Proper War

[Peter]

There's been some talk lately of some war washing over the face of the Hearthlands.

This is not a bad idea, frankly. I think that a war would lead to some interesting stresses and interactions; and I think they'd be easy enough for the uninterested to avoid, unless some army is actually interested in seizing two or three straw baskets worth of q20 grain from wilderness farmers...

Unfortunately, the only reason to have wars at present is the constantly seething forum drama. This is, frankly, not fun. It's all well and good to loose a few hundred hours of character development for the king, or to defend one's hometown. It's not so nice to loose a character trying to shut up some annoying (goons/pubbies).

What is needed, I think, is a good reason for war within the game. Perhaps some rare resource, or other valuable. That is the first part of my suggestion: "An in-game Casus Belli."

Now, my second... well, not so much a suggestion as it is a general idea. We now know that the Ring of Brogdor is defunct. However, it's a lovely piece of work. It's got such feeling in it, you know. How can we re-use it in a way that will both keep it from being seen everywhere while still being occasionally seen?

Well, part of the problem with using a resource as a Casus Belli (roughly, "Case for War) is that one can pretty easily buy the finished product, and simply holding the source of said rare resource, while convenient, doesn't really make you a target for attacks.

If there was a fixed location that, when owned by a town or kingdom or what have you, provided a universal benefit that could not be shared, then you have a drive for conflict. At the moment, it would be difficult for a town to "own" a location that could still be captured regularly by the other side. Of course, war would require further development, most primarily diplomacy. This has already been discussed elsewhere.

So, imagine that dotted, perhaps once or twice per multigrid, where various rings. Holding each one would grant that town, kingdom, nation, or empire (whatever it is that may in the future be implemented) a universal benefit, such as +1 Tile per minute of movement speed, or an extra row of holding space. Other possibilities would be a +5% Q rating for all crafted items or a +15 skill or attribute boost. Balancing these boosts would be important.

There was one other thing. I would suggest this extra effect; no matter what the ring's primary effect, anything built within a few dozen or even 50 or 60 tiles of it would take significantly more damage from all sources, from attackers to degradation.

This is so that one doesn't simply build a few layers of brick wall around each ring you own; rather, one must establish a larger defensive perimeter that allows for more complex defenses and battles.

[Cain]

Implementing a system like this would change the focus of the game. Right now I view HnH as a survival/simcity game more than as a PvP or even PvE combat game. I think your idea sounds really cool, but at the same time I think it is utterly incompatible with the current manifestation of HnH. While you may be ok with losing hundreds of played hours in a battle, I don't think many people would like to regularly take giant hits to their characters development. As it is now, where characters lose 25% of their stats with full tradition, people are actually losing ~45% of their invested lp. i agree that there should be more rare resources in order to make value less purely dependent on ocd levels of Quality, which would naturally lead to conflict, but that effectively implementing a PvP kingdom v kingdom system would be a grave mistake. (as well as something that's just not going to happen)
I'm sure J&L intend to add a greater variety of resources, along with many other features, but all that takes time.

p.s. I'm under the impression that a sizable portion of the HnH players are completely/mainly peaceful and conflict-adverse, so it seems like implementing such a major meta-game would drive off most of the current players.

[sabinati]

Proper war:

War shall be declared between two parties by a light slap of a silken glove across the face of one by the other. The instigator will then hand the glove to the opposing party, who shall return the light slap with the glove. War has now been formally declared, and combat will begin in the morning of an agreed upon day. There will be a midmorning break for tea, after which fighting will resume. At mid-day, or thereabouts, there will be another break for lunch, followed by a quick nap. Fighting will resume again until midafternoon, when tea and honeybuns will be served. Finally, there shall be another hour of combat before dinner. At dinner all parties will return to their homesteads for the meal and a bit of relaxation.

Don't forget to wear your finest silken robes and top hats to the war!

[Jackard]

well this thread is certainly not what i was expecting

good job peter

[CG62]

Sab, that's a duel

Anyhoo, The easiest way to encourage conflict, player-to-player relations, and meaningful communities has been right under our noses for a while now.

MAKE THE BLOODY MAP SMALLER.

[sabinati]

i guess i forgot to mention that it was the leaders of two groups that would do the glove slapping, and then the two groups would fight. just a joke, anyway.

[Jackard]

MAKE THE BLOODY MAP SMALLER.

fuck you

[kobnach]

Sab, that's a duel

Anyhoo, The easiest way to encourage conflict, player-to-player relations, and meaningful communities has been right under our noses for a while now.

MAKE THE BLOODY MAP SMALLER.

OK, I'm going to ask again. There's nothing stopping those who like fighting from fighting over whatever they please - except the likelihood of retaliation. You can go to war over the number of letters in your character names, or insults to your ladies, if you can't find any better reason.

So why are there so many threads suggesting ways to increase conflict? Presumably all the people who want conflict are fighting as much as they want to already, along with some of those who don't want conflict, but have been attacked by those who do.

I can think of a few possibilities, but none seem right:
- you want high stakes conflict, and simple loss of LP isn't high enough for you
- you want lower stakes, and hope that in the presence of general warfare, no one will follow up on most murder/theft/vandalism clues, making it safe(r) to loot and kill
- you want role play with your conflict, and simply being (gangs of) thugs isn't satisfying you; you want to play heroic defenders of your people etc.

[CG62]

Well, making the map smaller has several practical uses, as well.

I mean, Less space to expand encourages more player-to-player interaction.

It also boosts trade, considering that resources would be more scarce.



And perhaps, with each increment of X players that join, a new area of the map is revealed.

[Potjeh]

You weren't there for the Great Tree Shortage and the associated Mordor disappearance, were you?