Warring Fixed

[goodz]

A pitched battle. A war in which terms have been set using game mechanics. War in its current form will still exist, but now you will be able to send 1 war request a day. It will have a few options for terms, and will eliminate the need of annoying hostiles, and button games.

1) ATM giving up the button is a burden. No one likes doing it, especially warring kingdoms! Top KD's warring for land its a bit different because the wave for the acres means something to them. For 2 kds warring for honor or just the win, the acres gained rarley offsets the cost of a declare with armies out.

Resolution: Simply asking to war using game mechanics. The request would show in the paper and on the monarchs relations page where he can accept/reject in the same manner as a CF. The KD making the proposal can withdraw it at anytime but can only send 1 every 24 hours, and can only ever have 1 sent at a time. So you could leave it up for days on end waiting for them to accept, but you could not send another will the current one is active.

Terms! I know top KD's want to war for their acres and use diplomacy to declare a winner. But some ghettos want it declared for them, they want the meter!

Term 1: War start date. 2 Options selected by the KD sending the request:
1) War will start at a randomly determined time 12-24 hours from the accept date. The war start date will be shown in the paper immediatly if the war is accepted. "KD XX:XX has accepted our war and it is scheduled to start on...."

2) War will start at a time selected by the KD who sent the war offer. The offer to war will automatically expire if this time is reached without an Answer. You cannot select a time within 12 hours of sending the invitation to war.

Term 2: Victory Conditions
1) no victory conditions, war will go on until a KD withdraws

2) Victory conditions based on Land exchanged between the KDs. War will go for 48 hours, at this point if either KD is ahead by 10% Acres gained (100 attacks for 1100 acres would immediatly beat 80 attacks for 1000 acres) If this condition is not met war continues for another 48 hours (during this time a KD may withdraw on its own as normal) After 96 hours a KD up by 5% gained will be determined the winner, if they are still deadlocked the war will be declared a tie (mutual peace) Land meter will be avaliable for all parties in war to see, on relations page?


What do people think?

[goodz]

Personally I would really enjoy this, I hate when a kingdom says "yes i will war you" then you both sit there not wanting to give up the button advantage, and not trusting each other to arrange a start date... I think this would take 1-2 ages of implimentation to get working perfect, might be some exploitable things such as intra land dropping during the pre war to get advantage going for honor etc.

[Palem]

What's wrong with the current system?

[goodz]

Palem what kind of a KD do you play in?

issues that i consistantly see complained about or encounter:
1) neither KD wants to give out the button and you get stuck in long bouce war hostiles making 2-3 hits a day and not giving button. (why is bouncing so broken still?)
2) KD A refuses to WD
3) Current system would still exist you would just have another option that is much more ghetto friendly...

If it ain't broke dont fix it is a bad way to live. I mean there is nothing wrong with walking, but cars are certainly nice?

With the new Warring charts it would be neat if you could get some of the KD's at the top declaring war on each other without any long pre war games! Also perhaps a new "ticker" similar to what AR had would be cool. Maybe even a third page on that news tab that had world news. And would show when any KD's in top 10 on any chart declared each other / WD / Accepted a war proposal! Being able to just see #1 declared #2 would really make following other wars easyier...

[Palem]

Palem what kind of a KD do you play in?

I play in the best kd on the server (see sig)

1) neither KD wants to give out the button and you get stuck in long bouce war hostiles making 2-3 hits a day and not giving button. (why is bouncing so broken still?)

What's stopping them from working out a friendly agreement right now?

2) KD A refuses to WD

Either KD A doesn't think they've lost, or they have a poor monarch. Neither of those is a game problem.

3) Current system would still exist you would just have another option that is much more ghetto friendly...

If it ain't broke dont fix it is a bad way to live. I mean there is nothing wrong with walking, but cars are certainly nice?

Taking your car a perfectly acceptable walking distance is pathetic. Trying to walk 20 miles to work is stupid. They serve 2 honest purposes...

That said, a bandaid won't help the flu.

[goodz]

What's stopping them from working out a friendly agreement right now?.

Trust? I have worked them out numerous times but it would be awesome if i could just propose some terms and the enemey could say yes/no.

Either KD A doesn't think they've lost, or they have a poor monarch. Neither of those is a game problem.

This is a game problem, anything that hurts the experience of playing is an issue. Its kind of frusterating for the KD dealing with a KD whos monarch is hopeless and refuses to WD, but its even worst to be constantly randoming into that KD to be stuck in such a stupid situation. I don't think you would see any organized KD's using the victory conditions, but I am certain the bottom 100 would use it a lot of the time. I remember just having the meter setting victory conditions with it like 5% wins, and even if you were winning the war you would WD because you lose according to the conditions you set... Thats fine too might even remove some heavy chaining in weaker KD's wars making it less of a pain for them to rebuild.

Taking your car a perfectly acceptable walking distance is pathetic. Trying to walk 20 miles to work is stupid. They serve 2 honest purposes...

So what your trying to say is that 2 options is better so you can select the one that fits your need?

[Landro]

How to get war:
- make some hits into a kingdom and keep relations just above UF
- contact the kingdom and ask them for war.
- other kingdom gives UF
- you give Hostile around the 22nd
- other kingdom has ~2 hours to declare. If they don't you're back at UF

[goodz]

How to get war:
- make some hits into a kingdom and keep relations just above UF
- contact the kingdom and ask them for war.
- other kingdom gives UF
- you give Hostile around the 22nd
- other kingdom has ~2 hours to declare. If they don't you're back at UF

You seriously prefer that method to if you could just invite to an arranged war using game mechanics?

[Palem]

Trust? I have worked them out numerous times but it would be awesome if i could just propose some terms and the enemey could say yes/no.

Sounds like a personal problem. Dealbreaking doesn't fly well in the community. They'll be outted and deemed untrustworthy. Community wins.

This is a game problem, anything that hurts the experience of playing is an issue. Its kind of frusterating for the KD dealing with a KD whos monarch is hopeless and refuses to WD, but its even worst to be constantly randoming into that KD to be stuck in such a stupid situation.

Weeding out a bad monarch can be a good bonding experience. Chaining isn't a really "good" experience, but some players absolutely love getting put into that situation.

So what your trying to say is that 2 options is better so you can select the one that fits your need?

For travel yes. For wars no. There should just be wars. With this there will be ghetto wars and real wars.

[Ezzerland]

Palem is saying "It's not for me/I don't like it and that makes it bad/wasteful/stupid." This is part of the disease of utopia and is why I don't post suggestions. You cannot point out why it's flawed or what's wrong with it but you can knock it for sounding silly to you.

*cough* Logical conversation *cough*

I most likely would not use this myself, but I see absolutely no reason why this should not be implemented. An in-game mechanic that made it "safer" for smaller kingdoms to war and have the game supporting their war would be beneficial on the lower level. This would be like saying "The kingdom with 60% on the war meter wins." and the game actually supporting you.

Edit: Afaik, there is nothing wrong with making the game easier at the lower level. We should be making it a goal to implement/suggest changes that support a lower learning curve and a system that is more supportive of new players.

[E_Boko]

+1 goodz.

[Palem]

Palem is saying "It's not for me/I don't like it and that makes it bad/wasteful/stupid." This is part of the disease of utopia and is why I don't post suggestions. You cannot point out why it's flawed or what's wrong with it but you can knock it for sounding silly to you.

*cough* Logical conversation *cough*

There's a difference between can not and have not.

Why it's silly:
Goodz has a problem with war declaration and would prefer a more neutral declaration mechanic. I agree with this and have suggested a delayed declaration before. Where the suggestion goes "silly" is where he tries to throw the war terms into suggestion as an attempt to "fix warring", but warring isn't broken (and everyone that has supported this has said they wouldn't use it, even goodz). If you choose a bad target who won't surrender when "beaten", then that falls on you for picking a poor target.

[Ezzerland]

You're right, I control the actions of other people. I can also predict the future. Who's sounding silly? oh, that's you.

9 years ago when there was a war meter in place and I had been ghetto slumming it out of the top/active kingdoms, I would have used this. Today, if I were playing in a kingdom that was a lower caliber and wanted fun fast wars, I would use this. Since I'm on the higher end of the spectrum, I will not. That is not because it's a bad idea.

The only thing Silly about goodz suggestion is the lack of true thought on what "conditions" could be.

[Ordray]

There's a difference between can not and have not.

Why it's silly:
Goodz has a problem with war declaration and would prefer a more neutral declaration mechanic. I agree with this and have suggested a delayed declaration before. Where the suggestion goes "silly" is where he tries to throw the war terms into suggestion as an attempt to "fix warring", but warring isn't broken (and everyone that has supported this has said they wouldn't use it, even goodz). If you choose a bad target who won't surrender when "beaten", then that falls on you for picking a poor target.

If you have a choke point in coding, while not broken it can be improved. Would you not deploy a "fix" to make that part of the code more streamlined? I see nothing wrong with the suggestion, and it's possible that I'd consider actually using the terms part if I didn't trust the KD that I was warring.

[Palem]

People can already set up whatever terms they want The only thing the terms part actually does is:

1. Allow the game to actually enforce the terms (if they accept).
2. Continue to wither away that thing that crappy monarchs don't want to do (diplomacy).

Personally, I don't like the trade off.