Hostility ratings

In most PvP games wars are actually a fairly minor part of the major warfare that goes on. Wars mainly stop NPC protectors from interceding inside safe zones, or remove alignment/security hits in zones where those exist.

The areas where the majority of the conflicts take place, and where players can claim territory of their own tend to have few to no laws or consequences that interfere with PvP. This allows for massive wars where many factions can join together into World War type conflicts. In PFO little has been said about lawless areas and the impression always given is that settlements and other claimable hexes will be subject to the reputation system at most times.

This means that in order for the world war type scenarios seen in EVE or Darkfall to be a reality there must be the ability to maintain many, many, wars/feuds simultaneously. But if this is possible what is to stop groups from recklessly warring everyone to effectively bypass the reputation system?

Hostility ratings could provide part of this solution.

Hostility Ratings

Hostility ratings are the measure of how many actions another group has taken that provides your group a reason to go to war with them. Examples include:

• Any action that generates the hostile flag toward your group.
• Aggressive actions taken as part of a war.*
• Being at war with an allied group.

As the hostility rating between your group rises, the cost of maintaining an aggressive war against them lowers. Hostility has a slow bleed off rate over time.

The point is if you are using the war system to get free kills against groups who have done little to provoke you, and with no conflict with your allies, that will require the highest expenditure of influence to maintain. If you are maintaining wars with factions who are consistently provoking you, at war with your allies, or whom you have a history of conflict with the cost will be very low.

*Aggressive actions during a war are a good generator because it means if a faction goes to war with you, you turn things around on them, and they drop the war, it will be very cheap to take up those costs yourself. It also means if they are maintaining a war with you over time it won't get much cheaper unless they are putting up good resistance. Something a group bullying newb factions is hoping to encounter little of.

For clarification's sake hostility rating is not shared but it is generated by all actions that generate hostility.

For instance if bandit group is raiding trader town and trader town rolls over and lets them do so, or is simply incapable of doing anything to stop them then bandit group will have a high hostility rating with trader town, but trader town will have a low hostility rating with bandit group.

However if trader town forms a militia, takes the fight back to the bandits and starts torching their hideouts then they would both have a high hostility rating toward each other.

Seems like a good solution for a problem that might not ever happen.

Seems like a good solution for a problem that might not ever happen.

Indeed. But like many suggestions on these boards, it's something for the developers to keep in the backs of their minds if it becomes necessary.

Seems like a good solution for a problem that might not ever happen.

I think we can say with some level of surity the war system will be caught trying to balance two factors.

1. The positive factor of allowing meaningful conflicts without consequence. For instance territorial disputes.
2. The negative factor of allowing meaningless conflict without consequence. For instance bullying newb companies that were minding their own buisiness.

Influence costs are sure to be one of the main balancing factors in that equation. Hostility rating lowers the cost for meaningful conflicts allowing them to up the meaningful PvP available, discourage meaningless PvP further, or both.

While I agree that your solution is... powerful... I disagree as to the... need for it. Should ever a faction have the urge to declare war on all others it would a) have no allies for whom reputations matter/affected and b) be at war with everyone. If a single guild, let us assume Tony's Totally Legitimate... Breadmaking Business, declared... war on everyone, would Empyrean sit around and allow them to... implement adverse affects on society?

No... friend Andius. Your method is... nice, but much as Steelwing mentions in... the NRDS thread... it is not a mechanism we need... the game has... PCs like yourself... to monitor such things. If a guild where to declare total war then wouldn't it be your... responsibility as self-proclaimed peacekeepers to... keep the peace? It should be the... right... for that guild to declare total war... just as it should be the right of the peacekeepers to... destroy that guild.

Further there is already the NPC settlement system that will allow for... protection. Should this aggressor be strong enough to... fight past that then maybe the peacekeepers should start being... the useful dogs they are?

^^^I see William Shatner or actually Captain Kirk^^^

;)

^^^I see William Shatner or actually Captain Kirk^^^

;)

haha. works! I was originally thinking about V because of the avatar, but I didn't want him to be a V one-off y'know (which he still kind of is, but oh well) Captain Kirks mode of language is perfectly fine and actually along the desired effect.

@ Andius,

I agree with your basic premise that repeated hostility should reduce the cost for future feuds and wars.

That on its face value, just makes sense.

Why I differ is on two concepts you seem to get hung up on....

There is no such thing as a newb company participating in open world outside of the starter areas. When you set foot out if the newb area, you are not a newb. When you firm a company, you are open to be feuded against. If someone is not ready for that, they are not ready to leave the newb area or form an in-game company.

Secondly, outside of the newb area, no one is "just minding their own business". Every action you do is at the expense of that opportunity for someone else. PFO is not about building settlements that live in peace and prosperity. It is an MMO built on the concept if limited resources and competing interests. Cohesion, power and dominance are three if it's pillars. The fourth was exploration, but the point of exploration is not for the intellectual pursuit of discovery, it's to discovery new resources to make yourself, company or settlement stronger (wealthier).

As BrotherZael said, the newbs have more than enough protection.

@ Andius,

I agree with your basic premise that repeated hostility should reduce the cost for future feuds and wars.

That on its face value, just makes sense.

Why I differ is on two concepts you seem to get hung up on....

There is no such thing as a newb company participating in open world outside of the starter areas. When you set foot out if the newb area, you are not a newb. When you firm a company, you are open to be feuded against...

Secondly, outside of the newb area, no one is "just minding their own business". Every action you do is at the expense of that opportunity for someone else... Cohesion, power and dominance are three if it's pillars. The fourth was exploration, but the point of exploration is not for the intellectual pursuit of discovery, it's to discovery new resources...

As BrotherZael said, the newbs have more than enough protection.

This is very... eloquent, friend. I appreciate the lack of... complacency exhibited by your particular... knowledge. I will however caution that some people will explore for exploration's sake... which actually OOC leads to question of will places that are discoverable be able to be named by the person who discovered them? I mean come on, how awesome would it be for my guy to be chased around by an elven convent then stumbling across a new ravine-like pass, where he sets an ambush and turns the tide. Forever on it would be know as Retribution Pass!

IC: So we see... dear friends, issues that assail us from all sides of this... misguided establishment. But that is what I am here to... correct, my friends. And so I have claimed all this... land as my own, and say good hunting.

For the record, replace "I" for "o" where needed....... Gosh I hate iPads / IPhones keyboards.

For the record, replace "I" for "o" where needed....... Gosh I hate iPads / IPhones keyboards.

That would be contrary to his self-image XD

I think people are disagreeing here more on the need for reputation than my system. Basically, if the influence costs for wars is low enough or removed, there would be no need for this system.

If they were to do that though... why implement reputation in the first place?

I think it's reasonable to conclude that influence costs for wars are intended to be meaningful, but that the intention of doing that is not to block meaningful PvP.

Provided the above statement is true, would anyone be opposed to this system?

I would not be opposed to it (per se), if it can be shown that there is a need and that the need outweighs some other scheduled need more. I would like to see how valuable Influence is effort -> expenditure, but overall it looks like a fine idea to allow for really large "World War" conflicts.

I would not want it to encourage server crashes for "over the top" mass battles, but that is probably manageable. I would not want it to result in large "over the top" power blocks and less overall diversity of independent settlements.

Edit: I think that it is too late to do away with reputation, though.

I would not want it to encourage server crashes for "over the top" mass battles, but that is probably manageable.

This is really more about the day to day of a war than the massive server crashing battles. We know when a siege is happening that the area around is is basically a consequence free killing zone, so mass battles are already provided for in that way.

What this is more about is when The Good Guy's Coalition, The Merchant's Alliance, and The Mercenary Crew go to war with Sociopath Society, Gank-U-Alliance, and Evil Mercenary Crew that either side can set up a war with all the other factions fairly cheaply influence wise in order to help make sure they can kill the reinforcements headed to the battle or target their economy in-between battles.

What this is more about is when The Good Guy's Coalition, The Merchant's Alliance, and The Mercenary Crew go to war with Sociopath Society, Gank-U-Alliance, and Evil Mercenary Crew that either side can set up a war with all the other factions fairly cheaply influence wise in order to help make sure they can kill the reinforcements headed to the battle or target their economy in-between battles.

Conversely, if it is very expensive it brings more meaning to mercenaries, vigilantes, and other ne'er do wells who can be hired or bribed into certain courses of action for various prices.

What this is more about is when The Good Guy's Coalition, The Merchant's Alliance, and The Mercenary Crew go to war with Sociopath Society, Gank-U-Alliance, and Evil Mercenary Crew that either side can set up a war with all the other factions fairly cheaply influence wise in order to help make sure they can kill the reinforcements headed to the battle or target their economy in-between battles.

Then I don't see why there should be an influence cost for feuds or wars to begin with.

If Feuds, Wars and Factional Conflict are the desired forms of PVP in PFO, all supporting in one way or another the broader Settlement vs. Settlement core of PFO, then why an artificial cost at all?

Feuds, Wars and Faction conflicts will cost in coin, material resources and the consequences of losing. These costs alone will limit frivolous conflicts, or futile ones.

Do war decs in EVE cost coin, material resources, and risk the consequences of losing? If so for these things, then why do frivolous war decs still happen (wardec griefing as described by the EVE players here), and how can they be prevented?

Then I don't see why there should be an influence cost for feuds or wars to begin with.

If Feuds, Wars and Factional Conflict are the desired forms of PVP in PFO, all supporting in one way or another the broader Settlement vs. Settlement core of PFO, then why an artificial cost at all?

Feuds, Wars and Faction conflicts will cost in coin, material resources and the consequences of losing. These costs alone will limit frivolous conflicts, or futile ones.

I stated here a very good... reasoning for why influence is in fact an... effective system: Questions and Understandings

You must remember that people are... revitalized by the powers of the gods and thus simple... fees are not enough, because those purchases are... eternal. You need a limiting factor, a... currency for politicos to trade in that is meaningful.

Influence then, is needed. But it too should be... limited to the amount any faction can... accrue.

Do war decs in EVE cost coin, material resources, and risk the consequences of losing? If so for these things, then why do frivolous war decs still happen (wardec griefing as described by the EVE players here), and how can they be prevented?

There is no such thing as war dec griefing in EVE, that is a term fabricated here on these forums. There are just war decs in EVE, but not as many as there used to be.

The decline in war decs in EVE is that wars are very easily avoided and cost in coin to wage. What most people do is just switch to another toon, and wait out the 1 week war dec.

Pax Shane Gifford wrote:

Do war decs in EVE cost coin, material resources, and risk the consequences of losing? If so for these things, then why do frivolous war decs still happen (wardec griefing as described by the EVE players here), and how can they be prevented?

There is no such thing as war dec griefing in EVE, that is a term fabricated here on these forums. There are just war decs in EVE, but not as many as there used to be.

The decline in war decs in EVE is that wars are very easily avoided and cost in coin to wage. What most people do is just switch to another toon, and wait out the 1 week war dec.

That needs to be prevented (in the case of feuds) in PfO, for EVERYONE'S benefit.

Feuds, Wars and Faction conflicts will cost in coin, material resources and the consequences of losing. These costs alone will limit frivolous conflicts, or futile ones.

You are stating the costs of losing conflicts correct? Not any additional coin/material based costs?

Bluddwolf wrote:

Feuds, Wars and Faction conflicts will cost in coin, material resources and the consequences of losing. These costs alone will limit frivolous conflicts, or futile ones.

You are stating the costs of losing conflicts correct? Not any additional coin/material based costs?

No, not just in losing wars, in waging them. It will cost you in time, coin and resource materials to wage a war or a feud. There is the preparation (time), there is the equipment needs (resources), there is the potential for purchasing those things you can not provide for yourself (coin). These are the costs, regardless of the outcome.

Not to mention wages, transportation, information, political deals, finance distribution, Influence allotment, Reputation boons/deficits, military targets, Secondary and Primary targets, Goals and objectives, maps, army routes, and so on...

Bluddwolf wrote:

Pax Shane Gifford wrote:

Do war decs in EVE cost coin, material resources, and risk the consequences of losing? If so for these things, then why do frivolous war decs still happen (wardec griefing as described by the EVE players here), and how can they be prevented?

There is no such thing as war dec griefing in EVE, that is a term fabricated here on these forums. There are just war decs in EVE, but not as many as there used to be.

The decline in war decs in EVE is that wars are very easily avoided and cost in coin to wage. What most people do is just switch to another toon, and wait out the 1 week war dec.

That needs to be prevented (in the case of feuds) in PfO, for EVERYONE'S benefit.

It really can't be prevented, as long as there are alts to be played. This is due to the skill training system that both EvE and PFO are using (PFO projected to use).

I do not need to log on that character, in order for that character to advance. Even if I have to log in that character, I can do it for the safety of a station in EVE or the safety deep within a settlement in PFO. Or I can just play another character, in a different company / settlement and do the activities I would have done with my other character. Spend a week on this toon, then transfer everything over to the other, when the threat is over.

I have one way I can think of that would prevent this, but it would drive some people bonkers to read it...

During a War of Feud, both sides must earn a certain level of "Activity Points" before a War Dec or Feud will come to an end. The aggressor would have to earn more activity points then the defender. Or if it sounds better, the defender has to earn less to bring the feud or war to closure, when the regular time would run out.

This essentially would force both sides to be active and doing varies tasks that to earn them those points. All of these tasks would have to make them vulnerable to the opportunity of being engaged by the enemy.

This would eliminate war decs being waged to just get an opponent to switch off their mains toons, but not risk having to hunt them down. It would also force the defenders to not "turtle" (hide in safe spot) and to actively risk exposure while earning the minimum activity points to end the conflict on time.

Failure to achieve those points by either side results in the war dec or feud to remain in place until the points are earned.

During a War of Feud, both sides must earn a certain level of "Activity Points" before a War Dec or Feud will come to an end. The aggressor would have to earn more activity points then the defender. Or if it sounds better, the defender has to earn less to bring the feud or war to closure, when the regular time would run out.

This essentially would force both sides to be active and doing varies tasks that to earn them those points. All of these tasks would have to make them vulnerable to the opportunity...

DMZs. DMZs EVERYWHERE. haha joking. I know I cannot speak for everyone, but this is a decent system. Sure it has flaws, but whatever. That said, everything costs, and being at war with a faction will take resources to maintain (resource drain mechanic?)I know that in times of conflict my character will probably be in the thick of it, and the only time I would make an alt is if a few friends started playing with styles radically different from the one I chose.

It really can't be prevented, as long as there are alts to be played.

We'll see. I am not going to take anything for granted anymore until I see it coded and tweaked for a long time.

Andius wrote:

Bluddwolf wrote:

Feuds, Wars and Faction conflicts will cost in coin, material resources and the consequences of losing. These costs alone will limit frivolous conflicts, or futile ones.

You are stating the costs of losing conflicts correct? Not any additional coin/material based costs?

No, not just in losing wars, in waging them. It will cost you in time, coin and resource materials to wage a war or a feud. There is the preparation (time), there is the equipment needs (resources), there is the potential for purchasing those things you can not provide for yourself (coin). These are the costs, regardless of the outcome.

While that's very true, those are the costs of actually waging a war with an objective of victory.

In Darkfall, back when there was some form of alignment and war were cheap there were groups who declared war on every company in the game simply to bypass the penalties for killing them. They never actually pursued them as real wars until limitations on how many wars they could participate in at once were implemented, and then they simply picked the factions with the most newbs and fewest vets to back them up, and vet groups held off from warring with them because they wanted their war decs for more serious conflicts. Goblin Preservation Society and Fallen Lords are the prime examples of groups who did this.

These factions were viewed as jokes, non-factors, or minor annoyances by all the major alliances, but they did do a considerable amount of harm to the newbs of the community.

So if we were to remove the influence cost is there any way you would propose making sure wars and feuds are not frequently declared by factions with no intent of waging an actual conflict with an actual objective?

So if we were to remove the influence cost is there any way you would propose making sure wars and feuds are not frequently declared by factions with no intent of waging an actual conflict with an actual objective?

This is a rough idea I threw up in a moment of thought:

During a War of Feud, both sides must earn a certain level of "Activity Points" before a War Dec or Feud will come to an end. The aggressor would have to earn more activity points then the defender. Or if it sounds better, the defender has to earn less to bring the feud or war to closure, when the regular time would run out.

This essentially would force both sides to be active and doing various tasks (*specific objectives) to earn them those points. All of these tasks would have to make them vulnerable to the opportunity of being engaged by the enemy.

This would eliminate war decs being waged to just get an opponent to switch off their mains toons, but not risk having to hunt them down. It would also force the defenders to not "turtle" (hide in safe spot) and to actively risk exposure while earning the minimum activity points to end the conflict on time.

Failure to achieve those points by either side results in the war dec or feud to remain in place until the points are earned.

* Specific tasks could be:

Attack or Defend an Outpost or POI. The defender gets double points for this activity.

Settlement Siege. This automatically earns both side enough points to end the conflict when the regular timer is up.

There is of course a lot of other activities, but I have to log for night.

We've already gone over this somewhere. Ignoring influence or lack thereof, there is plenty of deterrent as is. NPC settlements and starting areas protect the newbs. If anyone is griefing or bullying then a few things will/should be happening:

1) So-called "peacekeeper" guilds should keep the peace and protect the newbs like they profess to doing.

2) The meta-game reputation of those factions would lower extremely and PCs will stop dealing with them seriously, and in a PC-driven, limited/changing resource open-world setup like this that PC interaction is the key to being able to do anything.

3) Newbies have the settlements and starting areas. In addition there are no classes or whatever and GW said all players, new or otherwise will be able to have some impact on a fight, so don't look at newbs as completely useless. By the time they move out of the starting area and making companies they should have some knowledge of the game, otherwise they shouldn't have left the starting area and it is kind of their fault.

4) People will know who the jerks are. You see a clan tag like that, you know whats probably coming. This should be sufficient warning. If not, you should pay more attention or get more guards. Either way it is a real risk people have and so it should be a real problem we have/must deal with.

5) You will have vigilantes/political activists like myself, merc cos. like Bludd, and random people who are patrolling around/hunting for those types and will probably partly screen/protect the newbs.

These are real issues that should really be issues. A newb guild first setting out SHOULD be scared shiitake mushroomless on their first few journeys around, it is part of what makes the experience fun. And people who want to bandit should be able to. And people who want to play cat and mouse with those bandits should be able to. And the long arm of the law should try to see them to their graves as soon as able.

By eliminating this issue you are destroying serious tenants that many factions, good and evil, nurture. It is a problem, certainly, but I feel that it is a needed one, and there are plenty of in-game counters for it. Trust in the devs, and in yourself, my friends.

We've already gone over this somewhere. Ignoring influence or lack thereof, there is plenty of deterrent as is. NPC settlements and starting areas protect the newbs. If anyone is griefing or bullying then a few things will/should be happening:

1) So-called "peacekeeper" guilds should keep the peace and protect the newbs like they profess to doing.

2) The meta-game reputation of those factions would lower extremely and PCs will stop dealing with them seriously, and in a PC-driven, limited/changing resource open-world setup like this that PC interaction is the key to being able to do anything.

3) Newbies have the settlements and starting areas. In addition there are no classes or whatever and GW said all players, new or otherwise will be able to have some impact on a fight, so don't look at newbs as completely useless. By the time they move out of the starting area and making companies they should have some knowledge of the game, otherwise they shouldn't have left the starting area and it is kind of their fault.

4) People will know who the jerks are. You see a clan tag like that, you know whats probably coming. This should be sufficient warning. If not, you should pay more attention or get more guards. Either way it is a real risk people have and so it should be a real problem we have/must deal with.

5) You will have vigilantes/political activists like myself, merc cos. like Bludd, and random people who are patrolling around/hunting for those types and will probably partly screen/protect the newbs.

These are real issues that should really be issues. A newb guild first setting out SHOULD be scared shiitake mushroomless on their first few journeys around, it is part of what makes the experience fun. And people who want to bandit should be able to. And people who want to play cat and mouse with those bandits should be able to. And the long arm of the law should try to see them to their graves as soon as able.

By eliminating this issue you are destroying serious tenants that many factions, good...

I agree that the best things older "good guys" can do is be proactive in their help of younglings. The best thing that younglings can do is to seek out and ensure adequate protection for themselves. There has to be some player responsibility and need for it (danger). As long as it is not insurmountable an excessive amount of the time.

Well... spoken... friend.

Well... spoken... friend.

Tricksey Fellow! ;)

@Bluddwolf. My apologies if I missed it but my main concern with that system is the main objective seems to be ending the war. If your intent is just to flag the opponents as hostile for free kills I don't see the value in pursuing the end of the war.

If you implemented something in that system that incentives you to win and stings when you lose it could be workable once the objectives were a bit more refined. It would be more difficult to implement than the currently planned system but if the objectives were very well created and added much fun I could see it being a good system at some point.

It would go a long way to prevent the problem I've brought up in that if you war-dec the whole server, and there is a bit of a sting each time you lose, you'll have no time to win most of those wars, and get a lot of stings when you end up losing them all. I would also suggest that rather than wins/losses bringing a resolution to the conflict you just continue to get hit with the victories/defeats as long as you maintain the war.

The main objectives in-game mechanics have set up for that I can see are location, PoIs, resources, and Power base.

War Decing the entire server is an impossibility. First, I believe it was said that there will be a limit to the number of feuds and or wars that you could have at one time. Secondly, there will be a minimum of 15 settlements and likely hundreds of companies, way too many to have the wherewithal to war dec or feud simultaneously. Thirdly, if the entire server is flagged, the aggressor will be unable to catch a breather for themselves, it would really be quite stupid of them and few if any of their own members would likely have the stamina for it.

"Bit off more than you can chew" springs to mind.

As I illuminated much earlier... friend.

Regarding the OP; my concern is that the game would have to keep track of a lot of events, and every social group would need a list of every social group that has wronged them. In time, that could get pretty large.

I'd offer a greatly simplified method: when a group feuds or wars on another group, the targeted group gains a marker which allows them to do a feud or war in the future at reduced cost.

- Hatfield Company declares a feud against McCoy Company. The feud cost normal amount; McCoys gain the marker. Feud eventually ends.
- After mustering their strength, McCoys declare feud against the Hatfields at a reduced cost and their marker is removed. The Hatfields gain a marker at the same time. Feud eventually ends.
- Due to some slight, McCoys declare another fued. This time they pay full price, since they have no marker. Hatfields do not gain another marker, since they already have one.

The advantages are that very few events need to be counted: feuds and wars. Groups only have a list of markers against groups that they have a current grudge against.

Expected behavior: Groups that don't normally feud may be encouraged to do so with the reduced Influence cost; they may even seek out 'ringers' to bring into their company for the duration of a feud. Groups that feud a lot will have some number of outstanding grudges; other groups could decide to pay back a grudge while one feud is on-going.

Actualy, I think wars/feuds SHOULD be relatively expensive precisely because you don't want them used frivolously to circumvent the other PvP systems GW has put in place.

A company/settlement should have to consider whether there is actualy something worth justifying the costs of going to war before declaring war.

You don't want small or new companies routienely and automaticaly curb-stomped simply because they are small and new. That's bad for the game. If they have something valuable or are doing something directly threatening....sure....but every single time an organization should consider whether it's really worth the cost to Feud/DoW them.

The Kingdom system is really where you can have much larger scale wars....as these are larger scale political entities.

Perhaps you could even have a system where there is a declared War (or Feud) which is an object itself and where player organizations can pay a single cost to join that conflict as a belligerent as one side rather then having to individualy declare war against every belligerent on the opposite side.

What you don't want, IMO, is where War/Feud is cheap enough that an organization can trivialy DoW a ton of neutral organizations that have no interest in becoming belligerents. That kinda defeats much of the core design of PFO, IMO.

Actualy, I think wars/feuds SHOULD be relatively expensive precisely because you don't want them used frivolously to circumvent the other PvP systems GW has put in place.

I completely agree.

Ryan keeps saying "lots of meaningful PvP and little meaningless PvP", but Some Folks(TM) only hear "lots of PvP".

Declaring a Feud doesn't magically make the PvP meaningful. In many ways, paying the cost to declare a Feud is what makes the PvP meaningful.

...Declaring a Feud doesn't magically make the PvP meaningful. In many ways, paying the cost to declare a Feud is what makes the PvP meaningful.

Precisely. The point of this system is to discourage "meaningless" or unsanctioned PVP. By asking to be able to sanction it more often you are just wanting a way to kill people and get away with it easier. If your intention is to just kill PCs then either focus on only bad guys, hire a merc guild to fight, or simply balls up and take the rep hits for being a bad guy yourself.

Feuds between guilds and companies should be feuds. That shouldn't be a pointless name attached to the system for PVP.

Wars between settlements and kingdoms should be bloody wars. They should be expensive, expansive, and fought for specific political, social, and economic reasons.

All the successful empires known to man are based on this system. Heck even Mordor is, and their only aim is the subjugation/slaughter of all middle-earth. You might argue that this is like pointless PVP but you have to remember, the people who died there stayed dead(for the most part).

Suppose that peace treaties, including coin and influence payments, were a thing that could happen, and the group defending against a declaration had to concur in its ending. How would that change the dynamic?

Suppose that peace treaties, including coin and influence payments, were a thing that could happen, and the group defending against a declaration had to concur in its ending. How would that change the dynamic?

It seems right to me that a casus belli should exist until both parties reach peace terms.

If the attacker wishes to pursue the war but the defender does not, then the attacker should have recurring expenses to do so. That should not be the case if the aggressor wishes to back out but the target does not agree on acceptable reparations.

There are lots of edge cases involved that would have to be considered.

If the attacker wishes to pursue the war but the defender does not, then the attacker should have recurring expenses to do so. That should not be the case if the aggressor wishes to back out but the target does not agree on acceptable reparations.

I agree that in the latter case the Attacker should not have recurring costs.

My intuitive reaction is that the Defender should be able to continue the War at no cost, but it's likely that's not appropriate.

I intentionally didn't discuss what the costs would be if the defender wanted to continue a fight that the aggressor regretted. My initial idea was to have an established forfeit if the attacker backed down, but I couldn't make that sensical without also adding some kind of way to force a 'victory' without the defeated group's concurrence.

My intuitive reaction is that the Defender should be able to continue the War at no cost, but it's likely that's not appropriate.

I think there would be one obvious exploit if defenders were able to continue a war/feud at no cost.

- Large crafting company gets feuded for completely reasonable reason.
- Crafting company decides to continuing the war for free.
- Crafting company leadership sells company to PvP crew. The two groups systematically swap out crafters for warriors and becomes Warrior company.
- Feud is still free and is continued.

A lot of assumptions there, but yeah, maybe free feuds have problems.

Nihimon wrote:

My intuitive reaction is that the Defender should be able to continue the War at no cost, but it's likely that's not appropriate.

I think there would be one obvious exploit if defenders were able to continue a war/feud at no cost....

The thing is, we are throwing in problems and doubts before giving the system a chance. It might be you are right, or wrong, or whatever and it might be huge or little changes are needed.

Might.

We will just have to see what happens, trying to bash or promote a system before seeing how it is used is a little pointless.

You say there are cases where it happens elsewhere? Well then you know the problem and can, as a PC, take pains to NOT ENGAGE IN THOSE. You cannot expect the game/devs to change a system to try to fix a problem in game that is fundamentally driven by the players in real life.

This argument is like the "noob protection policies" thread(s). Yes, we can agree that noobs needed some protection. Yes we all agree that noob ganking/greifing whether legit or not is going to happen. These are things that players have to actively take measures for both in game and out to try to fend off.

Life isn't handed to us on a silver plate, and asking the dev's to do it instead is not the answer. There are going to be problems, nothing is perfect. We need to sit down and focus on the things specifically mechanics only/mostly and save these metaphysical problems for when they arise. Cross that bridge when we come to it is the only true answer, either players will be proactive in these things or they will be lax and allow it to happen.

@BrotherZael

My basic expectation for MMOs is that if players can do something, then players will do it. Just because YOU as a PC take pains TO NOT ENGAGE IN SOME ACTION doesn't mean it won't occur. Any player proposal to 'improve the game' certainly should be looked at for loopholes and if it won't 'improve the game', it shouldn't be added to the design.

I don't think it's much of an issue. If the Defender wants to continue a conflict that the Agressor does not (presumably because the Defender is winning and counter-attacking), they can simply DoW the Agressor in return to renew the conflict. I'm not sure any special mechanics would be neccesary to handle such usage cases.