Mmm... what if both the raiders AND the defenders gain something for participating (win-win situations?) or having a raid take place? Like, the raiding party gains something for attempting a raid, but the defenders can be all 'yay, another raid, this is a good thing!'?

Raeri:

Mmm... what if both the raiders AND the defenders gain something for participating (win-win situations?) or having a raid take place? Like, the raiding party gains something for attempting a raid, but the defenders can be all 'yay, another raid, this is a good thing!'?

That's really open to abuse.

Lehki:

That's completely missing my point, but I don't feel like spelling it out.

I don't think the extra 'incentive' of losing resources to the enemy for choosing to opt out is a good idea, that is all.

Why not?

What's stopping someone from opting out every time otherwise?

If you don't want to participate, then fine; the other teams should get something for that decision, however. Especially because one org could just choose, as policy, to 'opt out' every single time and then go to other organizations to farm Dharma from them.

Further, it's not like I'm suggesting that opting out gives the org doing so a penalty (taking from their reserves), I'm saying it gives the OpFor some Dharma as well. It's more like if opting out of a god war gave the other side some essence, instead of punishing you by taking it from your own side.

There's a difference.

What if, by opting out, you aren't able to participate in Dharma opportunities until your next turn (assuming you don't opt out of that one, as well!). Eventually you're simply not getting much in the way of Dharma, and are forgoing both buffs and the opportunity to seriously raid. Nothing big for someone who is actually being beat on and can't find it in themselves to fight back effectively, but enough to make refusing more than a flippant "don't feel like it /deny" kind of situation.

Eventru:

What if, by opting out, you aren't able to participate in Dharma opportunities until your next turn (assuming you don't opt out of that one, as well!). Eventually you're simply not getting much in the way of Dharma, and are forgoing both buffs and the opportunity to seriously raid. Nothing big for someone who is actually being beat on and can't find it in themselves to fight back effectively, but enough to make refusing more than a flippant "don't feel like it /deny" kind of situation.

If this is with the dharma every month thing I can see people logging off if there aren't enough people to deal with it but there might be later. Because if you deny you are punished, if you don't and don't have the numbers right now then you can either run up to die or log off with a "yeah, I have to go do... something else right now"

I like Eventru's adjustment regarding opting out.

Eventru:

What if, by opting out, you aren't able to participate in Dharma opportunities until your next turn (assuming you don't opt out of that one, as well!). Eventually you're simply not getting much in the way of Dharma, and are forgoing both buffs and the opportunity to seriously raid. Nothing big for someone who is actually being beat on and can't find it in themselves to fight back effectively, but enough to make refusing more than a flippant "don't feel like it /deny" kind of situation.

The more people you allow to choose not to participate, the less this dharma thing seems like it will fill the intended goal. There is no "productive raiding" if people just continually opt out. While at the same time they will whine and throw a fit the "other side" is just getting buffs.

Except opting out while you're on the defense means you're opting out on the offense. You have an incentive to join in and at least try if you aren't terribly outclassed.

Kiradawea:

Except opting out while you're on the defense means you're opting out on the offense. You have an incentive to join in and at least try if you aren't terribly outclassed.

At which point the entire "losing side" opts out, so the "winning side" never does their productive raiding while at the same time also getting numerous bonus's that the "losing side" will then complain about?

Lets face it, if you make a system for meaningful conflict people can then choose not to use, the conflict is nonexistant.

100% agree. I think that's probably what will happen. The losing side will see that it's pointless because the winning side will always be able to pull more people in to steamroll, and then they'll just eventually decide it's not worth it and claim immediately. The winning side won't get any fights, so they'll just go back to raiding godrealms and stuff.

What if it were that only one nation can attack another, then you're more likey to see fair fights?

EDIT: Sorry if that came off ranty, just kind of spilling out my thoughts. I'd love a decent conflict system, I'm just worried about how things are going with this discussion.

At this point I just have to say "This is why I don't pvp much in RPGs." As much fun as it can be to pvp in Lusternia, or WoW, or SWTOR, or whatever else, they're not balanced, and can't be, especially when the sides aren't even numerically even.

I would love something that really worked to both alleviate the annoyance of stupid small raids all day that also gives people looking for a fight something satisfying, but I'm not sure it's going to ever work, because there are a lot of people who don't fight, or don't fight as well and will stop when they get beaten over and over and over. In WoW, you move to a PvE server and have your fun and the guys who want fights stay on the PvP server. In Lusternia, we have the RPers and the fighters and the questers and the trade skill people, and they all overlap.

When we have to call an aetherhunt that was a pain in the ass to get together because we have to go run someone off who's kicking Ladies every five minutes, it's maddening. When we win a fight only to get attacked by a force three times as large, it's frustrating. And I'm sure the other side has issues with never getting a decent fight sometimes or being accused of griefing because they want to get some pvp going.

How do you let people opt out of what can be utterly demoralizing without also taking away the conflict for those who want it? If the losing side thinks it's pointless and opts out, it probably is, at least to some degree. Do you really want a fight if it's just smashing the same people over and over and over? No one should want that. But without shuffling players around to keep things even, it's hard to keep from having a winner and a loser who each want different things from the game.

Asmodea:

What if it were that only one nation can attack another, then you're more likey to see fair fights?

The "best org" will just raid whatever one it is, or people will metagame it and "contest" their allies. Too gamable, and still ends up with the same issues.

I still like the idea of players who want to raid having to ask their respective Smobs to disrupt the shield surrounding a specific org's planes in order to take hostile action there. Have such a disruption last an hour or two, and give the disruption a 4-6 hour cooldown. Something like this should still allow for real raids, but would cut down on hit & runs or other frivolous raids substantially. Further, it would prevent constant harassment and infinite raids, and would keep orgs from being pounded repeatedly.

Something so simple could effectively reduce, if not solve outright, all of the major issues presented thus far.

foolofsound:

Something so simple could effectively reduce, if not solve outright, all of the major issues presented thus far.

Or completely turn off raiding as a source of conflict.

Malarious:

Or complete turn off raiding as a source of conflict entirely.

Feel free to explain.