Archived A Little More Thought Out Suggestion To Raid Rules.

This suggestion has been archived / closed and can no longer be voted on.
Status
Not open for further replies.

thor5648

Ever Waiting
Joined
Nov 14, 2012
Messages
422
Reaction score
733
Points
0
Location
Weast
First off yes I am banned, benalex made some good points but all together gave me a headache due to some of the stuff on there. Do not get into fights on this thread or flame or I will ask for it to be locked, provide positive feedback and explain why, if you do, disagree. Enjoy.

I think something like this is fair: there may be such peaceful factions, they will have a peaceful flag. They may not enemy anyone, or they will lose this flag, rp factions can have what they want as long as they follow the terms, in return the reasons for raid would be trimmed down a bit, you still need a logical or rp reason so people just can't go lul raiding. There would be a place to apply for campaigns such as evil campaigns (like valyrias) these would have to be very well though out and have propoganda included, and would be veryyyy hard to get approved to the point where you can enemy the whole server, and almost all lore compliant. The next would be the classic "raiding for recourses" these would be maxed at only attacking 1/4 of a continent, one can only do these once every 75 days after it ends, and would also be considerably tough to get approved. Also if you say this would be more work for the staff, I've counted over 5 rp staff who have not done any lore writing or character apps in the past week. Also assisting allies would be a Legit reason. Another thing that should be legal is if faction A is at war with faction B, but faction C is supplying faction B with supplies, if faction A gets proof, they can enemy faction C and put it in the war declaration. Also make tribute a little less expensive, factions like mithril would have to pay like 5,000 regals which isn't really doable even with 50 members. Thanks for reading my opinion.
 
Last edited:
This suggestion has been closed. Votes are no longer accepted.
I disagree with the idea that evil factions must make propaganda...Everyone knows Bloodshed is a vampire faction OOC but Id rather not make In character propaganda to highlight "HEY GUYS WE ARE VAMPIRIC HEATHENS AGAINST THE CHURCH" ...just dosnt seem very subtle.
 
I disagree with the idea that evil factions must make propaganda...Everyone knows Bloodshed is a vampire faction OOC but Id rather not make In character propaganda to highlight "HEY GUYS WE ARE VAMPIRIC HEATHENS AGAINST THE CHURCH" ...just dosnt seem very subtle.
Hmm you do make a good point, if more people feel the same I will edit it out. Also not sure if I wasn't clear on it, but evil factions who are wanting to enemy the whole server, must make propaganda is what I said.
 
Hmm you do make a good point, if more people feel the same I will edit it out. Also not sure if I wasn't clear on it, but evil factions who are wanting to enemy the whole server, must make propaganda is what I said.
Oh, that actually makes more sense.
 
Would personal spite be considered a logical reason. Currently my biggest problem with the raid rules is the fact that personal spite cannot be grounds for raiding even though it makes sense that "Faction A is talking shit in the forums, so Faction B raids them to shut they mouths"
 
Would personal spite be considered a logical reason. Currently my biggest problem with the raid rules is the fact that personal spite cannot be grounds for raiding even though it makes sense that "Faction A is talking shit in the forums, so Faction B raids them to shut they mouths"

I have a feeling this is in regards to my set of comments that resulted in the Raptum-Okyno war. In which case it took Raptum about half a second and less than half a brain cell to come up with "for teh moneyz" as a perfectly legit raid reason, something I have no issues with.

Regarding the OP, I like it. It would make it possible for people who don't get into wars of their own accord to mind their own business and keep building/roleplaying while also allowing factions that seek to be part of pvp to wage war with less limits.
 
I have a feeling this is in regards to my set of comments that resulted in the Raptum-Okyno war. In which case it took Raptum about half a second and less than half a brain cell to come up with "for teh moneyz" as a perfectly legit raid reason, something I have no issues with.

Regarding the OP, I like it. It would make it possible for people who don't get into wars of their own accord to mind their own business and keep building/roleplaying while also allowing factions that seek to be part of pvp to wage war with less limits.

No mech I am just a firm believer in fighting my own battles I have come across many times where raiding out of personal spite was not allowed so I couldn't fight.
 
No mech I am just a firm believer in fighting my own battles I have come across many times where raiding out of personal spite was not allowed so I couldn't fight.

While I don't have immense dislike of raiding out of personal spite, is it that hard to come up with a roleplay reason like "for money and resources" or "because they wronged our great king, the Sargent Peppers"?
 
While I don't have immense dislike of raiding out of personal spite, is it that hard to come up with a roleplay reason like "for money and resources" or "because they wronged our great king, the Sargent Peppers"?

I don't make up bs RP reasons. It goes against why the rule was made and is toxic to the environment. I just wish my intense ooc dislike for the several people of the server could be captured into a legitimate RP reason.
 
I don't make up bs RP reasons. It goes against why the rule was made and is toxic to the environment. I just wish my intense ooc dislike for the several people of the server could be captured into a legitimate RP reason.

"Thee have angered our mighty God-King, <insert your character name here>! Now yee must give us what we demand or die by our great blades!" :)
 
I'm fairly certain that doing so would be against the rules... and probably wouldn't affect the RP, since the aggressor never said who annoyed him and why.
As I read it, the king is angry at <player name here>, if said character were to die, the king would have absolutely no reason to continue raiding. Killing off a character is entirely in the players hands, and if it ends a raid that is all the better. It encourages RP that means something besides spitefulness.
 
As I read it, the king is angry at <player name here>, if said character were to die, the king would have absolutely no reason to continue raiding. Killing off a character is entirely in the players hands, and if it ends a raid that is all the better. It encourages RP that means something besides spitefulness.

It was "Our great king, <insert KINGs name here> is angered! Surrender or die!" lol :P
 
To be completely honest Thor, It seems like a lot of work to enemy everyone on the server/make a world war. I don't see why you can't just make a rp reason to raid globally(everyone) and make it logical to raid empires/singleFactions.
When I say role play reason I mean the reasons people are using now.
 
Would personal spite be considered a logical reason. Currently my biggest problem with the raid rules is the fact that personal spite cannot be grounds for raiding even though it makes sense that "Faction A is talking shit in the forums, so Faction B raids them to shut they mouths"
I don't think that's a very good reason at all. Here is an example for you. I once had an enemy faction who was lead by andrewh-something, I had never met this person before, nor had I ever RP'd with him. Then one day we were near each other before back when spoutcraft was something the server was encouraged to be played on. (for those who don't know spout showed enemy lables over a player's head) I asked him why we enemied and he stated this "Well personally I just find you annoying in global chat and I don't like you." As you can imagine I was a bit angry. But it also shows that would be a poor reason to raid someone just because you have a personal vendetta against them.
 
I think personal spite could only be considered possible under some circumstances, such as someone continuously flames you in and out of game, then you would be able to enemy every faction they go to, but I could also see some immature people getting a disagree on their post on the forums, and using that as a raid reason. I don't think that the personal spite rule should be changed, I just think that what falls under personal spite should be.
 
Kinda off topic, but one of the major things wrong with RP reasons is especially with factions that just flame / troll / rage at you OOC, then you can't enemy me them because you haven't got any RP reason. It basically allows players to have a huge bark but no bite.
 
Kinda off topic, but one of the major things wrong with RP reasons is especially with factions that just flame / troll / rage at you OOC, then you can't enemy me them because you haven't got any RP reason. It basically allows players to have a huge bark but no bite.
Personally I have never seen this or I misunderstand what you mean.
 
Another reason you might get some trouble for is, if they ask for a roleplay reason, you respond with "Some people just want to see the world burn", though that might work...
 
Look all my buds who i know irl get enemied for this kinda reasons: We need souls. We need people to offer to our mighty godess etc etc. This is not rp at all first of all no rp characters would die if not allowence from the faction getting attacked nor does a big thread on the forum saying we need souls or something be a reason to attack the weak. Hasn't anyone noticed yet. Because i've got feedback from my friends saying: They just create a lil'Rp thread explaining why they can attack everyone. Magnanimus was legit, as they wouldn't only start attacking one noob faction with loads of stuff. Though i have heard Raptum does different and @SkysohMC had this nice reason to enemy my friends saying, I need bodies for my god , because something with a water wall. So there you go a nice random reason to attack noobs and say they are evil, though when my friends told they wanned to help he sed: no lol.
For everytime toku forgot
May Chet be with y'all.
Only reply when real debatting, i want no: But the admins told it was right. Im not here for facts but for opinions.
 
I am not 100% sure about this, but I believe raiding out of true dislike rather than just "You annoyed me in global." "You have an annoying voice in TS"<-(If only this was legit) For example, to my knowledge Tom1804 raided Osai owned by Octobergwen at the time because a falling out between the two. Of all the complaints in this war not a single one was that the war was invalid because it was out of spite, so therefore I actually think that this is legal as long as it isn't just randomly picking a fight.
 
I am not 100% sure about this, but I believe raiding out of true dislike rather than just "You annoyed me in global." "You have an annoying voice in TS"<-(If only this was legit) For example, to my knowledge Tom1804 raided Osai owned by Octobergwen at the time because a falling out between the two. Of all the complaints in this war not a single one was that the war was invalid because it was out of spite, so therefore I actually think that this is legal as long as it isn't just randomly picking a fight.

I really dont want to start a flame war, but it wasnt just because of a "Little falling out". A lot more happened behind the scenes.
 
I really dont want to start a flame war, but it wasnt just because of a "Little falling out". A lot more happened behind the scenes.
I am not the expert on this however, it does seem that anything that happened behind the scenes between the individuals would still stay true to my belief that it was a example of rule abiding raiding out of spite . However if you are implying there was a ulterior motive for this besides personally feelings than just regard everything I have said as coming out of my ass.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.