Declaration of War

[OBESE]

Following the recent discussion made on the forum there is clear issue with the current state of the server, it being good 70% criminal, and the conflict situations between various criminal organisations.

For those who are not aware of the discussion here is a link: Gang Wars

The main issue that is addressed in the discussion is the fact that when it comes to conflicts between the gangs, there is not much you can do to the opposite party. Looking back on the previous wars on the server it always leads to being OOC war aka forum report war, rather than staying just ICly. Been part of these wars and from my knowledge none of them were won ICly, but mainly via deportations of specific people.

So how do we deal with this and make sure that in the server with such big criminal organisation presence, we can have purely IC conflict that does not go outside the game and ruin the overall game experience to so many players due to a misread situation, animation bug and other type of ban reasons that we often see.

There is an easy answer to it, that does not require much adjustments to the server - Declaration of War.

This idea comes from the browser game that we have all heard about and maybe even played - ikariam. They have something similar to what we have of DM rule, but they call it Bashing rule. This is what the "Bashing" rule states:

Quote

No player is allowed to attack any given city more than 6 times in a 24 hour period.

Basically same as for our DM rule it says that you cannot attack somebody if you don't have a valid reason. Both of the games do not allow people to blindly ruin someones game-play.

But the "Bashing" rule has an exception which states:

Quote

Bashing is only allowed when your alliance is at war with another alliance.

So how do they make sure that the alliances are at war with each other? Easy! They have Declaration of War.

This is how it works on ikariam:

Quote

All wars in a server must be announced in the server's board by the declaring leader, so that everyone knows about it. The post that announces the start of the war is also known as declaration of war. The declaration of war is initially sent to the Diplomat of the receiving alliance, and then posted on the board.

12 hours after a war is successfully declared in the official board, the Bashing rule stops being applied to the members of the opposing alliances. The rule becomes valid again 12 hours after the end of the alliance war.

==========================================================

Suggestion: With all this being said I am suggesting to open up another forum section that is purely for declaring wars. Same as you have for transfers, there must be a good roleplay reason to declare a war and the war has to be approved by administration to make sure it is not used for pure DM reasons. The war can be declared only by the leadership or one ranked below the leadership (ex. Boss and Underboss) Both parties do not have to accept the war, the declaration can be one sided, but both organisations leaderships have to be aware of the declaration of war. When the declaration of war is approved by the administration the DM rule is lifted to all the members of both organisations. If a new organisation joins an existing war, they have to make their own declaration of war thread to be approved. War is considered done when one of the parties surrenders, both of the parties agrees to end it or 30 days after the deceleration of war has been approved. After 30 days one or other organisation can file another declaration of war if they have good enough reason to continue the war. All the DM reports between the organisations that have an active deceleration of war are declined. Any other type of rule-break still applies, including FearRP, MG, PG etc.

Example of the Declaration of War Form:

Name of the representing organisations: Greek Lions
Name of the organisations declaring war to: Macedonian Greats
Date of the declaration: dd/mm/yyyy
What is your reason for declaring the war?: There has been many occasions when these Macedonians have attacked our organisation and our members. 
We have tried to deal with it peacefuly, butthe attacks keep happening and it is time for payback as we do not take these attacks lightly.

==========================================================

I know that some of you might think that this server will become another GTA Online if such thing will be allowed, but I hope that the opposite would happen and organisations would actually try to solve the problems they have between each other to stop the bloodshed. Besides it would also open up new fields of role-play, for example mercenary business or anything that sorts. It is time there are consequences for joining gangs and anything close to gang affiliation.

[Teca]

+1 even if im curently on the (probablly losing side) bans should not decide a war outcome. Ban is a OOC solution to an IC problem IMO.

Edited September 18, 2019 by Teca

[CaesarSeizure]

-1 No way should it be allowed for a 1 sided declaration. And even if 1 side declares, the other side can just surrender the moment it begins.

This just feels like an excuse to run around shooting people with 0 RP for a month (at most). Imagine 1 party declares war, the other party doesnt want it, and their leaders are away for a couple of weeks. What can those grunts do? die for 2 weeks straight?

 

Wars would need to be agreed on by both sides. but even then, i think this would just create too much trouble for everyone involved.

[OBESE]

11 minutes ago, CaesarSeizure said:

-1 No way should it be allowed for a 1 sided declaration. And even if 1 side declares, the other side can just surrender the moment it begins.

This just feels like an excuse to run around shooting people with 0 RP for a month (at most). Imagine 1 party declares war, the other party doesnt want it, and their leaders are away for a couple of weeks. What can those grunts do? die for 2 weeks straight?

 

Wars would need to be agreed on by both sides. but even then, i think this would just create too much trouble for everyone involved.

I feel like you missed vital parts of the suggestion. No smart leadership will ever approve declaration of war if it means that their people can be killed as they all would have KOS on them. The most important part is that a) you must have a valid and good rp reason why you have a conflict that has come to the point where you want to declare a war. and b) Admin has to approve or deny the declaration of war. If the leadership of the other organisation is not around for 2 weeks, then administration can decline the declaration based on the fact that the opposite party have not responded to the information about the declaration of the war against them or have informed their absence for a long time.

[MohammedAli]

+1

We need this so we can start taking out the garbage.

You are so right about wars being won on forums. I've always said the server is played more on forums than IC.

28,000 posts in Player Reports, crazy!

This suggestion will never make it through but we can hope. 

[alexalex303]

I do not support unilateral declarations of war.

In the context of a game where everyone is attempting to have fun, allowing one side to DM the other, without any say in the matter for the victim seems very questionable.

There also seems to be nothing stopping the other side from immediately surrendering.

Edited September 19, 2019 by alexalex303

[CaesarSeizure]

16 minutes ago, OBESE said:

I feel like you missed vital parts of the suggestion. No smart leadership will ever approve declaration of war if it means that their people can be killed as they all would have KOS on them. The most important part is that a) you must have a valid and good rp reason why you have a conflict that has come to the point where you want to declare a war. and b) Admin has to approve or deny the declaration of war. If the leadership of the other organisation is not around for 2 weeks, then administration can decline the declaration based on the fact that the opposite party have not responded to the information about the declaration of the war against them or have informed their absence for a long time.

But the ones who will more likely declare wars are the bigger ones on small ones. Zetas, Triads, Wanted - all have a good amount of people. And as big organizations, they can have good reason to want to go to war with smaller ones, as small ones usually have a lot more to prove.

Then for the Admin approving, that is a good way to go about it, but again, the fact that the other faction has the only right of knowing that its happening, rather than having a say if it happens seems to just be a case for wanting to shoot people without any RP apart from the initial declaration.

Next, you didnt address the fact that the other faction can just surrender the moment it begins, there is nothing stopping them from doing it - WHICH is why you need the other group to agree to the war, so something actually happens.

And lastly, what i think is the most important when giving suggestions, whats the point? You did not write down any reasons for the war turnout, nothing is at stake, no significant items, no turf loss, nothing. This is a pure deathmatching mode suggestion, because if the idea would be approved, the first war (if it lasted more than a few hours) would just end like nothing happened, some grudges would be made, some friends would be lost but at the end of the day, things would just continue the same way.

There has to be something to go to war for, that would be more official, than just having a reason to go to war with someone so you can shoot on sight at them.

[billzachos]

+1

[zo0p]

+1 I agree with this, Gangs that are at war irl don't need an reason to do a driveby shooting or pull up to their crib and shoot them on the rival gang. Things like that just happen when two gang or more are in a conflict. This would hopefully help with changing the power structure of the gangs in the city atm. gangs shouldn't feel untouchable forever.

[OBESE]

3 hours ago, alexalex303 said:

I do not support unilateral declarations of war.

In the context of a game where everyone is attempting to have fun, allowing one side to DM the other, without any say in the matter for the victim seems very questionable.

There also seems to be nothing stopping the other side from immediately surrendering.

This suggestion is exactly for the fun and further rp. Besides it gives both sides option to retaliate during the period of the war and if your character choice is to go criminal, then you're not a victim. Drugs, money, violence is what you're signing for and should expect. Dont want this to happen? Then make sure your leadership makes better decisions, does better diplomacy and it goes both ways - for big and small gangs.

 

3 hours ago, CaesarSeizure said:

But the ones who will more likely declare wars are the bigger ones on small ones. Zetas, Triads, Wanted - all have a good amount of people. And as big organizations, they can have good reason to want to go to war with smaller ones, as small ones usually have a lot more to prove.

Then for the Admin approving, that is a good way to go about it, but again, the fact that the other faction has the only right of knowing that its happening, rather than having a say if it happens seems to just be a case for wanting to shoot people without any RP apart from the initial declaration.

Next, you didnt address the fact that the other faction can just surrender the moment it begins, there is nothing stopping them from doing it - WHICH is why you need the other group to agree to the war, so something actually happens.

And lastly, what i think is the most important when giving suggestions, whats the point? You did not write down any reasons for the war turnout, nothing is at stake, no significant items, no turf loss, nothing. This is a pure deathmatching mode suggestion, because if the idea would be approved, the first war (if it lasted more than a few hours) would just end like nothing happened, some grudges would be made, some friends would be lost but at the end of the day, things would just continue the same way.

There has to be something to go to war for, that would be more official, than just having a reason to go to war with someone so you can shoot on sight at them.

I do see that bigger gangs would declare wars, but I doubt that they would continue doing it after few tries and in return work more on diplomacy as big gangs should, because they would have to keep in mind that a big target is easier to hit than a small one. They would learn to not underestimate organisations. For big organisations and especially to official organisations there are other ways to win such wars, like depleting enemy's weapon stash, find their suppliers and cut it off, considering that they are the only ones that can import weaponry.

True that I did not touch on the benefit of winning the war. That is up for suggestions as well, but that could be done in-game via diplomacy again. If one side wants to surrender they would have to meet up with the other sides leadership and agree to terms of the winning party. The only thing that would not be allowed is to ask to disband the group. There have been requests from organisations to pay to other party to drop out of war, the same tax system right now etc. The requirements should not be unrealistic. Also I would imagine there would be at least another month of something like NLR where the loosing party is not allowed to target the winning party in any criminal way.

Surrendering right after the declaration would mean that you're taking up on consequences of the loosing party, such as fines, taxes etc.
The winning party would have to agree to cease the fire and agree put down the demands that the loosing party has to fulfil in IC first and then OOC. Another way to go around it is to have the same template of winners demands to everyone, set by the administration. For example in the Declaration of War form it would be part of every form that winning party receives for example 400k fine or 8 weeks of tax 50k p/w and 2 months of non-aggression-agreement from the loosing party.

Also if the loosing group decided to disband the leadership still has to pay fine of 100k (or something like that). Disbanding a group and creating a new one would not be allowed for let's say the same 2 months to make sure it is not used as looser punishment evading.

[Aldarine]

Reading this in its present state just looks like a pass to DM which I am absolutely against. Not only that but I can see the forums lighting up like a Christmas tree with:

Person A: This player DM'd me
Person B: I have declaration of war on your gang!
Person A: I'm not even in a gang!
Person B: Well you're wearing the colors so I thought you were
Etc...

Gangs can already coordinate wars with one another completely through RP. They can purposefully target certain people, send "messages" to gang leaders, etc. just as they can set up diplomatic and peaceful alliances.

[OBESE]

16 minutes ago, Aldarine said:

Reading this in its present state just looks like a pass to DM which I am absolutely against. Not only that but I can see the forums lighting up like a Christmas tree with:

Person A: This player DM'd me
Person B: I have declaration of war on your gang!
Person A: I'm not even in a gang!
Person B: Well you're wearing the colors so I thought you were
Etc...

Gangs can already coordinate wars with one another completely through RP. They can purposefully target certain people, send "messages" to gang leaders, etc. just as they can set up diplomatic and peaceful alliances.

Have you been part of an open war? Have you seen forums during the war? Do you know how those wars were won?

It is what you say it is - pass on DM. That is exactly what it is because at the current state the server rules in no way support war environment on the server. Instead of American Football it is Flag Football (google if you dont know what it is). And in flag football the the people who are faster has advantage over those who have weight. If the full tackle football would be allowed then those who are fast could still dodge and run away, while those who have weight could tackle the faster players if not careful.

[CaesarSeizure]

Look, i am up for open conflict for gangs, it could create some more interest rather than everyone being at peace, but i think this is a half-assed idea.

This suggestion is exactly for the fun and further rp. - So there we go, for fun and honestly, not much further RP can happen because spoiler, if you kill them, based on our current rules, the NLR to be specific, they forget it all, the gang whos members died dont actually know how they end up in the hospital and that ends RP really fast.

 

And you added what conditions could happen, well, if only the party responsible for declaring war decides if the war happens or not, you would ruin the game for the rest.

 

You are literally talking about a gang being able to declare war on another gang without its consent, and if they want to surrender the declaring party has to ACCEPT it and also give demands to the losing party. This is where it goes bad lets say. This would definitely create RP. All 3 of the biggest gangs could just split all of the small gangs up and have them in a constant war state OR in a constant vassal state (they would be stuck paying taxes).

 

I honestly do not see how this would benefit anyone. You would just create open deathmatching on the streets, reports might actually go up because just as Aldarine mentioned, people will mess up and kill people not part of THE gang that you are at war with OR even end up killing people not related to gangs and lastly an example of what i mean:

 

The zetas declare a war on you - you lose because well numbers matter, you are paying them a tax. But ok, next month they cant do anything (even though your rules are again in the disadvantage of the losing party)

The triads declare war on you - you were an easy target for the Zetas, some of your members quit because at the end, people want to progress, and sitting trying to pay off a tax for losing a war is no fun, so you lose to the Triads and again, you are stuck paying taxes (see where im going?)

Third month - Honestly imagine playing 2 months not for your gain, but for the gain of others. Can basically delete the faction thread because the big factions can bully you. They dont need to tell you to disband, its gonna happen either way.

 

All im saying, is that i would be interested in a faction war system, gangs do need to have the ability to fight each other without fear of reports 24/7, but:

- It has to not be so much in favor of the aggressor

- It can't punish the losing side so hard

- and most importantly, IT HAS TO ENCOURAGE RP AND NOT STRAIGHT UP BACK AND FORTH SHOOTING

 

[OBESE]

I would like to think that common sense would be used and gangs would not be able to just declare wars, because they can. That's why a strong rp reason has to be presented. Any reason for retaliation in terms of a war. Feels like you think that all you have to do is to post declaration of war without no concept of why are you doing it and no rp behind it and you will be able to run around dming people.

[padpilot]

Good thoughts, obviously needs a few tweaks but tbf , a system which allows for 2 willing parties would resolve so many time wasting reports, in game arguments and constant repetive meaninluss reports where outcomes vary. 

This would then elivitae staff workload and would in turn have a positive effect on the server. 

All legal factions, are asked each week to state their war declarations, if 2 factions decide to go to war with one another then war is declared. One week later, they are asked again. would you like to continue the war, and so on and so on, this allows for:

the ability to shoot
a hella lot less reports
improved priritizeing of staff workload
clean, consistent gunfights
impacts on rp such as fake triads, fake zeta being open to kos through gang affiliation by attire, would force people to not stand outside shops all day, make citizens think twice about hanging with gangsters, make mechanics who are also gangsters think again about standing outside fixing cars all day. 

Overall 

+1 for the suggestion however would need some minor and major tweak, also, best not to leave the decisjion to the admin and should be handled more by the player base. 

[Xoza]

Ehh, there are better, more RP friendly ways to 'take the fight to your enemies'.

[OBESE]

On 9/20/2019 at 12:47 AM, padpilot said:

Good thoughts, obviously needs a few tweaks but tbf , a system which allows for 2 willing parties would resolve so many time wasting reports, in game arguments and constant repetive meaninluss reports where outcomes vary. 

This would then elivitae staff workload and would in turn have a positive effect on the server. 

All legal factions, are asked each week to state their war declarations, if 2 factions decide to go to war with one another then war is declared. One week later, they are asked again. would you like to continue the war, and so on and so on, this allows for:

the ability to shoot
a hella lot less reports
improved priritizeing of staff workload
clean, consistent gunfights
impacts on rp such as fake triads, fake zeta being open to kos through gang affiliation by attire, would force people to not stand outside shops all day, make citizens think twice about hanging with gangsters, make mechanics who are also gangsters think again about standing outside fixing cars all day. 

Overall 

+1 for the suggestion however would need some minor and major tweak, also, best not to leave the decisjion to the admin and should be handled more by the player base. 

I appreciate your input and in no way I am trying to push exactly my way or anything like that. Im just trying to offer way of how we could have proper gang wars without it becoming a war of reports. Also giving gangs opportunity for war tactics and approaches. 

[Bala]

1 hour ago, OBESE said:

I appreciate your input and in no way I am trying to push exactly my way or anything like that. Im just trying to offer way of how we could have proper gang wars without it becoming a war of reports. Also giving gangs opportunity for war tactics and approaches. 

Gang Wars are fine, when it's not the big fish kicking the shit out of the little fish all the time.

Gang Wars are fine, if you have something to fight for.

Gang Wars are fine, when people accept that losing doesn't make you a loser, but just another participant in the overall story.

Until those three things are settled, doesn't matter what rule or system you put in place, there will always be reports.

[thesilentwrath]

there should be an option that if two Official criminal factions declare war on each other only if they both declare and agree upon it, maybe KOS should be allowed, but also during war the faction needs to have a certain uniform that indicates KOS, if they are wearing this uniform then they can KOS the other faction they declared war upon if they are wearing the uniform they picked aswell. I think that would be pretty cool/fun also will save the staff team from having to do deal with a shit ton of reports, Maybe there can be a kill counter too! let's say faction 1 has 20 members and faction two has 15 members once they have lost that many amount of members the War is over so it won't lost for ever either, maybe there can be rewards to the winning faction? like a pay out from the losing factions treasurery 

Edited September 21, 2019 by thesilentwrath

[Riderz]

+1 I think adding functionality to wars would be a real perk to the server

[vacant]

+1 Right now any sort of gang wars consist of hiding at NCZs and baiting reports most of the time. (This is not ALL the time, there have been actual gunfights that didn't end in a OOC report war) Doesn’t make sense to be “at war” with a rival gang and have to attempt to give them demands before you can shoot them. (Obviously this is so everyone has a chance and isn’t shot on sight, but if you agree to a war you should be aware you will be shot/robbed)

[aXoL]

we do need a system for that 

+1 from me.