insult’’ another when it absolutely wants a conflict, and the other faction gets to decide to accept or deny. Denying such an insult can in RP be corrected as simple as ‘‘we add more patrols’’ or ‘‘we get guard detachments to accompany caravans’’.

While discussing diplomacy, lets get to alliances now:

Lets have it so, that whenever a war opens, anyone can willingly intervene and join either side of the conflict, unless the participants don’t want them to, then he is obviously denied. BUT, if a faction is in an alliance, or confederation, federation, defensive pact, whatever, they absolutely MUST join their ally in their defense if they get declared on. This is where it gets a wee bit complicated with specific treaties, but ill list them for your ease:

  • Non-aggression pact - You and the other faction cannot declare war on each other while this is active, it is an assured peace, and a show of good will.
  • Defensive pact - If you get war declared on you, your pact-mate MUST come to your aid, and the same goes for you. But you do NOT get dragged in to any conflicts he starts, or wherever he is on the aggressive side, unless you choose to by yourself. If your pact-mate is allied with a faction that just got war declared on, dragging them in to it on the defensive side, you DONT get dragged along with them either, only if you choose to join in the conflict will you fight. This is a 1 on 1 defensive deal.
  • Alliance - While in an alliance you get dragged in to all wars in which your ally gets in to. Though if your ally is allied with a faction with whom you are not, and they get in to a conflict together, in which your ally is neither the original defender or offender, then you do not get dragged in to it with them. Usually when in an alliance, if your ally wants to go to war with some faction, they will ask you for your aid, you can deny that aid, but they can then choose to end your alliance with you, because that can be quite the insult. An alliance can be more than just a 1 on 1 deal, it can be a political power of many members, it can be called an alliance, or also a union, confederation, etc.

Or maybe a faction is in one of these pacts or alliances, but still wants to go 1 on 1 with another faction without anyone intervening, then they should be able to do that too. They can simply not ask their allies for aid, and if they ask to join by themselves, they can be denied.

Remember folks, its all voluntary, and everyone needs to agree for any conflict to go anywhere.


#2

Sounds awesome! To make it even more awesome we were talking about having a world for wars since it would be cool to have some destructive territory.

This world would only be in use in all out wars as you have stated. You pay a small fee (diamonds idk) to join the fight with a limited number of times you can re-join if killed. The war ends when one faction is defeated and the rewards are from the fees the other faction had to pay to join the war. (Still a work in progress concept)


#3

I think that suggestion topics should have a dislike button now…


#4


#5

So by the fact that all im getting is likes but no feed back suggests that the RP community is up for this?


#6

I particularly like the part about both sides agreeing.
cough we don’t want a war, Ebon cough


#7

I beg to differ. Your leader inceptus challenged us a while ago, and when he realised it was a mistake, pulls out under the cover of humour. Its funny how we’re considered violent, but have declared war less than you, jokes or not.


#8

That’s not true, everyone would like their chance to kick the crap out of Ebon, including me. Its become kind of a… North Korea of WoA/RoA. And its all their own fault. Who doesn’t want to finally put the hurt on the guy who constantly gloats, greedily takes everything he wants, and is the biggest cry baby when things don’t go their way?

The reasons nobody does this are the following: Ebon and their allies usually have the best PvP dedicated players, so they aren’t beatable that way, and if you try and loose they will piss all over you. And the 2nd is, when Ebon suddenly became popular it absorbed quite the player count, which can build the faction in to something big quite quickly compared to, say Pekka and Inceptus alone. So they aren’t beatable in RP either. And they know this. And everybody else does. And everybody hates it. And they are loving it.

And its quite obvious everyone is thinking this. I mean damn, even staff openly want Ironglade to brake up.


#9


#10

So… is this our official ‘‘how to diplomacy’’ now, or?..


#11

I like your system. I vote we go with it. @staff do you think we could have actual battles, PvP in our real in-game castles/buildings, and then afterward have you return them to their former glory? Say copy it beforehand, and then replace the ruins.