Archived Pvp Death Significance

[BenRekt]

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

 

[wafflecash]

@Mecharic By that logic all factions are small towns that Regalia would most likely not send troops to defend from bands of bandits

 

[Mecharic]

@Mecharic By that logic all factions are small towns that Regalia would most likely not send troops to defend from bands of bandits

Click to shrink...

-enters logic war- By that logic those bandits would be so weak that the towns could handle it on their own xD

So anyway, don't try the old "realism" argument, it's a stupid argument to use when discussing game features.

 

[jmdsbitch]

I do like this idea and it would really push the idea of surrendering from stubborn factions, but it really needs limits. I think you could get the benefits and also fit it in with RP

• First take money out of the personal players account, "From dying, (player) stole 3regals from your dead corpse." This would allow the members to wish to end the war to keep their money and also try to avoid dying, rather than the annoying players that would run out and punch you without armor, believing that they are winning...
• Once all your personal money is depleted, it would be like you are living off "welfare," then you can take money out of the faction bank, but this would need a limit to avoid the destruction of small factions and less benefit the larger factions, helping smaller ones rise up so there is more even ground between them. Smaller factions could pay 1 or 2 regals per death while the bigger ones maybe 3 or 4, as larger army is harder to fund and maintain. We cannot completely benefit the larger or smaller factions from deaths.
• That being said, maybe the death of a smaller faction's member could mean more regals lost during a death since a death from a smaller faction would have a greater impact rather than a death from a larger faction, but this matters only on the perspective of if you really want to help the smaller factions or if you want the realistic size of the faction to come into play, maybe having the deaths, no matter size be equal or within the same amount of regals.
• With limitations on the faction bank, there could be a 30 or so regals cap every day per member. Once they reach that, they would lose no more money and their death would become useless, although this could reset every day.

 

[wafflecash]

@Mecharic throwing away the realism idea in my opinion I wish there was less small factions and more big ones and having the small ones disband is what would benefit my belief

 

[Gerrior]

If so many are against the idea, why is it that everyone is still trying to use currency as the answer.

 

[Mecharic]

@Mecharic throwing away the realism idea in my opinion I wish there was less small factions and more big ones and having the small ones disband is what would benefit my belief

Click to shrink...

Ok, but the issue as I see it isn't so much that big factions are bad, as it is that not many people are going to watch their faction disband, all of their work get erased, and then just keep playing like nothing happened. Once they lose all of their stuff to MassiveRestore or to looters, they'll leave the server and no one will get benefits from it.

 

[Mecharic]

Something similar to Land Claim Power Points, but with different boosts than merely claim power, would probably work. For example, lets say that each player has 5 Population Points, with the overall faction having 75 Population Points (15 followers). Each player death would cost 1 population point, and it would take 36 hours for a population point to be restored. Different bonuses could exist for overall faction Population Points (ex: 100 PopPoints = 5 chunks have no tax, 200 PopPoints = All members gain the Speed Trait, 400 PopPoints = All members get the Healthboost Trait). That would create a non-faction-disbanding cost to every death, and would definitely be catered towards faction growth.

 

[Alj23]

Something similar to Land Claim Power Points, but with different boosts than merely claim power, would probably work. For example, lets say that each player has 5 Population Points, with the overall faction having 75 Population Points (15 followers). Each player death would cost 1 population point, and it would take 36 hours for a population point to be restored. Different bonuses could exist for overall faction Population Points (ex: 100 PopPoints = 5 chunks have no tax, 200 PopPoints = All members gain the Speed Trait, 400 PopPoints = All members get the Healthboost Trait). That would create a non-faction-disbanding cost to every death, and would definitely be catered towards faction growth.

Click to shrink...

Factions exist now without all that though. Taking away those bonuses would work if the faction plugin had originally shipped with those features. I personally, would not surrender if my faction members were killed enough to lose that bonus for me, because right now we fight just fine without it. Something needs to be taken that's been around for a long time, and people have grown to depend on it, and it would matter if they lost it. You would think loot and player power would be enough incentive to surrender if you keep losing it, but it apparently isn't. All in all, like I mentioned earlier, a plugin of sorts needs to exist to set strict limits on what does and doesn't have to happen for a war to end, and needs to track it, so wars can finally come an end with a clear winner. The way it sits now, unless the other faction surrenders with max tribute or another term on a war declaration, I can say I'm winning the war, but another side can have the opposite opinion. There isn't, and has never been a way to declare a winner of a war unless someone mans up and surrender. People are stubborn, and that's the unfortunate truth. If I raided someone and just clobbered them, beat them into the ground, but they refuse to surrender, I'm not technically winning. If I were to stop due to being annoyed at their refusal to accept surrender, the war would be "concluded," even if I won every raid.

 

[krios41]

i'm going to attempt to say something that has actually one hundred perent to do with this and isn't some sort of joke

I feel this is aimed against the smaller faction as (like someone said before) the bigger faction basicly have nothing to lose with this because they are so big, a death or twenty wouldn't hurt them at all while for a smaller faction 3 deaths might be a death blow.
just my 1€ on this matter

so if it wasn't clear already, i'm against this and if i could actually fight a would like to fight every pvp'r here to defend my standpoint

 

[Gwyndo]

i wonder, since when did pvp'rs care about realism?
i tought that was something only rp'rs did...

Click to shrink...

In all fairness, if they cared about realism they'd be playing Chivalry, not Minecraft.
They're here for the skill and tactics Mine-combat takes.

 

[Mattium_]

@Mecharic By that logic all factions are small towns that Regalia would most likely not send troops to defend from bands of bandits

Click to shrink...

Actually, all factions technically don't exist in the eye of Regalia at all. As in, they are not in anyway part of lore.

 

[Mecharic]

Factions exist now without all that though. Taking away those bonuses would work if the faction plugin had originally shipped with those features. I personally, would not surrender if my faction members were killed enough to lose that bonus for me, because right now we fight just fine without it. Something needs to be taken that's been around for a long time, and people have grown to depend on it, and it would matter if they lost it. You would think loot and player power would be enough incentive to surrender if you keep losing it, but it apparently isn't. All in all, like I mentioned earlier, a plugin of sorts needs to exist to set strict limits on what does and doesn't have to happen for a war to end, and needs to track it, so wars can finally come an end with a clear winner. The way it sits now, unless the other faction surrenders with max tribute or another term on a war declaration, I can say I'm winning the war, but another side can have the opposite opinion. There isn't, and has never been a way to declare a winner of a war unless someone mans up and surrender. People are stubborn, and that's the unfortunate truth. If I raided someone and just clobbered them, beat them into the ground, but they refuse to surrender, I'm not technically winning. If I were to stop due to being annoyed at their refusal to accept surrender, the war would be "concluded," even if I won every raid.

Click to shrink...

Something like this, perhaps:

/War Raptum(Aggressor), Okyno (Defender)
War Name: Raptum V/S Okyno
War Age: 2 Months, 3 Weeks, 5 Days, 16 Hours
Raptum Population: 21
Okyno Population: 82
-------------------
Aggressor Faction Kills: 42
Aggressor Ally Kills: 31
Total Aggressor Kills: 73
-------------------
Defender Faction Kills: 3
Defender Ally Kills: 49
Total Defender Kills: 52
-------------------
Percent Aggressor Deaths: 247%*
Percent Defender Deaths: 89% *
-------------------
Kill Lead: Raptum & Allies
Percent Lead: Okyno & Allies
Winner: Undecided



*Percents would be Death Count divided by Faction Population.

 

[Alj23]

Something like this, perhaps:

/War Raptum(Aggressor), Okyno (Defender)
War Name: Raptum V/S Okyno
War Age: 2 Months, 3 Weeks, 5 Days, 16 Hours
Raptum Population: 21
Okyno Population: 82
-------------------
Aggressor Faction Kills: 42
Aggressor Ally Kills: 31
Total Aggressor Kills: 73
-------------------
Defender Faction Kills: 3
Defender Ally Kills: 49
Total Kills: 52
-------------------
Percent Aggressor Deaths: 247%*
Percent Defender Deaths: 89% *
-------------------
Kill Lead: Raptum & Allies
Percent Lead: Okyno & Allies
Winner: Undecided



*Percents would be Death Count divided by Faction Population.

Click to shrink...

I wouldn't count allies. I would also have it automatically determine max tribute between the two factions.

 

[Mecharic]

I wouldn't count allies. I would also have it automatically determine max tribute between the two factions.

Click to shrink...

You would need to count allies because any RP faction ever will rely almost entirely on allied PvP factions for their kills. Okyno is just one example of the many factions that can't stand against Hardcore PvP factions - most of our kills came from allies who saved our asses lol.

Revised Version (Includes Tributes & Demands):

/War Raptum(Aggressor), Okyno (Defender)
----- War Info -----
War Name: Raptum V/S Okyno
War Age: 2 Months, 3 Weeks, 5 Days, 16 Hours
Raptum Population: 21
Okyno Population: 82
----- Surrender Terms -----
Max Tribute: 1050
Raptum Terms: Pay Max Tribute
Okyno Terms: Leave Us Alone
----- Aggressor Kills -----
Aggressor Faction Kills: 42
Aggressor Ally Kills: 31
Total Aggressor Kills: 73
----- Defender Kills -----
Defender Faction Kills: 3
Defender Ally Kills: 49
Total Defender Kills: 52
----- Death/Population Percentage -----
Percent Aggressor Deaths: 247%*
Percent Defender Deaths: 89% *
----- War Leader(s) -----
Kill Lead: Raptum & Allies
Percent Lead: Okyno & Allies
Winner: Undecided

 

[Alj23]

You would need to count allies because any RP faction ever will rely almost entirely on allied PvP factions for their kills. Okyno is just one example of the many factions that can't stand against Hardcore PvP factions - most of our kills came from allies who saved our asses lol.

Revised Version (Includes Tributes & Demands):

/War Raptum(Aggressor), Okyno (Defender)
----- War Info -----
War Name: Raptum V/S Okyno
War Age: 2 Months, 3 Weeks, 5 Days, 16 Hours
Raptum Population: 21
Okyno Population: 82
----- Surrender Terms -----
Max Tribute: 1050
Raptum Terms: Pay Max Tribute
Okyno Terms: Leave Us Alone
----- Aggressor Kills -----
Aggressor Faction Kills: 42
Aggressor Ally Kills: 31
Total Aggressor Kills: 73
----- Defender Kills -----
Defender Faction Kills: 3
Defender Ally Kills: 49
Total Defender Kills: 52
----- Death/Population Percentage -----
Percent Aggressor Deaths: 247%*
Percent Defender Deaths: 89% *
----- War Leader(s) -----
Kill Lead: Raptum & Allies
Percent Lead: Okyno & Allies
Winner: Undecided

Click to shrink...

Essentially this, yes.

 

[65jes89]

I wouldn't count allies. I would also have it automatically determine max tribute between the two factions.

Click to shrink...

Perhaps just allies who die on the defending factions claimed land?

 

[Alj23]

Perhaps just allies who die on the defending factions claimed land?

Click to shrink...

Yes if it checked for ally deaths. Although it might be completely unfair to the defender. There have been times when allies have come to my faction to defend, even when we tell them not to, and die. That would can't against us, even if we never wanted their help.

 

[Mecharic]

I wasn't counting ally deaths, only ally kills of the primary aggressor/defender faction. Why? Because you're not asking about the current status of the allies, only of the primary factions, and a death by ally is still a death.

 

[Kapry]

I like this idea.
No faction ever had a real reason to surrender, besides being annoyed by the other faction. With this idea the attacking faction has a way to get to the "life substance" of every faction: money. Factions would surrender faster, because of their greedy leaders, and would think twice before starting a troll-raid/yolo-war.
Yet, as many people already said, it needs a limitation. In my opinion the limitation should be:

• Tax crusading can only be done if both factions have more than 10 (number arguable) players. (This protects factions, who are still in their "creation phase".)
• The amount of regals that can be tax crusaded is determined by the (max) tax of the smaller faction. (number arguable)
• One individual (enemy) player cannot be tax crusaded more than: YourFactionPlayerCount/10 times a day. [rounded down, meaning 3.1 still means 3 times a day] (This in fact favors large-faction warfare. [And as we all know pvp-factions are rather small, to keep out idiots])

Lets take an example situation.
Alamut (10 players) attacks Mithril (66 players)
The tax crusade maximum would in this case be 100 regals per day.
Seing that Mithril has over 36k in their faction bank it is very unlikely that they get suprise tax crusaded by this.
Alamut would have to kill 10 individual players of Mithril to maximize the damage.
Mithril could kill a player of Alamut 6 times to tax crusade Alamut, yet can't cause more damage than Alamut (100 regals a day)

The quality-pvper-rate of Alamut is (probably) higher than Mithri's. Yet the Alamutians would have to catch 10 individual noobs off-guard. And hunting players this way is really hard.
Mithril on the other hand only has to catch one Alamutian noob off-guard 6 times.

Anyways, let me hear your opinions about this.

 

[jquaile]

I like this idea.
No faction ever had a real reason to surrender, besides being annoyed by the other faction. With this idea the attacking faction has a way to get to the "life substance" of every faction: money. Factions would surrender faster, because of their greedy leaders, and would think twice before starting a troll-raid/yolo-war.
Yet, as many people already said, it needs a limitation. In my opinion the limitation should be:

• Tax crusading can only be done if both factions have more than 10 (number arguable) players. (This protects factions, who are still in their "creation phase".)
• The amount of regals that can be tax crusaded is determined by the (max) tax of the smaller faction. (number arguable)
• One individual (enemy) player cannot be tax crusaded more than: YourFactionPlayerCount/10 times a day. [rounded down, meaning 3.1 still means 3 times a day] (This in fact favors large-faction warfare. [And as we all know pvp-factions are rather small, to keep out idiots])

Lets take an example situation.
Alamut (10 players) attacks Mithril (66 players)
The tax crusade maximum would in this case be 100 regals per day.
Seing that Mithril has over 36k in their faction bank it is very unlikely that they get suprise tax crusaded by this.
Alamut would have to kill 10 individual players of Mithril to maximize the damage.
Mithril could kill a player of Alamut 6 times to tax crusade Alamut, yet can't cause more damage than Alamut (100 regals a day)

The quality-pvper-rate of Alamut is (probably) higher than Mithri's. Yet the Alamutians would have to catch 10 individual noobs off-guard. And hunting players this way is really hard.
Mithril on the other hand only has to catch one Alamutian noob off-guard 6 times.

Anyways, let me hear your opinions about this.

Click to shrink...

To me this seems to be the most useful solution to the issues with this idea.

 

[babbleboi]

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.

Click to shrink...

First of all..was it really necessary to create that extra clutter just so you could know what you said wrong? As of now, I really don't feel like answering so just read through what you said and please think about it a little, kay?

 

[kswef]

Bu- but, I like suicide rushes... :'(

 

[Mecharic]

I do sorta have to ask: why does it matter if a faction surrenders? This is, after all, a game. Not like anyone gets hurt when a faction ignores utter defeat lol

 

[BenRekt]

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.

Click to shrink...

-Who the hell mentioned fireballs?
-If I want to steal your money Ill have to be using the steal trait
-Most premiums have more money than non-premiums so premiums will be affected more
-If your members don't listen to you, maybe you need to be a better leader, or re-establish who is actually in power in your faction

Overall nothing you said here made much sense at all.

 

[BenRekt]

I do sorta have to ask: why does it matter if a faction surrenders? This is, after all, a game. Not like anyone gets hurt when a faction ignores utter defeat lol

Click to shrink...

Because wars literally don't mean anything and they should. This can mostly be attributed to the fact that no matter how many times they are crushed, it is not financially beneficial to surrender. Most PvPers would actually enjoy seeing their work rewarded through a well-deserved surrender every once and a while.

 

[Mecharic]

Because wars literally don't mean anything and they should?

Click to shrink...

This statement is correct but not for the reason you think. In the past I have surrendered to people like Alamut, Mag, and others, but not because they were able to cripple my finances or force my faction to unclaim all of it's territory. I surrendered because they were willing and able to spend hours, days even, continually raiding my faction and making it impossible to function as a faction. Hell, I even tried to make a f*cking dome to keep people out of Hisoka! But in the modern wars PvPers don't put in that kind of effort - they just raid for a little while (even in wars) then back off for the rest of the day.

Basically what I'm saying is "put your back into it!" meaning that PvPers should try putting more effort into their wars rather than simply demanding an easy victory.

 

[BenRekt]

Or you didn't take time to think further
-Fire balls go trough walls, thus killing easily, thus costing
-Think I got something wrong there
-Non premiums die more, thus this might affect that?
-I am a good leader in a way that they do listen to me, but who is to blame if they want to enter their own houses? I mean I don't have a base build underground or atleast a base where houses have no meaning. I'm not a pvp faction, here we have a use for actual little houses. So if they want to enter it I'm completly fine with it. Currently holding 3 cities and couting this kinda evades that as they now can go to another town and work there.

Click to shrink...

If you can't figure out how to make a safe f home, especially from something as simple as fireballs (which have nothing to do with the conversation at all), maybe you should fix your base a bit. Non-Premiums don't carry around god-weapons and potions, but their deaths should still effect the war in that if the enemy is destroying you, you should feel it economically. Then again - your so rich! You have "3 cities"! A small death tax shouldn't effect you if you can just "evade that as you can now go to another town and work".

 

[Mecharic]

If you can't figure out how to make a safe f home, especially from something as simple as fireballs (which have nothing to do with the conversation at all), maybe you should fix your base a bit. Non-Premiums don't carry around god-weapons and potions, but their deaths should still effect the war in that if the enemy is destroying you, you should feel it economically. Then again - your so rich! You have "3 cities"! A small death tax shouldn't effect you if you can just "evade that as you can now go to another town and work".

Click to shrink...

What he's saying is that having a death tax will cripple non-prems far more than it will prems, which is bad no matter how you look at it.

 

[Mecharic]

Maybe I have 3 junk dirt box places, either way a safe f home or a nice looking f home? I'll go for the nice looking one.

Click to shrink...

Suggestion: put you're /f home deep underground with a portal going to the nice part. Make the portal a 1-way portal. That's how my /f home is kept secure

 

[BenRekt]

now it seems you are specificaly targetting nonprems, i dun like this, at all, i like my nonprems in the faction. killing a prem should have effect to, but no, it doesn't, they can repair their stuf and get regals every month, you can't hurt them with this.

Click to shrink...

Non-Premiums don't have much to lose compares to most premiums. If that point seems to make me look like I'm targeting non-premiums, I'm not. Besides this, fireballs can be countered with /t a fireimmune.

 

[Jackmo_Jones]

This statement is correct but not for the reason you think. In the past I have surrendered to people like Alamut, Mag, and others, but not because they were able to cripple my finances or force my faction to unclaim all of it's territory. I surrendered because they were willing and able to spend hours, days even, continually raiding my faction and making it impossible to function as a faction. Hell, I even tried to make a f*cking dome to keep people out of Hisoka! But in the modern wars PvPers don't put in that kind of effort - they just raid for a little while (even in wars) then back off for the rest of the day.

Basically what I'm saying is "put your back into it!" meaning that PvPers should try putting more effort into their wars rather than simply demanding an easy victory.

Click to shrink...

Exactly! The biggest problem the big imperialistic factions are having is they are spreading themselves too thin. They start wars with 10 different factions which gives them to little time to put any real pressure on any one of the factions.

 

[Ben_2025]

As a non PvP'er I'm not at all informed on the subject from that point of view, but as someone who owns a faction purely for a place outside of Regalia to Rp and host events in this tax would seem rather detrimental to such, already do we have to ask people to come with empty inventories in case of attack and I see this tax allowing people to swarm upon smaller factions to raise money for themselves.
However I do think that this tax seems like a good idea, however perhaps it could come into place when the war has gone on for a period of time? This might dissuade casual raiders abusing it, but also preventing lengthy wars as I believe that is what you were criticizing.

 

[BenRekt]

As a non PvP'er I'm not at all informed on the subject from that point of view, but as someone who owns a faction purely for a place outside of Regalia to Rp and host events in this tax would seem rather detrimental to such, already do we have to ask people to come with empty inventories in case of attack and I see this tax allowing people to swarm upon smaller factions to raise money for themselves.
However I do think that this tax seems like a good idea, however perhaps it could come into place when the war has gone on for a period of time? This might dissuade casual raiders abusing it, but also preventing lengthy wars as I believe that is what you were criticizing.

Click to shrink...

I like that compromise.

 

[kevencolis]

Ben I freakin' love this idea. Why? Cause i am really tired of killing tons of people during wars/raids without an impact. So people can just NEVER surrender even though they are litteraly getting wreck all day long. People needs to swallow their pride and learn to surrrender to better pvp faction. This "WE WILL NEVER SURRENDER" has been heard way too many times. I hope that mods and admins will add this to the game cause im really tired of this. Why u such a genius ben? <3

 

[Jemsbe]

This thread has been cleared of anything I deemed to be Off-Topic or Flaming. May I remind people to stay within the topic or this thread will be Locked.

 

[Laach]

Here are a few possible changes that I think may help balance this system:

• In the same way you lose money when you die to a player, you also gain money when you kill a player. Sort of like the mob system.
• An on/off feature
• A permission feature where effects differ between ranks.
• An automatic kick feature for people who lose too much money. (this will prevent any major money loss)
• Make this feature separate from factions instead. That way it becomes the player who loses the money and not the faction.
• Factions below X number of players don't lose money

 

[Feyona]

If you want money when you attack people or kill people, I suggest using the trait StealStrike, it's a good way of making money like this.

 

[Alj23]

If you want money when you attack people or kill people, I suggest using the trait StealStrike, it's a good way of making money like this.

Click to shrink...

The goal isn't money. The goal is to take away something that is important. Now that taxes are implemented, money is important. By taking away money when your faction members die, hopefully leaders will begin to realize they can't just keep shrugging off the death of their members in a war, and actually consider surrendering for once. It's only logical that surrender is the viable option when your members are dying left and right, hence the whole point of taking regals from the faction bank of the member who died.

If you say that that using StealStrike is the way it should work, that's only impacting the player, not the faction as a whole. During a war, if members are dying, the faction should feel the consequences. Right now, if a leader is too stubborn to surrender, it isn't cost effective or even worthwhile to declare and fight a war. Wars are meant to come to an end. That hardly ever happens in the most logical of sense lately.

 

[AaronChuey]

I think that this feature would really only benefit pvpers. Sure, realistically a medieval clan would be able to destroy, raze, burn, steal from, conquer, etc. an enemy clan, but this is a game. Games are for fun, not necessarily for realism. Yes, realism can be quite fun, but not when it only favors one side of a community. I agree that factions should have to surrender at some point, but potentially crippling them financially is going too far. MassiveCraft is as much peaceful RP as it is violent PvP. Not every faction should be subject to total annihilation to the wandering god pvper. Crusade taxes would be great for large scale evenly matched wars, but generally that's not what happens. There's no sugar coating the fact that the majority of pvp is done between extremely well equipped pvpers and defenseless factions that can barely afford iron gear. Not everyone has time to train their axes to 9001 just to have a chance against a pvp faction. The gap between new player combat capabilities and god pvper capabilities is too vast to allow a death tax balance. The factions who focus on the original aspects of minecraft, the wholesome miners and builders, are the ones who would get hurt the most. Many of these people don't even have money, they stick to traditional trading methods and go out and harvest what they need. If they wanted to get beaten to a pulp, their lands taken from them, and have fear that a murderer is lurking just around the corner, they'd join a server entirely focused on combat. MassiveCraft is not a pvp server, it is a bit of a hybrid that includes pvp. Note that "includes" is not a synonym for "focuses on". A feature like this death tax would disadvantage everyone to insanely high stat pvpers.

 

[Alj23]

I think that this feature would really only benefit pvpers. Sure, realistically a medieval clan would be able to destroy, raze, burn, steal from, conquer, etc. an enemy clan, but this is a game. Games are for fun, not necessarily for realism. Yes, realism can be quite fun, but not when it only favors one side of a community. I agree that factions should have to surrender at some point, but potentially crippling them financially is going too far. MassiveCraft is as much peaceful RP as it is violent PvP. Not every faction should be subject to total annihilation to the wandering god pvper. Crusade taxes would be great for large scale evenly matched wars, but generally that's not what happens. There's no sugar coating the fact that the majority of pvp is done between extremely well equipped pvpers and defenseless factions that can barely afford iron gear. Not everyone has time to train their axes to 9001 just to have a chance against a pvp faction. The gap between new player combat capabilities and god pvper capabilities is too vast to allow a death tax balance. The factions who focus on the original aspects of minecraft, the wholesome miners and builders, are the ones who would get hurt the most. Many of these people don't even have money, they stick to traditional trading methods and go out and harvest what they need. If they wanted to get beaten to a pulp, their lands taken from them, and have fear that a murderer is lurking just around the corner, they'd join a server entirely focused on combat. MassiveCraft is not a pvp server, it is a bit of a hybrid that includes pvp. Note that "includes" is not a synonym for "focuses on". A feature like this death tax would disadvantage everyone to insanely high stat pvpers.

Click to shrink...

If you own a faction in a survial world, than you should be willing to accept the fact that you might be raided, and you might die, and you might lose some items. Just because you don't care to play the game exactly like we do, doesn't mean you should be able to completely close yourself off from interacting with it. So long as you're in an enviroment, the survival worlds, that facilitates and allows PVPers to raid and pillage, you'll have to deal with it.
We want this addition, because leaders would finally be forced to stop being so stubborn, and actually see that, "Hey! My faction is getting slaughtered over and over, maybe I should consider surrendering. It is the only logical thing to do." No one ever surrenders anymore, when they honestly should. When all the signs, and all the results of fights and raids point to one thing; Surrender!
Oh, and we threw realism out the window a long time ago when we reminded everyone that we're playing a game based on worlds created out of blocks.