Next War Beta Thread: Batle for new lands

Fair enough.

But I think in this case we are trying to alter the way our wars operate. Under this model I suggest there would be tournament style scenarios, there would be scenarios that would test people in other ways, and scenarios that would obviously not be totally pvp/duel driven.

personally speaking I think tournaments are a poor way to represent "War" fine if it were representing a clash of champions in the middle of a battle, but not representative of a whole conflict.

Though I can see why you like Tournaments I feel that there are ways we can expand on the way the Cov section operates so that we can have more diverse events.

Constant Mass Invasions and Tournaments would become dull. Under my suggested model (and an ideal environment XD) we would randomise which scenarios were generated so strategies and plans would have to be changed.

Oooh you're gonna make me explode one day Rooster

DoughGuy wrote:Oooh you're gonna make me explode one day Rooster

Yes Im a stubborn a**, I know! At least Im persistant though! Lol

ViralEnsign_ wrote:Fair enough.

But I think in this case we are trying to alter the way our wars operate. Under this model I suggest there would be tournament style scenarios, there would be scenarios that would test people in other ways, and scenarios that would obviously not be totally pvp/duel driven.

personally speaking I think tournaments are a poor way to represent "War" fine if it were representing a clash of champions in the middle of a battle, but not representative of a whole conflict.

Though I can see why you like Tournaments I feel that there are ways we can expand on the way the Cov section operates so that we can have more diverse events.

Constant Mass Invasions and Tournaments would become dull. Under my suggested model (and an ideal environment XD) we would randomise which scenarios were generated so strategies and plans would have to be changed.

I like the idea of randomized events etc, and I dont think the Covenants should be just pvp, the lore etc is just as important to me. And I say "tournament" its not really that. Its a battle system, real simple, and it gives advantage to the covenant with more members (bigger covs should have advantage in a physical war) it also involves strategy based on how each side sets up their competitors. The way I see it, this could keep the lore, "I wanna have fun" members happy, and still sate the needs for competition for those that hold it more important. Just check out the simple directions Ive posted for the small war, I think its worth a shot. Then modify it to have lore in place and add your advantages and or disadvantages based on home turf etc.

And to me viral, what your doing now is not a representation of war at all because no 1 actually fights anyyone else involved in the war, occasionally yes, but to me, how does one side lose a conflict when they havnt fought the opposing side directly?

You ran around the school punching people in the face and punched more people than me, so you beat me in our fight....lol, thats the image I get anyways.

ViralEnsign_ wrote:Fair enough.

But I think in this case we are trying to alter the way our wars operate. Under this model I suggest there would be tournament style scenarios, there would be scenarios that would test people in other ways, and scenarios that would obviously not be totally pvp/duel driven.

personally speaking I think tournaments are a poor way to represent "War" fine if it were representing a clash of champions in the middle of a battle, but not representative of a whole conflict.

Though I can see why you like Tournaments I feel that there are ways we can expand on the way the Cov section operates so that we can have more diverse events.

Constant Mass Invasions and Tournaments would become dull. Under my suggested model (and an ideal environment XD) we would randomise which scenarios were generated so strategies and plans would have to be changed.

No, not randomized. Have it be based on the "strategies" of the generals. I think it would be great if we had an almost "as you go" approach, so that tactics almost have an effect.

As in, a side can have a group sneak around and attempt to flank for a bonus, and the other side can put people on watch duty, but then they risk wasting their guards if a flank isn't tried.

And Rooster, Viral had meant the new model that we have been making over the last page or two.

Shkar wrote:

ViralEnsign_ wrote:Fair enough.

But I think in this case we are trying to alter the way our wars operate. Under this model I suggest there would be tournament style scenarios, there would be scenarios that would test people in other ways, and scenarios that would obviously not be totally pvp/duel driven.

personally speaking I think tournaments are a poor way to represent "War" fine if it were representing a clash of champions in the middle of a battle, but not representative of a whole conflict.

Though I can see why you like Tournaments I feel that there are ways we can expand on the way the Cov section operates so that we can have more diverse events.

Constant Mass Invasions and Tournaments would become dull. Under my suggested model (and an ideal environment XD) we would randomise which scenarios were generated so strategies and plans would have to be changed.

No, not randomized. Have it be based on the "strategies" of the generals. I think it would be great if we had an almost "as you go" approach, so that tactics almost have an effect.

As in, a side can have a group sneak around and attempt to flank for a bonus, and the other side can put people on watch duty, but then they risk wasting their guards if a flank isn't tried.

And Rooster, Viral had meant the new model that we have been making over the last page or two.

Oh I know buddy, I read this entire thread before I commented. I just see the same problem, and I see the same low attendance continuing, and thats not what I want. I think an overhaul is due, not just a new model with some bells and whistles (thats an example, no offense to anyone that is putting hard work into this)

Scenarios are events with rules and conditions. Both sides pit thier covs against one another in these events be there Escort, Assassination, Tournament, Champions, etc.

All sides are fighting one another and the organisatio forr who fights who should be easier.

I like what Shkar is saying I would like to think the cov leaders are using thier strategic skills to claim territory, send assassins, and do god knows what else.

Variation is what my model is all about.

You know about Mighty Empires right? Check it out if you dont.

Shkar before you talk about stuff like that more, realize how much effort will go into designing situations like that. We'd basically have to remake risk except in more depth. I don't think that's the thing Viral is going for.

I was told my idea was too complicated....Ive simplified it the best I can because I agree now. Alot of people dont want all the complications, and what your suggesting is very complicated.

Believe me, I really think it sounds awesome, but we cant get people to show up for the current wars, I sincerely believe making things more complicating will hurt it even more overall.

Virals idea involves smaller groups so numbers wont be a problem. And its only the leaders who have to deal with the complex stuff.
Btw Rooster do you have skype? Would be easier to talk if you 3 got online.

I have an account, but Ive honestly never really used it

Perhaps I need to though.... Im at work now, and have something ....interesting ....later at work that Im going to need some sleep for. But I will see if I can do the skype thing tomorrow (barring catastrophe Im off tomorrow ).

lol. Well if you remember add me doughboy_1.

Size of the event is one focus of my system. I think that seeing as there are a lot of User Covs and few members to populate them..... smaller events could be more useful. More teams and more diversity.

For example the DS have 18 active members..... while the GS would only have about 5 tops.

If the participant covenants were the Gravesworn, the Dark Stalkers, the Noble Knights, and Ahho's new Lifehunt Cov.... then Billy would not beable to field a full 18 or have the advantage because member, I hope, would migrate back to their original/ non DS covs so as to aid in keeping competition alive.

Allainces could instead mean that rather than giving direct aid in one event that members from one cov can "Top Up" the other teams numbers if they are low.

Competitions would be smaller no more that 15-20 of us at any time to reduce the length of events and mean that more events can be organised, etc. No 6 hour mass invasions. Brief two or three hour sessions tops.

In my mind it looks like this.


Set up MIGHTY EMPIRES LORDRAN MAP = Lots of User Covs Pariticipating = Smaller events= More events= need for diverse events= turn based declaration warfare= smaller version of the Dawn of War Campaigns or even the Total War series.

DoughGuy wrote:lol. Well if you remember add me doughboy_1.

Absolutely will

To bad the DoW installments that used this method sucked
It'll be a lot of effort, but if me, Viral and some other get together and work it out Im sure it can work.

Its getting together on skype at some point and bringing to the table all the possibilities that will get this moving.

this is very interesting and id love to helpl but i dont have skype. does wilks or wulf do? i might be able to message them and they tell ya'll any ideas i have.

DoughGuy wrote:Shkar before you talk about stuff like that more, realize how much effort will go into designing situations like that. We'd basically have to remake risk except in more depth. I don't think that's the thing Viral is going for.

I'm talking about having this kind of event go over a month or so, so that it feels like an actual war, not just a single skirmish. It would basically be the equivalent of what Viral is saying, just "dressing it up" a bit, so to speak. Instead of it just being an "escort mission", it would be escorting a cleric through the ToG in order to consecrate some holy ground. The guard stuff is nothing more than "I set 2 or three people aside, out of the battle, in case they try to attack."

Now, obviously you don't have to get that into it, but I'm just listing examples. We could very well keep it to the following kinds of events:

Escort
2-3 hour skirmish
Assassination Attempt
Small group battle

Really, that's what it all boils down to for the most part. The game doesn't let you get TOO complicated, so it's really just having a person or two (neutral side) to go around figuring out how the generals act, seeing how it meshes together, and decide what event to add. Heck, I'd even be willing to help act as a neutral judge instead of actually participating (or at least, not as a general).

Once again Shkar takes what I say and puts his spin on it and turns it into something really cool. I didnt consider combining scenarios into a war. So that over three hours

You escort the cleric of consecrate the holy group

Find that this holy ground was and ambush

Then fight a pitched battle overr it.

ViralEnsign_ wrote:Once again Shkar takes what I say and puts his spin on it and turns it into something really cool. I didnt consider combining scenarios into a war. So that over three hours

You escort the cleric of consecrate the holy group

Find that this holy ground was and ambush

Then fight a pitched battle overr it.

Getting closer to what I'm picturing. I'm (personally) imagining a month-long (or so) war, with a couple events every few days with forum updates for the sides. This makes it feel like it isn't "got a plan, stick to it the whole war" do much as it is a constant stream of plans. If one group is off "scouting" they can't take place in the current battle going on, but it can help you plan your ambush next week.

I feel like I'm not really finding the right way to explain myself haha.

Ok before we go any further, we still don't know whats happening with this war. So Shkar or Viral can you guys make a thread for your new idea so it doesnt bog down this thread?

Sure, I'll make one.

link plz