Jump to content
Server time: 2017-08-18, 23:56

Sign in to follow this  
Castiel

"War Forum"

Would you like this?  

69 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you like this?



Recommended Posts

Castiel    1124

I brought this idea up internally but didn't get as much feedback on it as I had hoped so I thought I would bring it to the community now and see what you all think.

Much like this thread here, I think this should be a thing for DayZ groups.

My idea here ties in with @Cow's suggestion for valid executions being permanent deaths. Although I believe that even if this rule isn't implemented, groups could still benefit from the war forum. Here's my post:

Quote

As for the "groups at war" part, should we have a kind of "War Forum" where groups must post a declaration of war as a thread? I saw that in the LiF forums and really liked the idea. War would have to be agreed on both sides, no Staff intervention or "approval" needed - only agreement from both parties. I really think the war forum is a good idea, even if this rule doesn't get put into place I think it'd be a good addition.

EDIT: If the party declaring war has evidence to justify their declaration, war could even begin without the other side agreeing to it. Just to avoid people getting into shit and then "declining" the war to avoid consequences.

I really think it should be a thing. We could have war grant other things as well, not just execution rights, although I have not thought of anything myself. KoS rights? Execution / permadeath rights? Not sure. Feel free to post suggestions below.

Here are the LiF rules, and specifically the War Rules:

Spoiler
  • Wars must be declared on the wartime forum.
  • The party initiating the war must provide the roleplay reason(s) leading up to the Declaration of War, as well as victory demands (goods, land, destruction of buildings, etc.), and any allies that will be joining them in the war at the time of their declaration. Once the post is made in the Wartime forum, the defenders and any allies wishing to side with them must respond to the post within 24 hours with a list of their own victory demands.
  • If the declaration of war is accepted by the LiF Council, the two sides can choose to either openly wage war upon each other until one side concedes, or pick a time and have an open field battle event.
  • If a field if battle is to be had, then a time and place shall be chosen and the battle will be held as an event. The winner of the field battle shall give the loser a chance to accept defeat and the victory demands. If the losing side refuses the offer, a siege will take place at their claim the following day.
  • Allies of any side wishing to join in a war must make an open post in the wartime thread declaring allegiance, which will then allow them to join the war. By doing so, they open themselves up for attacks by the opposing side.
  • During open war, raids may take place on enemy claims once every six (6) hours, with a raid being defined as any hostility that crosses into the walls of the claim.
  • During open war, KOS will be allowed against the opposing faction and its allies.
  • During open war, at any time you leave your claim you must wear your tabard.

I think we should use these rules as a basis and convert them over to DayZ. An example would be as follows:

  • War must and can only be declared on the War Forum.
  • The party declaring war must provide their in-character reasoning behind declaring war, preferably evidence pertaining to previous encounters which would justify declaring war on said group. They must state their demands i.e destruction/abandonment of a settlement, providing goods in exchange for peace etc. Once war has been declared, the party being declared upon must respond to either:
  1. contest the declarations legitimacy (at which point Staff will ask and look for evidence of hostile encounters including video evidence, logs etc, if none are found or provided the war declaration will be dismissed)
  2. Accept the declaration of war and state their own victory demands.
  • If the war is to proceed, the opposing sides can either decide to openly wage war against each other until one side is defeated, or choose a time and a place to have a firefight (the winner of which will be declared the victor).
  • Any allied groups of either side who wish to join the war must declare their allegiance to one side on the declaration of war thread, alongside their IC reasoning for joining in.
  • During war, both sides of the war will have permanent KoS/execution rights on the other.

To prevent the war from lasting forever and having groups constantly firefighting mindlessly, we could make it so that during war if you die your character is to remain "injured" and therefore unusable (be it altogether or only in the firefight TBD), therefore each group member would only have one "life" during the war, thus ensuring the war doesn't get drawn out and last longer than it should do.

Personally I would rather it be permanent execution rights during times of war, although KoS rights could be interesting I feel like we would have a lot of mis ID kills.

Ideas? Thoughts? Suggestions? Alternatives?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

I like the idea but I am going to vote no for one simple reason. We ned to work out some kinks before adding more rules. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nihoolious    1103

On paper it is a fantastic idea. In practice, might not be the same case.

What it comes down to is people don't want to risk losing because they always want to be on top. This doesn't just apply to bandit groups either, the traditional top dog mindset of group. The good guys could easily reject any notion of a possible defeat. Because people are stubborn and not open to the idea of defeat, this might not go anywhere. 

One group declares war with evidence. The other declines it, or if they are forced to agree they just simply vanish. They don't log in, change characters etc. And if you think reports are petty now, this shit will amplify it. 

Ultimately I do not have enough faith in the playerbase to utilize this idea to its fullest potential. I've wanted something like this since mod, but time and time again I've seen people act in ways that would make this not work. I do hope however some day this can work. But for now I think it's best people work out arrangements like this by themselves, in private and on their terms. 

Edited by Nihoolious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest
14 minutes ago, Thumper said:

I like the idea but I am going to vote no for one simple reason. We ned to work out some kinks before adding more rules. 

I have no more beanz, but pretty much this. I don't think we need to focus on new rules right now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
William    398

Ever since I joined a group I wanted something along the lines of this. I like the idea where the groups can pick a location and time and fight it out. Perhaps this actually gives an RP use for combat medics? In order for someone to rejoin the war they must go through medical RP with a character who is a doctor. However this system can easily be abused, and probably wouldn't work, so in that case I like the idea where they can't fight till the next war is better. Execution rights would be a good thing during this, however not permanent. And I don't think KOS rights would be a good idea, too many mis id reports.

As for the forums, I think it's a fantastic idea. Each side should be able to publically declare an official war. 

+1 for me 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rabbit    96

Personally I think it's a great idea. When I first started I felt a lot of anxiety running around chernarus, worried I'd be initiated on, get killed, lose my 'gear' etc. Later however, I stopped caring about gear (which was good), but then I stopped worrying about being initiated on, or dying and general and now I find nothing really scares me anymore which I is disappointing.

 

I feel like what dayz sometimes really lacks is actual 'consequences' to make you worried, or scared even. A war with real consequences of either the loss of a settlement, the potential for automatic execution rights (would make hostage roleplay far more interesting imo) or even more frightening, perma death would really instill some (much needed) fear into the game again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fenrir    42

I like this quite a lot, how it would pan out ingame is another story. 

On the face of it there's definitely potential here. One of the big issue's iv'e noticed is communication between groups on an OOC level and I think systems like what this rule would bring could provide groups that don't know each other outside of the game, a platform  to talk to one another helping them understand each others motivations for waging war and coming to some sort of an agreement on etiquette ensuring it doesn't become a rinse, repeat, war of defiance.

Is this the time to bring in such a rule, I dont know. Actual settlements are still in early development and settlement rules haven't had much stress testing. RIP Jimmy lad

If i was to vote or some shit, I'd say keep this in the discussion but don't implement yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Shane    353

This is needed badly in my opinion, all wars now a days just last forever and turn people off playing on the server, so this gets a massive +1 from me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rabbit    96

I think if I was an officer or leader in a group I would create a formal war thread & rules of war regardless of a formal rule or not, would make it a lot more fun. Could potentially include an honor rule of "those signed below informally void their right to report an 'invalid' execution during wartime" and then anyone can sign and say the character name it applies to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lemonade319    31

I agree with this, because at the minute there is no drawback at all for groups when it comes to groups which constantly fight or engage in fights, i'd go further and force perma-deathing characters when a war is declared, meaning that if they die during such a war they cannot play that character or with that group, they'd have to play something else for a set amount of time for arguments sake let's say a week, of course terms of surrender would be something which is done ICly between both parties but if one groups loses entirely they should be forced to close said faction/group. 

The way a war is started should be done in a report format where one party posts a report outlining the IC reason backed up with evidence (Where possible) and the staff should decide from there whether to go through with it. Should they accept the report they would give both parties a 48 hour period in which groups can inform their members so everyone is up to date.

I believe this would create a situation in which groups and factions will actually feel the consequences of their actions, instead of losing a few guys in a firefight and just re-gearing them in an hour or so. I think that it would also increase diplomacy and other forms of passive RP between groups as, for example two groups could form a coalition against a bigger and more aggressive group.

Kind of messy but that's just my opinion summed up in basic terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Castiel    1124
4 minutes ago, lemonade319 said:

-

I like the forced archival of groups idea but it could be a little harsh. If group A states that group B must disband upon defeat and group B agrees, then it would be fine.

As for the report thing, I think Staff should only intervene in this if group B declines the war despite clear evidence that a war should happen between both parties. In cases where both groups accept and want war, I think Staff should stay out of it. Leaves it up to those involved. But I do think the consequences you've suggested are good i.e permanent deaths and disbandment of groups. Severe stuff, real consequences. That's what we need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lemonade319    31
Just now, Castiel said:

I like the forced archival of groups idea but it could be a little harsh. If group A states that group B must disband upon defeat and group B agrees, then it would be fine.

As for the report thing, I think Staff should only intervene in this if group B declines the war despite clear evidence that a war should happen between both parties. In cases where both groups accept and want war, I think Staff should stay out of it. Leaves it up to those involved. But I do think the consequences you've suggested are good i.e permanent deaths and disbandment of groups. Severe stuff, real consequences. That's what we need.

Forced archival of groups is harsh, but this is an RP server and actions have consequences, if you and your buddies make a group and rob everyone, then get destroyed by another group or set of groups in a war that's your fault, the survivors of said group would have to reform and rebuild  or die out, an IC consequence to IC actions. To put more perspective on my point it'd have to be a third parties decision, groups A couldn't demand that group B disbands, that would have to come from the staff or something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

Devil's Advocate for a moment: Group A declares war on Group B. Group B declines, but staff says there is enough evidence for the war to commense anyway. Group B either refuses to log in  or changes their character names and play on. Now what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest
6 minutes ago, Thumper said:

Devil's Advocate for a moment: Group A declares war on Group B. Group B declines, but staff says there is enough evidence for the war to commense anyway. Group B either refuses to log in  or changes their character names and play on. Now what?

I would punish harshly with badrp tbh.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lemonade319    31
2 minutes ago, Thumper said:

Devil's Advocate for a moment: Group A declares war on Group B. Group B declines, but staff says there is enough evidence for the war to commense anyway. Group B either refuses to log in  or changes their character names and play on. Now what?

If they refuse to log in and change their names then let them, it's the same as the group dying ICly since they won't be around. People need to understand that this is an RP server. I would hope that this server has a more mature player base which understands RP is a game of wins and losses, you can't just avoid IC actions OOCly. You could even have a system to counter this - If they simply don't log in to defend their groups actions ICly then group A wins and group B should be disbanded, this could even become a punishable offence since it's not much different from combat logging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

In my opinion, we as staff should not intervene. If group B declines then so be it, the IG interaction will continue just like they always did. I won't force people to enter a war, also meaning that people will have kos/execution rights on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest
2 minutes ago, Rampage said:

I would punish harshly with badrp tbh.   

But, you cant force people to log in. 

We already have people bitching and moaning about IG actions, I can only imagine what will happen with forced wars. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hollows    410
2 minutes ago, Andrey said:

In my opinion, we as staff should not intervene. If group B declines then so be it, the IG interaction will continue just like they always did. I won't force people to enter a war, also meaning that people will have kos/execution rights on them.

     Pretty much this. For me, War has to be a two-way street. If Group A is harassing and poking/prodding at Group B for a few weeks now, and Group B finally retaliates, or Group B retaliates a few more times to try and make a statement and get Group A to leave them be, Group A could go and post a deceleration of war and point out Group B attacked them in their retaliation. I'm in favor of the war forum and having the tool for use whenever people want to use it, but I don't think anyone should be forced into going to war.

     People hate to lose, so I'd like to punish people for BadRP like Rampage said, but we can't force people to log in. All of them could suddenly," Have IRL issues," or are extremely busy IRL as an excuse. Only way we'd actually be able to nab anyone avoiding war is when they log in our servers RPing as alts, which would still be kind of shitty meaning members of a group active in a war cannot be on alts for the duration of the war to prevent war-dodgers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lemonade319    31
3 minutes ago, Andrey said:

In my opinion, we as staff should not intervene. If group B declines then so be it, the IG interaction will continue just like they always did. I won't force people to enter a war, also meaning that people will have kos/execution rights on them.

So you would rather it continue as it is? I can make a group with a bunch of friends, rob people alot, get into firefights with fear of having no consequences except a run from the coast and an hour to so of looting to re-gear yourself if we die or lose people. I would rather it have no staff involvement but you know it won't happen, not many people will agree to character kills in a war because they don't want to lose their faction or have their factions weaker, an RP server shouldn't worry about people not wanting stuff their needs to be consequences to groups actions otherwise shit becomes stale since it's the same 3-4 major groups running around not losing anything no matter what they do. But it all comes down to whether you want real RP or this RP light which we have currently.

@Thumper It'd obviously be dealt with on a case to case basis, if group b has 10 people and they don't log in as soon as war is declared it's obvious they're just avoiding the situation, there are plenty of ways to hide your identity ICly and plenty of ways to avoid groups ICly.

I think with a rule-set like this settlements would be more possible as you wouldn't be able to just throw people at them everyday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

The only problem I have with this is that most likely all the wars are gonna turn into a PVP-fest. And before someone says that PVP ain't bad, what I want to say it's that the groups are gonna enter an endless PVP zone because as we all know no one wants to be on the losing end. The decisive fight sounds good but, lets be honest, not all will choose that as an option seeing as some will know they will lose.

I'd much rather have it that if you die during the war, you can't play with the group until the war is over. That way, the war actually feels like a battlezone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest

Again I dont care one way or anothet, just playing Devil's Advocate. But, when you start dictating when, how, and what character I can play on, there is an issue.  

I just know with certain people in this community, once war is declared they are going tomdo everything they can to avoid it, make it an OOC hate issue, or find a way around it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest
2 minutes ago, lemonade319 said:

So you would rather it continue as it is?

 

I want the idea to happen but I don't want to force people to go to war. If they accept the war then fine, if they don't then it's also fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Castiel    1124
Just now, Andrey said:

The only problem I have with this is that most likely all the wars are gonna turn into a PVP-fest. And before someone says that PVP ain't bad, what I want to say it's that the groups are gonna enter an endless PVP zone because as we all know no one wants to be on the losing end. The decisive fight sounds good but, lets be honest, not all will choose that as an option seeing as some will know they will lose.

I'd much rather have it that if you die during the war, you can't play with the group until the war is over. That way, the war actually feels like a battlezone.

That's my idea. I think if they choose a war instead of a battle, each character within the group should have 1 life only until the war is over. No alts or anything. That way the war won't be an endless PVP fest, it'll be an actual war fought strategically until one side is conquered or surrenders.

25 minutes ago, Thumper said:

Devil's Advocate for a moment: Group A declares war on Group B. Group B declines, but staff says there is enough evidence for the war to commense anyway. Group B either refuses to log in  or changes their character names and play on. Now what?

 

17 minutes ago, Rampage said:

I would punish harshly with badrp tbh.   

As for this I have to agree with Rampage. If a group declares war and the other side declines, even though there is a ton of evidence of previous hostilities which would justify a war, then it should be an automatic surrender at the very least. Possible disbandment of group? Not sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lemonade319    31
5 minutes ago, Andrey said:

The only problem I have with this is that most likely all the wars are gonna turn into a PVP-fest. And before someone says that PVP ain't bad, what I want to say it's that the groups are gonna enter an endless PVP zone because as we all know no one wants to be on the losing end. The decisive fight sounds good but, lets be honest, not all will choose that as an option seeing as some will know they will lose.

I'd much rather have it that if you die during the war, you can't play with the group until the war is over. That way, the war actually feels like a battlezone.

How will it turn into a PvP fest? If it is staff controlled they will be managing who goes to war with who, there'd have to be a lot of reasoning and evidence to back it up, the report for the war would have to be of high standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Volke    132

So if someone has permanent KOS rights though.. Idk man. I really do think consequences = fear but won't the idea behind dynamic groups along with permanent KOS Rights make this like a giant clusterfuck? With LIF...It's a bit easier to manage wars as there is no dynamic groups - but I don't see this working for DayZ.  It's a good concept but it needs revising IMO.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×