Meaningful War Suggestion

[Anabolic Man]

It should cost money to start the war and accept the war, if the guild already have an active war. Maybe you should be able to set the kill range from 100-400 Kills ? What does the community think about that Idea ? Wouldn´t that be more fun ?

Second Idea would be a triggered war if someone destoy a controlltower. Winner could get the Terretory Points ?

 

[Najwalaylah]

After 100 Kills it should end and winner get all.

As someone once said, "It's not over until I win."

 

[Raknor]

1. Why would accept a war cost money?
2. Why would it not be auto-accepted after your enemy just wasted 500-1000g to declare it?

 

[Xunila]

Second Idea would be a triggered war if someone destoy a controlltower. Winner could get the Terretory Points ?

Every singlke player can destroy a control tower. Whet should a single player or a guild without keep do with territory points? And what exactly do you mean by territory points?

 

[Anabolic Man]

Every singlke player can destroy a control tower. Whet should a single player or a guild without keep do with territory points? And what exactly do you mean by territory points?

In MO1 the towers were way too squishy. Most of the time these were destroyed before a big fight took place. Few players could hit the control tower with hammers to destroy it. I think in MO2 we won´t get controlltowers but outposts that cannot be that easily destroyed. The world is big and players need enough time to get there. Additionally, this should at least require a ballista to destoy them. These can only be made by guilds. Another problem in MO1 was that the Towers were sometimes just hit once and the opponents ran away. Every time the tower takes 1% damage, there should be a new message in the global chat.

 

[Anabolic Man]

Still don't like it. Interesting idea tho.

A better way to get proper wars that happen AS WARS SHOULD is to remove more pvp restrictions in the wild! Aha.

Maybe you should have to wardec on someone before you can siege them, but it'd be non-consensual and offer you nothing other than being able to siege their GH/Keep. That would be a nice notice for some people, gotta dec then wait x amount of time, fix the ninja siege thing alil and then let all the fighting that happens be fighting, call it whatever you want. Open up pvp!

Maybe you are true. This cause toxic gameplay and the 1 guild only kill the farmers or miners if i think twice about it.

 

[Najwalaylah]

Maybe you should have to wardec on someone before you can siege them, but it'd be non-consensual and offer you nothing other than being able to siege their GH/Keep. That would be a nice notice for some people, gotta dec then wait x amount of time, fix the ninja siege thing

... I think you just reinvented part of Shadowbane...

Which in my experience means that Star Vault will insist on doing it some other way. We'll see.

 

[Najwalaylah]

yea I dono what Shadowbane is, and none of my 'ideas' ( well most!) are original, most are just logical solutions from other things I've seen that seem easy to implement. Tryin' to get a bunch of birds w/ that STONE ey.

I don't doubt your blessed lack of familiarity with Shadowbane, and if your ideas resemble others, it could be just coincidence. But, now you know that what you suggested resembles something that worked in that particular game. Not everything did work in SB, so it's remarkable.

Does ninja sieging really count as PvP?
Killing an indivicual player who is AFK in MO games is 'no challenge', but fair and even laudable.
Killing a bigger entity that way, up to and including a guild, is just the antithesis of having PvP, to me.