The Battle of Hoar Hill

[Esterlen 4462]

 

“It is how I punish those who irritate me. You know too much. You impede me too often. And I find your arrogance to be an annoyance. I’ve had men killed for less.”

- Robert, Holy Orenian Emperor, to the dwarven ambassador of Grand King Wulfgar, dated 1464

 

 

The swift Imperial shift of strategy in pursuing the war aggressively had begun to reap its bountiful rewards; the Urguanite navy lay shattered and broken at the bottom of the Strait of Avar near Cape Bronson, its steamships rendered useless by sheer tactical domination, and the defensive line of the south irrevocably by the fury of the Orenian assault. It was time to push the advantage. The Emperor, Henry of Rothesay and Josef of Saintois stepped off of the command ship and onto the established beachhead on the coast of Avar, inspecting the state of things at this critical juncture. Even here, where the light of Imperial civilization seemed so far away, the advancing armies did not go wanting for any supply. Newly reared swift and hardy warhorses were brought to supplement the elite cavalry of the Empire. The highest quality steel was fashioned into the greatest blades in the known world. And the great woodworkers of the elf-realm shaped bows peerless in all history, ready for a monumental push.

 

The Emperor and his two generals stood in the command tent with their faces wreathed with the burdens of their God-appointed task, peering down at a map of the land on which they now stood. “Gentlemen,” John began with his usual assertive tone, grey eyes flicking to the two in turn before averting back toward the map. The calculated discussion progressed for a time, before a single index finger pointed towards a spot on the map. The decision had been made. With the decision made, the trio exited the tent, moving to face the lords and commanders present.

 

“Prepare to siege,” commanded the Emperor’s baritone, frowning thinly.

 

 

_______________________________________

 

 

WARCLAIM DETAILS

TYPE OF BATTLE: Siege

TIME: Saturday the 9th of January, 10 PM GMT, 5 PM EST, 2 PM PST (Proposed)

ATTACKERS: The Holy Orenian Empire and allied forces

DEFENDERS: The Kingdom of Urguan and allied forces

LOCATION: The southernmost dwarven stronghold in Avar

 

TERMS OF VICTORY:

VICTORY FOR ATTACKERS-

If the defenders are killed, or if their keep is taken, or if they are forced into an underground bunker.

VICTORY FOR DEFENDERS-

Attacking forces are killed or driven from the battle area.

REWARDS:

Oren victory: The fortress and its surrounding region will be annexed by the Holy Orenian Empire.

Urguan victory: The area will be non-warclaimable for two four <--(Edit: Fire) weeks.

 

RULES:

-No status switching.

-No golden apples.

-No altering of terrain or construction of new fortifications after this WC is posted.

-In order to accommodate an actual fight, the offense and defense shall be allowed to repair (With appropriate materials) their siege engines three times from a malfunction for the purposes of creating a viable breach, on account of the offense's supply train.

-If the dwarves are driven into an underground bunker or cellar, they immediately are conceding victory.

-All LOTC rules.

-If the dwarves do not show to their side of the warclaim, they implicitly forfeit and the Empire is allowed to take control of the region being sieged and can force a date of the next skirmish or siege as determined by Orenian command.

[Fireheart 2768]

I will be overseeing the development of this warclaim. As a notice to Oren Alchemist Fire will be allowed in this battle.

[Fireheart 2768]

1 minute ago, Ballnazor said:

I'd like to argue that alchemists fire should be allowed in a limited amount, seeing how the dwarves duped a massive amount of it, you might not have found all their caches of duped potions and thusly they should not be allowed to use all of it.

I am confident that all illegal materials were found. Moderation would be rather hard if we only allowed a certain amount considering the sheer numbers of players that show up for the fight. It will stay as it is, simply allowed.

[mmat 7461]

I'd personally argue that during a siege, Alchemists Fire should be limited regardless of duping offences simply due to its sheer dumbassery. It gives an absolutely astronomical advantage to any defending faction due to the fire tick, slowing, crit vulnerability, etc.

 

It is a mary sue of defensive sieges which basically makes attacking so difficult that it's blatantly unfair. With possible limitless supplies due to the proven dupes, it is quite ridiculous indeed. And to say you're "quite confident" that all illegal materials are gone given the dubious duping history of this particular faction, it's not quite good enough. AKA Riverbird's insane actions and the actions of the recently banned dwarves.

 

I can guarantee if Oren were found guilty of duping many chests of Alch Fire, the penalty would be far more severe. I know, I remember the words, attitudes and actions of many current GMs in my time as admin. I hope you reconsider the decision.

[mmat 7461]

I'd appreciate legitimate posts not being removed. I, as well as Kyle, have been helping to make this warclaim and trying to shut down a perfectly fair stance is pretty UNfair.

[Esterlen 4462]

On phone atm so I'm speaking through Matthew Hollis please stop removing his posts they generally reflect my stance

[mmat 7461]

Why are we not able to debate the use of DUPED alch fire while the dwarves/dunaminans are able to force a laggy naval warclaim in the last battle? 

[Cpt_Noobman 1378]

Excuse me, Orener's/presiding GM, I'd just like to be a Dwarven voice in this. On the topic of duped alchemists fire, Riverbird's stash wasn't even used in the previous siege you lost, to the best of my knowledge. Most, if not all of the alchemist fire used was brewed by me personally. I gathered/payed for all the ingredients required myself. I will tell you, it is very difficult to obtain the ingredients, and it is very expensive for me to produce, especially in the quantities required for a successful defense. The sheer difficulty of acquiring the reagents is limit enough on our supply. I would also like to say it is not unfair in the slightest, nor is it impassable. It is just as easy for you to produce it as it is for us. If ever this war were to turn around, and we were to siege you, you'd have the same chance to use it as us. If you really want to avoid being hit with it, wait for us to run out. In that final charge you conducted to finish off the previous siege, we used the last three bottles we had.

[Cpt_Noobman 1378]

I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that there is a chance that the potion will be a dud when thrown, or may explode too early. I'm not positive, but I think this happened to us in the snow elf warclaim. So, unless I'm wrong, then I think it is represented.

[Esterlen 4462]

2 hours ago, Cpt_Noobman said:

I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that there is a chance that the potion will be a dud when thrown, or may explode too early. I'm not positive, but I think this happened to us in the snow elf warclaim. So, unless I'm wrong, then I think it is represented.

 

 

Absolutely none of the weaknesses prescribed in the RP rules for alchemist's fire are actually coded into the plugin, this we can confirm. We've been arguing against this for circa six months now - but it's not even our chief-most issue at the moment. Right now a bigger concern is that it's almost undeniable that a huge portion of your alchemist's fire is duped, however the staff's refusal to actually investigate or put the item on suspension until your innocence is determined (Or not determined, as the case may be) is complicating the scenario: hence our demands for a total ban of it.

[Cpt_Noobman 1378]

Literally all of Riverbirds alchemists fire was taken when he was banned, and recently whatever else was suspected to be duped was taken from our vault. So, as before, saying our alchemist fire is duped is no reason at all for us not to use it, because we don't have any duped alchemist fire. The only supply we have is what I've brewed, so stop with this petty duping argument, it's no longer relevant.

[Ioannis 1478]

Do you want us to only use sticks to attack and chainmail for armour?

 

Why limit it? I cant see the reason to it. Its expensive to make and dwarves are supposed to be experts at brewing stuff like that.

You are attacking the nation that in roleplay are the best at defending since they live inside the ground or at fortified forts, who brew potions like alchemist fire and smith beast weapons.

[Jistuma 1995]

Fireheart asked me for some input on alchemist's fire lore and the like, and so I'm here!

 

First thing,  if you have sugestions, or blanten things you want to say are OP or whatever, please, PLEASE send me a PM, talk to me on skype or make a feedback thread named "How to fix alchemist's fire." This potion is perhaps the most unique potion in LOTC, but I can't make it better if players don't come to me with sugestions and well written explanations of the problems they find with it.

 

Now, onto the lore. Unlike DPM says, alchemist's fire works 100% of the time. Meaning unless the bottle is being passed carefully through hands, it will break. The chances of someone catching a thrown bottle and it not blowing up in the catcher's hand is almost none. Now, the lore also says there is a chance for the bottle to blow up when thrown. The chances are 30% when thrown far, 15% when thrown close, and 0% (Yes, you can not screw this up unless you miss or someone hits you) when being dropped. There is also a 30% chance of it breaking on someone's person if the person is carrying the bottle on them, and they get hit strongly (into a wall, pushed into the ground, etc). The reason for these precentages though, is quite simple, it's to stop players from just having alchemist fire on themselves when needed, since this is for roleplay situations. Players could just BS before and say "I have alchemist's fire on me" whenever they liked, because there was no MC item to represent it. The rule continues now, but now you also have to have the MC item with you when using it in RP.

 

Onto the mechanics. It causes some lag, but it would be minimal. The potion only creates 6 blocks of flowing lava, and that's it, nothing else is created or removed. That is all the potion does, it creates 6 blocks of lava (center, 4 sides and top) and then the lava flows naturaly, and disapears naturaly, this way making coding a LOT easier and a lot less lag. Other ideas were to set all the blocks around where the potion hit on fire, but that has the problem of fire not going out in LOTC. Other things about the mechanics of the potion, is that it fails if it hits too close to water, or hits 3 blocks above a block. This is to stop down flowing lava, and to stop the lava from destroying water. Either way, I believe that was the reason why alchemist's fire might have not worked all the time in the snow battle, there might have been water near the hit.

 

As for combining lore with mechanics. I'm a lore master as well as a coder, so I am of the thoughts that lore and plugin should be made as closely together as they can. Yet, as both a coder and a lore master, I want both the lore and the plugin to be used. This is why the percentages of blowing up on one person don't exist, they would make almost all of the use of alchemist's fire, null. Believe me when I say that if you have a 20% chance (1 in 5) of spawning lava on top of yourself and your allies, you won't ever take the risk. You will be more afraid of a failed thrown, than achieving a good one. That was one of the main things about the percentages being added to alchemist's fire, stopping their exagerated use in roleplay. Still, in roleplay, you don't die if you fail a throw, you get badly burnt and incapacitated, but you are still there, rp'ing, and can be saved, can be killed, can try to run, etc. In mechanics though, it's *right click, potion fails* "**** LAVA SPAWNED ON ME!" It's not someone else throwing the bottle, it's not someone else spending probably 500 minas to kill you, it's you spending 500 minas to kill yourself. As such, placing lava under the thrower will not be an implemented feature in the potion, yet, there can be others. Another idea I have is instead of lava being spawned under the thrower (which would kill him and every ally around him), I could place him on fire. I have some ideas on that, so someone make a feedback thread or something stating the problems of the potion and present a few solutions you might think and I might do a change. The other part of the lore is that the potion breaks when being hit. Have you imagined this in a PVP fight? It'll probably be pretty nice, but... it'll probably mean that no one in their right mind would ever carry around alchemist's fire. And also, considering all the banter hits and joke hits and missclick hits that exist in LOTC, blowing up alchemist's fire after being hit will not be implemented... at least not normally (might be some things I can make to have it as an easter egg explosion sometimes, but it will not be a primal feature.)

 

Last thing to mention is that gathering the ingredients to this potion is VERY hard at the moment (at least until the herbalism plugin is added). This makes each potion very expensive, because it also requires great alchemists.

 

A lot of text, but I hope it's enough to give all the info reguarding alchemist's fire, and help you all reach a conclusion on this. My opinion which is pretty useless, allow alchemist fire only in sieges, and make a feedback thread to try and discuss how to fix the potion. Also, the attackers need to learn that you can throw alchemist fire over walls and through holes. It is a lot worse for defenders to have alchemist's fire blow up inside a narrow place like a room or the top of walls, than it is for the attackers to not be able to attack for 10 seconds.

[Fireheart 2768]

Attacker Victory.