Tactical Warfare

It has come to my attention that the Covenant wars that have taken place so far have been by far unorganized, not well-planned, and just didn't make all that much sense. I have a proposition that, if accepted could be much more organized, possibly more fun, and more tactical as well. First the point system wasn't very effective, members with the better connections racked up way to many points making the war rather pointless. I suggest that we instead have the high ranking members of each covenant have a set amount of lives per each war. Leader-2 Co-leader-4 and council-6. Once they are out of lives they cannot assist or partake in that war no longer. That way it would make each side want to think tactically in order to take out the high ranking members asap and would make training all the high ranking members tactics helpful. When one covenant no longer has any high ranking members, they lose the war. Second, we could implement a point system that has to deal with the lower ranking members, making them have something more to do than protect their covenant. Like a one-point a kill system and maybe possibly have a cap on the points. I.E First to kill all the high ranking members or reach 1000 points wins, each member can only get such and such points total (like 50 or 100)

Already discussed this and it sounds a lot better than the current method - it stops me going crazy and getting 1337 points.

To the people who voted no, give an answer please.

This is offset by me being not a very good pvper.
Also Im ahoping to get a loreless war going soon in the PW. It will basically allow us to look at what each side can expect to get and organise a better points system.

This fits better with lore and is better because it makes people have to add defense and use tactics. a point system will always be bleh, i've seen it, there was just way to many points and just made the war outright boring.

^^ Exactly - carrying a covenant by earning high points is a bit frustrating at times... the one war I have participated in it was piss easy to get the points also.

But if only the leaders have lives why would anyone else fight? If there actions do nothing (I mean they arent going to randomly invade the other sides leaders often) why would the soldiers join?
Finally how do they lose a life? Does it have to be ther othr team? Can it be anyone? Then does a gank coutn as a lost life? Does a BS fishers who lagstabs you?

it is only warriors in covenants that kill the opposing people - the soldiers can target the leaders etc.

It has to be another covenant member, plus its not just the leader, its all the high ranking members. And you use the lower ranking members to go out and hunt for the high ranking members to take them down. In real life, do most of the soldiers get anything? not all that much but they still do it.

DoughGuy wrote:This is offset by me being not a very good pvper.
Also Im ahoping to get a loreless war going soon in the PW. It will basically allow us to look at what each side can expect to get and organise a better points system.

Do it Dough please, my covenant needs action.

The idea would work better than a scoring system, but it seems to eliminate the entire purpose of a war. In the LH vs NK war the knights co-oped, they did what they were born to do. The LH invaded, they protcted their queen. This way the knights have no reason to co-op. We'd just sit around waiting for vaders. And if the LH invade a non NK member they would simply BC as its not worth the effort. You may as well just do a series of duels to shorten the whole thing.

you don't go to war with someone to fight people that have nothing to do with the war.

I just don't see this working. Our wars are not pure pvp. This also works with the assumption that high ranking members are better. For example I lead the Deliverance and I am a mediocre pvper. This would make wars extremely unenjoyable for me as I would run out of live very quickly. We need to improve the scoring system but I don't think that this is the way.

Unforseen wrote:you don't go to war with someone to fight people that have nothing to do with the war.

If we had large enough numbers we wouldnt need to fight randoms. But as it is the chances are too small for us to encounter each other. Seriously the entire war Ahho nvaded me 3 times and Spurt twice.

Hence why you get the lower members to guard you emperors for example, most are horrible at fighting but they have people guarding them.

Too clever by half.

Oh my head of my paladins (the ones supposed to protect me), didn't showed up to protect me at the last war. Thank god the Hand had a good build and it's a good PvPer and was only killed about 5 times.

haha indeed Pendant, but Wyrm, either plan better times for the war or pick a better head of paladins. Probably the first.

It may be that people dislike the idea of the leaders being the prime targets, I think that this actually involves tactics into the war rather than just spamming invasions and hoping to get a 1v3 you will win during... The tactics would mean that the leaders would get 'peons' to protect them, I enjoy the idea - its not because I am a prime toon in two pvp strong covenants because heck, I will be a target - I think it ups the ante of the battles and would actually help with the lore aspect of things - it would logically be written greatly. We have great literary geniuses in our covenants such as viral etc; we all would have an easier time in doing these events and they would be jolly good fun.

because of this, the covenant leaders would have to gather their members often to practice regarding their strategies in the field

TehInfamousAmos wrote:It may be that people dislike the idea of the leaders being the prime targets, I think that this actually involves tactics into the war rather than just spamming invasions and hoping to get a 1v3 you will win during... The tactics would mean that the leaders would get 'peons' to protect them, I enjoy the idea - its not because I am a prime toon in two pvp strong covenants because heck, I will be a target - I think it ups the ante of the battles and would actually help with the lore aspect of things - it would logically be written greatly. We have great literary geniuses in our covenants such as viral etc; we all would have an easier time in doing these events and they would be funner.

Well said, Except "funner" isn't a word.

^ I though I would drop my sophisticated act for a more illiterate one there bro

It's cool. Just fooling around.

So despite the complaints, more people are agreeing so far.

I just cant see how we apply this without everyone getting bored. You cant strategize invasions, they're random. You'll have a bunch of people invading and BCing out and a bunch of people getting invaded by randoms and waiting for the right invaders.