Tactical Warfare

Who says you have to BC out when you invade someone? Do you BC on a normal day looking for a "right" person to fight? no....or least i don't think you do. You just kill them and go on. It helps you warm up for when you encounter a covenant member.

We'll just have set up points accordingly with invasions/coop tests and war duels.

This isn't an rts where we can direct our armies to specific enemies or to accomplish specific tasks. This system is not practical for Dark Souls.

So far more agree with out method - on a Democratic front we should use this tactic in the wars.

Unforseen wrote:Who says you have to BC out when you invade someone? Do you BC on a normal day looking for a "right" person to fight? no....or least i don't think you do. You just kill them and go on. It helps you warm up for when you encounter a covenant member.

But why would you fight when you are wasting time? Every second you spend fighting a random is time for your leaders to die and the other sides leaders to not be dying.

TehInfamousAmos wrote:So far more agree with out method - on a Democratic front we should use this tactic in the wars.

Can people who are voting please say who they are? I think its important we know who is voting for what.

A suggestion.

To start off you might want to try this first in a low traffic area such as the Lower Undead Burg. Most players there will be looking to co-op for the Capra fight, not PvP.

Could make it easier to set up the desired face-offs.

I agree with this to a certain extent. It would mean that the ranking members would have to plan out who's going to invade and fight (and be safe from the opposite side) or host and defend. But again, some of the higher ranking members aren't the best.

Maybe mix the two systems, like higher ranking members get less points when they invade, but don't lose a life, and if they host they get more points but lose a life per defeat.

cloudyeki wrote:I agree with this to a certain extent. It would mean that the ranking members would have to plan out who's going to invade and fight (and be safe from the opposite side) or host and defend. But again, some of the higher ranking members aren't the best.

Maybe mix the two systems, like higher ranking members get less points when they invade, but don't lose a life, and if they host they get more points but lose a life per defeat.

So the LH who are pure invaders never lose lives but the knights who are pure co-opers always lose lives?

For the joy of fighting... and if you have smart high ranking members then why should you have to worry about your leaders dieing because of a random fight? And that is what was going to be planned Pendant, at least some people can see what im getting at. They also fail to realize this isn't the entire finished product. I mean, 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)

How does being smart stop you dying in a random fight? If its not the finished product you should mention that in the OP so people know. Atm your just saying we should use this and thats it.

Did you even read what i added? This point system added together with what i had is much better and suits what you guys want.

Yes I read it, thats why i said you should change the OP to say it so people know your not just ahaving the one thing.

I think it would be better that if you lost all your lives, instead of being completely kicked out of the war, you could still contribute.

"Dead" fighters could become ghosts and use the Ring of Fog and spells like Chameleon or Force and Trident buffs so while they are not still directly involved in the fighting they can still contribute.

^ That sounds an interesting contribution.

It's a possibility, let's see if this is approved first though.

Personally, I think that if any change to the scoring should happen it should try to tie it into the lore. For example, if one side is MASSIVELY outnumbered, the scoring should shift in their benefit, the defending side gets a slight advantage, etc. etc.

Well, the cap for each member in a cov is going to scale off of the size of each cov.

Unforseen, would you mind if I ask if you have ever actually fought in any of the player wars? I don't mean to come across as offensive, I just need to know to try to phrase my thoughts on your ideas.

I did not partake in any of the wars as of yet, but the last war that happened i was in the chat.

Unforseen wrote:I did not partake in any of the wars as of yet, but the last war that happened i was in the chat.

It is rare to meet up with someone of the other side in the wars. Based on what Dough said about the PS3 side and my own experience on the XBL side, it is similar to finding a hundred dollar bill on the streets. This doesn't even include issues like the Lifehunters invading (so they wouldn't be invaded) and other issues.

I invaded a few times for the heck of it, i know the rate of it. Hence why i added this point system.

If you cap the number of points someone can get, the high-rollers would just cap themselves and defend the officers.

Okay and..?

Unforseen wrote:Okay and..?

If you have two of the people who would score hundreds/thousands of points (obviously very skilled) defending the leader (who is likely very skilled as well), the odds of someone actually taking them out would be slim.