[Benyah]

Allow more intervenes on raids if the party intervened for cannot be chosen.
This makes the process alot more fair for the players affected by the staff's decision. 

If more intervenes are not an acceptable idea, then I suggest reverting to the prior ruling where, the faction leaders can choose who to intervene on behalf of. 

[Oicha]

If we went back to everyone getting an intervene we'd go back to everyone just not dying during raids. The one intervene system is much better. Some people need to die for the story to move on. And leaders are always going to be tempted to choose the most powerful person they can think of. The system how it is now is fine.

[Lammy]

This will not work for several reasons.

One, if leaders are given the freedom of choice to pick who to fight for an intervene without admins thought put into it, then you open Pandora's box that reveals a plethora of problems ranging from a top-tier charactet in strength stomping their intervenes which then opens up another box of complaints of some people overstaying their welcome -a hell that no one wants to go through ever again.

Having multiple interventions isn't a bad idea, but can have their own issues of balancing them for fairness -which is hard to achieve if you don't have someone actively gauging who is even to who. And can cause delays to the certain flows -issue number two.

I think having one for each team, with admin insight is ok. It's not perfect, but they have the data to make an even decision even at the dismay of some people.

[CrystikRage]

I think admin selection isn't perfect, but it at least has the advantage of being mostly unbiased. If it's up to leader selection, they'll either pick those closest to them or simply their factions strongest fighter (and the same for selecting who actually gets to fight the intervention). I've seen this climax multiple times in allies to a raid getting absolutely shafted because why would the faction leader of X choose someone from Y to get saved, instead of their own nation?

1 intervention for each side is good too, too many intervenes and it can make wars feel a touch toothless? I've seen that before too, where every single capture was rescued in an intervene leading back around to nothing having happened at the end.

Sadly sometimes people are going to die in a raid, it's just how the dice falls.

[Velkor]

Generally speaking. I have seen the same as mentioned above. When you go to war generally the idea is your going knowing that your character may die. In exchange you get development and cool stories for that risk. If you get capped and your not the one being rescued that's just how it is sometimes. But most players that I have seen are also pretty relaxed and wont kill a character off unless there is lots of IC reason and even then well there is false kills. Take a -40 and live and continue your story. Now some may say that a -40 means your character is over. I will say. Naw. its not. Its a setback at best. You can get it scarred and also use it to develop your character through the roof.

The only thing I will say is the killing of demons and other antags. I have seen quite a few times antags getting killed off to soon or not being given time to cook cause of bad roll on a danger or in a war. (I hate seeing the opposite happen as well. where the heroes get killed out of no where and are still more fresh) It happens but I think generally everyone is willing to work towards a agreeable outcome most of the time.

The big thing for most though is. How long has your character been around and active and what IC do they have with you. Sometimes there is just no way that a character is letting you live. They are going to kill you and watch you die or whatever it is they can do to ensure you don't live period.