Hello all, this is a really late night suggestion, so it might not be the more coherent one you've ever seen. Feel free to suggest certain numbers or rates be changed, its just the basic idea I'm really suggesting. Basically, my idea is that we have some system of attrition in war. Why? Because in my opinion currently wars on Massivecraft are too easy to start. Not sure if this is the same for everyone, but from what I've seen many people on Massive use war as a go to thing for problems. For example: Faction member: Hey sir, one of the griefers we kicked joined this faction! Leader: Well tell the faction to kick them! Faction member: Errr, they said no, we can't tell them what to do. Leader: WAR! Although not every situation is like this, the basic things still happen. Petty problem happens, easiest thing for leader to do is to declare war on someone and let the problem sort itself out. This is one reason, and the other one is a bit more "practical". Wars currently can last as long as they want, with one side hiding in a base while the other side raids for long periods of time. In the real world wars can't be like this, mostly due to the amount of resources it would take. In this suggestion I'll try to simulate it by doing these things: Attacker: Once a war is declared, 1 silver is taken away every day from a faction's bank. If the war continues for more than a week, it grows to 2 silver per day. When raiders go onto enemy land, the rate at which they lose money grows to 1 silver per 2 minutes. When attackers are killed in enemy territory, they lose 50% of their silver. This maxes out at 40 silver. Defender: Unlike attackers, defenders don't have to pay any silver depending on how long the war lasts. But, the individual members do lose silver when they are killed, around 10% of their silver, with a max amount lost at 20 silver. _____________________________________________________________________ That was my basic idea, however there are a few additions that might be interesting. However, they do have a few drawbacks. 1. We make it so when the attackers stay in a defending faction's f home, the attackers gain 5% more silver for each member they kill. 2.Configure it so the farther attackers go into an enemy faction's territory, the more silver they lose and the faster they lose it. 3. Possibly make it so the more attackers the defending side kills, the more expensive it gets for the attacking side to continue the war. Like if the defenders kill 10 attackers, then the rate at which silver is taken away from the faction bank grows from 2s per day to around 3s per day.
๖ۣۜSorry fav, this isn't a good idea. Only rich people would be able to raid, all the other people whom just lost their money due to shopping for armour and such suddenly can't raid. And, I believe a suggestion was made like this already, and was rejected.
Although well-built and detailed for a last minute idea, I do not agree to this. Some people are already pinching copper, and are trying quite hard to get silver without spending too much time in a large dark crater. Raiding-for the rich is what it appears. Unsupported, sorry.
Terrible idea. It would limit pvp and wars to the point that even less people would be participating. I vote no.
A very nicely constructed and presented idea, but this would slim down the amount of people who are actually able to go to war a lot, and would probably be abused in some way seeing as how it includes silver loss.
Hmmm, As far as I can tell this is a pvp suggestion which helps the non pvp´ers or bigmouths who hide in their bases and rely on cheap tactics and traps to kill. The advantage (of this idea) should be for the attacker (which it is NOT) as they have to fight in enemy terretory which can be a pretty big disatvantage for them. They have to rely on a portal to get to the enemy base quickly (16 chunk rule) while the defenders can just use /f home to get there quickly. Believe me there are more points that I could rant about now but I will leave it at the following statement for now: "The balance of this idea is horrible and is rewarding cowards , bigmouths and those who rely on cheap and dirty tactics as defenders and I therefore disagree with your Idea as I do not wish to reward those dishonorable people." (Note: My OPINION )
I will forever support the concept of a fee or renewal on wars, and will forever use EVE Online as my basis for it. Attackers shouldn't be able to just up and war people whenever they feel like just for the sake of doing so. Look at Crusader Kings II, you need a recognized claim on land before you can start a war. Though I wouldn't include a brigand raid as a war... if only there was some way to differentiate the two...
While I like the idea of factions suffering loss of money from raiding, losing money in the amounts you are talking about i.e. 40 silver, 20 silver is a bit insane. I would much rather a both an attacking and defending faction lose something like 5 silver a week while at war. However the concept of losing money for being at war is very good. As is the concept of there needing to be a Cacus Belli (CK 2 ftw) for a declaration of war.
Yeah, this probably wasn't one of my better suggestions. Too many flaws in it currently, although the idea might have been better if I refined it a bit, people make a good point by saying newer players won't be able to declare war, even if they really need to. It also makes it easier for trolls to cause annoyance and irritation to other factions.
Hey, it spawned my suggestion, which seems to be going over well so far, since it's been accepted it's a WiP of a suggestion.
Maybe when you die in enemy territory, you have a 40% chance of losing money from 2-8 silver per death.
Nope, for all the reasons above. Also, would you happen to be a dwarf, because that would explain alot, <3 Dwarves.
