[Poll] War Declarations

[Backyard Employee]

After reading the few threads up on this topic, I find its pointless to really ask the community what they want to do without showing some actual numbers of how people feel.

War Declaration

I dont think you should ever be able to declare war on random guilds for no reason because it would obviously just be another deterent for small guilds in the game. However, I feel like if a certain guild kills any member of you guild then your leadreship should have a timeframe in wich they...

mortalonline2.com

How the War Declaration System COULD work.

I've heard the system being released by Star Vault for War Declaration is not going to contain a Forced War Dec. I hear two guilds will have to consensually agree to fight one another. I can tell you right now, this system will not be used to it's capacity. There is a missed opportunity not...

mortalonline2.com

In my personal opinion, if you're the victim of being griefed; you were going to be griefed regardless of a system allowing you to be killed.

Option 1:

"Both sides should have to consent."

As it states, you can't force any war declaration on any guild regardless of their actions against you in-game. Both sides must consent to it.



Option 2:

"Sieging a guild assets allows for a forced war dec, otherwise consent."

My idea here is that war declarations are flat across the board still entirely on a consent-basis, however if a guild damages your structures with any form of siege equipment from fire arrows to manganons - that the game allows you to then force a war declaration. This however would be reserved for the guild on the DEFENSE, not for both sides (As to prevent a form of griefing where you could shoot a few fire arrows to then declare war.)



Options 3:

"Guilds should be given 1 forced war dec, the rest is consent"

This idea would basically entail every guild has one guaranteed forced war declaration, and until it is ended they wont regain that option back. This also entails that even if your guild is currently at war with another guild, if another guild outside of that conflict wishes to war dec. your own but has no wars declared yet; that it will be forced. This could perhaps be a happy balance between a system that works and prevents "griefing".



Option 4:

"Guild size should dictate forced war decs, otherwise consent"

As the statement implies, the size of a guild determines if they can be force war decced or not. This would obviously mean smaller guilds have immunity to forced war decs, where as larger ones are susceptible. I personally do not think this would work given there will be fewer characters per guild given the expansive re-work of the skill system i.e. Less characters overall on a roster.



Option 5:

"There is no consent, and war decs are always forced"

This is as it states. War decs can come from any guild, any size, and have any amount. I think this is how it should be, personally.

HOWEVER, I think it could be balanced in one of two ways (Or a combination of the two.)

1.) Declaring war against more then three guilds (Not having 3 total wars going on, only declared ones from your side) flags you as a "Bandit Guild" which then automatically (Whilst in the guild) reduces your reputation with all blue cities, and prevents you from entering them.
2.) Give an option for players to declare themselves as a "Bandit Guild". This will automatically make them hostile with all guilds in the game. They wont be able to enter blue cities, but could freely attack outside of towns without reputation loss (and what ever systems come along.)

I personally think players should be grey outside of towns until territory control plays a part in controlling the 'law' of a land. But this could perhaps be a happy medium / balance to the war system.



Option 6:

"A combination of ideas above"

Taking from the options above, and removing or adding parts you dislike to create a whole new 'system'.



Option 7:

"Other"

Explain your idea down below.

 

[For Sure]

I promise that if you have a problem with somebody and you both leave town. One's taking the fast trip home via priest. Looking for the lazy way out always. Wardecs should only impact sieges not grief mechanics.

 

[Tzone]

Guild Wars

So SV has said that they want some GvG action but dont really want Guild Wars because how it was used to beat down smaller guilds. Guild wars is highly needed for this game, both for not going red I have a couple of suggestions for a system they will prevent larger guilds from bulling smaller...

mortalonline2.com

My suggestion. With out forced wardecs, There is very little content in the game. Its not even really worth logging in unless people are willing to leave GZ.
You need a cost and a limit for both sides. Consensual war decs is no where near enough. Town fighting is some of the most fun in this game.

I dont think war decs should extend outside of the node of that town so people who dont want PvP can leave. If you are a carebear guild there is always hyllspeia which doesnt have a red priest. Or you can do other things like farm guild rep to use to make it cost far more to war dec you.

Its needs a cost and to start and keep going. And if they run to a different town and you still want to follow them then the cost is double since you have two towns.

War Dec is literally the only content I can see PvP wise since people hide in GZ unless they think they can win. Now they are forced to play the game or would have to leave town.


Its PvP its not griefing. If people dont want to PvP make them pay up or go else where.

 

[Tzone]

I dont think guild size is a good factor because there are ways to cheese it like having multiple sub guilds, or one small guild can be a very very good at the game and just destroy other small but not good at the game guilds.

 

[Raknor]

Guilds that have TC structures should always be forced to take a war dec no matter what. The question is what happens in between since TC structures are so far away, but having both parties to consent to have a fight ... you can call whatever you want except a war. This system is lame, its just a /duel command at guild level

 

[Teknique]

Wardecs or not.

You must realize.

You

are

doomed

 

[Najwalaylah]

Town fighting is ugly, tho. I feel like town/war fighters should be local grey so that other people can jump in if they want. I guess that's my biggest problem is that yea, they are decced but nobody else can do anything but watch...

I, too, don't see why towns not belonging to either guild would or should have to put up with war being prosecuted in their city limits, without being able to do anything non-criminal about it.

There was a town in the desert on the Mourning server in Shadowbane (Arazain) where trading was done, by pplayers whose characters had unlimited PvP freedom in that area. Regardless, the mistress of the place asked for no fighting inside her walls, on pain of death first and being barred from trading there, after that. Since Arazain had the best shopping around, and lots of muscle and friends, all but the biggest fools complied. It was a good system. I wouldn't mind seeing more of that attitude in a Mortal game, once again.

Option 1:

"Both sides should have to consent."

This option frames war as a Guild vs Guild duel. That should not be the only kind of war there is.

Option 2:

"Sieging a guild assets allows for a forced war dec...

I like that bit.

In fact, I'd like to see it go further and mean that if one of your guild so much as shoots a fire arrow at someone else's <donkey shed|other>, then your guild has declared war on the possessor's guild. You'd have to have some kind of trust in each of your own folks, not to bite off more than all of you together could chew, of course.

• Also of course: that wouldn't allow for those "But I was aiming at a Springbok" or "I didn't know | The Bow was loaded" accidents.

Option 4:

"Guild size..."

Was mentioned in another suggestion in this forum to make declaring war on a smaller guild more expensive than picking on a guild your own size, or larger. That made more sense to me at the time than anything else said about guild size.

• If you have a guild stone, you bought it from a Vendor. Can guilds place Guild Stone Vendors, either now or in the future?
• If you can only buy Guild Stones (plus upgrades) in a city under the control of some faction of NPCs (as, for example, the Tindremic Empire), then you're in effect paying a tax that buys you into a system, superficially of recognition of your rights under 'law' in certain cases.
• If you just wanted to be a gang, mug stray travellers, hang around and shoplift or pick pockets, you could do so without a tag, guild chat, the stone, assets, ranks, or mutual responsibility & liability to wars being declared against you.
• If guilds have formed, regardless of size, prowess, or purpose, then either none of them or maybe only the tiniest of them should be exempt, incapable of being war-dec'ed, in my opinion.
• Every organisation that can declare war ought to have some kind of 'hostages to forune' (assets) and fees to pay.

The same (notional) people into whose pockets gold must be sunk to declare war on a small guild could also charge you progressively more to declare against a second and even more against subsequent guilds at one time— and also progressively more to declare war against a guild already having a war or wars with others. That would be the price you'd pay to the deep coffers of the world for so much unrest and civic expenses and the Lictors' Retirement Fund, etc.

This would add layers of depth (expense) to hiring or being mercenaries. For instance: If you're hiring mercs, they're going to want you to pay what they are charged so that they may declare war. If they're greatly in demand, and already busy, this would amount to you paying higher fees for them, on top of their salaries. If they are really good, they may be wroth it.

 

[Bernfred]

wtf is this poll... i hope that they add forced wardecs just for fun in the beta so everyone gets "griefed" out of their guilds and towns.
do you realize that you can ABUSE every forced wardec mechanic with ally and side guilds? sieging too, just make a 5 man side guild to siege the house. (funny side note: i siege your house to get access to kill your members in blue towns )

wardec means there is no blue town protection (no MCs and rep loss outside too) : every player will just leave your guild if there is no consent between every member.
wardec is a small side mechanic, you can always kill everyone without going into war...

consent between players/guilds is the ultimate check so everyone stays in the guild and plays according to the rules. its like a trade: it only works when all stars allign.



its confirmed that there will be more layers of wardec.
some parts i wish for that the system includes:

Tier 1: (2) weeks war WITH blue town protection BUT no rep loss and MCs, just a gray flag (this gives you your desired free PvP without TC)
Tier 2: (2) weeks war without blue town protection
Tier 3: ??? guild stone destruction

 

[Svaar]

The one to whom the declaration of war is sent must have a timer, for example, a real day. If a decision is not accept for this real day (cancellation of the war or acceptance) within these real day, then the acceptance of the war will automatically accepted. If the guild that is sent to war refuses to war, then it must suffer losses (that is, there should be a penalty for refusing to war). The penalty must be either loss of reputation or in monetary terms (in fact, you pay tribute for refusing to fight). For example, declaring war on the same guild can be, for example, once a week (so as not to spam every day to make money).

And yet, I would not make the possibility of war in cities where there are guards. It turns out that lawlessness will reign in the city and the guards will walk calmly and not react in my opinion this is not right. The declaration of war and the war itself should give guilds only the opportunity to kill each other everywhere except for cities with protection, without losing reputation.

And one more thing, a declaration of war should cost a lot of money, since war is always a cost. Let's say the declaration of the first war (the first guild) is figuratively worth 2000 gold coins, the declaration of war for the second guild is figuratively 4000 gold coins, the declaration of war on the third and subsequent guilds is 10000 coins and above. There must be a system that will regulate uncontrolled and useless wars for the sake of simple profit in NPC cities.

 

[Bernfred]

The one to whom the declaration of war is sent must have a timer, for example, a real day. If a decision is not made (cancellation of the war or acceptance) within these real days, then the acceptance of the war will automatically take place. If the guild that is sent to war refuses to war, then it must suffer losses (that is, there should be a penalty for refusing to war). The penalty must be either loss of reputation or in monetary terms (in fact, you pay tribute for refusing to fight). For example, declaring war on the same guild can be, for example, once a week (so as not to spam every day to make money).

And yet, I would not make the possibility of war in cities where there are guards. It turns out that lawlessness will reign in the city and the guards will walk calmly and not react in my opinion this is not right. The declaration of war and the war itself should give guilds only the opportunity to kill each other everywhere except for cities with protection, without losing reputation.

And one more thing, a declaration of war should cost a lot of money, since war is always a cost. Let's say the declaration of the first war (the first guild) is figuratively worth 2000 gold coins, the declaration of war for the second guild is figuratively 4000 gold coins, the declaration of war on the third and subsequent guilds is 10000 coins and above. There must be a system that will regulate uncontrolled and useless wars for the sake of simple profit in NPC cities.

this can not work and has also no value. i wont repeat myself why a forced wardec does not work. you just make a griefer guild to spam declarations and also hope that the leader is working or at vaccations or the members are not online and cant make a democratic decision in time.
a paywall to get forced wardecs also can not work: some would pay 10k per week just to expel PvE members out of other guilds for example.

it must be the other way around: make a button to decline every war declaration per default so no one spams your chatbox with war declarations, when you dont want to accept any wars in the firt place.

 

[Svaar]

this can not work and has also no value. i wont repeat myself why a forced wardec does not work. you just make a griefer guild to spam declarations and also hope that the leader is working or at vaccations or the members are not online and cant make a democratic decision in time.

it must be the other way around: make a button to decline every war declaration per default so no one spams your chatbox with war declarations, when you dont want to accept any wars in the firt place.

I wrote above that this should be regulated otherwise no one will accept the war. read above, I already wrote how in my opinion it can be balanced.

 

[Jatix]

A thing small guilds forget. You dont have to officially be a guild. You can always just play with friends or your group, and not be in a technical guild. Everyone uses discord and stuff to communicate anyway.

I know forced wardecs are problematic. But consensual wardecs are stupid and pointless. Its a hardcore pvp game, you shouldnt be agreeing to fight. And 1 forced wardec is abusable and can be avoided with alt guilds. So the only wy they work, is if they are forced.

They need to change how guards work with wardecs. If they dont want people getting griefed in town, make guards still stop wardec fights. But make it so wardec kills dont lose reputation.

 

[Bernfred]

I wrote above that this should be regulated otherwise no one will accept the war. read above, I already wrote how in my opinion it can be balanced.

i updated my reply at the same time
every way of forcing a guild to war will just blow most guild members away, the members just leave. this is the WORST system that can ever happen to MO2.

i have an idea how it can work:
you add 2 tiers of guilds: you create a PvP-tagged guild. this guild can force every other PvP-tagged guild to war, maybe with a paywall.

 

[Dalarius Avicius]

I like that bit.

In fact, I'd like to see it go further and mean that if one of your guild so much as shoots a fire arrow at someone else's <donkey shed|other>, then your guild has declared war on the possessor's guild. You'd have to have some kind of trust in each of your own folks, not to bite off more than all of you together could chew, of course.

• Also of course: that wouldn't allow for those "But I was aiming at a Springbok" or "I didn't know | The Bow was loaded" accidents.

Was mentioned in another suggestion in this forum to make declaring war on a smaller guild more expensive than picking on a guild your own size, or larger. That made more sense to me at the time than anything else said about guild size.

• If you have a guild stone, you bought it from a Vendor. Can guilds place Guild Stone Vendors, either now or in the future?
• If you can only buy Guild Stones (plus upgrades) in a city under the control of some faction of NPCs (as, for example, the Tindremic Empire), then you're in effect paying a tax that buys you into a system, superficially of recognition of your rights under 'law' in certain cases.
• If you just wanted to be a gang, mug stray travellers, hang around and shoplift or pick pockets, you could do so without a tag, guild chat, the stone, assets, ranks, or mutual responsibility & liability to wars being declared against you.
• If guilds have formed, regardless of size, prowess, or purpose, then either none of them or maybe only the tiniest of them should be exempt, incapable of being war-dec'ed, in my opinion.
• Every organisation that can declare war ought to have some kind of 'hostages to forune' (assets) and fees to pay.

The same (notional) people into whose pockets gold must be sunk to declare war on a small guild could also charge you progressively more to declare against a second and even more against subsequent guilds at one time— and also progressively more to declare war against a guild already having a war or wars with others. That would be the price you'd pay to the deep coffers of the world for so much unrest and civic expenses and the Lictors' Retirement Fund, etc.

This would add layers of depth (expense) to hiring or being mercenaries. For instance: If you're hiring mercs, they're going to want you to pay what they are charged so that they may declare war. If they're greatly in demand, and already busy, this would amount to you paying higher fees for them, on top of their salaries. If they are really good, they may be wroth it.

I really like these ideas, they allow forced wardecs but have ways to mitigate big guilds bullying smaller ones. I'd like to see a "casus belli" system where a guild needs a legit reason to declare war, for example if one guild keeps killing another it'll allow the affected guild to use a "counter attack" reason and it will cost a certain amount of renown or whatever resource SV comes up with to declare it.

I'd really like a war system that is both in depth and immersive, yet fun and interesting to use.

 

[Bernfred]

so in the end everyone who is pro-forced wardecs in any way just wants this:


DO NOT join a guild when you need blue town protection or the blue flag protection.

whereas joining a guild in MO2 should be the opposite... guilds should attract people without the POTENTIAL risk that some dude comes and griefs you in a blue town at any time.
you will end up with PvP only guilds, sitting in their keeps all day long and solo PvE players. this is just insane for the whole game idea.
you just make "KoTo 2" to undergo forced wardecs or just leave KoTo and stay tagless.

all this consequences just to turn the game into a deathmatch/grief/abuse arena which is not even desired?! wait for release and you have you endless PvP.
wardecs are a RP mechanic for a good reason.

 

[Teknique]

so in the end everyone who is pro-forced wardecs in any way just wants this:


DO NOT join a guild when you need blue town protection or the blue flag protection.

whereas joining a guild in MO2 should be the opposite... guilds should attract people without the POTENTIAL risk that some dude comes and griefs you in a blue town at any time.
you will end up with PvP only guilds, sitting in their keeps all day long and solo PvE players. this is just insane for the whole game idea.
you just make "KoTo 2" to undergo forced wardecs or just leave KoTo and stay tagless.

all this consequences just to turn the game into a deathmatch/grief/abuse arena which is not even desired?! wait for release and you have you endless PvP.
wardecs are a RP mechanic for a good reason.

Only guilds of a certain strength should be wardeccable

guildstones used to have a tier

 

[Tzone]

you just make "KoTo 2" to undergo forced wardecs or just leave KoTo and stay tagless.

all this consequences just to turn the game into a deathmatch/grief/abuse arena which is not even desired?! wait for release and you have you endless PvP.
wardecs are a RP mechanic for a good reason.

Some guilds are already doing this. They will consent on a alt guild to PvP but the other guild they wont be war dec'd so their alts in that guild can play as blue.

 

[Tzone]

Only guilds of a certain strength should be wardeccable

guildstones used to have a tier

My issue is that you can have 5-10 people in a guild that just destroy in a war larger guilds. Or you can have a small guild that harasses you in town using guards to protect them selves but cant war dec them even tho they are attempting to PvP you.

I think all guilds should be war dec able but have different cost and allow carebear guilds to farm something that will raise that cost making it even more less worth while to war dec them.

 

[SirVirtuo]

I feel there should be a justification process for War Decs. Say, if a guild holds a keep, as an example, the feudal system can take hold and the lord must be asked to enforce a war dec if the other side rejects it. Alternatively, it could be an "emperer" system, where a GM signs off on rejected War Decs until there is an "Emperor" on the throne in Tindremic or the Khurite provinces.

would add more political play and reason for people to fight against authority or vice versa.

 

[Backyard Employee]

If you base a declaration of war off of guild size, then the tier sizes themselves must be entirely re-worked given the fact players only have one character per account rather then four.

I also just dislike this idea as it doesn't agree with the idea of a 'war'.

I'm on the fence about war dec. fights happening in town, I actually think it's a really good idea that if you kill someone in town whilst war. decced you simply lose reputation in that region until you are considered a criminal - HOWEVER, the whole purpose of a war declaration in Mortal was to attack your enemies in places they could hide i.e. towns.

People would likely argue that if they were outside of towns, and not war decced they wouldn't fight / kill each other - but they totally would, and already do that; so having two groups have free reign on attacking each other makes no difference outside of guarded areas.

I don't agree with consensual wars, but I could see it working if the challenger puts up some sort of collateral - in the form of prominence, or gold (or what ever it might be) and that the opposing guild has to match it (to accept) or decline it (which then pays out what the challenger put up). This declaration would have to be responded to within the next 72 hours (3 days) which is more then plenty of time to meet out demands.

Could be abusable given a larger guild that is extremely prominent / wealthy war decs. smaller guilds that wont make the cut can have their ""coffers"" sapped dry.

IDK. There's a lot of avenues for this, I honestly think the most simplistic way is allowing wars to be declared as much as they like - with no consent. The only stipulation I'd throw in is that if a war declares to many wars, it then gets flagged as a bandit guild and will be treated as hostile in all guarded towns preventing guilded members from entering towns. This would actually make being a ""hostile guild"" have some drawbacks.