[4.0] War And Land

[Aislin 4354]

Note: We're not here to discuss PvP default, or the Rose-Malinor incident in Anthos.

 

Greetings, friend-o's!

 

As many of you are aware, the administration recently unveiled a new set of war rules specific to the Fringe (our current temporary map) which can be found here. The notable changes are:
 

 

1. The removal of forced conquest, i.e. no longer can one faction forcibly take control of another settlement without OOC conquest (previously in the form of a warclaim).
2. Settlements now have the option to get a region with no-PvP activated and no building allowed, unless you're on perms.
3. Settlements can only be raided once a day, meaning that the whole server can only attack a settlement once a day, as opposed to individual factions. An 8-man limit on raiding parties exists. (These are commonly known as raid rules).

 

However, as previously mentioned, these rules apply to the Fringe and are subject to change come 4.0 (our new map xDD :3 :)(: so exciting~!~!~). Native teased how war and land claiming will work in the upcoming map here. Essentially, the system will work like this:

 

 

1. There will be a plugin linked to soulstones that measures each settlement's activity. As long as a settlement is active, its region will exist. Once a settlement is deemed inactive by the plugin, the region will expire and can be claimed by another faction/party. (There will be free-build areas outside the "region bubble" and ****).
2. Conquest must be consensual. Players are supposed to use other, more creative ways to claim another settlement, such as blockades, trade embargoes, propaganda, etc.

 

 

That's essentially all we know right now. The current war rules will not work with the land-claiming plugin, for a myriad of reasons. But before we delve into that, I think it is prudent to first determine what war on LotC is meant to accomplish, what the goal of it existing is.

 

"LotC is, at its core, cooperative roleplay" is how Native once appropriately described the server. At first glance, one could suggest that war directly contradicts the notion of cooperative roleplay. However, the spirit of cooperation for the good of the server begins and ends in OOC -- the players play nice, the characters don't. As such, it is reasonable to suggest that war is necessary in roleplay for the following reasons: dynamicism and entertainment. Conflict is integral to all forms of entertainment and narrative, roleplay not excluded, and war is the simplest and most involving form of conflict out there. Without conflict, the entire server's characters would be sitting around a campfire and playing the bongos until the break of dawn. Furthermore, war allows for a dynamic aspect to roleplay -- power is fickle, kingdoms rise and fall. Therefore, it can be deduced that we have war to add a dynamic, immersive, and entertaining gameplay element to LotC.

 

I. Entertainment

 

The most important aspect of the server is enjoyment, and I think we can all come to a census on this point. When the server ceases to be fun for a large group of people, it ceases to exist in a significant capacity. With something as potentially volatile and upsetting as war, it is important to engineer a system that is enjoyable to as many people as possible. The staff's response to those upset by past wars was to, essentially, give certain factions the ability to remain completely exempt from warfare in the form of no-PvP and no conquest. While this does solve the enjoyment issue for those who dislike warfare, it causes those who enjoy warfare to lessen their own enjoyment.

 

The new war rules are an attempt at a compromise on the staff's part to appease both parties, when in reality this appeases one group: "the text-based group". I'll be using this moniker to describe the portion of the server that actively despises PvP, warfare, and any other mechanics-based combat that infringes upon their own text-based roleplay. The new rules grant the text group an OOC shield from PvP default, raids, and warfare as a whole. Meanwhile, the "mechanics group" is now restricted to conducting warfare amongst themselves, and being subject to RP default within settlements that opt for the no-PvP option in their region. Basically, there is now an OOC division between the server, which could potentially lead to significant ramifications for the cohesion of the community -- LotC may not be as cooperative as it needs to be with this division.

 

II. Dynamicism

 

The previous war rules allowed for a group to completely annihilate another faction, in the name of "dynamic roleplay". While this system did result in a significant dynamic aspect to the server, its negative OOC consequences in terms of community cohesion outweighed the benefits. Entire playerbases were wiped out, factions were OOCly enraged at one another, and ultimately our community suffered for it. The previous system greatly favored the mechanics group, and disregarded the text group.

 

In 4.0, the region plugin provides the opportunity for organic, cooperative dynamic roleplay; for the first time in a long time, a system can be engineered so that both the text and mechanics groups can enjoy dynamic roleplay fairly. It is important that we maintain this element of dynamic roleplay, because it allows for the players to write their own story, and to self-moderate the playerbase so that only the most active factions survive. Dynamic roleplay is exciting -- imagine how stale the history since Aegis would have been if it weren't for dynamic RP ("the Kingdom of Urguan, the Kingdom of Oren, the Princedom of Malinor, and the Orcish War Nation moved to Asulon. They existed until Anthos").

 

If the current war rules are to be maintained in 4.0, then dynamicism will be non-existent. Since conquest will be consensual, it will be near impossible to make a dent in another faction with no-PvP and a one-a-day raid limit. It's very easy for a settlement to log off as soon as raiders show up (especially if a raid can only happen once per day), while no-PvP will make raiding/blockades/sieging literally impossible. *Army 1 stabs city with collective sword.*

 

III. The Proposal

 

It is important that a war system be engineered so that players have roleplay methods of avoiding conflict and keeping their settlements, while still giving others the ability to still potentially attack them. We need to find a compromise between the text and mechanics groups, while not compromising the integrity of server policy. This calls for a war system that appeases the mechanics group and provides them with dynamicism, while satisfying the text group's desire for roleplay enjoyment. Furthermore, it needs to be customized to the region plugin so that they will not contradict one another. With that, here is my suggestion.

1. No forced conquest. The staff are not going to change their mind about this, so there is really no point in arguing it. However, there need to be other ways for players to disrupt the status quo. This means...
2. Remove the time limit on raid rules. When a settlement can only be raided once per day, everybody can simply log off when attackers showed up (we've seen this before in Anthos). The time limit combined with no forced conquest puts the advantage too heavily in the defenders' park, as well as disrupting the potential for organic roleplay. Furthermore, we've seen that it's pretty much impossible for the moderators to effectively keep track of and impose raid limits.
3. Maintain a number cap on raid parties. I would suggest 10, for all factions. Raiders have the advantage of being able to muster up numbers prior to a raid occurring via teamspeak/skype, so it's important to make sure they don't show up with 300 people. That's just overkill. However, players need a way to defend against unlimited raiding parties, so...
4. Impose build protection on settlements with regions (permissions). With a wall, a gate, and a region, players can effectively keep undesirables out of their settlement. The text players now have a way of escaping dreaded raids and PvP, without angering the mechanics players. Raid frequency will be naturally limited by this, simply because it won't be as easy to attack a settlement as it is in the Fringe (i.e. placing a ladder on the wall and jumping in).
5. Remove no-PvP flags. With no perms, players can't place ladders or anything else to get in, while this will need no moderation interference to preserve. No-PvP flags are overkill. With build protection, raiders won't be able to get in, so why have no-PvP? Guards within settlements will be unable to maintain order, edgies will spring up again in full force (notice how most places have virtually no edgies killing innocents now?), and server policy will be contradicted ("After much deliberation, we have decided to return PvP to an absolute default." - Rittsy, 2014).

With this system, war and combat will be balanced. Players who both love warfare will have the freedom to attack whenever they want to, and where they want to, while those who hate warfare will have the in-game tools to defend themselves should they wish. Dynamicism will be maintained, since attackers can establish siege camps outside settlements and impose tolls/death on those trying to enter the target settlement. Meanwhile, players can still soulstone into their city from afar -- meaning that entire factions won't simply die out and quit the server, they can find solutions in roleplay. If you really want to infiltrate an enemy city, you can always bribe city officials to open the gate, send in spies to pose as guards to get gatehouse passwords, or even convince enemy builders to create secret tunnels for you.

 

This system will exist harmoniously with the region/land plugin, as settlements will rise and fall based on activity. If a siege camp and the occasional orchestrated raid (since settlements will be difficult to penetrate) proves to be a real pain in the ass for defenders, they'll either resort to diplomacy, retaliate or hire another nation to do their fighting for them. If that doesn't work, trade embargoes, propaganda, and incentives from the attacking nation to join their settlement might draw players away from the besieged settlement. Eventually, either the settlement will drop below active levels and the region will be up for grabs, or they'll persevere and the attackers will give up.

"If you've tried all of these and their settlement still does not fall under the required amount of players then give them a round of applause for being committed to their roleplay and leave them be." - shiftnative, 2014.

 

+1 dis **** i pozt fer rep

[bungo 3965]

I wrote this by the way.

[dank 413]

Beautiful.

[DrakeHaze. 2524]

Ban PvP traps, lava moats, and anklebiters under the label of powergaming.

Wat. No.

[Cyndikate 2303]

I'm voting no on the No-PVP flags.

 

The reason why I suggested No-PVP flags is because those who want to actually RP will have a sanctuary for their liking. Those who want to PVP will have their own place to PVP. This isn't catering to one side, but both sides of the spectrum. Forcing PVP on those who don't find it fun will cause a lot of outcry and lead to unhappy players that will eventually leave LOTC. If it was really catering to text based players, then Alan would have proposed turning PVP off globally. The purpose was to make both sides happy.

 

I suggested No-PVP flags so raiders can raid attack settlements with a bit of creativity. No more of that boring Minas or Die bullshit that got old them moment VAs were removed. There would be more Heists, Kidnappings, City Hostages. If the raiders are complaining that raiding is impossible in No-PVP flag areas, then that clearly shows that they are not willing to provide fun, villainous roleplay for the other side. It just shows that they're just there for the PVP and items, not collaborative roleplay. I'm going to suggest to such players go to a PVP server.

[hex37 737]

 

1. Remove the time limit on raid rules. When a settlement can only be raided once per day, everybody can simply log off when attackers showed up (we've seen this before in Anthos). The time limit combined with no forced conquest puts the advantage too heavily in the defenders' park, as well as disrupting the potential for organic roleplay. Furthermore, we've seen that it's pretty much impossible for the moderators to effectively keep track of and impose raid limits.

This just doesn't work. The players on the server have proven time and time again that they're perfectly fine with raiding someone constantly and repeatedly. Back when the Conclave was a thing, they were raided nearly 3, 4 times a day, unto the point where RP was impossible because of people who wanted to get their kicks stomping on the other kid's sandcastle, so to speak.

 

 

This system will exist harmoniously with the region/land plugin, as settlements will rise and fall based on activity. If a siege camp and the occasional orchestrated raid (since settlements will be difficult to penetrate) proves to be a real pain in the ass for defenders, they'll either resort to diplomacy, retaliate or hire another nation to do their fighting for them. If that doesn't work, trade embargoes, propaganda, and incentives from the attacking nation to join their settlement might draw players away from the besieged settlement. Eventually, either the settlement will drop below active levels and the region will be up for grabs, or they'll persevere and the attackers will give up.

Bullying a player until they leave is not what cooperative roleplay ing means. If a person can successfully ward off a raid, The raids don't stop. They will keep coming, again and again and again, as many times as they please, because, unfortunately for some, that is all they want to do on LOTC. The only incentive that beating off a raid provides is making them want to do it again with more men at a more opportune time.

 

The sad, but true fact about raiders is that the only well-documented methods to get a raider to stop raiding is to either do some very BP-raising OOC bitching until the raiders are sick of you, or to complain to the staff until they impose a raid limit. Neither is really a preferable solution for anyone. Ever.

[Dalek348 1962]

Ban all siege weapons. They are a remnant of the twattery of Asulon. We never needed them to have fun in Aegis

[DecoLamb 959]

This just doesn't work. The players on the server have proven time and time again that they're perfectly fine with raiding someone constantly and repeatedly. Back when the Conclave was a thing, they were raided nearly 3, 4 times a day, unto the point where RP was impossible because of people who wanted to get their kicks stomping on the other kid's sandcastle, so to speak.

 

Bullying a player until they leave is not what cooperative roleplay ing means. If a person can successfully ward off a raid, The raids don't stop. They will keep coming, again and again and again, as many times as they please, because, unfortunately for some, that is all they want to do on LOTC. The only incentive that beating off a raid provides is making them want to do it again with more men at a more opportune time.

 

The sad, but true fact about raiders is that the only well-documented methods to get a raider to stop raiding is to either do some very BP-raising OOC bitching until the raiders are sick of you, or to complain to the staff until they impose a raid limit. Neither is really a preferable solution for anyone. Ever.

 

People are already getting bullied out of where they roleplayed right now. I honestly cant play Kroga with the constant raiding and pvp going on. Just no fun.

[ARCHITECUS 4788]

Ban all siege weapons. They are a remnant of the twattery of Asulon. We never needed them to have fun in Aegis

They are good unless the operating GM has no knowledge of them, like exploding brick and causing fire with ballistas.

 

And why ban anklebiters, those aren't ridiculously implausible like a magical disappearing bridge.  

[LaCabra (Soda) 1519]

All of it sounds fair to me, especially the raider cap. It's hard to have an enjoyable fight when it's 40+ raiders (which has happened several times this week alone).

[Hiebe 2493]

I think traps should be aloud but limit them. 1-3

[Aislin 4354]

This just doesn't work. The players on the server have proven time and time again that they're perfectly fine with raiding someone constantly and repeatedly. Back when the Conclave was a thing, they were raided nearly 3, 4 times a day, unto the point where RP was impossible because of people who wanted to get their kicks stomping on the other kid's sandcastle, so to speak.

 

They also had a shitty wall that was easy to bypass, their guards were non-existent and left the gates wide open at all hours of the day. Furthermore, a lot of that raiding happened when mages were exempt from PvP default and Malinor was essentially a no-PvP area except for raids. As a result, a lot of the players were upset at this exception and lashed out. Proving that no-PvP areas only cause grief to both sides.

 

If Malinor had taken the proper precautions to avoiding raids, they wouldn't have been raided at all hours of the day. Instead, it immediately went to hiding behind raid rules and OOC. This system negates the OOC.

 

 

Bullying a player until they leave is not what cooperative roleplay ing means. If a person can successfully ward off a raid, The raids don't stop. They will keep coming, again and again and again, as many times as they please, because, unfortunately for some, that is all they want to do on LOTC. The only incentive that beating off a raid provides is making them want to do it again with more men at a more opportune time.

 

The sad, but true fact about raiders is that the only well-documented methods to get a raider to stop raiding is to either do some very BP-raising OOC bitching until the raiders are sick of you, or to complain to the staff until they impose a raid limit. Neither is really a preferable solution for anyone. Ever.

 

You know how parents tell their kids to ignore bullies? Ignore them until they go away. With this system, you can build a wall and ignore the bigbad pvp bullies until they go away. Raiders get bored when they have nobody to kill, history has shown this.

 

I think traps should be aloud but limit them. 1-3

 

Ideally, I would agree. Realistically, however, the moderating team won't be able to effectively keep this in check. It's more realistic to do a full ban.

 

 

I'm voting no on the No-PVP flags.

 

The reason why I suggested No-PVP flags is because those who want to actually RP will have a sanctuary for their liking. Those who want to PVP will have their own place to PVP. This isn't catering to one side, but both sides of the spectrum. Forcing PVP on those who don't find it fun will cause a lot of outcry and lead to unhappy players that will eventually leave LOTC. If it was really catering to text based players, then Alan would have proposed turning PVP off globally. The purpose was to make both sides happy.

 

I suggested No-PVP flags so raiders can raid attack settlements with a bit of creativity. No more of that boring Minas or Die bullshit that got old them moment VAs were removed. There would be more Heists, Kidnappings, City Hostages. If the raiders are complaining that raiding is impossible in No-PVP flag areas, then that clearly shows that they are not willing to provide fun, villainous roleplay for the other side. It just shows that they're just there for the PVP and items, not collaborative roleplay. I'm going to suggest to such players go to a PVP server.

 

With this system, the no-pvp is redundant. If the raiders can't get in, why do you need a no-PvP area? If the inhabitants of the settlement don't want to PvP, they won't. If the guards need PvP to enforce order, they'll be happy it's there.

 

History has shown that RP raids are impossible. They never work on a scale larger than 3 people on either side.

[Cyndikate 2303]

Honestly, I would really like it if the roleplay portion of LOTC was preserved. This server has way too much emphasis on PVP and with the state things are going it may as well be a PVP factions server.

 

Forcing PVP on the players who don't want it will cause a massive outcry to the point of them leaving the server. PVP-flags are a way of saying. "Hey, we want no part of your PVP factions business, leave us alone." If you can't respect that, then it's clear that you don't care about the enjoyment of other players and just want your PVP factions on. How about such players be considerate of the feelings of othrs and just not attack their settlements? In fact, how about they raid settlements with creativity? I never saw zealotry, kidnapping or riots in the streets anymore.

[mmat 7460]

Beautiful

[argonian 14254]

Why can't towns that don't want to be raided stop it through RP? If bandits keep coming, then work out a deal in RP where you pay them a certain amount of money for them to leave you alone. Or hire guards or make deals with military orders to protect you, etc.

 

I remember in Aegis and early Asulon, people would tell others to, "Deal with it in RP.". Now people are all too happy to make OOC barriers that limit RP and ruin the dynamism of the server.