Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!
For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.
You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.
Guild and Node Wars: White Peace and Surrendering?
Arya_Yeshe
Member
Well, there's nearly nothing about this in the forum and nothing at all in the wiki.
There should be diplomany options for:
White Peace: ends the war in an agreement in which the parties do not impose onerous terms on one other.
Surrender: one party requests payment, while the other party has the option to accept and make the payment, ends the war. Payment should be split among the players who scored in the war and a share to the node if it's a node war.
This would also enable PvP players to demand money from non-PvP guilds and nodes who prioritize accumulating wealth, allowing soldiers and players who act as mercenary companies to earn a living through war.
Each action should be voted on by players from both sides, indicating their support. The gold for the action would come from either the node's or the guild's vault. During the voting process, those who voted could contribute gold, and if the vote fails, the gold would be returned to them.
There should be diplomany options for:
- Node Wars
- Guild Wars
- Sieges
White Peace: ends the war in an agreement in which the parties do not impose onerous terms on one other.
Surrender: one party requests payment, while the other party has the option to accept and make the payment, ends the war. Payment should be split among the players who scored in the war and a share to the node if it's a node war.
This would also enable PvP players to demand money from non-PvP guilds and nodes who prioritize accumulating wealth, allowing soldiers and players who act as mercenary companies to earn a living through war.
Each action should be voted on by players from both sides, indicating their support. The gold for the action would come from either the node's or the guild's vault. During the voting process, those who voted could contribute gold, and if the vote fails, the gold would be returned to them.
PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
0
Comments
Have you seen the movie Seven Samurai (1954) by Akira Kurosawa? The small village in the movie was full of riches and loot, and it's a similar situation in games where we never know who is hoarding gold.
Additionally, there are always alts hiding the gold behind the curtains, so people don't have a surrendering option they risk losing the node.
Anyway, in the current model, the only thing small parties can do is dying and losing everything ANyWAY, but if they have gold they should be able to buy their way out of the situation.
The conditions for ending the wars must be reviewed!
Except they won't in the context of a war. They'd only be dying over and over again losing nothing. Node citizens would be dying, but we don't know how often sieges will be declared, so those citizens would also just die w/o losing much.
whats the point then, if im declaring a war and i get less back that it cost me to declare why woudlnt i accept it at a loss i would go through with it win or loose.
If surrendering will generate less wealth to the attackers, then the attackers won't think a second time before destroying every node they can.
Siege is not a war, so they can't destroy anything in a war. And if you mean destroy everything in a siege, yes, that's the goal of the siege, but it still wouldn't be a surrender.
Uh, are we talking about the same thin?
I am talking about node wars and specifically the node siege where even player's homes will be destroyed.
If people's goal is making gold, then let them make gold by wardecing others and asking a ramson if other party wants to surrender.
The war deccers could be bluffing when they demand the other to surrender, it is up to the defenders in the war dec to evaluate if they want to fight or pay.
Wars in Ashes are already goal-based. Bullying other guilds/nodes is not the point of wars. The bluffing can't work if you ask your guild/node-mates and they all say they haven't been killed by the enemy a single time. If anything, that would probably mean that this untouched side can just go and win the war by achieving the war's goal.
You need a war to siege a node, they are not completely different things at all, because one is an extension of the other, the siege is the cherry on top of the cake.
Also, leaders may declare war, but what if people change their minds about it?
Well, anyway, AoC is about politics too and people should be able to bluff and ramsom, also if you get too many wars in your hands you could use diplomacy and ask for a white peace or surrender.
This has to be in the game, it is diplomacy after all.
Yes, they may. And if those people get attacked all the time and disagree with the war, they may vote to surrender. But strong nodes/guilds shouldn't be able to abuse this by constantly overwhelming the weaker side.
Again, higher payout has nothing to do with diplomacy. Neither does bullying. The guilds/nodes may force someone to surrender, but they shouldn't be able to always benefit from this.
tbh the defenders kinda win too since they can no longer be at risk of loosing there node for another month i believe it was. if there not interested in pvp then it would be viable just to get seiged pay the surrender cost and earn the gold to do it again next time there seiged so they dont risk loosing their node.
But wars are a completely different thing.
What the hell, I didn't know I could use the siege scroll without using the war scroll previously, ok then!
Anyway, having diplomatic options should be still a thing against node wars and node sieges.
Sometimes defenders could be overwhelmed by multiple things and they may want to be diplomatic.
That is something we will never agree on @NiKr, because diplomacy at the end of a sword is still diplomacy and I did extort and scam people in other games, people did pay and this is profitable to them, otherwise I would have destroyed them.
When people are in a tight spot it could be profitable for them, some defenders preventively reach out and offer something.
Care to explain?
You are damn right about that!
That is how I scammed tons of people in other games for gold since everything was done through chat.then I killed some and others I helped them out.
The game needs official diplomacy options, options which bring peace, cooldowns and gold transfers. Plus, this lets soldiering be a way of making a living other than just burning yourself in dungeon runs.
So let me ask you this then what does the winner get out of a war then if lets say it cost 50k gold to wage a war and to surrender it takes 40k gold to do. So the winner looses 10k gold and the looser looses 40k gold what does one get out of a war then? and what if the person who declares it they loose 50k gold and defender loose nothing sooo the only time somone can say they won is if the defender wins but even then it realy a draw and no one realy wins cause they come out at a loss.
There also no death penalty apparently aswell so you cant even regain gold via resource drops from players so realy no one wins a war except for players who are not involved in it cause these 2 side are just loosing resource where the people not involved just get ahead. :P i gues there could be some mechanic to sack resources from the node itself though so that could be a win condition but again the attackers wouldnt want to accept any surrender until there making a profit out of it or it not longer worth them pursuing it
Now you could have surrendering in a war with a node could yield a seige scroll for that node if they loose, or if they win they get some gold based on the wager, so node wars could lead onto seiges
Realistically, the defeners will have many milions in loot in the node, maybe bilions!
Every building will be destroyed and will be in the ground to be found, attackers will sit there for hours just looting.
Why shouldn't people be able to pay ramsom? It is a diplomatic option!
Plus, sometimes a node or a guild could have so many things going on that they will want to cease hostilities diplomatically.
Wars in Ashes have goals that will reward you for a win, that's the point of the wars here, not just to kill the other side.
If you're a stronger side in a war and you're free to kill your enemy at all times - you're free to overtake their farming spots, remove them from any location, defend a boss or take theirs w/o going corrupt or anything. You have the freedom to kill them, but that freedom alone is not the point (even if I assume that quite a lot of guild will spend money just for that reason).
Yes, that's the whole point of a siege.
So, do you think this would only work if it were an integrated system? Or, do you think players could make social and verbal agreements that could accomplish such actions and goals (for the most part)?
I think when there are opportunities to make verbal agreements like this, politics, intrigue, and sabotage become more.. interesting?
I am a lover of player driven content, but there is a catch here, AoC needs a tiny system because it is not possible withdrawing money from the Node.
AoC differs from EVE, in EVE, however, it is possible to take the corporation's money and abscond with it. In fact, scamming is one of the 108 careers suggested by the developers.
I think AoC requires a system for using the Node's money to pay ransoms. To facilitate this, a window should be created where the mayor can allocate funds from the node.. Even citizens and non-citizens should be able to donate money by walking up to the Node's bulletin board, clicking the annoucement and setting how much gold they are willing to donate for the cause. Both parties should be able to run a ramson and finish the war, even players from the enemy party should be able to donate to the enemy and help the enemy pay the ramsom... everybody has alts and backstabbers are everywhere.
Once the required ransom amount is reached, peace should be established, donations should be rolled to the other party. If the required amount is not reached, the funds should be returned to their original sources, being : node, citizens or non-citizens.
A declaration of war may be a deceitful tactic to extort money, but the defenders may be willing to take the fight. Mayors will play a big brains game against each other in the diplomacy.
Ahh, I see what it is you're suggesting. Thank you for going into further detail!