Notice To All God Wars X Players

[Lime]

I'll cut straight to the point.

You've all noticed that the game has stalled and ground to a standstill. There are many reasons for this, but the foremost is because Siroki has been bored. I don't mean to stick words in his mouth, but that's about it. It's quite tedious to manage God Wars X, especially the battling bits. As a result, he has consented to stepping down from the role of God Wars X Gamemastery. 

Unfortunately, that leaves us without a Gamemaster, and with no Gamemaster, we have no game. Now, I do know that God Wars X has been enjoyed, despite the issues that there have been with the previous games in the franchise. I believe that with the release of the expansion a few months ago, this is now the best possible iteration of the game, and that these mechanics should be used.

If we want to continue the God Wars Games Series, we'll need a new Gamemaster. If we choose a new game master from the existing playerbase (and I don't see selecting someone from outside the playerbase as an option) it would mean we would need to restart the game, and create a whole new setting so that we may start fresh. I know that many have spent a lot of time developing this world (I know I've certainly spent much time developing Kaledam), but see this as an opportunity. My own East Gielinor Trading Company was so in-depth because of the mistakes I learned from with the Nardan Commonwealth.

So, here's the deal. If you all trust me, I would like to step up to the plate as the Gamemaster. For those of you who don't know, here's my qualifications:

1. I have adequately battlemastered many of the battles you've all fought.
2. I have been involved with God Wars in each of the Five Games.
3. I have helped develop Six of the Seven games that were developed, including God Wars V and Chronicles of Freedom.
4. I have helped develop the expansion pack.
5. I have Gamemastered both God Wars 3 and the original God Wars.
6. I created the game series.
7. I have way too much time on my hands.

In an attempt to make amends for my previous mistakes, I will consider allowing Toa Takanuva, who was banned during the development process, to return to the games. By now, I feel that he may have served his punishment, and may have learned from his mistakes. He will be on a probation, of course, but he has not done anything wrong to warrant his eternal banhammery from the game. Your input is appreciated.

Additionally, the games will only be minorly changed outside of the lore. The Lore, in the concept I've come up, will be that the game is taking place in the middle of the 3rd Age, and that the Divine Factions are now splintering under the strain of the war. The Gods, at the beginning of the game, will be aligned with the core of their empires, but none will fight on the field, as they have to rule their kingdom. As the game progresses, the Gods may choose to switch their patron empire from the original to your own. As such, the "Saradominist Kingdom of Brantia" may, at some point in the game, switch its name to "The Kingdom of Saradomin". This'll give a small buff for a few turns, but then the God will leave the plane and the empire in your adequate hands. In essence, you won't be fighting the gods on the field. This setting also allows us to pull historical characters, such as Azzanadra, Commander Zilyana, Thammaron, and General Bloodfist. Additionally, since the face of Gielinor was changed drastically at the end of the God Wars and during the Fourth Age, the game will be the perfect mix of foreign and familiar. If you disagree with this, please post your complaints/alternative plans. Other plans will be considered amongst the entire playerbase, and I will endeavor to finish creating this lore (which I am quite excited about, as I like going really indepth), as soon as possible.

Should you be generous enough to allow me to Gamemaster, then please post this in the responses to this thread. All discussion is welcome.

Should you decide you do not want me as the next Gamemaster, please post the reasons for this, and your suggestions for the next Gamemaster are welcome.

Thank you.

[Yuhkon]

I'm definitely in! I love playing this game and wouldn't miss it, so count me in as one of the players. I support your GM-ship!

Now, about the setting... I like your idea of having it play out in the middle of the Third Age, though I don't quite get your kingdom-switching thing. Nevertheless, I do like the altered map of Gielinor we used in GWX, as I think it's more balanced than the real map (and I had a hand in designing it, so I'm reluctant to let it go). Is there some way we could still use that map?
Also, I'm more a fan of making my own faction (like the present Serenite Realm) rather than borrowing too much from existing RuneScape lore. Will that be possible?

[Lime]

The good news about setting it in the god wars is that there's so much about that time period that's completely unknown. We don't know how everything fits together farther than some of the biggest, most major battles of the period, and where certain factions were during the time (with the first, it's difficult to say when exactly these battles were, and the second is still quite hazy). I don't want to reveal too much about the setting, but I will say that a ritual will take place, and that I've chosen a time period in which there is a ton of stuff happening (I had to fudge a few numbers but I digress). Anyways, if we do choose that setting, we'd pretty much NEED to go with a modern-Gielinor-esque map (although your is still stellar.) Once again, this is just a suggestion, and we could just redo the same concept as this God Wars.

My current interpretation is that under the strain of the war, certain factions are fracturing within themselves, even though they all represent the same God. You will be playing as one of the fractured bits of the factions. For example, in my setting, the abandons iambs have retreated for the most part to Northern Asgarnia, Eastern Wilderness, and the Troll Mountains. There are still, however, certain pockets of Bandosians scattered across the land. The Bandosians Player would play as one of these pockets. Additionally, as the Saradominist Empire has done quite well in the God Wars by this point, solidifying their holdings in Asgarnia, they'd be quite large and would have acquired several large territories in North Kandarin, Ice Mountain (with the Imcamdo of Camdozzal), and so forth. I've chosen that their naval territories have collapsed into piracy due to Malmanagement, however. The Player could play as a Saradominist Pirate, or a splinter of the Imcamdo, or something completely else! I promise that if we go with this plan, I will work with the players as much as possible to give each faction their own unique history.

Also, considering that the Serenite Faction usually poses huge problems with regards to being locked in Tirannwn, and the fact that the Serenites barely participated in the God Wars anyways, I'm considering making them one of the NPC's.

And the kingdom switching was just a way for me to explain why we won't see Gods on the battlefield. I'm still pondering it.

[Yuhkon]

Cool, thanks for clarifying a few things!
I think that for now, I'm on board with your idea. It sounds interesting and I'm cool with using the regular Gielinor map.

And... I call dibs on Zamorak!

[Lime]

CHAOS CHAOS

[Thorlah]

Well...Hmm...

I'll make the same offer to you as I did Siroki, in that I'd be happy to help you with lore set up and the like!

As for playing...well, that one might take some more discussions and deliberations.

Tentatively, I could be talked into it, but again, I'd probably need to talk with you one on one first about things I could improve on, and whether it'd be better for me to take an administrative role rather than an active player role.

[Unguis]

I would be in for the game, although I do think this issue is part of bigger issue of how to keep interest and enthusiasm high throughout the game. I have no doubt that you will remain an active game master, but we never have managed to get through an an entire game, often due to inactivity. I don't know if there is a way to deal with this problem, but I fear the fates of GWII, GWIII, and GWX (or even GWIV & GWV) may prove unavoidable if we don't find one.

That said, I would like to reserve a spot.

[Takanuva]

Ahoy!


EDIT: Kinda feel like I should post something a bit more.

Well, that "break' from GW in general helped a lot. I fully support LIme's GMship, I know he can do it. Besides, he made one of my favorite forum games, whats not to like?

EDIT2: IF we're taking dibs, uhhh...

Zaros?

Unless Thorlahlahlah wants him, idk.

[Yuhkon]

Mar 25, 2015 18:08:31 GMT -5 Unguis said:

I would be in for the game, although I do think this issue is part of bigger issue of how to keep interest and enthusiasm high throughout the game. I have no doubt that you will remain an active game master, but we never have managed to get through an an entire game, often due to inactivity. I don't know if there is a way to deal with this problem, but I fear the fates of GWII, GWIII, and GWX (or even GWIV & GWV) may prove unavoidable if we don't find one.

That said, I would like to reserve a spot.

If I may attempt to alleviate your concern... (I really want you to play!)
I actually feel that enthusiasm was plenty high. People were posting lore and most of us were generally on time with our posts. I think the current system works well, with a limited window and the ability to miss one turn without debilitating consequences. It's just that after a while the Monthly Reports didn't come in frequently enough anymore, and more importantly, the battles took too long. I think it was the battles that were the main problem. Having multiple BMs will help remedy that, and I think we should think about actually using the system of agreeing on a time at which both BM and player can battle, and then try to resolve the entire battle in one session. That won't always be possible, but I think we should try.

In any case, I think Lime will be an active, enthusiastic and competent GM, and I have faith in his ability to keep us all interested. That said, we all need to contribute too, of course.

[Lime]

I have to agree with you, Yuccon. The major issue has always been the battles. However, I do believe that players doubling as battle masters is a step in the right direction. Between the three of us (Jascertes, Siroki, and myself) we were able to handle HUGE amounts of battles.

[Takanuva]

From my occasional pop-ins to this God Wars and my participation of the previous God Wars, the problems are pretty much GM inactivity and battles.
Battles we can take care of, GM inactivity we don't need to worry about because Lime is one of the most active out of all of us.

[Lime]

Provided, of course, that my life doesn't explode.

[Takanuva]

True.

By the way, shall we start calling Jascertes AWOLscertes?

[Lime]

We'll let him come back on his own time. Proper development of the setting and balancing and stuff like that will likely take a month or so.

WHICH REMINDS ME: one of things I've wanted to do since using the Battle Formula as battlemaster is to rework it. Right now, the battle formula is too reliant on sheer numbers rather than tactics, which is a massive waste of this grid-and-map system that we've created. Yes, William might've been a mathematical genius who was definitely and most certainly smarter than everyone else in the room (and dear god did he like to remind us of that), but he was still a human being, and in my opinion, he did make some severe mistakes with the battle formula that makes it fall short of what I expect of it. I'm going to try to rework the battle formula so that it plays nicer with Naval/Amphibious battles, as well as making it less exposed to the snowball effect.

[Takanuva]

In my opinion, the way to remove snowball is to have the formula less reliant on RNG and more simple, and of course, don't make it public. Public battle formulas are really bad. One who knows the formula and fights, well, lets just say they can use it to their strengths. But I don't think any GW battle formula has been public, so nevermind that.

Sometimes the simplest of formulas are the most complex.


EDIT: Hmm, I may take a look around this GW forum for a little bit more opinion-making. Well, and reading that lore.



So much...lore.

[Unguis]

The problem with a secret battle formula is player battle masters. It's better that everyone has access to the battle formula and can thus manipulate battles to their advantage than that merely a few players do and can.

[Takanuva]

Well, we dont want everyone to manipulate a battle formula to their advantage, now do we? What if some do and some don't? Do we just say you could have, now stop whining/complaining/whatever? I don't know honestly.

EDIT: Since Lime has said that a month or two is a goal for the reboot, and we're closer to cracking the Battles problem, is there more discussion needed? Or this thread might as well house all discussions and we have no subthreads.

Edit 2: SwiftKey you piece of poo.

[Siroki Adminson]

Siroki to the rescue! NOW WITH QUOTES!

In my opinion, the way to remove snowball is to have the formula less reliant on RNG and more simple, and of course, don't make it public. Public battle formulas are really bad. One who knows the formula and fights, well, lets just say they can use it to their strengths. But I don't think any GW battle formula has been public, so nevermind that.

Actually, the only part of the formula that is an actual RNG creates a multiplier between 0.8 and 1.2. (Keeping in mind that if number it rolls is just '1', then it's considered the equivalent of "Nothing interesting happens!".) Almost all of the damage output from your troops will come from basically how many there are, how good the situation is for you, and if they match the combat triangle correctly. RNG plays a role that's incredibly tiny, but still enough that JUST numbers, tactics, and combat style aren't the only deciding factors.

Liem posted a copy of the combat formula in spreadsheet form on a thread in the general forums, but I'm pretty sure it's outdated at this point. Him and one Jasband also streamlined it a lot to remove obsolete factors and stuff, since I basically took the formula from development of GW5.

Currently, the combat formula, which really could just be called a "HOW MANY PEOPLE DIED!?" formula, takes these factors into account:

Troop Count: The number on the attacking and defending token
Power: The strength of the troop. Average troops have a strength of 2
Type Multiplier: Combat triangle factor, you do 50% more damage if you're effective against the enemy (archer attacking a mage) or 50% less damage if you're not effective (spearman attacking a mage)
Paragon Multiplier: adds 20% more damage if you brought a paragon
RNG Multiplier: adds (or subtracts) a percent of damage as high (or low) as 20%
Situation: adds (or subtracts) a percent of damage based on the situation in battle as decided by the BM (An attack from higher ground will cause you to do more damage, for example.) This part of the formula is to be used rarely and only use small numbers (1.5 is a common cap) as it VERY heavily affects the damage output.

All of this is divided by the Lifepoints factor, which itself is multiplied by the defending troop count.

In the end, tells us how many enemies died after taking all the damage from your troops. (and Lime even added a how-many-survivors section that helps with the map making process).

If you all want, I can release an updated copy of it for you people to play around with so you can understand what's going on better.

But like I said before, the RNG isn't the driving force behind the formula. Troop count, situation, and how well you're exploiting the combat triangle is basically the deciding factor on how much damage you deal.

[Takanuva]

Yeah, I may be talking a bit more about previous formulas then this one. Like I said, my experience isn't with this game, it is from previous games. I am pretty sure GW4 was more RNG.

Anyway, yeah a copy to be released would be good to tinker around with.

[Lime]

Besides, the experienced generals that you guys are should know what exactly counts the most in a battle, and unfortunately, I feel the battle formula has weighted the game too much in just pure numbers' favor. I'll give you an example.

When I was bored, I decided I'd have a battle that would pit 300 Spartans (300 paragons) against 100,000 Persians (normal troops). What happened first was that the Persians got a little bit of edge on the RNG. They did poorly on the RNG for the rest of the seven battle rounds. However, their early advantage snowballed as the Spartans were out a few more troops, and then it simply became which person had more of a numerical advantage. In the end, all the Spartans died in Battle Round 7 (and the Persians lost a good 85,000 troops), which technically means I could've said "Persians take the region! Now they have to hold it from reinforcements that will arrive next turn!" But it did alert me to the issue of the battle formula being more about who gets an edge first, and who has the more troops.

[Takanuva]

This may be the worst idea ever, but worth a few scenarios:

Remove the Combat Triangle entirely and replace it with something else.

See how that fares with your 300 scenario.

[Lime]

No, I'm not gonna remove the Combat triangle. That's a jump too far from the original GWX game. We're only looking to make tweaks to the overall mechanics of the game. It may go into consideration for the next version, though.

Also, the game is happening in the year 3600-range of the 3rd age.

[Siroki Adminson]

Just out of curiosity; if we've established that liemliemliem is taking over as GM, what is the current topic of this thread?

[Thorlah]

Mar 27, 2015 5:57:07 GMT -5 Lime said:

Besides, the experienced generals that you guys are should know what exactly counts the most in a battle, and unfortunately, I feel the battle formula has weighted the game too much in just pure numbers' favor. I'll give you an example.

When I was bored, I decided I'd have a battle that would pit 300 Spartans (300 paragons) against 100,000 Persians (normal troops). What happened first was that the Persians got a little bit of edge on the RNG. They did poorly on the RNG for the rest of the seven battle rounds. However, their early advantage snowballed as the Spartans were out a few more troops, and then it simply became which person had more of a numerical advantage. In the end, all the Spartans died in Battle Round 7 (and the Persians lost a good 85,000 troops), which technically means I could've said "Persians take the region! Now they have to hold it from reinforcements that will arrive next turn!" But it did alert me to the issue of the battle formula being more about who gets an edge first, and who has the more troops.

Something you may want to fix or work on is what happens when sheer numbers cause issues (such as when I did just that). Granted, I don't think you'll encounter the exact same situation next time around, but it may still be something worth looking at.

[Thorlah]

Mar 28, 2015 10:36:31 GMT -5 Siroki Adminson said:

Just out of curiosity; if we've established that liemliemliem is taking over as GM, what is the current topic of this thread?

From what I can tell, a checklist of reservations for factions, a way of gaguing interest of previous players from this and other iterations, and suggestions and advice for how to fix minor to major problems.

[Lime]

Mar 28, 2015 12:57:48 GMT -5 Thorlah said:

Mar 27, 2015 5:57:07 GMT -5 Lime said:

Besides, the experienced generals that you guys are should know what exactly counts the most in a battle, and unfortunately, I feel the battle formula has weighted the game too much in just pure numbers' favor. I'll give you an example.

When I was bored, I decided I'd have a battle that would pit 300 Spartans (300 paragons) against 100,000 Persians (normal troops). What happened first was that the Persians got a little bit of edge on the RNG. They did poorly on the RNG for the rest of the seven battle rounds. However, their early advantage snowballed as the Spartans were out a few more troops, and then it simply became which person had more of a numerical advantage. In the end, all the Spartans died in Battle Round 7 (and the Persians lost a good 85,000 troops), which technically means I could've said "Persians take the region! Now they have to hold it from reinforcements that will arrive next turn!" But it did alert me to the issue of the battle formula being more about who gets an edge first, and who has the more troops.

Something you may want to fix or work on is what happens when sheer numbers cause issues (such as when I did just that). Granted, I don't think you'll encounter the exact same situation next time around, but it may still be something worth looking at.

The main issue with that wasn't really the Battle Formula, it was more of a problem with the map. Regardless, I feel that the Battle of Ardougne was exactly an example of what happens when you bring armies to do things you don't need a big army to do: you get big logistical problems.

[Takanuva]

Speaking of which, who changed that Turn banner to some random date?

[Thorlah]

Hey Toa, just wanted to let you know, you're free to reserve Zaros. (Saying it here in case it didn't go through to the Chatbox)

[Takanuva]

Thank you!

[Takanuva]

So far we have
Zamzams - Yuccon
Zaropros - Toa
Banjos - Undecided
Armadillo - Undecided
Seren - Undecided
Saranopedem - Undecided


Not to pressure anyone into reserving, BTW. Also, anyone heard from Stanton? I think he played in this GW.