[Community Review] Raids

[Narthok 10416]

Most up to date version including changes that have been made at the suggestion of players. 

 

Tentative Raid Rules Rewrite 0.6

---

Section 1.0 Raid Procedure

1.1 To initiate a raid the leader of a raiding party must modreq one hour in advance of the raid

1. The handling GM must then provide a warning regional broadcast to the target. The raid will arrive one hour from the broadcast not from the posting of the modreq.

 

1.2 Raids must be launched from an established base

1. A base being henceforth defined as a Major Freebuild or Nation. You may not launch raids from random freebuild huts or dirt holes. RP cave hideouts are fine but must be of an appropriate scale.

 

1.3 Characters involved in a raid must have demonstrable allegiances

1. One day raid characters will not be tolerated. Your character must be rped to some degree to participate in raids.

 

1.4 Any individual that is downed during the duration of a raid (within the confines of the raided settlement and its immediacy) may be captured even if they are popped or D40. To do so make a modreq while providing a screencap of the individual being downed, ideally accompanied by a timestamp.

1. If someone is executed or bleeds out during the raid they may not be captured / tped back.

 

1.5 Any individual that is downed during the duration of the raid (within the confines of the raided settlement and its immediacy) may have their head or body taken without consent.

1. NPCS may be made of an individual to represent them having been executed. Or a head can be requested of a moderator without the need for player consent.

2. The victim who’s body or head has been taken must be alerted.

 

1.6 Launching a raid negates any raid cooldowns you have immediately. You are fully vulnerable to being raided.

 

1.7 A raid will last for an hour after it begins as defined above. After an hour raiders shall be removed from the city and given a victory.

 

Section 2.0 Raid Mechanics

2.1 A raid ‘begins’ formally once the raiding party enters the region of the targeted settlement. Or for freebuild settlements, are within 50 blocks of the outermost wall or structure of said settlement.

1. Once the raid has begun the supervising moderator will alert both sides that PvP is now ‘on’. PvP remains ‘on’ until the moderator specifically alerts the leadership of the offensive and defensive party.

2. The supervising moderator must alert both sides as to the statuses of the opposing side to minimize confusion.

 

2.2 Ladders must be placed vertically, in a continuous realistic fashion.

1. In a regioned area your supervising moderator will place the ladders for you

2. In a freebuild area you may place the ladders yourself

   1. Troll ladder placements will be met with a blacklist.

 

2.3 Battering Rams may be purchased at the Cloud Temple for (20000 minas for heavy or 10000 for light).The Ram comes in the heavy (with arrow shield) or light (without shield) variants.

1. A Battering Ram must be deployed at a gate

   1. A gate is henceforth defined as an entry point to a settlement generally formed in an arch a minimum of three blocks high and two wide. The gate is formed of iron bars or any variety of wooden fencing.

   2. In the absence of  a ‘gate’ any ‘citizen’s door’ may replace the ‘gate’.

2. The Battering Ram must be operated by punching the sign on the back of the Ram. (resembling the existing trebuchet sign)

3. For the defenders to disable the Ram they must break the 5 iron blocks at the core of the ram.

   1. All the iron blocks in the core must be mined out to disable the ram.

   2. The Ram may not be repaired by replacing iron blocks. You may not replace the iron blocks that were mined nor may you place new iron blocks. Once an iron block has been removed from the Ram it may not be repaired period.

 

2.4 Raiders may attempt to remove anti ladder buttons. They must provide the appropriate emote, while supervised by the supervising Moderator. A roll of ten will break a button. A raid party may roll ten times.

 

2.5 You cannot construct "Instant" Death Traps.
-"Instant" being traps that lock you into place and kill you without any interaction.

1. Traps which cause more than five hearts of damage are prohibited.
   -All traps are required to give the trapped individual the ability to escape, including utilizing the lockpick plugin.
   --Pathways of escape cannot be able to be blocked off.
   -Lava, and magma blocks are prohibited within any trap.
   -During PvP instances trap interactions do not require emotes.
   -Outside of PvP instances trap interactions must be emoted.

2. Gates are not traps

3. Anklebiters are not traps

 

Section 3.0 Types of Raids

3.1 The Offensive Raid, the first type of raid, this raid is the basic raid conducted by aggressors.

 

3.2 The Retaliatory Raid, should the defending party succeed in repulsing the aggressors they may choose to retaliate.

1. A retaliatory raid must be launched within an hour of victory being declared (by the GM via broadcast) and requires a modreq.

2. A retaliatory raid may not be retaliated for the sake of not having endless fringe tier raid cycles.

3. Retaliatory raids will ignore cooldowns.

 

3.3 The Rescue Raid, for the purposes of simplicity the rescue raid will act like a retaliatory raid.

1. The faction launching the rescue raid must demonstrate rp knowledge of a kidnapping.

2. A kidnapping is where an individual was actually captured not someone that wandered into the settlement and bothered the guards.

 

Section 4.0 Cooldowns and Caps

4.1 There is no limit on numbers for any offensive or defensive raid action.

 

4.2 If the aggressors are victorious the settlement’s raid cooldown shall be Forty Eight Hours from the beginning of the raid.

 

4.3 If the defenders are victorious the settlement’s raid cooldown shall be Fourteen Days from the day of the raid.

 

4.5 If the defenders are victorious in both repulsing the first raid and in the retaliatory raid then the settlement’s raid cooldown shall be Twenty One Days.

 

Section 5.0 Preemptive Defining of Terms and Clarifying of Blurred Lines

5.1 A raid is defined as a hostile action committed by an organized group, launched from a point of origin.

1. To secure the benefits and such of a raid the above definition must be fulfilled and overseen by a Moderator.

 

5.2 Defenders are victorious if they hold off the raiders for one hour. Victors are victorious if they defeat all the defenders or force them to flee or hide.

 

5.3 A group of Villains operating within the walls or the immediate surroundings (50 blocks from the walls) will be considered an illegal raid if their numbers exceed four.

1. All instigators of illegal raiding shall be Villainy Blacklisted. The leader / high ranking of the party shall receive a double sentence.

2. Villains are defined ‘foreigners conducting malicious actions with the intent of doing harm to residents or peaceful visitors of a region’.

3. Actions of locals against locals will never fall under the umbrella of villainy no matter the number. As long as those involved are locals. In the event that there are some foreigners among the locals a majority threshold of locals will be required on both sides of a conflict for this clause to persist.

 

5.4 You may not instigate a raid if there are fewer than four people in the city at the time of the GM going to broadcast.

1. To clarify when the GM accepts the modreq and goes to perform the warning broadcast if there are less than three people within the city then the raid may not be performed.

2. (This is to prevent cheesy middle of the night raids wherein you take all their pixels while they are asleep.)

 

5.5 Emotive combat is not raiding

1. Trying to twist an ‘emotive combat’ scenario into a raid or a mechanical resolution is raid baiting.

2. If the attacker is trying to ensure 10+ individuals are present this will be deemed raid baiting. Guards responding to rp would not be held as raid baiting.

 

[WuHanXianShi14 0]

1 hour ago, Narthok said:

Blacklists are fine and good, but giving a 2 week blacklist to repeat offenders and chronic trolly raid RPers is just kicking the can further down the road instead of actually solving the problem.

 

My main issue with the way GMs handle those kind of players is the perpetual "Verbal warnings" and punishments than don't solve to put a permanent end to this kind of behaviour.

 

Look into player's history, realize if they have been punished for this kind of behaviour before, there's no point in giving them another stern warning or temporary blacklist and do what's necessary to stamp out that mentality with an actual decisive fist.

 

Its a good start that you're willing to hand out blacklists without much hesitation. But, you're just doing the moderation equivalent of procrastination, it wont be enough.

 

Still doesn't change the fact that trolly behaviour and shitty RP has nothing to do with raid caps. Which are necessary to contain raids to the scale that raids should be, ergo: not mini warclaims.

 

To offset a raid cap, I would remove the one hour notice to raid. That seems to be what both raiders and defenders said they prefer on this thread.

 

I will continue to fight your proposed rules and encourage others to do so as well until a raid cap is reimplemented.

[Narthok 10416]

3 minutes ago, WuHanXianShi14 said:

Blacklists are fine and good, but giving a 2 week blacklist to repeat offenders and chronic trolly raid RPers is just kicking the can further down the road instead of actually solving the problem.

 

My main issue with the way GMs handle those kind of players is the perpetual "Verbal warnings" and punishments than don't solve to put a permanent end to this kind of behaviour.

 

Look into player's history, realize if they have been punished for this kind of behaviour before, there's no point in giving them another stern warning or temporary blacklist and do what's necessary to stamp out that mentality with an actual decisive fist.

 

Its a good start that you're willing to hand out blacklists without much hesitation. But, you're just doing the moderation equivalent of procrastination, it wont be enough.

 

Still doesn't change the fact that trolly behaviour and shitty RP has nothing to do with raid caps. Which are necessary to contain raids to the scale that raids should be, ergo: not mini warclaims.

 

To offset a raid cap, I would remove the one hour notice to raid. That seems to be what both raiders and defenders said they prefer on this thread.

Because this kind of behaviour is generally not punished at all I thought it only fair to be more lenient rather than immediately handing out long term punishments. And while these players were acting unacceptably the worst of it was from a player who generally doesn't involve himself in villainous rp. I do agree with you where I feel verbal warnings are often forgotten about as there are many blacklisted players atm who are conducting villainy. We will see where the next few weeks take us in terms of correcting inappropriate behaviour. 

[Eurielle 1189]

4 minutes ago, Narthok said:

Because this kind of behaviour is generally not punished at all I thought it only fair to be more lenient rather than immediately handing out long term punishments. And while these players were acting unacceptably the worst of it was from a player who generally doesn't involve himself in villainous rp. I do agree with you where I feel verbal warnings are often forgotten about as there are many blacklisted players atm who are conducting villainy. We will see where the next few weeks take us in terms of correcting inappropriate behaviour. 

Lore staff have several chats where we log issues that may need investigation and verbal warnings that have been handed out.

[Narthok 10416]

Just now, Dunstan said:

Lore staff have several chats where we log issues that may need investigation and verbal warnings that have been handed out.

so do the Blue tags the issue is how long those chats get. Anyways we should try not to excessively derail the thread.

[Quavinir_Twiceborn 1050]

Hello again! Glad to see the chest looting rule removed.   

 And hopefully I can offer some constructive criticism,       

 or atleast give information from a different point of view  

 as to atleast have this be a broad discussion.                       

 

 I feel to an extent that the losing party having less of a      

 cooldown could be very much problematic for smaller     

 settlements. I feel that giving the losers even less time       

  to rebuild and repair may well cause budding nations         

  to be caught in a vicious cycle, by which they're raided,     

   lose, and than are raided every 2 days for perpetuity.           

 

 Though I understand the roleplay reasoning for such,         

I feel that it is somewhat pertinent to include some form   

of player protection for the newer groups not wishing to    

to have to deal with PvP raids on a consistent basis. And   

though I well understand that the suggestion of simply      

letting nations opt out of raids altogether should they wish

is a sentiment many would openly protest, I think some    

of  opting in/out, or atleast standardization of raid timers   

would be beneficial.                                                            

 

As the current rules stands, if you wish to avoid being      

raided, and wish to have as much time between raids as    

possible, you must go out and counter-raid the opposing   

settlement. This to me, (atleast in the view of people who 

dont want to raid/be raided period) is rather backwards.     

The raid caps are there to give reprieve from raids,            

assumedly for those whom are not wanting raids. I think   

that there should be the ability for a non-raiding nation or 

group to have their settlement listed as peaceful, and such 

would not be allowed to launch any form of raids, (aside   

from perhaps a rescue raid, though unable to do retaliatory

raids.) and bear a flat, somewhat long raid cooldown,         

whilst raiding nations can bear the retaliatory, win/loss        

cooldown system.                                                                   

 

It is a frustration of me and quite a few players that I am       

attempting to express and solve here. It is miffing to be         

  presented with a means of staving off raiding, yet have that    

  method be 'you need to be good at PVP defense, and than go  

  raiding yourself if you want to not be raided on a consistent    

   basis.' Raiding to many of us is a problem, we dont like it, we  

                                                       dont want to partake in it, either defensively, or offensively.                                                          

   Hence it is exceptionally goofy (to atleast me) to read a            

   rules equivalent of saying something along the lines of :            

      

Dont like raiding? Well if you dont want to deal with it alot    

 go do it yourself , be good at it, and than we'll let you not deal

with it..'                                                                                       

 

   See my point there?                                                                       

 

 

 

 

 

[Narthok 10416]

1 hour ago, Quavinir_Twiceborn said:

Hello again! Glad to see the chest looting rule removed.   

 And hopefully I can offer some constructive criticism,       

 or atleast give information from a different point of view  

 as to atleast have this be a broad discussion.                       

 

 I feel to an extent that the losing party having less of a      

 cooldown could be very much problematic for smaller     

 settlements. I feel that giving the losers even less time       

  to rebuild and repair may well cause budding nations         

  to be caught in a vicious cycle, by which they're raided,     

   lose, and than are raided every 2 days for perpetuity.           

 

 Though I understand the roleplay reasoning for such,         

I feel that it is somewhat pertinent to include some form   

of player protection for the newer groups not wishing to    

to have to deal with PvP raids on a consistent basis. And   

though I well understand that the suggestion of simply      

letting nations opt out of raids altogether should they wish

is a sentiment many would openly protest, I think some    

of  opting in/out, or atleast standardization of raid timers   

would be beneficial.                                                            

 

As the current rules stands, if you wish to avoid being      

raided, and wish to have as much time between raids as    

possible, you must go out and counter-raid the opposing   

settlement. This to me, (atleast in the view of people who 

dont want to raid/be raided period) is rather backwards.     

The raid caps are there to give reprieve from raids,            

assumedly for those whom are not wanting raids. I think   

that there should be the ability for a non-raiding nation or 

group to have their settlement listed as peaceful, and such 

would not be allowed to launch any form of raids, (aside   

from perhaps a rescue raid, though unable to do retaliatory

raids.) and bear a flat, somewhat long raid cooldown,         

whilst raiding nations can bear the retaliatory, win/loss        

cooldown system.                                                                   

 

It is a frustration of me and quite a few players that I am       

attempting to express and solve here. It is miffing to be         

  presented with a means of staving off raiding, yet have that    

  method be 'you need to be good at PVP defense, and than go  

  raiding yourself if you want to not be raided on a consistent    

   basis.' Raiding to many of us is a problem, we dont like it, we  

                                                       dont want to partake in it, either defensively, or offensively.                                                          

   Hence it is exceptionally goofy (to atleast me) to read a            

   rules equivalent of saying something along the lines of :            

      

Dont like raiding? Well if you dont want to deal with it alot    

 go do it yourself , be good at it, and than we'll let you not deal

with it..'                                                                                       

 

   See my point there?                                                                       

 

 

 

 

 

merely winning a raid is 14 days which you can essentially do by sitting in a gatehouse shooting at some goons with a bow while they fail at ramming your gate. Counter raids are only another 7 days of safe time. I am heavily opposed to the suggestion of a 'peaceful' option as it entirely destroys any server dynamism and allows entire player bases to check out of the server. In playing lotc you're acknowledging that you're just one person in a highly populated world subject to the winds of a dynamic world. 

[Quavinir_Twiceborn 1050]

1 hour ago, Narthok said:

merely winning a raid is 14 days which you can essentially do by sitting in a gatehouse shooting at some goons with a bow while they fail at ramming your gate. Counter raids are only another 7 days of safe time. I am heavily opposed to the suggestion of a 'peaceful' option as it entirely destroys any server dynamism and allows entire player bases to check out of the server. In playing lotc you're acknowledging that you're just one person in a highly populated world subject to the winds of a dynamic world. 

 

Oh, believe me, Im fine with dynamic happenings and being attacked,

but you seem to be missing the point regarding the lack of wish to       

partake in large scale PVP battles on a consistent basis. My main         

remark was on the possible standardization, and removal of what          

     is effectively a 'victory reward' of having your cooldowns brought up due

to winning a PVP fight.                                                                       

 

I'd understand the arguement of dynamic roleplay being brought from

raids if raids were actually anything more than glorified PVP fests      

pushed onto the unwanting. For a good chunk of the players involved

raids arnt fun. One side gets to act in open antagonism, (many times  

OOCly motivated, but thats a different story) and the greatest reward 

for the defenders is not having to deal with raids.                               

 

The biggest loss for the invaders is roughly about 81 mina per person.

That is roughly the price for a full suit of iron armor, and a sword.       

The defender, on the other hand, has there roleplay disrupted by PVP,  

    up to and possibly over an hour of their time absolutely wasted (as me,   

and many others view raids as a complete and utter waste of time.)       

It is not dynamic RP, it does not create a story aside from 'oop, the       

[insert antagonistic faction here] is attacking again, lets hope they dont

yell memes again.                                                                                     

                     

 

I am advocating for standardization of wait times, as to me it is rather    

crazy to make 'victory reward' simply a reprieve from raiding. Likewise

you're assuming the battering ram shall be used for most battles. Raids   

have been happening for quite a long time without battering ram, and I 

can well see battering rams being ignored quite a bit. So I do not see     

                             the arguement that raiders will lose a significant portion of their funds                               

    from that because it would be incorrect to assume it's use, when there has

yet to be examples or demonstrations of its efficacy, use in raids, or      

 player response  to such.                                                                           

                   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Enlightenment 2300]

The best fix is to remove this mindless staff bureaucracy that hampers the dynamic RP raids create, only then will we see a return to the good ole' days.

[Narthok 10416]

3 hours ago, Quavinir_Twiceborn said:

 

Oh, believe me, Im fine with dynamic happenings and being attacked,

but you seem to be missing the point regarding the lack of wish to       

partake in large scale PVP battles on a consistent basis. My main         

remark was on the possible standardization, and removal of what          

     is effectively a 'victory reward' of having your cooldowns brought up due

to winning a PVP fight.                                                                       

 

I'd understand the arguement of dynamic roleplay being brought from

raids if raids were actually anything more than glorified PVP fests      

pushed onto the unwanting. For a good chunk of the players involved

raids arnt fun. One side gets to act in open antagonism, (many times  

OOCly motivated, but thats a different story) and the greatest reward 

for the defenders is not having to deal with raids.                               

 

The biggest loss for the invaders is roughly about 81 mina per person.

That is roughly the price for a full suit of iron armor, and a sword.       

The defender, on the other hand, has there roleplay disrupted by PVP,  

    up to and possibly over an hour of their time absolutely wasted (as me,   

and many others view raids as a complete and utter waste of time.)       

It is not dynamic RP, it does not create a story aside from 'oop, the       

[insert antagonistic faction here] is attacking again, lets hope they dont

yell memes again.                                                                                     

                     

 

I am advocating for standardization of wait times, as to me it is rather    

crazy to make 'victory reward' simply a reprieve from raiding. Likewise

you're assuming the battering ram shall be used for most battles. Raids   

have been happening for quite a long time without battering ram, and I 

can well see battering rams being ignored quite a bit. So I do not see     

                             the arguement that raiders will lose a significant portion of their funds                               

    from that because it would be incorrect to assume it's use, when there has

yet to be examples or demonstrations of its efficacy, use in raids, or      

 player response  to such.                                                                           

                   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'd say the victory rewards would also be the ability to acquire CBs against raiders who are no obligated to have some form of legitimate base and affiliation.

[Monkee 7369]

take each clause/sub-clause to a poll, if you're this confident in your system, and let the playerbase judge for themselves

[Narthok 10416]

2 minutes ago, Aeldrin said:

take each clause/sub-clause to a poll, if you're this confident in your system, and let the playerbase judge for themselves

Democracy is for liberal communists

[Monkee 7369]

6 minutes ago, Narthok said:

Democracy is for liberal communists

communists abhor democracy. u sound an awful lot like a commie.........

[Narthok 10416]

1 minute ago, Aeldrin said:

communists abhor democracy. u sound an awful lot like a commie.........

The common man shall be given no voice, for he cares only for bread and circus. Let us teach him also, of god.

[Monkee 7369]

2 minutes ago, Narthok said:

The common man shall be given no voice, for he cares only for bread and circus. Let us teach him also, of god.

If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.