[Community Review] Current Raid Rules Draft

[Unwillingly 18117]

     Okay, so now that I'm finally home to give my response, lets go.
 

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.

     This is awful. It quite literally goes against the definition of a raid, as @SombreroMansaid. A sudden attack on an enemy by troops, aircraft, or other armed forces in warfare. Key word, sudden. Well, okay, lets say this warning before hand was ridiculously added. Do not make the warning one hour. Make it maybe twenty minutes, thirty minutes at the very most.

1.3 Characters involved in a raid must have demonstrable allegiances

One day raid characters will not be tolerated. Your character must be rped to some degree to participate in raids.

     I'm actually supportive of this. I really don't want to see alt personas of nation officials such as "Armored bandit" or "Unknown" just to blatantly avoid consequences. It's happened before, and it will continue to happen. Add this.
 

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.

     This. Are you serious? Like, are you really serious? If the attackers really want somebody to be captured alive, it should be their job to locate this person, down them, pick them up, and RPly capture them during or after the raid, even if this is more of a PvP thing. Do not give them a free pass to NLs and other nation officials, and stop trying to baby the attackers. This is ******* ridiculous. 

2.3 Battering Rams may be purchased at the Cloud Temple for (20000 minas for heavy or 10000 for light).The Ram comes in the heavy (with arrow shield) or light (without shield) variants.

     Okay, while battering rams may seem like they cost a lot of minas, they really don't. Think about how long we've had the voting milestones. Going on 7 or 8 months now. I bet there are people with hundreds of thousands of minas. On my one persona, I literally have 37k, though the cost of them is irrelevant, I'm just saying how easy it is for raiders to be able to buy these. Not only that, but this is literally turning raids into mini warclaims at this point. If you add battering rams to raids, people will add more gates. It's simple and only makes more problems.

2.5 You cannot construct "Instant" Death Traps.

     Okay. Traps are just useless at this point and there's no point in having them. Again, you go against the very definition of what this is. You're telling us, despite the definition stating "A device or enclosure designed to catch and retain animals, typically by allowing entry but not exit or by catching hold of a part of the body," the enemies need to have a chance to escape? Ridiculous. Sorry, let me just build a staircase so the enemy can walk away from the lava moving towards them. Woops. 

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

     Garbage. This is self explanatory and multiple players have shown that they don't like it.

4.2 If the aggressors are victorious the settlement’s raid cooldown shall be Forty Eight Hours from the beginning of the raid.

     Okay. So, uncapped 30 man raids every two days? Bullshit. That is the easiest way to kill off a large nation or group of players with attacks every two god damn days if the defenders have weak military power or nobody to help rally for the raid. I can't even believe this was an idea. Nobody wants this.

 

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

     Here's my suggestion: If there are going to be uncapped raids, try this. If the defenders lose, they get a CD of, maybe, five or six days. If the defenders win, they get a cooldown of nine or ten days. 

     So, can I ask who/which playerbase asked for new raid rules? As far as I'm aware, nobody did. I've seen nearly no complaints until now, except for a few people whining about a little bit of clicking every now and then. Raids are just fine. In fact, the last raid I participated in, the attackers weren't being shitface cancer. This proves that there's nothing wrong with raids, it's just that from time to time, there's a few rules broken. Don't change the rules, fix the players.

     There was nothing wrong with raids before except for a few minor things that could easily be changeable. An entire rewrite was not needed and nobody asked for it, nobody wants it, and nobody likes these ideas. This has been reposted, what, three times now? Stop posting it, because you got your feedback. Listen to the community.

     Edit: Stop trying to argue against their points even though they've shown they don't like it. You will not make them like these rules by proving them wrong, you'll only make yourself look like a ****. 

     My suggestions on how to fix these? 

     You don't. Keep the old rules.

     Cheers.

 

[Chase 3793]

I agree with Unwillingly.

[Narthok 10416]

I am tired. The posted rule set it outdated. I'll make a post responding to the poll of this thread in a moment.

[drfate786 1690]

5 hours ago, Stack Loot said:

Nah, raiders tend not to want to destroy groups, it means less people for them to raid and pvp, as well as i don’t think raiders would like to raid a place with 30+ people. 

 

Most raiding groups don't have 30 people or a base of operations. The camel bandits had no real major freebuild which they owned and lacked any large numbers for example yet would raid the dominion constantly as well as other groups they disliked OOC'ly for the sole sake of being a general nuisance OOC'ly. These rules clamp down on that behavior and allow nations to bite back against such groups by raiding THEIR freebuilds in retaliation.

[Christ 939]

2 hours ago, Narthok said:

I am tired. The posted rule set it outdated. I'll make a post responding to the poll of this thread in a moment.

I would prefer not, as would half the community, when you make the new poll instead of removing what people MOSTLY complained about it will be kept as just limiting i.e instead of an hour you will lower it. NOBODY WANTS IT, some people are just being nice and saying the most they can live with Is 20-30 minutes but in reality it shouldn't' even be there. So don't bother, nobody wants it unless you are revamping your whole revamped system

 

[HortonHeardAWho 243]

To Begin:

---

2 hours ago, Wrynn said:

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

Specify that the one who makes the modreq is the leader, so that way GMs don't get confused and ban the person on justification of "he wasn't leading the raid!!"

2 hours 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.

Cool but also unneeded. Not only this but this still is a subject prone to bias and as such serves no purpose in the rules.

 

5 hours ago, Wrynn said:

 

1.3 Characters involved in a raid must have demonstrable allegiances

Actually really good, to prevent bias so that one's a keeper IMO- if the person doesn't have an easily identifiable alliance only kick them out of the raid though. No need for the ban hammer, and even if they still do wedge their way into the raid only give them a verbal warning as punishment.

 

5 hours 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.

1.  

If they d40, sure. Popping? No, they shouldn't be dragged back. That's their fault for not reviving. Also you can easily emote "*bleeds out" before d40'ing

5 hours ago, Wrynn said:

1.6 Launching a raid negates any raid cooldowns you have immediately. You are fully vulnerable to being raided.

Like this too, unless you mean launching the raid negates the cooldowns as your raid is currently going on.

Reword it to:

1.6 Raiding a settlement will remove the cooldown of the raider's own settlement. You are fully vulnerable to being raided.

 

5 hours 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.

Slight issue of raiders simply kiting the whole time if they lose a skirmish and a few survive.

 

5 hours ago, Wrynn said:

Rams are reusable if they are not disabled.

Like this, helps make the price not look so bad.

 

5 hours ago, Wrynn said:

2.4 Raiders may attempt to remove anti ladder buttons. They must provide the appropriate emote, while supervised by the supervising Moderator. A roll of ten will break a button. A raid party may roll ten times.

That's kind of nice, but overhangs can do the same effect as these and smaller walls that use overhangs tend to be ugly.

 

5 hours ago, Wrynn said:

3.3 The Rescue Raid, for the purposes of simplicity the rescue raid will act like a retaliatory raid.

Have it be required that they demonstrate RP knowledge of this beforehand plz, that way people can't get banned. Also make it so these guys have to modreq as well and wait for a GM.

 

5 hours ago, Wrynn said:

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.

So you just pay a guy to raid you and have a GM that kind of likes you and trusts you to put up the CD?

 

5 hours 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.

Fleeing can actually be very vague in these scenarios, so just have a GM be aware of that. (By that I mean kiting can be interpreted as fleeing)

And also:

5 hours ago, Wrynn said:

Defenders are victorious if they hold off the raiders for one hour.

Should specify that rule right at the top with 1.7

 

5 hours 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.

 

5 hours ago, Wrynn said:

Actions of locals against locals will never fall under the umbrella of villainy no matter the number. As long as those involved are locals. In the event that there are some foreigners among the locals a majority threshold of locals will be required on both sides of a conflict for this clause to persist.

Saved yourself, nice... But there are still problems with this

Make it a required that locals can easily prove their allegiance like before (before as in the before listed rule for raiders) else it could lead to a mess.

 

6 hours ago, Wrynn said:

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

Little petty but you should make this an actual full blown rule. People may breeze past this rule even though it is common sense.

 

6 hours ago, Wrynn said:

5.6 Raidlike scenarios resulting from dynamic rp shall for the purposes of dynamism not be considered to be a raid. A Raidlike scenario being defined as the presence of invited guests which descends into conflict through rp.

1. These shall be determined on a case by case basis by GMs
2. Raidlike scenarios do not trigger CDs

This is nice but it leads to bias, though you don't often see GMs bias for the attacking side so I think you're relatively okay.

---

Formatting

---

       Alright so this a problem throughout the rules and while it may seem insignificant, it could make things a lot clearer for people. If a rule is related to another, even if it is listed in a different section, I suggest at least putting a spoiler referencing it so that way they get all and everything that's related to that rule instead of having to browse through the long post.

 

Oh ya and add a table of contents-esc thing. That helps too. Maybe a glossary if you want to be extra fancy but I'm pretty sure everyone is aware of the terms used.

And, while this is super petty, capitalize RP!!

---

How to Abuse!

Brought to you by your's truly, Horton!

---

Got a new GM and hate the raiding party? Use 1.1 to your advantage and get that man banned, woo!

 

Don't want to be captured? Simply emote "*bleeds out" and you dodged that bullet.

 

Want to raid a settlement? Just get one of the many 'snakes' on this server to snake that settlement and turn coats, raiding you. (Prolly not gonna happen but just be aware of this)

 

Hate those raiders climbing up your walls? Simply put a cobble overhang and you really outsmarted them!

 

Hire some mercenaries to raid your settlement and you raid them then no one can raid you for a whole month, woot woot!

---

Notes

---

So I think these rules are relatively well made and it seems like this time you are making somewhat of an effort to make the rules equal for both sides but don't forget to review your old rules so you don't open previously opened gaps.

But thanks, Wrynn. Really appreciate what you're trying to do.

Btw ET is best team.

 

Sincerely,

Horton

---

 

[Dyl 2088]

57 minutes ago, drfate786 said:

 

Most raiding groups don't have 30 people or a base of operations. The camel bandits had no real major freebuild which they owned and lacked any large numbers for example yet would raid the dominion constantly as well as other groups they disliked OOC'ly for the sole sake of being a general nuisance OOC'ly. These rules clamp down on that behavior and allow nations to bite back against such groups by raiding THEIR freebuilds in retaliation.

These rules suck lol

 

[Novastral 582]

I think it's adorable that you guys think these rules are going to change and aren't going to be implemented as they are.

[monkeypoacher 8055]

7 hours ago, Aeldrin said:

4.1 Uncapped raids are cancer and unrealistic. Once again, mini-warclaims. Stop trying to make raids something they're not. Nobody wants to get swarmed by 50-100 raiders that's literally just a warclaim lmao

4.2 A 2 day cooldown for uncapped raids (victory or not) is absolute aids seriously who wrote this

5.3 Unlimited 4-man raids is absolute cancer and whoever thought of this is delusional. Should be 2-man at absolute most. This is going to be massively abused.

 

my man here really loves the type of raid that everyone hates: the kind where he camps the road and then runs back to his fort and calls a GM when people come after him.

 

I genuinely think these raid rules would be great. They encourage a "speak softly and carry a big stick" mentality. Nations with actual standing armies are free to send a battering ram through the gate of some shitty 4-man brigands' den. If you honestly thought it was realistic that you could just stalk the outskirts of a major city and not have an angry mob come out to confront you, I don't know what to tell you.

 

I have lots of fond recollections of PvP during Athera and Vailor where Urguan and the Empire duked it out in spontaneous 20v20's. Removing the nonsense cap on raid numbers means that there can be real battles again. So all power to it.

[Narthok 10416]

25 minutes ago, Novastral said:

I think it's adorable that you guys think these rules are going to change and aren't going to be implemented as they are.

If thats the case lets just head back to the first draft, those rules were much more spicey

[Monkee 7369]

4 minutes ago, xxx said:

my man here really loves the type of raid that everyone hates: the kind where he camps the road and then runs back to his fort and calls a GM when people come after him.

waa waaaaa

[Narthok 10416]

4 hours ago, Man of Respect said:

just imagine IRL the vikings go to raid some filthy english weakos and they go to the nearby church filled with gold and be like "sup homies we come from scandinavia and we will be here in a hour to kill all of you!"

 

this is also absolutely stupid

imagine irl the vikings stroll into the village at 3 in the morning and find three people. They proceed to beat those people to death in the middle of town with no response. Imagine a bunch of hobo bandits stride into a metropolis and start ******* with people. For some reason their are no guards around. Furthermore, warning was lowered to 30 minutes post polling and was introduced with the intent of making raids more enjoyable for defenders. 

[monkeypoacher 8055]

3 hours ago, Unwillingly said:

    Okay. So, uncapped 30 man raids every two days? Bullshit. That is the easiest way to kill off a large nation or group of players with attacks every two god damn days if the defenders have weak military power or nobody to help rally for the raid. I can't even believe this was an idea. Nobody wants this.

 

The only thing you have to do to make it 30 man raids every 14 days is win an engagement. Not even a 30-man engagement. If your enemy slips up and sends five men to attack you and you kill them off, that counts as a defeat and they won't be able to raid you for 14 days.

 

4 minutes ago, Aeldrin said:

waa waaaaa

 

literally quoted a post where you were crying and screaming "this is cancer" specifically because you don't like the idea of getting owned by 50 man counter raids 

[Narthok 10416]

Just now, xxx said:

The only thing you have to do to make it 30 man raids every 14 days is win an engagement. Not even a 30-man engagement. If your enemy slips up and sends five men to attack you and you kill them off, that counts as a defeat and they won't be able to raid you for 14 days.

fourteen day requires you to defeat an aggressive raid and then win the retaliatory raid. Beating an aggressive raid is just 10.

[monkeypoacher 8055]

1 minute ago, Narthok said:

fourteen day requires you to defeat an aggressive raid and then win the retaliatory raid. Beating an aggressive raid is just 10.

 

That seems like a pretty fair compromise.