Jump to content
Server time (UTC): 2020-10-30, 17:17 HALLOWEEN SALE
Sign in to follow this  
Shanoby

War rule.

Recommended Posts

Maybe it is just me but I have not seen that used yet. I think mostly cos people see no point in that (maybe Im wrong)...

What if we could turn/customize this rule to our liking:

Quote

7.3 Groups can declare war on each other, which allows them to have indefinite kill rights between all members of all groups involved. A war must be announced by ALL involved groups by their group leaders in their respective group threads. Kill rights take effect 24 hours after the announcements have been made by ALL groups. Similarly, a cease fire will stop the war with kill rights expiring 24 hours after ANY of the group leaders posts it on their group thread.

Into something more interesting. I mean, I am not sure if it is even a good idea or is it doable.

war.png

 

The idea is to record and come to agreement (maybe while staff is a whitness) between groups for example Coalition and Anarchy (can not think of anyone else right now), then agree on war rules.

1) Game mode: domination ( 3 areas, ( 2 out of 3 )). Group must hold most areas for 5 hours/ day/ week, whatever. Asymmetrical layout is best imo.

2) War KoS applys only in and reasonably close surroundings to the objectives. Rest of the KoS will be still rulebreak, maybe call it "war harrasment rule" if that is even necessary :P  someone gets randomly sniped in their hometown for example. Thats just lame imo.

3) Once one side wins, they get a prize which they previousy agree on before war, either: forcing someone out of the city permanently until next war outcome, perma certain character on one or the other side or get to capture group leader (aka enemy group leader gives himself up) if they wish for an RP result.

Anything could be a prize. (loser side must archive :trolle:)

 

 

As long as both sides agree on terms, I think it would be great, adds risk to the whole thing !!!

Main thing is, these rules are customizable, if you wish you can still go with original rule.

 

But I thought this would add something to it, so people would not have the feeling they are just playing on public servers KoS hours, but instead get some RP objectives out of it.

 

Even if people do not like it, @Rolle would this be acceptable, to customize war rule if both parties agree?

Edited by Shanoby

Share this post


Link to post

I'm my opinion, too much going off in a populated area especially for an RP server, It's a -1 for me but Ill let someone more experienced than me give an opinion too ;)

Share this post


Link to post

If a war happens it should be where ever it happens, not in a designated area and see how it goes involving as many people as possible, ofc not with KOS rights since the only once that have them are the groups themselves on each other.

Share this post


Link to post

Honestly I'm pretty sure this had been brought up before in the form of PvP zones and from the looks of it, the community wasn't really feeling it. Maybe it will change with this but I'm always down to try something new.

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Hardwired said:

I'm my opinion, too much going off in a populated area especially for an RP server, It's a -1 for me but Ill let someone more experienced than me give an opinion too ;)

You do realize, 3 spots I showed are examples only, so it could be any other location, including empty field?

Also how is that different or worse than have entire map as war KoS area, like it stand on original rule? :)

Im just confused by your response... please explain.

Share this post


Link to post

I think it is better if fights go down in unplanned areas with groups because it seems more natural, I think it gets rid of the randomness of what can happen in the wasteland.

Hopefully that clears it up a little in a nutshell

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Hardwired said:

I think it is better if fights go down in unplanned areas with groups because it seems more natural, I think it gets rid of the randomness of what can happen in the wasteland.

Hopefully that clears it up a little in a nutshell

EDIT: Ok, thank you. Same response as to Eagle.

7 minutes ago, Eagle said:

If a war happens it should be where ever it happens, not in a designated area and see how it goes involving as many people as possible, ofc not with KOS rights since the only once that have them are the groups themselves on each other.

Respect your opinion, but I feel that is why this rule is or will be underused, cos people like to still RP even when there is war agreed upon. But they will not do war imo. if they fear their homebase or they could be popped at any moment by sniper.

For example, I declear war on Anarchy and you guys accept, I would just harass you with sniper fire and run... that does not seem fun.

But we see thing differently and I respect that.

Edited by Shanoby

Share this post


Link to post

Kinda agree with @Eagle, we shouldn't restrict a war to certain areas. Part of the bonus of the war rule is that you can gain advantages against a larger / stronger foe by getting the drop on them. With set areas, game modes etc you'd be severely impacting on certain groups. 

Tbh all that needs to happen is groups need to build up and last long enough to actually declare war. Seems like the only proper group pushing for public hostility is Anarchy, hence nobody declares war.

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry Shanoby -1. I don't think we should put more limits on the war rules.

Plus @Para makes some really good points above, sums it up pretty nice to be honest

Share this post


Link to post

Honestly? I'ma call @LouieRP in here cause, whilst i dunne agree with the original idea of making this the defintive war thing, these ideas like domination, on a smaller scale, could give variety to the battle events (that have long term implications, such as the recent anarchy battle for novy) that the communtiy have already begun doing. 

Hostile RPers wanna keep shit fresh too , and maybe having a repository of cool shit like "domination" "Capture the flag" (Could be intel the opposite team need) etc etc could be afun way to make wars more than just "KOS rights and chill" 

Tl;dr: -1 for idea, +1 for using ideas such as domination in battle events (i.e:Like the novy battle last week) 

Edited by The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post

I still wonder, would it be ok for groups to customize their war rules if they both agreed upon it? Would there be any rules against that or problems that might occur?

If not, then thats great :)

 

EDIT: cos Rolle did not respond, maybe someone else has a good educated guess...

EDIT2: I mean, most people seem to respond like my suggestion is forcing them to do this :D Yet all I was asking, IF both parties agree then customize it, if not stick with the old rule.

EDIT3: Made this suggestion cos I was not sure if you have to do it exaclty like on rules and if so, could we have an option to customize it?

Edited by Shanoby

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Shanoby said:

I still wonder, would it be ok for groups to customize their war rules if they both agreed upon it? Would there be any rules against that or problems that might occur?

If not, then thats great :)

EDIT: cos Rolle did not respond, maybe someone else has a good educated guess...

I'm pretty sure the groups do indeed control the terms and such of how the war goes on with the rights and such.

Edited by Eagle

Share this post


Link to post

Shanoby, I love the fact that you suggested it, especially given how the rules around war have been added/edited. Unfortunately, I am going to have to disagree, as it kind of cuts the flow of RP when you restrict it to certain areas.

As the recent war event shows, war's can have a huge link to a certain area, this example being Novy, the war was based around that town, simply due to the fact that Anarchy control Novy. And any group can control any town.

I do love the way you have presented this suggestion though, +1 to that!

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Harvey said:

Shanoby, I love the fact that you suggested it, especially given how the rules around war have been added/edited. Unfortunately, I am going to have to disagree, as it kind of cuts the flow of RP when you restrict it to certain areas.

As the recent war event shows, war's can have a huge link to a certain area, this example being Novy, the war was based around that town, simply due to the fact that Anarchy control Novy. And any group can control any town.

I do love the way you have presented this suggestion though, +1 to that!

Well as I said, gotta give him credit where it's due. It's a great idea, just wrong context. 
Having more battle / war events (like the novy one) but with specific goals like domination / capture the flag would be brilliant + give more variety to someone suggesting "let's make a war event" :D

Share this post


Link to post

It's not a bad idea at all, but I think it would lead to a lot of reports and accidental kills, people will argue

"Well what did you expect, you walked into the middle of a war zone! Didn't you read the forum post about it?!"

"How am I supposed to know, I was just trying to find a tire for my car, I haven't been on the forums in a few weeks!"

*insert salt and bickering back and forth and low key flame*

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, Harvey said:

Shanoby, I love the fact that you suggested it, especially given how the rules around war have been added/edited. Unfortunately, I am going to have to disagree, as it kind of cuts the flow of RP when you restrict it to certain areas.

As the recent war event shows, war's can have a huge link to a certain area, this example being Novy, the war was based around that town, simply due to the fact that Anarchy control Novy. And any group can control any town.

I do love the way you have presented this suggestion though, +1 to that!

You probably missed my suggestion for deviating from original rule IF and ONLY if both parties agreed on new customized rules... they would not HAVE to...

I hate forums (thats why I never liked making suggestion in here) :|

hate-this-place-stewie-family-guy-gif.gif

I feel like it is either my linguistic issue or something, but I feel like what I suggested and what you wrote in response do not go together.

 

1) How would any of that cut the flow of RP compered to original war rule where you can litteraly 24/7 snipe from distance without RP interaction and then call war off and have no outcome?

2) This would not be manditory rule... You could still do the exact same thing if you wished? Any group could still hold any town?

 

13 minutes ago, Skinner said:

It's not a bad idea at all, but I think it would lead to a lot of reports and accidental kills, people will argue

"Well what did you expect, you walked into the middle of a war zone! Didn't you read the forum post about it?!"

"How am I supposed to know, I was just trying to find a tire for my car, I haven't been on the forums in a few weeks!"

*insert salt and bickering back and forth and low key flame*

Im sorry... 7.3 rule is still a thing right !? Have I missed something? How is that different?

Edited by Shanoby

Share this post


Link to post

Whether or not I agree, this is still a well planned post. +1 for that

BUT! -1 for the suggestion itself. PVP should be only a small part of roleplay, and trying to create PVP game modes only serve to move away from roleplay in favour of more shootouts. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Whitename said:

Whether or not I agree, this is still a well planned post. +1 for that

BUT! -1 for the suggestion itself. PVP should be only a small part of roleplay, and trying to create PVP game modes only serve to move away from roleplay in favour of more shootouts. 

 

Glee.gif

Quote

7.3 Groups can declare war on each other, which allows them to have indefinite kill rights between all members of all groups involved. A war must be announced by ALL involved groups by their group leaders in their respective group threads. Kill rights take effect 24 hours after the announcements have been made by ALL groups. Similarly, a cease fire will stop the war with kill rights expiring 24 hours after ANY of the group leaders posts it on their group thread.

https://www.dayzrp.com/whitelist/rules/

I am not creating PvP game modes... I want to customize current rule when 2 parties agree upon it... and not force it on all...

You know what...

4Va9w.gif

Im too dumb for this...

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Whitename said:

Whether or not I agree, this is still a well planned post. +1 for that

BUT! -1 for the suggestion itself. PVP should be only a small part of roleplay, and trying to create PVP game modes only serve to move away from roleplay in favour of more shootouts. 

I hold heartedly disagree. Having PvP wars just be "shootouts over the course of weeks until 1 side gives up" are frustrating to the losing side, and boring for the winning side. I have seen too many wars become "I can't be arsed to play anymore, this isn't fun" because of lack of variety. 

AS said, whilst i disagree with it being like 5 hours / day etc etc, I do think these ideas could be utilized in events such as the novy one we did... 

However, saying variety to hostileRP takes away from RP is just further pushing of the narrative that Hostile RP is inherently a roleplay deterrent, which simply is not the case . 

Edited by The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, The Traveler said:

I hold heartedly disagree. Having PvP wars just be "shootouts over the course of weeks until 1 side gives up" are frustrating to the losing side, and boring for the winning side. I have seen too many wars become "I can't be arsed to play anymore, this isn't fun" because of lack of variety. 

AS said, whilst i disagree with it being like 5 hours / day etc etc, I do think these ideas could be utilized in events such as the novy one we did... 

However, saying variety to hostileRP takes away from RP is just further pushing of the narrative that Hostile RP is inherently a roleplay deterrent, which simply is not the case . 

Traveler, if you want PVP game modes might I suggest anything other than a roleplay server? I’ll edit this post with a response to the rest later. Gotta clock back on 

Edited by Whitename

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Whitename said:

Traveler, if you want PVP game modes might I suggest anything other than a roleplay server? I’ll edit this post with a response to the rest later. Gotta clock back on 

Loving the wit :L 
But I think, along with most hostile RPers on this server, that variety in PvP is just as important as Roleplay in a roleplay game.
Noone would play dungeons and dragons if it was the same fight every single encounter. 

Thinking that people who want varied pvp in an RP server shouldn't be here is just a wee ignorant friend. 

 

Share this post


Link to post

I personally think that it's a good idea maybe it needs some more fleshing out like the terms of victory for example, but other than that it seems like a really unique idea and I think could make for some interesting situations! So +1 for me for some sort of war victory/game mode option!

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, The Traveler said:

Loving the wit :L 
But I think, along with most hostile RPers on this server, that variety in PvP is just as important as Roleplay in a roleplay game.
Noone would play dungeons and dragons if it was the same fight every single encounter. 

Thinking that people who want varied pvp in an RP server shouldn't be here is just a wee ignorant friend. 

 

Fair enough, that was mean. Having a rough work day, sorry.

Shootouts in DayZ aren't the same encounter every time, though. But seriously, I'm not here to play war games. They're a tad bit unrealistic. If side A captures the town for 5 hours but side B still has players left, what then? "Well, it's been 5 hours, let's give up", sure, but they shouldn't be forced to give up because they've been sitting in a town for a certain amount of time. 

3 hours ago, Shanoby said:

I am not creating PvP game modes... I want to customize current rule when 2 parties agree upon it... and not force it on all...

 

I'm aware of the rule. Personally I think any situation that grands indefinite kill rights because of OOC agreements hurts RP, and further divides PVP from RP. Adding cute little gamemodes to it just serves to further distance PVP from RP, which IIRC is something you wanted to avoid, Traveler.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Shanoby said:

I am not creating PvP game modes... I want to customize current rule when 2 parties agree upon it... and not force it on all...

You know what...

 

I mean, that is what you are doing:

  • Domination 
Spoiler

Coddomination.PNG

dafbdb33326b774786cd61bb64b996b1.png

469.gif

 

Agree on the other rules between yourself and the other side, this rule is simply meant for the KOS rights and allows you to decide your finish point. You know, like an actual war?

Edited by Hebi Kotei

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Whitename said:

Fair enough, that was mean. Having a rough work day, sorry.

Shootouts in DayZ aren't the same encounter every time, though. But seriously, I'm not here to play war games. They're a tad bit unrealistic. If side A captures the town for 5 hours but side B still has players left, what then? "Well, it's been 5 hours, let's give up", sure, but they shouldn't be forced to give up because they've been sitting in a town for a certain amount of time. 

I'm aware of the rule. Personally I think any situation that grands indefinite kill rights because of OOC agreements hurts RP, and further divides PVP from RP. Adding cute little gamemodes to it just serves to further distance PVP from RP, which IIRC is something you wanted to avoid, Traveler.

I hold heartedly disagree. As long as they were done in events and had roleplay reasonings I'd be chill. 

E.g (and these are literally off the top of my head so probably will have holes, the idea is they could be refined and "polished") : 

-Hold the areas for x ammount of time (There is an evacuation of the town through a secret tunnel. but the group must hold out long enough for the townsfolk to get a decent distance away)
Rp implications: This sort of event could be a "losing" event for a group that lost in a war , the outcome of the event determining how bad they lost. 

- 1 way capture the flag (The enemy has vital intelligence about *insert topic of conflict RP wise here* the attackers must get this intel without having too many casualties that the said inteligence becomes too high a cost)  RP Implications: This event could be a mid-war event, which gives one side a bonus in coming events or even just casual in game fighting (reduced numbers if attackers lose, location of a stash if defenders lose?) 

-Domination: (Several town's radio towers have been repaired due to X, however it's recently been discovered you can boost the signal from these towers by tuning them to the same frequency, but it will fry the net after sending the message, hence only one group can send said intentional message, it's a race to gain control of a majority of the towers in the net before the other side do, so they can send their message)  RP Implications: This one could be a grand finale if it was what the conflict was about, it's pretty obvious the winner would get their international message out, which could effect world RP and get LM's involved. 

As I said previously, assuming variety in PvP is detrimental to RP is ignorant at best mate.

+ as people have said, let people decide this stuff themselves. I'd personally love to see more events like the ones above, but it's completely up to the people waging war. Can't force people to have a certain type of good RP :L 

Edited by The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...