Server Suggestion Rival Wars

[menace]

Suggestion Title: Rival Wars
Suggestion Description: Similar to the request-to-be a rival or ally system, ORGs that are already Rivals can request a "war" with each other. Possibly being able to put a prize on the war, i.e Org who wins the war gets X amount of cash or other rewards such as weapons. Rewards must be agreed upon and paid by both Org leaders ( or those who have War permissions. )

The minimum time a war can go on for is 48/72 hours, with the max being 7 days.

Allies can be introduced in the war, but it also means that the allies must put their own cash/prize into the pot. The pot will also be divided equally between the winning team, including allies. Meaning that if you win a 500K total prize with one ally, both Org's get 250K. And also must pay 125K to get introduced in the war.

After a war both Org's are on a War request and accept cooldown for X amount of time ( can be decided by community/devs?)

The winner of a war is determined by which Org has the most kills against the opponent.
There could also be a live leaderboard available to Org Members with which members have X amount of kills, plus the score.

In example: Org A is already rivals with Org B, after Org B attacks Org A's base and raids them. Org A requests a war with the total prize of 250K, both Org A and Org B have to put up 125K, or there simply can be no prize. Org A also requests that Org C, their ally jumps in the war with them. (Listed in the war request.) Org C and Org A pay 62.5K each into the pot. Or in the case that there is no prize, Org C can simply join without having to pay. Also listed in the war request is the timeframe of the war.

After all ORG's agree on the war terms it is announced to each member once they log in that they are at war with Org XYZ, it is also listed in the relations tab of the Org menu, in the org menu a new section is also opened, showing the scoreboard and stats of players


In the future I believe there could be Org War perks, such as being able to ask the number who also gives your missions and checks warrants on you the possibility to find a property of the org your rivals with, excluding Bazaar shops.

Why should this be added?:
- Brings more competition to the server.
- Adds more features to the Org System
- Enhances the Rival system. Making being rivals with a organization meaningful, as all it is is just adding a red color around the rival Org for now.

What negatives could this have?:
- Takes up dev time
- Could lead to toxic moments.

What problem would this suggestion solve?: Adds more features to one of the least used features of the org system.

 

[Headline]

Yes, and having wars that are consensually agreed upon by rivaling orgs is only done through roleplay. People being given a lucrative system that allows for a storyline to lead to conflict and reward orgs fighting rather than aimless raid farming is roleplay.

Simply because its not something you might personally enjoy, does not mean players are not roleplaying by doing it.

I also am not trying to make this about you or your org, I just want to provide evidence as to how zergs already do actively farm raids and how your org is proudly an prime example of this.
View attachment 27828
View attachment 27829

The whole first "storyline" point is already quite literally possible. Nothing is stopping the players from agreeing on a "war" between orgs and target raid specific people.
As for the second part if I want to play pure PVP, I'll just go play CS, hitreg is better, ARGUABLY.

The whole org zerg thing, I mean, you took that picture extremely out of context. We raided about 20/30 people with our own 20/30 people.

 

[HarryThompson]

staff zergs

am i right?

 

[Recession]

NOaverage staff member

 

[Tarone Idrin (mohammed)]

I think we should be able to agree on a common ground that that is literally more roleplay and storytelling than the vast majority of raids that normally occur let alone shootouts.

Yes some organizations have money to throw into wars for fun, but that’s the purpose of the game. Those who like shooting can roleplay that way, and those who want to tell a story can do the dialogue between their org and the rivaling one before agreeing to the mechanic of a war. Everyone chooses how to enjoy the game and that’s good

The bottom line is, players have a vanity system to choose for themselves and enjoy a real reason to leave their base to fight for dominance and earn big bucks for it instead of the current rivalry system where rivalry is just another way to farm leaderboard xp or kill time.

So just shooting people like a terrorist is rp? Can't wait to spawn in to just die and then respawn to just die again that dont sound like rp to me bro. Also people already whine enough about shootouts so to just have more pointless shootouts with no goal besides to kill people who will respawn in less than 5m is useless.

 

[MalekIsWeird]

The whole first "storyline" point is already quite literally possible. Nothing is stopping the players from agreeing on a "war" between orgs and target raid specific people.
As for the second part if I want to play pure PVP, I'll just go play CS, hitreg is better, ARGUABLY.

I still don’t totally understand what your claim actually is.

it’s a false equivalence to claim that having a consensual war is CS arena pure PvP but then not consider the reality that the current presence of constant shootouts with aimless zergs xp farming raids on anyone they set their target on is arguably more befitting of a CS ARENA.

It’s a clear double standard.

The whole org zerg thing, I mean, you took that picture extremely out of context. We raided about 20/30 people with our own 20/30 people.

Your argument was, to the best of my understanding, that this idea would cause the server to become Pure PVP CS arena.

The context, as you’ve explained and as proven in the statement by Kronen, is that it was a 30v30.

I’m not sure what part of that came across as out of context but it’s an indisputable fact that Zergs are fighting on a daily basis.

This is only one out of multiple evidences that prove this claim true.

 

[MalekIsWeird]

So just shooting people like a terrorist is rp? Can't wait to spawn in to just die and then respawn to just die again that dont sound like rp to me bro. Also people already whine enough about shootouts so to just have more pointless shootouts with no goal besides to kill people who will respawn in less than 5m is useless.

This whole reply is just wrong and illogical

Yeah, as if the constant mass murder of police and aggravated burglaries involving anti-material snipers, grenades, etc.. are not terrorism. Did you think of how non sensical that argument is? Or how much of a double standard it is to act like raiding a person without consent is not bad but two consenting parties fighting because they enjoy doing so is “causing more shootouts.”

Then claiming it “has no goal” and it’s “pointless shootouts,” is just delusional argument. The suggestion clearly states the war can be about hundreds of thousands of dollars, not to mention the loot you gain by stealing guns or drugs from your rival by default.

Lastly, if somebody does not want to agree to terms of KOS, surprise! They don’t have to.

Bottom line is This whole system is based on consent and if any party is unhappy with it, then it’s not for you but I feel like it’s safe to say that the organizations who enjoy shootouts and are already desperately grinding for top of the leaderboard probably wouldn’t mind an extra couple hundred thousand dollars for just fighting a consensual war.

 

[Tarone Idrin (mohammed)]

This whole reply is just wrong and illogical

Yeah, as if the constant mass murder of police and aggravated burglaries involving anti-material snipers, grenades, etc.. are not terrorism. Did you think of how non sensical that argument is? Or how much of a double standard it is to act like raiding a person without consent is not bad but two consenting parties fighting because they enjoy doing so is “causing more shootouts.”

Then claiming it “has no goal” and it’s “pointless shootouts,” is just delusional argument. The suggestion clearly states the war can be about hundreds of thousands of dollars, not to mention the loot you gain by stealing guns or drugs from your rival by default.

Lastly, if somebody does not want to agree to terms of KOS, surprise! They don’t have to.

Bottom line is This whole system is based on consent and if any party is unhappy with it, then it’s not for you but I feel like it’s safe to say that the organizations who enjoy shootouts and are already desperately grinding for top of the leaderboard probably wouldn’t mind an extra couple hundred thousand dollars for just fighting a consensual war.

But when we do it, its for a reason yk if people really wanna make gang wars they can btw there's just no proper system and it has to be over a actual reason lol these orgs are guys with bombs and anti materiel rifles not the average hood boy from baltimore lol.


The difference is raiding is a way to simulate robbery with means of making money/killing people in rp terms. However both parties most of the time dont consent thats why raiding is kind of a thing because it serves as a risk with consequence you cant control.

 

[MalekIsWeird]

But when we do it, its for a reason yk if people really wanna make gang wars they can btw there's just no proper system and it has to be over a actual reason lol these orgs are guys with bombs and anti materiel rifles not the average hood boy from baltimore lol.


The difference is raiding is a way to simulate robbery with means of making money/killing people in rp terms. However both parties most of the time dont consent thats why raiding is kind of a thing because it serves as a risk with consequence you cant control.

If two powerful rivaling criminal organizations agree to a war wagering 500k fight over who wins the prize money by attempting to dominate the other, is that not a goal or reason? Not for nothing, at the very least they still steal the guns and drugs, but if we’re being honest there is a big sum of money and XP at stake also.

 

[menace]

The whole point of this suggestion is to make being a rival better.

Not to make Perpheads a PvP server, although it is literally cops and robbers with "RP elements" No one on Perpheads really "RP's" Most of you guys just sit there, holding X and talking to each other. No one does any /me's, any /do's or any sort of other stuff. When have you actually seen players on perpheads doing ANY sort of roleplay other then going on duty in PLPD, driving around, waiting for a shootout, raiding and etc.

Not only does this enhance the org system, adds a new category to leaderboards( who can win the most wars?) Bragging rights and other things but you guys are hypocrites. Half of you do the same thing but do it with no "reward". This is literally just a expansion to the systems that are already in the server.

This suggestion isnt Dark-RP at all, if you ever roleplayed on SA-MP(San Andreas Multiplayer) then you know about faction wars, which are literally the same thing.
Execpt with no rewards, and players just do it for bragging rights on who wins the war i.e has more kills.


If it makes you guys any happier, there can maybe be some pre-requistes to avoid abuse. i.e atleast 5 players from the org that is requesting a war mustve died by the rival org.

Shout out to @MalekIsWeird for understanding the suggestion. I'm confused on why I woke up with -14 down votes for no exact reason other then "PVP! NO!!"

 

[Coomstains]

Think im late to this but nobodies said it yet so heres my take, perp is PERP which is a what @menace said its cops and robbers with rp sprinkled in.

Personally i like the rp side of things, but i do like this suggestion. I only really see one issue with this sadly, it conflicts with rules of engagement in terms of KOS.

What happens when two gangs are rivaling and one shoots the other and now the dead ones unsuspecting unaffiliated friend tries to avenge his friends death? Plenty of players are friends but not in the same org or even allied and will shoot to defend eachother.

So in the idea that everyone pays into it that kinda just crumbles it as that kinda screws everything up. How do you propose they avoid this or work a way around it being an issue? How would other players (civs) outside of the gang war know whats going on and not to get involved?

 

[MalekIsWeird]

Think im late to this but nobodies said it yet so heres my take, perp is PERP which is a what @menace said its cops and robbers with rp sprinkled in.

We appreciate someone finally not riding the band wagon and just using logically fallible argument to disregard the whole suggestion.

Personally i like the rp side of things, but i do like this suggestion. I only really see one issue with this sadly, it conflicts with rules of engagement in terms of KOS.

It does not

What happens when two gangs are rivaling and one shoots the other and now the dead ones unsuspecting unaffiliated friend tries to avenge his friends death?

The unaffiliated friend killing the enemy does not contribute to the War, but simply empowers the side he/she fights for that in that specific engagement. All applicable rules and laws apply in this case making the role play still stable.
Plenty of players are friends but not in the same org or even allied and will shoot to defend eachother.

So in the idea that everyone pays into it that kinda just crumbles it as that kinda screws everything up. How do you propose they avoid this or work a way around it being an issue?

It does not screw anything up.

If the rivaling orgs want to actually benefit by ensuring their kills attribute to their war score, they probably would want to disallow and exclude outsiders from the war as to not accidentally cause their kill to not count which is a default incentive given the huge stakes.

Ultimately that’s just a decision for sides to make about if they’re okay with someone completely uninformed joins a fight randomly. If they don’t discuss that and someone does, that’s still awesome because it’s positive trait of how roleplay works with its randomness making every interaction or battle unique.

Even if that does not count towards a war score, it still nets the org a fair trade off. They possibly lose the earning potential of war score due to the involvement of an Outsider, but they get an increased chance of winning that fight and walking off with the guns / drugs from that specific engagement.

How would other players (civs) outside of the gang war know whats going on and not to get involved?

They may or may not know.

I think there’s a fair share of signs for people at the start to see two gangs constantly killing each other and raiding each other, or in classic perp fashion, roasting each other in OOC, then it would become glaringly obvious that if you hypothetically see a green suit from Grow & Kush and a Grey suit from Vault corp in one shootout, it’s probably safe to assume it’s a war engagement.

when organizations choose to not wear uniform, fights become a little more complicated, and that’s totally fine.

Bottom line is unaffiliated civilians can join war engagements just for the fighting but it is at the detriment of the org they fight alongside as it risks the loss of earning potential score due to the kill on a rival being done by said outsider. Furthermore, if they choose to get involved then the basic rules of engagement under 3.4 and 2.5 for who can be killed still govern the roleplay perfectly well.

 

[Japzzi/JoeReel]

People have learnt nothing from V5 Bank dilemma. Yeah bank raids were fun but not for the 75% of the player base that was locked out of a entire area of the city.

Bottom line is unaffiliated civilians can join war engagements just for the fighting

Just join a Deathmatch server already, biggest L take of the entire conversation.

 

[MalekIsWeird]

People have learnt nothing from V5 Bank dilemma. Yeah bank raids were fun but not for the 75% of the player base that was locked out of a entire area of the city.

Just join a Deathmatch server already, biggest L take of the entire conversation.

This is up there as one of the stupidest argument out of this whole thread.

If a raid happens at slums, is the player base not locked out of Slums?

If a raid happens at Tidals, is the player base not locked out of Tidals?

This server will always have raids that restrict access to areas for uninvolved parties, deal with it.

It’s completely illogical to compare V5 bank robberies and this suggestion because they have nothing in common.

Rather, it adds to the rationale behind why two parties fight. Raiding and crime in general from the perspective of the uninvolved player base is effectively the same; but it’s no longer as boring for rivaling orgs as just picking a random target hoping to extract guns, XP and drugs from a raid if you’re lucky. They have a reason to fight because sum of money and XP is at stake due to a mutual consensual agreement which everyone enjoying the idea willingly entered into to have fun.

 

[Nate]

Never forget the great Mensa Society vs Hoodrats war.. rip to our fallen soldiers

 

[Japzzi/JoeReel]

This server will always have raids that restrict access to areas for uninvolved parties, deal with it.

All your examples is about things happening in closed off buildings.

This suggestion and your own comments wants to be able to happen anywhere on the map. Yeah how fun to not be able to enter Casino because a gang war is happening right outside. You are literally saying that if bystanders are unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time then sucks to suck.


Its almost like you just want a excuse to KOS people. You pull out the craziest mental gymnastics to argue for the server to just turn into a warzone not only in certain selected and enclosed spaces but literally everywhere.

 

[MalekIsWeird]

All your examples is about things happening in closed off buildings.

This suggestion and your own comments wants to be able to happen anywhere on the map. Yeah how fun to not be able to enter Casino because a gang war is happening right outside. You are literally saying that if bystanders are unfortunate enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time then sucks to suck.

That is not what I’m saying.

The claim that orgs having a system to count their score for killing a rival is denying player access to areas is a huge issue, let alone the asinine comparison to V5 bank was refuted.

Then now the argument up and changed the goal post by adding conditions that it’s outside or inside?

Do shootouts not take place outside in V6?

It’s almost like you just want an excuse to KOS people.
You pull out the craziest mental gymnastics to argue for the server to just turn into a warzone not only in certain selected and enclosed spaces but literally everywhere.

Very rich to accuse me of mental gymnastics while ignoring the entire point of the suggestion and using Ad Hominem as a poor attempt at a rebuttal.

I never argued anything remotely close to what you’re claiming I did so quit trying to lie.

This whole reply is a fat strawman, a projection and a personal attack / Ad Hom argument


**
bottom line is if two mutually consenting orgs want to place a wage a war and fight over a prize pool agains their rivals, it shouldn’t bother you. It doesn’t matter how fun you personally find it because it does not affect you. Even if you believe it is a bad thing for them to roleplay that and have fun, They aren’t doing anything more chaotic than what already takes place and they’re actually making something fresh out of it that can be fun.