This is where members get to share their views on how the next war should be setup.

I don't like the new mercenary groups thing. it leaves precious little incentive for joining a country

Could you be a bit narrower? Just saying "Disscuss War" doesn't give (at least me) much to say about.

Bring up topics brought up in the suggestions forum. Stuff like that. I did this so we could be more organized, plus, it's what Hiei told me to do.

Hmmm. I think it'd be interesting to make wars more like a real FE game. We could have a set of pre-established maps from which one is selected at declaration of war. Then the leader of the country or band acts as tactician and sets up map using his country's/band's characters as units. So like this:


Thats the Map

Setup would be something like:

Bern
Units:
Chad 1 A
Lucas 2 A
Roger 2 B

Lycia
Units:
Mike 10 O
Sarah 10 N
Jenny 10 M

Each side takes turns moving units in a traditional chess style, attacking and using items when available. If anyone is even interested go ahead and I'll try to get more in depth about it. I've been trying to think of ways to incorporate this for wars. It just seems like it'd be more FEish.

Actually, on FES, I had this thing called group battles, we tested it out and I thought it worked pretty well. I just idd it on a small grid I made on paint, but here're the rules I'm currently reqorking.

That's basically what it was, 'cept it was a lot more advianced. That's why I'm trying to take it down and make it simpler.

Sounds a lot like what I had planned, what with terrain and weather, but I think if we reserved this kind of gameplay solely for the wars it would work better. Also if you eliminate the types of game and make it a simple kill em all set up it would be more war-like. Then if we added keywords back to some extent involving classes, the terrain could be more effective. That way if someone made a custom class such as "Flying hippo rider" they could give it the keyword "Heavy" and "wing" to make it unaffected by mountains and forests but suffer speed. Or make a "Woodsman" class to have him unaffected by forests. Maybe a + and - system. For every positive keyword you have to have a negative.

But if we mix the two it'd be real cool I'm sure.

Yeah, I posted that for war references possibly, group battles would be too much for FEW to handle, especially with the staff.

Well, here's a random thought: Why don't we have another staff for the RPG specifically? Sure, the staff we have now may be doing a good job on the forum, but I don't think the rpg would be handled well. Maybe set up a new branch of people JUST for the RPG. SO and so is in charge of wars, this guy is in charge of battles, this guy is in charge of profiles, this guy in charge of shops etc etc. A plus is that these people could be volunteers. Since they hold no real power over the majority of the forum, they could be people that have free time, and are willing to do the work.

I like that idea, but even if they didn't have power, Ultima wouldn't like the idea, he doesn't like doing anything with people he doesn't know. :hopping:

Anyway, if we can get the staff to agree with it, I'd say go for it. It sounds like a good idea, and I'd gladly volunteer.

Then go ahead and pitch it to em.

The Forum Team is the RPG staff. Anyone in the forum team is able to see the production forum which is where we do RPG stuff.

Anyways, I think we originally did wars with grids, but they never went throught. . . Too much work.

Eh, the group wars are easy as long as you have a plan for inactivity. It workded out pretty well on my site.

Plus how many forum team members are currently active? They never seem to do all what they need to do. Volunteers would be soooo much better.

Indeed. The whole idea of a separate team of volunteering members is because quite frankly, the forum staff doesn't seem to do the best at trying to be both. Now when we use the word volunteers it's not like anyone can just say the word and get the spot. The forum staff will have to approve of course, but they need to look at it not as approving an admin or mod, but as approving someone to help cut the slack.

Yep, that's why I approve of the idea. Still, I doubt the actual staff will, even if the forum team does, I doubt some of the admins will.

The forum team and the normal staff are completely separate entities.

Our current list is pretty expansive, considering we havn't really dropped people when they've become inactive for whatever reasons. Regardless, you are right in saying that they are currently inactive, which is why I'm trying to revamp it.

Any of you interested in the job?

A quick comment. The way in which the war is executed is not the problem. It's never been the problem. The problem was and is the fact that actual Wars required a lot of judging and dedication that no one wanted to put in.

If you or anyone wants to apply for something to help the community, apply to be a Judge, and do a couple of battles every day.

Yes all these grids are nice, but discussing them is irrelevant if the war itself still takes weeks (even months) to complete.

Well, the problem is, there are a lot of judges, but the war is always stopped early by inactivity, that's the problem we need to solve.

We should go back to allowing regular judges be War Judges, and they'd have to be neutral, meaning both sides have to agree on someone.

That way Forum Team can worry about other matters, and the RPG can still keep on rolling.

Eh, there're way too many judges. I'd say make more war judge spots available, with small rewards for judging battles.

Again, thanks for repeating me

If you mean, make it so not every judge could be a War Judge, then yeah, we can go back to the Judge > Row Battle Judge > War Judge > Arbitor
(At least I think that's how it was <_< )

When I said that, I meant that not all judges are fit to be war judges. So when you waid make regular judges war judges, I thought you meant to combine them, which would be a bad idea, because pretty much anybody can be a judge. So yeah, bring back the arbitor stuff, I hear a lot of people are wanting that back.

What The Entertainer says is true. The system we have for making war is fine. No one judges them.

So Karn agrees? Yayzerz?

Yeah, for every step of the judging...ladder? You'd have to take a test to pass, of course, each one varying in difficulty.

Bring back Arbiters and their Stars and I will come back. I was one of the most active judges and THE most active Arbiter but nobody knew because nobody knew me BECAUSE I never or rarely posted in the chat forums.

Heck I would take a job if you guys made a staff specificly for the RPG for a while thats all I was here for was judging and battling. So yea...I think I would come back.

Random thought-Think about this...If you simplify the system as much as you possably could to where the people liked it and it was understandable enough where they would come back and play a part in the wars effectivly and efficiently then you have a winning RPG on your hands.

This side is Greater > This Side was Lesser

Correct order was Arbiter > War Judges > Row Battle Judge > Judge

Not trying to be insulting; just correcting the error.

Yes, bring back the Arbiter rank and the judging rewards and I'm sure the activity would spike.

I'd also like to say that Wars took so long and didn't finish because you had a long tactical battle hinge on one judge. Assign more than on War judge (like 2 to 3) to a battle and it'll go smoothly.

War Judges are a good idea and the Volunteer idea is alright but it would be more organized to have Forum Teamers do it instead. Those who would volunteer could easily become Forum Teamers instead of forming a lesser branch to do the same job.

*does the shark trick*

I was never good in Pre-Algebra >_<

No problem. Just didn't want any confusion.

You should have it that the Forum team doesn't have a country. I mean I'm sure most of them would want to be in a country but I think having the same leaders every time is just boring. I mean Im not just speaking for myself because I have only been a leader in a VERY inactive RPG and I had like 2 other people in my country. But if all or most of the leaders were not leading a country at least then I think it would bring equallity to who is joining the country, or at least MORE equallity.

Because think about it....If Grondy was leading one country and like Kaden was leading another who do you think most of the people would go to? Likely Grondy because he was an awesome leader.

The thing is you want awsome people such as Grondy running the show or less people will care. I rather join an RPG under knowledgable leaders than fresh faces.

*coughcircleoffriends*

Sure, the people need to know a lot about the RPG, but it's also good to try fresh faces to try to put a new spin on it all. Of course, you'd have to make some kind of test over war for them to do that, thus it probably is better to stick with people who we know already know it very well.

@Trace: Well the Forum team would be running the show but I mean countries, because some of the people may be good leaders and all of that but they have never had a chance to show any of that off because the people like Karn or one of the other Admins steps up and all of the other people go for the Admin because they don't know what the newer person can do in the terms of leading a country.

@Kaden:Well yes and no because as I said up there putting new faces to control the countries would be as good as putting people that have lead before because we dont know what some people can do when leading a country.

You may think it's a big popularity contest but it's the resumes that help decide who becomes a country leader. If the staff chose just the people we liked then why bother asking for people to PM us reasons. We gather the PMs together and analysis all of them, then chose the members who put in the most effort and persuasive arguement in why they should be a leader.

Meh, I heard an idea eariler, it was like, say we had 8 countries, then 4 would be picked out personally by Forum Team by their essay type thing, and then the ones picked would be announced, and then like a set amount of people could run for the other 4 positions, and that would be based on nominations, and then out of like the 8 or 10 top nominated, there would be a poll that anyone could vote through.

So it's kinda like the USA's National and then State Government.

(I know, it's an RPG, not a Democracy (Lawlz, made a rhyme), but it's to make it fair for everyone)

I like that idea, even out the power. ^_^

I give the credit to who said it, but I forgot who it was, and don't care enough to look >_>

It was never just out of Forum Team to begin with. Country Leaders were made into Teamers to give them moderate mod powers. I like the idea but pretty much what we have always done is a mixture of the nomination and resume.

So far in every reset I've seen, either every leader was picked by resume or picked by votes, never a mixture of the two.

Everyone can and has tried out for leadership from newbies to admins. What position you hold has never determined whether or not you became a leader. If that doesn't clear it up then I give up.

Well, it's more of a matter of what the member think would make a better leader, and what the forum team thinks would be a better leader.

I don't think anyone said position being a deciding factor...