False Declarations? o.0

[nialld]

Having read this thread in it's entirety all I can say is:

Stop Atys. I want to get off.

Nail

[dc77066]

Having read this thread in it's entirety all I can say is:

Stop Atys. I want to get off.

Nail

nahh, its the same flame war that happened during the temple wars, the Aen camping before that, the "content" war before that, the kitin invasion before that, "I survived Patch One" war before that, Range Weapon Troll before that, Open Beta vs Focused Beta before that, "Why the devs hate the Tryker and the Zoraï" and whatever Raynes was going on about before that...
Its what makes Atys turn!

Life is changing on Atys!
-Raku
[edit: I'm in a mood - please disregard]

[xenofur]

Doesn't it tell you when the declaration was made? You can be there to click "declare war" when the timer runs out.

-Raku

well, theoretically, but the other guild can also cancel their attack declaration before that and renew it, a matter of a few minutes and can be done at any point during the pre-attack phase.

btw: *bows* you have better recollection of what goes on in these forums than i have. =)

[marct]

It also allows for guilds to hold outposts diplomatically which Nevrax hasn't allowed for. It opens it up for other guilds to try to wheel and deal with the allied guilds, to try to break the agreement. To try to cause a backstabbing. The possibilities are endless really.

What a crock of CRAP that is. It only allows you through ignorance, to defeat the best new content that has been added to the game in some time.

I personally think this is the best PvP implementation in some time. It allows for limited PvP, and does not allow for someone to just be slaughtered endlessly. Heck I can even choose not to show up for the attack, or the defense depending on my liking. It seems to me the best someone could do is harass me for 2 hours every 3 days!!! Pretty damn good if you ask me.

The problem that I have is that by blocking actual game play you are ruining the fun of other players. Seems many many people complained about this in EP2 also. However this time, Nevrax has made it so you can only mess with them every 3 days, with the exception of you making it so that someone cannot even use the content.

Seems to me there is a lot of RP opportunities, before and after an OP war declaration and a lot more chance to negoitiate/etc with a war on the line instead of tring to convince someone you could likely never convince as there is no stake at hand.


Noin.

[ayurveda]

I think Kostika is right when she talks about RP possibilities OP are opening. We just need time to settle things imo, and get used to the new "toy".

Maybe you could also organize with friends and allies to have someone there 24/24, who would be trying to declare war in the minute someone is there to cancel/declare too. Not sure if this could work though.

But also, as long as the devs don't tell us if it's an exploit or not, why not continue (yea, easy answer).
A solution to avoid this could be that a guild may cancel war only 3 times, then can't declare war to this OP during 3 (or more) days for example.

Wait and see.

[richky]

Well, the consensus amongst the objectors seems to be that it is OK to declare war on lots of outposts and not attack them, but an exploit to declare war on only one outpost and not attack it. So all you need to do, Kos, is to make sure you declare war on more than one outpost at a time and no one will have anything to complain about.

[rob01]

Is it just me or does anyone else think that this 'organised and appointmented' warmongering is a bit false anyhow?

x: Excuse me sir, [caresses sword] I rather like the look of all those buildings you are looking after on your own..
y: Excellent; We've got a spare slot coming up in about 4 days...any good?
x: [swish, slash, slop]
y: ...
x: [starts thinking about new colour schemes for outpost buildings]

[ambika]

Well, the consensus amongst the objectors seems to be that it is OK to declare war on lots of outposts and not attack them, but an exploit to declare war on only one outpost and not attack it. So all you need to do, Kos, is to make sure you declare war on more than one outpost at a time and no one will have anything to complain about.

Actually, it's not as simple as that. Good try though!

When a large number of outposts are declared war on, you know ONE will be attacked and all those other OPs declared war on won't be again for awhile since they are only being used as a decoy. On the other hand, you have a guild always being declared war nonstop so no one can attack. There is a difference.

On a side note, Jool does bring up a good point, though.

[rob01]

Jool does bring up a good point

Jool sometimes do that..just forget to put down...even when really hot!

[richky]

Actually, it's not as simple as that. Good try though!

When a large number of outposts are declared war on, you know ONE will be attacked and all those other OPs declared war on won't be again for awhile since they are only being used as a decoy. On the other hand, you have a guild always being declared war nonstop so no one can attack. There is a difference.

On a side note, Jool does bring up a good point, though.

Actually, it's not as simple as that . The mutual war thing is actually placing a great deal of trust in another guild. There is always the possibility that one or other of the guilds could decide to attack an undefended outpost. There is also the fact that the pact itself creates resentment amongst other guilds, and increases the likelihood of a strongly coordinated attack should the mutual agreement fail to be renewed for any reason. All far more interesting possibilities than perpetual attacks just because people are bored and want to attack someone.

As a note, no, I don't know that one of the outposts in a multiple declaration situation will be attacked, nor that the others won't be. That might have been the case in some instances, but there is no way of knowing on any particular occasion whether that will be the case.