Archived Revisions To The Harrasment And Tribute Rule

[gridiron1024]

Hello,
Recently I have come across issues regarding the surrender terms rules within the Harassment and tribute rules. I have two ideas following that should, in my opinion, fix these particular problems.

The first issue is with the Bracket styled surrender system. For those of you unfamiliar with exactly how it works, here it is;

You may demand tribute from a faction in the form of a treaty. This treaty must last at least 75 days. In this period the attacker may not enemy the person who lost the war, or participate in any hostile actions against this faction. The defender, for whatever reason, may however cancel the truce and attack the faction they lost a war to at any time. This will nullify the agreement and the attacker may declare war again. There is a maximum amount of Regals one may demand. The system works with increments of 20 Regals per member above 10 members. To explain this more thoroughly, below are the brackets.

• Bracket 1 = 1 to 9 players = 1o Regals per player in the faction
• Bracket 2 = 10 to 19 players = 20 Regals per player in the faction
• Bracket 3 = 20 to 29 players = 40 Regals per player in the faction
• Bracket 4 = 30 to 39 players = 60 Regals per player in the faction
• Bracket 5 = 40 to 49 players = 80 Regals per players in the faction
• Bracket 6 = 50 or more players = 100 Regals per player in the faction

Click to shrink...

My main problem with this is with the following situation; Player X joins his alt faction to go raid Faction Y. Faction Z enters to help Faction Y and is able to kill Player X several times. Player X sends 10 regals (1 silver) to Faction Z, and they are no longer able to fight. Player X proceeds to raid Faction Y into surrendering, and makes 1000 regals getting them to surrender.

My proposed fix is to make Brackets 1 and 2 calculated by the 3 top players' mcmmo stats. The exact equation would be Powerlevel/10. Sure, it seems a bit harsh, but this would keep good pvpers going rouge to raid and slaughter factions then in turn surrender to anyone who is able to kill them. At the same time, this would keep small noob factions able to surrender to bigger factions for small prices.

The second idea I had regarding the rule is with breaking the surrender. As it stands the rule has it so that you are not allowed to break a truce with a faction that surrendered to you unless they provoke your faction. Although this problem slightly ties into the first rule, nothing is more annoying then a faction surrendering to you who then proceeds to raid the hell out of your hopeless Rping allies. The current rule states the following;

This treaty must last at least 75 days. In this period the attacker may not enemy the person who lost the war, or participate in any hostile actions against this faction.

Click to shrink...

My suggestion for fixing it is that the surrendering faction is allowed to be neutraled if they raid allies that were already allied to you prior to the surrender or during, but not made afterwards. That way, it allows you to defend your allies but at the same time the aggressor faction that surrendered is allowed to raid without the fear of a large counter raid, but will be more encouraged to surrender to entire alliances as they are still allowed to defend each-other.

Please leave criticism and ideas regarding this below.
thanks for your time,
-gridiron

 

[DanyWood]

I like it, prices based on mcmmo would protect newer players and it will cause players to look for tougher opponents, since they are worth more. Good thinking!

 

[1002713Alex]

Wait, so your telling me, if someone just pays max tribute and keeps raiding an ally, your faction still can't help? Wouldn't it only work like that if they actually ask for surrender terms and go by them?

 

[gridiron1024]

Wait, so your telling me, if someone just pays max tribute and keeps raiding an ally, your faction still can't help? Wouldn't it only work like that if they actually ask for surrender terms and go by them?

Click to shrink...

If they pay max tribute, it nulls the other surrender terms. Dealing with situations such as that is why I made this suggestion.

 

[VaseFruit]

The idea of going around hunting powerful enemies is nice, but I don't think calculating the tribute with only the powerlevel would be fair. There are people out there with really high powerlevels, but when you look into it, it's mostly mining, excavation and other pacific skills.

A better way to make this would be calculating the tributes using the fighting skills, and maybe the pacific ones as a secondary factor. I'll work more on the idea when I get back from college.

 

[gridiron1024]

@andrewnicola
While I do see your point, if someone had high stats and did not want to fight, then they really would not have to. This idea is to stop people that do have high stats from surrendering to good pvpers then going off and steamrolling smaller factions. If someone was pacifist in their own faction, they would not be solo raiding a bunch of factions, therefore not have to deal with this.

 

[VaseFruit]

@andrewnicola
While I do see your point, if someone had high stats and did not want to fight, then they really would not have to. This idea is to stop people that do have high stats from surrendering to good pvpers then going off and steamrolling smaller factions. If someone was pacifist in their own faction, they would not be solo raiding a bunch of factions, therefore not have to deal with this.

Click to shrink...

Ohh, nevermind. I get what the point of the change is. I guess I was really sleepy when I thought about it.

Seems like a good idea.

 

[65jes89]

The only problem i see with this is i would have to pay 1k+ since me and my second have about a 5k power level each, and i think thats a little over-the-top for a 20 person faction

 

[gridiron1024]

The only problem i see with this is i would have to pay 1k+ since me and my second have about a 5k power level each, and i think thats a little over-the-top for a 20 person faction

Click to shrink...

I suggestion that only applies to brackets 1 and 2, which is 19 players or less, that would not be an issue for you.

 

[65jes89]

Oh didnt see that part

 

[gridiron1024]

Bump.
Would like some more feedback on the idea

 

[LadyRose_]

It would encourage smaller factions- I enjoy that.

 

[Pyrooooo]

I like it. It makes the system a lot fairer.
However, it is just a touch complicated. It was already, and adding this doesn't help.
But I guess once it's written up in full on the website it'll be a lot clearer?

 

[gridiron1024]

I like it. It makes the system a lot fairer.
However, it is just a touch complicated. It was already, and adding this doesn't help.
But I guess once it's written up in full on the website it'll be a lot clearer?

Click to shrink...

It is just a bit of basic math, not too complicated since your computer has a calculator built into it.

 

[Pyrooooo]

...
It's not so much the maths. It's the 'faction X attacks faction Y. Faction Y attacks faction X. Faction Y calls for help from factions Z, W and V, and then dances a jig'
Got a calculator that'll help with that?
@gridiron1024

 

[gridiron1024]

...
It's not so much the maths. It's the 'faction X attacks faction Y. Faction Y attacks faction X. Faction Y calls for help from factions Z, W and V, and then dances a jig'
Got a calculator that'll help with that?
@gridiron1024

Click to shrink...

You are overthinking it way too much. Both ideas are meant to simplify a system that I see as broken. With the first idea regarding factions surrendering based on Mcmmo stats for brackets one and two, it is math. I don't see how you got all that out of a simple idea. The second idea simply regards raiding allies as violation of treaty as long as the allies were allied before the treaty was made. Sure that one may take a bit of a staff investigation, but considering it already would under violation of treaty circumstances I see no problem with that.

 

[Asmodeus35]

Love this, Good thinking grid.

 

[Waminer]

It would encourage smaller factions- I enjoy that.

Click to shrink...

No, I like this idea, but it will not do that. It will encourage bigger factions vs 1 or 2 man pvp factions that should not exist logically and also cause more recruiting, more people in massive to fight, rp, and trade with. As well cities will seem more "Real" with more people, it will consolidate factions more so there may possibly be less of them and make it more realistic and hence will also give a boost to big factions like Hisokan/maybe Mirk Collective and the 9th. It will also make surrendering more fair which is nice too.

 

[RoofToilet1107]

Hello,
Recently I have come across issues regarding the surrender terms rules within the Harassment and tribute rules. I have two ideas following that should, in my opinion, fix these particular problems.

The first issue is with the Bracket styled surrender system. For those of you unfamiliar with exactly how it works, here it is;

My main problem with this is with the following situation; Player X joins his alt faction to go raid Faction Y. Faction Z enters to help Faction Y and is able to kill Player X several times. Player X sends 10 regals (1 silver) to Faction Z, and they are no longer able to fight. Player X proceeds to raid Faction Y into surrendering, and makes 1000 regals getting them to surrender.

My proposed fix is to make Brackets 1 and 2 calculated by the 3 top players' mcmmo stats. The exact equation would be Powerlevel/10. Sure, it seems a bit harsh, but this would keep good pvpers going rouge to raid and slaughter factions then in turn surrender to anyone who is able to kill them. At the same time, this would keep small noob factions able to surrender to bigger factions for small prices.

The second idea I had regarding the rule is with breaking the surrender. As it stands the rule has it so that you are not allowed to break a truce with a faction that surrendered to you unless they provoke your faction. Although this problem slightly ties into the first rule, nothing is more annoying then a faction surrendering to you who then proceeds to raid the hell out of your hopeless Rping allies. The current rule states the following;


My suggestion for fixing it is that the surrendering faction is allowed to be neutraled if they raid allies that were already allied to you prior to the surrender or during, but not made afterwards. That way, it allows you to defend your allies but at the same time the aggressor faction that surrendered is allowed to raid without the fear of a large counter raid, but will be more encouraged to surrender to entire alliances as they are still allowed to defend each-other.

Please leave criticism and ideas regarding this below.
thanks for your time,
-gridiron

Click to shrink...

Hmm, intriguing. I like it. Possibly as well I would say for larger factions and larger conflict an actual signed treaty by the two leaders.