Archived Pvp Death Significance

This suggestion has been archived / closed and can no longer be voted on.
BenRekt

BenRekt

Chopper Gunner
Joined
May 31, 2013
Messages
750
Reaction score
1,477
Points
0
Location
United States
Faction
Magnanimus
I know this idea may become controversial, but I have noticed that deaths in wars (and wars themselves) have become increasingly less meaningful, especially for richer PvP factions. Deaths at the moment are almost meaningless, and will not shape how a war plays out and concludes, one (or many) deaths will almost never determine if a war continues or ends with a surrender, and are instead usually concluded out of valuables / items taken from the deaths themselves (if there is any at all).

A solution to, what I would call, a "problem" could possibly be to introduce a small death tax. The way this would work is that when you die by a player, you would lose a certain amount of regals, either taken from the player or the faction bank. This will help give wars the significance it really deserves. Wars will begin to impact factions and individual players economically, and will add significance to the regal. This death tax would add a very crucial element to wars, and that is the ability to cripple factions into surrendering to stronger ones.

Larger factions would, and must, have to have lower death taxes, which would also simulate the significance of losing one man in a large army, compared to a smaller faction, with a smaller army. This will encourage larger factions to be favored over smaller factions, as it should be in wars - numbers should always give you a distinct advantage, in terms of combat and economically.

Pros:
  • Creates a need to surrender / conclude wars
  • Encourages larger factions to form, rather than smaller ones
  • Gives major significance to wars
  • Discourages suicide-rushes.
Cons:
  • Creates a potential to misuse the death tax to waste a faction's bank

If you have any feedback, please respectfully leave it in the comments.

Thanks,
Ben

Just people I want opinions from:
@FubeTheMangler @Wannag @Joshy54100 @Yoloorange @wafflecash @YankeeGiant8013 @zZ_AwAkE_Zz @thor5648 @Waminer @desert_eagle98 @SwiftPvP @DisturbedReaper @@ObscureKoala@kevencolis @Assembly123 @Alj23 @spectec
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
This suggestion has been closed. Votes are no longer accepted.
It looks good on paper, but I worry about the in-game results. Namely, the fact that a powerful PvP faction could bankrupt a smaller faction by repeatedly killing it's players and taking out a chunk of their finances. Too much of this and a player won't be able to pay taxes, and then a faction will lose it's land and all hell breaks loose. It should have a limit of regals lost per day (maybe a max of 5 deaths where death tax happens) in order to work.
 
This might be the start of something big. I really like this idea. I will think about it more and give my opinion on it later but for now I agree this could work. Wars need to have better way to be won and concluded.
 
Mecharic said:
It looks good on paper, but I worry about the in-game results. Namely, the fact that a powerful PvP faction could bankrupt a smaller faction by repeatedly killing it's players and taking out a chunk of their finances. Too much of this and a player won't be able to pay taxes, and then a faction will lose it's land and all hell breaks loose. It should have a limit of regals lost per day (maybe a max of 5 deaths where death tax happens) in order to work.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Thank you for your input Mech.

Your point is valid, but I feel that something like this, which is able to force surrender, has been needed for a while. Factions carelessly suicide-rush their members out, and if this mechanic was added, we would see a larger significance in how wars are played out, and especially see swift conclusions, rather than the die, hide and repeat cycle that Massive has been stuck on, in terms of wars, for the past two years. You say all hell would break lose - this is war, and I believe that is EXACTLY what it should be like. People should pull supplies for wars, organize, strategize to win, or surrender, rather than always hide.
 
Personally I would rather see a kill/death ratio, with some kind of reward when wars are concluded.

My only problem with this is what mecharic pointed out, with the potential to bankrupt smaller factions, possibly just because one member decided to continuously go out in raids in iron armor, or something similar.
 
Right. This thread has boosted my drive to finish Khazabryn.

I'd be down in the deep.
 
Mecharic said:
It looks good on paper, but I worry about the in-game results. Namely, the fact that a powerful PvP faction could bankrupt a smaller faction by repeatedly killing it's players and taking out a chunk of their finances. Too much of this and a player won't be able to pay taxes, and then a faction will lose it's land and all hell breaks loose. It should have a limit of regals lost per day (maybe a max of 5 deaths where death tax happens) in order to work.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
If this was implemented, than factions would need to learn to draw the line on how many times they can just not take deaths seriously, and actually consider a surrender for once. I wouldn't make it take regals for the faction bank, but from the player who died instead.
 
65jes89 said:
Personally I would rather see a kill/death ratio, with some kind of reward when wars are concluded.

My only problem with this is what mecharic pointed out, with the potential to bankrupt smaller factions, possibly just because one member decided to continuously go out in raids in iron armor, or something similar.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

At the moment, there is almost no incentive for wars to ever actually become concluded, besides for the occasionally Pacifist false death, or non-Premium death. In my opinion, this idea will help solve this issue.
 
65jes89 said:
Personally I would rather see a kill/death ratio, with some kind of reward when wars are concluded.

My only problem with this is what mecharic pointed out, with the potential to bankrupt smaller factions, possibly just because one member decided to continuously go out in raids in iron armor, or something similar.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Alj23 said:
If this was implemented, than factions would need to learn to draw the line on how many times they can just not take deaths seriously, and actually consider a surrender for once. I wouldn't make it take regals for the faction bank, but from the player who died instead.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Mecharic said:
It looks good on paper, but I worry about the in-game results. Namely, the fact that a powerful PvP faction could bankrupt a smaller faction by repeatedly killing it's players and taking out a chunk of their finances. Too much of this and a player won't be able to pay taxes, and then a faction will lose it's land and all hell breaks loose. It should have a limit of regals lost per day (maybe a max of 5 deaths where death tax happens) in order to work.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

My idea can honestly only work if the money is taken from the faction bank. This is majorly due to the fact that if it is taken from the player, the player can easily transfer the money to another account, basically making the whole idea pointless. It needs to be taken from the bank, because the bank is always full with regals to support taxes.
 
I personally cannot approve of this idea unless there is a built-in limit to how much money can be lost due to player deaths within a faction. My reasoning is simple: PvPers WILL abuse the living f*ck out of this feature if it doesn't have a limit to the amount of money that can be destroyed. Factions will be surprised while their members aren't inside and will lose large sums of money, and it will happen repeatedly until the faction collapses due to lack of funds for paying taxes. This idea NEEDS some kind of limit.
 
This seems extremely to out of control, okay, ill give you an example:
jimbobs faction is poor, small, and doesent pvp, and here comes bobjims faction, well supplied, large, and pvps, bobjim declares war and takes jimbobs faction by surprise, due to the surprise attack, they run out of money to pay tax and there land is unclaimed, they are looted and have no stuff now, they cannot even sell enough to make regals to surrender, they are now forced to disband, all because of it not being controlled. i agree with @Mecharic
 
It's not a bad idea, just needs to be looked at from both sides...
  • It would eventually force a faction to surrender, ending wars, because any sensible faction will not remain in a war to the point were they can't pay their faction taxes anymore.
  • It would also be easily taken advantage of in the way that killing members of a faction drains their bank, and this can be repeated over and over, causing the issues mentioned with taxes not being paid, land being unclaimed, etc.
Honestly, to facilitate this, I would want to see a "MassiveWar" type plugin. Essentially, war is declared on a faction, and it enters the two factions into a war. You could do something like /war info [one of the two participating faction names] and it would show all active wars that faction is in, and then you could narrow it down to your specific war. There, you could see things like the two participating factions, their member counts, the length of the war, and also see how to come to the conclusion of the war. By this, I mean that it could list the surrender terms stated on the forums. If a faction wanted to surrender with one of the terms, they could, and then they could run a command to void the war, or end it, and it would require the oks (command run) of both leaders of the warring factions, and the war would be concluded.

Currently, max tribute is the amount of players in the least populated faction in a war multiplied by 50. When a war is created, the system could decide between the two lowest, and then come out with the max tribute. @BenAlex144 's idea is that you would receive money for killing an enemy. The system could keep track of all the kills of the enemy you get, how much money you have earned, and when the max tribute amount is reached, end the war in the attackers favor.

There are probably some flaws in my idea, and I encourage you to point them out, and offer a solution or another way of doing it. One such flaw I see, is the max tribute being say 2000 regals, and each kill on the enemy is worth 5 regals. transferred from the dying player's faction to the killer's faction. This means that 400 people would have to be killed to reach the 2000 Regals max tribute limit. That's way too many, and I doubt any war in the past has ever accumulated that many deaths in total from both sides. Shows that some changes would need to be made.
 
I adore, yet hate this idea. I love the idea of making factions lose money to a point that they would be forced to surrender. Like, let's all be honest, there aren't many people who surrender. This can come through various reasons like, being to arrogant and proud to surrender, not caring about your people dying and losing valuables. It can also have good reasons like, having a max tribute which is too high for you to pay and you not willing to join that stupid empire of your enemy that you have had for so long.
However, to be honest, even though I don't like PvP, I don't like people who hide or are to arrogant to surrender more. However, that is merely my opinion. There are probably people who have a good reason to hide or not surrender, but I haven't seen any of these people yet, I'm afraid.
Back to the subject. However, the other side of the medal is, now PvP factions, or just any factions, can start being asses and declare wars on very small factions with the reason: "I has sw4g, yo! I alsu needz dem muneyz!". See where I'm going? Smaller factions who can't defend themselves, and haven't done anything wrong, will fall prey for these Death Tax Crusades. I don't care about smaller noob factions who perhaps griefed your base and looted some of your chest, they can fall for these Crusades.
I'm just afraid for those that haven't done anything. Who are actually innocent, and who rather build, roleplay and farm to expand their faction.

Friendly greetings, Theboomyfly.
 
Don't see this working at all. This would just discourage PvP because people have something to lose by fighting so they just stay indoors and don't fight. 1.8 had the exact opposite effect since weapons and armor are so easy to make now people that didn't fight before are getting into it more. Adding another reason not to fight just seems silly.

What's more important the pride you get from winning pointless wars or the fun you have fighting them?

*edit*

Also another problem I see with this is that it's not just 2 factions fighting on this server so one faction can essentially be targeted by EVERY faction on the server. Basically you could have 5 or more factions hitting you at once under different war declarations which could easily cripple any faction.
 
Last edited:
Jackmo_Jones said:
Don't see this working at all. This would just discourage PvP because people have something to lose.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Is this not something that people are aware of when pvping? Or is this just "Oh I died, better get back up and just keep going cause it's not like I get debuffs when I die, herp derp derp."

I would really like to see death debuffs... If by what's quoted above is how people see it then a debuff to dying should be in play. This should stop the suicide rushing a little more and give meaning to battle.

Here's an idea, when you die, you get overrided to a small room but enough to house a few dozen people. You have a small waiting time say, 5 minutes for example and once your timer is done you get sent back to either your bed or f home.. This would slowly reduce the need to zerg rush your enemy as soon as you spawn and would give you time to think of where you went wrong and to plan your next battleplan.

But that's just my opinion...
 
I completely agree with this idea and although, as has already been mentioned, it has certain flaws and potential for abuse, I could really see it helping the server, not only in the way of more wars being concluded and bigger factions being encouraged, but in my eyes also in a financial way. At least from my experiences, I've realized that fighting a war, even one you're winning, often proves to cost more resources than you actually gain. Most people either die with pacifist or simply don't drop that valuable loot after all, if they die at all, that is. With the implementation of this idea, this problem could also be fixed if given the effort. Because if something discourages PvP, it's losing more resources than you gained in a war you actually won.

Also, I respect everyone's opinion, but I don't really see the logic in calling the possibility of a faction going bankrupt if declared on by say.. five other factions a problem. That's simply realistic. If you were declared on by five other factions in the medieval era, you'd be forced to either surrender, lose all you resources (probably your entire town), or establish a strong alliance to fend off the attackers. That's more realistic than some rule saying "Oh, no sorry, you can't do that, because we feel bad for them."

So this idea could also encourage more strong and well-established alliances than we see today.
Just my two cents.
 
Just a Flaw with this, Either way suicide runners may get past this, If it's taken out of F bank what happens when you're not in a faction? Does nothing get taken from anything? Ooo goody! Let's temporarily leave our faction to suicide run. If it was taken from the Players money, They could send it too another account aswell, Either way you can bypass this, Even if you get money taken from you when you're not in a faction, They could send it to another account. Not trying to hate on this, Just pointing something out That you might want to try and fix.
 
I disagree with this for the obvious reason that i can't fight at all and my faction is rather poor.
but, what for warzones? like, if you are in a warzone, fighting purely for sh1ts'ngigglez. (<-- props a dumb question)
and furthermore, what Camel said...
 
I love the idea, but I do see many people abusing it, not going to say names but people will abuse it.
 
Theboomyfly said:
I adore, yet hate this idea. I love the idea of making factions lose money to a point that they would be forced to surrender. Like, let's all be honest, there aren't many people who surrender. This can come through various reasons like, being to arrogant and proud to surrender, not caring about your people dying and losing valuables. It can also have good reasons like, having a max tribute which is too high for you to pay and you not willing to join that stupid empire of your enemy that you have had for so long.
However, to be honest, even though I don't like PvP, I don't like people who hide or are to arrogant to surrender more. However, that is merely my opinion. There are probably people who have a good reason to hide or not surrender, but I haven't seen any of these people yet, I'm afraid.
Back to the subject. However, the other side of the medal is, now PvP factions, or just any factions, can start being asses and declare wars on very small factions with the reason: "I has sw4g, yo! I alsu needz dem muneyz!". See where I'm going? Smaller factions who can't defend themselves, and haven't done anything wrong, will fall prey for these Death Tax Crusades. I don't care about smaller noob factions who perhaps griefed your base and looted some of your chest, they can fall for these Crusades.
I'm just afraid for those that haven't done anything. Who are actually innocent, and who rather build, roleplay and farm to expand their faction.

Friendly greetings, Theboomyfly.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The Death Tax Crusades is probably the best name ever.


Now, for an honest assessment from one who is very fond of just hiding underground, shooting periodic arrows at those damn outsiders.

Personally, I hate this idea. I don't want it so people can injure my faction because they are on their crusade of f**k you. I don't have the free time I used to, and having to waste it because some jack arse and his buddies want to make a quick buck is almost infuriating (it is a game, so its not like I am going to let it get to me.).

However, this server isn't just about me. While the initial form of this idea could easily be exploited to destroy many smaller, and even larger factions, it has the potential to give PvP factions a way to be profitable. And if it is profitable to be fighters, odds are others may start trying to take that path. That said, this really only encourages more people to live underground, or stay hidden in their walls. Which is also a plus, as more dwarves are always better than less dwarves.

So + 1 Support for this idea.
 
Thalan79 said:
However, this server isn't just about me. While the initial form of this idea could easily be exploited to destroy many smaller, and even larger factions, it has the potential to give PvP factions a way to be profitable. And if it is profitable to be fighters, odds are others may start trying to take that path. That said, this really only encourages more people to live underground, or stay hidden in their walls. Which is also a plus, as more dwarves are always better than less dwarves.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
going underground=/= more dwarves
(not neccesarily at least)
 
But with the fireball trait people can get killed trough walls, thus they can just be stealing money at f home. Seems kind of useless, this tax won't effect any little faction filled with premiums but factions filled with non premium rpers builders and such. I can't imagine having to pay loads for a thing I can't do anything about if I am not able to stop my members of trying to reach there houses and than even getting killed doing so.

This is just controversal against the way that Massive wants to create larger factions instead of lots of small ones.
 
Although I like the idea of giving War's a true meaning, it will also give bandit/pirate guilds a reason to raid and literally destroy RP factions. Luckily for I, my faction has a few soldiers of her own and trustworthy allies but our bank is slim and could easily be overthrown. Maybe develop this idea of yours into something more workable that won't hurt those who play to role play..
 
I die to much for this.

My vote is not to have this implanted
 
Yes
 
Well actually having factions disband due to them running out of funds is more realistic than having tons of small roleplayers peaceful villages. Think about it, If there were huge empires invading these towns the town would likely burn if they fought back that day. Hiding behind a wooden door against axes, swords, fireballs, etc is not very realistic
 
since we first searched for "Medieval Minecraft Server."
 
wafflecash said:
Well actually having factions disband due to them running out of funds is more realistic than having tons of small roleplayers peaceful villages. Think about it, If there were huge empires invading these towns the town would likely burn if they fought back that day. Hiding behind a wooden door against axes, swords, fireballs, etc is not very realistic
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This. Exactly.

In my eyes realism should be an important part of PvP, at least to some extent, like in this case.
Of course fireballs, ender pearls and the huge diversity of seemingly "magic" potions shouldn't be removed to improve upon the realism of the server, but attacking factions have no other options than standing on the opposite side of a wooden door, hoping the defenders come out and make the raid worth their time. This is a whole other subject though.
 
Ok, so, for those who want realism: Remove diamond armor, remove enderpearls, remove fireball trait, remove mcMMO, remove about 2/3rds of the current traits, make darkrooms bannable, and make it so that the bigger faction ALWAYS wins. Because, realistically, size is the most important factor in every conflict, people can't teleport using magic gems, and diamond has never been used for armor.

You only want things to be realistic when it benefits the PvPers.
 
Mecharic said:
Ok, so, for those who want realism: Remove diamond armor, remove enderpearls, remove fireball trait, remove mcMMO, remove about 2/3rds of the current traits, make darkrooms bannable, and make it so that the bigger faction ALWAYS wins. Because, realistically, size is the most important factor in every conflict, people can't teleport using magic gems, and diamond has never been used for armor.

You only want things to be realistic when it benefits the PvPers.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
actually, i wouldn't mind that, maybe i would stand a chance if th-
*looks to the part where bigger faction would alway's win*
nevermind, nothing would change ._.
 
@Mecharic we can go into this but as far as realism goes I am talking about MassiveCraft lore realism which means flaming balls of death are infact around, diamond is blue iron, and the traits/ Mcmmo make since due with traits in relation to races and Mcmmo/ combat traits are a result of training possibly against the many monsters that plague the land and caves. In order to train powerful nations make artificial caves to attract their evil enemies.
 
wafflecash said:
@Mecharic we can go into this but as far as realism goes I am talking about MassiveCraft lore realism which means flaming balls of death are infact around, diamond is blue iron, and the traits/ Mcmmo make since due with traits in relation to races and Mcmmo/ combat traits are a result of training possibly against the many monsters that plague the land and caves. In order to train powerful nations make artificial caves to attract their evil enemies.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
now, if you are going to take lore into this we can jut disable pvp, becaue lore sais (as far as i'm aware of) that All these nice world we play on, belong to regalia and thus, disabeling wars at all.
something we don't want amarite?
 
@krios41 you bring up a good point but it could always be small bandit/ex-army bands that terrorize villages
 
Sorry but this whole thing wreaks of laziness. Really the only people this would affect are those large factions with a lot of money and resources that have no reason to surrender. In my experience the smaller factions that are poor usually give up on the first raid even before you can get a war declaration up. If you want a big faction to surrender from war you have to make it impossible to function THAT is realism not setting a small monetary amount in which you have to achieve to win that makes no sense at all. A big faction is big for a reason it takes a LOT of work and effort to get it that way and to maintain it so it should be a lot harder to take them down and the option for surrender should always be the defenders choice.
 
wafflecash said:
@Mecharic we can go into this but as far as realism goes I am talking about MassiveCraft lore realism which means flaming balls of death are infact around, diamond is blue iron, and the traits/ Mcmmo make since due with traits in relation to races and Mcmmo/ combat traits are a result of training possibly against the many monsters that plague the land and caves. In order to train powerful nations make artificial caves to attract their evil enemies.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

In lore, Regalia has an army. In lore, that army would keep the peace for all Regalian Colonies. Anything that doesn't belong to Regalia belongs to someone else, IN LORE, so it would be protected from bandits, enemy armies, and the like. So, IN LORE, raiders and faction wars would instantly be stomped out by the more powerful nations.

And also, IN LORE, none of the PvP factions even exist, which completely renders your entire argument null and void. How can a non-entity declare war?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom