[Community Review] Raids

[Christ 939]

What's the incentive for raiders to raid now?

 

[zaezae 1098]

58 minutes ago, Chromie said:

What's the incentive for raiders to raid now?

 

 

For the fun of it. I'm not being snarky or being judgemental. It's just the truth of it. 

[MunaZaldrizoti 8037]

Please keep your comments and replies on topic, and please don't devolve into small insults. Keep your words focused on the topic of the thread.

Thanks!

[Gladuos 869]

My question is if half of the people commenting on this thread are adamantly against a number of rules, why are you unwilling to change it? Requesting that literally everyone agrees that it's bad is unreasonable (and a statistical impossibility). Why post a feedback thread only to deny any feedback that doesn't adhere to your personal opinions on the matter? Seems this is more-so posted out of staff obligation rather than a real desire for feedback.

[zaezae 1098]

To be fair, the original rule suggestion has been changed.

[Christ 939]

3 hours ago, Jaeden said:

 

We've won 90% of the raids against us, and will continue to do so. The only ones that hinder this are the losses from intentional 12am+ EST raids. You're free to come experience it yourself.

 

From my experiences as an NL and a raider, the system isn't that rewarding for either side. I'm hoping these rules offer a chance to fix that.

I'll come check it out in a month, you guys commonly just hide behind walls and the reason you win is once we are in the walls and since the defenders dont have a cap it's a 30 man meta rally vs a 10 man faction. I'm not sayingthe elves are wrong but you guys are prime examples of people who just hide behind walls.

 

[Narthok 10416]

5 hours ago, Chromie said:

What's the incentive for raiders to raid now?

 

The ability to capture folks, the bigger and longer lasting fights. I think it might be interesting to allow ET builders to add building damage but thats a whole different bucket of fish so I'm not touching that one with a pole. And in the event that they win then they are rewarded with a low cd. 

 

4 hours ago, zaezae said:

For the fun of it. I'm not being snarky or being judgemental. It's just the truth of it. 

This has always been the way of things, I'd just like to see raids be fun for both sides. I feel that if the defenders were given a more reasonable ability to strike back against those groups that had over extended themselves and also be protected from consistent interruption of their rp by malicious parties then they'd enjoy the interactions just a little bit more. Who doesn't like having a fair chance of winning after all. As for raiders, under this system the toxic practice of 'alright lads who is staying behind this time' gets fuckin booted out the window and everyone is allowed to participate in server content. Also defenders would be able to strike out against raider bases since they'd actualy have to have one.

 

17 minutes ago, Jaeden said:

 

Yeah, no. You're right. It's not like we're defending a settlement or anything haha.

@ChromieI think its a bit difficult to ask someone to respect your enjoyment if you don't make a conscious effort to respect theirs. Both pvpers and crpers need t make some concessions to improve the server experience. Or we can all just keep whinging about each other in our clique discords. 

 

1 hour ago, Gladuos said:

My question is if half of the people commenting on this thread are adamantly against a number of rules, why are you unwilling to change it? Requesting that literally everyone agrees that it's bad is unreasonable (and a statistical impossibility). Why post a feedback thread only to deny any feedback that doesn't adhere to your personal opinions on the matter? Seems this is more-so posted out of staff obligation rather than a real desire for feedback.

If you had followed the thread in detail you'd be able to see that a large number of rules have been tweaked or removed in their entirety. I very much do want feedback especially that framed in a constructive manner. But in the end this is a compromise attempting to satisfy both parties. So by that very nature both sides will feel that they were not sufficiently catered to.

 

1 hour ago, zaezae said:

To be fair, the original rule suggestion has been changed.

wag wan 

[Eurielle 1189]

I know my comment is probably going to get tucked away in the 20 something replies of this thread but I think all typing should be excluded from raid rules.

Its absolutely mental that a gang of five street urchins cant aggressively type at a lady in the city they live in with out making a modreq and having a GM announce PVP is on.

[Narthok 10416]

2 minutes ago, Dunstan said:

I know my comment is probably going to get tucked away in the 20 something replies of this thread but I think all typing should be excluded from raid rules.

Its absolutely mental that a gang of five street urchins cant aggressively type at a lady in the city they live in with out making a modreq and having a GM announce PVP is on.

I don't really think conflict between residents has ever been counted as a raid no? I've actually been wrestling with this issue for a while and it comes down to how do we define 'villain rp'. I've grown fond of defining it as 'foreigners partaking in malicious actions with the intent of doing harm to residents or travellers'. Harm being either of property or of body. I think having this definition as a clause to the 4 man raid cap would enable organic local interactions to continue without hindrance.

[WuHanXianShi14 0]

12 hours ago, Narthok said:

I understand your love of the status quo but a ruleset cannot cater exclusively to one side of the ideological divide on lotc.

Except both regular defenders and career pvp raiders are speaking out against these rules and both  sides have asked you to keep them the same?

 

Quote

I feel that this ruleset gives defenders very nice incentives to actively rally and defend against a raid rather than being raided every 5 days and having the activity of your entire city wiped. 

 

Being raided every 5 days has not wiped our activity at all. I would say that its currently a very managable system. I dont think enough people were complaining that it warranted change, an this whole thing seems more like your pet project than a genuine server need.

[Narthok 10416]

3 minutes ago, WuHanXianShi14 said:

Except both regular defenders and career pvp raiders are speaking out against these rules and both  sides have asked you to keep them the same?

 

Being raided every 5 days has not wiped our activity at all. I would say that its currently a very managable system. I dont think enough people were complaining that it warranted change, an this whole thing seems more like your pet project than a genuine server need.

Wars are built upon raids and capped raids are in my eyes the root upon which current raid toxicity and memery can be drawn from. In my data collection people expressed dissatisfaction with the current state of raids and expanded upon this with specific complaints. I have tried to amend these issues as best I can. You are once again depicting your position hyperbolically. If wars are to be improved then raid improvements must precede them. I've outlined my issues with raids extensively and explained why I feel these proposed rewrites solve these issues. I have done so point by point many times now. And while others have pointed out specific issues with the rules via citing sub sections your gripe seems to be with a change of the status quo.

 

So in the essence of dialogue, which specific portions of the ruleset do you disagree with and why. Then I'll have something more concrete to work with. Your earlier point specific criticisms were fairly valid and I immediately changed the rule you had criticized.

[Eurielle 1189]

1 minute ago, Narthok said:

I don't really think conflict between residents has ever been counted as a raid no?

While that might be true rules should be written as they are to be enforced. Players should be able to know they are allowed to play street urchins and not have to just hope that someone won't just decide that urchins are villains and get them blacklisted for operating inside of a region, as per the terms set in rule 5.3

 

Also rule 2.1 requires a GM to make a broadcast that PvP is on and in combination with rule 5.3 that makes any sort of criminal emotive RP in a group impossible without getting a villainy blacklist. Also with rule 5.4 that means that Australians just can't have Villany groups. Like m8 mages ain't here to clicky clicky and take pixels. Why gotta deal with mandatory click click to preform some dark magic ritual or whatever?

[neopsychedelia 207]

1 minute ago, Narthok said:

Wars are built upon raids and capped raids are in my eyes the root upon which current raid toxicity and memery can be drawn from.

If you really believe that pvp-related toxicity and 'memery' has anything to do with the cap on raids then you must misunderstand this community on a fundamental level.

[WuHanXianShi14 0]

1 minute ago, Narthok said:

Wars are built upon raids and capped raids are in my eyes the root upon which current raid toxicity and memery can be drawn from. In my data collection people expressed dissatisfaction with the current state of raids and expanded upon this with specific complaints. I have tried to amend these issues as best I can. You are once again depicting your position hyperbolically.

And you're once again making vague references to undisclosed "Stats" as if it legitimizes anything you say. If you want people to take it seriously then show us your data collection, and your collection methods.

 

Most people on this server are chronic complainers. They complained about these rules when prompted, and they'll complain and ***** about yours on the off chance they're actually implemented. The main problem with this server is there is no consistency, we feel the need to overhaul and change **** every 2 months because someone and their friends gets loud enough, and some new up-and-coming tryhard GM decides that catering to whoever is shouting at the time is the best way to make himself look "Active", or "taking initiative". And any work he does is undone within the next few months because the cycle repeats.

 

The rules are they are now are functionally fine, and the raid cap isnt what breeds toxicity, its the people themselves. Because if people are doing shitty RP, acting shittily OOCly, then you dont baby them by saying 'its just because of the rules'. No rule forces you to act like a spastic. Everyone is expected to remain civil, or if not civil, at the very least not actively breaking rules or insulting individuals. Hold players accountable for player behaviour, not the rules. Otherwise that's a pretty terrible attitude for a GM to have.

 

 

[Narthok 10416]

1 minute ago, Dunstan said:

While that might be true rules should be written as they are to be enforced. Players should be able to know they are allowed to play street urchins and not have to just hope that someone won't just decide that urchins are villains and get them blacklisted for operating inside of a region, as per the terms set in rule 5.3

 

Also rule 2.1 requires a GM to make a broadcast that PvP is on and in combination with rule 5.3 that makes any sort of criminal emotive RP in a group impossible without getting a villainy blacklist. Also with rule 5.4 that means that Australians just can't have Villany groups. Like m8 mages ain't here to clicky clicky and take pixels. Why gotta deal with mandatory click click to preform some dark magic ritual or whatever?

I've tried to amend your first issue via improving the wording of 5.3. As for the rest what would you suggest to improve this issue. I don't generally see dark mages doing villainy with more than 3 goons but then again my experience with that group is rather limited so I'd like to hear other perspectives. As for 5.4, it is incredibly difficult to conceive of a rule that will prevent off hour raiding while catering to all timezones. Do you think increasing the raid cap to five would be an acceptable compromise to enable aussies / mages to operate free of raid constraints?

 

1 minute ago, neopsychedelia said:

If you really believe that pvp-related toxicity and 'memery' has anything to do with the cap on raids then you must misunderstand this community on a fundamental level.

I think my understanding of pvp culture and community is at a sufficient level to make such a statement. I have been in pvp intensive groups for the majority of my tenure on lotc and have played through many incarnations of such rules. Thus the cap is what I believe is the primary issue. If you disagree then I'd be happy to listen to your thoughts on the matter. As for changing raid culture, that is a matter of us cracking down but we do still need players to report offenders to us otherwise we cannot do anything.