It is not immediate apparent that the OP is a suggestion.

I am not quite sure what are your stances on the existing info we have on battlefield mechanics (in Discord soul-chamber).

Why should war be quick and decisive? What kind of time frame are you talking here? The longer a war last, the bigger the economic factors will play a role. And this is an advantage of CoE over a lot of games which provide the experience of a quick war simulation.

How will the month long siege battles play into your suggestion?

I'm with Roarer, I think this goes against a lot of the mechanics we already know about. I like the idea of long wars that allow economics to be more of a factor.

Why should war be quick and decisive? What kind of time frame are you talking here? The longer a war last, the bigger the economic factors will play a role. And this is an advantage of CoE over a lot of games which provide the experience of a quick war simulation.

How will the month long siege battles play into your suggestion?

War should be as as long as the strategy involved takes them to win in a one life war situation.

Anywhere for 30 minutes to 30 days

War will suck if we have to draw them out every time. I don't want trench warfare where everyone keeps respawning and nothing moves for days yuck.

Siege works if the defenders have a great defense. Everything is the same just no respawning

I think the OP is talking about battles and how to end each battle, not the entirety of the war.

Yeah I think they may need to look at how their battle mechanics works. I do feel like as they stand right now battles in a war will be largely decided by which ever side don't want to throw there body at the other side anymore not by actual battle-related factors since after your first death you stop losing spirit. Instead of losing a battle because you lost, you will lose a battle because your side got bored first lol.

Just throwing out an idea. You make a fair point with the dying and instantly coming back to life only to go back to fighting. I'm not in favor of limiting how long a war should last. They should evolve overtime. It may be just two sides fighting in the first 10 real life days. However a 3rd group might see the scale tipping towards one side and join in either with the attacker if the 3rd party can gain concessions as well. Or rush to the defense to for the same reasons. I'm also not keen on total ghosting either. We are all buying the game to play it. I dont think anyone wants to log into their game and be forced to ghost. Until an allocated time has passed or the war itself is won or lost. I'd more so lean toward the idea that once a person dies during that conflict. They can not spawn in, or cross into that conflict zone until the war is over. However, if their character has died and was of old age and that chacarater is no more due to its life span. They should be able to take over their heirs soul and rush back into fighting if they choose to do so. This will allow those who have died on the conflict the ability to travel to another settlement outside the conflict zone and do other things until the conflict is over. What is everyone's thoughts?

I think the viability of something like this could be gauged a lot more effectively if we knew just how quickly the average non-famous soul could make it back to their body consistently. On the one hand, if it takes less than four or so minutes, yes, a gating mechanism on revival makes sense. On the other, the battlefield is a dynamic place, and lines do not remain consistent. I'd personally prefer to see no additional mechanics beyond what's already slated on battlefield revival, as a means of prototyping it during alpha and seeing whether or not it works as is. The success or failure of such a mechanic would set an important precedent for any developer that follows in SbS's footsteps.

I don't think that wars should be declared lightly - historically, especially in these older time periods where states were built off of specific populations of people, declaring war was a big deal and people had a say anyway. More importantly, circumventing CBs for war puts more powerful players in positions where they can easily destroy players.

I agree, though, with the idea of players ghosting upon death during a battle. I have a very constant sinking suspicion that Caspian's viewpoint for battles is untenable and deviates much too far from verisimilitude, and would ultimately make battles extremely strange to watch and take part in. I would much prefer people to be taken out 'for good', maybe with some sort of restriction on their respawning at a certain distance from where the battle's taking place.

That said, I then disagree entirely with the idea of purgatory. Taking someone out of the game until the war is over could be a very long time - even if it isn't, preventing people from playing, especially in something as popular as wars will be, would be disastrous as game design and I wouldn't be surprised if it drives people out of the game itself.

I think what you've got here is a decent push away from fundamental issues I see in the current system, but it goes too far into breaking the overarching structure of the game and the business model itself.

Posted By Saebelorn at 10:46 AM - Fri May 17 2019

I don't think that wars should be declared lightly - historically, especially in these older time periods where states were built off of specific populations of people, declaring war was a big deal and people had a say anyway. More importantly, circumventing CBs for war puts more powerful players in positions where they can easily destroy players.

I agree, though, with the idea of players ghosting upon death during a battle. I have a very constant sinking suspicion that Caspian's viewpoint for battles is untenable and deviates much too far from verisimilitude, and would ultimately make battles extremely strange to watch and take part in. I would much prefer people to be taken out 'for good', maybe with some sort of restriction on their respawning at a certain distance from where the battle's taking place.

That said, I then disagree entirely with the idea of purgatory. Taking someone out of the game until the war is over could be a very long time - even if it isn't, preventing people from playing, especially in something as popular as wars will be, would be disastrous as game design and I wouldn't be surprised if it drives people out of the game itself.

I think what you've got here is a decent push away from fundamental issues I see in the current system, but it goes too far into breaking the overarching structure of the game and the business model itself.

Maybe they could turn into ghosts when they enter the warzone and then turn back into players when they leave, like some form of hunted past type thing.

I see many good ideas here, but some, I think, would not work well in a game setting.

War vs Battle: this wouldn’t work well for an unlimited siege style war, as a battle could start day 1 of the game, and continue until server wipe. Which with the purgatory mechanic, would result in people never being able to play.

Possible Solution: limit the purgatory rules to specific battles, for a specified period of time. Possibly based on the strength of the units involved?

War should be quick and decisive: this works well in most games, but in a game as large and complex as CoE is intended to be, it seems unlikely.

It is also historically accurate that Wars tend to drag on endlessly, sputter out, then burst back into flame unexpectedly.

If you start a war, you should see the consequences centuries later.

Medieval battles had few deaths: few deaths during the battle, yes. After the battle, groups of thieves would roam the battle field stealing from the injured and the dead. Frequently finishing off the injured.

And that was only the first part. More died of their injuries over the following days and weeks. Not to mention the civilians killed as sickness grew from the corpses left out to rot.

Modern medicine makes a huge difference when it comes to recovery.