Enemies on all sides....

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?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Bricktop

Seems like wars might just be shorter objective based events that could end in a night. Unsure if we will have the possibility to go to war indefinitely. There really needs to be that opportunity though.

Warth

Bricktop wrote: »

Seems like wars might just be shorter objective based events that could end in a night. Unsure if we will have the possibility to go to war indefinitely. There really needs to be that opportunity though.

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.

Irohnic

I vaguely remember mention of a limit to the number of guilds that you can be at war with at any given time

daveywavey

Maybe they could disable the corruption system for guilds that are at war? So, if you attack anyone else, you still go corrupted, but if you attack an enemy guild member, it's all fair?

Warth

daveywavey wrote: »

Maybe they could disable the corruption system for guilds that are at war? So, if you attack anyone else, you still go corrupted, but if you attack an enemy guild member, it's all fair?

thats how it is supposed to work

daveywavey

Warth wrote: »

daveywavey wrote: »

Maybe they could disable the corruption system for guilds that are at war? So, if you attack anyone else, you still go corrupted, but if you attack an enemy guild member, it's all fair?

thats how it is supposed to work

Oh ok. I assumed that was only within certain GvG battles, not everywhere.

Nagash

In the grim darkness of Verra there is only war.

Tyrantor

Bricktop wrote: »

Seems like wars might just be shorter objective based events that could end in a night. Unsure if we will have the possibility to go to war indefinitely. There really needs to be that opportunity though.

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.

No limit to number of guilds that can declare war on another guild
Indefinite war timeframe unless a treaty or peace deal is agreed to by both guilds

There should be no mechanics in the game where guilds can avoid war.

Bricktop

Warth wrote: »

Bricktop wrote: »

Seems like wars might just be shorter objective based events that could end in a night. Unsure if we will have the possibility to go to war indefinitely. There really needs to be that opportunity though.

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.

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.

Tyrantor

The more I think about it I do not like the idea of guilds having the option to avoid war or "Both guilds have to agree to war". In a game that has sieges both sides do not have to agree to a siege, just one side placing the siege on another. Why should guilds get additional protection from war by being able to deny it or avoid it at no cost.

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.

daveywavey

A defender refusing to be at war is ridiculous. As if an aggressor would just say "Oh ok, we've spent all these resources getting ready to beat you, but you said no, so we'll just go home again..."

Bricktop

Tyrantor wrote: »

The more I think about it I do not like the idea of guilds having the option to avoid war or "Both guilds have to agree to war". In a game that has sieges both sides do not have to agree to a siege, just one side placing the siege on another. Why should guilds get additional protection from war by being able to deny it or avoid it at no cost.

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.

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.

Sathrago

So would you guys say that the system should be this then?

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.

daveywavey

I don't see the need to put a time limit on it. Some wars last days. Others last years. The two leaders can agree when it's over.

Medrash1

@Sathrago
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.

Medrash1

@Bricktop

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.

Sathrago

Medrash wrote: »

@Sathrago
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.

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.

Bricktop

Medrash wrote: »

@Bricktop

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 ..

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.

bloodprophet

Medrash wrote: »

@Sathrago
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.

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.

Sathrago

totally random but it would be funny af if they let you declare war against a specific person. because **** that guy in particular. XD

Child Item