Announcement War | Feedback 1

[Rumpo]

This will be the first of a series of feedback posts related to wars on FRP. The future ones will go more in-depth and focus on a specific topic (such as "alting" in warclaims etc.). For now, this first one will be a follow up from this, the original war feedback thread. People gave their thoughts, but I would like to follow up on this after we have ran a test-run of the war (Calendale vs Alliance) and reach out to those that wish to give general, overall, feedback related to the war (the system, and then the mechanical battle).

If giving feedback, try to think of it in two different sections, the battle itself which was the mechanical fight that took place with the capture points etc. and then the system itself, which comprises of the things such as influence costs, war goals and the rulings in general behind a war.

As a prompter, here are some things that I noted as potential areas of contention that feedback on would be good.

The Battle:

• "Alting", should there be more checks, less checks, no checks?
• Capture Points, what do you think on the difficulty of capturing these points, do you think that it should be easier to capture the more people you have on the point / harder to capture the less people you have on the point?
• Siege, what did you think about the option for bombs as a temporary placement for siege - do you think that siege such as trebuchets have a place in future war systems or do you think that the battle format is too dynamic to host them in a fun and engaging manner.
• Percentages, what do you think of the current percentage thresholds for victory conditions - 80% for vassalisation, 70% for fort capture, 50% for independence.
• Waves, what do you think on the current number of waves (3 different respawning waves at 20 minute intervals).
• Format, do you think the format of the battle overall was good or bad?

The System:

• Influence Costs, what do you think of the influence costs involved in a ranging from joining a war, declaring a war and maintaining alliances.
• War Goals, are there any other war goals that you would suggest?
• Nation Leader PKs, do you think there should be a system for nation leaders to be PK'd through wars?

These are prompters for issues of contention I personally noted. As I said, this is a very general feedback post so any and all feedback/suggestions related to the war system is welcome. The system itself is due for a major overhaul but I wish to gather feedback en masse first. There should roughly be one feedback posted at least every week to tackle down key issues and get more specific feedback on those issues.

Final Note: I am looking for feedback here, so any posts that are prodding insults, antagonistic comments or "flame" towards a nation in relation to the war that has past will be deleted.

 

[guapstar]

nice post rumpo!

 

[frill]

• Capture Points, what do you think on the difficulty of capturing these points, do you think that it should be easier to capture the more people you have on the point / harder to capture the less people you have on the point?

I would like war-raid length to scale with the amount of capture points in play, one hour felt too short for my enjoyment and made everything a mad scramble.

Cheers

 

[FlemishSupremacy]

There should certainly be more checks for alting. I've already outlined what I'd like to see in a previous feedback post. In essence, I'd like an hour requirement for players to be able to participate in raids and warclaims, so that we avoid players who only log in for pvp.

 

[chaotikal]

Nation Subjugation seems a lot more impactful than conquesting a fort, I think the costs should definitely be looked at.
Nation Leaders should have some way of being forced to PK, as the characters make the roleplay, and removing a character is a big way a war could impact a nation, it should have sufficient roleplay and I think it should come down to public executions of captured leaders.

 

[Rikumaru]

Okay so regarding the points made:

• Alting: Is this existing players playing on alternate accounts or new players joining in on a battle. Regarding the latter, imo new players joining in for PvP during a war is a great way to get them into the server (this was the case for me and several other players I know who play now).
• Capture Points: I don't think less players capping a point should make it go slower, something I really liked during this warclaim was the fact that you could have a real impact on the battlefield as an individual or a small group outside of just killing. Imo it should be encouraged for players to spread out during combat rather than be punished for doing so. I also think there shouldn't be too many capture points, imo there was too many on the alliance side, however at the same time, they should enough capture points and should be spread out somewhat so you don't get giant ball groups forming up and just charging one point to the next.
• Siege: I think placing siege down could work, but only if the warclaim lasts longer than 1 hour 15m, otherwise too much time is wasted on placing siege. The last warclaim, the capping to 70% was extremely close despite Calendale completely stomping the enemy alliance. I also think the explosive brews should be a permanent addition to warclaims as it again provides single players / small groups the agency to have a real impact on the battle and also stops cheese tactics like gate trapping which puts PvP to a complete stalemate.
• Percentages: Regarding the percentages, I think it completely depends on the length of the battle which takes place. For the last warclaim 1 hour and 15 mins was definitely not long enough for the current percentages of 70% and 80%. If the time was increased to 2 hours or 2 hours 30 mins, I think those percentages would be fine, but otherwise I think they should be lowered, though I'm not fully sure on the values which should be used.
• Waves: I think the number of waves that spawn should depend on the amount of time the warclaim takes place in. 20 minute intervals I think is fine though as was 3 waves for 1 hour 15 mins warclaim.
• Format: The battle overall was quite fun, the increased map size meant you could go off solo or in a small group without being cornered and killed by giant ball groups. I think the duration of the fight should be longer though, especially if it's a final battle.
• PKing: I think it depends on what goes on in RP / in the war. If their leader for an example is captured during a raid and then taken and executed, such as was the case for Vetroy, I think it would make sense for that player to PK. But then again, PKing is a bit of a touchy subject so maybe it should require even more to force a PK?

Additional Suggestions:

I would also change how looting works too for a warclaim, imo if you down (or maybe even pop) a player, their loot should go to a chest eviction area for the killer. Atm you could have a huge impact on a battle, kill a dozen players and you can still end up losing gear in a battle since you don't pick any of it up. Other downsides I see with the dropping item system is how it causes more lag and the amount of wasted / lost gear due to players not picking them up or the gear despawning. The increased lag is perhaps even more important than losing out on gear as lag can really ruin battles.

Edit - Oh another suggestion which could be neat, if you manage to defeat a nation which holds one of the mines, maybe you take or at the very least gain access to the mine doors?

 

[AGiantPie]

Nation Subjugation seems a lot more impactful than conquesting a fort, I think the costs should definitely be looked at.
Nation Leaders should have some way of being forced to PK, as the characters make the roleplay, and removing a character is a big way a war could impact a nation, it should have sufficient roleplay and I think it should come down to public executions of captured leaders.

Two important things to keep in mind for fort conquest because I think fort conquests are quite significant.
1) It allows a nation to go above the normal maximum allowed number of forts. You can only build two forts yourself, but you can hold extra forts that you conquer (as long as you can afford upkeep).
2) A nation that loses a fort is permanently down that fort so long as it remains occupied. Aellen cannot build a replacement fort so long as Calendale is occupying theirs. They either have to win it back through war or hope Calendale abandons it at some point.

 

[TryaxReck]

• "Alting", should there be more checks, less checks, no checks?

Spoiler

MORE CHECKS. PLEASE THANKS.

• Capture Points, what do you think on the difficulty of capturing these points, do you think that it should be easier to capture the more people you have on the point / harder to capture the less people you have on the point?

Spoiler

I think it should go faster, but there should also be a cap to how many people actually effect capture speed. So maybe a 5% increase in how fast you capture something, with a maximum of 50% (being ten people.)

• Siege, what did you think about the option for bombs as a temporary placement for siege - do you think that siege such as trebuchets have a place in future war systems or do you think that the battle format is too dynamic to host them in a fun and engaging manner.

Spoiler

Everyone is sperging out in war, lets be real. Having static siege weapons reduce strategy instead of encouraging it. Bombs were fun, I liked spamming them to escape danger and using them to siege battlements. Some bases would be impossible to siege if not for them.

• Percentages, what do you think of the current percentage thresholds for victory conditions - 80% for vassalisation, 70% for fort capture, 50% for independence.

Spoiler

Makes sense to me.

• Waves, what do you think on the current number of waves (3 different respawning waves at 20 minute intervals).

Spoiler

Hm, good question, one that's hard to answer without statistics and whatnot. Maybe allowing people three lives and letting them spurt back in whenever? Not endorsing, just an idea.

• Format, do you think the format of the battle overall was good or bad?

Spoiler

It was good, I enjoyed the battle. Was a bit weird how we were allowed to decide our own capture areas, leading to some... creative placements, but other than that, it was good.

The System:

• Influence Costs, what do you think of the influence costs involved in a ranging from joining a war, declaring a war and maintaining alliances.

Spoiler

I'm not sure. Seemed like influence base raids happened as soon as the cooldown was over. For an attacking T5 nation with influence stored, seems reasonable enough. As for declaring and maintaining, I dunno.

• War Goals, are there any other war goals that you would suggest?

Spoiler

Economic gain goals? Bragging rights? Neither sound particularly good but they are options.

• Nation Leader PKs, do you think there should be a system for nation leaders to be PK'd through wars?

Spoiler

Always been the opinion that players are the ONLY individuals capable of PKing their characters, and thus should stay that way. Having PKs for NLs destabilizes a nation and encourages shadow-leading, in which the only outcome would be the NL losing a character and continuing to lead, or the NL quitting and potentially destroying a nation and making people quit.

 

[Sukitoru]

i died :(

 

[A_Good_Fellow]

i died :(

/Me dodges. Ez

In regards to NL PKs it all depends on the mechanics IE let's say it's a massive group well equipped vs a smaller force with less gear obviously the better one will have the W so what's the person to do?

Log out due to real world obligations
"Accidentally" get them selfs killed
Flee

The list goes on. Such as say they only play on a Alt generic soldier soul when they want to rp but have no risk of capture and presumably execution. Let alone how far down the chain this goes IE after the 5th leader steps up then gets murked. If we do implement a system of NL PKs there would need to be strick rules and criteria which brings me to my next part



PvP forts
Do we have to now prioritize pvp when people build? And there in what would be the limits. Could people make iron door trap field and the justification would be the fact that jumping potions exist?

Tldr
We need defied rules in regards to impactful elements such as building and war PKs.

 

[BardMainHere]

Alting:

To be honest, for there to be an argument for more checks there would need to be solid evidence that alting was a genuine problem during the war claim. Thus far, I haven't heard a ton of accusations aside from shadow rallying, which I wouldn't define that as alting. Which, without harming those who are inactive and coming back in good faith for war and thereafter long-term, I'm not sure how you would fix it. (Though, absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. Presented with sufficient evidence, I will change my mind on this.)

Cap points:

I think that the cap points were fine, if they were any faster, you'd be able to send the random clean iron dude to back-cap without much consequence aside from losing a life, and possibly getting a tick of points. The cap time was fine, allowed healthy amounts of back-capping, while not forcing the attackers to stay at each point indefinitely.

Siege:

I think it's generally just gonna be more fun/streamlined to continue to do the explosive potions if I'm being honest. If we swap to static trebs and catas, the attacking side is going to be heavily disadvantaged by the inherent dynamic aspect of the warclaim system in general. As well, coding a well-moving catapult/treb is probably not the easiest thing in the world.


%'s:

This is where I may have a few people turning their heads, however, I don't believe that if you're getting dominated, you should be able to fall ass-backward into a victory. Despite the continuous advantages pressed by Calendale, the points still ended up very very close. Granted, this won't be nearly as much of a problem when it comes to smaller wars, so I think it should be visited by the war team in a case-by-case basis. Visiting every war as if it will be the same thing to balance is an unhealthy decision.

Waves:

I didn't see a problem with these, they felt very healthy and provided a nice way of knowing when your allies were reinforcing, as well preventing a zerg rush during a long teamfight.

Format:

I think this is an incredible improvement from war formats on other servers, so I am not in much of a place to complain too heavily here. My only gripes with the format are the %'s, personally.

Nation costs:

I do not know much about this subject, so I will refrain from commenting.

War goals:

This might be dumb, as there might already be one, but there should probably be a sack goal where the defending nation has X buildings that attackers choose to be burnt down and some monetary/item reward.

Nation leader PKs:

I think that most NLs, save from a few extraordinary individuals that I respect greatly, will not handle the topic of PK'ing in good faith. We have seen this time and time again even in past servers, so I think it becomes necessary to enact a system to incentivize good faith acting to further advance the narrative. Having every nation leader come out unscathed from an incredibly decisive battle is just boring.

In regard to the argument of destabilizing a nation, this is pretty much exactly why you choose a sufficient heir before getting into a conflict.

Side note:
This quote by @Rikumaru is incredibly based. I like this idea a ton. It rewards personal performance, punishes dirty dirty loot goblins, and will likely help performance!

I would also change how looting works too for a warclaim, imo if you down (or maybe even pop) a player, their loot should go to a chest eviction area for the killer. Atm you could have a huge impact on a battle, kill a dozen players and you can still end up losing gear in a battle since you don't pick any of it up. Other downsides I see with the dropping item system is how it causes more lag and the amount of wasted / lost gear due to players not picking them up or the gear despawning. The increased lag is perhaps even more important than losing out on gear as lag can really ruin battles.

 

[Twodiks]

I don't really care about alting as I think it's not really a big issue as they make it out to be.

On capture points, I think they were fine as is. I don't think contesting points is any relevant as most of the fighting during this warclaim were off the point the majority of the time.

I say keep the explosive brews. I think they were more fun and is more fitting for the amount of time allotted for warclaims.

I think the percentages are way too high at the moment. My apologies if I seem blunt but the war felt like we wiped the coaltion's side and we barely crossed the amount needed to win this. I rather not have war goals only possible when one side is extremely dominant so I think it's best to lower it to more reasonable numbers.

For waves, I think an individual respawn timer would be more fun. I never died, so I don't have too much to go off of aside from what I've heard. But I think it'd be more fun for someone who died right after a wave and I think it'd give more freedom to shotcallers for them to be able to decide when and where their guys respawn.

Format's interesting, but I couldn't help but feel like that some of the raids of this war were more exciting than the warclaim itself. I had fun but I rather have a system where the sides are more influenced to fight each other straight off. And I just think it's a bit more ambitious for what little time was given. An hour and 15 minutes for a war over the entire map? The warclaim just felt as if it ended suddenly.

 

[Hercules]

• Nation Leader PKs, do you think there should be a system for nation leaders to be PK'd through wars?

Yes.​

I say this even as the recently-appointed nation leader of Calendale.

During a war, especially for a conflict in which you initiate, you owe the opposition a degree of integrity to PK. This goes for the major figures for any chain of command, or for any individual who has defeated in combat. It should not matter whether you are considered a "major nation leader" or not, either.

Conflict itself is otherwise going to completely repeat itself, become redundant, and more inconsistencies will potentially rise out from it.



Personal example/commentary beyond just the concepts of the system:

With the end of the 'war claim', I watched as a lot of people who worked hard to help Calendale survive see their efforts turned pointless. When it first began, we hardly had enough steel to equip each individual for more than two- possibly at most three- raids/skirmishes. We relied on being equipment vultures in order to survive a lot of the engagements. Our expectations were that, because of the effort that was put in by our players, that there would be PK for the important individual(s) who were killed in RP. We even went so far that at one point we captured three out of the five nation leaders- two of which being significant contributors to the conflict. One was executed, and he did not PK (@TryaxReck), another was let go due to a lack of mechanical war declaration and confusion OOC (@Bunnyhop) , and the other was let go on the grounds they would do a white peace while under pressure of even potential execution (@Lionfiles). In the end, it did not matter what extents of RP were attempted or done.

Post-war has shown us that it hardly mattered what we or others did in RP, at least diplomatically.

Why should you have to PK, when there are no risks? Why should you have to PK, when death means so little in war of all things?


I'll keep it to this point for now, seeing as how @BardMainHere, @Twodiks, and @Rikumaru handled other topics quite well.

 

[Ryanark]

There should be a mandatory PK clause for nation leaders either always or only during war.

 

[Rumpo]

Just to clarify quickly Bard, one of the main point gainers for the Alliance side was capturing the Calendale points and contesting them. Each Calendale capture points was worth 33, so when contested it was gaining 16 instead, this loss is more than a Aellen fort was worth (12).

Due to the poor defensive positions of two of your capture points, you suffered from this a lot and were at a major disadvantage as your open points were contested and/or flipped control a lot.

So that’s probably why you feel like you dominated a lot and only got 70%. There was roughly 70,000 points put in to play out of a maximum of like 100,000. So 30,000 points wer lost from points being unclaimed or contested and a lot of that was from Calendale points being contested.


@Twodiks
@BardMainHere

 

[Swifty]

MANDATORY WARZONE!!!!1111!!!

 

[BardMainHere]

Just to clarify quickly Bard, one of the main point gainers for the Alliance side was capturing the Calendale points and contesting them. Each Calendale capture points was worth 33, so when contested it was gaining 16 instead, this loss is more than a Aellen fort was worth (12).

Due to the poor defensive positions of two of your capture points, you suffered from this a lot and were at a major disadvantage as your open points were contested and/or flipped control a lot.

So that’s probably why you feel like you dominated a lot and only got 70%. There was roughly 70,000 points put in to play out of a maximum of like 100,000. So 30,000 points wer lost from points being unclaimed or contested and a lot of that was from Calendale points being contested.


@Twodiks
@BardMainHere

This makes sense, fair enough. Given our small conversation clarifying that we could've chosen those points location, I believe that fully refutes my argument there. In which case, I think the %'s are fine where they are, knowing that. Had we had a more defensible/less open location we'd have gotten 80-90%, so I don't think that is too bad at all.