Announcement War System Proposal 3.0

Simba

VIP
Joined
Jun 23, 2020
Messages
152
Reaction score
932
War Proposal 3.0
This proposal will delve into when and how wars are declared, how wars are won, and a pool of consequences which the victors may decide.

War Declarations
While having free-for-all wars would be nice, we have to take into consideration any potential abuse. Thus, a war may only be declared if there is sufficient roleplay and reasoning. These are not casus bellis, instead, it is a measure of if players are actively engaging within the story. Wars may not be declared randomly without any warning. Instead, roleplay and diplomatic posts must be made leading up to a war declaration.

For example:

  • Heiyeong wants Nex to extradite a criminal. Heiyeong may not declare war on Nex to pressure them, they must pursue all other RP means.
  • This would include presenting forum posts with their demands and organizing RP diplomatic meetings. Sufficient proof must be made at least one week before war declaration.
  • If Heiyeong exhausts all possible solutions, they may pursue a war under the pretense that Nex is failing to cooperate.
Wars
Wars will be divided into three distinct phases that last one(1) week each:
  1. Mobilization
  2. Skirmishes
  3. Sieges

Instead of having RP scenarios directly affect points in a war battle, they will be repurposed for the Mobilization phase. Nations at war can follow these RP scenarios to influence the outcome of Skirmishes and Sieges.


Mobilization
Nations can pursue a plethora of RP scenarios to turn the tide of the war in their favour. They may also use this period to acquire allies to join their cause. A public forum post must be made of alliances at least 24 hours before the conclusion of the Mobilization Phase.
Preparing War Camp (Mandatory)
A nation can establish war camps or improve existing war camps in preparation of coming war. These war camps will help provide a nation’s troops the ability to organize themselves into the frontier. Additionally, these war camps will act as a nation’s “headquarters” on the frontlines for Skirmishes. War camps may be sabotaged or destroyed prior to a Skirmish. If a War Camp is not established, they will forfeit the Skirmish.
Redlines: A minimum of five players are needed to establish a war camp. They must bring a set amount of resources to their designated area - can be constructed outside of the nation region in a 35 x 35 plot of land no further than 100 blocks from their closest territory.

20 stacks of wool = 4 tents - (minimum 5 emotes per tent)
32 stacks of logs = Wooden palisade - (minimum 20 emotes)


  • War camps are temporary and will be removed after the conclusion of the war.

Sabotage Enemy War Camp
A nation can choose to sabotage enemy supply lines or expected routes. This can be accomplished by entering an enemy war camp and destroying at least 25% of the camp’s infrastructure. The destruction may not be repaired and will be carried over to the Skirmish. Warcamps may not be sabotaged 24 hours before the start of the Skirmish phase.
Redlines: A minimum of one player is needed to sabotage an enemy supply line. Five emotes will be equivalent to 5 percent of camp destruction. Therefore, a minimum of twenty-five (25) emotes are needed. These emotes can be split amongst the party.


Poisoning Enemy Water supply
A nation can choose to send spies to an enemy’s capital to poison an established water supply. If successful, these spies will be able to sicken the enemy population. If there are no established water supplies accessible by the public, one will be made. Poisoning the enemy water supply will decrease the amount of soldiers they can bring to a skirmish (Approximately 2).
Redlines: A minimum of one player is needed to poison an enemy water supply. They must prepare a suitable concoction prior to the sabotage in order to succeed.


Razing Enemy Farms
A nation can choose to send a band of soldiers to raze another nation’s farms. If successful, the nation’s targeted farmland will be converted into coarse dirt as their populace suffer a shortage of food. If a nation has no farmland, then a nation can choose to raze another nation’s tavern to achieve a similar effect. In addition, razing the enemy farms will decrease the amount of soldiers a nation can bring to a skirmish (Approximately 2). All confrontations will default to combat roleplay and cannot be elevated to pvp default regardless of any default.
Redlines: A minimum of twenty emotes is required. The emotes can be split amongst the party.


Issue of Challenge
A nation’s champion can challenge a warring nation’s champion to a duel. The duel will be PK'd if death is dealt. The victor of the duel will see the enemy nation’s rally decrease by five (5) for the Skirmish. If a nation fails to accept an issue of challenge before 24 hours, then they will automatically have their rally decreased by two (2). This issue of challenge may only be done once for the entirety of the war.
Redlines: Combat is to be locked once it begins - until there is a victor. If the victor chooses to execute their opponent, PK will be enforced.
Skirmishes
Skirmishes will be conducted entirely in combat roleplay. The objective of the Skirmish is to rout the enemy army (either by forcing them to retreat or slaying them all) or to destroy the enemy war camp. Skirmishes will last a maximum of four (4) hours under the supervision of the Moderation Team. The max size of both rallies will be capped at thirty (30) (unless all nations agree to a different cap) with the possibility of decreasing the enemy rally to twenty-one (21).

Example:
Nation A succeeded in defeating Nation B’s champion and razing their farms. (-7)
Nation B succeeded in poisoning Nation A’s water supply. (-2)

Nation A’s max rally: 28
Nation B’s max rally: 23

The end of the skirmish will be marked either by the destruction of the enemy war camp, annihilation of the enemy rally, or automatically at the end of the four hour mark. If no resolution has been decided by the end of the four hour mark, players may unanimously agree to continue the skirmish but only with requested moderation when needed. Otherwise, the skirmish will be transferred to combat rollplay with whoever is left.

The outcome of the Skirmish will determine the course of the war and how phase 3 will be conducted.


  • The victors of the skirmish may choose to siege the enemy, counter-siege, or conclude the war.

Essentially, victorious defensive nations are able to turn a defensive war into an aggressive one without requiring to go through the declaration, mobilization and skirmish process. However, they can choose to conclude the war in a stalemate.

Sieges, Counter-Sieges, and PvP
Sieges, unlike the Mobilization or Skirmishes phases, will be conducted entirely in PvP. It will be structured similarly to lore battles on a smaller scale, and will be dependent on the object that is being sieged. Sieges on forts will have a total of 3 capture points while sieges on nation capitals will have 5 capture points. Additionally, there is no cap on how many participants on either side can be present as long as they meet the hourly requirement and are a part of a nation involved in the conflict.
Redlines: Sieges may only be conducted on a nation’s capital once all of their forts have been either conquered, destroyed, or are out of commission.

Wargoals
  • Fort Subjugation: Conquering and claiming a nation’s fort.
  • Fort Destruction: A fort can be completely destroyed. A sub-region will be created for the destruction of the fort and may not be altered for a period of four (4) weeks after the conclusion of the campaign.
  • Monetary Compensation: 500 gold is paid to the victors. Failure to pay it within a week’s time after the conclusion of the war will default to the Nation Destruction or Fort Destruction war goal.
    • Redlines: If this war goal is selected, then the war will be concluded.
If the siege was won on an enemy’s capital, then the following war goals are accessible:
  • Nation Destruction: Victor may destroy a quarter of the enemy’s nation. A sub-region will be created where the destruction of the city is decided and may not be altered for a period of four (4) weeks.
  • Vassalization and Protectorates: A nation, if victorious, may exercise their laws within their vassals and protectorate’s territories. They will be allowed to have guard-default against non-citizens of their citizenry.
  • Resource Capture: Acquiring a nation’s royal mine (if one exists).
  • Rebellion: A nation that is vassalized or a protectorate may gain their freedom from their oppressors if they are victorious.
    • Redlines: A nation does not need to reclaim its forts for a rebellion.

Additional notes: All forts owned by a nation will require a weekly maintenance fee of twenty(20) gold. Forts may be put “out-of-commission”, lowering the upkeep fee to five (5) gold per week. However, the fort may not be used for wars. This option is only available during the Mobilization phase.

War Example:
Nation A (Attackers)
  • Owns 2 forts
Nation D (Defenders)
  • Owns 3 forts

War Declarations: Nation A wants Nation D to follow its religious beliefs. Nation D refuses. Nation A may declare war on Nation D once sufficient roleplay has been completed.

Mobilization: Both sides prepare for war, inviting allies to join their cause. One central war camp will be made for either side where they can pursue RP scenarios.

Nation A razes Nation D’s farms and poisons their water supply (-4).
Nation D’s champion defeats Nation A’s (-5).

Skirmish: Nation A may bring a max rally of 25 while Nation D is allowed to bring a max rally of 26. In the process, Nation D destroys Nation A’s war camp and is victorious. Nation D can now choose to counter-siege Nation A or end the war, where Nation A may not pursue their demands any further.

Siege: Nation D decides it is fed up with Nation A and decides to siege them. They must siege all of Nation A’s active forts in a campaign. The campaigns will be designed to be miniature wars where mobilization, skirmish and siege phases will be conducted within the span of a week per fort.


  • Nation D sieges Nation A’s first fort and destroys it to avoid paying the maintenance fee.
  • Nation D decides to continue its campaign. A mobilization, skirmish and siege will be facilitated for Nation A’s second fort.
  • Nation D is successful in destroying Nation A’s second fort, leaving it with no active forts left.
  • Nation D can now siege Nation A’s capital, and if they are successful, may choose from the exclusive war goals.

Thus, the entire campaign will last a total of five weeks.
Three weeks for the initial Mobilization, Skirmish and Siege.
One additional week for continuing the assault on the second fort
One final week for continuing the assault by sieging the Nation’s Capital.


Remember this is a proposal. We are open to suggestions, feedback and ways we can make it more fair and enjoyable.
 
Last edited:

Ttsim

Lore
Joined
Jun 12, 2020
Messages
225
Reaction score
1,041
Username
Ttsim
Character Name
Gnorf
Discord
Ttsim#1832
Seriously? Did you even read the post?

This aside- I like this war system a lot, although I feel like there's some room for expansion and improvement, overall, it puts RP into wars which will allow for a lot of players who aren't very PVP oriented to participate rather than feel useless, while also retaining PVP itself.

Glad to see that changes are being made, and although this shouldn't be the finite system, I feel like as a skeleton/baseline it could really end up making an overall better war system.
 

Ttsim

Lore
Joined
Jun 12, 2020
Messages
225
Reaction score
1,041
Username
Ttsim
Character Name
Gnorf
Discord
Ttsim#1832
30vs30 crp sounds like a good time for moderation :)
That's one of my big complaints in all honesty. Just 10 vs 10 CRP can be a nightmare, especially if it's in a single large group. Moderation during war is also extremely hard as mods are players, and therefore they may have biases which are always difficult to set aside (Even though it can be done).

I would honestly recommend capping Skirmishes at 15 rather than 30, allowing for nations to pick out the CRPers who they have the most faith in.

From there, separate the groups of 15 into 3 groups of 5 for each side, with a moderator in charge of each group. From then on, the battles with each group will take place either simultaneously or one at a time. If it is simultaneous, once the victor is decided for a single match of the 5 vs 5 individuals, those surviving in adequate shape can then join in on another battle to help speed up the process.


That sounds complicated so I'll give an example of what I mean:

Nation A and Nation B have 15 players each. There are 3 mods on standby.

Nation A and B separate their 15 players into 3 groups each, with each group having 5 members of that original 15.

Those 3 groups from each nation are then pitted against one another, with either the mods or the NLs themselves deciding on which group will face which. This adds to a level of understanding each groups strength and adding a level of strategy onto deciding the NLs/their advisors want a battle to play out.

Once the group matches have been decided, the mods go in and each battle occurs separate from one another simultaneously.

The first match concludes with the other 2 still ongoing, with 3 people from Nation A surviving and 1 of them still being in good RP health, with the moderator confirming this.


From there, the single player with good health can then either be sent by their NL to join in with 1 of the 2 still ongoing matches to aid the still-fighting soldiers, and maybe even change the tide of a battle. (Whether or not this would overrule the 5-player max for each team rule or have it to where this can only be done if the group that the NL wants them to join is missing a player can be decided later on.)

There could even be future rules down the line to determine battle placement and have players wait for a few turns while irply they'd be 'traveling' to the battle site in question.

This process of elimination would continue on, until ultimately the side that still has standing soldiers would be crowned victorious in the siege.


This process is more likely than not flawed and could use some improvement, so if anyone has any suggestions, I'd be more than appreciative of it as I want to find a solution which would be best.
 
Last edited:

Darken

VIP
Joined
Jul 8, 2020
Messages
846
Reaction score
1,482
Character Name
'I.C.A'
Discord
Darkx#4901
yes let's continue to concentrate on war system proposals and making the war last an entire month + one week alongside having a 30v30 crp skirmish (21v21 at lowest) instead of concentrating on the 11 pages worth of feedback that was originally written by those of newbies and veterans who wanted the server to change but nooo let's concentrate on our 500 war system proposals with our peak of 40 players.
I know the players will increase by summer or when the Omicron variant of COVID spreads rapidly stopping education like 2020 and mid 2021 but this is a 4/10 production and effort
I hope this improves eventually
 

AN_DR

VIP
Joined
Jul 31, 2020
Messages
48
Reaction score
159
Username
AN_DR
Character Name
Odilia-az-Mythforge
I agree that moderating such large-scale CRP would be pretty harsh on moderators and the players involved alike, but I’m all for giving more power to roleplayers for war-related scenarios!

Perhaps scale the numbers back a bit, and go with something along the lines of what Ttsim suggested for the skirmishes?
 

Sukitoru

Lore
Joined
Jul 23, 2020
Messages
800
Reaction score
3,376
Username
Sukitoru
Character Name
Kine Lidomast
I agree that moderating such large-scale CRP would be pretty harsh on moderators and the players involved alike, but I’m all for giving more power to roleplayers for war-related scenarios!

Perhaps scale the numbers back a bit, and go with something along the lines of what Ttsim suggested for the skirmishes?
repost because this is just what i'd have said
 

TryaxReck

VIP
Joined
Oct 19, 2020
Messages
127
Reaction score
427
attempting to please everyone will result in everyone being quite displeased indeed!

(Gonna go to work, will post full opinion in six hours or so.)
 

KordoL

Lore
Joined
Nov 6, 2020
Messages
516
Reaction score
2,145
Frustration
A feeling I believe a lot of our community plagues is frustration. Frustrated one's feedpack post has been ignored, frustrated once our effort has went unrecognized, frustrated to be associated with a group of players you're not a part of, frustrated about a lot of things. Above me can be seen several examples of frustrated players which feel unheard, helpless or just resent the current administration in some cases.

I think what the current administration has to finally admit is that a significant portion of the server is discontent. It is not necessarily at fault of the administration, there is no doubt in my mind that there's a several contributing factors originating from the community itself that have brought us the current state of the server, however the Administration has to finally recognize the aforementioned discontent and make the players felt heard.

Sure, you may argue this is the purpose of this post. The Administration is proposing to the playerbase, however it is without a doubt clear that we've have had many proposals which have seemingly had little effect or have gone even more unsatisfactory for our community.

Is the administration to blame? Or are we to blame for behaving like we do, instead of members of a community?

Who is to blame is a question that will only leave us in the 'bad state' of the server is in even longer. What has to happen is that the aforementioned mass of players have to realize that we're playing on a server which can truly only bloom with a delicate balance between RP and PvP.


Balance
We've all heard it by now. In fact, I won't repeat myself, but there has to be either given a full stop to one community or maintain both on a delicate balance. The communities I'm talking about?
Those who find enjoyment in the RP aspects of the server more than the PvP aspects and those vice versa.

There is a clear difference in influence RPers and PvPers have on this server, unbalanced even.
I'll ask this easy question:
What should RPers do when PvPers confront them?
Choose CRP?
CRP is a terrible experience if you're:
- New
- Stubborn
- Competitive
And said definition fits many people on our server well. There is definitively a competition happening on the server, for whatever it may be. Political domination, Societal hegemony, Magical Knowledge etc.

Ok then, if the players are too competitive (usually) to take on a loss, what else should RPers do? Learn PvP despite being advertised a fantasy experience?

I will clearly state that I joined FRP myself for a story. Vigorous dedication has forged me to be decent at PvP, but I do not enjoy it one bit, even if I do win.

So, include RPers more within these situations? Oh what, CRP is hard to oversee and judge? How about we actually implement a system which does not rely on honor, because quite frankly?
Honor and Mercy is not rewarded within an competitive environment.


Conclusion

My point? Well, it is quite late for me and I was bored and lazily wrote down some train of thought that came to me, so feel free to ignore, but I conclude with the following:
- Maintain the Blooming Balance between our communities or rid the community that causes the imbalance
- Admit you the reader is either frustrated or discontent with some sort of issue on FRP and it would not help us any further to blame someone, since we're all here to just have a fun experience.
- Reform the naive and confusing Honor CRP system into something less subjective and easier to navigate through.

Thanks, now I'll go take a nap.
 

Pyrias

Administrator
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Messages
83
Reaction score
782
Username
Pyrias
Character Name
Becky Buckley | Melriel
Discord
Pyrias#0887
Although I can understand the intentions behind it and both sides of the argument, I do think the war system has always been something that players have had various opinions on time and time again. There's no winning, and there will always be a party that'll be unsatisfied with the outcome. But ultimately, looking at the proposal Simba posted, I do like the idea.

Some things I could immediate see changing would be how the caps work. 30 vs. 30 is going to be hell for everybody, so I'd recommend caps in ways similar to what Ttsim suggested with people being wise about their decisions. But on top of this, something that might be a thought to consider is perhaps a "backup squadron" if a party has garnered up enough resources or the likes through other roleplay scenarios. That way, it'd minimize how many people are out in the field at the same time, but also allow for a few losses in members that can be replaced or sacrificed in a strategy. It'd take more time to moderate, but at least it wouldn't be as incredibly painful as a larger number like 30 vs. 30 would be.

Secondly, I think people could be a lot more positive in their reactions. This goes for the post and also just in general-- something about wars previously was that if the opposing faction had a lot of above average pvpers, it was pretty daunting to want to even play or put up a fight. But with the roleplay scenarios, I genuinely think it could be a solution to make wars look a lot less intimidating and high-stakes by promoting a roleplay route in it. People wouldn't have to worry about rallying their friends back to the server or reach out to acquaintances to come cash in a favour. Instead, it'd be more-so based on roleplay on our server than it would who's got the most resources already grinded out to kit their buddies for raids and warclaims.

And finally, I think the week intervals are awful. For an entire campaign to last five weeks? Sure, it's better than wars that last for months and have constant stalemates that people wave around in each other's faces, but that's over a month of people going," God I can't wait for this war to be over." I'd make things more short. Perhaps have a way to tie it into the scenarios; if a group reaches a certain amount of points by the end of the first week, maybe allow them alternatives to push for a quicker way with higher risks and advantages for the opposing party.
 

Borin

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2020
Messages
83
Reaction score
309
I find the idea of enforcing CRP for a war disturbing. CRP happens anyway, on the roads and otherwise, it's not necessary, and it's not feasible to have good faith CRP above 10 people, let alone 5 in a small group engagement. PVP is how everything above 10 people should be done.
 

Keitara

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2021
Messages
35
Reaction score
147
Billllboooo I see a lot of the ideas we tossed back and forth ages ago in this thiiiiiinnng~

Goofy comment aside though, I see a few things that could be made a lot less painful, based on experience. I'm going to use the same formatting as last time and go bit by bit.

WAR DECLARATIONS

I think this is a wise first step to take. While unfortunately it does cut off conquest style roleplay, I believe the server likely has seen the negative ramifications of it in a competitive environment. Thus, something must be sacrificed in order to encourage more interactive roleplay with the varied nations that assists in getting more players involved in the overall story that is occurring.

WARS
3 Phases. 3 Weeks. Gotcha. I can see this feeling a bit long to some players, but honestly- with everything broken into different, clear stages and goals, it may actually keep the rp flowing in an interesting way. I think it is at least worth trying in this format first as it gives enough time to wiggle around for OOC schedule adjustments.

MOBILIZATION
Not going to lie- this is exactly akin to something I had once drafted and planned to utilize with a raid system. I can only take into account the context of the numbers given in the post, but I can already say this is going to result in a few highly selected picks vs things that won't be seen, simply because the end result is the same in effect among several options.

Between Poisoning, Razing, and the Challenge, you have three things that will result in essentially the same effect save for the Challenge. This means that players will automatically for which of these is the easiest to accomplish, and never use any of the others. As a combat strategist and "breaker" of mechanics myself, I can see the Poisoning the Water Supply one in particular being used the most often. Why? Because 1) you contain all rp to a hidden location to concoct whatever nasty poison it is, and then 2) you sneak out and do your dirty work at a (admittedly) predictable location, but TIMING IS EVERYTHING. Out of these options, the Challenge poses a high risk of backfiring, whereas the Razing the Farms interaction is highly visible and easy enough to counter via a rally of one's defenders.

Thus, Poisoning has the least risk, and is the most predictable for both sides, as all it would feasibly take is one particularly sneaky person waiting around for the area to be left unguarded and then "piss in the well" so to speak.

How to solve this? I reccomend making the effects different so that this trap doesn't occur, and then limit the ability to sabotage to once in the Mobilization stage, so each side has to pick and strategize around what their opponent might decide to do. Maybe if the well is poisoned, the fighters start out combat with 2 rounds of said potion effect (within reason...) in the Skirmish. Maybe if the Armory was sabotaged, there is a limit on what tier of armor and weapons or how many can be utilized. Things like that. Likewise, if you can only have one active effect, you can make it stronger within reason rather than stacking. Simpler for staff to track and handle too.

This of course would need stress testing and fine tuning to make sure its balanced!


SKIRMISHES

Oh dear- no no, nononono- no. Do NOT kill yourself with this! I beg you. I have had to oversee a 6v6 for 12 hours straight and that was only accomplished because I had a damn spreadsheet to track every movement and action so when shit hit the fan I could backtrack and fix it! You are absolutely MAD if you think you can accomplish this.

Here is something a lot more Moderation friendly and better for everyone involved ESPECIALLY because of player timezones: break down Skirmishes into multi-team tournament style fights. 3v3 MAXIMUM. Let the players choose the groups they want to make, and then randomize who fights who. Then, organize what times work best for the conflicts to occur. This way Moderators can then be on hand accordingly and if the pace is set at a decent one, you can do the fights during the course of the week and have rp going on in the background involving fighting and jostling for positioning repeatedly along the entire army.

Also- in the event that one side has more people than another who want to participate, just keep track of who was KO'd and who was not in previous fights, then have the opposing side essentially pick their remaining freshest soldiers to keep battling the remaining extra players. THEN- the number of victories will be what determines the victory in a Skirmish. If the total Skirmish is a 30v30, then broken into 10 teams each, and side A has 7 wins, it is clear that side A is the victor. Only when there is a tie, such as a 5v5, might a Challenge and Champion fight be required to act as the tie breaker afterwards, or even be required beforehand and have that as the added bonus/risk instead of reducing your enemy's army count!

(Also this whole thing ties into a proposal for rolling combat that I am trying to get done and y'all make me cry that I don't have enough time and energy to juggle between rp and working on it XD. Not ready yet- but sooooon. I might have something that can work okay with this and even reduce/remove the need for moderators if done right since the players could self manage....)


WARGOALS

This I see being a fairly stable foundation, though be prepared for the potential of RP dictated wars having different goals. This is especially because something may wind up being completely valid to do and need to be added as an option.
---
Overall, I think this has a lot of promise, but that's also coming from a mindset that knows exactly what kind of ideas were behind this and having intended to make a very similar system in the past, just using a different combat method. Hopefully the things I went over above give a bit of help though. And for the love of GOD please do not murder yourselves with 30v30s.
 

Ballywhomst

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2021
Messages
11
Reaction score
101
Bit by bit, FRP is becoming an actual RP server. Good on ya.

Seeing a lot of comments about how large-scale moderated CRP isn't possible. Don't buy in to the hype. It's doable as hell, and I've done it myself. It isn't easy, but the effort is worth it. As many have suggested the name of the game is divide and conquer- break the skirmish into many smaller fights, each with its own mod, and have the mods enforce a strict time limit on emotes. A minute, maybe two. The important thing is that it's the same amount of time across the board and there are no exceptions. You go over time, you lose your turn, and your opponent's previous emote is assumed a complete success. I love descriptive RP as much as the next guy but this isn't the time or place for long, flowery posts. This is war, after all. The important skill for mods to have here is the confidence to make quick, decisive rulings when the inevitable disagreement crops up. No ifs, no buts, no checking with the admins. Make your call and stick to it. There will be mistakes, there's no such thing as a perfect referee, but you'd be surprised how quickly you improve once you take those training wheels off.

To the clickfriends losing their shit: you've still got sieges all to yourselves. You'll be okay, I promise.
 

frill

Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2020
Messages
386
Reaction score
1,445
Username
frill
Character Name
lofty sugden
Discord
myshkin#0001
people are always going to hate whatever's proposed, sorry. you could propose a war system where they're paid $20 for logging in, and somebody will be upset that it isn't $21. you need to have it sink into every spongy crevice of ur brain that you cannot win the war-system debate and that any proposed system is just a debate prompt for the middle school computer club.

pick the least controversial one, force it through, tweak it after a few iterations. constant reqs. for feedback will keep stirring the hive and making the administration appear feckless enough tht they'll wade through pages of screaming of their own incompetence to have something decided for them. seize the initiative.
 

Discord

Join us on Discord

Latest profile posts

People not liking my bows even though their biggest contribution is their corner-sitting RP resume. :shades:
Don't flirt with Avi daughter
I made collectables for the World Event. :)
Always make time for new players. You never know when that little thing they need to tell you may lead to their next big adventure!
I know that I know nothing whilst everyone else knows nothing
quick let me think of something random and vague so i sound wise and awesome

Forum Statistics

Threads
11,930
Messages
57,656
Members
11,782
Latest member
lightcloud
Top