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

[Coldstrike]

Originally posted by Ityn


Unless you just stand in the middle of the tower killing crowd doing nothing, you will get agg from a tower sooner or later and I think just about everyone uses some kind of reflect. If you chase a defender good chance you are going to trigger it. Doesn't it make sense that if you are there helping destroy a tower complex by killing the defenders, that you stand a risk of getting your org involoved in the fight?

Reflect damage will not make you enter war.

The only way I can initiate war is by targeting a tower and hitting Q, or by using a special on the tower. Or if I had auto attack on I could risk it, but I don't.

Enforcers with mongo, NTs with AE nukes and everyone else with area effects run the risk of entering war if they are to use their profession to their full potential.

[Coldstrike]

Originally posted by Ityn
Just go to fricking 2ho if you can't take some risks.

2HO looks like RK2 theese days.

[Nenous]

2HO looks like RK2 theese days.

Sit there for no more than 30 minutes and odds are you'll find some action. Generally the place is desolate until someone decides they want to PvP and hangaround. Someone sees you and calls for a few buds. Then you see them and you call for a few buds. So on and so on...

2HO is still a viable PvP zone to me. =D
Nenous

[______________Thromp]

Please don’t take this is a personal attack Cloud, I’ve seen a few good ideas from you, but this isn’t one of them. The problem with moles should really only be an issue for orgs that randomly invite people who happen to be standing around Fair Trade or Omni-Trade. Any guild with integrity that gets to know prospective members before letting them join their ranks won’t run into any problems. I think that the threat of moles actually encourages guilds to be more careful in their selection process and in effect creates stronger organizations.

[Kuro]

Originally posted by 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.

On the part about only the top 2 tiers of an org initiating a war state I can't go with that. Mistake or intended, I gotta go with everyone else: I like the intrigue of moles

On a confirmation box that says "The action you are about to initiate will lead to a state of war for your organization and all of it's assets. Do you wish to continue: Y/N" I don't see why not. So long as someone can figure out the small possible exploit of people allowing the towers to attack them first and autoattacking back, sidestepping the confirmation box.

Oh and if said confirmation box was added, it should be broadcast to both the org channel and directly to the org leader (so if he's offline, he receives an offline message) saying "XXX initiated a state of war between..." Eliminates the whole "Oops" arguement.

[Coldstrike]

Originally posted by Kuroshio


On the part about only the top 2 tiers of an org initiating a war state I can't go with that. Mistake or intended, I gotta go with everyone else: I like the intrigue of moles

On a confirmation box that says "The action you are about to initiate will lead to a state of war for your organization and all of it's assets. Do you wish to continue: Y/N" I don't see why not. So long as someone can figure out the small possible exploit of people allowing the towers to attack them first and autoattacking back, sidestepping the confirmation box.

Oh and if said confirmation box was added, it should be broadcast to both the org channel and directly to the org leader (so if he's offline, he receives an offline message) saying "XXX initiated a state of war between..." Eliminates the whole "Oops" arguement.

Yeah, until you have clicked yes in the box then you should not be able to attack that tower at all of course. And towers should be able to shoot at you no matter if you hit yes or no.

[_____________Nalissa]

It's unrealistic.

Grunts typically do not start wars. Any action from a single person would be viewed as going awol. Crack open your history books and find a situation where a war started from the actions of a common line-grunt who was not backed by his country. Bet you can't. If the world situation was that fragile where the actions of a man in a low (or non-existant) position of trust were that important we'd all probably be dead.

A spy should have to work for his supper. There should be no freebies.

As for spawning Ian Warr or what have you, outdamaging the teams on the site is a crock. You should not consider it if you ever want to have anyone support you in the game ever again. It is right up there with ninja-looting.

Not that that would bother an E-bayed soldier with a gay hood

[______________Sredni]

wow... someone posts an idea. Good idea, bad idea who knows, that's what the forums are for; to debate the merits of other people ideas. But someone else doesn't like them so they decide to start flaming and call them a nerf caller just to be a prick.

Yaaa for maturity.





meh

[Archelan]

Originally posted by Nalissa
It's unrealistic.

Grunts typically do not start wars. Any action from a single person would be viewed as going awol. Crack open your history books and find a situation where a war started from the actions of a common line-grunt who was not backed by his country. Bet you can't.

Crack open your history books and find a situation where another planet was terraformed and colonized by humans, and inhabited by a galactical corporation which created new breeds and treated it's workers so bad that they rioted and started a war between previous workers and said galactical corporation, and where they had nanobots capable of working the way of increasing someone's strength, agility, etc... in a second, and where people bought guns and armor in shops without any special licenses, and ran around killing eachother only to be ressurected at a spot where there was a machine that a minute later provided them with whatever stuff they were carrying when they got killed - except the stuff they were wearing of course, and... well...

You're right - it's unrealistic.

[_______________Podex]

Let me just start with saying, I havn't read all the post's completely in this thread, but most of them, and from what I have read I must say I am somewhat surprised how a person get's flamed for making a suggestion. Come on, go ahead, flame the suggestion, not the person.
I can not see anything wrong with limiting APPLICANTs from INITIATING war. Let them be able to partcipate like any others, but hey, I mean, STARTING a war should be something for leaders or at the very least members of an org.
And for what moles goes, someone mentioned that an org have a big problem with their recruting routines of new members if they allow a mole in their org, I dissagree to some extent as I see at least the applicant status as a way to evaluate new members to see if they are 'worthy' a full membership. It can be close to impossible to judge a char BEFORE that char is in your org IMO.
Kicking a char from an org isn't good enough since the damage is already done and can't be undone.

Just my 2 creds

[Marlark]

From my own point of view is that the 2 lowest ranks shouldnt be allowed to open a state of war.

In my guild that would be Applicants and Unit Members.

If it was possible to customize the ranks in a guild and set the rights on every rank that would have been great but then prolly not gonna happen

// Marlark

[___________Oddfellow]

Moles/spys may be all well and good, but there is really no way to prevent them from doing their dirtywork. Its not as if you can actually track the past of a character ingame, and you certainly cant track what people do with other characters. If someone wanted to really be a mole and stick with a guild long enough to get to the top couple of ranks, that would be different. How many people would invest that much time and effort in something simply to screw people over? Certainly a lot less than are willing to use a low level alt to join Omni or neutral orgs, who are already short of recruits to begin with, and a couple hours later give you the old Benedict Arnold.

[Noer]

lol @ Nenous for comparing the new raid mobs to Kaehler that dies in less than 10sec. GG - I guess Ebay didn't gave you the knowledge about the game for the bucks you paid for that char.

Check the link I have in my signature about ethics at raids and you may realise that people have a quite opposite opinion about this than you.