KosherZombie 1772 Share Posted October 9, 2018 For the most part, I like these rules. They place an emphasis on role-play over PVP, while still allowing the PVPer time and space to enjoy themselves on our server. A few things I disagree with, however. Being able to capture members of an enemy faction during raids seems unnecessary. Raids have always been PVP events. If one side were to down all the members of the other side, they could theoretically imprison them all. While this may make sense in RP, implementing it will cause some issues. Role-players, who are attached to their characters won't want to fight. But PVPers who raid on throw-away characters, won't care if they are captured. This dynamic will result in increased saltiness from role-players directed at pvpers, and will only cause further problems down the line. Additionally, I don't think the one hour warning for a raid is necessary in all cases. I agree with the people mentioning that a raid is a surprise event. That said, if a party of ten to twenty men were approaching a settlement, they would be aware. Perhaps, for small scale raids, less than five people, only a ten minute warning would be necessary (to indicate the time each side would naturally need to prepare to fight). For larger raids, where the offensive party would likely be noticed well before reaching the settlement, you could give a 30 to 60 minute warning. Another problem with the rules. What is the purpose of battering rams? Most settlements can easily be gotten into with parkour or by rolling to break windows and doors. Raids should not be taken so seriously that people are spending 10-20k minas for one raid. And battering rams would be very difficult if not impossible for a small, supposedly mobile raiding party to carry. I understand you are trying to promote dynamic role-play in raids, but we have ladders and lock picks for that, no need to take it any further. Another issue I have with these rules is the long cooldowns. A week for a defensive victory and two weeks for a defensive and retaliatory victory would be more reasonable. Finally, if there are going to be such strict rules surrounding raiding, I believe we should implement a formal skirmish system. The most enjoyable wars have always been the ones where each side rallies and has massive skirmishes, with no walls to hide behind. This has manifested in a more formal way in warzones in the past, but those are less fun and dynamic, with limited space. I would suggest adding an optional skirmish system, in which during wartime, sides may rally for skirmishes. Victory in a skirmish can result in benefits in a war claim, like getting a free treb or other siege weapon. In non wartimes, feuding sides could agree to skirmish for the fun of it. Capturing members of the opposing side would not be allowed during skirmishes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Its_Just_Leap 399 Share Posted October 9, 2018 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 someone is executed or bleeds out during the raid they may not be captured / tped back. No, if you popped them, made them D40, or they bleed out then your chance to capture them is over. Their soul is with the monks, and there is no need to drag them back when RPly you've already killed them. Sucks 2 Suck, this is on the raiders to think about and it shouldn't be a rule. Get rid of it. 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. 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. The victim who’s body or head has been taken must be alerted. I personally don't like this rule because most of the time it only leads to OOC mocking, but I'm ok with keeping this. HOWEVER, if this stays in then the players must have the heads placed somewhere, AND the players who had their head taken or anyone who wishes to must be able to /modreq and RP taking the head down. If thats not something thats going to be allowed then you might aswell get rid of this rule aswell. 1 hour ago, Wrynn said: 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. What the hell is up with these cooldown times? Twenty One days???? Are you insane? You want absolutely no conflict for an entire month? Please dear god tell me I'm not the only one who thinks these cooldown times are absolutely ridiculous. Why did you all post another community review when it looks like nothing has changed? What's new about this one than the last one? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enlightenment 2299 Share Posted October 9, 2018 If you further alienate the PvP community, you will kill the server. This is your last and final warning. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Izzibaby 0 Share Posted October 9, 2018 So I have a few things to go over.. (Not complaints against why this sucks, or won't work and such, but things that are wrong, or need to be fixed.) * Rule 2.5, Number 5 "5. Lava, and magma blocks are prohibited within any trap." Magma blocks are very similar to another block in Minecraft known as... Cacti (or cactus), the use of cacti in traps could be just as deadly as magma blocks and should be added in this rule. Maybe as a edit: "Any block in which can cause harm on touch are prohibited within any trap" * Another Rule 2.5, Number 3 and 4 "3. All traps are required to give the trapped individual the ability to escape, including utilizing the lockpick plugin." "4. Pathways of escape cannot be able to be blocked off." The way in which a escape can be made really depends on the person making the escape. If a user wants, they can create a near impossible (yet still possible) parkour in which they have the opportunity to "trap" the person inside of it if they can't do the parkour. Also, if this type of thing was created in such a fashion where the person who set the trap can stand at a distance away from the user, yet attack them with such a weapon like a bow, the user could damage the trapped victim to a point of death.* Section 4, Rule 4.1 "4.1 There is no limit on numbers for any offensive or defensive raid action." With such a rule like this, a region or nation such as, Empire of Man, could overwhelm another region with such a force up to a 100 men (or women). This would completely ruin towns due to 100 attackers, if deemed victorious they can then re-do their raid of 100 men in only 48 hours (Section 4, Rule 4.2), that could create a dominate force to remain dominate within the entire land, and ultimately come to own the server. * Section 1, Rule 1.1 "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 do not think that a 1 hour in advance regional broadcast is needed nor is it in the spirit of roleplay, such a broadcast would be deemed Meta-Gaming due to technically the info was not given IRP. The fix to this issue that I have is that a raiding party must do the following: - Have a messenger apart from their fighting force to send word to the settlement of their plans to raid. The messenger must modreq that they have given the information. - 20 min after the messenger has given the information the raiding party is then allowed to begin the raid by entering into the 50 block radius of the desired settlement. - At that point then the raid is commenced and anything after is considered fair game in accordance to the rules. (This is all I have so far, but might have more in regards to things as stuff is edited and I think of more things.) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WuHanXianShi14 0 Share Posted October 9, 2018 I can't believe after a poll where a majority of people voted for player caps you still decided to go with no player caps Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Its_Just_Leap 399 Share Posted October 9, 2018 4 minutes ago, Illuminare said: If you further alienate the PvP community, you will kill the server. This is your last and final warning. And then there's you. I agree that PvP is needed for some aspects of the server such as warclaims, but stop being over dramatic. Oh and honey please don't act like you have the power to take down the server with your "Last an final warning" ,cool off your ego for a moment. I highly doubt (infact I could guarantee) the server will not drop dead because PvP goons leave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotEvilAtAll 10906 Share Posted October 9, 2018 I remember that Narthok’s old suggestion let raiders take heads and NPCs without consent and allowed the capture of popped players. People didn’t like those two things and they were removed from Narthok’s suggestion. Yet in this proposed set of rules, those two things are back. It’s almost as if nobody is listening to these community reviews. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christ 939 Share Posted October 9, 2018 18 minutes ago, KosherZombie said: For the most part, I like these rules. They place an emphasis on role-play over PVP, while still allowing the PVPer time and space to enjoy themselves on our server. A few things I disagree with, however. Being able to capture members of an enemy faction during raids seems unnecessary. Raids have always been PVP events. If one side were to down all the members of the other side, they could theoretically imprison them all. While this may make sense in RP, implementing it will cause some issues. Role-players, who are attached to their characters won't want to fight. But PVPers who raid on throw-away characters, won't care if they are captured. This dynamic will result in increased saltiness from role-players directed at pvpers, and will only cause further problems down the line. Additionally, I don't think the one hour warning for a raid is necessary in all cases. I agree with the people mentioning that a raid is a surprise event. That said, if a party of ten to twenty men were approaching a settlement, they would be aware. Perhaps, for small scale raids, less than five people, only a ten minute warning would be necessary (to indicate the time each side would naturally need to prepare to fight). For larger raids, where the offensive party would likely be noticed well before reaching the settlement, you could give a 30 to 60 minute warning. Another problem with the rules. What is the purpose of battering rams? Most settlements can easily be gotten into with parkour or by rolling to break windows and doors. Raids should not be taken so seriously that people are spending 10-20k minas for one raid. And battering rams would be very difficult if not impossible for a small, supposedly mobile raiding party to carry. I understand you are trying to promote dynamic role-play in raids, but we have ladders and lock picks for that, no need to take it any further. Another issue I have with these rules is the long cooldowns. A week for a defensive victory and two weeks for a defensive and retaliatory victory would be more reasonable. Finally, if there are going to be such strict rules surrounding raiding, I believe we should implement a formal skirmish system. The most enjoyable wars have always been the ones where each side rallies and has massive skirmishes, with no walls to hide behind. This has manifested in a more formal way in warzones in the past, but those are less fun and dynamic, with limited space. I would suggest adding an optional skirmish system, in which during wartime, sides may rally for skirmishes. Victory in a skirmish can result in benefits in a war claim, like getting a free treb or other siege weapon. In non wartimes, feuding sides could agree to skirmish for the fun of it. Capturing members of the opposing side would not be allowed during skirmishes. I quite disagree with these rules on certain things and I made a google doc expressing my feeling on it https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HhKmF9WSAOMt-ANk85RwdjC6gIWuUersXPaIUh2tsog/edit?usp=sharing Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase 3793 Share Posted October 9, 2018 Reposting the same god damn rules over and over without listening to the player base isn't a good strategy and I'm not sure why you lot keep doing it. Listen to the players, they will have to suffer should these pass, while you bunch spectate and 'moderate' in /vanish Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auriel_ 652 Share Posted October 9, 2018 Despite the clear disdain on both sides of the argument on this; a short PSA. Remain civil folks, be well and have a nice afternoon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrynn 1349 Author Share Posted October 9, 2018 14 minutes ago, Its_Just_Leap said: Why did you all post another community review when it looks like nothing has changed? What's new about this one than the last one? We're trying to get a feel for how many people would actually like these rules to be implemented more-so, rather than polishing them up anymore. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enlightenment 2299 Share Posted October 9, 2018 3 minutes ago, Wrynn said: We're trying to get a feel for how many people would actually like these rules to be implemented more-so, rather than polishing them up anymore. You have had more than enough time to get a feel for how people will respond to these rules. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrynn 1349 Author Share Posted October 9, 2018 Just now, Illuminare said: You have had more than enough time to get a feel for how people will respond to these rules. We're getting numbers in the form of a poll so that we can see what percentage of the community would like/dislike them on the server.. It was something I suggested to do before we even think about implementing them onto the server; hence why I put up the post. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chase 3793 Share Posted October 9, 2018 2 minutes ago, Wrynn said: We're trying to get a feel for how many people would actually like these rules to be implemented more-so, rather than polishing them up anymore. Didn't you lot do that the last three or so times Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Its_Just_Leap 399 Share Posted October 9, 2018 2 minutes ago, Wrynn said: We're trying to get a feel for how many people would actually like these rules to be implemented more-so, rather than polishing them up anymore. Look at the vote and it paints a very clear picture that even Stevie Wonder would be able to see. People clearly do not like these rules and the replies are going into specifics. I guess its time for you all to go back to the drawing board. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.gif.4284906d3788a322c219fc4b2911a67d.gif)
.thumb.gif.9200049f1e9ae4031b060af8a5c775d7.gif)
.thumb.gif.f363e1e24ec35c023d600bb13f6d2f03.gif)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.