PVP/RP BLOGPOST 2021

[louislxix 3198]

 

PvP Blogpost 2021

 

Hello and welcome to 2021s PvP and villainy blogpost. I’ve been playing a villain but more so a bandit since the start of the map, being last december, and over the course of these seven months I believe myself to have some suggestions on the matter. Alongside myself and my fellow bandits, we all understand that the server shouldn’t be entirely PvP or RP centric, so with this in mind we have tried to conjure some halfway points. 

 

With the way raiding and general banditry is, it has essentially boiled down to discussing rules for 2 hours for 10 minutes of PvP leading to no narrative at all. And I know it sounds foolish saying PvP and narrative in the same sentence, but what I mean by that is, there are no goals for raiding or banditry. There are no defined ways to win a raid, or roleplay a raid except for winning the PvP. Raiders will spend 10 minutes being gate trapped with no way inside, just to call it a day and leave. Defenders will gate trap for 10 minutes and win the raid, leaving a heavy 3 or 4 day cooldown, and for what? To help make raids more interesting I suggest this:

 

We have two different variants of raids; Small raids; Large raids. (Remember that all of these numbers have obviously not been tested, and all are subject to change, if this is even appeased by the staff of the server.

 

Small raids will work as they currently do now:

 

Up to nine players may partake on the offensive side of a small raid.

A modreq must be made.

They will have no other means to enter inside of a city except for the opened gates. No ladders, no battering rams, et cetera.

These are primarily used for smaller groups, who are wanting to get the jump on an event or open city with no planning made otherwise.

 

However, in the current system, these smaller raids do not have any consequences. The reason defenders sit behind their walls and gates is because there are absolutely no consequences or results for defending a raid. For example, the Ferrymen wanted to steal supplies from the ISA’s wartime supplies, but moderation did not allow such. This was due to the reasoning of “RP CANNOT HAPPEN DURING RAIDS.” After the raid was called off, we were forced from the tile and couldn’t do anything as a result of the raid either. 

 

If there are consequences to raids, there is an incentive to defend your city and citizens. Instead your citizens just don’t join the PvP and let you hide away, and not fight - huzzah - the raid is won. Realistically, if a raiding party entered a city they would be able to pillage, loot and bandit the citizens, et cetera. They can do whatever they want to do if the defenders don't defend. On LOTC, the raiding party can enter the city but have no impact on the raid whatsoever. The defenders are at liberty to sit behind their walls or gate for 30 minutes and call PvP off. This adds nothing to any narrative. Consequences create the narrative and a story behind raiding, but without consequence comes not narrative and only toxicity.

 

Large raids will work as they currently do now: (This will of course require more mod oversight and preparation.)

 

Up to [redacted] amount of players may partake.

Some sort of initial cost of [X] mina that the attackers need to pay for maintenance of men.

Require either staff approval beforehand, or stricter RP reasoning than typical raids. 

A predefined raid goal must be set, for example; raiding the bank for mina; kidnapping a person for later ransom; interrupting an event to demand [X].

This must be broadcasted across the server. For example, [!] Scouts of your city have seen men wrapped in green and equipped with siege weaponry marching the roads towards Providence. The men and women of Providence have thirty minutes to prepare!

The previously named siege weaponry will be anything from:

Ladders. [Itemised ladder crates can be bought from CT, and only one member of the raid can wield them, for example 16 ladders may be used.]

A singularly bought battering ram from CT.

The defender should have an equal or greater reward for winning a defensive battle then the attackers gain. (This is to provide more reasoning for rallying to defend than not to show up to the attackers.)

The buyout price of [X] mina from the attackers will be given to the defenders if they win.

The raid leader may be taken by the defenders if they win the raid.

These raids should have clear victory conditions on both sides. Either side gaining something from the declared raid.

 

---

 

Bandity and raids are currently some of the only conflicts to happen on the server, which makes little sense when all of the battles are uncreative, dull or just not cool. Even in this war, the lack of battles or story to serve between the two warclaims were disturbing. To sum up a 10 year war, there were two big battles and a couple of player-organised raids. Dynamic battles and PvP should be focused to happen more frequently on the map. 

 

The only fun example I can think of from the top of my head were two pre-arranged battles with Urguan and Norland. Both of these battles highlight how dynamic PvP is fun and how it can work. Engaging the Urguan rally first at Urguan, but Urguan also lettered Norland to help them in battle. Even though PvP was ongoing and turned on, the Ferrymen engaged the Urguan rally and Norland later showed up to assist their allies. They joined mid-fight into the PvP.

 

This created a dynamic battle, which spanned the roads of Urguan’s territory. They had to first attack the Urguan rally, then attempt to intercept the Norland rally on the roads. As they were fighting, Urguan joined the massive combative frey. This battle was back and forth and the story this dynamic fight created was much more impressive and cooler than “We engaged Urguan, and killed Urguan.” To create more exciting battles like these two, here are my suggestions:

 

Remove raid caps and raid cooldown on roads and allow allied armies to join mid-pvp.

 

This will hopefully create these road battles where allied armies join together to fight intruding parties of bandits or an enemy army. No raid caps or cooldowns on roads will fix two things; banditry and poor battles. Big battles can happen on roads, as well as bandity will be revived on roads as there is no reason to bandit and waste a CD on a tile.

 

Allied armies joining mid-pvp (if contacted) creates a dynamic sense of PvP and RP relations, where either reinforcements can join the battle, or the two armies have to coordinate to fight the attacking force. This adds more story than a simple one battle fight. Everybody can vouch that Ferrymen vs Norland & Urguan fight was some of the most fun they have had on the server this map. 

 

If not by rules, nations should try to cooperate and create these cool battles on the roads.

 

---

 

Outside of raiding I would also suggest more open skirmish field battles, at the moment there is little to no reason to leave the safety of a city, or to go out and fight. Saying that, I would suggest this:

 

An open-world sort of King of the Hill location on the map; (This will have to be heavily coordinated, with a system or two being thought up, and put into p6lace.)

 

As example, a fort would be used at this location, inside of the fort would be valuable resources/nodes that are well fought over, being:

ST Mining nodes.

Some other resource that people will want to keep hold of.

Every week (or [X] amount of weeks) there is some sort of mini warclaim where anyone on the server can attempt to take the fort from anybody else. Whoever wins the events will hold the event until the next event.

To keep this away from being entirely PvP based, we suggest that the events alternate from PvP sieges/fights, to RP sieges/fights where more siege weaponry and RP-based advantages are used.

During the week, have the zone be turned into a “warzone” of sorts. With extra nodes or mini events held within, allowing for anybody looking for combat to contest an area and fight. (This encourages less toxicity, as the nations which have grown for 5 IRL years are not under any real threat.)

All of these systems should primarily serve both RP and PvP at the same time. Adding something more than just PvP, for example, scheduled ST events on the locations.

For example, a bandit held fort will attack anybody nearby, or wanting to get inside.

This is to be tested more so;

In the zones, keep inventory and remove armour durability damage, so people can PvP without the constant waste of gear. Though, during the larger events, this should be reversed, where inventories are dropped and armour durability is damaged.

 

---

 

Another thing I believe could do with some work, albeit extensive work is the way the map is currently laid out:

 

Roads are too long, and don’t have speed. Killing roadside RP. Roads should have speed on again, and the map should be smaller. (This is far fetched and likely too late to fix now, but this should be kept in mind for any maps in the future.

 

---

 

Groups that find themselves in conflict often query this gap in the rules, a dilemma;

 

If a group is called into a city of +9 for something they might have committed, to stand trial as example, if they are attacked, do the defenders default to only being able to have 9 men allowed? Or can they use the rally they came with?

Should they be subject to the raid cap even if they came to resolve the conflict peacefully?

You can bring your rally to a feast or diplomatic meeting, and if fighting breaks, do your allies have to watch 9 of your men fight?

Instead of subjecting 9 people to the rules. Those inviting these groups to feasts or diplomatic meetings should keep this in mind, and RPly tell the group to only bring a certain number of people instead.

This ties into everything, thinking things RPly through instead of thinking that you can use a gap in the rules, and later just attack 9 people with your rally of 20+.

 

---

 

Without wanting to make this post too long, I want to leave on a few notes. Being that there are two ends to stick to PvP or Roleplay, and that PvP or Roleplay should always stick to their narrative, and if the systems don’t work for the narrative, it should be defaulted to the other. As I think much of the PvP vs RP problem derives from poor mindset, or either group sticking to what wins. By offering more PvP-esque things to do, and making sure RP isn’t taken away from it, I think these systems would provide quality of life for both sides. Where we can all get along for once. 

 

PvP default being called in an assasination or fleshed out roleplay to avoid RP consequences should not be allowed as it doesn’t play to the narrative.

Bandits on the road shouldn’t rely on trying to fit in PvP default when a good RP narrative from the situation is going on.

The way I see it, both CRP and PvP are way too competitive, and I don’t know the fix for it, but I would enjoy some more lighthearted skirms between groups. And as for CRP, more villainy to be encouraged without being stomped out immediately. (It’s finding the balance between reward and not outright demoralising either party.)

Going from this, I’ve personally been playing in both Oren and the Ferrymen, two sides which are constantly at ends with each other. The competition between both sides is too tense for what it is, and Orenians patrolling roads to combat Ferrymen should not be a thing that is just so daunting. In recent times though, I’d like to think this has improved a lot.

 

---

 

I would love to hear feedback from all sides on the server. Though, I know everybody also loves to get antsy about these posts, so try to keep things respectful! This is what would personally make the server more fun for me, so I’d like to hear what would make it more fun for you.

 

Mod decisions should be quick and consistent during raids. It’s better to have a wrong decision which is solved in minutes. Rather than waiting 3 hours for conflict to start, through messaging every moderator and admin what the right path of action is.

Thank you to those who gave some of this feedback, being:

@MasonMcBadbat

@ryno2

@Nooblius

@The60thPvp

@FlemishSupremacy

@Masouri

[Lickspittle 695]

This is great feedback that provides solutions. Hopefully it is implemented!

[Masouri 2735]

+1.  (give me rep for epic feedback)

Edited June 8, 2021 by Masouri

[helldiving 5793]

yub

[Elite Snipes 3563]

Reserved 

[Mescaffier 6197]

You're very based don

(Crying cus I'm not on the SS tho...)

[ARCHITECUS 4788]

Responding to the first italicized paragraph bordering on hysterics:

The same level of lawyering is practiced on the offensive side. Raiders will sprint jump in to a city and demand no one be allowed to oppose them but a small group caught roleplaying near the gate. If defenders are not allowed to defend, they're forced to pull every advantage they can to weather through the abuse.

Liberal PvP reform isn't going to help anyone. Anything shy of a reconsideration of how we handle our whole conflict & war system is going to be half-assed and changed in 3 months.

[Asutto 2452]

Please +1

 

Gear isn't in enough supply for battles like this to happen every other day. If you have two 50v50 battles one after another and most everyone gets popped, many nations won't have enough gear to fight any more battles for a while. Perhaps if this was to be implemented tech should look at reducing the cost of making gear.

 

Lastly, who would decide if an assassination attempt or something similar is a fleshed out roleplay? I could several problems being created when someone is attempting to assassinate HOWEVER, the defend wants to call PVP default since they don't feel like the assassination is targeted against their character but rather they are targeted because they happened to be alone. If that was the case, to me that would be just a random ganking opposed to a fleshed out roleplay experience and thus the defend should be allowed to PVP default that.

[ibraheemc2000 2965]

I approve this message 

[Fionn__TWG 2795]

The suggested raid rules, in my opinion, are very needed. If not these, then something along the lines of it. Raids need to be an thing where rp is allowed. After all, surely the raiding party has to be there rply, and if they are, why can't rp happen? There should definitely be a reward for the winning party to encourage the attacking party to properly prepare, and for the defending party to rally and call on their allies. Otherwise, raids are nothing but a way to get people on the server to argue for 2 hours and fight for 10, just for half of them to get off right after. Very good post here by mr don, and these rules should definitely be considered.

[Orlanth 4667]

 

57 minutes ago, Asutto said:

Gear isn't in enough supply for battles like this to happen every other day. If you have two 50v50 battles one after another and most everyone gets popped, many nations won't have enough gear to fight any more battles for a while. Perhaps if this was to be implemented tech should look at reducing the cost of making gear.

I believe this was planned, with Vortex crafting being removed and adding the ability to craft old gear together for higher durability gear. 

[monkeypoacher 8055]

LoTC PvPers are trapped in a prison of their own creation. There is a perpetual dissatisfaction felt by bandana roleplayers because they derive enjoyment from challenge but do not seek out any. PvP is most fun at large numbers between nearly even sides, so of course the eternal bandana avoids any potentially outnumbered combat, picks on lone roleplayers and kites across the map, denying himself any satisfaction. 

 

There are good ideas in the OP but it comes down to what Alty said; attackers game the system and then are frustrated when defenders game the system more effectively. The reason the raid rules are such an abhorrent repressive labyrinth is because players are allowed to exploit loopholes and act without any sort of good faith. If the rules do not prevent you from sprinting 10 dudes into a city without roleplaying you will do it.

 

Meaningfully changing the raid rules would necessarily require changing attitudes. There is a reason these rules are rewritten seemingly every few months; they are a fundamentally untenable compromise between people who play this server for entirely different reasons.

 

You're not wrong but it's very funny to hear about how lotc pvp is "too competitive" and how bandits shouldn't "rely on pvp" for narratively interesting encounters. People have been complaining about this for half a decade and countless people have been driven off our server by LoTC's insistence to graft a weird PvP metagame onto role-play. The same brain affliction that drives a man to make gangster rap pvp montages prevents him from enjoying conflict on this server, they are diametrically opposed attitudes.

 

The one thing I really can't argue w/ you about is that the current war system is deeply stupid. All of the buildup and suspense surrounding a player war gets thrown out in 1 to 2 laggy skirms, it would be way cooler to have a drawn out dynamic warzone with real consequences, and this would ironically solve some of the logistical & moderation problems involved with wars. Fingers crossed I hope Telanir sees this.

 

 

[𝕾𝖙𝖆𝖗𝖌𝖚𝖘𝖍 2451]

I'd like to start off by saying the balance of PVP and RP was one of the major reasons why I enjoyed the server. Since the bar fell more towards slice of life rather than playing your role made it very dull. Playing a role since the start was one of the major foundations of the server so it's not like that will ever change. Most people who actually complain about getting raided and causing a role-play to be ruined also have all the liberty to take their role-play elsewhere to avoid it and let the guard respond.

 

Villainy has always been a very broad definition for conflicting interests. There are some nations with cultures that are darker in worship than others, yet stand as a main race. Usually the offender is always stuck as the 'villain', but the conflict of interest is the cause. A Human army raiding an Elf city would cause the Humans to be considered attacking villains even if they were doing it to provide for their own people.

 

Minor Villainy would fall around things such as raids and such, but there is always a means to an action. A /true/ villain would be those that cause grief beyond measure. This would be an example of the Undead, who attempt to cause complete ruin yet have no place on the server as a community anymore.

 

Most communities are often formed as cliques but I have always seen banditry as a smaller group of friends taking up a small role rather than taking up power as a Lord. As for raiding, when I first joined the server during Vailor the appeal of a raid was similar to that of a Guild Monster Hunt. Instead though, it was a PvP clash between cities and very popular activity that allowed people to rally through Skype. The moment a ping was sent into chat about an incoming battle would cause almost everyone to hop online immediately to defend. It wasn't seen as something majorly important but rather as a rallying activity, because the only thing gained through victory are items and most of the time they weren't moderated because groups could dynamically rally and fight it out on their own.

 

One of my main issues with the raid rules currently is that peacetime raids are discouraged greatly allowing merely a family of 5 as a max cap. Yet regardless of a win or a loss for the 5 man peacetime raiding party allows the defending city to be on cooldown for 2.5 days (12 hours per player) or nearly half a week. The cooldown gives the city a few days to recover, but is intended to suppress any further raiding even though realistically you could do the server vote for a single day and obtain nearly a full set of armor back through the Auction House. War Raids are almost just as a bad because instead of being a minor raid where loot is simply the outcome, instead they added a way to encroach upon enemy territory by establishing a war camp through victory. 

 

I'm not sure war-zones would even come back as an alternate to war raiding. These days though unfortunately the rules suppress a lot of dynamic conflicts from occurring, which includes mods pushing OOC chat delaying a raid in progress for hours. Frankly, it is quite depressing because these kind of activities create high energy for player activity and participation. I think it is very deteriorative to suppress small conflicts like these not only because it is a very fun activity but what is the point of having Monks if people don't die? They are there for a reason to practice making sure that regardless of what actions you take to progress your character doesn't mean the end due to Monk Revival, because that it solely up to your own story and decision.

 

Spoiler

I have always seen this as the most appropriate approach on combat for a medieval role-playing server to progress conflict while allowing players to actually spend time to progress their characters based on their role.

1-2 Player(s): Duel [Occurs daily]
2-4 Player(s): Brawl [Occurs daily]
5-20 Player(s): Raid [Occurs 5-10 times monthly with a cooldown relative to grief caused]

20-40 Player(s): Skirmish [Scheduled]

40-100+ Player(s): Warclaim [Scheduled]

 

Though something that might take away from spam raiding would be if groups actually competed for node resources based on environments that they must show up early or skirmish for to obtain, but unfortunately each community is gifted their own resources/mines. Some miners would have to compete with other miners, and if they couldn't work a compromise would force their ambitions to leave morality behind and use force to obtain what they want. This can be applied to almost any skill or occupation useful in a society.

((apologies for big response))

 

[Orlanth 4667]

7 hours ago, monkeypoacher said:

LoTC PvPers are trapped in a prison of their own creation. There is a perpetual dissatisfaction felt by bandana roleplayers because they derive enjoyment from challenge but do not seek out any. PvP is most fun at large numbers between nearly even sides, so of course the eternal bandana avoids any potentially outnumbered combat, picks on lone roleplayers and kites across the map, denying himself any satisfaction. 

 

There are good ideas in the OP but it comes down to what Alty said; attackers game the system and then are frustrated when defenders game the system more effectively. The reason the raid rules are such an abhorrent repressive labyrinth is because players are allowed to exploit loopholes and act without any sort of good faith. If the rules do not prevent you from sprinting 10 dudes into a city and attacking a lone AFK guy someone will do it. 

 

Meaningfully changing the raid rules would necessarily require changing attitudes. There is a reason these rules are rewritten seemingly every few months; they are a fundamentally untenable compromise between people who play this server for entirely different reasons.

 

You're not wrong but it's very funny to hear about how lotc pvp is "too competitive" and how bandits shouldn't "rely on pvp" for narratively interesting encounters. People have been complaining about this for half a decade and countless people have been driven off our server by LoTC's insistence to graft a weird PvP metagame onto role-play. The same brain affliction that drives a man to make gangster rap pvp montages prevents him from enjoying conflict on this server, they are diametrically opposed attitudes.

 

The one thing I really can't argue w/ you about is that the current war system is deeply stupid. All of the buildup and suspense surrounding a player war gets thrown out in 1 to 2 laggy skirms, it would be way cooler to have a drawn out dynamic warzone with real consequences, and this would ironically solve some of the logistical & moderation problems involved with wars. Fingers crossed I hope Telanir sees this.

 

 

 

[monkeypoacher 8055]

5 minutes ago, Orlanth said:

 

you seem to be leaving out a major L.