The current war has gone on for long enough, the Consone War went on for 6 months. We have gone from being a peaceful, benign group of players to a war game with brief interludes of peace.

So I was wondering what the support for using the mythical King Sigurd (ruler of Elgea) would be to stop wars.

My suggestion would be that King Sigurd personally intervenes in a war 90 days after one alliance declares war on another and simply prevents conflict. Armies blockading or sieging a town would be sent home, armies that meet on the battlefield would not be allowed to engage followed by an enforced 90 day period of peace, when hopefully heads can cool down a bit.

(The enforced period of peace would not preclude NPC hunting or involvement in tournaments.)

You only have to look at GC at the moment to see that there is a lot of emotion, too many people that would rather see the world burn around them than put out the fires. More importantly, there are too many people leaving the game.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this or alternative ideas

Hail the Undying Flame!

I'm all for factions (including even Siggie) doing stuff, but I don't think the system should intervene to change the way players interact with each other, unless they are violating the Code of Conduct or Terms of Service.

Probably when factions go live that will have some effect on pvp just by the very nature of it.  (People might be more cautious about losing their last army sieging someone when they know that the Melders are lurking, just waiting for an opportunity.)  But I'm not sure that it should occur in a way that is INTENDED to influence player behavior one way or the other.

There would be a lot of unintended consequences to a de facto 90-day limit on wars.  A lot more undeclared wars, and perhaps a lot more vicious fighting early on.  Plus people would sign peace just to start up again even sooner than they already do.

I DO wish that we as players could come up with better options to winning gracefully and losing gracefully.  In other words, how does one conduct and win or lose a war in a way that encourages people to stay in the game rather than leaving it.

But that's really up to the people involved.  I'd be most interested in creative ideas in that direction.

One idea I've had is for people to agree on limited war aims at the beginning of a conflict.  The fact that wars tend to break out because people can't agree in the first place would make this difficult.  But it would be great to see the folks who enjoy war to put on a war with agreed-upon goals like "first person to raze 10 cities wins."  I'm sure there would be argument from people who think that all-out mass destruction is more fun, but I think it could be an interesting exercise.

This is a pipe dream, my friend. The devs are simply not going to do this, or anything like it. They have set up the world as they have, and it's up to us to live together in peace, or not, as we see fit.

If you look at the history of changes they've made to the game, they have deliberately done things to increase conflict, not decrease it. And in BL (if it ever becomes a reality), they have made a safe zone for players like yourself who want to be free of the possibility of war. So they are looking out for players who like either style of play.

Your proposition comes from the point of view that peace is better than war. But that's just your opinion, not an objective fact. The devs allow for all styles of play here, and that's one of the things I love about this game!

Although I doubt the remaining parties will follow the same route, my guess is that the war will not go on as long as everyone feared...  nor will it result in the utter destruction so hyped in the forums and in GC...

On the other hand, fielding armies is far too easy, especially for a pre-gunpowder setting. Sieges in that period should last for months, not days. Armies should suffer attrition just from being away from home.

Since they have a carrying capacity, they should need to carry their own food supply. Depending on terrain and season, foraging could slow down the food drain - but winter campaigns and campaigns in low-food areas should be much more difficult. This way, there would at least be a pause in hostilities when armies cannot be resupplied and head home in protest.

I really hope to see such features as soon as Pathfinding is alive... hard to do that without armies being able to destroy enemy or protect friendly food/weapon logistics...

All in all, those restrictions will again give a more territorial (and perhaps more realistic) warfare with oh so much new tactical options! (I'd like!)

A direct intervention IMO would put the DEVS even more in the line of fire... it's hard to make fair decisions, and once you made one, it will affect decisions for ALL the following wars and players will seek ways to use or avoid this,... best to restrain from that...

And about factions trying to maintain the peace... if we get those, be prepared to also see warliking factions to join in the fight to players paying them money, or just for plundering =)  Everything could happen...

Alcie wrote: factions would start disliking you simply for being so warlike.

I think these are the best ideas proposed so far