Rule change proposal: Only top 2 ranks can enter a state of war

[Coldstrike]

We have now had incidents where "moles" have joined guilds and entered war to open up our base for attack. I can only describe this as grief tactics. I'm sure this will cause a lot more distrust for recruiting new members into guilds, and it does in no way benefit the community. I therefore suggest a rule change regarding how tower wars are fought:

Only the top two ranks of a guild can enter the guild into a state of war. Until a guild member holding one of the top two ranks of a guild attacks a tower to enter the guild into a state of war, any attempts of attacking a tower should be denied with a "cannot attack target" message.

I'd also like to see a popup box confirmation for entering a state of war.

I really can't see any negative effects of this, but if you got any, please post them here.

[Nenous]

Cz has already stated that this is not griefing. Spying is part of the game, even "moles." Be careful who you take in. And as for members attacking towers, the same thing goes.

Betrayal, subterfuge, treason. They make for great drama.

Live with it,
Nenous

[_____________Nalissa]

You are right about spying and subterfuge, however it seems unlikely that any grunt soldier can begin a war. If you take the illustration you make a little further don't you think that the 'mole' should have to work his way through the ranks to do his damage?

It seems a little too easy to simply walk up to a trusting guild and say "May i join?" and then one minute later attack a tower. Is that what you call drama? Because I call it lame.

If someone wants to place a mole, let them invest some time into it. Let them work themselves into a trusted position. Otherwise it's obviously just a bit too easy. I say that declaring war should be resricted to the upper levels in a guild.

[Tech]

I agree with Nen that spying is a part of the game and adds another flavor to it all, but on the other hand it is too easy. The only way for a guild to really judge if an apllicant is suitable for the guild, is to give him excactly that status: applicant. So this status should give the same privileges in NW as in the other parts of the game: none!

In my opinion the only thing you should obtain by applicant status is access to the guild chat. No bonuses, no opportunity to declare war, no taxes, etc.

This way a mole would, as Nalissa said, have to put some work into it before he could cause havoc in the guild.

--sil

[Warlock]

There also needs to be a way to extract vengence on said mole (since he wont be PvP enabled because the guild has towers)

[____________Corianin]

Agree here. A state of war should not be something joe applicant can force the entire guild (and all bases) into. In our guild we have had numerous "incidents" were low-lvl members either got astray in an enemy base, or managed to "hide" from a mob in a fellow clans 5% base...

This surely didn't make the game fun for them as they first got flamed for being spies and then for being n00bs by concerned/paranoid members of our guild.

Cz, tell the devs that this is NOT the way to introduce pvp to new players. The game mechanics is too complicated for new players and the consequeses to large with the current rules.

In order to enter a war (and be able to fire upon and get fire from towers) a member of top 2(3) ranks should have to use a shield disabler, even though someone else already have used one. A shield disabler should have to be used for every guild wanting to attack, and disablers should only be usable by top 2(3) ranks.

[____________Corianin]

And it will still be possible to have "moles" if that aspect is what the devs want, howevery, (s)he needs to be smart enough to be promoted..

[_________BewareofBot]

you want only the top 2 ranks to be able to start combat on towers but those ranks are normaly held by highest members of an org so how would an org start a war on low lvl base?

I belong to a org that has a lot of low lvl people in it if all our officers where high lvl how would we war on lower level towers?

[Phinger]

Its a silly idea.

And as someone else pointed out how can alevel 200 iniate war on a low level tower. I mean please in all wars there is traitors and moles and spies live with it and the drama it takes.

It sures add some comicalness to the whole excercise that clan are getting themselves open to war by spies/moles attacking omni.

Phinger

[Jynne]

I think the whole 'state of war' thing needs to be re-examined from the ground up.

The way I think it should work is this: A shield disabler is used by someone who is rank 0 or rank 1 in their organization. People with no organization can't use a disabler.

A "Yes/No" confirmation box pops up; the person (presumably) clicks Yes. A notification is sent to the defending org that their shields are being disabled, and will fall in five minutes. Five minutes later, the towers can be damageed, the notification goes to Leader Chat, and the gas around the attacking org's bases is lowered.

Additional people from other organizations there will not cause their bases to go into a state of war for any reason, even if they're doing the bulk of the damage to the towers. Once the shield disabler has been used by one organization, that base's shields can't be disabled again by someone else.

The benefit of using the shield disabler (to offset the disadvantage of risking your existing bases) is that only the organization that uses it will be allowed to build a controller in that LC area for the first half-hour after the existing controller falls.

For the second half-hour after the base explodes, either the org that previously had a base there or the org that disabled the shields can build there, but nobody else can. This is to prevent people from making 'dummy organizations' specifically to disable shields for other orgs to take the land.

What will this accomplish? It will end 'false attacks' where someone in an org who's going to a mission or just hanging around will draw tower aggro and start a war by mistake. It will make the job of 'moles' and 'plants' harder, rather than being a job for a 'throw-away' character. It will end "wars" being started by people trying to help defend a base that's in 5% gas. And it will allow more people to be available for attacking without having to worry about getting the rest of their own org mad at them for starting a war.

[____________Cyblade7]

I agree with both CS and Nenous.

There should be moles, spies, subterfuge, drama, but to initiate war....

Only the top 2(3) ranks should be able to initiate it with a disabler.

As someone said, let the mole work his way into a trusted position. Make him earn his deception. Not, become a member lay low for a week, then BAM war initiates because (s)he attacked when he felt like it was time to betray.

Comical or not, the way it is now is not right and you know it.

[cerebrix]

Listen it breaks down as easy as this. If youre letting people into your guild that are moles. then you really need to re-evaluate how you let people into your guild. its not funcom's fault that you arent screening your new members. i say leave it the way it is. i dont really think there are enough players anymore to really make having the upper 2 rungs of guild members be the only ones that start war.

[Bionitrous]

Simply way to much griefing going on. The game is becoming tedious at this point to where you can't even play anymore during your tower's 25/5% time frame. There's always some jackass running around attacking towers without consent of his guild leaders. It's exasperating trying to play the game now when your whole damn guild has to rush out only to find one or two idiots who were 'looking for some pvp' or simply griefing. It sucks the fun out of the game.

Likewise, we have people who are attacking towers during 25% and not disabling the controller. This has got to be a bug. I get a message that my tower has been destroyed in playfield X. I get NO message that anybody has initiated an attack on my tower. Nobody in the guild gets a message that somebody is attacking one of our towers. We start to mobilize only AFTER one of my towers has been destroyed. After ripping the whole damn guild out of whatever they are doing, we show up and the place is empty sans one tower. We waste the next 2 hours of our playtime standing around like idiots in our LC area because of one jackass.

War is not something that is to be taken lightly. I fully agree that guild leaders are the ones who should decide who they are going to attack. Guild Rank < 2 ought to be required. Likewise, the attacker should ALWAYS have to get to the control tower and use a device on it before any turret, guardian, or other defense can be damaged. This should result in a guild-wide broadcast of the attack and identify the attacking guild.

The way it is now frankly sucks. So many players are spending too much time just standing around their LC areas because of griefers.

[Nenous]

Some good points, some bad points.

I don't agree that the top 2 or 3 positions should be the only ones that can initiate an attack. Any rogue officer could command his troops to engage in battle - general all the way down to lieutenant. The only fix to the current situation that I would view as reasonable would be to disallow anyone in the game with 'Applicant' or the bottom level status to attack a tower.

They could still be apart of your organization, and even come on tower raids to attack people, but their ability to put your guild into harm would be disabled. Once you move them beyond Applicant status, you're on your own.

The top 2 or 3 positions should be responsible for declaring official wars (and I don't mean some sort of Official War button). These people are the ones that rally their organization to mass assault, and deciding a stance when their base has been attacked. Be diplomatic in your approach - find out if attacks on your base were purposeful and plan accordingly.

Some other points exist, but I'm tired. So bleh!
Nenous

[Jynne]

The main problem I have is with 'accidental wars.'

Say there is a mission area inside a land control area. Say you get a mission there.

Say that mission area is inside the range of a turret.

The odds are high that you'll touch off a 'state of war' and drop your org's bases to 25% (making your friends mad at you) and cause the owning org to drop what they're doing and scramble to their tower (making them mad at you - maybe mad enough to go attack your now-vulnerable bases ).

[_____Real Kinky Ityn]

Bad idea. Typical Coldstrike post, something didn't work right for me in game, so I come here and cry "NURF, NURF, NURF!"

Fingers pointed out the key problem with the idea, even if it was a good idea. Also, this way you can't pad your roster with a ton of fools, if you have stupid players, maybe you will have to pay for their dumbdom.

[_____________Rolller]

There should be a price to pay for inviting any old idiot to your org.

I guess it's that any old idiot can get you in trouble.

[Sabyan222]

hey ityn you dont have to insult coldstrike for posting an opinion... that is what the forum is for.. you are the only one to flame..
and besides that you think its ok for any applicant to start a war.. god you must have a small guild or have absolute trust in every guild member..

[Nenous]

Heh, I'll back Ityn on his comment. I generally perceive Coldstrike to be a very pessimistic person, and that stems from both in-game and forum.

Wah!
Nenous

[Coldstrike]

you want only the top 2 ranks to be able to start combat on towers but those ranks are normaly held by highest members of an org so how would an org start a war on low lvl base?

Well, the rules of the game does not prevent you from having mixed level members in the top n ranks of your organization. This is just a made up problem. If you got a trust issue preventing you from having the lower level (and probably newer) members in the top ranks, then let alts of those that currently are holding the positions take the rank for when you are going to do your attack.

I don't agree that the top 2 or 3 positions should be the only ones that can initiate an attack. Any rogue officer could command his troops to engage in battle - general all the way down to lieutenant. The only fix to the current situation that I would view as reasonable would be to disallow anyone in the game with 'Applicant' or the bottom level status to attack a tower.

You are in essence agreeing with my initial idea, just with a different organization of who can/cannot start the attack. It's really not an issue if it's the top 2 or the top 100 ranks that can do this, it's the fact that there is no way to prevent a member from having this ability, and thereby preventing all means of "screening" members like you also tells people they need to do.

Bad idea. Typical Coldstrike post, something didn't work right for me in game, so I come here and cry "NURF, NURF, NURF!"

What the fark is your god damn problem Ityn? I raise a legit issue for debate, and you start comming in here with some personal assault like this. How about you learn to separate between a nerf and a fix that is for the better. Or maybe explain how this is a nerf in the first place? A nerf of griefers?

Or just shove that stick even deeper up your arse.

Heh, I'll back Ityn on his comment. I generally perceive Coldstrike to be a very pessimistic person, and that stems from both in-game and forum.

Yeah, you got a lot of backing for that comment Nenous. I think the only time I ever saw you in game was the time you and your crew tried to ninja the Obediency Enforcer, so I think I had a bloody good reason to be "pesimistic". I'm sure those who try get to know me rather than try to steal loot off a mob I tanked would have a different opinion than you.