-League of Nations-

Discussion in 'World 3' started by Duke Westminster, Nov 7, 2008.

Share This Page

  1. I have created this organisation to experiment the effectiveness of unified towns to, contemplatively, work together to deal with rogue towns (i.e. a lot of bandits which consistently targeting them) and advice of various policies and taxes they have implemented into themselves.

    Naturally the League would depends entirely on recommendations to member towns and admission is universal, with perhaps a 1000 point+ town cap to filter out the fledgling towns out there (although they are more than welcome to advise). Another factor of the league would to try and contain conflict between towns so that both of them prosper rather than lose members and cash to a war between them.

    Leadership of this organisation is based upon a concept of each member town getting a vote on any issue (i.e. global declaration of war on a certain town). While at the moment there are no enforcement laws in place there might be in the future. I have also though about perhaps electing a leader through a vote system to try and give the League some sort of centralised system.

    Feel free to comment.
  2. DeviousTexan

    DeviousTexan Guest

    Some dude that said he was from the future wanted me to tell you that the League of Nations ends up being a complete failure.

    "A living thing is born." -Woodrow Wilson
    "...and died." -Benito Mussolini (Fiction, but he might have)
  3. jemmers

    jemmers Guest

    I am with Devious on this one ... the American West, particularly that which has been heavily romanticized was pretty well dead by the post WW I era … modern era in the West, well, let us just say “that’s another whole can of beans”.
  4. Lone Ranger

    Lone Ranger Guest

    Interesting idea, but I don't know if this game could utilize that idea to it's fullest.
  5. Lamorra

    Lamorra Guest

    I'm gonna put my name down on the list, of the people who will do their utmost to take you the fudge out if you get anywhere with this idea.

    Seen this done in games before, took those out too... wasn't too hard, peaceniks cant fight for toffee.

    This is a pvp game, if you don't like it, build up your defenses, learn higher level defense (make most of utilising game mechanics, intelligence, counter-intelligence, intense communication, motivation and morale, and most of all, don't try to rule a UN or LoN or anything, unless you're any good at it, have experience and have thought it through, it makes you a target, I bet my bottom chocolate button).

    Coalitions kill pvp games, I will not reluinqish my freedom without a messy fight or seventy, nor will many others.
  6. sdjx22

    sdjx22 Well-Known Member

    Sep 26, 2008
    Likes Received:
    League of nations? At least you made me chuckle.
  7. HeftySmurf

    HeftySmurf Guest

    League of Nations?

    A Puppet Led Organization created by Woodrow Wilson after WW1.

    Base of the UN

    Sorted European Affairs, Which it failed at.

    It was an Epic Failure for a Nation.
  8. Considering it wasn't a nation that’s brilliant :p. The only real reason why I called it the "League of Nations" was because I liked the name. I can certainly give you the point the actual real life organisation was an absolute failure >.> (It did however do a lot of good in terms of human rights around the globe; the train slaves in Africa for instance).

    I would like to thank you for bringing up the point that this, obviously, is a PvP orientated game and that groups that go against it shouldn't be made. I must point out that I haven’t stated anything about a mad petition to try and Ban the PvP aspect; if anything I endorse it. The only issue I have with PvP in the LoN context is member towns working together to militaristically beat Rogue Towns that target others. Perhaps if a similar organisation to this were made and diplomacy crashed; we’d have a lot of PVP fun :p.

    This organisation primarily is made for towns to help other towns; and in turn be helped. Like the RL League of Nations, apart from failing really badly against a bunch of Nazis (thankfully I doubt any town would name themselves after such a group, although I could be wrong), this organisation is for the betterment of united towns in the game and perhaps bring a new element of competitiveness towards it.
  9. Lamorra

    Lamorra Guest

    So you would concept an organisation where it would be legal for member towns to gang on a single town?

    That kills competitiveness IMHO. 10 'member' towns joining forces to defeat a single town is hardly competitive, its zealous overkill.

    If you go through with this, I'd like to be aware of your policies on such things, i.e. will you be implementing a 1v1 rule to promote equal duelling rather than victory though strength in numbers.

    Will your policies and activities be open, or held on a private forum?
  10. Well in all honesty the various policies the LoN will be entirely dependent on the wills of member towns. If a member town randomly wants to war another for no reason I doubt the other member towns will follow suit. If the town targeted has been attacking a member town then obviously a large proportion of member towns will send people to attack them. If anything the league will act as a repellent for towns that could potentially target member towns.

    If the issue at hand is a private feud between two towns for no reason other than mutual hatred then I will of course be endorsing a 1v1 policy between them. For a full scale attack on a town simply to drive them from existence is launched then member towns around the conflict area will be brought in, should they wish it, to intervene.
  11. Mad Hank

    Mad Hank Guest

    I don't like the idea of going after the whole town, which consists of builders, workers, adventurers, and positive duelers because of actions of negative duelers. If LoN will only go after the criminals and not their towns, they will be more like a police force, and I will fully support that.
  12. I'd join.

    signed Rolling Thunder
  13. Herucles

    Herucles Guest

    I wouldn't.
  14. Denisero

    Denisero Guest

    So you are saying that if one of your member towns wants to attack another town for no reason that is okay with you. It will be up to your other member towns whether or not they want to join in on the carnage. But if a non-member town attacks one of your member towns for no reason, then you expect all your member towns to gang up in retaliation? Where is that fair? That is hypocrisy.

    That is fear mongering. That is saying that the LoN can do whatever they want to do because they have strength in numbers. That is not an organization dedicated to peace or protection. That is an organization dedicated to being a bully when it wants and hiding behind others when its convenient. Shame on you.

    Any war between towns is a private feud until one of them looks to bring in other towns to do their fighting. You are saying if a town wants to drive another town from existence then you will bring in other towns to intervene. What happens when one of your member towns wants to do that to a non-member town? Will you intervene to get your member town to stop such behavior or will you sit by and let it happen?

    I've seen these types of organizations pop up in other games. It either works so well that the game stagnates because nobody is free to attack anyone else do to MDPs and NAPs or it fails so miserably because those type of organizations make nice juicy targets for others. I've knocked a few of those types of organizations out of existence myself and would look forward to doing so again should our paths cross.
  15. RckyMtnHigh

    RckyMtnHigh New Member

    Oct 9, 2008
    Likes Received:
    Jemmers obviously doesn't live in the west

    Some examples that the old West isn't totally gone. In some states in the West hanging is still a way of execution. In Texas if you commit a capitol offense, you get dead, highest execution rate of any state. In some states it is perfectly legal to wear a gun in holster walking down the street. In Colorado there is the "Make My Day" law, if someone comes on your property threatening you and you kill em, its legal, no questions asked.:bandit:
  16. You have missed the ideology I have stated that it is up to member towns themselves to look on the facts and judge for themselves if they want to attack another town or not. The League itself wouldn't have any dictation whatsoever apart from being a way of communication between member towns.
  17. Denisero

    Denisero Guest

    No I didn't miss the idealogy of it. As I've said, I've seen League of Nations, United Nations, Coalition for Peace, or whatever name that particular organization chooses to go by, crop up in several games. The intention is always good. I don't question your intentions. The end product is always a mess.

    What I stated above does and will happen. Member town A gets hit by non member town Z. Member town A cries to the LoN. Member towns B-D gang up on town Z until town Z disappears off the map. Or, Member town A decides they don't like non member town Z. They attack Z. Z attacks back. Town A cries to the LoN without giving full details and member towns B-D gang up on Z.

    The LoN would take away town Z's right to duel and even target any town it wishes to, as given by the game, without facing dire consequences. Not only that but it takes away town A's right to also duel and target any town it wishes because all the towns that belong to the LoN are off limits to it.

    So lets say the LoN is established with 20 towns belonging to it. Most of these will probably be in the same general area of the map. The non member towns in this area are concerned because hey, who are the LoN members going to attack? They are going to attack the towns in that area that aren't LoN. So either those towns have to join or band together for protection. So another 20 towns band together and form Republic of Freedom or w/e. Now the LoN and the RoF have a choice to make. They can either start a war between them in order to be the dominant organization in the area or they can sign a Non Agression Pact and ignore eachother.

    War: A war could be easily started when a member of one organization attacks a member of another. Then you have 40 towns dragged into a war that nobody really wanted. Workers and Adventurers are penalized because they haven't specced for fighting and become easy targets. This stagnates their game as they are being constantly robbed of their money.

    NAP: Now you have 40 towns in basically the same area of the map that can't attack eachother. They have to branch out further in order to find targets. This is a time waster. Players have to travel further and further if they wish to duel. Anyone that picked Dueler or Soldier as a character class is basically penalized and their game stagnates. Their game is stagnated. Not only that, but as these 40 towns travel outside their normal area of play the towns they start to hit take notice. Now you've got other areas of the map needing to protect themselves and form organizations.

    And the cycle repeats. Does anyone get what I'm saying? Organizations make for a boring game in the long run. In a few months time you'll see massive stagnation in the game and nobody benefits.
  18. Surely though, a war between several towns could give the game a larger element than the humble town v town conflict we have now? With a coalition of different towns banded together for collective protection, and a fight was started with another coalition; adventurers/workers and all the rest of it will be frantically trying to get money for their towns to build up their armouries and organisation to protect those workers; as well as organisation to try and attack the opposing workers.

    The way you’re looking at it is that the conflict – diplomatic or militaristic, will just be boring and will be stagnant. A 40-50 town conflict out of all of the towns in W3 is no big deal; it makes the area there in however, a larger and more exciting place to be. Surely collective security for member towns is a good thing? Surely you would be in favour of towns looking in their best interests for both military and diplomacy? The formation of coalitions and alliances between towns would undoubtedly add another element to the game and in my opinion it would be very interesting to see how it works.
  19. Denisero

    Denisero Guest

    Oh I'm all for war. I've been in many and never have turned away from one. The point is that alot of players aren't.
    We can argue the merits and folly of having an organization such as this forever. I'm not going to though. I'll make my final statement here.

    Those adventurers and workers you say that will be frantically trying to get money for their towns....those are the ones that will be the targets because they will be the least likely ones able to defend themselves. How much fun do you think its going to be for them to scramble about madly to make money for the war effort in their town only to be attacked 3x before they even make it to the bank. Not very. That's when you'll see your workers and the players you depend on to build up your towns quickly simply leave.

    I said in the long run things will become stagnant. In the short term all these wars will pop up between multiple towns. Yep, that sure will be exciting. Until your workers leave like I stated above. Or until you get tired of the fighting and sign a NAP with the opposition.

    Just an example about the stagnation I'm talking about. I played one game where over 20,000 were in each world. I played on several of the worlds. Coalitions started to form, wars broke out between them, the players not in it for war left the game early. The players that didn't mind the war so much at first soon become disillusioned with the game when they realized they were favorite targets of the enemy because they were weak militarily or just a good enough cash cow that fighting them was worth the risk. Six months later, consistently on every world, so many coalitions and NAPs and MDPs had been formed that no one was fighting at all. Why? Because they either were not allowed to attack each other based on treaties they had signed or because they were too afraid to attack each other based on all the MDP's each of them had. Now I look at those servers and see them only 1/2 full, if even that. So many players left the game because they were bored. The game definitely loses when that happens because if the developers see mass evacuation of their game then they sort of start to think it isn't a money maker. Then the updates don't come as often, or the bugs aren't fixed, or they desperately try to implement new mechanics into the game to revive membership only to have those mechanics not be well thought out or bug ridden. (This is an example from one game, but by no means isolated to just this one game).

    Make your coalition. Make your policies. There will be a leader of the coalition. There always is. The coalition will come under attack just for being in existence. It always does. But don't for one minute believe that you will be keeping the peace or protecting towns or be bringing a fantastic new dynamic to the game. This is just same old crap, different game. You haven't thought of anything new and there is a 99.9% chance that the final outcome won't be new either. Garbage in, garbage out.

    I leave the rest of The West to debate your plan if they choose. I'm preparing my bunker and making bullets in preparation to oppose you. :tongue2g:
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 10, 2008
  20. sdjx22

    sdjx22 Well-Known Member

    Sep 26, 2008
    Likes Received:
    Well, you sound bitter about that other game!

    You make good points about this coalition though, I agree with you there.