Archived Enable Pvp Active While On Enemy Claims

[Mafrorific]

I propose that, if technically possible, the PvP Active flag be set once a player enters an enemy claim and remains set until they enter a chunk that is not claimed by an enemy, at which point the normal cooldown would begin.

The main reason for this suggestion is that right now the rules lead to dumbed down PvP with little strategy. For example, traps and certain stratagems are nearly worthless, as death is merely the slightest inconvenience for the raider. That one who is so killed simply respawns, heads through the portal they have set at their target, and is once again harassing their target with impunity within a minute or two.

The current rules also lead to ridiculous situations.

For example, bands of raiders can exploit the PvP Active flag by simply having certain members not attack. These members can distract their targets and soak up damage, while risking nothing. If they die, at worst they have a slim chance of their head dropping...which many players seem not to care about.

Another example is that defenders will stop trying to kill PvP Inactive raiders, knowing it is meaningless. Instead, smart defenders focus on breaking the raider's armor...the one thing that might actually slow down future raids. This can entail defenders using their own health potions on the raiders to keep them alive in order to maximize damage to the armor they are wearing. Inevitably the raider figures out what is happening and then actually removes their armor to protect it...at which point we have nekked raiders running amok (I've already seen this scenario play out on multiple occasions).

As a final example, a PvP Inactive raider can harass even overwhelming defenses with impunity. A single raider can harass a defender that has superior numbers and equipment, knowing no harm can come to them if they don't attack. However, the defenders can't just ignore the PvP Inactive raider because he might kill livestock and pets (seen this), pick up broken blocks and items, find a bed to sleep in (seen this to), or even find a lone defender and try and pick them off. And, of course, local chat will be filled with jeers and taunting all the while.

Lastly, I think enabling the PvP Active flag upon entering enemy territory is more in keeping with the spirit of the rule. It is clearly meant to place risk on those who choose to go on the offensive. Entering enemy territory, whether to spy, harass, or overrun, should be a daring act! It is clearly an offensive action and a real sense of risk should accompany it.

By implementing this suggestion, raids will become more exciting, dangerous, and strategic! Clever defenses, so common in medieval history and fantasy, will also carry more meaning.

Thanks for considering this suggestion!

 

[65jes89]

I completely disagree with this. This would just lead to people sitting there and trapping, as any attacker is pretty much screwed if you get them in a trap. Imo, if an attacker is able to survive in your trap for 30 seconds, they deserve to keep their gear.

 

[Alj23]

I completely disagree with this. This would just lead to people sitting there and trapping, as any defender is pretty much screwed if you get them in a trap. Imo, if a defender is able to survive in your trap for 30 seconds, they deserve to keep their gear.

Click to shrink...

Just to clarify, everytime you said defender you meant the person attacking a faction right?

 

[Alj23]

I like this suggestion for a few reasons, which I'll name and explain below.

• It would hopefully begin to fix the longstanding problem that is defenders refusing to defend their faction during a raid. As it stands, so long as a raider doesn't attack back if they find themselves mobbed by multiple defenders, they lose nothing. Their presence was a mild inconvenience for the defending faction. With this change, defenders have all the reason to step outside and fight, and use strategy to kill maybe at least one person. With this change, the level of risk versus reward that should accompany someone attacking another faction would be present, which is currently nonexistent.
• Real strategy has long since been absent from MassiveCraft PVP. People pass off using the /right/ traits as strategy, when in reality it is the bare minimum of what one could call "strategy." I want to see someone commanding and ordering around soldiers. Coordinated attacks. Concise attack and retreat calls. Scouting before battles to find weak points and gain intelligence. All with the correct degree of risk associated. I feel like this change would be the first step in many in the right direction of utilizing MassiveCraft's full potential to wage fun, engaging, and risky war.

And because what is an argument without a little debate? I'll address the one con listed above so far.

• Sure, you're most likely screwed if you get stuck in a trap. But that's your fault for getting stuck in it. I have been in multiple raids where we knew the threat of traps was very real, and we know we were screwed if we landed in them. That's why we had superior communication during raids to convey information, we didn't run wild through the enemy's base without a care in the world; meaning we looked before we lept and actually thought to ourselves, "Hmm, could this enclosed area with a gate on either side possibly contain a trap?" Logic goes a long way in preventing getting trapped. The ability to trap someone in your base is a viable play-style, one that should be used by everyone regardless of your PVP prowess.

 

[65jes89]

Just to clarify, everytime you said defender you meant the person attacking a faction right?

Click to shrink...

fixed, lol

 

[Zacatero]

The only downside that I'M seeing is that you loose that premium bonus when in enemy territory.

 

[65jes89]

I like this suggestion for a few reasons, which I'll name and explain below.

• It would hopefully begin to fix the longstanding problem that is defenders refusing to defend their faction during a raid. As it stands, so long as a raider doesn't attack back if they find themselves mobbed by multiple defenders, they lose nothing. Their presence was a mild inconvenience for the defending faction. With this change, defenders have all the reason to step outside and fight, and use strategy to kill maybe at least one person. With this change, the level of risk versus reward that should accompany someone attacking another faction would be present, which is currently nonexistent.
• Real strategy has long since been absent from MassiveCraft PVP. People pass off using the /right/ traits as strategy, when in reality it is the bare minimum of what one could call "strategy." I want to see someone commanding and ordering around soldiers. Coordinated attacks. Concise attack and retreat calls. Scouting before battles to find weak points and gain intelligence. All with the correct degree of risk associated. I feel like this change would be the first step in many in the right direction of utilizing MassiveCraft's full potential to wage fun, engaging, and risky war.

And because what is an argument without a little debate? I'll address the one con listed above so far.

• Sure, you're most likely screwed if you get stuck in a trap. But that's your fault for getting stuck in it. I have been in multiple raids where we knew the threat of traps was very real, and we know we were screwed if we landed in them. That's why we had superior communication during raids to convey information, we didn't run wild through the enemy's base without a care in the world; meaning we looked before we lept and actually thought to ourselves, "Hmm, could this enclosed area with a gate on either side possibly contain a trap?" Logic goes a long way in preventing getting trapped. The ability to trap someone in your base is a viable play-style, one that should be used by everyone regardless of your PVP prowess.

Click to shrink...

Honestly though, it often has nothing to do with that type of thing anymore. With the addition of things like knockback 5 cookies, if you're anywhere near a fall trap as an attacker, you're pretty much screwed if you don't get out of there pretty fast.

Also, for fall/string traps in particular, they offer a pretty much guaranteed way for the defender to escape if pacifist is always enabled for enemies on faction land. Ordinarily, in places like wolves' old base, string traps already provide a pretty much perfect way of escape. If you go down where, you're going to end up in a 3 or 4 v1. But even so, there's at least a slight chance you could kill the running defender and then get pacifist in the trap before you die. If pacifist is enabled for enemies, however, the defender becomes essentially invincible as soon as they enter that trap. If if they die from fall damage, the attacker will end up dying eventually, and losing the items, meaning no net change for the defenders anyways.

The burden of raiding is already skewed towards attackers so much it's not even funny. If you pay attention to general chat during raids, there's often a lot of "come raid us instead," because it really does change pretty much everything. So honestly, if you want to pick up the attackers' items, actually fight them, instead of hiding behind a bunch of traps.

 

[Wannag]

Honestly though, it often has nothing to do with that type of thing anymore. With the addition of things like knockback 5 cookies, if you're anywhere near a fall trap as an attacker, you're pretty much screwed if you don't get out of there pretty fast.

Also, for fall/string traps in particular, they offer a pretty much guaranteed way for the defender to escape if pacifist is always enabled for enemies on faction land. Ordinarily, in places like wolves' old base, string traps already provide a pretty much perfect way of escape. If you go down where, you're going to end up in a 3 or 4 v1. But even so, there's at least a slight chance you could kill the running defender and then get pacifist in the trap before you die. If pacifist is enabled for enemies, however, the defender becomes essentially invincible as soon as they enter that trap. If if they die from fall damage, the attacker will end up dying eventually, and losing the items, meaning no net change for the defenders anyways.

The burden of raiding is already skewed towards attackers so much it's not even funny. If you pay attention to general chat during raids, there's often a lot of "come raid us instead," because it really does change pretty much everything. So honestly, if you want to pick up the attackers' items, actually fight them, instead of hiding behind a bunch of traps.

Click to shrink...

Savagely said jes, I agree.

 

[Zacatero]

So Jes is kinda right when he says:

The burden of raiding is already skewed towards attackers so much it's not even funny.

Click to shrink...

Defenders have the "home field advantage" and with this idea... the defenders would have it a lot easier.

 

[Mafrorific]

Defenders have the "home field advantage" and with this idea... the defenders would have it a lot easier.

Click to shrink...

Hold on, this suggestion does NOT make it easier for defenders to kill attackers. It just makes that death - if it occurs - more meaningful to both the attacker and the defender.

Right now raiders "scout" defenses by running in with PvP Inactive and seeing how the defenders respond. That's ridiculous.

Raiders don't and shouldn't have a fair fight against defenders. The rule of thumb in military circles is that attackers need three times the force of defenders in order to have an even chance of winning. If you just want a fair PvP, then you can call out 1v1s or have battles in neutral ground. They did that in medieval days all the time in the form of tourneys. However, if you want to disrupt someone's build and hit them on their home turf, you shouldn't have a get-out-of-jail-free card just by going or staying PvP Inactive. Frankly, it's annoying.

All that said, I'm fine if we reduce the 10% damage reduction for being on your own claim to 5% or get rid of it altogether. The point of this isn't to make it any harder to raid, the point is to make it more meaningful for all involved, attackers and defenders alike.

 

[Zacatero]

Hold on, this suggestion does NOT make it easier for defenders to kill attackers. It just makes that death - if it occurs - more meaningful to both the attacker and the defender.

Right now raiders "scout" defenses by running in with PvP Inactive and seeing how the defenders respond. That's ridiculous.

Raiders don't and shouldn't have a fair fight against defenders. The rule of thumb in military circles is that attackers need three times the force of defenders in order to have an even chance of winning. If you just want a fair PvP, then you can call out 1v1s or have battles in neutral ground. They did that in medieval days all the time in the form of tourneys. However, if you want to disrupt someone's build and hit them on their home turf, you shouldn't have a get-out-of-jail-free card just by going or staying PvP Inactive. Frankly, it's annoying.

All that said, I'm fine if we reduce the 10% damage reduction for being on your own claim to 5% or get rid of it altogether. The point of this isn't to make it any harder to raid, the point is to make it more meaningful for all involved, attackers and defenders alike.

Click to shrink...

I'm sorry I misunderstood the original thought.

 

[Alj23]

Honestly though, it often has nothing to do with that type of thing anymore. With the addition of things like knockback 5 cookies, if you're anywhere near a fall trap as an attacker, you're pretty much screwed if you don't get out of there pretty fast.

Also, for fall/string traps in particular, they offer a pretty much guaranteed way for the defender to escape if pacifist is always enabled for enemies on faction land. Ordinarily, in places like wolves' old base, string traps already provide a pretty much perfect way of escape. If you go down where, you're going to end up in a 3 or 4 v1. But even so, there's at least a slight chance you could kill the running defender and then get pacifist in the trap before you die. If pacifist is enabled for enemies, however, the defender becomes essentially invincible as soon as they enter that trap. If if they die from fall damage, the attacker will end up dying eventually, and losing the items, meaning no net change for the defenders anyways.

The burden of raiding is already skewed towards attackers so much it's not even funny. If you pay attention to general chat during raids, there's often a lot of "come raid us instead," because it really does change pretty much everything. So honestly, if you want to pick up the attackers' items, actually fight them, instead of hiding behind a bunch of traps.

Click to shrink...

Then I would propose the staff stop making items with silly enchantments that have no place in PVP. Using items with enchants never intended for PVP just really defeats the whole process of trying to make PVP more enjoyable. Or, as another solution, keep the items, but a technical change that doesn't let the enchantment work in PVP.

It is completely the choice of an attacker to follow a defender anywhere both people can get into. If you decide to follow a defender into a trap, or even into an enclosed area that doesn't look like a trap, but could be one, then whatever comes out of it is a direct result of the decision you made. Following a defender into a trap is no different from following a defender through a door into their base. Also, the defender doesn't become "invincible" in the trap, the attacker just becomes more prone to losing their stuff if they can't TP out in time, because you know, they're in a trap and stuff.

Making the possibility of loot more availble to defenders would bring them out from inside their base. Implementation of this idea would directly encourage people coming out of their base to fight.

But you might say, "But what if I get trapped? Then they get my stuff with next to no effort."

I cannot possibly fathom why someone would think that if they go raid someone, where they know the possibility of them dying exist, why they think that if they get trapped, they should be able to keep their items by spamming health potions for at least a 30 second period of time, and then leave the defenders with absolutely no compensation for defending their base.

But that's just me.

 

[Zacatero]

Then I would propose the staff stop making items with silly enchantments that have no place in PVP. Using items with enchants never intended for PVP just really defeats the whole process of trying to make PVP more enjoyable. Or, as another solution, keep the items, but a technical change that doesn't let the enchantment work in PVP.

Click to shrink...

I don't agree with this at all. Not all those lore items are intended for PVP, even if it's a sword or axe.

 

[Jackmo_Jones]

Honestly more factions will fight but they will do it the cheapest way possible as they will want to limit their risk and maximise your risk.

Also I don't see this accomplishing anything. What's to keep a raider from coming in with an empty inventory? They can still do all the stuff mentioned in the OP then leave the faction when they are ready to pull all their stuff out of their bp and then go in for the kill.

Another issue I see is this makes it impossible to use your bp in the middle of a raid so you would have to leave the whole faction just to repot.


Oh and isn't setting home spawn in enemy territory against the rules? Has that changed?

 

[Mafrorific]

Another issue I see is this makes it impossible to use your bp in the middle of a raid so you would have to leave the whole faction just to repot.

Click to shrink...

I don't think players should be able to access their backpack while in the middle of a raid. You get 36 slots for weapons and pots as it is! If you really need another 54 slots for use in a single battle, then you're probably just spamming health pots trying to get to PvP Inactive anyway. Having to actually plan out an attack in order to consider when is the best time to withdraw in order to repot is part of making combat more strategic, which is a big part of what this suggestion is all about.

And from a RP and realism perspective, to me your backpack should be where you pull from in order to restock your immediately accessible items (your inventory) between battles, without having to head home or carry an ender chest. That's pretty powerful in and of itself.

 

[MonMarty]

This idea has some merit. I don't know what the immediate tech implementation options are, but we will be looking into changing the entire pvp flagging system to make it a lot less roleplay oriented and more oriented to the idea that if you get raided, you should defend yourself or not be there.

 

[65jes89]

This idea has some merit. I don't know what the immediate tech implementation options are, but we will be looking into changing the entire pvp flagging system to make it a lot less roleplay oriented and more oriented to the idea that if you get raided, you should defend yourself or not be there.

Click to shrink...

I honestly don't see how this is really PvP oriented. As far as I can tell, it encourages nothing but trapping, which isn't really beneficial for the pvp community anymore than just sitting inside and hiding is.

 

[Alj23]

I honestly don't see how this is really PvP oriented. As far as I can tell, it encourages nothing but trapping, which isn't really beneficial for the pvp community anymore than just sitting inside and hiding is.

Click to shrink...

Something cool that they might be able to do is a flag that essentially reads "oh, this player was hit and took damage by another player, and not just any old damage like lava or harm potions." It would be like the last version of Pacifist, where if you got hit, you got flagged as false.

So essentially, in enemy territory, if you get hit by another player, you get flagged pacifist false, and when you die you lose your inventory. If an attacker hits someone, it flags them pacifist false as well, just like the current system, so if they hit you, you fight them and then get them low and they pearl away and die to fall damage, you still get the loot. If you get trapped and simply die because of harm potions or lava, you die, but you don't lose anything. A defender would have to physically come in the trap with you and try to kill you.

Hell, maybe change the flag so it only drops the person's stuff if the killing blow is by a player, and doesn't drop if the killing blow is any other type of damage (except if the attacker hit someone, then they are flagged PVP true anyway). Promotes actual fighting for loot, trapping for just killing the player if you don't care so much about the loot.

 

[65jes89]

Something cool that they might be able to do is a flag that essentially reads "oh, this player was hit and took damage by another player, and not just any old damage like lava or harm potions." It would be like the last version of Pacifist, where if you got hit, you got flagged as false.

So essentially, in enemy territory, if you get hit by another player, you get flagged pacifist false, and when you die you lose your inventory. If an attacker hits someone, it flags them pacifist false as well, just like the current system, so if they hit you, you fight them and then get them low and they pearl away and die to fall damage, you still get the loot. If you get trapped and simply die because of harm potions or lava, you die, but you don't lose anything. A defender would have to physically come in the trap with you and try to kill you.

Hell, maybe change the flag so it only drops the person's stuff if the killing blow is by a player, and doesn't drop if the killing blow is any other type of damage (except if the attacker hit someone, then they are flagged PVP true anyway). Promotes actual fighting for loot, trapping for just killing the player if you don't care so much about the loot.

Click to shrink...

That could be pretty easily fixed. It's quite easy to set up a situation using half slabs where the defender can hit someone while the attacker can't.

 

[Alj23]

That could be pretty easily fixed. It's quite easy to set up a situation using half slabs where the defender can hit someone while the attacker can't.

Click to shrink...

It is completely the choice of an attacker to follow a defender anywhere both people can get into. If you decide to follow a defender into a trap, or even into an enclosed area that doesn't look like a trap, but could be one, then whatever comes out of it is a direct result of the decision you made. Following a defender into a trap is no different from following a defender through a door into their base. Also, the defender doesn't become "invincible" in the trap, the attacker just becomes more prone to losing their stuff if they can't TP out in time, because you know, they're in a trap and stuff.

Click to shrink...

Can't have it both ways bub.

 

[65jes89]

Can't have it both ways bub.

Click to shrink...

What? It's quite different to be attacking someone in a trap where they can't hit you and actually pvping...

 

[onearmsquid]

If I may add my opinion in this, say this does get implemented, some people will abuse this and invite allies/friends over, bring them into a building then enemy. Instantly making them PvP active and just slaughter them. I also agree that it will increase trapping, not saying trapping is a bad thing, but it will just even more drive the PvP aspect of MassiveCraft to the grave. Perhaps if there was a /f war command that both factions agree to, then that may work but we already have the war declaration system.

 

[Gerrior]

In all honesty this is a great suggestion. I see a lot of this in other games as well; raiders siege a base/faction and take their stuff then "/home" or whichever the command is they can easily go home with no debuff on staying on enemy grounds. If I've read this correctly, Attackers would be unable to /tp anywhere while on an enemy chunk which leads to multiple key points:
1. You're raiding someone.. You know the risks of possibly losing your kit/ unsure what to expect.
2. Just because you're Premium doesn't mean you should be in God Mode 24/7.
3. Justifiable for both Attackers and Defenders alike, PVP Active Buff should be in play so falling for a Defenders trap shouldn't be easy to escape..
4. Allows for some more thoughtful actions, more thought out plans other than hack and slash, /tp home..

You have my support as I know the struggle of defending against raiders whom just /tp when they're in danger... From a Raiding perspective, I want to feel the sense of risk, I personally don't like to run in without a Plan A, B.

 

[Zacatero]

Here is the way I see it. PvPers buy premium for a few reasons… One of them being keep inventory upon death.

What is the point of having the keep inventory feature if its disabled on enemy territory? You may as well just remove it altogether, making premium a little less worth it. The server would never do anything to risk loosing donations. And in my eyes, and remember this is my opinion, it seems this idea will do just that.

 

[Gerrior]

Here is the way I see it. PvPers buy premium for a few reasons… One of them being keep inventory upon death.

What is the point of having the keep inventory feature if its disabled on enemy territory? You may as well just remove it altogether, making premium a little less worth it. The server would never do anything to risk loosing donations. And in my eyes, and remember this is my opinion, it seems this idea will do just that.

Click to shrink...

Fair point, then it would have to limit which section maybe would be at loss for Premiums? I mean yes it sounds overpowered in the sense that premiums pay to keep but they're also playing dangerous games by going into uncharted enemy territory.

 

[Madus]

if technically possible

Click to shrink...

It is

 

[Kushiban]

If this happens, nearly all factions will just put up dozens of redstone traps instead of actually pvping. Why would they pvp, and risk losing gear themselves, when they can just set up traps every few chunks and outside doors to kill the raiders?

 

[Arvallon]

Here is the way I see it. PvPers buy premium for a few reasons… One of them being keep inventory upon death.

What is the point of having the keep inventory feature if its disabled on enemy territory? You may as well just remove it altogether, making premium a little less worth it. The server would never do anything to risk loosing donations. And in my eyes, and remember this is my opinion, it seems this idea will do just that.

Click to shrink...

May I add that they still keep items when gathering resources in dangerous enviroments... they still keep items while darkrooming and dying due to being overwelmed. they still keep items when defending and not fighting. they still keep items when in the neutral regions when just ambushing players when there not fighting.

There is plenty of reason for that feature to remain even if it looses effectin enemy territory...

 

[AgentLew]

Just a possible edit to this idea, to maybe smooth down the "Severity" level that some people are seeing from the main idea:

Premium players, upon pvp active deaths in an enemy claimed chunk, keep whatever items are within their hot-bars(alongside their basic keeping of what they have in their armor slots, of course). So basically, instead of them loosing their "Precious" items that would mainly include ender-pearls, whatever weapons they use, their food source(if needed with their trait-build), and whatever else that clutters someone's hot-bar(most likely pots). The only lost items would be a majority of potions or loot, adding a minor feeling of danger to being within an enemy claimed chunk, while not having a major impact on their arsenals(lest they keep their weapons out of their hot-bars?). Of course, there's the factor that if a scout were to only run about with a hot-bar full of stuff, and he's killed or he dies due to his own decisions/mistakes that he'd essentially lose nothing. In all honesty I see nothing wrong with that chance/probability since someone who actually pvps is more than likely to have his 27 other non-hot-bar inventory slots filled to the brim if he fancies not dying.

'Cause guys, let's be completely serious here, if you end up in a trap of any kind, even after having someone scout the area or fighting in the area before, it's your fault for ending up in there.

 

[onearmsquid]

One of the main features of premium is to keep items on death, but they have pacifist system, non-premiums can kill prems, it's not that hard, you use bows and such. Just because you kill prems in traps and they stay alive for that 30 seconds, then they should be allowed to keep items. I mean come on, if you can't kill someone in 30 seconds and they can't hit you back, you should be ashamed. @65jes89 I miss you. :'(

 

[Mafrorific]

I mean come on, if you can't kill someone in 30 seconds and they can't hit you back, you should be ashamed.

Click to shrink...

Quick story.

A couple weeks back some of our PvPers went raiding. I recall the target was Raptum. One or two of our guys were (foolishly) charging into Raptum's base repeatedly, getting trapped inside it, and then being killed by Raptum's superior numbers. We had more raiders online than Raptum, but Raptum divided us and then killed us - smart tactics.

However, our guys didn't care.

Why? Because as soon as the battle inside the base turned against them, they ran back to the door (which was closed to them) and threw splash pots of health at their feet for 30 seconds. If needed, those of the raiding party who had been stuck outside also threw splash health pots against the door, healing those trapped inside. More times than not those splash health pots kept the trapped raiders alive for the 30 seconds it took to go PvP Inactive, at which point they turned, smiled, and died.

As those Raptum defenders were reminded that day, an enemy in full P4 with an inventory of splash pots can be hard to take down in 30 seconds, even without open space to run.

 

[onearmsquid]

Quick story.

A couple weeks back some of our PvPers went raiding. I recall the target was Raptum. One or two of our guys were (foolishly) charging into Raptum's base repeatedly, getting trapped inside it, and then being killed by Raptum's superior numbers. We had more raiders online than Raptum, but Raptum divided us and then killed us - smart tactics.

However, our guys didn't care.

Why? Because as soon as the battle inside the base turned against them, they ran back to the door (which was closed to them) and threw splash pots of health at their feet for 30 seconds. If needed, those of the raiding party who had been stuck outside also threw splash health pots against the door, healing those trapped inside. More times than not those splash health pots kept the trapped raiders alive for the 30 seconds it took to go PvP Inactive, at which point they turned, smiled, and died.

As those Raptum defenders were reminded that day, an enemy in full P4 with an inventory of splash pots can be hard to take down in 30 seconds, even without open space to run.

Click to shrink...

Valid statement, I do recall that in this situation, someone with a kb sword or such can get inside the person hiding in the door, and knock them away. I have done it with Sevak back when I owned Valyria.

 

[HeartAched]

I don't like this idea. If you run out of pots and you cannot fight anymore, you cannot escape, especially when you're getting ganked by multiple people. Especially with factions that have walls that are non-enderpearlable (Afrovia) from the inside.

 

[HeartAched]

That could be pretty easily fixed. It's quite easy to set up a situation using half slabs where the defender can hit someone while the attacker can't.

Click to shrink...

I remember someone accusing me of doing this saying it was illegal???

 

[Zacatero]

I remember someone accusing me of doing this saying it was illegal???

Click to shrink...

nope. this is totally legal. IF in doing this you prevent the defender from typing or whatever else makes a trap illegal then ya its also illegal.

 

[HeartAched]

nope. this is totally legal. IF in doing this you prevent the defender from typing or whatever else makes a trap illegal then ya its also illegal.

Click to shrink...

the only traps that are illegal are portal traps that kill the person that went through them.

 

[Zacatero]

the only traps that are illegal are portal traps that kill the person that went through them.

Click to shrink...

Not true. Also illegal are traps that prevent the trapped person from typing.

 

[HeartAched]

Not true. Also illegal are traps that prevent the trapped person from typing.

Click to shrink...

The only way you can prevent someone from typing is from hitting them into a portal that doesn't work. There isn't any other way except for suffocating which I'm pretty sure still allows them to type.

 

[Kushiban]

Not true. Also illegal are traps that prevent the trapped person from typing.

Click to shrink...

It's not typing, it's not being able to tp or die. For instance, an afk fountain. You can type, but you can't die or tp out so... you're just trapped. >_>

 

[Mafrorific]

I don't like this idea. If you run out of pots and you cannot fight anymore, you cannot escape, especially when you're getting ganked by multiple people. Especially with factions that have walls that are non-enderpearlable (Afrovia) from the inside.

Click to shrink...

Wow...just...wow.

This is yet another example of exactly why this change is needed. If you pick a fight that you can't win inside an area that you can't escape, then there should be some consequence when you lose. Right now there is none. That's the whole point.

Implement this rule and PvPers will have to actually use their brains alongside their buttons. Scary, huh?