[4.0 Idea] Warfare And Raiding

[MamaBearJade 2090]

The same can be said for removing villain applications, magic applications, and making PvP default.

 

There is no proof that when raiding rules are removed there will be a raid every day and hour. It won't happen. When raid rules are removed, it will actually perhaps make the amount of raids less, simply because the fact that a nation can counter-raid and offer actual punishment to said raiding party.

 

It is an extreme exaggeration to state that one location will be raided constantly for every hour of a day. If it is, they are obviously doing something wrong.

Actually, it /does/ happen. Leanniel was raided nearly every hour, as was conclave. Then they changed it to daily only. And we got raided daily. Finally they changed it to a small reprieve. So no, i am sorry. It has already been proven when they got rid of it the first time.

 

 

My only concern is those who /want/ to raid. Some people play to have military RP. What about those? Rp is meant to be fun for everyone, not just those who want to Rp peacefully without threat.

Same argument goes both ways.

 

So your fun is more important than other's? There are other people who are military that can fight back. Conclave, unlike Leanniel, seemed more open to raids. If people who want peaceful rp and group together AWAY from conflict, what gives you the right to chase after them to try and ruin their fun?

 

Heard about walls? Locked gates? Just leave em outside until they are gone, or give them money. Perhaps plan an agreement with a more combat-oriented faction, so they can give you protection. And also, it's not like a whole nation will bring their massive army to raid you, unless war has officially been declared.

Walls dont work necessarily. If people want to raid they will find a way to get in regardless. Conclave had several back doors. Sha's town had ways in, and still does. God Horses now are allowed, so people can jump over 10 block high walls. Tell me, do walls still work? We want to avoid ugly walls and land scarring.

 

If a weaker faction is not strong enough to remain a settlement, they should simply not be a settlement in the first place. A number one need of a faction leader is the safety and well being of their settlement. If they cannot guarentee that safety, why do they even deserve to be a settlement? Besides, refer to my response to JadeKadoa's post and to Hobolympic's post.

 

Refer to my response to JadeKadoa.

Wait, we are a faction server now? I thought this was a ROLEPLAY server.

[dude 230]

I'd love to see this in 4.0.

 

I support. +1.

[Helvetius 314]

Unfortunately fire, when a settlement first begins it is usually completely peasants. It has virtually no military and usually starts out as a small group of friends or players who found the RP hub interesting (Like Northmead). It is increasingly difficult when people who usually play good characters suddenly make an evil character with 3 - 5 of his other friends just to mess a new town up because they felt like it. Your logic will destroy more of the peasant/normal RP and make even more nobles/military groups.

[iTzShambo 135]

Good.

[Aelu / Rel (Combustionary) 1540]

 Idea 1 - No support.

 

While I think that, with some ways to counter it, we could do with less raid rules, this isn't the way to go.

 

Forced conflict, between a player who wants it, and a player who doesn't, will never go well. Drama has resulted from this in the past, results in this in the present, and will result from this in the future. If we want more conflict, we need to make players want to participate - not make them participate. 

 

What I think could work? Allow capitals to be raid-free outside of wars. Players who don't want raid rp can stay in them, and have fun while also helping consolidate RP. Non-capital towns could be free to raid, at any time (Maybe keep the party size limit, though). 

 

If this means a shortage of places to be raided, perhaps that is a sign that more people dislike raid RP than like it.

 

Idea 2 - Depends on what you mean.

 

What do you mean by 'claim'? Warclaim for conquest? If so, I agree entirely.

 

But if you mean 'walk in, take the place', not at all. Timezones make this something that can only end in more drama. It wouldn't create rp, just griefing ban reports. Group A would come in while group B is offline, take the place. Group B would do the same when A is offline.

[mmat 7460]

Don't provoke bigger, more militarised nations, and they won't trouble you. Don't hide behind raid rules because you can't handle the backfire after you provoke a sleeping lion

[Aelu / Rel (Combustionary) 1540]

Don't provoke bigger, more militarised nations, and they won't trouble you.

 

In the matter of wars, this is true. In raids? It is not. Raiding groups tend to exist of alts that are hostile to just about everyone. It's not really a matter of diplomacy. 

[Komodo 140]

I find that for the most part this really facilitates more roleplay then it stops. Why is it that lords did not raid each other constantly in feudal Europe? They had their own laws to stop such raiding, otherwise there would be repercussions. I think that if we let the players be the leaders in this situation instead of having to baby them then you will have a stronger, more competent player base. To illiustrate this. I bring up several points.

 

I. Activity

If players are concerned abotu being raided they will have to actively recruit and establish a guard to stop them. People want to coexist peacfully, but even neutral nations like Switzerland have armed forces. Hell, to take that example to the extreme, the Swiss have a strong martial tradition. The peaceful do not have have to be pacifists. If you care to look at players being pacifist, then let us take the Jains for example. This religious movement (according to the CK II manual anyways) really took a beating from other groups because of their policy of nonviolence. It's simple, pacifist nations haven't gotten very far. What does this have to do with activity? Well, as I said players will have to train their own guard. That means soldiers, iron mining, recruiting, and constantly being prepared for a raid. Believe it or not, every independent state has done this. If you are concerned about throwing all your playerbase into your army though, thus ruining your normal RP, think levies. Just rally your common folk in times of conflict. The point is, no raid rules would raise activity.

 

II. Realism

 

Now I understand that we have to dip into MC mechanics here. Oh dear, how much roleplayers hate those words. However, we are playing minecraft. The server may not be a factions based one, but we need this game as a platform to roleplay on. In some cases, MC mechanics DO take precedence over roleplay. This was shown when PvP was made default. Raiding would not kill roleplay in truth though. So how does one deal with a raid? Well, who is raiding? If I am King of Oren, and the Dwarven Empire decides to raid me, then I have a host of options open. I can negotiate with them to stop the raids and keep the status quo. I can counter raid. I can pay them tribute to stop the raids. Roleplay is open. If one nation raids too often then the other nations should gang up on them to stop the raiding. It only makes sense, this is what would happen in the real world. This rule would also encourage various forms of government and cultural values in various cultures. Since I have played LotC, humans have been a feudal society. These societies are based on protection. Think of it as a fancy method of extortion. You bay me homage and taxes, and I'll protect you. If someone breaks from the fold of a nation, they must either be strong enough to stand on their own, or they deserve to be destroyed. I am not as familiar with the elves, but I believe they traditionally live in large cities. Who would raid a great city with massive walls and a significant playerbase? Random bandits didn't take on Venice every day. This would consolidate elves into major cities for protection. As for the Orcs... Well, really I don't see why they wouldn't want this anyway. But I will make the point that their culture revolves around conflict (aka PvP mostly) and deciding who is the strongest. In the end, raids promote values, consolidate and facilitate roleplay.

 

III. Raiding would not lead to absolute chaos

 

As we have seen from the removal of Magic and Villain apps, things would not be a lost cause.  Bandits will cause trouble, towns will be burnt down, the weak will beg for some type of mercy, and the strong will run the server. But... doesn't that actually sound sorta cool? Really, this depends on the TYPE of roleplay you want. I personally favor realistic, grim rolelpay with plenty of conflict (Both RP and PvP mind you!) and gritty resolution. If you want to play in an ideal world, then I suggest trying to make it in roleplay, not through rules. It's better to give everyone a fair chance then make others conform to what you want. Players who want to play peaceful characters will surely find it. There are havens of safety and places to live without conflict. But if you try to make an active down, be prepared that violence will come either way. You can't hide from it. We are all connected on this server, and all our actions should reflect that. 

 

TL;DR

 

i. We get more roleplay from constant raiding by keeping settlements active and on their toes lest someone decide to strike them.

 

ii. Raiding and conflict is a part of medieval life. The reason people banded together under kings was for protection, the same would be true in the case of being attacked.

 

iii. As we can see from the removal of villain and magic applications, and the Fringe's politics, players are mature enough to handle this change. If they can;t handle it, then their behavior would be duly noted.

[Destroyer_Bravo 1054]

You can always rediscover the chuckaboo whirlwind and rek the raiders

 

 

+1 would implement

[Helvetius 314]

 

We get more roleplay from constant raiding by keeping settlements active and on their toes lest someone decide to strike them.

You know I saw this during the war when I saw the oren army on the orenian wall. They weren't RPing. They were just doing ooc jokes and trolling as they waited for the next attack (15 - 30 people...).

[Komodo 140]

Then why weren't you ordering your men to actually roleplay? I've seen people jump around town while their on teamspeak making stupid OOC jokes. By that logic we should get rid of TS as well. The idea is that players will be online more often. Not necessarily waiting for an attack, but ready if one does happen. If you're not active enough to stop your town from being burned down, you shouldn't have one in the first place.

[Helvetius 314]

I had men during the Zion war? W0t? In all seriousness though, ts3 is an ooc object so who cares if people troll on ts3. However the server itself is whats holding the roleplay so having 8 people waiting around exclusively for an attack from a group of bandits formed because said group just want their good characters to have a nasty side(Really they are just bored) is very stupid. That said, it shouldn't be abandoned because said town doesn't want to have guards. However again regulations should stay in place to avoid another Conclave situation (50 raids in one week). Even the most sturdy defense can get tired when there are an abundance of random pvp groups just looking to pvp.

[Sentlit 108]

For Komodo

 

Point I: Activity would increase because people would want to protect their things.

Counterpoint I: Frustration with constant raids (ie in Leanniel) could just as well cause people to abandon constantly-raided settlements and even leave the server due to a few people's unpunishable trolly attitude. Activity could just as well decrease.

 

Point II: Raiding is realistic to feudal society

Counterpoint II: Being a server that includes highly fantastical elements, realism hasn't always been 100% achieved. We /are/ however moving toward a more 'realistic' and mechanical form of roleplay as we move toward 4.0, but some people prefer their cup of tea to be soft and sweet and not someone else's tea. Get what I mean? We must mix the teas and compromise between reality and fantasy to create an experience that appeals to both wings of RP in some way. It encourages more players to stay, yes?

 

Point III:Raiding wouldn't lead to absolute chaos

Counterpoint III: Goodness gracious, this point made me feel feelings. First off, absolute chaos is not what anyone has brought up until you did (strawman fallacy).  Also, you compared this being the same as the removal of MAT and VAT, which are not really related to this idea other than being 'rules' (inaccurate comparison... faulty analogy?). It is simply unreasonable to claim that this idea would turn out the same way as the removal of magic and villain teams have. These rules suppress trolls and out-of-character revengeful wrath. If your character has reason to be pissed off and have already raided the source of their rage, they can kill people in a roleplay fight or even non-raid PVP or something.

 

Concluding Ideas:

In fact, from experience we don't see RP increasing or improving due to raids, just people being unhappy that they lost all of their things because they have a bad framerate/suck at PVP/etc. Of course, things shouldn't matter due to them being but props in an RP server, but for some reason people still value them- and as such they should be protected from other people's boredom or rage. Again, raids have been historically an OOC event of people of various motives thinking outside of their characters. As an RP server, people should make decisions based on their character's thoughts.

[Aedan The Bard 350]

 

There is no proof that when raiding rules are removed there will be a raid every day and hour. It won't happen.

 

It is an extreme exaggeration to state that one location will be raided constantly for every hour of a day. If it is, they are obviously doing something wrong. 

 

1.- You will see, eventually, how you are far from being right.

2.- No, it is not an exaggeration. Why do you think the rules were created in the first place? Because people would raid constantly, duh.

 

 Idea 1 - No support.

 

While I think that, with some ways to counter it, we could do with less raid rules, this isn't the way to go.

 

Forced conflict, between a player who wants it, and a player who doesn't, will never go well. Drama has resulted from this in the past, results in this in the present, and will result from this in the future. If we want more conflict, we need to make players want to participate - not make them participate. 

 

What I think could work? Allow capitals to be raid-free outside of wars. Players who don't want raid rp can stay in them, and have fun while also helping consolidate RP. Non-capital towns could be free to raid, at any time (Maybe keep the party size limit, though). 

 

If this means a shortage of places to be raided, perhaps that is a sign that more people dislike raid RP than like it.

 

Idea 2 - Depends on what you mean.

 

What do you mean by 'claim'? Warclaim for conquest? If so, I agree entirely.

 

But if you mean 'walk in, take the place', not at all. Timezones make this something that can only end in more drama. It wouldn't create rp, just griefing ban reports. Group A would come in while group B is offline, take the place. Group B would do the same when A is offline.

 

Everyone should listen to this guy.

 

Then why weren't you ordering your men to actually roleplay? I've seen people jump around town while their on teamspeak making stupid OOC jokes. By that logic we should get rid of TS as well. The idea is that players will be online more often. Not necessarily waiting for an attack, but ready if one does happen. If you're not active enough to stop your town from being burned down, you shouldn't have one in the first place.

 

Having been part of several fights, I can tell you either do not have enough experience, or refuse to face reality. It is impossible to make players role-play before and during a battle. They won't stop jumping around, nor trolling, because there are too many people talking at almost the same time, and most of them seem too braindead to handle themselves. They act like children waiting to board the bus to go on a field trip: Chaos. One of the reasons this happens is because combat depends completely on ooc mechanics, on the game itself. No one will take the time to type coherently nor think before saying something. They will get headaches if they bother to read or pay attention, if they try to stay in character, and there will be ooc all over the place.

 

For Komodo

 

Point I: Activity would increase because people would want to protect their things.

Counterpoint I: Frustration with constant raids (ie in Leanniel) could just as well cause people to abandon constantly-raided settlements and even leave the server due to a few people's unpunishable trolly attitude. Activity could just as well decrease.

 

Point II: Raiding is realistic to feudal society

Counterpoint II: Being a server that includes highly fantastical elements, realism hasn't always been 100% achieved. We /are/ however moving toward a more 'realistic' and mechanical form of roleplay as we move toward 4.0, but some people prefer their cup of tea to be soft and sweet and not someone else's tea. Get what I mean? We must mix the teas and compromise between reality and fantasy to create an experience that appeals to both wings of RP in some way. It encourages more players to stay, yes?

 

Point III:Raiding wouldn't lead to absolute chaos

Counterpoint III: Goodness gracious, this point made me feel feelings. First off, absolute chaos is not what anyone has brought up until you did (strawman fallacy).  Also, you compared this being the same as the removal of MAT and VAT, which are not really related to this idea other than being 'rules' (inaccurate comparison... faulty analogy?). It is simply unreasonable to claim that this idea would turn out the same way as the removal of magic and villain teams have. These rules suppress trolls and out-of-character revengeful wrath. If your character has reason to be pissed off and have already raided the source of their rage, they can kill people in a roleplay fight or even non-raid PVP or something.

 

Concluding Ideas:

In fact, from experience we don't see RP increasing or improving due to raids, just people being unhappy that they lost all of their things because they have a bad framerate/suck at PVP/etc. Of course, things shouldn't matter due to them being but props in an RP server, but for some reason people still value them- and as such they should be protected from other people's boredom or rage. Again, raids have been historically an OOC event of people of various motives thinking outside of their characters. As an RP server, people should make decisions based on their character's thoughts.

 

This guy speaks common sense. Listen to him.

 

 

 

I hope Mr. Native can enlighten us with his wisdom regarding the matter at hand.

[Komodo 140]

To Rand, again I will reinforce what I already said, as I believe it will clear things up. First off, you don't need dedicated guards. Just make sure you have people on and the means to arm them. A militia works just as well and bandits would be less likely to act twenty people defending a town. You don't even need dedicated guards. Also, you did see those Orenians in a war when they were in fact waiting for an attack. If you are in peace time, then chill but stay on guard. As for the teamspeak analogy, TS does in fact bleed into roleplay. Players talk in TS and goof off on the server at the same time when they're bored. My point is that you'll have players goofing around when they're bored regardless of whether or not they are waiting for a raid. Besides, as I mentioned above, they wouldn't be waiting for a raid. Simply, it encourages players to be online more to keep their town busy and less likely to be attacked and more prepared to defend it. 

 

And now onto Sentlit's well structured response.

 

I. Counter counter point?

 

I would argue that the same could have been said for villain applications. If there are more bandits then more players would get robbed and eventually quit right? Wrong! I do not believe the server has seen a real increase in robber or murderer activity of a decrease in its population. The majority of the players will of course adapt to this, and the system will balance itself out. I believe these repercussions are really unfounded. Trolls can and will still be punished. This would allow raiding, not trollery, which is still against the server's rules. You will still have trolls regardless of whether this passes. And if a settlement is constantly raided and is eventually abandoned, isn't that one of the features our own admin team suggested? Using subterfuge and underhanded ways to lower a location's population? Either way, if players did leave settlements, they would move to larger ones for safety, thus consolidating roleplay.

 

II. Another response, this one to realism

 

I think we can mix the teas as you say yes, but that doesn't really over a reason for why we shouldn't implement this reform. The idea here works just as well with fantasy as it does with ultra realism. Fantasy generally means the use of magic, nonhuman races, and the like. However, for the most part we follow the basic laws of our world. Our server is based off of realistic fantasy. We have moderators to approve of what can and cannot be done on the server. I don't see how fantasy and realism can't coexist, seeing how they don't really conflict, and because of that there's no reason why this reform would completely remove fantasy from the server.

 

III. Absolute chaos? Pardons?

 

Well, let's just say it's like Godwin's Law, which states that as an online conversation grows longer, the probability of reaching Nazis approaches 1. Someone was bound to say, "No! This is horrible idea, I joined an RP server not a PVP server, this will lead to chaos and the removal of all roleplay!". That being said, I had to bring of the point that this would not happen. I brought of MAs and VAs because similar things were said when they were being removed and made less restrictive. But did those who put on arguments really have anything founded in them? No, the current system appears to be working fine. Removing rules that players think are necessary to the server is possible, and can in fact have little or no repercussions. It means the idea is completely viable. Likewise, OOC wrath and trolls are prevented by our glorious constitution the "Server Rules". Those players can and will be banned if the staff and players feel their rights are being infringed upon. This leaves the server open to more possible roleplay, giving you as many options as possible.

 

My own conclusion: Assuming all raids are done by OOC players isn't exactly a fair assumption. With warclaims becoming more exclusive, and the staff encouraging alternative ways to have conflict, this plan would generally increase roleplay and consolidate it as it has on the Fringe. It still caters to those who wish to play a more peaceful character and encourages them to take part in different forms of server gameplay. The same can also be said for warclaims. It's important to note that warclaims will be consensual in 4.0. This encourages players to seek periods of peace and find other ways to roleplay when not at war. Allowing this raid reform would give something for more warlike characters to do as well! Remember, we need to appeal to both sides as you say. In the end, we will be doing just this and encouraging more RP as I said in my first two points.