[Community Review] Current Raid Rules Draft

[Skraag 69]

Another point, while admittedly, I don't understand fully how battering rams work (As I haven't seen one in game at this point) I sincerely hope there's a cooldown on the sign people are expected to be hitting to operate it.
I'm not necessarily against the idea of a battering ram, if people are willing to invest that much in something that can break more power to them. I'll even go so far as to say it might give the defenders better chance to defend ironically due in part to the potential need of raiders to focus more on fighting off people attempting to break the ram than breaking IN..however this leads me to my next point.
As I've said, I am NOT aware of if there is any form of noticeable cooldown for the sign, but if it's going to end up being a handful of raiders rapidly clicking over and over to smash a gate I fail to see how the defenders are supposed to have reasonable chance to disable it. Breaking five iron blocks definitely isn't the slowest thing in the world, but when the siege machine starts right at the gate, and you have worry about what (assuming no one has gotten in yet, because at that point I figure destroying the machine would be a secondary concern) is the entire raiding party waiting to pop you the moment you take out a pickaxe.

Now, I've said a lot already, but far be it from me to complain about anything without first acknowledging some positive points about the thing I'm protesting. I'm more than capable of looking in on myself from another point of view and seeing how my words could and more than likely WILL be disregarded as "Boo hoo, Ram not easy to stop!" and I believe that as expensive as it is, and easily in theory as it is to render useless, you may as well get your money's worth. All in all, half of my above mentioned concerns are entirely moot if some such cooldown exists anyhow.

[PosidonX7 269]

I simply do not agree with such a short cool-down in the case of a loss. This would /kill/ settlements.

[FloralHedgehog 493]

1 hour ago, Wrynn said:

 

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

what about creatures that disintergrate or dissapear on a death?

[blago 1602]

My voice will be heard

[Corpean 183]

Amend the following to:

Quote

4.2 If the aggressors are victorious the settlement’s raid cooldown shall be Three Days from the beginning of the raid.

 

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

 

 

Others thoughts?

[Unwillingly 18102]

3 minutes ago, Corpean said:

Amend the following to:

 

Others thoughts?

With the uncapped raids right now,it should be doubled. 6 if the attackers win, 10 if the defenders win.

[Corpean 183]

Just now, Unwillingly said:

With the uncapped raids right now,it should be doubled. 6 if the attackers win, 10 if the defenders win.

 

Building off that, nations should have the ability to bring 100 men out to a raid, doubtful that'll occur but, if a bandit group of 14 raids a nation they should be fearful of a retaliation where 100 people can swarm them. That should be the point of a nation, protection and power. If a settlement wants to be protected from X then they should seek out nation Y for protection. That's my personal point of view and did not shape the writing of this post.

[blago 1602]

1 minute ago, Corpean said:

Amend the following to:

 

Others thoughts?

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

Any cooldown in double digits itself should be brought down - If you're willing to bump that even higher, bump this lower and don't appeal to the most whiny side.

The issue is these rules are forcefully neutral and you're afraid to upset either side. By doing that you're going to have people by each demographic just picking the one side, vice versa. I personally think the rules, in whole, are fine as they bring a balance. The only way people will be happy is if you only appeal to their one biasly sided opinion.

Have a backbone. 

The cooldowns need some genuine work since you're literally going to dwindle political interest by forcing weeks of safety which considering warclaims are basically impossible to aim for - Raids are the only way to express a political conflict of any damage. Other than that, I think this is a step towards finding a standard ground that won't completely drive one of the two sides directly mad.  Also for the "you can capture people you pop" that's some mong tier stuff there, if you pop them they're gone - However reviving them and capturing has been a thing always, and should stay as that. 

[Skraag 69]

8 minutes ago, Corpean said:

Amend the following to:

 

Others thoughts?

 

4 minutes ago, Unwillingly said:

With the uncapped raids right now,it should be doubled. 6 if the attackers win, 10 if the defenders win.

 I seriously have to agree with Unwillingly here, I have no idea what part of giving the raiders one more day and then cutting the defenders time in less than half seems like it'd be any better.

[blago 1602]

6 minutes ago, Unwillingly said:

With the uncapped raids right now,it should be doubled. 6 if the attackers win, 10 if the defenders win.

This is reasonable

[ThatGuy_777 220]

1 hour ago, Wrynn said:

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.

And in the case that said player needed to log off before they could be notified? I've had several GMs that suddenly stop responding to me and go poof during a modreq. Forgive my lack of confidence that this holds up.

 

1 hour ago, Wrynn said:

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.

Does this go for random folk who just happen to be unfortunate enough to stumble into the raid on X settlement? That have NO idea that PvP is currently in effect and just happen to get popped without any context?

 

1 hour ago, Wrynn said:

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.

 

How are these battering rams even intended to work? Click the sign and suddenly boom you're all in? Does it have a timer that resets each time a couple more raiders infiltrate the settlement? Does it need to charge up before breaking through, allowing the defenders a chance to intervene? On another note, what if you only break a few of the blocks? Does that mean it's still reusable only with X number of iron blocks?

 

1 hour ago, Wrynn said:

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

1 hour ago, Wrynn said:

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.

1 hour ago, Wrynn said:

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.

So...after waiting between 1 to 2 hours for one raid received, the retaliating force might have to spend another 1 to 2 hours organizing the counter-raid? What in the event that all players of said enemy have logged off?
 

1 hour ago, Wrynn said:

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

 

1 hour ago, Wrynn said:

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.

Does the whole fleeing loss count respectively to attackers who lose the majority of their forces and resort to running away and taunting repeatedly until the defenders get tired of it and decide to head back inside the city? That stuff gets tedious, especially over the course of an hour.

Overall, I'm absolutely no fan of the unrestricted raid limit, nor do I believe hour-long waits are in anyone's interest. I'm done diddly dandy with the raid limits as current, but that might just be me. Nonetheless, unrestricted seems like overkill. I personally also think a raid itself should be concluded before the forty-five-minute mark generally. Hence waiting a literal hour for the actual raid is just a little bit ridiculous. It should really be cut in half, if not the teensiest tadpole more. While I'm relatively meh about battering rams as a principle, it really needs clarity. If it's going to be a spontaneous thing that opens an entry inside the settlement for the raiders until the defenders finally manage to break it, then I don't think it has much of a point. The raiders will be inside and the battering rams purpose fulfilled. The only reason you wouldn't want it destroyed is if you intended to reuse it.

I have my qualms with the idea behind the cooldowns too, given I don't think whether you're a victor or loser should matter much. The idea of a measly two-day cooldown for settlements unable to procure any defenders only sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. Then again, don't knock it 'til you try it I guess?

On, nearly forgot to mention that you forgot to include the dealio about not breaking blocks. Otherwise, good job with the draft.

[SombreroMan 111]

59 minutes ago, Wrynn said:

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.

The clear definition of a raid is

 

According to this i'ts a surprise attack not a "hey we'll come and **** your **** up" that's a war. This Rule does not need to exist, Raids were fine without it.

1 hour ago, Wrynn said:

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.

This is another incredibly stupid rule which will never be enforced. Nobody will go out and search for where a raid is starting nor does it also have a place in the Raid Rules. Who cares where a raid is launched from. Nobody has ever complained about this because nobody cares. It's obvious that this rule was only put on the list to so GMs can bend that rule and say if a freebuild can be seen as a valid place to raid from or not. This only exists as a way for biased GMs to harass people who raid their friends.

1 hour ago, Wrynn said:

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.

 

Also another useless rule which will never be enforced. If I have a character I haven't played in a while and I bring him back and a GM says that character is just a one day raid character, there is a small to no amount of proof that I have already rp'd on that character.

1 hour ago, Wrynn said:

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 you pop someone you shouldn't be allowed to also capture them. As an attacker it's yours to keep the target alive. If anything when you emote capturing someone who is downed, a GM should tp the person to a little waiting spot to wait the Raid out so that the raiders can take him to where ever they wanted to.

1 hour ago, Wrynn said:

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.

A raid begins once both sides say that they are ready.

1 hour ago, Wrynn said:

Lava, and magma blocks are prohibited within any trap.

Lava traps should be allowed to used as traps especially in Gates and entrances into a Castle/Palace/whatever

1 hour ago, Wrynn said:

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

Revenge Raids imo should at least have 3 hours to be done from the victory of the attackers

 

1 hour ago, Wrynn said:

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

Max should be 15 as huge Nations can then literally come with a warclaim rally.

1 hour ago, Wrynn said:

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.

Just no. Static cooldowns are fine. No raid cooldown should be longer than 3 days. Going to almost a month is just a brainmelt idea. Especially when combined with the rule from above about raids not being capped. If a settlement loses a raid and then they show up with a warclaim rally which some settlements will do then they get almost a month off without raiding. Static cooldowns of 3 days are perfect as it is a comfortable balance on which most pvpers and rpers can agree on.

1 hour ago, Wrynn said:

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.

GM shouldn't call pvp off unless the time runs out or one side is dead or both sides agree to a 'PVP off'. People may look like they are running away but are actually kiting and come back/bait the attackers etc etc. No verdict should be made until one side is killed off or time has run out.

1 hour ago, Wrynn said:

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.

I again disagree with this. If you and a few friends (but no more than the max amount before its a raid) are doing **** in a city and some other people decide to join you, you all must leave and break the rp? No, the situation gets turned into a raid and PvP is started and if not then rp fight it.

 

1 hour ago, Wrynn said:

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

As I said previously, some people may see the situation and want to join the attacker's side. Are they just suppose to stand aside if the attackers already have 4? No, they join and it turns into a raid which is fine. Unless the settlement has a cooldown of course.

1 hour ago, Wrynn said:

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

All members should be punished equally.

[Christ 939]

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HhKmF9WSAOMt-ANk85RwdjC6gIWuUersXPaIUh2tsog/edit?usp=sharing

 

That right there describes my opinion. I went over all the bullet points I felt were controversial and put it into the eyes of the players, Staff take a look at it, players take a look at it. Everybody take a look at it.

[Cat Evocation 3728]

This just looks like a system for non stop mini warclaims lol.

[Wulfery 832]

I have already stated that a few times both in staff chat and in common discord, so I'll post it here too, because I feel like no feedback was taken at that time, and rule I refered to is kept the same way it was.

 

 I do not, same as quite a few other agree with part about heads being taken as well as bodies.

 

And no, it's not that I don't agree with that idea being an IRP purpose, as it servers perfect source for good RP for example with orcs who need to take heads for their rituals, culture and stuff. I don't agree with them being personalised and NPC's being set up with names of the person who was killed. It is creating paradoxes, issues with RP, and before long you'll have 5 NPCs with your name on them, saying how dead you are. Boy, even 3 in the same town to make it clear!

 

 I also gave already solution that was met with a good feedback from most of the general populus I asked.

 If person doesn't agree to PK, give the executioner an item that is generic. "Head of a Heanse Soldier", "Head of a Dwarven Noble", "Head of a Dominion Druid". Something that will indicate which group it comes from, and something that will create a possible RP driven stuff.
 If person agrees to PK, only then allow to create personalised head i.e "Wulffreys Skarpefangers head", or creating NPC. Elseway you are making only more issues with RP instead of solving them and emphasizing point about participating in raids as they are meant to be fun for both sides. 

 

 Because as of right now, I'm inclinging to idea of logging off before anyone engages with me in RP as I see possible raid. 

 

Nuff said.