[Community Review] Raids

[Thornz 549]

15 hours ago, Narthok said:

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

I should reinstate the idea that iron armor and swords hold little value. What I duplicated using creative given to me by staff was bezerker axes and soggy stompers, items that not everyone carried around. Excuse my digression but part of my motivation to do so would mainly be a subconscious desire to receive a ban for my upcoming school year. Regardless, I can assure you that the loot acquired from raiding and roleplay banditry had become so plentiful and identical in quality that it was a minor bonus and not a main goal. In short, you’re saying that abusing op to duplicate items - items, I should add, that one would not normally acquire in raids- is proof that I raided for “pixels”? Doesn’t it seem contradictory that I would raid for pixels when I already had an infinite supply of whatever I wanted? I’ll make it easy for you: yes, yes it does.

 

 Regarding the ignorant accusations made against our motives: you are correct in providing Silents use of a monkey onesie when playing a child; however this was something that Silent did in Axios when he was not with the Reivers, and therefore not currently representative of them. Additionally, this instance is too dated to provide validity to your assumptions on our playerbase. As for Collectivist and Havoc, they may have said that before when surrounded by the Norlandic playerbase that was so heavily dismissed as a toxic, pvper group. — In fact, the hypocrsy evident is just ironic. It’s hypocritical that this is all coming from the leader of a widely known toxic group. Just days ago do I remember that Norlanders we’re having a “meme” orgy. A “meme” orgy. — Getting back on topic, I’m sure many people have been in a mood where they just don’t feel like roleplaying. This does not mean that these two roleplay in a one dimensional manner. In addition, collectivist has been banned for the entirety of the summer and then some; thus it isn’t an up-to-date example which really undermines its validity.  Concededly, lion is the outlier of our group, and to my knowledge his character isn’t as developed. I would attribute this to his amount of time playing said character. In contrast, delving into MCPancakes, you didn’t even get the race right, so it should be clear that you don’t have the right to proclaim how developed or undeveloped his character is. Perhaps now you understand that you can’t falsely assume our characters did not have a backbone, when you yourself had little to no recent interaction with us. You’re undeniably free to conclude what you want about us or any player group, but don’t go around spreading your incorrect, outdated assumptions and pass it off is an axiomatic truth when it is a flawed, prejudiced conclusion.

 

 

 

[Narthok 10416]

3 hours ago, Thornz said:

I should reinstate the idea that iron armor and swords hold little value. What I duplicated using creative given to me by staff was bezerker axes and soggy stompers, items that not everyone carried around. Excuse my digression but part of my motivation to do so would mainly be a subconscious desire to receive a ban for my upcoming school year. Regardless, I can assure you that the loot acquired from raiding and roleplay banditry had become so plentiful and identical in quality that it was a minor bonus and not a main goal. In short, you’re saying that abusing op to duplicate items - items, I should add, that one would not normally acquire in raids- is proof that I raided for “pixels”? Doesn’t it seem contradictory that I would raid for pixels when I already had an infinite supply of whatever I wanted? I’ll make it easy for you: yes, yes it does.

 

 Regarding the ignorant accusations made against our motives: you are correct in providing Silents use of a monkey onesie when playing a child; however this was something that Silent did in Axios when he was not with the Reivers, and therefore not currently representative of them. Additionally, this instance is too dated to provide validity to your assumptions on our playerbase. As for Collectivist and Havoc, they may have said that before when surrounded by the Norlandic playerbase that was so heavily dismissed as a toxic, pvper group. — In fact, the hypocrisy evident is just ironic. It’s hypocritical that this is all coming from the leader of a widely known toxic group. Just days ago do I remember that Norlanders we’re having a “meme” orgy. A “meme” orgy. — Getting back on topic, I’m sure many people have been in a mood where they just don’t feel like roleplaying. This does not mean that these two roleplay in a one dimensional manner. In addition, collectivist has been banned for the entirety of the summer and then some; thus it isn’t an up-to-date example which really undermines its validity.  Concededly, lion is the outlier of our group, and to my knowledge his character isn’t as developed. I would attribute this to his amount of time playing said character. In contrast, delving into MCPancakes, you didn’t even get the race right, so it should be clear that you don’t have the right to proclaim how developed or undeveloped his character is. Perhaps now you understand that you can’t falsely assume our characters did not have a backbone, when you yourself had little to no recent interaction with us. You’re undeniably free to conclude what you want about us or any player group, but don’t go around spreading your incorrect, outdated assumptions and pass it off is an axiomatic truth when it is a flawed, prejudiced conclusion.

 

 

 

If you'd like to continue this discussion in PMs I have no issue with doing so. I don't see any value added in nit picking details in a thread dedicated to raiding. Norland had for a very long time been an absolutely cancerous pvp culture to the point where the majority of the founding members left because they didn't enjoy what it had become. What it used to be was a hub for raiders who did little more than parkouring around the central tree when they were waiting for pvp. The current state of the reivers is in my eyes sufficiently reflective of the conduct of its players and I will let that status speak for itself. That being said new generation reivers like Jason and Sombrero have demonstrated the ability to rp and do rp consistently, which I applaud them for. I hope more bandits follow their example. If you have any specific issues with the ruleset I've submitted I'll be glad to field them but lets not derail the thread any more than we already have.

[LatzMomo 2088]

Don't give in to the people who want raid caps, stay strong and make progress even if some people want to stay still and let the server continue suffering the way it is.

[Thornz 549]

Once again, you’ve provided assertions about us that are inaccurate. Honestly, I did not expect more than another bigoted, bogus response with no backing. Go ahead and pretend that you are enlightened on the matter by using a minimal amount of outdated or plainly incorrect examples. 

 

 

The “current state” of the Reivers does not exist. But of course you should knew that... right? 

 

Anyways, I will have to decline your open invitation to discuss your errors and end here as I do not want to drag this any further.

(( despite your faulty, malicious attempt at trying to slander us, I do appreciate the consideration put forth when taking the time to Try and better the raid rules.

[Narthok 10416]

1 minute ago, Thornz said:

Once again, you’ve provided assertions about us that are inaccurate. Honestly, I did not expect more than another bigoted, response with no backing. Go ahead and pretend that you are enlightened on the matter using a minimal amount of outdated or plainly incorrect examples. 

 

 

The “current state” of the Reivers does not exist. But of course you should knew that... right? 

 

Anyways, I will have to decline your open invitation to discuss your errors and end here as I do not want to drag this any further.

(( despite your faulty, malicious attempt at trying to slander us, I do appreciate the consideration put forth when taking the time to Try and better the raid rules.

The current state of the reivers refers to the majority of your core being banned, indicating a pattern of rule violations amongst the population. Not that I myself am in any way free of past rule violations. But let us stop trying to rant and roar outrage in the face of any modicum of criticism. 

 

My criticisms are based mostly on my experience over 9+ months ago so I apologize for any mischaracterizations as I will concede that I have seen admirable patience from Reivers in the face of CRP tantrums. As a GM I hope to improve systems that I feel need improving. And in my eyes the best way to do that is with an open and constructive dialog where I try to respond to as much criticism as I can.

[Suxals 529]

You cannot expect to have an active playerbase on the server if you dont let the players attach to things and give those things some sort of security, be that their players, their buildings, the activity of their playerbase or  not any less important: their "pixels". If a player loses any of those things they will also lose part of their interest on the server as you will do if that happens to you irl, and that is detrimental to the server as everybody with a few neurons could comprehend. And these new set of raid rules attempt against the security of many of those things, being especially counterproductive when they lose the things on which they have worked really hard for many time to obtain. You say things like "If you can't protect yourself then pay to the raiders, get allies, get good at pvp, etc" Okay, so the people that don't want to do such things and just want to roleplay should leave the server? Right? If that's not the idea then it is really sad because that's what you will accomplish in many cases. 

 

"That of the hardcore rpers and that of the mechanical resolutions. In writing this overhaul I really tried to compromise and provide both sides an incentive to participate in raids and such"
 

Sorry but I am not finding it, the consequences of PVP are not an incentive at all and mere punishment rather than RP.

[Narthok 10416]

6 minutes ago, Suxals said:

You cannot expect to have an active playerbase on the server if you dont let the players attach to things and give those things some sort of security, be that their players, their buildings, the activity of their playerbase or  not any less important: their "pixels". If a player loses any of those things they will also lose part of their interest on the server as you will do if that happens to you irl, and that is detrimental to the server as everybody with a few neurons could comprehend. And these new set of raid rules attempt against the security of many of those things, being especially counterproductive when they lose the things on which they have worked really hard for many time to obtain. You say things like "If you can't protect yourself then pay to the raiders, get allies, get good at pvp, etc" Okay, so the people that don't want to do such things and just want to roleplay should leave the server? Right? If that's not the idea then it is really sad because that's what you will accomplish in many cases. 

 

"That of the hardcore rpers and that of the mechanical resolutions. In writing this overhaul I really tried to compromise and provide both sides an incentive to participate in raids and such"
 

Sorry but I am not finding it, the consequences of PVP are not an incentive at all and mere punishment rather than RP.

If one doesn't want to rp within a dynamic environment and conflates their character with themselves oocly then it is likely that lotc isn't the right place for that individual. The majority of the things you seem to have a gripe with have been removed as you can no longer wantonly loot chests and such. I have always been a fan of resolving things in rp over ooc barriers and will continue to advocate that position. OOC barriers are fundamentally unhealthy for dynamism and an interesting engaging environment. In terms of compromise the biggest complaint I observed from CRPers was the complaint that raiders could not be punished or dissuaded for long periods of time. This ruleset attempts to provide for that desire while making raids more based in rp. As this ruleset makes several demands of raiders. 

 

To further address your point because I find that it comes from a point of stubborn wilful ignorance I shall say this. In saying "okay so the people who don't want to do these thing" (referring to legitimate rp solutions to rp problems as well as a large and persistent mechanic for conflict resolution) is in my eyes the same as pvpers who grow tired with being beaten on by t5 mages. This critique seems to stem from a place of "don't make me fight in an arena where I don't have an overwhelming advantage" rather than a legitimate critique of the ruleset proper. CRP and PVP are both legitimate forms of resolving conflict in my eyes and this ruleset attempts to take a system that is currently oriented in a certain way and resolve it by providing routes in which settlements can now strike back and punish raiders or should they not wish to do so can at the very least have lengthy periods of peace. The contingent factor being the desire and effort to actually engage with content beyond your bubble rather than merely building a giant wall and ignoring all other rp. 

[Suxals 529]

2 minutes ago, Narthok said:

The majority of the things you seem to have a gripe with have been removed as you can no longer wantonly loot chests and such.

Oh, thats fine, that was my main issue, but to be honest my fault was only read the first 10 pages of the thread.

 

4 minutes ago, Narthok said:

If one doesn't want to rp within a dynamic environment and conflates their character with themselves oocly then it is likely that lotc isn't the right place for that individual. 

 

Yes and not, in part you moderate the level of that dynamism through rules, so you need to find a balance between what some more conservative players want and enjoy and what other players with more liberal ideas enjoy, if you find a balance you will have both parts coexisting on the server, while if you go towards any of the sides the other will be less content with the server and become less active, less participative with other playerbases, and even quit if they feel that their experience in the server dont fulfill thei requirements  of what they are looking for in a Minecraft roleplay server.

 

13 minutes ago, Narthok said:

OOC barriers are fundamentally unhealthy for dynamism and an interesting engaging environment.

 

The capabilities of someone for PVP is the biggest OOC barrier, and even if it hurts the feelings of some people, PVP is not RP, in any case the outcome of PVP could be considered RP, but it is still of a very bad quality. (And let me clarify that I am not against PVP and I have enjoyed some raids in the past, but PVP is fun as long as it is not forced upon any of the parties involved, Lotc is a place to spend time and have fun, it shouldn't be the cause of frustrations and anger.) Thats all that i have to say, thank you for reading.

[The Templar 195]

Here's a crazy idea.. Everyone says raids make RP, yeah? Why not let the defenders pick 100% the combat style and see how long that claim lasts?

[Narthok 10416]

7 minutes ago, The Templar said:

Here's a crazy idea.. Everyone says raids make RP, yeah? Why not let the defenders pick 100% the combat style and see how long that claim lasts?

Moderating 20+ person crp is actually my fetish

[The Templar 195]

1 minute ago, Narthok said:

Moderating 20+ person crp is actually my fetish

I'd love to watch that, not gonna lie. It could either be so horrifying it'd be a disaster, or an amazing experience. 

[Narthok 10416]

1 hour ago, The Templar said:

I'd love to watch that, not gonna lie. It could either be so horrifying it'd be a disaster, or an amazing experience. 

I'd be down to try it if there were enough volunteers interested.

[The Templar 195]

1 minute ago, Narthok said:

I'd be down to try it if there were enough volunteers interested.

Consider me a volunteer, then! ?

[Gladuos 869]

There are ways to control the chaos of a large number combat RP such as everyone splitting up in groups of 2 to 1v1. That way when you're fighting all you have to look out for is your combat partner's emote and reply to that. It's a nice way to make things easier if a bit strangely regimented cause not everyone is interacting. It becomes a bunch of 1v1s instead of a 10v10, so to speak. Could attempt considering something like that when the group exceeds 10 people total. Doesn't even have to be a bunch of 1v1s. Could make it just split groups of any number 10 or under that can't interact with one another; it'd be interesting if GMs could find instanced places in the build world to TP groups to temporarily so they don't have to worry about mixing each other up with the other group(s) emotes. Certainly defender default works everywhere else as the best compromise in the server, why does it have to be different with raids I wonder?

 

EDIT: This could be something raids-only so that defenders could choose RP effectively but it's still the same outside of raids, since you'd need a GM for raids every time anyway. Meaning to say still an RP cap of 10 outside of raids since those don't have GM supervision to split groups or TP to instances. Also maybe once a combat is chosen no one can join until all is finished. 

 

EDIT 2: I know it's easy to default into saying large number RP combat can never work, and in a sense that's right. So why not make it several smaller groups self contained to RP so that defender default is allowed in raids? If you have 10 raiders and 10 defenders, you'll normally have a 20 person 10v10. A GM takes that and splits both groups into two groups of 10, or 5v5s. TP them to some special place in the build world if necessary so they don't interact or get confused seeing the other group's emotes, and bam. It just might work. Only needs some basic work making the world instances and if you want full supervision, you'd need one GM for each group of 10. It's rather minimal if several GMs are online actually doing their job, or you could just poke your staff chat.

@Narthok @The Templar

[LatzMomo 2088]

I would rather eat a 2 year ban then do a 20 man crp where both sides want to win. I have trouble enough with 6 or more.