Enemies on all sides....
Sathrago
Member
Will there be an option for guilds/alliances to choose to be at war with anyone that is not in the guild/alliance? Since being corrupted doesn't seem like it will be worth the time of day, why not place yourself at war with anyone not in your group of friends?
1
Comments
I personally hope that this isn't the case. There will be barely any risk involved for the party declaring it if you know exactly that it won't span more than a evening where a lot of your members are online.
The defending party might not have a say in when a war starts, but they should most definitely have a strong say in when it will stop. If they want to drag it out for days or even weeks to screw with the attackerd, then they should be able to do so.
If the attackers want the war to stop, then they should have to surrender and pay whatever reparations are attached to that.
thats how it is supposed to work
Oh ok. I assumed that was only within certain GvG battles, not everywhere.
Agreed. The game is being designed around political strife I really hope they plan to allow for substantial war periods (or unrestricted) to accommodate for this, if a specific guild is responsible for burning my node/castle etc they should have the risk of portions of a server going to war with them over it. Since there will be financial consequences to sieges, there should be substantial risks to causing that loss. If the only recourse would then be to counter siege 30-60 days later that seems like a really weak political atmosphere akin to some Arnold Schwarzenegger catch phrase "I'll be back".
At a minimum guild wars should include the following.
There should be no mechanics in the game where guilds can avoid war.
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
Hey @Warth I hope you are doing well. I completely agree with you if I'm reading this correctly, I think shorter wars will hurt the game and especially open world PvP in the long run as well. I propose we have both types of wars in the game if the devs like the idea of shorter wars. Shorter night long wars that are objective based, and indefinitely long wars. In Lineage 2 if my memory is best both guild leaders had to agree to a war. Will it work that way in Ashes?
In the longer wars the "objective" would be to completely beat the will to fight out of an enemy guild. Players can get very creative in ways they can accomplish that. In the war thread from last week or whatever @Xyls proposed a taxing system for the losing guild. Perhaps the devs could implement some kind of small "peace treaty" mechanic where the winning guild can easily make demands for gold/resources and the losing guild can attempt to negotiate certain terms like X amount of time the winning guild can't declare war or PK any of their members without suffering consequences. This would increase player interaction as well.
As I said in the other thread, longer wars allow rivalries to take root, they allow players to get to know their enemies intimately, and they let bad blood reach a boiling point. I see no reason not to if they want to make it so that both guild leaders have to agree so that certain guilds that aren't really big on PvP can't get locked into long wars.
Let there be as many options as possible for PvP to happen and guilds to go to war in an open world game.
If guilds get the option to avoid war it should have a build in penalty associated with it steep enough that it's rarely utilized. For example how about a mechanic that if war is denied the denying guild size gets reduced by 25 members each time it's denied their membership caps out at -25 from the previous amount and the only way to correct that would be accepting war with the original war declaration guild.
Master Assassin
(Yes same Tyrantor from Shadowbane)
Book suggestions:
Galaxy Outlaws books 1-16.5, Metagamer Chronicles, The Land litrpg series, Ready Player One, Zen in the Martial Arts
I'm in agreeance here. For a risk vs reward game that focuses heavily on player interaction it seems strange to me to be able to entirely skip out on a guild war the more I think about it. There should be very harsh consequences to skipping out on wars if you do it all the time. It was always silly to me in Lineage 2 when certain guilds would never go to war.
If your guild has grievances against another guild they can declare themselves hostile to that guild for the next 30 days. At the end of the 30 days the declared upon guild can try to broker a peace deal to end the hostilities. This is where payment and other verbal agreements could be made between them, and if the hostile guild does not like the deal they can choose to not accept this deal. This pushes back another chance at brokering peace by 30 days.
*This would be outside of the system where you go to attack a guild castle*
Normally I would advocate for these things being unhindered and have no time limiters but it might be needed in a game setting to keep everything from getting too confusing for players.
This should be a basic feature of a mmorpg with pvp. The problem is ... there will be a good motivation or reason to declare a war in AoC?
Right now it seems there isn't any need to do it, it seems more pve focussed.
The definition of war actually is a long and prolunged conflict, with many battles and strategy involved.
A short war is not a thing xD it never existed.
The closest thing are the civil wars, but even in this case a war between clans can last a rly long time.
So what are you refering to? Where the Ashes devs said something like that? It seems a bit dumb in my eyes, without any offense. War is not short ^^ ... usually . The problem is that is not possible to know exactly how long a war can take, how it will work in ashes wtf? A war last a pedetermined time? Short? i don't get it ..
Fast wars are usually called "lightning wars" in the history, and they last few years ... pretty uncommon.
Well its my understanding that when you kill a person they drop some of the gatherables and tokens from mobs they have on them.
Plus you remove them from an area when you kill them (i think) so this would be used to contest and keep farming areas.
I mean there are certainly plenty of short wars and conflicts throughout history. Just google "List of short wars" lol
Anyway the reason I am nervous that wars will last short windows during primetime is if you look at the Wiki it states "Objective-based events such as Node sieges, Castle sieges, Guild wars, and Node wars will occur within a prime-time window somewhere between 3PM and 9PM server time. This is subject to testing.[3][4][5]"
This says to me it will only last a few hours during primetime.
Lots of good reasons to declare war against another guild.
They ganked one of our guildies and now the piper MUST be paid
Because we can
They look funny
They have to few Tulnar in their guild and should be punished
Lots and lots of reasons. But having GvG or alliance vs alliance is a good thing.
Personally I would like to see a guild war type that has no goals other then killing the other guild when you see them and let it last as long as needed for them to work it out. Maybe someone cracked wise about someones momma and now there can be no peace.
Playing on a pvp server and seeing the other faction. Running over and punching them in the back of the head for the lol's builds meaningful conflict.
Playing on Burning Blade(PvP server) I had a personal rivalry with a warlock we ganked each other many time leveling built made haterred for the allies even higher.
Mayors of a node have an "Enemy of the state" mechanic where they can declare a player as an Enemy of the State and citizens of the node suffer no corruption penalties against them. So in a small way you can!
ah thats hilarious.
Completely wrong on both points.
"War" is a period of armed hostility between nations or parties within nations.
The shortest war in recorded history was 40 minutes long: the Anglo-Zanzibar War of 1896.