Rule Suggestion Limit AO wars to 1 life.

[JasonTheCheesyGuy]

What does this suggestion change/add/remove:
What it says on the tin; Limit AO wars to 1 life for both A1 and O1, alongside their respective assistants/O5's.

Alternatively, make AO wars guaranteed PK's for any personnel that die. But that's an extreme option.


Has something similar been suggested before? If so, why is your suggestion different?:
Not to my knowledge.

Possible Positives of the suggestion (At least 2):
1. AO wars will last significantly shorter, thereby giving the rest of the site much less disruption.
2. AO wars will have more weight as swift, decisive actions, rather than drawn-out conflicts, which means that tactics have significantly more importance and that ones' survival matters a lot more.

Possible Negatives of the suggestion:
AO has less long-lasting conflicts.

Based on the Positives & Negatives, why should this suggestion be accepted:
Look, it's well known that AO wars tend to... drag on a bit. Not to mention, they are usually accompanied by OOC announcements by (S)SL that if you're not AO you're not allowed to get involved. Meanwhile, everything else does get shut down.

Greatly shortening how long these situations last, I believe, will be preferable for the majority of the playerbase.

 

[JasonTheCheesyGuy]

Holy mother of misinformation.

Lets go through point-by-point, shall we?

Conflict Agreement isn't enforced by SSL anymore, on UK.

Only FCOM enforce it.

But (S)SL does enforce the 'Don't involve yourself if you're not AO!' parts of AO wars. Frankly, I think this is a mistake; It locks the majority of the players out of an RP scenario that is actively taking place before them.

No offense but this seems like you just got shot, got mad, and made a suggestion

I was not.

nother thing about this whole "MRDM" during wars isnt entirely AO's fault as I have encountered minges bodyblocking doorways or purposely stepping in an active firing zone just to bait sits and get people warned.

Never mentioned anything about RDM in my suggestion. As far as I am concerned, that is a topic that can be resolved by staff already. This suggestion is directed towards limiting the duration and scope of AO wars to swift decisive combat, rather than long-lasting conflicts.

Yesterday I saw A1 and O1 tug-of-war over MTF Loop for half an hour, with any RP for the rest of site-personnel completely disregarded. I believe this is not in line with what AO wars should be.

In my experience (Both as an OSA, ECA, O1, and Site-Administration member, for all the kind folks stating that if I were AO I'd understand better) AO wars are decided within the first 30 seconds of the conflict; Either an O5/ECM gets kidnapped/shot, or they get hunkered down into their respective area whilst A1 and O1 continue a tug-of-war from F3 to ECO, with nobody having any chance of actually getting anywhere due to the literally infinite lives that each side has.

There are sampling regiments in AO and they are sometimes given orders to sample for readiness (you can ask some O1 and A1 people how many times they've sampled SCPs

Okay, on this topic you can tell me to cope and seethe because I despise the current chems/sampling system, but that's unrelated to the suggestion.

-support
this just deflates anything possibly fun about an AO war, like it's a war it should have impact, not end in 2 seconds cause, this would just end in 2 seconds (woah really?) also just cuz ur current leadership doesn't have the measures to lock off & restrict a war cause its too disruptive, making a suggestion to add rules to limit it isn't gonna fix anything, its just going to massively demotivate even starting a war in the first place, i mean u have a bunch of RP tension between the two sides doing all these crazy stuff over a long period of time just for a at max 10 minute long conflict

This is actually my key point of this suggestion; AO war should have impact. At the moment, it does not. If the war does not start with a surprise detention/assassination of an O5/ECM, they tend to just drag out into team-deathmatches with no end goal anymore that have to eventually be ended by (S)SL telling both sides to calm down because it's causing too much disruption.

This change to rules would introduce that impact. Each soldier you lose is this fight is out for the rest of the fight, not walking back out of bunks in 5 seconds. Thereby, you can actually resolve a conflict with one side winning, rather than an eternal stalemate.

I find a single death to be too much and would result in something both too short and not interesting enough. They don't happen enough to be ended in 60 seconds.

That being said, a limitation on lives or something similar to push AO wars away from first person shooter team deathmatch into a more planned out structured combat would be something positive overall. CI raids (as much as I hate them) purposefully have one side that cannot respawn so that small damage to the team does slowly bring it down - if AO wars had something similar it would be good.

I think a person could reasonably argue 3 deaths and AO would still have fun.

Honestly peak, as always.

Sure, increase the number of lives; The main goal of this suggestion is to introduce some form of limitation upon it, rather than just permitting the eternal team-deathmatch to continue until ECM's and O5's decide to make peace. Installing a life-limit of any number means that we will have an actual 'win' condition for either side.

If you were ever in an AO I woulda gave this actual thought. First, everything else does not get "Shut down", AO wars are usually limited to PW/EZ.

I have been. It does. And they're not.

Maybe this is just a UK issue then. I never play US, so I cannot tell you what the situation on there is. However, the majority of AO wars that I have seen result in what is effectively a full site-lockdown, followed by a site-wide amnestication that wipes out any RP that was done during the war in any case.


Look, to the poor content members reading through this thread;

I think blob has the right idea here. 1 life may be too little, a PK too harsh, whatever. The main goal I'm trying to achieve is that a means of actually winning the conflict is introduced, so that we no longer have team-deathmatches. Keep that stuff on the surface please.

 

[Speff]

love u jason but this is too much larp on the cn pvp server

also uh idk wtf happens on UK server but on US afaik theyre literally just treated as wargames:

AO will start fighting, maybe take up the entirety of core sector or smth, shoot each other for like 30 mins max, and then boom its over. i think you guys just larp too much with your "amnestications" ngl, maybe UK SC is why they're so disruptive to other ongoing roleplay.

on us site there can be an entire AO war happening and you wouldnt know unless you walk into the gunfight or see "cadet stop shooting all the o1" being comms'd in by site command

(also id like to believe that UK AO just suck at shooting cuz on US, unless u have ur gun pointed at either of them, u can just walk into and past the gunfight, 80% chance youll live)

 

[James Dingle]

But (S)SL does enforce the 'Don't involve yourself if you're not AO!' parts of AO wars. Frankly, I think this is a mistake; It locks the majority of the players out of an RP scenario that is actively taking place before them.

This is misinformation, on the UK the AO Conflict agreement is entirely in the hands of FCOM nowadays.

SL have a responsibility to monitor server health and ensure that:

• It doesn't go on for too long
• RP isn't hampered in a major way
• Server rules are being followed where they need to be

Your quote is a misrepresentation of what SL told people, which was not get involved unless there was RP to be had. This was to stop people just shooting each other up for little to no reason other than because they shot first. There has been plenty of roleplay generating from AO shooting each other as I have observed by looking through the discord channels, orders and such.

There are always people who are upset or frustrated with what happens during an AO war and how it impacts them, it is the natural lifecyle of every AO war that occurs (certainly on the UK) but they happen so infrequently that suggesting a ruling change like this very unlikely to happen.

But by all means, leave feedback with the respective FCOM. I would encourage that so they can think about your qualms for the future.

 

[JasonTheCheesyGuy]

This is misinformation, on the UK the AO Conflict agreement is entirely in the hands of FCOM nowadays.

SL have a responsibility to monitor server health and ensure that:

• It doesn't go on for too long
• RP isn't hampered in a major way
• Server rules are being followed where they need to be

Your quote is a misrepresentation of what SL told people, which was not get involved unless there was RP to be had. This was to stop people just shooting each other up for little to no reason other than because they shot first. There has been plenty of roleplay generating from AO shooting each other as I have observed by looking through the discord channels, orders and such.

While I appreciate that this is the intention, the reality is frequently a CSAY that says "If you are not AO stay out of the conflict".

That... doesn't leave much space for misinterpretation. It means that individuals that have built-up RP reasoning to get involved in a situation get sidelined. I get that you have to take action to prevent people from just randomly shooting each other up for little to no reason, but I feel like this problem would not exist nearly as much if there were a clear end-condition such as 'All of 1 side is dead'.

Look, I get the point that this lies mostly with FCOM, and that this suggestion is a bit of a heavy-handed one on the topic. But yea, I just think there should be some clearer end condition to it all.

 

[JasonTheCheesyGuy]

Consider this withdrawn from my side, by-the-by, I believe it is indeed better to raise this topic with FCOM on the UK directly rather than a bi-server ruling.

 

[James Dingle]

Withdrawn by OP.