Archived Incentives For Factions To Specifically Defend Themselves.

[Alj23]

As of late, the topic of factions refusing to surrender or defend themselves when being raided has been brought up in mass on the forums. As of currently, neither side has reached an agreement on what would fix the problem. Some people want there to be increased negatives that essentially "force" a faction to defend themselves, or face worse consequences. MonMarty brought up a good point, that some ideas should be presented in a model that leaves out benefits to the attackers, and solely focuses on benefits to the defenders, and rather how we can get them to begin defending themselves. Below are my ideas and explanations of them. Note that I am not proposing ideas that would encourage the defending faction to surrender or be forced to, but to actually go out and fight, so they can either realize that they can win and will continue to fight whenever raiders show up, which is what pvpers want, or that they can't win, but at least have peace of mind that they tried, and can now possibly consider surrendering as the most viable option.

Before I begin my ideas, I would like to point out all the innate bonuses defenders already have. Do correct me if I added something that is not true, or missed something and failed to put it.

• 10% damage reduction in faction land.
• Another 15% damage reduction if you are a premium.
• Ability to take cover in public housing that enemies cannot access.
• Superior knowledge of your own base.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ideas

• When raiders steps into enemy territory ( /f enemy relationship true ) they are automatically flagged as pacifist false, and will remain pacifist false until they leave enemy territory and then avoid dealing damage for the current cool down time.

If raiders were to immediately become flagged as pacifist false when in enemy territory, that would mean that if the defenders can kill a raider, loot is guaranteed. The prospect of gaining loot almost motivates everyone, and will hopefully motivate players to defend their bases from raiders, and possibly earn loot in the process.

• Revert to the old pacifist flag system, where if someone attacks another player, both the attacker and the victim become pacifist false.

What this means, is that if you are attacked by another player, both of you become pacifist false, even if you do not strike back. This is both good and bad. People who are killed, but never attacked back lose their inventory, or everything in case of non premiums, but if you manage to kill a premium raider that would normally not lose their inventory since they did not attack back, they still lose their inventory, and thus there is more punishment for them dying. This way, you cans still chase an enemy out of your faction territory, continue the chase, and there is still the possibility of getting loot if you kill the raider.

• The idea of " Battle fatigue " for raiders.

After raiders spent ' x ' amount of time in enemy territory, they get adverse side effects on and off. Example: After one hour spent in enemy territory, you get random bouts of nausea or say slowness. This would possibly encourage raiders to make their raids shorter, benefiting people who do not enjoy raids, or it could encourage defenders to wait for the first adverse side effects to begin affecting the raiders, and then start fighting. Adverse side effects would clear once a raider leaves enemy territory, and their timer is reset. Example: if a raider were to raid an enemy faction for an hour, begin to have the side effects, and then leave to re-pot, their timer would be reset, and another hour of being in enemy territory would have to pass until the first effects start again.

• If raiders die, they lose the amount of regals that is equal to the amount they pay for taxes on a daily basis.

This one is quite simple. If a raider attacks an enemy faction and dies, they lose their loot, and the amount of regals they have to pay to taxes on a daily basis. This would encourage defenders to kill raiders, and encourage raiders to carefully pick their targets and what strategies to use, as they have more at stake now. Of course, where the money comes is up to debate. Should it come from the player who died, or should it come from the faction bank? Taking from the player who died would mean they essentially have to pay double taxes. Taking it from the faction puts the faction at risk to not have their taxes paid. Note: losing regals on death never applies to the defenders!

• Superior base knowledge

Every ' x ' amount of minutes, an automated message is sent in faction chat to the defending faction that says something along the lines of:

" XPlayer " of " Xfaction " was last seen in your territory at " xyz coordinates " in " Xworld ."

When the raiders are first seen, and say five people have come to raid you, that message would show five times with each individual raider's name. Any online members would immediately know that they are being raided, and can take the appropriate measures, whether it being hiding inside or calling allies for help. Now, some people would argue that this take away the ability to surprise attack someone, and yes it does. This could be combated by the message not being displayed if say the raiders were sneaking. Now they cannot run through your base with speed two or as a vampire and blitz rush you, but are forced to slowly sneak their way into your base for unsuspecting people to attack, or risk giving away that they are there.

• Automatically force raiders to be /dynmap shown in enemy territory.

Very self explanatory.

• Reduce the surrender tribute amount.

A reduction in Max Tribute could possibly incentive defenders to surrender, seeing as the regal amount would be lower now.

As it stands, if a faction has 10 members, their max tribute is 800 regals. ( 10 members * 50 + 300 = 800 regals total. ) To go to the extreme, Tyberia for example has roughly 170 members, which means their surrender tribute is 9000 regals. Pretty nice chunk of cash, and super high. I propose the following to determine max tribute:

Number of Faction Members * 30 + 150.

A surrender tribute for a 10 man faction is now 450 regals. 350 regals less than the previous tribute.
The surrender tribute for Tyberia is now 5400. Still a lot, but 3600 regals less in this case.

I would say for the amount of work put into raiding each respective faction, the amount gained if Max Tribute is offered is still worth it. It is now considerably less, and might be considered more often now. I personally, if my only choice was to surrender with Max Tribute, would most definitely rather surrender with 450 regals rather than 800, or 5400 regals than 9000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So those are my ideas after a few hours of brainstorm. It's unfortunate that most of these require a tech implementation, and Cayorion is currently unavailable. The only one that does not require tech implementation is the changing of the surrender tribute. I know that some of you may not care for all of these. In fact, I fully expect to get some feedback from people that don't care for some of these. And that's what I want. But i want to hear why though. Why do you not like it? What could make it work? What could make it better? To hear someone whine and complain, but give no helpful criticism really hurts the whole process, and benefits no one. And if you are going to nitpick specific points of these ideas, do know that these are the roughest of rough drafts of ideas. No idea ever suggested was just taken and implemented as is, it got polished and the specifics worked out before implementation. So when you judge, judge more on the core of the idea rather than on the specifics, because all specifics are subject to change.

 

[Mecharic]

The only one I dislike is the pacifist false for people who got hit. May as well remove the pacifist system entirely in that case, but I rather like the pacifist system. Pacifist off for raiders is better, since a raider dying in enemy territory wouldn't be able to realistically gather their gear back before the defenders found it.

 

[PariahFolk]

As of late, the topic of factions refusing to surrender or defend themselves when being raided has been brought up in mass on the forums. As of currently, neither side has reached an agreement on what would fix the problem. Some people want there to be increased negatives that essentially "force" a faction to defend themselves, or face worse consequences. MonMarty brought up a good point, that some ideas should be presented in a model that leaves out benefits to the attackers, and solely focuses on benefits to the defenders, and rather how we can get them to begin defending themselves. Below are my ideas and explanations of them. Note that I am not proposing ideas that would encourage the defending faction to surrender or be forced to, but to actually go out and fight, so they can either realize that they can win and will continue to fight whenever raiders show up, which is what pvpers want, or that they can't win, but at least have peace of mind that they tried, and can now possibly consider surrendering as the most viable option.

Before I begin my ideas, I would like to point out all the innate bonuses defenders already have. Do correct me if I added something that is not true, or missed something and failed to put it.

• 10% damage reduction in faction land.
• Another 15% damage reduction if you are a premium.
• Ability to take cover in public housing that enemies cannot access.
• Superior knowledge of your own base.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ideas

• When raiders steps into enemy territory ( /f enemy relationship true ) they are automatically flagged as pacifist false, and will remain pacifist false until they leave enemy territory and then avoid dealing damage for the current cool down time.

If raiders were to immediately become flagged as pacifist false when in enemy territory, that would mean that if the defenders can kill a raider, loot is guaranteed. The prospect of gaining loot almost motivates everyone, and will hopefully motivate players to defend their bases from raiders, and possibly earn loot in the process.

• Revert to the old pacifist flag system, where if someone attacks another player, both the attacker and the victim become pacifist false.

What this means, is that if you are attacked by another player, both of you become pacifist false, even if you do not strike back. This is both good and bad. People who are killed, but never attacked back lose their inventory, or everything in case of non premiums, but if you manage to kill a premium raider that would normally not lose their inventory since they did not attack back, they still lose their inventory, and thus there is more punishment for them dying. This way, you cans still chase an enemy out of your faction territory, continue the chase, and there is still the possibility of getting loot if you kill the raider.

• The idea of " Battle fatigue " for raiders.

After raiders spent ' x ' amount of time in enemy territory, they get adverse side effects on and off. Example: After one hour spent in enemy territory, you get random bouts of nausea or say slowness. This would possibly encourage raiders to make their raids shorter, benefiting people who do not enjoy raids, or it could encourage defenders to wait for the first adverse side effects to begin affecting the raiders, and then start fighting. Adverse side effects would clear once a raider leaves enemy territory, and their timer is reset. Example: if a raider were to raid an enemy faction for an hour, begin to have the side effects, and then leave to re-pot, their timer would be reset, and another hour of being in enemy territory would have to pass until the first effects start again.

• If raiders die, they lose the amount of regals that is equal to the amount they pay for taxes on a daily basis.

This one is quite simple. If a raider attacks an enemy faction and dies, they lose their loot, and the amount of regals they have to pay to taxes on a daily basis. This would encourage defenders to kill raiders, and encourage raiders to carefully pick their targets and what strategies to use, as they have more at stake now. Of course, where the money comes is up to debate. Should it come from the player who died, or should it come from the faction bank? Taking from the player who died would mean they essentially have to pay double taxes. Taking it from the faction puts the faction at risk to not have their taxes paid. Note: losing regals on death never applies to the defenders!

• Superior base knowledge

Every ' x ' amount of minutes, an automated message is sent in faction chat to the defending faction that says something along the lines of:

" XPlayer " of " Xfaction " was last seen in your territory at " xyz coordinates " in " Xworld ."

When the raiders are first seen, and say five people have come to raid you, that message would show five times with each individual raider's name. Any online members would immediately know that they are being raided, and can take the appropriate measures, whether it being hiding inside or calling allies for help. Now, some people would argue that this take away the ability to surprise attack someone, and yes it does. This could be combated by the message not being displayed if say the raiders were sneaking. Now they cannot run through your base with speed two or as a vampire and blitz rush you, but are forced to slowly sneak their way into your base for unsuspecting people to attack, or risk giving away that they are there.

• Automatically force raiders to be /dynmap shown in enemy territory.

Very self explanatory.

• Reduce the surrender tribute amount.

As it stands, if a faction has 10 members, their max tribute is 800 regals. ( 10 members * 50 + 300 = 800 regals total. ) To go to the extreme, Tyberia for example has roughly 170 members, which means their surrender tribute is 9000 regals. Pretty nice chunk of cash, and super high. I propose the following to determine max tribute:

Number of Faction Members * 30 + 150.

A surrender tribute for a 10 man faction is now 450 regals. 350 regals less than the previous tribute.
The surrender tribute for Tyberia is now 5400. Still a lot, but 3600 regals less in this case.

I would say for the amount of work put into raiding each respective faction, the amount gained if Max Tribute is offered is still worth it. It is now considerably less, and might be considered more often now. I personally, if my only choice was to surrender with Max Tribute, would most definitely rather surrender with 450 regals rather than 800, or 5400 regals than 9000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So those are my ideas after a few hours of brainstorm. It's unfortunate that most of these require a tech implementation, and Cayorion is currently unavailable. The only one that does not require tech implementation is the changing of the surrender tribute. I know that some of you may not care for all of these. In fact, I fully expect to get some feedback from people that don't care for some of these. And that's what I want. But i want to hear why though. Why do you not like it? What could make it work? What could make it better? To hear someone whine and complain, but give no helpful criticism really hurts the whole process, and benefits no one. And if you are going to nitpick specific points of these ideas, do know that these are the roughest of rough drafts of ideas. No idea ever suggested was just taken and implemented as is, it got polished and the specifics worked out before implementation. So when you judge, judge more on the core of the idea rather than on the specifics, because all specifics are subject to change.

Click to shrink...

I legitimately like the sound of all these!
However, it stands that the Surrender terms is based on the petty faction, thus Tyberia's surrendering will likely always be based on the small fac attacking them unless some movement emerges to bring every member of the PvP community plus some under one faction. Thus, Tyberia likely will never have to worry about paying such a large tribute.

 

[Alj23]

I legitimately like the sound of all these!
However, it stands that the Surrender terms is based on the petty faction, thus Tyberia's surrendering will likely always be based on the small fac attacking them unless some movement emerges to bring every member of the PvP community plus some under one faction. Thus, Tyberia likely will never have to worry about paying such a large tribute.

Click to shrink...

Whoops. My bad. I completely forgot about that part of the tribute system when writing this. Thank you for pointing that out.

That unfortunately does make that specific idea invalid, seeing as there will never be a 9000 regal Max Tribute. And I'm pretty sure the largest max tribute possible right now would be if Enigma and Tyberia went to war.

 

[Alj23]

The only one I dislike is the pacifist false for people who got hit. May as well remove the pacifist system entirely in that case, but I rather like the pacifist system. Pacifist off for raiders is better, since a raider dying in enemy territory wouldn't be able to realistically gather their gear back before the defenders found it.

Click to shrink...

It was an idea based off of a short discussion I had with Gethelp and Sevrish.

When MassiveCraft was adjusting to the new EULA, the pacifist system was changed to the way mentioned in the idea I listed. Both people became pacifist false in the case of actual PVP, so there was always loot guaranteed for whatever side won the fight. This could go either way in the situation of a defender and attacker. Both have a chance to get loot from the other, whereas under the current system, if one avoids dying to the other and doesn't attack for the cool down time, and gets pacifist true, they can then die and not lose anything.

 

[Mecharic]

It was an idea based off of a short discussion I had with Gethelp and Sevrish.

When MassiveCraft was adjusting to the new EULA, the pacifist system was changed to the way mentioned in the idea I listed. Both people became pacifist false in the case of actual PVP, so there was always loot guaranteed for whatever side won the fight. This could go either way in the situation of a defender and attacker. Both have a chance to get loot from the other, whereas under the current system, if one avoids dying to the other and doesn't attack for the cool down time, and gets pacifist true, they can then die and not lose anything.

Click to shrink...

So basically prems wouldn't drop stuff when killed by mobs, but would when killed by players?

 

[Alj23]

So basically prems wouldn't drop stuff when killed by mobs, but would when killed by players?

Click to shrink...

That is the way the current and old system worked. In the current system, you can only be targeted pacifist false if you hit another player. In the old system, you could be targeted pacifist false if you hit another player or were hit by another player. Mobs do not change your pacifist status. Note premiums only drop their inventory, and premiums never drop their armor, no matter the cause of death.

Non premiums lose everything when they die, no matter the cause.

 

[Caedit]

I like the direction of this thinking, however I think some of these might end up being unfair to those raiding factions who would willingly fight back even without these benefits. I'll wait until people who raid others chime in to make a full opinion.

 

[BenRekt]

Good changes overall, but I would disagree with having your pacifist be flagged in enemy territory for the entire time you are there and that is simply because it would heavily discourage raiding, from experienced PvP factions or anyone else otherwise. All this would encourage is trapping players rather than fighting them, because if you trap them you would always be guaranteed the loot.

However, this idea could be changed so that the raider's time to go Pacifist True is lengthened to be noticeable longer so the chances of the raider dropping loot are significantly increased.

 

[Oxoman]

I agree with most of these, but with two points to make. Firstly, my concern with battle fatigue is that it may inversely encourage defenders to hide until the attackers have more effects. As well as the fact that if simply leaving enemy territory reset it, that would be very easy to do. My other concern is that we don't want to discourage raiding either, so implementation of all these suggestions may be excessive. I'd suggest introducing one or two each month until we've found a good balance.

 

[Jackmo_Jones]

• When raiders steps into enemy territory ( /f enemy relationship true ) they are automatically flagged as pacifist false, and will remain pacifist false until they leave enemy territory and then avoid dealing damage for the current cool down time.

If raiders were to immediately become flagged as pacifist false when in enemy territory, that would mean that if the defenders can kill a raider, loot is guaranteed. The prospect of gaining loot almost motivates everyone, and will hopefully motivate players to defend their bases from raiders, and possibly earn loot in the process.

• Automatically force raiders to be /dynmap shown in enemy territory.

Click to shrink...

I love these two ideas and fully support their implementation.

 

[Alj23]

I agree with most of these, but with two points to make. Firstly, my concern with battle fatigue is that it may inversely encourage defenders to hide until the attackers have more effects. As well as the fact that if simply leaving enemy territory reset it, that would be very easy to do. My other concern is that we don't want to discourage raiding either, so implementation of all these suggestions may be excessive. I'd suggest introducing one or two each month until we've found a good balance.

Click to shrink...

I was a bit stumped on the specifics of the battle fatigue idea. I wanted something that possibly effected raiders after X amount of time spent raiding, but I didn't want it to be overpowered, like a sudden onset of slowness, poison, and blindness. Nothing like that.

I should have also mentioned that I never intended for all of these to be implemented at the same time, and wouldn't expect them to be. Maybe just one or two for testing purposes for a week or two, to see how it effects things.

 

[Alj23]

Good changes overall, but I would disagree with having your pacifist be flagged in enemy territory for the entire time you are there and that is simply because it would heavily discourage raiding, from experienced PvP factions or anyone else otherwise. All this would encourage is trapping players rather than fighting them, because if you trap them you would always be guaranteed the loot.

However, this idea could be changed so that the raider's time to go Pacifist True is lengthened to be noticeable longer so the chances of the raider dropping loot are significantly increased.

Click to shrink...

I like the second part of your suggestion. I know that in the past, the chances to get loot from raiders has sometimes been almost impossible, and I have been part of defenders that chased raiders hundreds of blocks away from our base, only to kill them and get nothing since they had become pacifist true.

 

[indyfan98]

I prefer laying traps for my enemies to fall into. They hate me for it, and thing it's unfair, but that is the price to pay. It goes with the better knowledge of my base, I guess.