Archived New System/addition To Raiding And Seiges

[favoured]

Credit goes to Rooseus for coming up with the foundation of this idea.

Okay, the current system of sieges is a bit like this.

Enemy goes to opponent's castle.
Enemy kills 2 workers.
Enemy sits outside opponents castle for 30 minutes taunting the opponents and waiting for them to come out.
Enemy gets bored.
Opponents get bored and send out suicide peasants to try to kill enemies.
Eventually a) The enemies ragequit or b) the opponents in the castle ragequit.

The problem here that I see is that the raiders have no real objective. Sure they can make demands, but at the end of the day they're just sitting there, waiting.... In my suggestion, I propose that the raiders get advantages as the opponent's faction power drops. No, I'm not saying that you should enable warclaiming, that's a horrible idea, but I would like it if something like this was implemented.

Enemy fac has 4x your power level- They can use levers in your territory
Enemy fac has 4x your power level AND you have 3/5 or lower of your max power level- enemies can use wooden doors in your territory.
Enemy Fac has 5x your power level and you have 1/2 or lower of your max power level- enemies can open all doors and use buttons and levers.
Enemy Fac has 5x your power level and you have less than 1/3 of your max power level- You become a Vassal State of the enemy fac.

Now you may ask, what is a Vassal State? A Vassal State is basically a subfaction of the other enemy fac. When you become a Vassal State to a enemy faction, for example lets just say Algaron, you'll automatically become their ally and inherit all of their allies and enemies. Algaron will get certain benefits from a Vassal State, but the Vassal State itself will get a few benefits as well. Here's a list of benefits for Algaron and the Vassal State.

Algaron benefits-
-Vassal States is forced to enemy everyone you enemy and ally everyone you ally.
-You have access to the Vassal State's faction bank
-You can set a tax % on all goods sold inside the Vassal State's territory.
-You can open all doors as well as use buttons and levers in the Vassal State's territory.
-You can break blocks in the vassal state's territory, however you will lose health by doing so and grief is still bannable on their territory. It could also be made so they could only break certain blocks.

Vassal State Benefits-
-If anyone enemies you they automatically enemy Algaron too.
-You can open wooden doors as well as use buttons and levers in Algaron territory.
-When Algaron annexed you, your faction power merged with Algaron's, so when your members die a portion of Algaron's power is lost too, so Algaron is forced to provide some sort of military protection. However, Algaron will only lose power if your members die in pvp, so don't do mass suicides to try to drag Algaron down.

Mutual Benefit-
-Both factions will get the standard 30% defense bonus on either one of their territories, so the Vassal State gets the defense bonus on Algaron land and vise versa.

Revolt-
A Vassal State can revolt and try to break free of Algaron's control. Doing so requires at least 1/3 of your members to agree to revolt and at least 1 officer. Starting a revolt immediately enemies Algaron, but there are some interesting complications. The Vassal State's goal in a revolt is to get its power level to half of that of Algaron. You can do this by killing Algaron members and getting Algaron members to kill "innocent" civilians. Algaron's goal is to get the Vassal State's power to half of what it was when it started the revolt. They can do this by killing revolutionaries.

Innocent "civilians"- Notice how I said that only 1/3 of the Vassal State needs to revolt. This means that there can be up to 2/3 of the Vassal state's members who are not participating in this revolution. If you kill these innocent civilians the Vassal state will actually gain power. This means that Algaron soldiers need to be careful of who they kill, so they can't just mindlessly massacre members of the Vassal State.

This is it for now, tell me if you want any modifications of additions to this idea!

 

[Lord_ArchAngel]

I doubt this would happen. IT would be too hard to code.

 

[favoured]

Yeah I suppose so, I wasn't really thinking of how difficult this would be to code

 

[Lord_ArchAngel]

Yeah I suppose so, I wasn't really thinking of how difficult this would be to code

Click to shrink...

I have an alternate idea on raiding. Ill post it soon on feature.

 

[CamilleBela.]

too hard to code....but good ideas and creativity

 

[stuckinbermuda]

I had to click disagree on this thread, I think it is my first disagree too.

This is seriously short sighted and the knock on effects not properly thought out. Perhaps you could use a system like this and implement it on a voluntary basis with willing participants but I honestly don't see that working out in many cases.

Buttons and levers can and are used for a lot more than just access in a faction and giving an outsider access to personal builds within a faction is out of line, some factions build fantastic and complex wonders outsiders have no business messing with.

If more factions adopted a more respectful approach towards differing faction they will find a lot more success. Honestly I hate the term "sub-faction" and the idea of one faction lording itself over another is tantamount to bullying. A faction in most cases represents at least an independent village, town or city, and in some larger cases provinces, territories and perhaps even small countries. Taking over someones faction is very disrespectful, they made it and have their own ideas for it. It is better to find your similarities and areas where you can work together. Factions that seem to think they can take over other factions soon find themselves being exposed as bullies and will be opposed. Seriously, who would you even want as a "sub-faction" anyway? A faction you bullied into submission or one you offered favorable trading terms and protection to? Think about the term "Alliance", as that is the term we use in game, it is a far cry from "subjugated enemy faction being occupied by hostile forces and made to change their friends in game under duress". Perhaps that is a little colorful but I think it explains a not so subtle difference with the system you explained.

After knocking your suggestion, I would like to draw some of the better ideas out of it. I think allies should get the benefits when on each other territory as some faction may have allies who have a few players on in each at times and need to use who is available to make a defense or raid. They should all get the same bonus when they are working together.

There is a great strength in defense, generally it would take ten times the defending force to over run a well defended position. There are force multipliers that work for defenders plus the home turf advantage. There should be some bonus for attackers when they are in great numbers, perhaps something along the lines of the vespid ability. I'd suggest that if five or more enemies are within a defending territory, or perhaps an outnumbering force more then three times that of the defenders, and are within a certain distance of each other(like in the same chunk, or maybe 32 blocks), that then they nullify the 30% reduction for the defenders. This could represent a swirling mass of fighters and a point at which a battle rages out of control and due to the dust of battle nobody has the advantage.

I have seen several suggestions for means of getting into a defending castle, from opening doors or gates to having the ability to destroy blocks temporarily with cannons. Any of these suggestions would nullify a defenders fortifications and essentially "give" the attacker the win, perhaps even when not earned or due. These ideas are also easily countered. If I was to make a suggestion it would be to create an in game rp turn based scenario for the unfolding of a war declaration. I have offered this option to some of my own enemies, however they declined the offer to enrich the rp and fun value, and that is fair enough, but I have tried it out in controlled battles, just for fun, and it has worked quite well. Basically both sides would meet at a wilderness spot for the initial fight, and depending on the outcome, based on kill ratio, proceed to attack the base or defensive structure of the loosing side. If the attack is successful based on pre-arranged goals then the looser surrenders, however if the defender wins by meeting his goals, or holding our for a certain time then the attackers have to retreat and fight a rearguard action and with penalties or handicaps (like no potions, pearls or apples etc. since they used them on the attack). I think that creating a better set of rules of engagement and guidelines for conducting wars would give all sides a better idea of what to expect and how to behave. There should also be penalties levied for failed attacks, not just rewards for successful ones. This would increase the risk for attackers who currently have nothing to loose by raiding. Failed attacks could end with rp imprisonment, financial or other penalties. Basically it is easier to destroy than to build so we need to prop up the building and handicap the destructive. so there is a better balance.

Just some of my late night thought on the matter while I have a crap connection and can't play tonight

 

[Alj23]

Massivecraft is a medieval server. While the staff tries to make things as realistic as possible in certain situations, I feel the line needs to be drawn at pvp/warfare/siege. If fighting was truly "realistic" on this server, all it would take it setting up siege towers, breaking through doors with axes, stone walls with cannon blast, etc, and the attacking force would have the win. I honestly don't know what to suggest to make fighting/warfare more realistic, without causing massive grief in the chaos that follows during full scale raids. I hope we will one day find the perfect balance with a plugin that will allow just the right amount of "realistic" warfare, without causing issues.

 

[Alj23]

Now that I think about it though, there is a conflict between "realistic warfare" and the issue of possible grief. If this was truly medieval times, the attackers would not care about the damage done to your city. They would raid and pillage you, lighting things on fire, destroying things, etc. This would all be the normal, unless they planned claiming the city for themselves, then they might be a bit gentle.

 

[alex040401]

Now that I think about it though, there is a conflict between "realistic warfare" and the issue of possible grief. If this was truly medieval times, the attackers would not care about the damage done to your city. They would raid and pillage you, lighting things on fire, destroying things, etc. This would all be the normal, unless they planned claiming the city for themselves, then they might be a bit gentle.

Click to shrink...

Can't people set crap on fire anyway? With a blaze rod, a cannon and a whole lot of gunpowder?

 

[Thorjl]

Siege is siege. Even in medieval times armies would camp outside a castle for years!

I like that enemies have to work for their spoils. Not just base it on some code. Because PVP is not what this server is about. It's an RP server. If it gets coded to where raiding becomes more of a game in itself, there would be no allure for us builder-folk.

 

[Alj23]

Can't people set crap on fire anyway? With a blaze rod, a cannon and a whole lot of gunpowder?

Click to shrink...

Yes, loading a cannon with a blaze rod will light wood/wool on fire when it impacts, and then the fire must be punched out.