New War System

Well in my idea each token represents a person. SO if you fortified an are with 5, and an atacker attacked with 4, you would host a mini event where 4 attackers fought 5 defenders. So then you'd give tokens quests where a person would go out and gain experience so they could do harder missions like spying and assassination.

ok i kinda see where ya'll are going but this all sounds like a 1cov vs 1 cov so my question is can a cov sneak up and kill both thus having them win instead of either?

We should probably just put those two systems up for a vote by the covenant leaders. I think the experience part would make for a giant nightmare. I can see people complaining about not getting used so that the best players get all the experience, or that the activity their unit is used for isn't worth much experience. And if we made the exp dependent on the LENGTH of the job, then it ends up being equal for everyone and cancelling itself out.

twilightwarwolf wrote:ok i kinda see where ya'll are going but this all sounds like a 1cov vs 1 cov so my question is can a cov sneak up and kill both thus having them win instead of either?

Perhaps we weren't clear. No, this is not going to be only used for two covenants. Too the best of my knowledge, this is going to be being used by every covenant at once. And while a lot of the immediate stuff won't be known, we would probably have a daily or semi-daily lore updates explaining what is going on.

It'd be stuff like corruption and Prestige. Hell maybe we could just use those for it already?

Also sneaking up on a war isnt easy Twi, and sneaking up on a stealth mission isnt easy either. I think in either case you'd end up with a 3 way war which is possible lol.

ok thanks

DoughGuy wrote:It'd be stuff like corruption and Prestige. Hell maybe we could just use those for it already?

Also sneaking up on a war isnt easy Twi, and sneaking up on a stealth mission isnt easy either. I think in either case you'd end up with a 3 way war which is possible lol.

That does make a bit more sense, but we would have to limit to something like 3 to 5, and make a universal list. Otherwise, it would be simple for one side to go "Ok, 1 for making a character, 10 if it's male, 10 if it's female, 200 for beating the Aylum Demon..." in order to get a cheap win.

Think we could combine the two systems by having Player Tokens in addition to the three I suggested, or having them fill the role of specialist? After all, it does seem a bit unlikely that each side would only have so many soldiers (unless each token is the head of a squad? Hm...)

Well we could do that. Have NPC troops and PC specialists, with different ranks of specialists.

Also I dont think we need a universal list. Just look at what people have and compare their worth. And if someone does something extreme like you posted the GM steps in. I think we can rely on the forum to be sensible.

DoughGuy wrote:Well we could do that. Have NPC troops and PC specialists, with different ranks of specialists.

Also I dont think we need a universal list. Just look at what people have and compare their worth. And if someone does something extreme like you posted the GM steps in. I think we can rely on the forum to be sensible.

Ok, so we will have normal NPC troops used for the grunt stuff (attacks (straight point bonus?), guards, messengers, etc) and PCs for the special stuff. NPCs are handled by RNG and players are handled through in game combat, with NPC's being played by "weak" players (low level equipment) if they have to fight a PC. PCs can level up based on prestige, NPC's can't.

(We can run this system past the covenant leaders for them all to OK it)

The job of weighting the prestiges of the covenants should probably be a committee task by the covenant heads. And a thought just occurred to me that the LH2.0 covenant does not currently have such a system, and I'm sure many of the smaller covenants don't either.

Yeah thast a bridge we'll cross in the future. Firstly how do we decide how many troops people have? 100 x their members?

DoughGuy wrote:Yeah thast a bridge we'll cross in the future. Firstly how do we decide how many troops people have? 100 x their members?

That would make each covenant's army around 1000-3000 soldiers, which doesn't seem too bad. Do we want to have each token represent so many units? If so, we might be better off just saying "each covenant member lets you start with 5 NPC tokens" and just remembering that lore wise each token is a squad of 20.

Yeah thats good. Makes organising easier, and not too many tokens to keep track of.

Alright, so we have that and the actual actions nailed down in a general sense. We probably don't need to go over the general system. Anything else we need to cover right now, before we get everything ran by the covenant leaders?

Im sorry to be the downer, and congrats if this all works, its very cool, but its too complicated. Theres going to be more arguing about points, procedures etc than actual game play.

The relatively simple point systems etc from the previous wars was too complicated for most (not me, although I disagreed with it). The few people discussing this might grasp it and agree with the system, but others will not.

Shkar, glad you are putting your idea out there for all to see!!! I will chime in tomorrow once I am up to speed on what has been said. Sadly, I have to go to work soon!!

ROOSTER330 wrote:Im sorry to be the downer, and congrats if this all works, its very cool, but its too complicated. Theres going to be more arguing about points, procedures etc than actual game play.

The relatively simple point systems etc from the previous wars was too complicated for most (not me, although I disagreed with it). The few people discussing this might grasp it and agree with the system, but others will not.

The average person doesn't need to know the ins and outs of the system, that's what the writeup every couple days will be about. The ones who have to know how the system actually works will be the ones making the major decisions (the covenant leaders).

The battles (which won't be completely cut out) and the smaller events will provide actual gameplay for the players, and I think the feeling of actually accomplishing things as a team will provide great enjoyment and create actual sides, not just "yeah, my points go towards the Darkstalkers score."

Shkar wrote:Alright, so we have that and the actual actions nailed down in a general sense. We probably don't need to go over the general system. Anything else we need to cover right now, before we get everything ran by the covenant leaders?

Yeah I think we've got enough. You gonna compile it all to show?

DoughGuy wrote:

Shkar wrote:Alright, so we have that and the actual actions nailed down in a general sense. We probably don't need to go over the general system. Anything else we need to cover right now, before we get everything ran by the covenant leaders?

Yeah I think we've got enough. You gonna compile it all to show?

I'm going to dinner in a bit, but yeah. I'll clean it up a bit and try to add it to the OP for easy browsing later on. We can edit it later on if the need presents itself.

I understand the concept Shkar. Just dont see people agreeing (cov leaders included). Theres alot of complicated scoring and effects your implementing into a simple war system that was too complicated for the cov leaders before. Example A: the veteran cov leader member Wyrmhero pretty much left the forum because of frustration over things like this. And now your making it more complex.

The simple system wasnt too complex for anyone. People just got annoyed at how high it allowed others to score.

Because the points system was complicated. Not in depth, but in difference in opinion. Thats what this could turn into.

ROOSTER330 wrote:Because the points system was complicated. Not in depth, but in difference in opinion. Thats what this could turn into.

Thats why we are ironing out most of the details before and will have a neutral party to oversee it. If it turns out that everyone does hate the system, then we don't have to use it. But on the other hand, if it DOES end up being more fun, then the time spent making it will have been well spent. The system was activrly being developed by two of the 4 "main" leaders after all.

Although, I do appreciate your concern. God only knows that if I was making it alone nobody would have been able to follow it with all the details.

Well, I was disappointed when my "ghost" idea never got any love.

as a cov leader myself i like what you are all doing but it does seem a little bit complex ( definitely more than before). so im hoping that all the time and effort will pay off because from what i understand of this i can say i personally like it but thats just me. i will say though ( and i believe you will be doing this ) when you run it by the cov leaders you should have it simplified a little bit but thats just me.