Many replies in this thread have echoed my thoughts regarding combat and conflict resolution in the game, converging on one point:
Currently in Meranthe, combat is the only objective method of gauging success between player conflict.
There is a point that is repeated over and over and over again among the community. Everyone is playing through their own story, from beginning to middle to end. All of us want to win, at least in certain parts, to reach a desired conclusion to our story. This is not a bad thing. It's natural.
But in a conflict between two players, there can only be one victor. How is that victor determined? It's not like combat HAS to be the only method of 'fighting' between people. Take LOTR, for instance, where magically gifted people engage each other in battles not with their swords and spells, but rather songs and poetry, imbued with their magical prowess and intent, and with similarly lethal consequences.
This is all fine and good in a story, where the author already has the winner and loser in mind. But between two people, who could we trust to objectively compare (similarly well put together) 2 poems laden with their own intent and declare one to be better than the other?
Would the losing side ever be able to accept such a thing?
With combat, using spells and taking CDs and status effects into account, the players themselves decide who has won or lost when they fight. It is the simplest and most objective way of deciding things between 2 similarly levelled people, absent of sigs and unique weapons and level gaps. I add this caveat because this is not the case many times b/t fighters, and that's OK, because Meranthe, like life, is not a fair world.
However, as mentioned before, the suggestions given in this thread, like removing restrained combat and limiting/removing rebirths, does not aid newer players who are not used to combat in this game, and are not familiar with the current 'optimal' builds. Who do not have a general sense of timing BYOND's ticks to CDs, or may forget to apply gems to their weapons, or use the applied gems. That they should dev for a change in their build makes sense, and is totally fine. But they are then limited to being stuck inside their settlement of choice, or run the risk of being forced to fight with the build they don't want if they wander, running the chance of dying and wasting all that time spent to 'dev out' of the build. (I will admit, I am biased against this, as I hate the idea of apping for anything.) These potions, even with their lvl 210 restriction, give them a chance to circumvent all of that and get on with the rest that the game has to offer.
I'm not bothered by the fact people take rebirths, or mana amnesias, or spar a ton of times. It doesn't impact my story. It's their shtick, and whatever they feel like they need to do to get comfortable with how conflict resolution works is their business. ICly, it gives me a chance to mock them if I am their enemy, or give them advice if I am their friend and take notice of it.
NOW LET ME THROW IN MY OWN DOGSHIT SUGGESTIONS! After all, it is still very much an issue that button mashing combat is the only way conflict is really resolved!
Field Battles:
I'm tired of settlement raids being the only types of raids that are actually done. It makes wars painfully short, with a single battle over a single day deciding pretty much everything! This is not war! These are skirmishes that the defenders always look woefully stupid for for letting the enemy get to their walls practically unopposed in the first place! Also, if certain people can't make it on a specific time, it throws everyone's timetables off. If something unexpected comes up, then a player who would logically be there on the day, is simply not, and they have to deal with having 0 war participation. This sucks!
I propose that when a 'war' is declared, before the day of the actual raid, either in the period of time where the settlement raid is yet to be determined or in the week prior to the settlement raid, one to two mini 'battle' events are set up, in fields somewhere between the two sides at war, where players can similarly sign up to duke it out between each other. These are optional events with little impacts on the settlement raid, but it gives a more warlike feeling, for one, and also offers opportunities for early victories to lower morale or even get a cap in. It also lets opps feel out each others' builds before the big day. It overall gives better OOC and IC preparations for the big day. All of this is IF-- we use the traditional method of combat.
I propose 3 types of field battles.
1: Traditional. Players get together, they get matched up based on RPL and magic types and whatnot, they throw down. You get the gist.
2: Strategic. Players in this type of field battle do NOT take the role of traditional combatants. They instead take the roles of commanders, directing companies of lower level/ nonmagi in battle against each other. How is this portrayed? Very simple, actually. Players will either be matched up or match up on their own, and play games of chess using a predetermined chess website, probably even streamed in the discord voice chat! Upon victory/defeat/DRAW, both the victor and the loser should send the results to the admin with a description of who they played against, and the results of this are also posted in war announcements. If we want to, an overall strategic field battle victory could give the victors a small stat boost in the actual settlement raid. +pow or something, to represent greater numbers from successful battles.
This is another objective way to determine victory/defeat in a battle, but it is not as simple as mashing buttons. This will likely provide for longer battle events, but also for different avenues of roleplay, where noncombatant characters get to be more relevant in conflicts without actually fighting, by using their BRAINS. (P.S. If the suggestion goes through and strategic battles are a thing, I will brain you with an ice pick if you run your game through a chess bot. If you join the battle, engage with it honestly, goddamnit!)
3: Morale/War of Songs. This type of field battle is for the type of players who are near and dear to my heart: the YAPPERS. The SHITTALKERS. Those whose tongues are as sharp as steel, with the quickest of wits, diss each other the best you can, like it's a rap battle! Alternatively, create poems to recite at each other (FREE voice casting dev, in my opinion). This represents attempts to demoralize the enemy before actual battles, and could give a reduction to the standard war cap rolls to the victors, representing less effort to meaningfully put down the opponent. In this method, we would set a maximum number of 'stanzas' to lay down at each other. Attempts to seize the verbal battlefield, so to speak.
This third one is much more subjective than the other two. Ideally, the two opponents can decide on their own who won this bout, and send a message to the admins giving such a result. However, if they both think theirs were better, or perhaps both try to give the dub to the other, we open up the decision to the community, in another channel, where the disses are posted, and voted on! This one is the least secure of my ideas, since it has a real chance of being boiled down to a popularity contest. However, I propose it nonetheless, in the hopes that it could be put into practice in good faith by the community.
This is all I can think of right now. Perhaps someone with a different approach to this could add new suggestions for types, or propose different contests altogether outside of the context of war.
These are just my two cents on how this could be approached. I feel like we have to think a little bit out of the box to resolve this kind of issue, and I feel that the main way to solve it is to redefine how 'combat' is viewed in the game, so as to give players much more creative freedom to play out their stories in the way that they want to.
Maybe certain rituals can be performed to enlist the aid of spirits for a battle. Maybe the fortifications of a settlement can have minor devved out improvements, for a temporary boost since they aren't Wonders. Something that isn't just waiting.
Embrace the strategists!
Embrace the inventors!
Embrace the shittalkers!
We all play a part in weaving this story together.
Currently in Meranthe, combat is the only objective method of gauging success between player conflict.
There is a point that is repeated over and over and over again among the community. Everyone is playing through their own story, from beginning to middle to end. All of us want to win, at least in certain parts, to reach a desired conclusion to our story. This is not a bad thing. It's natural.
But in a conflict between two players, there can only be one victor. How is that victor determined? It's not like combat HAS to be the only method of 'fighting' between people. Take LOTR, for instance, where magically gifted people engage each other in battles not with their swords and spells, but rather songs and poetry, imbued with their magical prowess and intent, and with similarly lethal consequences.
This is all fine and good in a story, where the author already has the winner and loser in mind. But between two people, who could we trust to objectively compare (similarly well put together) 2 poems laden with their own intent and declare one to be better than the other?
Would the losing side ever be able to accept such a thing?
With combat, using spells and taking CDs and status effects into account, the players themselves decide who has won or lost when they fight. It is the simplest and most objective way of deciding things between 2 similarly levelled people, absent of sigs and unique weapons and level gaps. I add this caveat because this is not the case many times b/t fighters, and that's OK, because Meranthe, like life, is not a fair world.
However, as mentioned before, the suggestions given in this thread, like removing restrained combat and limiting/removing rebirths, does not aid newer players who are not used to combat in this game, and are not familiar with the current 'optimal' builds. Who do not have a general sense of timing BYOND's ticks to CDs, or may forget to apply gems to their weapons, or use the applied gems. That they should dev for a change in their build makes sense, and is totally fine. But they are then limited to being stuck inside their settlement of choice, or run the risk of being forced to fight with the build they don't want if they wander, running the chance of dying and wasting all that time spent to 'dev out' of the build. (I will admit, I am biased against this, as I hate the idea of apping for anything.) These potions, even with their lvl 210 restriction, give them a chance to circumvent all of that and get on with the rest that the game has to offer.
I'm not bothered by the fact people take rebirths, or mana amnesias, or spar a ton of times. It doesn't impact my story. It's their shtick, and whatever they feel like they need to do to get comfortable with how conflict resolution works is their business. ICly, it gives me a chance to mock them if I am their enemy, or give them advice if I am their friend and take notice of it.
NOW LET ME THROW IN MY OWN DOGSHIT SUGGESTIONS! After all, it is still very much an issue that button mashing combat is the only way conflict is really resolved!
Field Battles:
I'm tired of settlement raids being the only types of raids that are actually done. It makes wars painfully short, with a single battle over a single day deciding pretty much everything! This is not war! These are skirmishes that the defenders always look woefully stupid for for letting the enemy get to their walls practically unopposed in the first place! Also, if certain people can't make it on a specific time, it throws everyone's timetables off. If something unexpected comes up, then a player who would logically be there on the day, is simply not, and they have to deal with having 0 war participation. This sucks!
I propose that when a 'war' is declared, before the day of the actual raid, either in the period of time where the settlement raid is yet to be determined or in the week prior to the settlement raid, one to two mini 'battle' events are set up, in fields somewhere between the two sides at war, where players can similarly sign up to duke it out between each other. These are optional events with little impacts on the settlement raid, but it gives a more warlike feeling, for one, and also offers opportunities for early victories to lower morale or even get a cap in. It also lets opps feel out each others' builds before the big day. It overall gives better OOC and IC preparations for the big day. All of this is IF-- we use the traditional method of combat.
I propose 3 types of field battles.
1: Traditional. Players get together, they get matched up based on RPL and magic types and whatnot, they throw down. You get the gist.
2: Strategic. Players in this type of field battle do NOT take the role of traditional combatants. They instead take the roles of commanders, directing companies of lower level/ nonmagi in battle against each other. How is this portrayed? Very simple, actually. Players will either be matched up or match up on their own, and play games of chess using a predetermined chess website, probably even streamed in the discord voice chat! Upon victory/defeat/DRAW, both the victor and the loser should send the results to the admin with a description of who they played against, and the results of this are also posted in war announcements. If we want to, an overall strategic field battle victory could give the victors a small stat boost in the actual settlement raid. +pow or something, to represent greater numbers from successful battles.
This is another objective way to determine victory/defeat in a battle, but it is not as simple as mashing buttons. This will likely provide for longer battle events, but also for different avenues of roleplay, where noncombatant characters get to be more relevant in conflicts without actually fighting, by using their BRAINS. (P.S. If the suggestion goes through and strategic battles are a thing, I will brain you with an ice pick if you run your game through a chess bot. If you join the battle, engage with it honestly, goddamnit!)
3: Morale/War of Songs. This type of field battle is for the type of players who are near and dear to my heart: the YAPPERS. The SHITTALKERS. Those whose tongues are as sharp as steel, with the quickest of wits, diss each other the best you can, like it's a rap battle! Alternatively, create poems to recite at each other (FREE voice casting dev, in my opinion). This represents attempts to demoralize the enemy before actual battles, and could give a reduction to the standard war cap rolls to the victors, representing less effort to meaningfully put down the opponent. In this method, we would set a maximum number of 'stanzas' to lay down at each other. Attempts to seize the verbal battlefield, so to speak.
This third one is much more subjective than the other two. Ideally, the two opponents can decide on their own who won this bout, and send a message to the admins giving such a result. However, if they both think theirs were better, or perhaps both try to give the dub to the other, we open up the decision to the community, in another channel, where the disses are posted, and voted on! This one is the least secure of my ideas, since it has a real chance of being boiled down to a popularity contest. However, I propose it nonetheless, in the hopes that it could be put into practice in good faith by the community.
This is all I can think of right now. Perhaps someone with a different approach to this could add new suggestions for types, or propose different contests altogether outside of the context of war.
These are just my two cents on how this could be approached. I feel like we have to think a little bit out of the box to resolve this kind of issue, and I feel that the main way to solve it is to redefine how 'combat' is viewed in the game, so as to give players much more creative freedom to play out their stories in the way that they want to.
Maybe certain rituals can be performed to enlist the aid of spirits for a battle. Maybe the fortifications of a settlement can have minor devved out improvements, for a temporary boost since they aren't Wonders. Something that isn't just waiting.
Embrace the strategists!
Embrace the inventors!
Embrace the shittalkers!
We all play a part in weaving this story together.