What is Kiwike missing in your opinion!

[sharpeggio]

I can understand Sharp's point.

Maybe the war starts off as a game style, meaning you fight on pre-determined battlefields. After one city, nation, group of people, win a certain amount of times the battle is moved to the city of the losers. There the towny war could procede, meaning people would have to be on to actually start the war. It would be a little time consuming, depending on where the fields of battle are and how long it takes to wipe out the enemy, but that way we can't have BS with timing and such.

P.S. 100th post

Grats
I don't really mean that they fight over the battlefield itself, unless a nation actually thought that another stadium is a ton sexier than theirs, so they want it. I don't like the time idea, and it was just a suggestion.
I Like the idea of a group being pushed back. So maybe the victor chooses the next battlefield, if one chooses to do a massive expedition?
Or, are you actually saying that after the pre determined field battle(s), the fighters would move onto sacking the town?
I think it's the latter.

What weapons do you mean cannons?
The problem with this is that those war's would be rare. Like the wars now.
It would be funny to see two sides building towers in 1 day and the next to battle over it.

Puff , dont you think these wars would be uncoordinated?

Weapons? Anything you guys can make before you die so you don't die. Because it's war, you can't make elaborate traps, but you can build landmines, and walls out of cobblestone. If someone could scout the other team and listen onto their conversations and all, it will be very cool to have that factor into play.

I'm not sure about the time span, I'm guessing it would be more than 1 day battles.
I think it's as coordinated as wars can be, it honestly depends on the leaders/ commander. The Warchief, essentially, makes all the moves. That will be decided by the people of each nation, who should probably create a defined system for this.

I like the idea of a battlefield first, loser's city secconed. But it still doesn't answere the question of if we can destroy buildings and such...

I have a theory, though... What if the losers pay X ammount of gold, and the mods do a roleback on the effected areas?

Also, there should not be 'prizes' for winning. Whatever loot is on the people you kill, or in the conquered town, is your prize.

I like the rollback, but i think winners should still be able to keep the items they looted. I think towny protection will be turned off, but people shouldn't bite chunks out of the walls. Just for chests.
I also think the fighters should agree upon it themselves, because there is never a defined rule for war, so the opposers have to decide building destruction to be allowed or not.
Yeah, prizes come from hard work, in my opinion.

[doggypwn]

I think the alternate world for war idea is good, and the way you guys are making it sound I think most of it's coming from TF2, no complaints there, great game. Except for the fact that in TF2 it's not 20 people with swords and gravity affected guns that don't explode or insta-kill. I also think the alternate world idea, or the rollback idea for certain areas, is good because that would make it A: appealing and B: a challenge every time you fight, as none of your former barricades are around depending on where you fight in a different world or if you use the normal world as a field of play. And my favorite idea is the payment of a certain amount of gold to whoever wins. Ah, being banned from the actual game for a little while allows me to look at everything and put thought in to it.

[The Black Sun]

I really like the rollback idea, war can be for a certain amount of gold and the destroyed town can be returned to its original state minus looted items and a chunk of gold from the town bank. The only issue is how to determine who "won" the war. Their is no reason to surrender if your town us just going to get rolled back, capture the flag doesn't make much sense since people do have to go offline at times. I don't know how hard this would be to implement but what if each town goes into war with a set portion of the town bank allocated for "war funds" and every time a citizen of one town is killed the "war funds" are taken from that person's town bank and given to the "war funds" of the town that killed them. The first town whose bank collapses looses the war. Or, instead of "war funds" we could have war with the entire town bank. Once a towns bank is empty they lose the war and the right to be a town, the winning town can then claim the losing town as their own territory and either banish the old residents or offer them their town back under the conditions of a heavy tax and loyalty to the winning town. When the war is over damage done to the losing town is rolled back, damage done to the winning town must be repaired by the winners (so larger towns with huge banks such as corner or blud aren't always going to war "risk free" and war carries costs even for the victors)

[Cell]

No. I do not like that idea. The whole reason we got rid of Towny war is because we didn't want other towns to be able to capture someone else's town and ruin all they worked for.

[The Black Sun]

Why not? Isn't that kind of the point of war? Why did the Romans go to war in Gaul? Or Napoleon attack the 7th coalition, or the British attack the US in the war if 1812? Was it because they wanted one little "prize pack" or was it because they wanted territory? We have arenas all over Kiwike for PVP, if you want to fight people for money. War should be different and have higher stakes.

[Cell]

This is a game, not Romans in Gaul, or America in this. Its Kiwike. We didn't want that, and it was a server decision. That is why we are trying to figure out something new, and why Yotta was coding a whole new plugin for our war.

[Cerce]

I'm sorry, cell, but I gotta agree with Black Sun for once. I really, really dont want war to be a buttered up and glorified arena match. War is war, its painfull for all who participate. I hate that people are trying to make war 'fun'. War is the last argument of kings, as the French once said. It is the absolute last thing a country should want. It is the most drastic possible action. People die, buildings get blown up - and oftentimes people and their creations never return. The only surviving ancient wonder of the world left is the great pyramids.

I will not have the 'new generation of roleplay' have some completely unrealistic plugin for war. Its worse than using a waterfall for an elevater.

[Cell]

I don't disagree with you. But i'd rather play the game as it was meant to be, a game. If i spent a month working on this castle, i'd rather it not be taken away from me in 15 minutes when i'm asleep. It's not far, and that is why it was taken away.

[trinitiz]

More mods who add people to whitelist incase a flood of applications appear.

(I used to handle about 50 daily almost all of them were greiffers on my old server :\)

[yottabyte]

I actually agree with Cerce on the war point. If you really don't want your work destroyed, then don't go to war.

I still want to do something with the wargrounds though. Maybe we can rename that to like, "KiwiArena". The arena would be more focused on TDM/CTF/BF style games. I mean, just because it's RP doesn't mean everything has to be as realistic as possible since it is a game after all.

trinitz, more people who whitelist can be fixed. We haven't really had a need for it yet.