War, Safe Zones, And Fighting. Oh My!

[Lago 2572]

What are you looking for, precisely? Small village? Town? It's hard to cater to someone's needs when you're not clear on what they are. "Small group" is incredibly vague.

[Draeris 3124]

Explain your snow elf problem then? You guys did the same with your group.

 

And so /what/ if I want to RP away from people?

 

Do you think people like Teerz and I are really /welcome/ in most cities?

 

Well.. Unlike Teerz you do not really make big problems or fusses, and I speak of pure opinion and my belief here. You are more than welcome in Kaldonia, but don't be suprised when our White Rose policies victimize you in Human lands, we don't like elves that much!! Same with Teerz.. really..

[MamaBearJade 2090]

What are you looking for, precisely? Small village? Town? It's hard to cater to someone's needs when you're not clear on what they are. "Small group" is incredibly vague.

 

A small town that people can go to for peaceful, non-political, non-conflict rp, occasional events and such. Like how Leanniel was when it wasnt being raided. We have plans to make an actual TOWN but with no land and this new rule, its makes it harder to even get one established

 

Well.. Unlike Teerz you do not really make big problems or fusses, and I speak of pure opinion and my belief here. You are more than welcome in Kaldonia, but don't be suprised when our White Rose policies victimize you in Human lands, we don't like elves that much!! Same with Teerz.. really..

I have a human Horen in Kaldonia. I do enjoy rp there on a human. But any of my other chars.... >.> #darkelf

Edit: I do make fusses, but mostly about things I am passionate about or major rule breaking

[Lago 2572]

A small town that people can go to for peaceful, non-political, non-conflict rp, occasional events and such. Like how Leanniel was when it wasnt being raided. We have plans to make an actual TOWN but with no land and this new rule, its makes it harder to even get one established

 

Is it actually built on the map and constantly being raided?

[MamaBearJade 2090]

Is it actually built on the map and constantly being raided?

We have a town thats got some houses, we were being harassed a lot by one group but the leader ended up banned for numerous broken rules

We got raided recently by humans without any real RP reasoning, and with this new rule, we fear we will be constantly raided. We're an easy target to poke.

Edit: we literally sit at the edge of the map because we were closer to Atgaard at one point and got a warclaim over "The Pillow Kingdom" made by 2 10 year old girls. #logic

[Alan 1815]

Alright, so as I mentioned exactly 104 responses ago, it is rather apparent that a few key elements regarding these changes were left unconsidered. After discussing all of the community’s feedback, we are amending the initial post with the following:
 
First off, after countless players on both sides of the PvP/RP fighting debate (including raiders themselves) expressed discontent with the lack of any substantial restrictions on raids, we are bringing them back albeit slightly modified. It now stands as of this moment that a settlement can only be raided once per day, regardless of who is attacking them. Additionally, raids ON (rather than BY) officially recognized nations can be comprised of 8 members, while raids on anyone else can only be comprised of 4 members.

Second of all, I don’t know how it happened, but admittedly smaller communities not large enough to warrant a safe zone were overlooked in the making of this thread. Thus, after consideration and feedback, we have come up with what we believe is a fair solution. Those listed in the OP as worthy of a no PvP flag (minus Lin’ame, which I wasn’t aware was under Haelun’or) are also being offered the option of build protection. With that being said, those not on the list can receive build protection (NOT no PvP flags) if they pay minas for it. Yes, some might say that this is a weird solution, but it’s better than allowing anyone protection as well as only allowing those on the list protection. The amount paid is reflected in the values below (note: region sizes are based on GM approximations, we’re not gunna sit and count each block or anything).

• Smaller than 10x10 (or 100 blocks) = 10,000 minas.
• Between 10x10 and 25x25 (or 100 and 625 blocks) = 40,000 minas.
• Between 25x25 and 50x50 (or 625 and 2500 blocks) = 100,000 minas.
• Between 50x50 and 80x80 (or 2500 and 6400 blocks) = 200,000 minas.
• Larger than 80x80 (or 6400 blocks) = Nothing, we won't make regions larger than this

^ So essentially charters without the need for signatures.

 

Lastly, regarding the option of no PvP for settlements on the list, we are taking the time now to mention a catch. To prevent a protected settlement with no PvP enabled from attacking and raiding others with no threat of retaliation, the condition for having no PvP enabled is that the settlement in question is not allowed to raid or attack anyone, though matters of self-defense* are an exception. Essentially, if you don't want other people attacking you, don't attack other people. Should a settlement with no PvP enabled attack another settlement, their flag will be removed for one week.

*Self-defense refers to scenarios where a region under the domain of the settlement in question that doesn’t have no PvP enabled is raided or attacked. This only applies to raids and attacks, however, so it is not justified to raid or attack another settlement if a single individual of that settlement causes a commotion within your boundaries. Self-defense is also regarded as “hit for a hit, eye for an eye”, so it is not justified raid a settlement multiple times if they raided you once, just like killing someone who swings a punch at you in a brawl is not considered self-defense.

As a final note, if something wasn't mentioned in this update, it was not changed. Also, I apologize for any frustration this post caused, but let this update be a lesson learned; believe it or not, we DO listen to the community and we ARE willing to make changes if a good enough case is made. All of the massive drama, insulting, yelling and anger that occurred in the previous replies were COMPLETELY unnecessary, and they did nothing to solve the problem. Kudos to all of you that retained your composure and were able to express your issues with the original post maturely and respectfully, as you all are the reason we saw the other points of view.  

 

Alan out!

 

EDIT:

Almost forgot to mention. If there are more issues with THIS update, we are still no less willing to make changes. If you still have problems with how things stand now, refer to the above paragraph for the proper way to explain those problems to us.

[Lago 2572]

We have a town thats got some houses, we were being harassed a lot by one group but the leader ended up banned for numerous broken rules

We got raided recently by humans without any real RP reasoning, and with this new rule, we fear we will be constantly raided. We're an easy target to poke.

It's possible then that the raid problem might not actually arise. If it does, do you have any donors in your group? As Rhia's been saying, you could donor plot the village. If you do get raided to an excessive degree, the upshot for you is that you become an excellent example of where the rules are failing and they'll likely be adapted in response.

If you're small enough, you could also wall the village. If everyone knows each other you could run a closed gate policy like the High Elves have and let each other in. The Redsoul Pillar donator perk is also helpful here.

[John Ivory 4547]

Alright, so as I mentioned exactly 104 responses ago, it is rather apparent that a few key elements regarding these changes were left unconsidered. After discussing all of the community’s feedback, we are amending the initial post with the following:

 

First off, after countless players on both sides of the PvP/RP fighting debate (including raiders themselves) expressed discontent with the lack of any substantial restrictions on raids, we are bringing them back albeit slightly modified. It now stands as of this moment that a settlement can only be raided once per day, regardless of who is attacking them. Additionally, raids ON (rather than BY) officially recognized nations can be comprised of 8 members, while raids on anyone else can only be comprised of 4 members.

Second of all, I don’t know how it happened, but admittedly smaller communities not large enough to warrant a safe zone were overlooked in the making of this thread. Thus, after consideration and feedback, we have come up with what we believe is a fair solution. Those listed in the OP as worthy of a no PvP flag (minus Lin’ame, which I wasn’t aware was under Haelun’or) are also being offered the option of build protection. With that being said, those not on the list can receive build protection (NOT no PvP flags) if they pay minas for it. Yes, some might say that this is a weird solution, but it’s better than allowing anyone protection as well as only allowing those on the list protection. The amount paid is reflected in the values below (note: region sizes are based on GM approximations, we’re not gunna sit and count each block or anything).

• Smaller than 10x10 (or 100 blocks) = 10,000 minas.
• Between 10x10 and 25x25 (or 100 and 625 blocks) = 40,000 minas.
• Between 25x25 and 50x50 (or 625 and 2500 blocks) = 100,000 minas.
• Between 50x50 and 80x80 (or 2500 and 6400 blocks) = 200,000 minas.
• Larger than 80x80 (or 6400 blocks) = Nothing, we won't make regions larger than this

^ So essentially charters without the need for signatures.

 

Lastly, regarding the option of no PvP for settlements on the list, we are taking the time now to mention a catch. To prevent a protected settlement with no PvP enabled from attacking and raiding others with no threat of retaliation, the condition for having no PvP enabled is that the settlement in question is not allowed to raid or attack anyone, though matters of self-defense* are an exception. Essentially, if you don't want other people attacking you, don't attack other people. Should a settlement with no PvP enabled attack another settlement, their flag will be removed for one week.

*Self-defense refers to scenarios where a region under the domain of the settlement in question that doesn’t have no PvP enabled is raided or attacked. This only applies to raids and attacks, however, so it is not justified to raid or attack another settlement if a single individual of that settlement causes a commotion within your boundaries. Self-defense is also regarded as “hit for a hit, eye for an eye”, so it is not justified raid a settlement multiple times if they raided you once, just like killing someone who swings a punch at you in a brawl is not considered self-defense.

As a final note, if something wasn't mentioned in this update, it was not changed. Also, I apologize for any frustration this post caused, but let this update be a lesson learned; believe it or not, we DO listen to the community and we ARE willing to make changes if a good enough case is made. All of the massive drama, insulting, yelling and anger that occurred in the previous replies were COMPLETELY unnecessary, and they did nothing to solve the problem. Kudos to all of you that retained your composure and were able to express your issues with the original post maturely and respectfully, as you all are the reason we saw the other points of view.  

 

Alan out!

 

EDIT:

Almost forgot to mention. If there are more issues with THIS update, we are still no less willing to make changes. If you still have problems with how things stand now, refer to the above paragraph for the proper way to explain those problems to us.

This isn't a compromise, as it seems that you have not only brought back all previous raid rules as well as made them more strict. What is this? Why was it changed?

[Lago 2572]

The post says, if I'm not mistaken. As for how they're more strict, they just inverted the 8/4 thing to be based on target rather than source. The raid cooldown is now shorter. What am I missing?
 

I am so happy to listen to alan's rampage of hate towards anyone who isn't _____ (I had to snip it or I'd be banned for harassment..)

 

Civil?

[MamaBearJade 2090]

Okay, I feel a little more relaxed. My only question is

If said settlement is raided at 1pm by group A, then again at 1:30 by group b, then again at 2pm by group A again, is this allowed as you removed the timeframe of raiding

I can live with a raid a day, not a raid an hour/half hour (or multiple raids in a day)

[Alan 1815]

Okay, I feel a little more relaxed. My only question is

If said settlement is raided at 1pm by group A, then again at 1:30 by group b, then again at 2pm by group A again, is this allowed as you removed the timeframe of raiding

 

We didn't remove the timeframe. "It now stands as of this moment that a settlement can only be raided once per day, regardless of who is attacking them".

[CosmicWhaleShark 2488]

Lastly, regarding the option of no PvP for settlements on the list, we are taking the time now to mention a catch. To prevent a protected settlement with no PvP enabled from attacking and raiding others with no threat of retaliation, the condition for having no PvP enabled is that the settlement in question is not allowed to raid or attack anyone, though matters of self-defense* are an exception. Essentially, if you don't want other people attacking you, don't attack other people. Should a settlement with no PvP enabled attack another settlement, their flag will be removed for one week.

*Self-defense refers to scenarios where a region under the domain of the settlement in question that doesn’t have no PvP enabled is raided or attacked. This only applies to raids and attacks, however, so it is not justified to raid or attack another settlement if a single individual of that settlement causes a commotion within your boundaries. Self-defense is also regarded as “hit for a hit, eye for an eye”, so it is not justified raid a settlement multiple times if they raided you once, just like killing someone who swings a punch at you in a brawl is not considered self-defense.

anges. If you still have problems with how things stand now, refer to the above paragraph for the proper way to explain those problems to us.

 

What is there to stop players from simply making alts to avoid this non-aggressive = no aggression ruling? Or proclaim themselves bandits, or rogues, essentially entities without boundaries.

 

Aside from paying for regions now, that's the only change I'm seeing. Also, your solution to raid rules is to allow people to bring up to eight people in a potentially no-PvP sanctioned nation? I'm not sure how that's going to play out.

 

Also, my original questions are still relevant from my perspective. Clarification on those points would be appreciated. Disregard question 3, however.

 

 

[Peter Chivay 2494]

Why can't we just have those who have massive experience with war help/write the new war rules?

 

Bring together the large nation leaders and have them make something, rather than the almighty sky gods?

 

Last time that happened we had this: http://www.lordofthecraft.net/topic/90652-ooc-rules-dwarven-v-oren-conflict/

 

Which had support across the board.

 

Pretty good track record eh?

guise

[Lago 2572]

Forced conquests end in either drama or one group suffering in silence however you do 'em. I've no doubt you can create a really good war system for two groups that aren't at each other's throats OOC. But if a group outright refuses to organise a war event with you, forcing war on them'll end in so much OOC drama that nobody will enjoy themselves. I doubt anyone wants a repeat of the Anthos OOC conflict.

 

There's nothing stopping you organising amazing war systems with another faction that's happy to organise them with you, the Dwarf Oren one you cited is an example of that. But forced war? Plenty of empirical evidence to indicate it makes neither fun nor RP when it goes wrong, and when you have force it, it's going wrong.

[Rhia 936]

What is there to stop players from simply making alts to avoid this non-aggressive = no aggression ruling? Or proclaim themselves bandits, or rogues, essentially entities without boundaries.

 

Aside from paying for regions now, that's the only change I'm seeing. Also, your solution to raid rules is to allow people to bring up to eight people in a potentially no-PvP sanctioned nation? I'm not sure how that's going to play out.

 

Also, my original questions are still relevant from my perspective. Clarification on those points would be appreciated. Disregard question 3, however.

 

 

 

If you would read the thread and not just repost the same thing 3 times.... you would see most of your questions answered. 

 

 

1) Nations decided what their regions is (pvp or nopvp) It is toggled by a GM and won't be done lightly.

2) Mechanical standard is still a thing, griefing is still a bannable offence. 

3) You said to ignore

4) Players can get regions now.

 

And player reports are one way to help enforce the rules, Gm's can't be everywhere.