Defender Default - Feedback and Ideas

[Thomas 3014]

Howdy!

(Immediate regret, I'm not Southern)

Introduction

Anyhow, hey-ho friends! I'll jump straight into it, no point in wasting anyone's time. As per the post above, roughly 5 or so hours ago a incisive and well proposed feedback thread was made in regards to the previously implemented 'Defender Default'. Don't know what Defender Default is? Where have you been and what have you done with my player? To sum it up:

 

"Defender Default was put in place in beginning of March as a remastered version of our default combat system here on Lord of the Craft. Previously, we followed 'PvP Default', which meant that any combat which took place through RP measures and otherwise would always be settled between a PvP Battle. We felt this favoured PvPers more than those who prefer to RP, and while it was a system that functionally operated, it was felt that a change was needed to suit all sides of the table. Thus, I pushed forward and the Game Department (was Global Moderation Team) accepted together we implemented the system known as Defender Default. DD, instead of PvPD favours the person being attacked. It falls under the decision of the person being attacked to determine the type of combat they wish for, either that of PVP or RP. When it comes to crime, the local guard force hold the responsibility to decide which outcome will be held, as breaking the law counts as instigation. Should no viable initiate be found the fight will continue with PVP default to determine a victor. If over 6 people are involved (aka 7+) then the combat style will automatically revert to PVP also, unless the entirety of the party wishes otherwise."

 

So Thomas, what are you making this thread for? Well, as I mentioned on the above post, I am constantly looking for ways to improve the systems put in place by the server. "If it isn't broken, don't fix it" isn't in my vocabulary. Defender Default is by no stretch perfect, and we knew that to begin with. Slowly we've been tweaking and making changes, but it's been 2 months since the Trial of Defender Default was passed and I'd like to go full march to get as much feedback as possible to ensure the system is made in the best way possible. 

 

Purpose

So what do I need from you? Well, I need your feedback. I want suggestions on how to improve the current System and what about it you dislike. If you don't have any idea how to improve it, that's fine. If you have criticisms, then please make them and I'll use whatever brain capacity I have to come up with something which can suit those needs. I'm looking to cater to as many concerns as possible, though I will note that not every suggestion will be met due to the overwhelming amount of contention which will no doubt stir.

 

Do not spam this thread, keep it clean and professional or your post will be removed. Do not spam "REMOVE DEFENDER DEFAULT" or "PVP DEFAULT IS BETTER", because Defender Default is here and it is going to stay all the while I have the ability to improve it. Let's work together to fix a system for everyone, and let's do this properly. We can do it.

 

- Thomas

<# Waffleheart

[Eranikus 348]

Hooray, I feel listened to! :D

 

On a more serious note, as I stated in my post on the matter (check it out, I did my best to break up the text wall into lovely little paragraphs), my potential suggestions on how to improve the system were as follows:

 

• Increase the cap on how many people can be involved in a combat situation before pvp becomes default (ultimately, the option offered was 10 instead of the current 7)
• Do not include the number of raiders present in the calculations for the cap, as that puts the defender at an automatic disadvantage as they can only have 2 people involved before it becomes pvp default
• Assign equal numbers to both sides, i.e. if 4 raiders show up, only 4 defenders may participate in the RP combat and each can only focus on a single raider
  • In addition to this, if the raid is being resolved through RP the raiders get a time span increase so they can't be forced away by ooc means by the defending party stalling for 30 minutes

[BasicDoctor 91]

I like DD as it is right now, but I see too many noobs on the server, even newish players get tricked into PvP Default. Probably because they never go on the forums -.- Shout out to every single person in my noob load guild.... I would only suggest you promote DD more in game. Get the message out there to the new players that this server has Defender Default rather than PvP Default. And if someone tricks you, you should report their butt.

[Slothtastic 761]

12 minutes ago, Eranikus said:

Hooray, I feel listened to! :D

 

On a more serious note, as I stated in my post on the matter (check it out, I did my best to break up the text wall into lovely little paragraphs), my potential suggestions on how to improve the system were as follows:

 

• Increase the cap on how many people can be involved in a combat situation before pvp becomes default (ultimately, the option offered was 10 instead of the current 7)
• Do not include the number of raiders present in the calculations for the cap, as that puts the defender at an automatic disadvantage as they can only have 2 people involved before it becomes pvp default
• Assign equal numbers to both sides, i.e. if 4 raiders show up, only 4 defenders may participate in the RP combat and each can only focus on a single raider
  • In addition to this, if the raid is being resolved through RP the raiders get a time span increase so they can't be forced away by ooc means by the defending party stalling for 30 minutes

I support this +1

[Gallic 1066]

I really, really dig the Defender default as it is now- But that's probably because I don't go out and try to start fights. I imagine I'd be saltier if I was trying to be an antagonist or something and people PvP default'd me. The only actual complaint I have is what was already mentioned.

 

When it comes to raids, some silly things can happen.

 

Honestly, I like the idea of making the raiders not count toward the cap.

 

 

 

But, some people (and I'm not saying this was the only complaint) in the last post were saying that forcing RP wasn't fair because some factions are OP in their eyes.

 

If you're attacking factions which are OP in RP, then maybe you shouldn't be attacking them in such a manner. Find some other way that isn't throwing down axes. I'd love to see some kind of alternative happen here.

 

Of course Druids are OP in a densely populated forest. It's like attacking necromancers in a crypt or dreadknights in a lake. You just wouldn't do it, because that's crazy.

[grimmothy 188]

I think what can actually be considered a crime under that needs to be elaborated on, for instance in felsen its against the rules for a female character to have exposed shoulders, but it seems unreasonable to get pvp'd by a bunch of guards for wandering into town (something that happened to me earlier this year) so I think that what counts as pvpable for crime should be the same everywhere, otherwise it goes to defender default, things like:

assault, murder, theft, etc. should count, but cultural laws shouldn't be e.g. exposed shoulders in oren or being impure in haelun'or (I haven't seen anyone defender defaulted for it, but it could happen.) 

 

tldr; make what counts as crime for guards to pvp consistent everywhere and only apply for /actual/ crime +1 for reform

[Weabootrash 412]

Raise the count for amount of people who can raid, so that we don't have to send four warriors at a time to attack a capital of a nation. (or two kids who got kidnapped by the vigil, heh)

 

Also there is one problem in DD. Basically if people are acting really agressive almost as if they are going to attack, I have to wait for them to attack first so that they won't call PvP if I do first. You should probably fix it up to where if people are acting very aggresive, almost as if it's an attack it wont be PvP if the other player attacks them first to defend themselves.

 

 

 

(other wise DD is pretty good to me)

[Kaelan 1918]

3 hours ago, Eranikus said:

Assign equal numbers to both sides, i.e. if 4 raiders show up, only 4 defenders may participate in the RP combat and each can only focus on a single raider

I'm sorry, but no. To me this doesn't make sense. Why would some magical force stop people from targeting select members in a raiding party.

For instance, a group of raiders show up and the defending force easily identifies the leader. It's their choice to not focus on said underlings and instead focus on the leader.  Besides, that leaves the defending party open to attack from those they are not paying any attention to. This is an unneeded restriction that makes zero sense to me.

 

3 hours ago, Eranikus said:

• Increase the cap on how many people can be involved in a combat situation before pvp becomes default (ultimately, the option offered was 10 instead of the current 7)
• Do not include the number of raiders present in the calculations for the cap, as that puts the defender at an automatic disadvantage as they can only have 2 people involved before it becomes pvp default

I 100% agree with increasing the cap to 10+ for PVP default. That means for the default choice, there would be 9 people involved. 4 raiders and 5 defenders.

What I don't agree with is the exclusion of raiders from the calculations for a cap. If both were implemented, that would allow for 9 defenders and 4 raiders before PVP. That totals 13 people involved and would simply be too much.

[LatzMomo 2088]

Defender default is exetremely confusing and doesn't work well, the rule isn't explained very well, and it can even be bent to attacker default in some cases, the rule is exetremely easy to manipulate, bend and loophole as well, the description needs to be less confusing, and if it continues to be abused like how it is now, it should probably be removed all together, I've never liked the idea of being forced to RP with people who have sour attitudes OOC, and i'd probably rip my hair out if I ever had to roleplay with one of the barnett brothers in combat. . .

[LatzMomo 2088]

2 minutes ago, Penguin said:

I'm sorry, but no. To me this doesn't make sense. Why would some magical force stop people from targeting select members in a raiding party.

For instance, a group of raiders show up and the defending force easily identifies the leader. It's their choice to not focus on said underlings and instead focus on the leader.  Besides, that leaves the defending party open to attack from those they are not paying any attention to. This is an unneeded restriction that makes zero sense to me.

 

I mean, why would some magical force stop raiders from attending raids? that doesn't make sense to me?

 

3 minutes ago, Penguin said:

I 100% agree with increasing the cap to 10+ for PVP default. That means for the default choice, there would be 9 people involved. 4 raiders and 5 defenders.

What I don't agree with is the exclusion of raiders from the calculations for a cap. If both were implemented, that would allow for 9 defenders and 4 raiders before PVP. That totals 13 people involved and would simply be too much.

 

I completely disagree with increasing the cap to 10, this would get out of hand extremely quickly, and do you think either side wants to lose? I've seen RP's last 3 hours because neither side is willing to lose, so they just powergame and powergame more, in a perfect world, this could maybe work, but for people who have a hard time focusing like me, it becomes exetremely difficult to keep up after only 5 players start fighting! There is no way I could keep up with 10! and certainly not 14! it's headache inducing at this point!

[Corvoo 562]

I honestly just want the cap increased to 10/10+ 

[Naj 545]

Personally, I believe that the lack of a defined technique in an RP default situation makes for long and unnecessary altercations.

 

I recognize the movement on the server awards an anti-raiding standpoint. However, I do believe that the odds are incredibly stacked against the attacker side to begin with and raising the cap to 10 would only emphasize this fact. 

 

Although I am not fond of an over amount of protection from outside elements to those who would choose not to protect themselves, I have run into little issue with defender default. Not because I agree with it, but because its existence has discouraged combat as a whole. Whether that be the mission of its introduction or not.

 

In general, I believe that if we are to pursue a more uniform conduct of combat on the server, guidelines beyond just "don't power game" for RP combat should be put in place.

[InfamousGerman 1553]

First, at the end of the trial, there won't be a vote, GMs will just go through with Defender default.
Next, they'll raise the PvP cap to 10.
Then, they'll raise it to 20.
After, PvP only done at large scale warclaims.
And then, 
And then it will be too late.
Full scale RP-Default will return, what we fought so hard to remove almost 3 years ago.

 

32 minutes ago, Corvoo said:

I honestly just want the cap increased to 10/10+ 

 

4 hours ago, Eranikus said:

• Increase the cap on how many people can be involved in a combat situation before pvp becomes default (ultimately, the option offered was 10 instead of the current 7)
•  

 

1 hour ago, Penguin said:

I 100% agree with increasing the cap to 10+ for PVP default.

 
this CANNOT be real hahahahaha

dont let the prophecy come true tahmas

[InfamousGerman 1553]

22 minutes ago, Sky said:

 

How dare people have differing opinions than you, it's revolting. 

I understand stand their opinions, although I may disagree with them. I simply found it funny how I predicted this months before it actually occurred.

[Thomas 3014]

11 minutes ago, Radu said:

return pvp default or you're ignoring more than half the community's opinions

Overstatement. 

7 minutes ago, InfamousGerman said:

I simply found it funny how I predicted this months before it actually occurred.

I do not understand. Nothing is broken, I'm just looking to improve it on a broader scale than we already have been.

 

Also keep the petty insults and arguments off of this thread, this is your last and only warning.