Declare War Spell

[Yrthilian]

[quote name='Udgard' timestamp='1328154408' post='103136']
Correction: technically there was never a war. You broke the treaty and threatened to start a war if Raven didn't step down, which he did to prevent war from happening.
[/quote]
Wrong! wrong!! wrong!!!

The war treath came from LR first. Please if you are goign to make a statment make one of fact.
when they made the treath i retuned it with a promise of war IF the one that cause the offence at the time apoligised.
Raven did not have to step down. He was given 2 options he chose to step down since he could not get the ofending
person to apoligise for abuse of powers. The war still happened we took over an alliance and did damge before he steped down.


Now back on topic.

As i said. the system does NOT have to require the kingship or even just a single leader. It can still be a citizen vote for the war.
Why should only the alliance get the chance to play. Citizens have as much a right to defent their land as an alliance does.
For this to work it would require a voteing system similar to the kingship vote when they happened but more automated
as it would be one of posiable 3 answeres yes/no/abstain.

The leaders of alliance/kingship(if that comes back) would have the right to call for a war vote.
so that would mean say any alliance leader could call for a vote. Say by use of some interface in the
alliance screen with reasions for the war kind of like the quest system. So it would be posted to the land
not sure how that would be done other than forum/quest page in MD.

This would then allow only the citizens of the land to vote for or agenst the war.
Thoes for get taged with war mode thoes that dont get left as is and are not part of the war
as war mode (AKA TC) does not let thoes out of the system take part it would mean that the
people in the war cannot interact out side of it. This should cover any outside influence from other parties not
involved.

Most of the mechanics from what i can see and remember of are already there. they just need some modification
but yes there are also parts that are not there and they would need adding.

[Udgard]

[quote name='Yrthilian' timestamp='1328178703' post='103162']
Wrong! wrong!! wrong!!!

The war treath came from LR first. Please if you are goign to make a statment make one of fact.
when they made the treath i retuned it with a promise of war IF the one that cause the offence at the time apoligised.
Raven did not have to step down. He was given 2 options he chose to step down since he could not get the ofending
person to apoligise for abuse of powers. The war still happened we took over an alliance and did damge before he steped down.
[/quote]
No.
Blackthorn was (unneededly, yes) offended by MRD's meddling with Savelites, and asked "Are you trying to start a war?". The first declaration of war (or to be precise, threats to start a war) was from you. Of course, you could say that the war happened the moment you threathened to start a war between GG and LR, though that's not what it looks like, at least from the other side (where Raven stepped down to [u]prevent [/u]war).
And I do not remember the Savelites take over being done as part of the war (or during, even).
Can't seem to find the topics about it on the forum anymore though, so I'm gonna stop here for now lest I go even more offtopic.

On topic:
A call-for-vote system sounds like a good idea. I do think that the scoring should be harsher than just a 51% majority vote for a land to be declared on war with another land though. Anything less than.. say 75-80% would mean it won't be labeled a "land war". (imagine an extreme scenario, 51% says go to war, 49% don't.. It's not fair to say that land X is at war with land Y just because 51% of land X citizen wants to). The 51% can go to war, just that it's a personal war, not an attack from that land per se.

[Chewett]

Keep on topic, next time someone mentions the old war and who did what stupid actions, their post gets removed by me.

[Dragual]

I agree, but there are some lands that would like to keep the element of surprise. I just feel that this would strip them of that right.

Also what if ONLY citizens and enemy soldiers were allowed inside a land that is at war? So, if for some reason GG Ally is attacking Loreroot (Again, completely random example...) Then anyone NOT part of the war is instantly removed. Note, this would not remove citizens of a land who choose not to get involved in the war, only those from other lands who have nothing to do with the battle.

[Chewett]

What happens If MB attacks LR? Whole of MB sealed off for non citizens? Effectively that stops people going to MDA or from MDA unless they are part of MB or LR. And if they are part of LR then they need access through hidden exit.

Not to mention the problems with MB, since MB is one of the story locations that people are ported to during story. If suddenly the area where most newbs are is totally sealed off, might be a tad confusing...

Edited February 2, 2012 by Chewett

[Seigheart]

If a country is at war, do you think they just LET people cross the borders, no questions asked?

If you want to keep your access to the MDA, then don't piss off MB. It just gives them a bigger bargaining chip than the others. Right?

[Yrthilian]

i dont think land locking is a good thing to have.
Just keep it in the style of the TC where only thoes involved are and they cannot attack thoes
that are not part of the war and cannot be attacked by thoes not in the war.

This leave lands open for passing through.
the % think can be abused in a way that stops war from ever happining
think of the US versius whome every the feel is worth invading
80% of US goes to war but the country they invate/i meen liberate only has 20% in the war.
the damage is still huge and they still get spoils of war.

If a land does decide to go to war agenst another so let say
GG V Necro
80% of GG goes yeah lets have a war
40% of Necro say yes ok we will go to war.

GG is already at 2 to 1 % stronger.
The idea of the Necro not waring would mean in a way they dont wish to defent their land.(precived to be that way.)
For a war to happen it would mean that both sides are feuding over something this would hopefully mean all citizens are
aware of the fued and have already decided if they are going to get involved if war was to happen.

We dont want war to be just another one of thoes tools people use for the hell of it.
It need to be difficult to achieve and one of thoes things that people want to do for what the believe.
I dont think MD will see another war for some time if at all. But would be good to have this in place and tested
could be fun to see how it all workes out.

[Kaya]

On the other hand, do you think people would care for whether there enemy wants you in there land or not, other than the risk of getting killed? You can't really have a good war without the possibility of invasions.

I do think there should be some penalty for walking in enemy territory though, like an AP cost bonus and a stat penalty. Perhaps even skill damage?

The real locking out should be done by the players self in my opinion, that's what the land cleansers are for.

[Yrthilian]

well in TC you do get a penealty for walking in an enemy land
so that is already there and is very costly to move.
skill damage i dont think that is a good option.

[Dragual]

Hmm... Well the idea was to prevent non-citizens or soldiers from walking on the battle field... So... Maybe a cost? As it should be a danger to walk in the middle of a war zone.

What about War Time Ally Stats? Like i.e TW gets there normal stat increase from being TW but in the times of war, they get even more.

[Dragual]

Also, what if for every place DURING a war someone dies, there are bones left? Like one or two? This would leave a sort of battlefield memorial as most people cannot harvest bone. >>

Edit: I also think that death during wartime should have some penalties. Maybe something like you are movelocked and attacklocked for the duration of the battle? Maybe you could be sent back to the GoE and locked there?

Edited February 4, 2012 by Dragual

[Liberty4life]

yeah death in war used to make ya unable to attack and bein attacked in old war mode, unsure if ya were movelocked as well but i think yes

umm so... most of ppl cant gather bones but those who can would become war profiteers?

[Dragual]

Sure. It could have the effect of just one more way people can expand on their role.

[Yrthilian]

Most of the war stuff can be taken from the TC/HC system
when killed you become a ghost. you cannot fight you cannot do anything other than talk
in some cases you even get moved to the place in underground.

yes if you log out and back in you get around that issue so that would need to be changed
for a war system but i dont imagen that would be too difficult to put checkes in place for that

[Kyphis the Bard]

There are all sorts of ways to filter this sort of thing.

For example, you could have the same sort of voting mechanic as was used for Kingship, except instead of having it be global you could have it check citizenship and only show it to people with the correct citizenship. There are already other things that check citizenship, so the code exists. That allows for war discussion in private, while also being semi automated.

For declaration of war (and, to be honest, a whole lot of other abilities, including things like dreams), you could have the ability tied to the alliance interface, and only the alliance leader can see it, much like the ability to kick members. That way you could assign certain types of abilities to certain types of alliances, for example give war declaration abilities to military alliances and dream control to RP alliances.

You can also make such things consume loyalty to activate for the leader, and for the communal things like a war vote consume loyalty for ignoring the matter for everyone who doesn't participate (obviously that would always require a neutral option).

All of this makes alliances more integral to the realm, and it also means that abilities are tied to the realm, not the player.

There are plenty of other ways to do such things, to. For example, fight causes.

Be creative. Almost anything you could want to suggest is, essentially, possible with the tools already at your disposal (although, obviously, you can't implement them . Just saying you can get more creative in your suggestions )

[Yrthilian]

is that not the idea Kyphis

to get people to make suggestions and be creative with them
Much of what you said has been suggested but you do add more to how it would work and to be honest worded much better

But i do like the idea of tying the ablities to the type of alliances
That spread the ablity a bit too and would be much more fitting
and as you say intergrate alliance much more in the realm.

Edited February 8, 2012 by Yrthilian

[Chewett]

War is a social convention and having a spell seems odd.