Jump to content

[Your View] Not my PvP fort!!!


Fireheart
 Share

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, chaotikal said:

Nerf treb damage if you don’t want Fort Loches, dumb....

 

The war equipment and the war is like league of legends, a metagame. There’s good options, strong options, players will always go for the strongest options. In the current plugin structure, Fort Loche like structures, very wide, very tall cubic forts is the best. this is how castles were designed irl, they were designed as the strongest thing they could build, and these “PVP” forts is what is best in minecraft PVP, and LoTC warfare.

 

Change the meta, change the castles. It’s simple. Nerf Treb Damage, allow it not to do a lot of damage to walls, and you’ll get better looking castles again.

 

- A MessyMedieval Builder.

@Fireheart

 

If you let people build whatever is best, then lava traps, parkour paths and anklebiter supreme will always be the best no matter the “meta” with trebs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fireheart said:

p.s. I hope Med loves me now since this post isn’t locked ❤️

I am sure he does.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Players engaging in a war should be given a full week to build a suitable fort, a suitable fort should be allowed to be a 100 block PVP fort but should have to pass through the development team’s standards through a “peer review” system to ensure build quality. This means that when a warclaim is posted and it is not a skirmish but a siege the warclaim will be delayed a week to give the defenders time to build defenses. Does this make sense IRP? No. Does it make sense from an OOC stand point? Yes.

 

This rule in addition to the review system would ensure that PVP related builds look aesthetically pleasing while still being dependable.

 

For traps, any trap should be allowed provided it isn’t an instant kill trap. Soul sand terrain would be allowed provided it looks pleasing as would trenches, etc. Traps would also fall to the peer review system so if it’s obviously stupid it’ll get removed.

 

For defensive modifications, a major modification should be a modification that affects over 50% of the build in terms of both quality and effectiveness. If anything over 50% of the build is modified it should be reduced by the review system.

 

Finally, we should encourage nations to build forts during peace time and not during wars. There’s no excuse for any nation not to have a fort readily available and would avoid the one week review system if they had an approved fort built prior to any warclaims being posted.

 

Edit: 

 

Treb damage is also stupid, real trebs don’t deal the amount of damage LoTC trebs deal. Please fix their damage output to be less significant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, InfamousGerman said:

^^

trebs cut through builds with far too much ease

 

I agree, if possible they need to make it so trebs are less effective against stone blocks and retain their current effectiveness only against wooden structures and dirt/gravel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If trebs are going to be nerfed remove any possible chance of them malfunctioning, doesn’t make sense that by random rng one piece of sturdy siege equipment can be destroyed just because ‘god’ said so. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think that a compromise between treb damage and malfunction possibility is very appealing. Lower both.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see nothing inherently wrong with “pvp forts.” So long as it conforms to some basic roleplay principles, then building strategically shouldn’t be a crime. Constructing siege defenses are an important and fun part of LoTC warfare and they shouldn’t be constrained by OOC rules based purely on aesthetics. There’s something to be said about enforcing realism in the setting, but minecraft is inherently unrealistic,

 

That being said, LoTC has historically forbidden modifications to forts after a siege warclaim has been posted, for obvious reasons. It defies roleplay to allow players to erect entire stone castles overnight through the OOC power of flymod and litematica. It defies roleplay that a besieged city can gather up the resources to build entire new fortifications on the eve of an assault.

 

If I were in charge of the rules, I would implement a 24-48 hour ‘grace period’ after a siege warclaim is posted for the defenders to make whatever modifications they desire to the target region. During the grace period, flymod will not be given out and the defenders would have to respond to roleplay in game, as though the building was happening in character. After the grace period is up, the region is moved as-is to the war server. No modifications after the grace period will affect the warclaim; no need to argue about “major” vs. “minor” or to check if the defenders followed the rules. It’s easy, and fair.

 

I also agree with this suggestion here:

 

2 hours ago, Kid Mackin said:

I personally think that a compromise between treb damage and malfunction possibility is very appealing. Lower both.

 

Trebs do an unrealistic amount of damage. LoTC’s trebuchets represent the destructive potential of cannons, and like cannons in real life, they practically invalidate the existence of stone castles. Their damage should be reduced, and their reliability increased.

 

Edit: Apparently warclaims have been changed so that a warclaim post no longer targets a specific objective. When you post a warclaim, you aren’t organizing a specific date and time for a battle, but rather organizing an entire “warpath” in a discord chat with a GM. This is dumb, and there’s probably more to talk about with these war rules than just what sort of fortifications are allowed.

Edited by xxx
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jdesarno said:

If trebs are going to be nerfed remove any possible chance of them malfunctioning, doesn’t make sense that by random rng one piece of sturdy siege equipment can be destroyed just because ‘god’ said so. 

 

Or make the chances very very low.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yall forgot about the /b 15 size treb shots Mrgreen did in the seige of thiringrad in 3.0

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/26/2019 at 11:26 AM, chaotikal said:

Nerf treb damage if you don’t want Fort Loches, dumb....

 

The war equipment and the war is like league of legends, a metagame. There’s good options, strong options, players will always go for the strongest options. In the current plugin structure, Fort Loche like structures, very wide, very tall cubic forts is the best. this is how castles were designed irl, they were designed as the strongest thing they could build, and these “PVP” forts is what is best in minecraft PVP, and LoTC warfare.

 

Change the meta, change the castles. It’s simple. Nerf Treb Damage, allow it not to do a lot of damage to walls, and you’ll get better looking castles again.

 

- A MessyMedieval Builder.

@Fireheart

Couldn’t have said this better myself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fortifications

Keep them within roleplay build and landscar compliance. Kill traps, indefinite traps, melee murderholes(ankle biters), soulsand fields, fields of literal fire and floating builds should all be disallowed. 

Warclaim edits

Allow next to nothing once the warclaim is posted. Castles and roleplay hubs should be built with defenses in mind. 

---

Implement structural damage consequences to deter illogical tower builds that force people up ridiculous narrow passages. 


To give input on Chaotikal’s suggestion, this wouldn’t do anything to castle meta. It’d just make the ‘meta pick’ stronger and further imbalance the game in favor of those types of builds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a roleplay server, I feel that forcing forts to include a certain number of “rooms” to be garrisoned could help with forts being entirely built as non-nonsensical deathtraps. Just some ideas: to require, x number of X sized rooms that are clear in function and not trapped, such as barracks, kitchens, storerooms, mess halls, map/planning rooms, armories, a gatehouse with x wide a pathway and access to allow for a sensible flow of troops and supplies. I also feel that adding a “standing structure” effect or something could help as well, if a structure existed for x number of weeks prior to the war, lets say 3, it gets a base benefit for garrison as well / cost reduction. I would also say that forts be separated into tiers based on size, for example 50x50x50 / 100x100x100, and so on, if a fort is of a certain size, it should succumb to a sizable increase in upkeep. Ultimately players should be left to build what they want in so far as meeting certain requirements and checkboxes, along with scaling upkeep based on size and time of building, all skewed towards encouraging rp’d forts with some history to them, and planning ahead, but still allowing for some flexibility if required at great cost.

 

A hardcap on defenders based on the fort at hand could also allow for leniency in defenses, as the numbers would be more skewed towards the attackers, instead of having massive lag inducing war claims for everything, in response, the cost of raising a larger army for attacks could have a scaling price on the upper limit as well, to encourage more of utilizing an army, instead of mustering every last single a player base can manage, which creates a very disabling mindset as both sides in a war attempt to garner as many fighters as possible for every fight, it could instead be focused on those that enjoy the fighting without feeling the need to drag everyone into the fray. 

 

I’d also propose that some sort of running list of each nations standing forts should be public knowledge and readily viewed, as forts are the type of structure that would be common knowledge. If a nation has a fort that was newly built or have not been paying upkeep on, it must pay a logistics fee of however many weeks of the war have transpired for upkeep X 3 or something akin, a rather high cost to promote factions supplying forts earlier on in the war as the scope of things develop, without having to rush in from day one paying for all their forts. In addition to this fee, they would be required to wait an additional week for the fort to become active so some foresight is required. If a fort was not active, it could simply be bypassed and would be forced to remain inactive till the territory was retaken. This allows players in a faction to still freely build without being stopped by staff if they say, own a keep during war but their side is not paying upkeep, but prevents a fort being thrown up on a technicality before a war claim is posted. I would only truly police nonsensical traps, and gamey design such as unrealistic ways for entry to a fort, crazy pathways, narrow tunnels into forts that are supposed to house massive garrisons and keep them supplied.

 

I would also encourage that any fort/keep that is housed by players meeting a certain level activity and having some rp lore surrounding it from said players be given some sort of discount, to encourage people to rp around these structures during peacetime and give a reason to have lands assigned to vassal players, perhaps at certain levels of activity nearing 50% cost reduction or similar benefits.

I feel this is a good direction to go as it would become more clear on what is a fort and what isn’t at a given moment, allow players to still mostly build as they want besides policing traps and requiring some rooms to give backing to the rp claims these forts seem to want to make at times.

As far as siege equipment is considered, I feel what we have now is fine, I don’t like to bring realism into my lotc arguments, but if a defending force wants to sit inside its walls without sallying out, I feel they should deal with the consequences of such an action. We don’t have the time to sit and rp out a realistic siege, so allowing the rapid destruction of a fort with siege I feel finds a decent middle ground. However feel that rules concerning sieging and marching around forts and zones of control is beyond the scope of this feedback though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok but why are you pausing the entire war for this. Just keep it going and then apply the new rules next war or when they are ready. Honestly im getting tired of this war and you changing rules midwar and pausing the whole thing just ensures that it will last well into the summer for no god damned reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tbh if they have to build a fort, just have it like the sort they might’ve had with large spiked barricade, fortified positions such as archer towers and mostly keep it an open battleground.

If they already have a fort, then I think they should feel free to modify it within reason, such as basic repairs and maybe again, spiked defenses to impede the enemy. 

So long as people aren’t building entire, giant stone buildings that rival a castle I think it should be good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...