Raid Rule Modifications

[firespirit44 1279]

I like it. What can be abused about this system though? I want to hear some negatives. The ooc barrier complaint is noted.

[Sky 0]

I fully support this thread, and the changes to be made! 

[Alan 1815]

Popping my head in this thread before I head to bed (it's 3:00 am my time, after all). I'm saying this now and I'm not saying it again, there are now over 130 replies to this thread spanning over 14 pages (counting hidden posts which non-staff can't see) and I am not in the mood to waste my time reading through it all when I wake up since the majority of it is trolling, needless bickering and off topic remarks or jabs. If this idea is to be considered in the slightest, then you all WILL get back on topic, cut the crap with the memes (regardless of how funny or seemingly necessary), and stop with the idiotic remarks aimed at specific RP groups. This isn't preschool, but if everyone wants to act like it is, then perhaps its time to treat everyone like children. When I wake up and return to this thread, I will personally look for anyone that posts anything that violates my conditions following this reply and I will hide their posts and warn or ban them, depending on the situation. 

 

I don't care what it is you feel you need to get off your chest, I'm sure getting banned is not worth a single reiterated statement that in the end will not hurt anyone but yourself. Start thinking with your heads instead of your hormones before posting, then maybe for once we'll see an intelligent and mature debate on the LotC forums.

[Hanrahan 2885]

I very much like the idea of this.

 

 

GoodmanAlan

[Lago 2569]

The thing is, people will just make raid groups not affiliated with nations to bypass this rule then. Are you going to punish a nation if a random group of humans attacks the dwarves? 

 

That depends. If, when the dwarves come demanding blood, the humans publically disavow said random group and make no attempt to inhibit the dwarves' attempt to bring the marauders to justice, then no, that wouldn't autoaccept an existing dwarven WC. If they claim nonaffiliation but otherwise shield the raiders who continue to raid then possibly yes.

[Supremacy 3357]

Precisely, Lago gets it.

[Aelu / Rel (Combustionary) 1535]

No.

 

That's literally making the high elves nigh-invincible.

 

The insults would be what PROVOKES the warclaim, so that at least the insulters could be shoved off their high horse through blood and steel.

 

If I called your mom a *****, would you not want at me for it? What if I did that repetitively? Over the course of about fifty to one-hundred years?

 

The "only raids can provoke" thing makes it so the high elves can declare war on everyone, but nobody can declare war on the high elves.

 

Maybe you should just leave them alone. It's quite obvious you absolutely despise them oocly. Nothing good comes of ic conflict rooted in ooc conflict.

[Space 2333]

TL;DR DOWN WITH THE DIRTY BLOC (QUEBECOIS)

[Jistuma 1995]

I still see a problem with the first rule, about the raid thing. Because there is a problem, metagaming.

A raid results in two things: Victory or Defeat.

Unless the raiders would be carrying banners and flashing their names to the raided, no one could know who they were besides their race. Heck, between humans and elves, and goblins, they wouldn't be able to tell apart the race as well. Even if the raiders win, do they just know the faces of all military people from everywhere? No, they could maybe, with luck, know one person. If it's one person they know, it's not a raid of a nation or a town, it's a raid from that person that they know where he's from. They go to talk to them, and the people of the town deny that they attacked.

If the raided lose, they don't even have the bodies to know anything.

Saying "dwarves attacked" doesn't mean Urguan attacked, it means dwarven people attacked. There are gangs, houses, bandits, how would anyone know if the raiders were from a nation or not?

Oh and with that rule in place, bandits would start to blame other places in their attacks, like shouting "Oren Oren Oren!" And things like that.

Also, no town controls all it's people, and since it's a game, it doesn't control it's military either. So why should the people of the town have to accept the warclaim that was provoked by a few that probably the characters don't even know who they were without metagaming the nameplate?

So I don't really see that rule working.

[Lago 2569]

That depends. If, when the dwarves come demanding blood, the humans publically disavow said random group and make no attempt to inhibit the dwarves' attempt to bring the marauders to justice, then no, that wouldn't autoaccept an existing dwarven WC. If they claim nonaffiliation but otherwise shield the raiders who continue to raid then possibly yes.

 

Also remember that this is an OOC rule pertaining to warclaims: a warclaim has to already be in place. It's not a mechanism for justification, it's a mechanism for preventing a warclaim-denying group from raiding. It's pretty obvious where raiders are from because you can see their names above their heads, and this only comes into effect if an active warclaim is up. Essentially, you can't raid an nation that's warclaimed you and then refuse that warclaim. To say such a rule can't work because you don't know the raiders identities IC is akin to saying you can't BR someone you didn't identify IC.

[hellfiazz 878]

Quite frankly, after reading through this thread, I've found it's mostly a who did what kind of thing. I kind of find myself agreeing to this now, because as a general rule it is reasonable and agreeable, and opposition's main problem with it is that a certain group will try use this rule to their benefit.

 

If they try and exploit a rule, I'm fairly sure they are in turn breaking rules, but don't quote me. We should treat potential exploitation on an as and when basis, rather than preemptively declaring that one side will undoubtedly use this rule to their benefit. Prejudging that side can only make the situation worse.

 

In short, let's wait and see if this quite reasonable rule set (apart from the very last part of the last rule, I disagree with that) is exploited, rather than saying it definitely will.

[Aelu / Rel (Combustionary) 1535]

I still see a problem with the first rule, about the raid thing. Because there is a problem, metagaming.

A raid results in two things: Victory or Defeat.

Unless the raiders would be carrying banners and flashing their names to the raided, no one could know who they were besides their race. Heck, between humans and elves, and goblins, they wouldn't be able to tell apart the race as well. Even if the raiders win, do they just know the faces of all military people from everywhere? No, they could maybe, with luck, know one person. If it's one person they know, it's not a raid of a nation or a town, it's a raid from that person that they know where he's from. They go to talk to them, and the people of the town deny that they attacked.

If the raided lose, they don't even have the bodies to know anything.

Saying "dwarves attacked" doesn't mean Urguan attacked, it means dwarven people attacked. There are gangs, houses, bandits, how would anyone know if the raiders were from a nation or not?

Oh and with that rule in place, bandits would start to blame other places in their attacks, like shouting "Oren Oren Oren!" And things like that.

Also, no town controls all it's people, and since it's a game, it doesn't control it's military either. So why should the people of the town have to accept the warclaim that was provoked by a few that probably the characters don't even know who they were without metagaming the nameplate?

So I don't really see that rule working.

 

Of course, but 'controlling' is different than accepting. We can't expect a nation to keep tabs on everyone that's a resident.

 

But at the same time, Nations can take steps. Work with the other nation to take down the bandits as a way of 'proving' their side. If a player raids, instead of the nation he lives in throwing up their arms and saying 'He's not our military, we can't help', they can take steps to fight the issue.

 

Right now, it seems that the majority of 'raiders' are players living in a nation. Not always official military, but still residents. If bandits were to shout a nation's name as they raided, the nation could easily prove themselves innocent by capturing and punishing the bandits.

[Destroyer_Bravo 1052]

I'm still opposed, even without accounting for "ooc hatred". I could easily hire some elves to raid me in order to kill the high elves. And, occupation rp is still rp. I, for one, actually rp'd during that raid (p.s. boats have negated fall damage upon dismount since the dark ages of minecraft)

[Priceflash 757]

This is exactly what you did with the Orc warclaim. You made a forum thread insulting the orcs and called them dishonorable, thus pissing them off ICly enough to retaliate.  When they raided, players complain. It all consists of OOC bullshit, complaining, ban reports etc because someones immersion is broken as a result of a nation leader provoking other settlements.

 

Now the orcs decide to WC you as a result of you antagonizing them. You denied it because of accusations of Azogs being alts.

 

Your proposal isn't to benefit anyone else but yourselves. Wanna know why the elves are pointless to raid? Its nothing to do with your stone walls or 24/7 locked gates. It's the fact that the elves are essentially hiding behind 6 thick walls of OOC bulllshit and GMs to back them up and cater to them, and when people found ways around it, especially through legit MC mechanics, they cry, they ban report and make feedback threads.

 

Your proposal is just adding another OOC wall to suit yourselves. High elves don't raid, they rarely do, they can just insult other nations and hiding behind OOC barriers to dodge IC consequence.

 

You wanna stop being raided? Stop provoking other nations. Don't piss people off. Stop being dicks during times when it can cost you.

 

It's like the Princedom of Fenn all over again.

I completely agree.

 

 

Surpremacy, occupying a city is more roleplay than raiding. If you're going to sit there for 15 minute after they die, I'm relatively sure the raid is over, and you're doing something to **** them over in roleplay. I don't care if you want to go RP with your waifu in your city, you're going to need to deal with conflict eventually. A lot of people think avoiding all conflict RP is fun and immersive, but not for a lot of other people. It's not ruining your roleplay because they're occupying a city, it's ruining your roleplay because instead of roleplaying the occupation, you just want them to **** off so you don't have to even touch conflict roleplay. It's not hard to just throw minas at them till they leave or call upon your allies to drive them away if an occupation ever did happen, so I think it'd be rather pointless. Not to mention that trying to get into the gates or shouting things from outside the city could very well be a peaceful protest, even in armour..

 

That's just my opinion, anyway.

[Aelu / Rel (Combustionary) 1535]

I'm still opposed, even without accounting for "ooc hatred". I could easily hire some elves to raid me in order to kill the high elves. And, occupation rp is still rp. I, for one, actually rp'd during that raid (p.s. boats have negated fall damage upon dismount since the dark ages of minecraft)

Precisely. For one.

 

The day occupations are actually rp is the day people stop complaining about them. One player in a group rping does not justify the rest not. As for boats? I don't see how the history of an exploit makes it any less of an exploit, but that's an issue for another time.

 

I completely agree.

 

 

Surpremacy, occupying a city is more roleplay than raiding. If you're going to sit there for 15 minute after they die, I'm relatively sure the raid is over, and you're doing something to **** them over in roleplay. I don't care if you want to go RP with your waifu in your city, you're going to need to deal with conflict eventually. A lot of people think avoiding all conflict RP is fun and immersive, but not for a lot of other people. It's not ruining your roleplay because they're occupying a city, it's ruining your roleplay because instead of roleplaying the occupation, you just want them to **** off so you don't have to even touch conflict roleplay. It's not hard to just throw minas at them till they leave or call upon your allies to drive them away if an occupation ever did happen, so I think it'd be rather pointless.

 

That's just my opinion, anyway.

What rp is there to be had? Please, explain to me what you, as an occupier, do to make the conflict rp enjoyable for the other side. Logging in to a city square to be PvPed by a group isn't fun. Don't pretend it is.

Some occupations have rp, yes. Those aren't the ones people complain about. People complain about the occupations where the raiders aren't looking for rp, their looking to win. Occupations where the raiders do one or two emotes, and start killing whoever was unlucky enough to have logged off in the town square rather than in their home.

People don't want to touch conflict? I can't name a single town that hasn't participated in the big war in some form. Nobody here is wanting to avoid conflict rp. People want to avoid the ooc drama that comes with rp-less conflict.

You want people to rp the occupation, but what exactly do you mean? Are you expecting players to find '*sits in his basement waiting for them to go away' to be fun? Should they just blindly run outside so you can kill them? Or should they pay you a few thousand minas for the off chance that you (and here, I refer to bandits in general. I don't know how you in particular respond to payment) actually keep your word and leave? It seems that people think that the victim of a raid can just 'choose' to enjoy it. Pretend all you want that an 'occupation' magically creates rp, but it's entirely up to the raiders. If the victims of a raid don't like it, then obviously the occupying force has not rp'ed in correctly.

 

Remember the server rules - Don't be a jerk to people.