[Community Review] Current Raid Rules Draft

[Narthok 10416]

1 minute ago, xxx said:

That seems like a pretty fair compromise.

LOTC doesn't do compromises 

[Pond 1069]

8 hours ago, Wrynn said:

• Traps which cause more than five hearts of damage are prohibited.
• All traps are required to give the trapped individual the ability to escape, including utilizing the lockpick plugin.
• Pathways of escape cannot be able to be blocked off.

no

 

8 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.

no

 

8 hours 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.

no

 

8 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

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.

no

 

8 hours ago, Aeldrin said:

1.2 Restricting where raids can be launched from is dumb and contrary to roleplay.

agreed

[monkeypoacher 8055]

23 hours ago, Aeldrin said:

1.2 Restricting where raids can be launched from is dumb and contrary to roleplay.

 

I'd like to see you defend this, Aeldrin. How is it contrary to roleplay that you can only raid from an established settlement? Wouldn't it make more sense to rally your guys in a fort or a town square rather than in the middle of a field?

 

It's an admittedly vague rule (wtf is a "major freebuild," what counts as launching a raid) but I think the intent behind it is to kill metagaming. You aren't supposed to rally people to coordinates in discord. Characters aren't supposed to be able to telepathically converge on one location. It's restrictive but it enforces roleplay, something that raids are sorely lacking.

[Narthok 10416]

13 minutes ago, xxx said:

 

I'd like to see you defend this, Aeldrin. How is it contrary to roleplay that you can only raid from an established settlement? Wouldn't it make more sense to rally your guys in a fort or a town square rather than in the middle of a field?

 

It's an admittedly vague rule (wtf is a "major freebuild," what counts as launching a raid) but I think the intent behind it is to kill metagaming. You aren't supposed to rally people to coordinates in discord. Characters aren't supposed to be able to telepathically converge on one location. It's restrictive but it enforces roleplay, something that raids are sorely lacking.

Major freebuilds are actually defined in the rules! The definition is pretty specific.

[Monkee 7369]

15 minutes ago, xxx said:

 

I'd like to see you defend this, Aeldrin. How is it contrary to roleplay that you can only raid from an established settlement? Wouldn't it make more sense to rally your guys in a fort or a town square rather than in the middle of a field?

 

It's an admittedly vague rule (wtf is a "major freebuild," what counts as launching a raid) but I think the intent behind it is to kill metagaming. You aren't supposed to rally people to coordinates in discord. Characters aren't supposed to be able to telepathically converge on one location. It's restrictive but it enforces roleplay, something that raids are sorely lacking.

Probably because it calls for launching raids only from nations or major freebuilds, instead of minor freebuilds, despite the fact that bandit raiders typically don't live in either b/c - wait for it - they're bandits, and that's against the law? This eliminates camps, small forts, and other sorts of minor freebuilds, which are the only places where bandit raiders can rally. Better? ?

[Narthok 10416]

2 hours ago, Aeldrin said:

Probably because it calls for launching raids only from nations or major freebuilds, instead of minor freebuilds, despite the fact that bandit raiders typically don't live in either b/c - wait for it - they're bandits, and that's against the law? This eliminates camps, small forts, and other sorts of minor freebuilds, which are the only places where bandit raiders can rally. Better? ?

bandits should... bandit? The roads?

[Unwillingly 18118]

19 hours ago, 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.

Though we need to consider some of the weaker nations with less activity or less of an ability to pull a strong rally in that time. With a thirty man cap, I'm personally expecting that number to be reached and I wouldn't doubt it could happen from time to time. If not thirty, heck, even twenty is a lot of people to raid with. 

3 hours ago, xxx said:

 

I'd like to see you defend this, Aeldrin. How is it contrary to roleplay that you can only raid from an established settlement? Wouldn't it make more sense to rally your guys in a fort or a town square rather than in the middle of a field?

 

It's an admittedly vague rule (wtf is a "major freebuild," what counts as launching a raid) but I think the intent behind it is to kill metagaming. You aren't supposed to rally people to coordinates in discord. Characters aren't supposed to be able to telepathically converge on one location. It's restrictive but it enforces roleplay, something that raids are sorely lacking.

I feel like if the rule of characters needing to be played for more than one day was added, I believe it would also fix this problem. I don't really see why raiders should need to launch raids from an established base. Sure, it might try to prevent meta, but if that's the case then shouldn't GMs always be in the voice chat with both parties to prevent metagaming during the raid (I think that's already a rule but im not sure)? But I dunno, it's just my view. 

[Narthok 10416]

31 minutes ago, Unwillingly said:

Though we need to consider some of the weaker nations with less activity or less of an ability to pull a strong rally in that time. With a thirty man cap, I'm personally expecting that number to be reached and I wouldn't doubt it could happen from time to time. If not thirty, heck, even twenty is a lot of people to raid with. 

I feel like if the rule of characters needing to be played for more than one day was added, I believe it would also fix this problem. I don't really see why raiders should need to launch raids from an established base. Sure, it might try to prevent meta, but if that's the case then shouldn't GMs always be in the voice chat with both parties to prevent metagaming during the raid (I think that's already a rule but im not sure)? But I dunno, it's just my view. 

And those weaker nations should solve these problems rply rather than being propped up by staff. GMs are certainly not in voice chat, that would be a huge ******* headache and would never fly. As for launching form a base. Defenders should have the opportunity to retaliate if they rply know of their aggressors home. Bands capable of assaulting a city need to originate from somewhere. 

[monkeypoacher 8055]

52 minutes ago, Unwillingly said:

I feel like if the rule of characters needing to be played for more than one day was added, I believe it would also fix this problem. I don't really see why raiders should need to launch raids from an established base. Sure, it might try to prevent meta, but if that's the case then shouldn't GMs always be in the voice chat with both parties to prevent metagaming during the raid (I think that's already a rule but im not sure)? But I dunno, it's just my view. 

 

You can't possibly ask the GMs to moderate every single raid that's ever conducted. What you can ask for is a set of rules that makes it difficult for people to metagame. 

 

4 hours ago, Aeldrin said:

Probably because it calls for launching raids only from nations or major freebuilds, instead of minor freebuilds, despite the fact that bandit raiders typically don't live in either b/c - wait for it - they're bandits, and that's against the law? This eliminates camps, small forts, and other sorts of minor freebuilds, which are the only places where bandit raiders can rally. Better? ?

I don't see how this is a bad thing. 

[𝕾𝖙𝖆𝖗𝖌𝖚𝖘𝖍 2451]

Spoiler

 

Quote

 

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.

 

Quote

 

1.2 Raids must be launched from an established base

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.

 

Spoiler

1.1 - I find that players can more than often resolve their own situations and can lead their our combat pursuits, but if it is a large raid I can understand calling a GM though I believe that the broadcast very much goes against the rules of the server and falls under Meta-game.

 

1.2 - I feel indifferent about this. On one hand it prevents the pure PVP bandits who live in small shacks from pursuing a raid unless they have a major build, but cave hideouts are accepted so it's not all too bad. In other words, do not suppress bandits to mere banditry they should be allowed to raid if they pursued 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. If someone is executed or bleeds out during the raid they may not be captured / tped back.

 

Quote

 

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.

 

Spoiler

1.4 - I've personally been moderated by this rule I don't find it quite all that appealing. It is what it is, but I think role-play shouldn't go beyond the action of a raid. Raids should be PVP events and end on that note, and if you are looking to go capture someone and make a train of slaves and prisoners then you could do it any other time beside a raid.

 

1.5 - Indifferent, but I think it must be a designated receiver so there aren't too many of your heads in rotation

 

Quote

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.

 

Quote

2.5 You cannot construct "Instant" Death Traps.

Spoiler

2.3 - On one hand I don't mind the idea for the battering ram, but it seems a bit much for a raid.

 

2.5 - Insta-death traps can seem quite inconvenient for a player at times, but I can find it reasonable to use these traps within the boundaries of RP. As civilizations were built these types of traps were used all over in order to keep from having to use close interaction.

 

Quote

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

Quote

 

5.4 Emotive combat is not raiding

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

2. 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

 

Spoiler

4.3 - That's a bit of a stretch considering they are the victors. That's practically half a month of cool-down without any real materials to recover for the winning side. Instead of rewarding victors the system should be impartial since they won and had nothing to lose, the previous raiders or new raiders will swoop through again soon to try and reclaim what was not obtained the first time around.

 

5.4 - 

1. I find this rule to be very anti-PVP. If I was in a situation I should be allowed to pursue a mechanical resolution rather than sticking with the ordinary RP-battle which occurs literally every single combat scenario.
2. I had always thought raid-baiting had to do with dragging the opposition away from their cool-down region. Raids should be organized with the set numbers instead of looking to strangers to pick up the slack. 

^Post-Script

Guard Default ≠ Defender Default 

 

 

 

 

[Zacho 2177]

Moved to The Great Library. It shall be sorted into the appropriate category shortly.

 

If you feel this is a mistake, please contact myself or any FM and we'll restore it.