[Community Review] Raids

[zaezae 1098]

Hey, here's an idea. Just let people post total conquest warclaims with an hour's notice. It'd be way simpler and have very nearly the same effects.

[PosidonX7 269]

Spoiler

2 minutes ago, Gladuos said:

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.

I can see this acting as a warning for RPers who heavily dislike raids to just log out and the attackers end up walking into an empty settlement.

 

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.

If they were killed in MC, they were killed in RP please. Completely not a good idea.

 

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.

So you're telling me that PVP is default during raids every single time? What happened to compromising between the RPers and PVPers? Seems much more like you've made this solely about PVP.

 

2.4 Any chest within the confines of the raided settlement may be broken open by the victorious offensive party provided the appropriate destructive emote is provided. Rolling is not required.

EXTREME NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. Not even any rolls involved with this? An extremely gross and terrible rule that I will never support, especially if it means losing important RP relevant items I've gathered over IRL years to a bunch of PVP goon idiots that didn't do any RP work to acquire them. If people want to steal RP items from me they better do so in a clever manner through ACTUAL ROLEPLAY in a situation that's not aids/cancer such as a raid. You better remove this.

 

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

Even worse. The raid cap should exist at a number where PVP isn't guaranteed in my opinion, otherwise people will ALWAYS bring a number necessary to subvert roleplay for the sake of clickyclicking people to death and consuming their precious pixels. I'd make it a max of 4 myself so the defenders can make a matching number without PVP being forced.

 

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 three.

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

What does this even mean? You're not allowed to be a villain group in a community or you're illegally raiding and have to be blacklisted?

 

Overall it seems you completely lied about the """compromising""" between RP groups and PVP goons for these rules. It's highly in favor for PVP goons even moreso than current rules and I don't support it whatsoever.

I agree with everything stated above.

 

10 minutes ago, Narthok said:

Yep this is intentional, if you want to be an independent group you either have the strength to survive on your own merit or you make appropriate rp solutions to issues. Staff enabling players to hide behind bureaucratic ooc walls to circumvent rp consequences has always felt unfair, anti fun and anti dynamism to me.

BIG NO. While this may seem like a good idea at getting rid of smaller settlements, you have also just killed the influx of new players to the server. I'm not a fan of rampant free builds everywhere anymore than any other person trying to get activity in the major nation they are a part of. But, as soon as the new player makes their new place, or joins the smaller settlement, they will get absolutely destroyed. This will cause them to be less likely to stay on the server and they might even search for other rp servers. While is does seem like a good idea in the short term, it's long term effects upon the player influx of LoTC could be damaging and substantial.

[Ducklingator 795]

literally half these rules look like youre trying to make lotc a legitimate factions pvp server but with rp items added as currency

 

get your **** together and write rules that dont give pvpers with working computers and more clickery skills an absurd advantage over literally anyone else, mage or not

[Narthok 10416]

6 minutes ago, WuHanXianShi14 said:

Its simple- if they d40'd, they can be captured. If they were popped, they can't be. You killed them. If they were downed, and died because they went too long without being revived, then you can't capture them. It simply means you were too distracted fighting the remaining opponents to properly secure your captive.

 

Raids are NOT warclaims. You want to turn raids into full pitched battles, which they are not and never should be, ever. Not only is it unfair to be able to mobilize the full force of your army and attack a settlement with it on a regular basis, it is unrealistic and contrary to any IRL standard. Raiding parties are smaller. A fully mobilized army is bigger. That is fact.

 

A raiding cap is not as unfair as your PVP goons would have you believe. RAIDERS HAVE THE ADVANTAGE OF SURPRISE. THEY CAN TAKE AS LONG AS THEY LIKE TO RALLY UP A FULL PARTY, WHEREAS DEFENDERS ONLY HAVE A FEW MINUTES TO RALLY UP EQUAL NUMBERS WHEN THE RAIDERS ARRIVE AT THEIR DOOR. You admitted yourself, raiders often outnumber the defenders.

 

Your "settlement" rule won't do ****. Your cliquey raider groups will just be given land in a nation sympathetic to them and begin raiding in their name. Or better yet, make new characters (I use characters in the loosest sense of the word, more like skins to pvp in) to do so. This would all be done OOCly, of course.

 

And **** off with your implication that having walls up = an elitist isolationist clique. Walls are put up to prevent raids, and nothing else. Because god forbid we put up walls to defend ourselves. And no, you shouldn't be able to break them down with siege equipment every god damned raid. RAIDS ARE NOT SIEGES. NOR SHOULD THEY BE.

 

As we all know, historically, raiders regularly attacked fortified, walled settlements, instead of pillaging the countryside

Nations, when conducting raids, instead of sending small, fast moving lightning groups, would also regularly fully mobilize the entirety of their army and send it in and out of enemy territory. They would be able to do this once every two days/two weeks.

Gonna be a long day ?

 

Your first point is good and I'll amend the proposal to account for them.

 

Raids were often pitched battles insofar as attackers knew in advance they'd be facing the full brunt of the towns population. They were not on the same scale a siege or a large field battle. But there are certainly many historical examples that counteract this claim. 

 

Contrary to your assumption I very much hate raids and do not involve myself in them. My own group is very much roleplay focused and I rarely speak with raiders at all aside from when they are yelling at me about my moderation of their raids and such. That being said I feel this mentality amongst hardcore rpers is half the reason goons have become so intolerable on lotc. A persistent elitist perspective from both sides that fails to acknowledge the enjoyment, experience and value of the other side. Again that is something I want to solve. My proposal asks for an hour warning wherein an ET scout or something would alert the defenders ennabling them to properly rally as would be realistic for the town.  Again it feels like you are purposefully misconstructing the proposal and my arguments. 

 

Okay so they've been given land in that sympathetic nation. Those raiders raid the entire map. That nation makes a bunch of enemies and gets gassed. Eventually people stop letting loose cannons live on their lands. Norland has always died because it raided everyone, I don't see why that repeated and historical precedent would not continue to be applicable in the future. Politics and rp will regulate themselves within reason.

 

The ram provides a long window for defenders to attack the raiders from a position of strength and allows the offenders to enter. There is prolongued interaction rather than the defenders getting cheesed by a flaw in their button wall. 

 

And yes raids were either cattle raids or lightning raids or outriders collecting rations from the countryside for a roaming army. The context and type would depend on the historical period, of which lotc overs many simultaneously. 

[Draycen__ 3]

While I do LOVE LOTC, I must admit it's raiding rules are less than favourable. Right now they allow players to grief and almost treat the server like a factions server, killing and maiming in order to gain items with little to no consequences. The main thing I have an issue is raiders that hardly RP and put people in a death situation. A great example of this is what happened to me yesterday. I was going about my business and Roleplaying when someone randomly decided they would stand behind my character and start to draw a sword. I've known this player to be a griefer OOC in the past and I decided what any normal person would do if someone wearing a ninja outifit decided to stand behind you and try to draw a sword does, I elbowed him to back off. 

This player decided he would then defender default to PVP, being able to since I attacked him first, being put in an either "I attack or I die anyways" situation. He then proceeds to wipe the floor with me in PVP take all my items and go about his day like it never happened. This character ALSO has NEVER interacted with my character at all and only decided to take notice of me when I said 'I have all my stuff because I'm moving here'.

While I do love the rule of being allowed to revive your character as many times as you so desire, it's also left the server in a state of kill frenzy because it's a a fix to a rule that was never there. The amount of quite honestly, PVP goons who raid for loot like LOTC is a factions server,  has sprung from players being able to kill without consent from a GM or the other player and raid without trouble.

I love playing on LOTC very much but this huge issue of being able to go with bullcrap 'raids' despite them being so obviously "Ooh! That guy's got loot! I'm gonna kill him for OOC reasons, not because my character has any grudges against him!" and then getting away with it because of the rules is hurting my experience and I'm sure a vast majority of players would agree with. 

Changes I would make to the raiding system:

Raids must be looked over by a GM/helper/whatever and provide a good IC reason for why they are raiding. Excuses such as 'I want stuff' won't be enough.
Raids have a set limited time for how long they are allowed to raid for, Eg. 30 mins

Changes I would make to the killing system:

A good IC reason must be brought forth for why you are killing the person. If one side of the party disagrees with the reasoning, a GM or other rank can be contacted to either validate the reasoning or deny the reasoning, in which case, a different RP option can be chosen
This second reason probably wont happen and is a fools dream but, the victim can decide if they want to give over their items or not and SS to CT. This would stop raiding goons and pvp goons who jump at every opportunity to PVP, win and take items.

Most of these are a fool's dream, I know, but it's a system that annoys the heck out of me, losing my items for doing nothing wrong and because a salty a-hole decided to come along and kill me for no reason.

Thanks for making this server so great.
-Draycen

[Gladuos 869]

Are you trying to make raids worse than they already are? It seems that you are because not only have you written it as so, but you're completely dismissive to any opposing opinions. We're listing everything we have wrong with this, and you're only responding to them saying "That's not relevant" at every opportunity. I'd appreciate it if you didn't reward the issues here.

 

4 minutes ago, Narthok said:

While I acknowledge your perspective this seems like a classic negation of overt force rather than stealth or other more snowflake variants. A siege or a raid is just as legitimate a piece of roleplay as your endless hours of magic training or tavern rp. CRP especially between large groups is an absolute cancer that is advocated primarily by people with insane magic. Raids as they are already are almost unanimously pvp in nature. This just acknowledges this reality.  To address your response to 1.1, you'd have a low cooldown and they'd be able to sack your chests. You can either fight, pay them off, hire mercs. But taking to ooc to solve rp problems just seems indicative of an unhealthy approach to rp in general. 1.4 as it stands the server views mechanical resolutions as a legitimate form of roleplay. If your char were realistic they would act accordingly and attempt to find ways to not die. Paying off bandits, running from raids etc. Solve rp dynamically and realistically. 2.4, defend your pixels or lose them or hide them rply. There are a myraid of solutions you can take instead of demanding the staff provide protections. 4.2 caps are cancer, I've already explained this at length and can provide a further breakdown if you wish. I'm not a fan of being accused of lying but you are entitled to your opinion. I tried to encourage dynamicism while providing incentives for settlements to rally and defend, minimizing the disruption of their rp. 

I have played minecraft since the day it was in alpha and let me tell you how much I find it ABSOLUTELY BORING. There is nothing entertaining about clicking a square man to death with your mouse repeatedly. The only reason I'm sticking around LotC after all these years is for the sake of story-telling and roleplay. If you insist on further devolving the server away from the aforementioned, there's no reason for me to stick around anymore. Raids being forced PVP 100% of the time is a direct example of exactly how inconsiderate you are for the RPer side of this argument. In my opinion, a raid where people clickyclick each other to death is treating what used to be a platform for story-telling like an MMO where you get to **** around with your buds on voice chat. CRP might be a """cancer""" in large groups indeed, which is exactly why I want the cap to exist so the large numbers don't occur. Sacking chests is one more reason why the detriment to roleplay known as raids would be even worse than it already is. At the moment it's nothing more than an inconvenience to an otherwise enjoyable day. If you allow raiders to also steal roleplay items, you're BASTARDIZING roleplay for the sake of ENCOURAGING people to click one another to death instead of GENUINE CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT. Mechanical resolutions are an excuse to play a game instead of creative write, mechanical resolutions are an excuse to be lazy and never truly interact with one another on a deeper level, mechanical resolutions are an excuse for driving away truly dedicated roleplayers. What's the point of locking your chests if there is zero protection, not even rolls? What are the point of keeping RP items if people can take it away from you without writing more than 2 sentences of roleplay, clicking their mouse on you repeatedly, and breaking a minecraft block? (Assuming you're even there to defend your chests at the time). It's less demanding the staff provide protections and moreso demanding raiders actually use some EFFORT to steal all of our valuables, and actually have to ROLEPLAY to steal LITERALLY EVERYTHING from someone.

 

I can't believe the extreme ignorance of the GM team for allowing this rewrite to even get as bad as it has, or the flippant disregard for real roleplay in favor of an automated MMO click fest which makes me want to vomit even thinking about. I apologize in retrospect for my very aggressive and insulting behavior here, but I'm feeling very very put off by this. I likely haven't even responded properly to everything you've said. I just started typing what came to mind.

[zaezae 1098]

Woah there son, remember what teacher taught you: Mechanical PVP on MC has the same exact value as all other forms of RP. 

[Luciloo 2680]

My points are going to be from the perspective of someone who is here for roleplay, not raiding. I agree with several ideas, such as no one-day personas for raiding etc., but I take issue with several of these suggested changes. If I haven't specifically mentioned something here, then assume I generally agree with it.

 

Quote

 

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. Captives may roll to break their bonds. A captive is permitted 3 tries but must do so with the supervision of a Moderator. Bonds of any kind will be broken on a roll of 15+.

 

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.

 

 

Yeah this would be nice, except the current generation of raiders(some of who are actually capable of good quality roleplay) choose to make really low-effort emotes. I shouldn't be obligated to RP through being tortured or mutilated or w/e a bunch of edgy kids would do to my character, just because I had the audacity to log in during raid day, and was met with
"Raider has defeated you.
Raider ties up the woman.
Raider carries her off."

 

In an ideal world, with a mature playerbase who cooperated in good faith, this would be good. Except this is lotc, so it'll just be abused and empower the goons, while making the RPers more jaded.

 

 

Quote

 

2.4 Any chest within the confines of the raided settlement may be broken open by the victorious offensive party provided the appropriate destructive emote is provided. Rolling is not required.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Absolute no from me.

You stated in the thread about the survey vis a vis raid rules, that you wanted to prevent the midnight raids against cities with low population as a means to "get pixels," but this is going to exacerbate that. For starters, removing the cap is only going to favour the raiders, because a defending city will always be 'capped' by the number of people motivated to get on at that point.

 

Again if this were an ideal setting, people would be only too happy to log in to defend their city and their RP hub, absolutely. Except that if you're losing and you've been hit several times in the last week, then it's demotivating. Sure as you suggested you could "secure allies to assist you," but why should we have to RP out things like alliances etc., to combat what is primarily an Out-of-Character action i.e. pvp raids? This is more 'work' to prevent raids, on a platform that should be fun.
 

Further, there are no benefits to a settlement or city in these changes. An extended cooldown if you repel a raid, "a breather where you can relax," hardly rewarding. I play lotc and RP to enjoy a fantasy world, it shouldn't be a job that I have to 'take a breather' from. Yes RP items are 'only pixels,' but I don't see why I should be expected to pour hours of RP into meaningful magical items etc., as per  some requirements from the LT, for them to be taken by someone who can't use them and will auction them for 10k mina the next day, because they downed the poor fuckers trying to defend.

 

Quote

 

5.4 You may not instigate a raid if there are fewer than three 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.)

 

 

My immediate thoughts are that this is good, but needs adjusting. 4 players expected to defend against an uncapped raiding party with battering rams? You might as well just declare the raiders the winning party there. You'd need at least 5 fairly competent defenders to repel a party of 10 raiders at present, fewer perhaps if you're fortunate enough to have your own goons.

 

Please note, I like the idea of battering rams and a number of points you've touched on here.

I'd be less pissy about raids if the RP quality weren't so abysmal and they didn't interrupt actual RP so someone can get their pixels.

[Noer 577]

Holy Smokes, lotta hostility here.

 

I think some of the changes are a little crazy, like a 14 day cap is pretty bonkers, but besides that I'd like to test most of these rules out and see how it goes. 

 

Just a reminder Narthok, Compromise leaves everyone unhappy. Don't let the haters bring you down.

[SombreroMan 111]

Okay so, I'll try to be short.

1. Having to modreq an hour ahead is retarded and makes no irp sence. It's not a warclaim, you shouldn't have to announce you're coming. Nobody wants to get on to raid but then wait an entire hour. It's an absolutely stupid idea and ir should never be put into practice.

 

2. Battering rams are fine with me as long as they don't cost over 10k mina and imo a city shouldn't be allowed to have more than 2 front gates. Also a battering ram shouldn't be able to be broken entirely just from hitting the gate, it should only be done if deffenders get to it and rp destroying it (I know you didn't say anything about this in the actual post but I am making assumptions based on my previous expiriences with the serverand how new things go)

 

3. If no GM is on and you made a modreq, pinged the discord and no responce. Should you just wait? Imo, no. As soon as you make a modreq, you should be allowed to start the fight (not entirely sure if this is the rule as I had gotten different answers from ppl and haven't checked recently so if you can attack as soon as you make it then just ignore this part.)

 

4. Lower the cooldowns from 5 days to 2 or 3 at the least. 5 days limits to only one raid per week. 2 days is plenty time to rp without disturbance.

 

5. Increase raid cap from 10 to 15.

 

6. If a gm already needs to be present on a raid, the /lockpick command should not be used as it limits the amount of chances to open a door. With rolling 3 ppl could fail before you had to leave, with this only 1 guy can **** it up. It's dumb.

 

7. Make it so any ladders can be used instead of raid ladders.

 

8. Make it so it's PVP Default at 8+. (I'd say even lower but I feel that'll trigger even more people so I'll leave it at that) there is no point to 9 people roleplay fighting as it clusters the chat, it's hard to spot the emote of who you are fighting because they may have the same color as somebody else or if you just look away for 2 seconds you have to scroll up and may risk the emote getting removed from all the other emotes of people and it just turns into a clusterfuck.

 

9. Don't hand out vbs or bans for shittalking in raids. Rather let them chimp out for 30 mins instead of having to listen to them for the next week. People rarely learn anything from vbs/bans and it just makes it worse. Think of it as telling your angry girlfriend to calm down, you're just feeding the flame.

 

10. As somebody already mentioned earlier, there are too many restrictions and we rely on staff for everything. Let us be, no need to hold our hand all the time.

 

 

That concludes my feedback on the matter. I probably have more to say that I just can't think of at the moment but if I do, I'll make sure to add it in another comment.(Also if some of my answers seem a little agressive, I'm sorry)

Also another note, I myself am mainly a part of the PVP community but if you think I will blindly deffend it and work only towards it's goals, you're wrong. That is not who I am and not what I stand for. I am as unbiased as I believe I can be at the moment and I'm willing to call out both communities on their bullshit and biasedness and I have done so in the past. I know for a fact that some people have grown to dislike me for calling them out/arguing with them. (I'm aware there are other reasons ppl dislike me but I'm going off topic enough already).

In conclusions, those are my thoughts and opinions on the matter and a little bit about myself. Looking forward to critisism, just keep it civil

 

(oh and sry for gramatical mistakes, I wrote this kinda fast and on a phone so yeah)

 

[Imperium 3495]

Got to say I like most of these rules, besides the breaking into chests and no raid cap for attackers is probably the only one I have a concern with bc then its basically a pillage warclaim. I also feel that raiders should indeed have a rp reason for a raid, not a cb but just an rply reason for wanting to raid them.

 

Otherwise from what I've seen the rest I'm willing to see tested, nice job narthok ❤️

[zaezae 1098]

4 minutes ago, SombreroMan said:

Okay so, I'll try to be short.

1. Having to modreq an hour ahead is retarded and makes no irp sence. It's not a warclaim, you shouldn't have to announce you're coming. Nobody wants to get on to raid but then wait an entire hour. It's an absolutely stupid idea and ir should never be put into practice.

So the attackers can spend any amount of time mustering people to get on for an attack with an unlimited amount of players but the defenders can't? Both sides should be allowed to muster properly. Especially if the attackers can steal absolutely everything regardless if the owner of the items is even online?

 

 

[Viltaren 236]

I am the minister of law in Sutica, and I help our nation lead with a lot of diplomacy and responding to threats and issue that arise in the city. So what I say here I say as someone who heavily assists in the guiding of an established nation with not the most effective guardforce.
@Narthok

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

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.
 

I really enjoy this modification to the rules. I believe, if we are allowed to rally people to defend the nation in an hour off of the broadcast, we can actually organize a defense. In addition, it would incentivise us to seek alliances with other nations. We aim for neutrality, but deals where we have paid other parties for defense have worked out well for us. This also creates rp for our nation and theirs. 

 

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

I do not enjoy this aspect nearly as much. This can cripple nations by having a leader forcibly taken. That may be the point, but politics are a dangerous and stressful balance already. I believe this may invite a situation where soft coups are enacted by dealing with foreign parties to raid and target a leader. In addition, it could lead to situations where raiding parties try and force PK on nation leads. It would also allow slaving parties to come on and ransack a cities rp simply due to an ooc grudge for much longer than the 2 hours you have stated.

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.

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.

 

What I want to know with this is how do we interact with our own bodies in rp? We are already told we are not allowed to recognise we died in rp, and it is a warnnable offense if a person recognises their own death. With this in mind, how are we to respond to reports of our own bodies or seeing our own bodies?

 

 

2.3 Battering Rams may be purchased at the Cloud Temple for (15000 minas for heavy or 7500 for light) or From a Moderator for (60 iron blocks or 30 iron blocks). The Battering Ram kit will resemble the tent kit. The Ram comes in the heavy (with arrow shield) or light (without shield) variants.

 

I believe these are not expensive enough. Mina is too easy to earn. 15000 minas is common to have, and not a great loss if people grind out the hunting grounds. In addition to this, can the ram be moved? What if there are multiple gates in succession? What of properly rped and prepared boiling oil let out into a gateway? If its prepared, can it be used for defense?

In addition to this, 

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.

 

This removes the point of having any skilled rp warriors. It also enables PVP goons to pretend to rp for the sake of complying to rules while still only seeking to profit and cause grief. This also disables inbuilt defenses against raiders, in cases such as limited escapable lava traps meant to be used to deter raiders. 

 

2.4 Any chest within the confines of the raided settlement may be broken open by the victorious offensive party provided the appropriate destructive emote is provided. Rolling is not required.

This allows the mass theft and stealing of a nation. In a nation such as sutica, a successful raid would see us ransacked and in danger of losing all active players as they lose all possessions and belongings. And beyond players, there is the fact that if there is no limit, no emote, no roll needed to ransack, it is a simple matter to just break into a cities storage, destroy all chests, and let an entire nations building supplies and food despawn on the floor. There needs to be some sort of protective factor, or you enable rule protected griefing on a level that could destroy a nation in a single raid. 

 

 

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

 

I believe there should be somewhat of a limit in place. This invites warclaims without the paperwork. With no limit, it is entirely possible for a plan to be put in place where 20-30 plus players are gathered by a group of nations, then taken on a raid to a single nation they dont agree with, or want crippled or gone. Then, without the fairness and rules of the war claims, they can steamroll a nation and cause irreparable damage to a nation for the sake of  an ooc grudge or simple removal of competition. It would be mostly impossible to gain a defending force strong enough to manage the attackers 20-30 strong raid group in the span of a single hour. With no limit, it is a warclaim, without having to claim.
 

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.

 

I do enjoy this, but in order to be an action taken, there needs to be a safety from CB. Bigger nations with stronger pvpers can win wars against weaker nations. But, if a weaker nation defends, and then retaliates, then the bigger nation has rights to CB. Then they can simply force war, and then destroy the weaker nation with no repercussions. THey could even intentionally lose to bait out a retaliation and a CB with it.

 

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

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

 

I would like to see this be a nation or specific group of origin. As in, not just a raid camp down the way, but something that invites politics and diplomacy.

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 three.

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

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

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.

 

I very much enjoy both of these protections. It is something that is very needed. Off hours are off hours. In sutica we have 15-20 people rping in the city with regularity, but when its off hours, not many are there. And that's fine for our activity, but it feels really scummy.

 

That's all I have to comment on for now, but I very eagerly look to your response @Narthok

[Narthok 10416]

13 minutes ago, WuHanXianShi14 said:

"Caps are cancer"

 

Are you actually going to listen to feedback and act on it or just get defensive and let your own opinions dictate the shape of these rules (Which no one asked to be rewritten, by the way)

Indeed but a man can only respond to so many forms of feedback at once. I stated at the beginning of my original post, should community backlash be sufficiently opposed to what I had proposed I'll go back to the drawing board. I do however feel that that which is proposed is a fair compromise. Honestly I felt that what I had written excessively favoured defenders with the hour warning and the 21 day cooldown but perhaps I was wrong in trying to compromise in such a fashion.

 

12 minutes ago, zaezae said:

Hey, here's an idea. Just let people post total conquest warclaims with an hour's notice. It'd be way simpler and have very nearly the same effects.

Excellent idea, then CBs will be entirely off the server.

 

11 minutes ago, SuperDuckyGamer said:

literally half these rules look like youre trying to make lotc a legitimate factions pvp server but with rp items added as currency

 

get your **** together and write rules that dont give pvpers with working computers and more clickery skills an absurd advantage over literally anyone else, mage or not

These rules are very balanced? Defenders get relatively fair rewards for warding off a raid and are now able to retaliate against a point of origin rather than watch a band of goons fade off into the mist on their meme jihadi characters.

 

12 minutes ago, Jaeden said:

I'll go by each section.

 

Section 1.0:

1.1: This is good. Allows more leverage to buff up the abilities of raiders.

1.2: Thank you. This is something I was heavily passionate about before.

1.3: This is good, though I'd modify the wording to be more or less like 'Characters involved in a raid must have sufficient background to the character and reasoning to participate in the raid' - this encompasses the description of 'Your character must have rped to some degree to participate in raids' while also deterring non-allies.

1.4: By the 'captives may roll to x ...', do you mean once they're asked to be brought back to be captured? Or while they're captured? I feel like the former would be more appropriate.

1.5: As a player whose lore literally circumvents NPCs or heads being taken (body disappears on death into natural substances, i.e: powder). I would put in the clause to state that the players must still inform the player that they will be using their body or head. This at least allows the victim player to provide information that the other player might not be aware of.

 

Section 2.0:

2.1: I would advise adding in a clause, or at least training moderators, so that both sides must be alerted to the status of the opposing side, so that they don't get confused. Otherwise, it's good.

2.2: I assume by the wording of this, is that there won't be any limits to ladder placement now? And does this still require the purchasable ladders, or will regular ladders suffice?

2.3: I don't think it's a good idea allowing materialistic trades for battering rams. The economy fluctuates too much, and battering rams may become unintentionally much cheaper than intended. It's too unreliable of a system.

I'm also iffy about this being plugin-reliant, if that's the intention. I think a better system would be a time-based objective that the attackers of the settlement must hold onto and prevent the blocks in their ram being broken. But I'm also a bit iffy regarding breaking the blocks for the ram being the objective in the first place. Regardless, I think this should come with something like 'x amount of attackers must be present around the battering ram for the objective's timer to continue'.

2.4: I don't agree with this at all. It's too radical of a change to implement on a map that has had no heist support thus far. Settlements would have to undergo drastic changes to protect themselves against this - a tool that allows settlements to have chests broken into at assumed infinite amounts post-raid. I'd either limit this, if it really does have to go through (and offer a grace period for settlements), or don't have it at all. Perhaps even have it so that you have to conduct a 'pillage raid', which requires more sacrifice for the raiders so that they can have the ability to loot the settlement after a victory.

2.5: Yeah that's fine, same as before.

 

Section 3.0:

3.1 & 3.2: I'm a bit confused by this section. I assume the reason for this is that Retaliatory Raids bypass cooldowns?

 

Section 4.0:

4.1: Cap-less raids. Ballsy. Though it could be interesting. I have no feedback otherwise.

4.2, 4.3 & 4.5: I don't see why raid cooldowns should be 48 hours if they lose. They already suffer consequences for not deterring a raid (i.e: being looted), this seems excessive. I'd advise a base cooldown of 7 days regardless of the outcome for a raid (so that they can be conducted per weekend), and if a retaliatory raid is won by the settlement defenders then it can be 14 days to offer them a grace period.

 

Section 5.0:

5.1: Bit confused by this clause. Can a bit of clarity be given for it?

5.2: Ugh, king of the hill in minecraft pvp. This is not only unenjoyable for a one-life pvp arrangement, but also physical pain to moderate. I wouldn't advise this in the slightest. Just make it so that the raid must have an objective prior to beginning: 'I want to conduct this raid to kill as many people in a settlement as I can!' (then their win clause is by killing all statused opposition).

5.3: Yeah not a bad clause. Though I'd define 'more than three'. Does this mean the minimum raid limit is upped from 3 to 4 now?

5.4: Yeah that's fine I suppose.

 

As for final feedback, I want to address a couple things.

 

- Raid Timers.

In this new system, does it mean that raid timers are now non-existent? As in, may a raid continue on indefinitely until the objective is achieved? I think that is extremely unfair to defenders. Even currently, the 1 hour time limit is still excessive. But it should be fine for these large-scale raids.

 

- Rescue Raids.

What happens to high profile targets that need to be rescued now? With cooldowns increased, and the lack of rescue raids, and the increased ability to kidnap targets (especially high profile ones), you're going to encounter a lot of rule-hopping and abusing in order to mess over a playerbase by keeping their high profile target kidnapped with no chance of being saved.

 

- Obvious PvP Factions.

I hold concern for groups that will abuse the rule by making a fort, raiding, getting destroyed, then rebuilding the same fort elsewhere and conducting the same raids once more. I sincerely hope that with this system there will be a heavy hand to players that will try to do this.

 

I might have more to add, but that's all I can think of for now. It's definitely good, but requires a lot of revision still. At the moment, this heavily favours raiders.

1.3, I'll do so thats a good suggestion

1.4 I was more going for the ability to break bound hands and such if one is captured. Kairn was allowed to do this when his captors abandoned him to give chase to his rescuers and I feel it adds a nice level of extra dynamism to captive rp.

1.5 yeah that seems fair to me that people would need to be alerted and in failing to be alerted the heads / npc bodies could be removed. 

 

2.1 will amend to have moderators alert of the status of both sides. Neutral parties will be in status recording.

2.2 I think normal ladders would be fine. but they must be placed in a straight continuous line from bottom to top.

2.3 I'd be fine with this solution however it would need a GM to stand by a moderate it which many players aren't fond of. In this idea five minutes per gate with 3 people standing near the battering ram or something along those lines would suffice?

2.4 as it stands if the defenders repulse the attackers they can conduct a retaliatory raid against the attackers and loot them in turn. But I would have no issue with either a chest cap of 10 or so or a grace period after the rules had launched to allow settlement to appropriately adjust.

2.5 yeet

 

3.1 / 3.2 I hadn't actually considered that at all so thanks for bringing it up. But yes if you are willing to launch raids then you are willing to defend against raids. You don't get to aggress and hide behind ooc shields. Launching a raid means you can be retaliated against. It may be worth having a clause that states if you initiate a raid you lose your cooldown. As this would organically make more aggressive factions more vulnerable as well as accounting for states of war. Retaliatory raids would ignore existing cooldowns.

 

4.1 I'd like to see how it works. I don't see raiding parties getting much bigger than 25 or so with the current server health

4.2 So should retaliatories only be available when you win or just when you are raided in general in your eyes?

 

5.1 giving a definition in advance to prevent rule lawyering later on when people try to argue over whether or not something was a raid

5..2  Thats a much better idea tbh, I'll make that change now

5.3 Honestly most of the numbers here should be considered 'soft numbers' and very subject to change. But fire suggested that we have the minimum cap link with the minimum residents in a settlement for the offline clause.

 

-Raid Timers, I think a fair raid timer is 1 hour after the beginning of the raid, raid timers should certainly remain

-Rescue raids, I completely forgot about rescue raids, will add a clause addressing them shortly

-PvP factions It is difficult to regulate this kind of thing but generally pvp factions do not like losing their pixels and since they have to have a base their pixels are now vulnerable to being stolen.

 

Yes this review is very much the beginning of a dialogue rather than a 'go **** yourself community enjoy the new rules' I hope to make many many changes as players continue to make suggestions.

[Archbishop 1784]

1 hour ago, WuHanXianShi14 said:

Doesn't matter, a raid should not be a mini-warclaim and there should be a cap on the raiders. The current cap is fine.

You spoke previously about not allowing people who have been popped or d40'd to be captured because it would not make 'rp sense'. However to limit a raid to five people makes no rp sense either, make up your mind because you can't have both.