Treaty System? Thoughts?

Cathexis · January 2015

Id been thinking lately that its a shame this game doesn't have some sort of treaty system; something similar to the UN in civ 5 whereby players could vote to enact or eliminate war treaties that do particular things...

For example:
-for X hours, Y keep is protected from attack
-for X hours, hostilities cease between group Y and group Z (disabling attacks)
-for X hours, all players receive EP bonuses at keep Y
The system could also have special considerations like
-While team X holds Y scroll
-While team X holds emporer

etc.

That way factions could negotiate terms with each other to shift battle.

Dagoth_Rac · January 2015

Yes cos awesome

I have always thought that temporary alliances in AvAvA would be cool. Kind of an, "My enemy's enemy is my friend," type of situation. But I think it would be extremely difficult to implement because who gets to sign these treaties? Some kind of democratic vote where everyone in the faction gets a popup to vote Yes/No on the treaty? Or the players with the highest AP total in each faction are given the power to sign treaties? Seems tough to implement, could likely be exploited via alts in opposing alliances, will anger players who would rather lose WWII than ally with Stalin, etc.

Lukeh Shadyvale · January 2015

No cos stupid

Sorry dude, sounds crazy.

What if EP sign a treaty with AD... AD sign a treat with DC and DC sign one with EP... eerrr no fighty.

I think keeps being capturable is pretty much the only to do thing in PvP so limiting that would be killable and what's the limit? Too much mechanical control in the hands of the players nu-uh.

Plus there's guilds and groups who'd just troll the hell out of it and if there were fail-safes for it it'd be pretty much too much can't be bothered.

I find it weird Guilds can take ownership of stuff as it does nothing for the keep and Imperial City has a weird different owning areas system which is yet to be implemented so no. I think you're idea although creative it's not for this game and for the players of it.

Cody · January 2015

Yes cos awesome

Imagine how much the AD of haderus(well the ones that use their voices, some don't even talk, who knows what those guys think) would have been whining on the forums for the past 2 months if this got put in during the last few haderus cycles...

hehehe

Roechacca · January 2015

We have a treaty system . It's called PvE

KBKB · January 2015

No cos stupid

Too many logistics to effectively apply

bosmern_ESO · January 2015

No cos stupid

Its a three way war for a reason.

Izanagi.Xiiib16_ESO · January 2015

No cos stupid

DC and EP already have a treaty system in place. lets not waste ZOS' time with this

(it would be abused anyway)

Cathexis · January 2015

Yes cos awesome

KBKB wrote: »

Too many logistics to effectively apply

Just discussing how it would work hypothetically, even if the player base is against the idea fundamentally. I don't think it would be impossible to implement, anything is possible per sa. I don't think over arching peace treaties would be good to implement, but it would be nice if players had some control over the qualities of battles. So for example....

Faction X and Faction Y agree to only use heavy armor at Keep Z (create a zone based trigger that creates a huge penalty for LA/MA use in that area)

You'd also have to to have limiters for keep protecting treaties (you wouldn't want for example, treaties for all keeps)

It would also require implementing probably an entire other tab under the L menu. Players would get a certain number of votes (perhaps PVP rank based), and would be able to submit proposals for treaties to be voted on (perhaps by overall ranking, say if you fall within the top 50 players or something). Perhaps the emp would be able to push one treaty without voting (as long as that treaty doesn't directly prevent dethroning/crowning)

reften · January 2015

Yes cos awesome

sure, make it so any alliance 5k or more ahead in alliance points can not sign treaties...and treaties can only be signed on a server where one alliance has a 5k or more lead.

Example
Red has 20k alliance points
Blue has 12k
Yellow has 10k

5k lead - Treaty available for Blue and Yellow to sign.

Upon entering Cyrodiil, once per day, any Rank5 or higher player can vote the treaty down or up.

75% yes vote needed.

With signed treaty, all yellow and blue home keeps, scrolls, and outposts go back to their respective homes (unless they're red).

Treaty is void as soon as one alliance gets within 5k of the lead alliance.

Grim13 · January 2015

Yes cos awesome

I like the idea.

I think it would be great if ZOS could implement some systems to legitimise the more underworld elements of PvP such as spying, collusion, etc.... this seems like an interesting step in that direction.

Cathexis · January 2015

Yes cos awesome

Grim13 wrote: »

I like the idea.

I think it would be great if ZOS could implement some systems to legitimise the more underworld elements of PvP such as spying, collusion, etc.... this seems like an interesting step in that direction.

These are my thoughts exactly. There are a lot of critical factors related to player interaction that affect pvp that are not readily able to be manipulated by the overall player base. Factions do work together at times, we all know this. Why not create formalized mechanics? Think of how much whining on the forums will dissipate.

Not to say that there would no longer be informal treaties/spying/collusion, but if treaties provided benefits that outweighed the benefits of hiding the same tactics, it might offset dishonourable play that ruins the game to a degree.

Potenza · January 2015

No cos stupid

Its not a stupid idea. But no because it will get too confusing for most of the players.

The Elder Scrolls Online

Treaty System? Thoughts?

Treaty System? Thoughts? 45 votes