[Community Review] Raids

[Narthok 10416]

1 minute ago, Aeldrin said:

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

 

On that note have you guys heard about the devs reintroducing NEXUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I'll set up a poll tomorrow 

[Monkee 7369]

6 minutes ago, Narthok said:

 

On that note have you guys heard about the devs reintroducing NEXUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

I'll set up a poll tomorrow 

[Narthok 10416]

4 minutes ago, Aeldrin said:

[Christ 939]

On ‎9‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 10:14 AM, 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 agree with you but what do you think the reason the toxicity is?

I don't like them, the only thing I feel you are pushing for is the no cap. Truthfully, I'm fine with or without a cap, I would prefer a raised cap but to be honest i'd rather take a 10 man cap than an entirety of the rules. It stacks against whether it be bandit/mercs, Small groups and has many holes (Actually the holes I don't know about) And even then now that I think about it, i'd rather no battering ram than a battering ram. If you raise the cap then raise the minimum amount for a raid and keep the downing rule for kidnapping and getting heads. Only thing I like, although im sure others can disagree

[Narthok 10416]

42 minutes ago, Chromie said:

I agree with you but what do you think the reason the toxicity is?

I don't like them, the only thing I feel you are pushing for is the no cap. Truthfully, I'm fine with or without a cap, I would prefer a raised cap but to be honest i'd rather take a 10 man cap than an entirety of the rules. It stacks against whether it be bandit/mercs, Small groups and has many holes (Actually the holes I don't know about) And even then now that I think about it, i'd rather no battering ram than a battering ram. If you raise the cap then raise the minimum amount for a raid and keep the downing rule for kidnapping and getting heads. Only thing I like, although im sure others can disagree

My view is that small groups of bandits like the one you are a member of should not be mounting raids on their own. They should be banditing roads or assembling larger groups via rp. 

[Archbishop 1784]

Bandits should have somewhere they launch a raid from, with permission to launch it from there. One day alt bandits or personas named things like 'A bandit' or 'angry orc' should be met with a VB, bandits should also have consequences for raiding just as nations would do.

[Narthok 10416]

21 minutes ago, HolyTortoise said:

Bandits should have somewhere they launch a raid from, with permission to launch it from there. One day alt bandits or personas named things like 'A bandit' or 'angry orc' should be met with a VB, bandits should also have consequences for raiding just as nations would do.

I've tried to make that a thing with this proposed ruleset. I really do not like the one day bandit alts, I understand the names to avoid meta but I'd rather 1. that the meta be reported to staff and 2. that those characters have demonstrable rp backing them up. 

[Narthok 10416]

 

Most recent incarnation of the rules, added raid baiting amendment

 

Tentative Raid Rules Rewrite 0.7

---

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.

 

5.6 Raid Baiting shall be defined as the practice of non residents acting in a manner clearly intended to compel the guards of the settlement to attack the visitors as to avoid raid rules.

1. Trolly RP with no basis or compulsion in rp will not be tolerated. Troll rp is far too broad a category to properly define. Thus defining this shall be left to the supervising GM’s discretion. We all know what trolling is and you will not be hiding behind minutiae or pedanticism to continue trolling.

2. Roads within 30 blocks of the settlement will for the purpose of enforcement be held as within the jurisdiction of the settlement and therefore subject to the above rules concerning Raid Baiting.

3. Banditing on roads is not raiding as long as it is beyond this radius.

 

[SombreroMan 111]

Oh this thread is still going. I feel sry for u narthok

[Narthok 10416]

3 minutes ago, SombreroMan said:

Oh this thread is still going. I feel sry for u narthok

 

[Enlightenment 2295]

So can someone remind me why raid rules are being rewritten?

[The Templar 195]

I don't particularly see how taking heads or NPCs without consent helps anything, to be honest. All that does is play into the pixel hunting, except it's grisly trophies. 

[Thornz 549]

On 9/19/2018 at 12:29 PM, Narthok said:

 

As to your last point. I'd say its a bit of both. Groups like the reivers and the broskis are undoubtably excessively memey and toxic. They don't roleplay or if they do it is merely to get victims into a position to be killed for pixels. Those members of each group can protest but i've interacted with them enough on a personal level to smell the bullshit under the flowers. I think that removing the cap and forcing groups like these to suffer the consequences of their own unbridled aggression may contribute towards resolving this issue organically. But even in light of that myself and other GMs have been trying to crack down on that kind of behaviour as much as possible so any reports or evidence, even that sent in PMs is incredibly helpful. Not all offences need a ban report filed for us to hand out a ban.

 

 

I never knew of our “personal” engagements Narthok. If you truly did know anything about us, then you would not be slandering us with your fallacious accusations.

 

You claim that we, the Reivers, did not provide “roleplay” during our existence, but this uninformed allegation is simply just not true. You claim that we fight for “pixels”, something so plentiful, it’s become useless. You claim our natural aggression is one of toxicity and constant “memeing”. You heavily imply that we disregard roleplay and brush it off as pointless while portraying us as a stereotypical bandit pvper that doesn’t care for rp. Grr!

 

 In truth, you are just making a prejudiced judgement off of baseless assumptions or unverified judgements by others that you may have heard.

 

Each and every Reiver character had an in-depth backstory to provide backbone to the roleplay we did. We did not do a whole spiel laying out everything about our characters when banditing, but it no way should that justify the ignorant assumption that we play meaningless, stagnant bandits. Moreover, as a group, we have found roleplay means to diplomatically solve conflicts, therefore proving that we did not raid only  for “pixels”. If situations have devolved into a toxic state, the blame cannot always be pinned on the attacker, and more often than not, the few toxic situations that we have been present in came as a result of the defending party as well. 

 

I personally have never seen you roleplay, so through your false logic I can deduct that you do not roleplay? 

 

In brief, you’re wrong to besmirch a playerbase of such acts only based off of groundless allegations. You clearly don’t know about us or our actions or you wouldn’t be falsely tarnishing us.

 

Also don’t fix something that isn’t broken, leave raid rules as they are. 

 

 

 

Ps I think writing this on mobile may have given me brain cancer 

[Narthok 10416]

13 minutes ago, Thornz said:

 

I never knew of our “personal” engagements Narthok. If you truly did know anything about us, then you would not be slandering us with your fallacious accusations.

 

You claim that we, the Reivers, did not provide “roleplay” during our existence, but this uninformed allegation is simply just not true. You claim that we fight for “pixels”, something so plentiful, it’s become useless. You claim our natural aggression is one of toxicity and constant “memeing”. You heavily imply that we disregard roleplay and brush it off as pointless while portraying us as a stereotypical bandit pvper that doesn’t care for rp. Grr!

 

 In truth, you are just making a prejudiced judgement off of baseless assumptions or unverified judgements by others that you may have heard.

 

Each and every Reiver character had an in-depth backstory to provide backbone to the roleplay we did. We did not do a whole spiel laying out everything about our characters when banditing, but it no way should that justify the ignorant assumption that we play meaningless, stagnant bandits. Moreover, as a group, we have found roleplay means to diplomatically solve conflicts, therefore proving that we did not raid only  for “pixels”. If situations have devolved into a toxic state, the blame cannot always be pinned on the attacker, and more often than not, the few toxic situations that we have been present in came as a result of the defending party as well. 

 

I personally have never seen you roleplay, so through your false logic I can deduct that you do not roleplay? 

 

In brief, you’re wrong to besmirch a playerbase of such acts only based off of groundless allegations. You clearly don’t know about us or our actions or you wouldn’t be falsely tarnishing us.

 

Also don’t fix something that isn’t broken, leave raid rules as they are. 

 

 

 

Ps I think writing this on mobile may have given me brain cancer 

I've accepted this in the interest of responding to this as I feel the points you bring up here are valid. I will entirely admit that I was banned for the majority of the reivers activity. So my assumptions are mostly based on what I witnessed from you and your compatriots during my associations with them. As for having never seen me roleplay, thats an outright falsehood as i've interacted with you several times on Mah'r Volaren. I know for a fact that individuals like Collectivist and Havok hated roleplaying as it was repeatedly voiced in comms. Beyond that Silent became infamous for roleplaying in a monkey onesie while Lionbileti would play a turbaned character named Achmed and use it exclusively for raiding. Pancakes played a random black elf named Daequan which has absolute no basis in either variant of dark elf culture. So you'll have to forgive me If I find the paper tiger of your outrage regard my assumptions a bit hard to swallow insofar as my experiences with each of the reiver core prior and following my ban. I have seen that many of you are capable of roleplaying I just have observed that you choose not to or avoid it whenever possible. And it is from this extended observation in association with observing other banditing cliques that I concluded what I have concluded. And as for the inherent lack of value in lotc loot at the moment, well you wouldn't be banned for what you're banned for if that statement was anything but fallacious in your eyes. 

 

But to address your last point, I completely agree that raids in their current state degenerate into toxicity, with both the attacking and defending parties being at fault depending on the scenario. CRPers throw just as big of a tantrum about raiders as raiders do about CRPers. So in attempting to rectify this issue I looked to the community, trying to gather data from both sides about what felt bad about raiding and what we could do to improve the system that we had. While there may be some extrenuous additions that I have added out of my own thoughts of what I believe will improve raiding the rest is drawn from an attempt to rectify complaints. The defenders are frustrated because they feel there is no way to stop raiding harassment or punish raiders in any meaningful way. While attackers are frustrated with cooldowns, meta, traps, ambiguous raid baiting rules, just to name a few. So in making this ruleset I have attempted to provide an adequate compromise to both parties while favouring neither. Hopefully I have not failed in doing so.

[WuHanXianShi14 0]

Just checkin in to see if raid player caps and standardized cooldowns have been reimplemented.

 

No?

 

Aight, the struggle continues I guess