Lets Talk About PVP

[Aeus 2653]

Spoiler

Feliz Mes de la Herencia Hispana and Shana Tova

 

 

Pvp on LOTC has always been somewhat controversial. Some people love it, some people avoid it, but most people fall somewhere in between. Personally, I’ve not enjoyed it on the server very much. I’m not a pvper myself, but PvPhas always been a way to progress the story on the server, and I believe we should be putting as much effort into a good and fair system as we do with any other part of the server.

 

With 10.0 getting finalized and transfer being right around the corner, I think now is the perfect time to make some much needed changes to the war system and PvP on the server.

 

The Current State of PvP:

━━━━━━━━━━━━━

 

Right now, pvp runs on Surge which was made (and never finished) by an alphabet banned player. The system was made quickly and without much thought – just to get something out at the start of 9.0. The plugin is subsequently not well maintained, and the updates we get are random patches in which javelins do 3 times more damage. 

 

Some of the bigger issues in my opinion are:

 

• Gear complexity: There are a lot of different weapons and armor in Surge, a lot of things that often don’t get used and just add to the difficulty in upkeep, and balance issues. Some gear dominates, others are for the most part useless.
• Stats imbalance: On top of the different swords, bows, armors etc., there is also difference in quality, things do different damage, or the effects change depending on the quality of the gear you’re wearing. It gives an edge to grinders who also tend to be the better pvpers, defeating the purpose of going back to 1.8 for the “accessibility” it provides to more players.
• Outdated system: LOTC went back to 1.8 in an attempt to make pvp more accessible to people, but really all it has done is make fights look different, not necessarily fairer.
• Abandoned plugin: Surge is a half-finished plugin that for the most part is being ignored at best to work on other things, which is understandable for the duration of map change. 

 

In conclusion, we need a simpler (finished) plugin with less bloat. The kits should be simplified and made easier to grind for. It should also be standardized across the board so that people who focus more on RP or don’t have the time outside of work to craft 100 netherite swords in hopes of getting an excellent or legendary sword.

 

Warclaims and Lag

━━━━━━━━━━━━━

 

When it comes down to warclaims, none of this really matters if the server is running at 5 TPS. Wars that decide the outcome of nations end up being a slideshow in which people are dying to lag or random damage than actual mechanics. 

 

The war system as a whole feels boring as well. Often times, its conducted in a single warclaim – most likely a siege that then leads to a tile transfer. I think with the tiles being far bigger, with multiple cities and vassals in one, the system needs a massive overhaul. Personally I’d like to see warclaims be done on main, and for tile conquest for there to be two warclaims (Field battle and siege for example). 

 

1.8 vs 1.9

━━━━━━━━━━━━━

 

One of the reasons made to make the switch to 1.8 was spam clicking will be easier, making pvp more accessible to roleplayers. But that’s not really what the issue with pvp was in 8.0. The best pvpers in 8.0 were the same last map. In the battle of Westmark, the Ferrymen were able to beat the coalition decisively even though another reason for the switch was to attempt to curb Ferryman influence on the server.

 

Every popular pvp server has made the switch over to 1.9. It’s easier to maintain, upkeep, and its more in line with what the rest of the game is moving towards. Non pvpers aren’t suddenly winning more fights than they were before. The difference now is that pvpers don’t need to be as careful, since the meta no longer requires people to kite the whole map to win the fight. 

 

I believe that pvp on LOTC isn’t going to get better by sticking with the Surge plugin or pretending 1.8 evens the playing field for everyone.  We can make fights fairer and create a newer system that isn’t unfinished or thought out. I’m curious to know what you think about pvp, both from the veteran pvpers of the server to those of you who have only touched a sword to kill a cow or two. 

 

What version, war system, and kit set do you actually want to see? What have you noticed has worked best for you or your community, and what is your opinion on the current system as a whole?

 

Spoiler

@Tide1 @Malta @LobsterLarry @Werew0lf @Mickaelhz @Vikenz @pkdon @Mio @Masouri @Nectorist @Lenny @Unwillingly @Jaelon @Gamma @Irishmanmichael @ErosTea @Axelu @Greehn

 

[trinn 5128]

i know werew0lf is breathing down ur neck danny boy 

[LobsterLarry 1514]

In Minecraft, pvp on 1.9 has a much higher skill ceiling and makes it a lot harder to get better at than 1.8 for newer players, so existing pvpers would have an already massive advantage on 1.9 if they've played it before, especially on lotc. If the goal is to curb the ferrymen like stated, then keeping it 1.8 would be better, as its a lot easier to just spam click someone than to be able to precisely time all of your hits, your w taps, and everything else in a fight, and it is not as easy to take a 1v2 (As the 2) in 1.9. 1.8 pvp does not allow for these skill gaps to make a huge difference, and it is very difficult to win a 1v2 (as the 1) in 1.8.

I think gear needs to be more scarce, with mines not pumping out as many resources for gear, or maybe even making gear more expensive, as last map there were individual players who had double chests of gear at their disposal throughout the entire map. Gear should be rarer as to make it a much bigger deal when you do lose it, or gain it. It should cost more by a lot, that way there is an actual risk to taking a fight, so that there will be less inclined to jump you with the sole idea to just click you to death, and be more CRP oriented. PVP Groups in general do both just so they can ego that they win everything, but if you made their gear harder to get, it would be a lot harder for a pvp group to stomp out a nation, as it should be.

[Zqppy 918]

3 minutes ago, LobsterLarry said:

In Minecraft, pvp on 1.9 has a much higher skill ceiling and makes it a lot harder to get better at than 1.8 for newer players, so existing pvpers would have an already massive advantage on 1.9 if they've played it before, especially on lotc. If the goal is to curb the ferrymen like stated, then keeping it 1.8 would be better, as its a lot easier to just spam click someone than to be able to precisely time all of your hits, your w taps, and everything else in a fight, and it is not as easy to take a 1v2 (As the 2) in 1.9. 1.8 pvp does not allow for these skill gaps to make a huge difference, and it is very difficult to win a 1v2 (as the 1) in 1.8.

I think gear needs to be more scarce, with mines not pumping out as many resources for gear, or maybe even making gear more expensive, as last map there were individual players who had double chests of gear at their disposal throughout the entire map. Gear should be rarer as to make it a much bigger deal when you do lose it, or gain it. It should cost more by a lot, that way there is an actual risk to taking a fight, so that there will be less inclined to jump you with the sole idea to just click you to death, and be more CRP oriented. PVP Groups in general do both just so they can ego that they win everything, but if you made their gear harder to get, it would be a lot harder for a pvp group to stomp out a nation, as it should be.

I think the idea of "curbing the ferrymen" is an outdated prejudiced idea.

If anything higher skill ceilings just makes it so Battles are more realistic and smaller more dedicated groups can have just as much of a sway in a warclaim or raid as the massive noob blobs

[trinn 5128]

15 minutes ago, LobsterLarry said:

In Minecraft, pvp on 1.9 has a much higher skill ceiling and makes it a lot harder to get better at than 1.8 for newer players, so existing pvpers would have an already massive advantage on 1.9 if they've played it before, especially on lotc. If the goal is to curb the ferrymen like stated, then keeping it 1.8 would be better, as its a lot easier to just spam click someone than to be able to precisely time all of your hits, your w taps, and everything else in a fight, and it is not as easy to take a 1v2 (As the 2) in 1.9. 1.8 pvp does not allow for these skill gaps to make a huge difference, and it is very difficult to win a 1v2 (as the 1) in 1.8.

I think gear needs to be more scarce, with mines not pumping out as many resources for gear, or maybe even making gear more expensive, as last map there were individual players who had double chests of gear at their disposal throughout the entire map. Gear should be rarer as to make it a much bigger deal when you do lose it, or gain it. It should cost more by a lot, that way there is an actual risk to taking a fight, so that there will be less inclined to jump you with the sole idea to just click you to death, and be more CRP oriented. PVP Groups in general do both just so they can ego that they win everything, but if you made their gear harder to get, it would be a lot harder for a pvp group to stomp out a nation, as it should be.

 

tbh id argue Making gear more scarce and difficult to grind doesn't actually postively impact the average roleplayer more, and instead is favoured towards "pvp groups". PvP groups who are "inclined to jump you with the sole idea to just click you to death" will always prioritise and incline themselves to gaining gear, and ultimately spend more time doing that and PvP-ing than roleplaying. They'll get the gear, and they'll probably get more by killing people as they're (presumably and hopefully) better skilled at it and prioritise getting those extra gears

 

What I'd argue this does is put the burden on the average roleplay nation and community, necessitating an absurd amount of time and effort actually being funneled into "grinding" exhaustively just to make sure your community is adequately armed. People who are more inclined for roleplay / CRP now are less inclined to take risks and conduct meaningful roleplay because they dont have the necessary resources to fight back or do so, and are generally more burdened by unnecessary difficulties to just keep up with mechanical gear. They have to spend more time getting gear, whereas otherwise they'd rather just rp. 

 

mind u, making sure your community is armed is going to be more burdensome than making sure your 3 pvp goon friends are armed

[Vikenz 1162]

Get rid of gear levels and keep it plain and simple. 
There are levels of complexity to gear that give an imbalance that'll favor the people who grind more for PvP sets, which, and always will be, pvpers. Keeping it simple and retaining 1.8 allows for the average noob or just average noob army in general to have a substantial chance to beat a PvP rally. 
 
1.9 will give the advantage back to the pvpers; This is why Pvpers are trying to bring it back. Just keep it to 20 health, have one bow/crossbow, and one weapon used for PvP. Also, get rid of horse whistles. 

Keeping a plain 1.8 pvp, can still have a gap for pvpers, but they'll have to rely on using their actual brain rather than having a legendary set that can drop you in 6 hits from autoclicking. 

[Jaelon 418]

A reminder that PVP is always an avenue for evil to prosper.

 

 

[LobsterLarry 1514]

7 minutes ago, Vikenz said:

Get rid of gear levels and keep it plain and simple. 
There are levels of complexity to gear that give an imbalance that'll favor the people who grind more for PvP sets, which, and always will be, pvpers. Keeping it simple and retaining 1.8 allows for the average noob or just average noob army in general to have a substantial chance to beat a PvP rally. 
 
1.9 will give the advantage back to the pvpers; This is why Pvpers are trying to bring it back. Just keep it to 20 health, have one bow/crossbow, and one weapon used for PvP. Also get rid of horse whistles. 

i agree with this.

[Xarkly 17299]

16 hours ago, Aeus said:

  Reveal hidden contents

Feliz Mes de la Herencia Hispana and Shana Tova

 

1.8 vs 1.9

━━━━━━━━━━━━━

 

One of the reasons made to make the switch to 1.8 was spam clicking will be easier, making pvp more accessible to roleplayers. But that’s not really what the issue with pvp was in 8.0. The best pvpers in 8.0 were the same last map. In the battle of Westmark, the Ferrymen were able to beat the coalition decisively even though another reason for the switch was to attempt to curb Ferryman influence on the server.

 

Every popular pvp server has made the switch over to 1.9. It’s easier to maintain, upkeep, and its more in line with what the rest of the game is moving towards. Non pvpers aren’t suddenly winning more fights than they were before. The difference now is that pvpers don’t need to be as careful, since the meta no longer requires people to kite the whole map to win the fight. 

 

I believe that pvp on LOTC isn’t going to get better by sticking with the Surge plugin or pretending 1.8 evens the playing field for everyone.  We can make fights fairer and create a newer system that isn’t unfinished or thought out. I’m curious to know what you think about pvp, both from the veteran pvpers of the server to those of you who have only touched a sword to kill a cow or two. 

 

What version, war system, and kit set do you actually want to see? What have you noticed has worked best for you or your community, and what is your opinion on the current system as a whole?

 

  Reveal hidden contents

@Tide1 @Malta @LobsterLarry @Werew0lf @Mickaelhz @Vikenz @pkdon @Mio @Masouri @Nectorist @Lenny @Unwillingly @Jaelon @Gamma @Irishmanmichael @ErosTea @Axelu @Greehn

 

 

I think you're mistaking the point of 1.8 to 1.9. This just feels like career PvPers talking to the detriment of the rank-and-file RPers which has always been the big mistake in system design. Tagging specific empire or defycord people to contribute is sort of testament to that fact -- it's a system that needs to be designed for everyone to use and not certain people.

 

It wasn't to promote anyone as a better PvPer or make fights faster anything, but to make it easier for just your average RPer to be able to pick up a sword and contribute to a fight. The reality is that 1.9 takes more of a rhythm and understanding in order to actually land hits in a fight, and nation grunts generally require some training as to how to effectively fight in a warclaim.

 

1.8 doesn't, so pretty much anyone on the whole server can jump in and at least contribute.

 

I prefer 1.9 and I'm better at 1.9; but 1.8 is better for the server.

 

[FlemishSupremacy 6115]

Gear should be made cheaper. Honestly, keep the prices as they are right now on the temp map. Last map, if you wanted a full set of gear, you needed a ton of leather and about a stack of netherite. That means that if your rally of 30 got wiped out, you'd essentially have to spend 30 hours in the netherite mines. This then discouraged people from rallying to fights they were likely to lose, to avoid losing the gear. Pvpers frequently complained that the other side would not rally in response to their raids.

 

If people had double chests of gear, that typically was because they had sat in mines for hours on end and spent a lot of time grinding instead of RPing, which I don't think we really wanna encourage. 

 

25 minutes ago, Aeus said:

One of the reasons made to make the switch to 1.8 was spam clicking will be easier, making pvp more accessible to roleplayers. But that’s not really what the issue with pvp was in 8.0. The best pvpers in 8.0 were the same last map. In the battle of Westmark, the Ferrymen were able to beat the coalition decisively even though another reason for the switch was to attempt to curb Ferryman influence on the server.

I still think pvp in 1.8 was made more accessible. Numbers matter a lot more in the 1.8 system than in 1.9, and the average non pvper noob will be able to do more in a 1.8 system than in a 1.9 system where they might miss 10 swings in a row while in a big fight.
While Veletz n the ferrymen won a very impressive vicotry at Westmark, this was because the coalition brought too few horses and was thus tactically blunted. They could not replicate this in the next battle when the coalition. I'm fairly confident that in a 1.9 pvp system, it is very likely the coalition would have lost several more battles. 90% sure we'd have lost the fight at whitespire that kicked off the war, and possibly more warclaims. If you don't know what you're doing in 1.9, it is very easy to do next to no damage in a fight, and it showed in the numbers that the ferrymen could manage last map. 1.8 DOES level the playing field. 

 

32 minutes ago, Aeus said:

The difference now is that pvpers don’t need to be as careful, since the meta no longer requires people to kite the whole map to win the fight. 

The one fight you cite, Westmark, was won by very carefully kiting and using the slow movement speed of the netherite armed enemies to their advantage. They didn't win that fight by just running in and out pvping them, so I don't really see how you think this is correct. 

Keep pvp 1.8, but simplify it, if you ask me; cheap, readily available iron kits, no item rarity, keep it vanilla 1.8.

[PrimnyaQuorum 3999]

LoTC is a RP Server. I'd happily arm my demons with PvP gear if it didnt demand I /realmjoin nation xyz and then get added to the keys to the nation mine and then slop in the mines for 6 hours only to lose all my work if I lose a singular fight.

 

I would frankly argue everyone should get a base PvP kit of regular iron armor and be able to pick what weapons you want [not all of them obv] while still being able to produce gear through nation mines. If I do not have to stop RPing to prepare for the clicks, I will feel like its more enjoyable to RP up to clicks and then go click because the "loss" isnt in the 5 sets of high quality gear that took me 20 hours I just "lost" the encounter, which is just a /shrug. 

 

Anything this point would be a good step forward to replacing the function of PvP from a way to avoid lore you dont like to just another alternative method of conflict. 

[Islamadon 9158]

My biggest gripe personally is that conquest warclaims requires nations to gobble up, what was it, 2/3rds or 3/4ths of another nation's tiles to be considered valid? It artificially draws out a war when historically (both IRL and ingame), nations usually fall when the capital is taken. If the Capital is next door to an attacker's tile, it is very silly that the attacker should have to conquer practically everything else before the capital.

 

If we're being realistic, most LOTC wars these days are decided after the first two warclaims, and the momentum carries through unless the attacker's alliance breaks down. It wastes everyone's time to do week after week after week of war claims because of arbitrary rules if the capital can be reached faster. Makes the attackers annoyed, and the defenders have to dread, doomsay and be embarrassed constantly.

[Frostdrop1 1843]

Frankly, I don't like PVP. PVP is, at current, a big back-patting contest of the same players who loop around and give each other stuff for being great at PVP, then memeing about it. You can see this very same attitude in the Empire, which is more or less the most grand coalition of PVP-centric mindset right now, with their post about naming the badlands after the player with the most kills ( which is not inherently bad it just happens to be another thing on the big list of stuff which piles up); that every shot-caller acts like a teenager when in VC, drunk of having a little control; how the same players loop around their boomsteel weaponry and we're seeing the same sorts of people temp banned over the behaviour and arguing that 10 year old Timmy can totally manage it; how their rallies within the city were pitifully poor emote quality and then instead just had a massive gang of people PVP some folks who were communicating pretty fairly; how their sheer architecture was built with dodging the /break of windows because they're so utterly mechanically 'win' oriented - these things are not isolated. It is, at heart, a culture with the inability to allow your imagination to do all the work, a lack of care towards the every day interactions on the server perhaps stemming from an inability to map empathy onto how they interact(?) which pushes for bigger-scale conflict because not much else is engaging to them and leaving the day-to-day rp to rot in its wake. As a result, this has left Empire RP to suck unless you're part of the 'in' group, and this is how PVP has always been because it's far more focused on OOC relationships and the general mentality of palling about with the lads.

These people sit and congratulate each other and can manage to rp with each other really quite well (the empire, given that its the current state, is really great at rp but ONLY top-down... and guess whose at the top?) while alienating a large group of people who, frankly, feel anxious, worried and upset with the state and inclination for PVP. Nobody should be forced into a system that fosters this kind of in v out grouping because it feels distinctly gross. 

I use the Empire because its super current, but this is not an Empire issue. It's a PVP culture issue which has extended into the Empire due to who's involved. This doesn't mean that I can't point to individuals that I know operate in great faith and have whoever they're interacting with at heart - but they are the exception imo, not the rule. I think the culture of PVP on the server is the single biggest issue as someone so ardently against it because its a social system built around peer pressure, excessive demands, evening gaslighting and insulting, mockery and diminishment of others OOCly which leaks into so much of the server until certain sections just feel icky.

Secondly, the fact that the top PVPers want to genuinely want to engage people with the system is nice because they're relaxed and can have fun with the system for what it is. But people also need to see that this relaxed and chilled state is not a universal truth for lots of people on the server regarding PVP,  which can leave quite the viscal and raw impact for a myriad of reasons over what should fundamentally be nothing difficult (and this is why the 'I would rather get the fight over with' argument isn't exactly working to convince lots of folk). However, this is only a first step and the engagement has to last - and it can't properly be sustained without smashing apart this thorn that makes PVP and its adjacent groups so intolerable and without having the empathy to realise that putting people in states of adrenaline can be a distressing experience, not merely just unfun, that can be very suddenly dropped on you at any point.

In other words, it's just volatile and likely kind of nasty unless its directly between friends. The majority of players are not, in fact, hurrendously nasty but they can start engaging with rather unwelcoming behaviours when they're immersed in the PVP culture side of the server.

I don't really know how one goes about solving this - but I greatly suspect it would be to do with breaking up the gang of top-dogs who routinely big-up each other and pull the same kind of nonsense in regard to PVP. I think to do that the PVP system would quite literally need a complete re-work from the ground up to incorporate things beyond normal minecraft mechanics and encourage it to simply play different to minecraft. To be your character, not your super-sweaty PVP clicker self. To incorporate things like magic - even animii and defense systems, things which are otherwise COMPLETELY discarded by the mechanical systems we're provided at current, which would likely in turn make these things less of a butt-of-the-server joke. I also think we need to take on board a culture that holds the more mean-spirited people fully accountable because the damage they do just isn't worth it.

Although, being real, I don't think the entirely mechanically-focused players would play ball. I think they'd just min-max and continue to do as they're doing now and I'm even more unsure how one could avoid someone just min-maxing.

[Nectorist 12869]

Long thread warning...

 

I think that the benefit making the 1.9 -> 1.8 switch was less about making the playing field even to limit PvPer influence (that can still be done via wars, and PvPers will always have an advantage) but instead to speed up fights. People forget that even small raids on 1.9 took FOREVER, even when people weren't hiding behind forts, because the swing timers and 20 hearts of health made it hard to ever actually get downed. PvP on the server is at its best when it isn't dragged out. 1.9 does the opposite of that.

 

For the war system, staff just need to pick one of two philosophies to guide them when making war rules:

 

1. Because wars are almost always imbalanced, they should allow the various parties to have a wide range of strategic options available to them in order to produce more dynamic outcomes. (Hasn't been tried before)

 

2. Because wars are almost always imbalanced, they should be made to be as quick and decisive in order to facilitate political change and post-war RP on the server, which keeps things from being stale. (How wars used to be)

 

The problem with the war systems we've had since like Almaris is that they combine the worst of the two. They are both EXTREMELY slow and lack any nuance besides "whoever shows up with the bigger rally wins." Given the nature of the "one big blob" style of warclaims, most wars are kind of decided within the first week anyway. Since 2014, there have only been four major wars where one side lost the opening warclaim, but then came back to win another warclaim (and of those, only one actually saw the side who lost the first warclaim win the war). What worked back in the day was that wars wrapped up pretty quickly.

 

The 5th Empire fell after three warclaims in five weeks back in 2016. The War of the Wigs took nineteen weeks, during which four warclaims were fought. The end result was like 1.5 tiles being taken from Oren. My ban provided a more dynamic resolution than nineteen weeks of war did. 

 

In the three coalition wars that Mog's Renatus fought to conquer the world, the total time spent for each war, combined, was ten weeks, during which eleven warclaims were fought. The War of Crown and Crozier took about eight weeks with seven warclaims being fought. This looks like a good ratio, but then you see that five of these were just beating up a small rally from Balian that had no chance of winning. Had it not been for basically the entire coalition dropping out just a couple of weeks in, it would've taken over twenty five warclaims, even though the war had essentially been decided from week one. 

 

What's obvious is that it's just not healthy for the war system to be bogged down by a bunch of redundant warclaims. Any solution under option 2 would have to reduce the number of weeks spent fighting warclaims, either by doubling up warclaims on the weekends or limiting the amount of warclaims needing to be fought to take over a nation. The biggest driver of RP on this server is political change, and the interactions between player groups that results from that. Having the political fallout of wars occur sooner, and having it be more decisive, is a good thing. 

 

If staff would like to be ambitious and totally reshape the war system, you'd probably need to pull in a lot of players from the community to make option one a success. Stuff like war fronts, army movement, warclaims held on the main server, giving more weight to raids and leader captures, etc, are potential routes to go. It would be really tricky to manage, maybe even a bit cumbersome, but it's your best bet at actually giving underdogs a chance to put up a fight. It would also make the slog of a long war just a bit more interesting, because it would be layered in strategy that goes beyond "okay, what tile are we required to attack next". Something like that is probably worth another thread or discussion channel on its own.

[Nectorist 12869]

25 minutes ago, Islamadon said:

My biggest gripe personally is that conquest warclaims requires nations to gobble up, what was it, 2/3rds or 3/4ths of another nation's tiles to be considered valid? It artificially draws out a war when historically (both IRL and ingame), nations usually fall when the capital is taken. If the Capital is next door to an attacker's tile, it is very silly that the attacker should have to conquer practically everything else before the capital.

 

If we're being realistic, most LOTC wars these days are decided after the first two warclaims, and the momentum carries through unless the attacker's alliance breaks down. It wastes everyone's time to do week after week after week of war claims because of arbitrary rules if the capital can be reached faster. Makes the attackers annoyed, and the defenders have to dread, doomsay and be embarrassed constantly.

A fun stat is that it took 11 weeks for Veletz to be conquered. Veletz was outnumbered on an average of like 190v120 for most of the warclaims, which meant we had almost no chance of winning except for one basically-unrepeatable exception. It was a 3-month slog for basically the entire server to just beat down on one nation, which could've realistically been done in a couple of weeks.

 

The saga of the fall of the 5th Empire, the rise of Courland, and the fall of Courland in 5.0 took 22 weeks. Twice as long, but filled with a ton of wars, plots, intrigue, and sweeping political change. And this was considered to be a down period for that map that people don't remember all that fondly. 

 

The easiest fix to the war system is just allowing more things to happen at a faster pace, not slowing everything down with multiple required warclaims that don't serve much purpose beyond prolonging the inevitable.