Nice job on the map Sean! As for rules or how to play it I don't think it's been discussed yet. In Gak's original message he mentioned:

"Every so often (weekly, monthly, bi-monthly) have an event to take a portion of land

Could be activities such as:
PvP- Capture the flag, who occupies a seat the longest in a given amount of time, or just all out slaughter- last one standing wins...

Champions- Select five champion from each side to duke it out in one on one combat, most wins, or last man standing, a free-for-all, etc.

Archery tournaments for winner-- good vs evil

Checker/ dart/ chess etc etc tournament for winner-- good vs evil

...Or even which side can get the most people to show up at the Trinsic bank dressed as a pirate/orc/healer/necromancer/Winfield in 30 minutes for a winner"

So we'd have various events to dertermine who wins a territory, I kinda like that idea.

What if we had a neutral area set aside where we would meet (weekly, bi-weekly..whatever we all agree upon), and have one person from each side roll dice, high number gets to pick what piece of Vesper they want to fight for and what type of event it will be.

Course we need to agree on all the types of events, and then to keep up the variety maybe we can't repeat a event for a certain number of turns...or we would have to go all the way through the list of events before we can pick a event a 2nd time.

Gak's post was cool splitting Vesper into areas the 10-20 or 7-12, Is it safe to assume the first side to get ALL the areas is the winner? and can a side recapture a area? if so we might want to go with lesser areas or this may take a year or two to pull off

For events should we just start making a list and figuring out how viable they are, capture the flag sounds great but I've never done it in UO so maybe stuff like that can get discussed.

Sean with that map would it be hard to change colors of the various islands/areas or some how mark them and be able to update it?

I can play with it, the map that is. :-P

Here we have a set-up with the "Light" & "Dark" each opening with 3 Neighborhoods. That leaves 9 open Neighborhoods.

On alternating turns each side could choose a Neighborhoods to compete for, for that event. The winning side takes the Neighborhood. You can only choose to fight over a Neighborhood that is connected to Neighborhoods you own. Each side could choose to have some kind of contest to win the
Neighborhood, or choose to battle it out. I think we'd need to determine min/max number of players on each side.
Just a thought.

I like the nine neighborhoods.

How about this? Alternating turns. One side chooses an area to fight for. The defenders get to choose the event or location/rules for event..or we could draw the event from a hat..? have a number of different events, but cant do the same event twice in a row. Winner of event gets to claim the land.
First to claim X number of areas wins? or keep going for total world domination?

I like the idea of only attacking across bridge connected areas. Although, in Castle Risk you could attack with boats... Make the Water one area? Nah, getting complicated. Yes, your land might not always be connected, if you win while defending an area. Having to have all lands connected would make for a long long game.

I like drawing events from a hat.

Vesper domination would be nice, but extremely long long game. I say first to get 10 areas wins (starting 3+7more, a minimum of 7 events.). The starting areas should be attackable as well.

I like your map better then Stratics map of Vesper.

About having even teams.. would depend on event I guess? If not we can always have the 'Neutral' step up and choose a side! If even teams are needed... Muhrchrch!

Ebil wynz, Arig wynz tuu.
Da guud wylz neeb tu ral-lee ull demz hai tu clomp ebil.
Diz ib tru.

Do we have to call them Neighborhoods ?!?! feel like I'm channeling Fred Rogers

The map set-up is cool, again Nice Job Sean , and I like the idea of only being able to go for an area that's attached by a bridge, that makes alot of sense.

Should we alternate turns or have it the winner keeps being the aggressor until stopped? more incentive to win?

I do think the attacker should be able to pick the event, kinda like using the advantage of tactics since they are the ones attacking....for example maybe the dark side would pick mage poker knowing they have mages like Malia and CaT, or if the Light side was picking they might pick Archery cause they got Se'an (btw Congrats!!!).

All kidding aside I think the attacker should get some advantage. Starting with 3 and going to 10 to win sounds pretty good. If nothing else we can keep brainstorming it for a few more days then toss the ideas into another poll and see what folks think.

So how are we going to do the pvp anyways?

OK, couple of points

1. "Neighborhoods", call em what you want, I just had a vision of urban street fighting in my head Call them whatever!

2. Sides don't have to be exactly even like 5 on 7 would work, but not 2 on 7 if it was a "brawl " event, so perhaps say a min of 4 and max of 8? Again, just numbers. But you get my meaning.

3. I like the idea of alternating choice of target & pulling event from a bag. Hmmm, perhaps the event could decide who is the attacker & who defends the "neighborhood" and then a battle to decide. I want to keep a decent bit of clompin involved.

4. As far as equipment, I say anything goes. That's why the Gods made insurance. No looting.

5. Should we make up 2 guilds for this event? I have some chars I can use as guild holders. Thoughts?

Hows about this for who gets to decide?

Defender gets to choose event when defending a starting neighborhood.

Attacker gets to choose event when attacking the opposition's non-starting neighborhood.

When attacking a neutral neighborhood, event is drawn out of a hat. If you lose attacking a neutral neighborhood, should the opposition occupy that neighborhood?

As far as PvP and evenness of teams, I think that should be decided before the event, depending on event.

I do like attacking until you lose. Unless the other team has two or less lands.

for example: The good have five lands, evil is on the attack.
Evil wins- the good have four lands
Evil goes again
Evil wins- the good have three lands
Evil goes again
Evil wins- the good have two lands
The good get to attack
Good loses
Evil's turn to attack
Evil wins- the good have one land
The good get to attack
Good loses
Evil's turn to attack
Evil wins- Good loses the game.

Or not, this might take too long. or just down to one land?

Sorry Se'an, the mr. rodgers thing was me attempting, (and failing) to be funny, no harm meant.

It seems like we are getting a little bogged down on some stuff, how would we go about "drawing from a hat" ?

As for equal sides why don't we start coming up with a event list and then figure out a min/max number of players for each event. *Edit* after making the event idea thread I guess most events would be min-1 per side and max could be unlimited, but must be equal numbers on both sides

Can individual guilds in a alliance be warred without affecting the whole alliance? The 13th is the alliance leader for the SV alliance, I don't see it being a big issue if the 13th wars someone for a hour or so once every blue moon....I'd just make sure to get it out to non-fighting alliance members to stay out of Vesper for that hour, or however long the event takes....and then make sure we are un-warred (?)...at the end.

I laughed, thought of the SNL skit with Eddy Murphy, doing Mr Rodger's Neighborhood.

As Gm of ORC, I dont mind setting up alliance/war using ORC. Or adding folks to the guild to be part of "Team Orc"..

I find that Felucca fixes most PvP problems.

Why play if you arn't working off a murder count?