Shartak The Official Shartak Forum
Click here to play NOW!
December 16, 2017, 03:15:08 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Clan Warfare and Alliance  (Read 3718 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Iceman
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2171


I don't like you because you're dangerous


View Profile
« on: February 12, 2010, 11:30:56 PM »

As mentioned by Etherdrifter in this thread, clans, whilst being a large part of the metagame, have no other meaningiful impact other than as a quick means of identifying loyalties. And although I don’t believe the game should be centred around clan membership, I do think there should be some mechanics in place to allow them to be more attractive and engaging for all players.

Thus, Clan Warfare and Alliances. A set of simple mechanics allowing clan leaders to declare war/feud with other clan, and to proclaim alliances.

In a similar fashion to the current clan invite system, a clan can declare war on or request alliance with another clan, by submitting the clan id in the relevant form. This would send a notification to the clan’s leader, who would accept or decline. Both feuds and alliances must be mutual to come into effect.

This effect would be that when attacking and killing members of an enemy clan, you receive +50% XP. Conversely, when attacking allied clan members, you receive 0XP. Enemies and allies would also be automatically flagged when you occupy the same square as them.

The idea is that clans can enter into conflict on a sporting footing, rather than the oftentimes arseholey fashion as has become so popular as late. Both attackers and defenders gain a bonus, so as to promote conflict, but the requirement that declarations of war be mutual removes any unfair advantage. Similarly, alliances such as the Raktam/Creedy/French become official and remove any benefits for members who fight their allies.

War/alliance can be rescinded by either clan at any time.

All feuds/alliances would be public, appearing on the respective clan page. There would also be a statistic-type page listing all current feuds and alliances, and the length of time. The top x longest-running feuds and alliances would appear on a statistics page.

Variations:
- Since there is an attacking bonus/penalty, it would be logical that there is also a healing bonus/penalty – healing enemy clans garners 0XP while healing allies gives +50% XP. This could be much more easily abused for farming purposes, although the 0XP for attacking an ally would offset this to a degree.
- If you are penalised for attacking allies, it seems nonsensical that you would receive XP for attacking your own clan members. In the spirit of consistency, other clan members would be treated as allies and 0XP will be received when attacking them.
- A time delay on withdrawal of alliances. This would remove the possibility of betrayals, and although I personally feel this would be a great shame, and negate an opportunity for some cloak-and-dagger politics, some people may think it unfair that an alliance could be withdrawn immediately prior to an attack.
- Some form of short-term boost to the XP bonus (double?) when war is declared on a clan that was an ally less than 7 days ago. After all, nobody likes a turncoat.
- Allies of enemy clans are also considered enemies, and the XP bonus is applied. This would allow for more fluid politics, with alliances potentially becoming too dangerous for some clans, but may also over-complicate the already-murky island politics.

If implemented, this would add an actual consequence to current feuds and alliances. It would, I hope, foster a spirit of friendly competition, since both parties have something to gain. The current clan system does work, but I feel that officialising the existing arrangements would help boost clan numbers, and thereby introduce players to an aspect of the game they may not otherwise experience – most RP is based around clans, and it has been agreed by many that involvement in RP aspects of the game helps to turn regular players into committed players. It would also allow for those who are aware of such things but not interested by them to receive more practical benefits from joining clans.
Logged

Twist - boner-inducingly handsome | ClickClick - guardian of the Dalpoki | Sympathetic Phil - hard-bitten mercenary and surly drunkard |
Tkltchk - hungry, want eat | Fist McRhinopuncher - fairly self-explanatory

"Iceman?" How gay is that? | Suggestions
Johan Crichton
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1974


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: February 13, 2010, 03:15:29 AM »

Conversely, when attacking allied clan members, you receive 0XP.

That poses a question that I don't know the answer to - currently, if you attack a fellow clan member (from another camp) do you gain XP?
Logged

Johan Crichton
Please read the forum rules before posting.
"Simple suggestion -> complicated/confusing suggestion = never implemented." - FAD
Quote
Life isn't fair. It's just fairer than death, that's all.
Etherdrifter
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1865



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: February 13, 2010, 01:34:10 PM »

I like it, but how would feuds/alliances be ended?  Would that also have to be mutual or one sided?

Also would being allies with someone give you a bonus against attacking their enemies?  If so what happens if their enemy is also your ally?
Logged

Pro Bono Collagium

Quote of the week

"There will be no miracle"

Ahnaom
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1042



View Profile
« Reply #3 on: February 13, 2010, 01:51:42 PM »

I think xp bonuses should be smaller. Maybe 10-25%. Otherwise lonely killers and healers would have severe disadvantages in contrast to those who belong to clans. Same with xp boost if you declare a war on an ally after 7 days, maybe -25% on xp gain would be more reasonable if you start a conflict earlier than that.
Otherwise, can't see why this shouldn't work.
Logged
Iceman
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2171


I don't like you because you're dangerous


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: February 13, 2010, 10:00:21 PM »

That poses a question that I don't know the answer to - currently, if you attack a fellow clan member (from another camp) do you gain XP?

Yes. Sorry SillyLillyPwotter.

I like it, but how would feuds/alliances be ended?  Would that also have to be mutual or one sided?

One-sided. Otherwise clans could end up trapped in a state of war they no longer wish to continue - of course, just because it's not 'official' doesn't mean this would not happen, but it would be unfair to gain a bonus. It also raises the possibility of dastardly betrayals when ending alliances.

Also would being allies with someone give you a bonus against attacking their enemies?  If so what happens if their enemy is also your ally?

Well, that's where it gets confusing. Logically it could work, with mutual allies or enemies cancelling out the bonuses and penalties - but it would be difficult to keep track of in actual terms in-game, so it might be best to simply leave it at a clan's own enemies/allies.

I think xp bonuses should be smaller. Maybe 10-25%. Otherwise lonely killers and healers would have severe disadvantages in contrast to those who belong to clans. Same with xp boost if you declare a war on an ally after 7 days, maybe -25% on xp gain would be more reasonable if you start a conflict earlier than that.

Well, the idea is that not every single clan will be in a state of war or alliance at all times. Don't forget, it has to be mutual, so even if a particularly bloodthirsty clan wants to fight everyone, they won't neccesarily be eligible for the bonus. I felt it needed a suitable bonus to encourage the clans to take part - I know you advocate a relatively peaceful existence, but friendly conflict will help engage players. With regards to your lonely killers, they have a plethora of targets to choose from, whilst clan members will have to actively seek out their enemies to receive any bonus. With the largest clans currently standing at ten to fourteen members - two of whom are Open Arms and the Healers of Shartak, both unlikely to be declaring war on anyone any time soon - targets are going to be severely restricted, thus balancing out the clans vs. loners issue. Even with - hopefully - increased clan membership, the majority of characters encountered will be neither enemies or allies.
Logged

Twist - boner-inducingly handsome | ClickClick - guardian of the Dalpoki | Sympathetic Phil - hard-bitten mercenary and surly drunkard |
Tkltchk - hungry, want eat | Fist McRhinopuncher - fairly self-explanatory

"Iceman?" How gay is that? | Suggestions
Johan Crichton
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1974


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: February 13, 2010, 11:54:31 PM »

Well, the idea is that not every single clan will be in a state of war or alliance at all times.

There could be a count down that starts at the end of war, and until its reached zero the clan can't declare war again.  Would enforce periods of peace between periods of war.
Logged

Johan Crichton
Please read the forum rules before posting.
"Simple suggestion -> complicated/confusing suggestion = never implemented." - FAD
Quote
Life isn't fair. It's just fairer than death, that's all.
lama
iz doin it rite akshully
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2518



View Profile
« Reply #6 on: February 14, 2010, 01:49:43 AM »

Thus, Clan Warfare and Alliances. A set of simple mechanics allowing clan leaders to declare war/feud with other clan, and to proclaim alliances.

I likes. Though I've read something about not voting on one's own suggestions, I suppose all ^^^ this illustrated by, let's say, custom tile border colors indicating tile's owner would be even more cooler than it already is. Land claims ftw!
Logged

Ahnaom
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1042



View Profile
« Reply #7 on: February 14, 2010, 03:16:31 AM »

I know you advocate a relatively peaceful existence, but friendly conflict will help engage players.
Actually, I don't. Just because I play a healer doesn't mean everybody should do so. What I would like to see are more ways of getting xp without killing something or somebody. Currently this is very limited but would be partly remedied by this suggestion as well, 15 xp for a full herb heal is a lot. Speaking of that, should we fix the attack-then-heal mechanic that currently allows you to heal people with full hp? Just to prevent the clans from becoming xp farming places? I know people won't get xp from the attacking part but the bonus should make for it. The hardest part for any healer is to find injured people on the island.
Logged
snico
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 806


equal opportunity eater


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: February 14, 2010, 06:38:57 AM »

I love it Iceman!  I think that this will improve clan activity a whole lot, giving them something to do that they don't have to come up with themselves, since sometimes that can be hard.

I think it would be really cool if on the Stats pages there was a list of upcoming, current, and past wars, and who won/is winning.  That could also bring in gambling to Shartak!  You can go to places like the Hanged Misfit and place a bet on what clan will win the upcoming war!
Logged


Snico Princess Nico Marcy
A parrot squawks "Lady be free, Lady be fine! Princess Nico, Will you be mine?" (2010-08-30)
Ahnaom
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1042



View Profile
« Reply #9 on: February 14, 2010, 06:51:38 AM »

I also thought... Maybe it would be possible to have statistics for each conflict? Like kills and heals? This would allow for local heroes to emerge as well as determine which side has actually won. There could also be an option to name a war, the side that proposes it could have a text box to write something like "The Wiksik Civil War". If the other side accepts it, that would remain as an official title for the history textbooks of Shartak.

There should also be a "no recruiting" condition during times of conflict. If a clan of 5 people declares war on another with 6, it should remain so. Gathering additional troops along the way would be unfair.

One thing that is left out so far, what would determine the duration and ending of a war? Would it work if the parties could agree on a certain kill count or time spawn?
« Last Edit: February 14, 2010, 11:43:55 AM by Ahnaom » Logged
DazedandConfused
Full Member
***
Posts: 158



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: February 15, 2010, 05:23:11 AM »

One thing that is left out so far, what would determine the duration and ending of a war? Would it work if the parties could agree on a certain kill count or time spawn?

Could have the war go on for a week then at the end of that week have the option to carry on the war or to stop.
Logged

Iceman
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2171


I don't like you because you're dangerous


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: February 15, 2010, 07:17:14 AM »

I would expect the clans to be able to arrange terms themselves, rather than have it coded into the game. We're declaring war on people, not filling out our taxes - simple and impulsive is the idea. And with either side able to end hostilities whenever they wish, even if a friendly agreement isn't kept to someone can just pull the plug.

As for 'no recruiting' - that pretty much counteracts the whole point of this suggestion, which is to get more people into clans. It is also completely unrealistic, in both a practical sense and taking into acount human nature, as in almost any conflict you find propaganda and recruitment/conscripting drives, and your mercenary/troublemaker/do-gooder types flocking to one banner or another depending on their moral stance or lack thereof. Again, we're trying to organise a war here, not a football match.
Logged

Twist - boner-inducingly handsome | ClickClick - guardian of the Dalpoki | Sympathetic Phil - hard-bitten mercenary and surly drunkard |
Tkltchk - hungry, want eat | Fist McRhinopuncher - fairly self-explanatory

"Iceman?" How gay is that? | Suggestions
Ahnaom
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1042



View Profile
« Reply #12 on: February 15, 2010, 10:48:56 AM »

When I made the addition of recruitment restrictions I kept in mind the fixed period of war that no side can withdraw from at their wish. E.g. if clan of Ahnaoms declared war on clan of Icemen and they both agreed for 1 week, that would last for 1 week no matter what. Or maybe until one side surrendered.

If any side could and the war at any moment, such restrictions would be totally unnecessary. However, you have to keep in mind that this can lead to some minor abuses. Like 1 clan deliberately keeping their official numbers low and adding the rest of the members in the middle of the conflict.

Logged
Iceman
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2171


I don't like you because you're dangerous


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: February 15, 2010, 05:30:20 PM »

If I may, you're somewhat over-thinking things. Like the recent cannibal offensives, a general state of war is the aim of this suggestion. It would be quite possible to set extra parameters, as per some of the recent competitions organised by Neil and De La Coiffe, but these can be quite restrictive - as the relatively low participation figures in said contests reflect.

Having said that, some more detailed statistics concerning such things as kills and healing during conflicts would be interesting. Perhaps, due to the extra load on the server, such extra details could be available to clan leaders who have made donations.
Logged

Twist - boner-inducingly handsome | ClickClick - guardian of the Dalpoki | Sympathetic Phil - hard-bitten mercenary and surly drunkard |
Tkltchk - hungry, want eat | Fist McRhinopuncher - fairly self-explanatory

"Iceman?" How gay is that? | Suggestions
Skull Face
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1838


Chimay Red


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: February 15, 2010, 07:03:53 PM »

A few comments:

(1) You need a time delay of at least 24 hours for joining / leaving a clan. This would prevent spying on clan messages. It would also prevent Bob from leaving his clan (so his buddy Mike can stab/heal him and gain bonus XP) and then rejoining in the same day.

(2) You need clan memberships to be checked against user accounts to prevent alt abuse.

(3) Attacking an enemy clan member from your home camp should yield full XP rather than half XP.

(4) Attacking a member of your own clan should always yield zero XP regardless of home camp.

(5) People who join your clan (or whom you invite) are people you are unlikely to attack anyway. Therefore clan XP bonuses should not be as high as 50%, a figure of 25% seems more appropriate.

(6) Bonus XP for attacks should only be delivered on a kill. Bonus XP for healing seems fine at incremental points.

(7) Clan war should have an enforced minimum period and no maximum period. No flash-in-the-pan skirmishes, war is war and there had better be bodies piling up.

(cool Territory. Lama needs to get busy with a territory mechanism. Or I need to finish working on the one I kicked around a while back.
Logged

Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!