PVP Rules

[Doyle141]

Yeah but isn't a castle supposed to scare away intruders?
Shouldn't it be hard and time demanding to steal stuff?
With these rules it's far more lucrative to just steal stuff than making them yourself.
Isn't minecraft about mining and building after all?

This.

[Remlap]

You forget the part where the Dorwinions don't fight back

[Aanker]

I see this the simple way. We have two possible servers for PvP players, the one hosted by Stunt (no griefing) and the other, non-TWC related server (free griefing). Why not, in the interest of freedom of choice, just let players pick the one they like?

[Musthavename]

Because I don't like either extreme all that much.

As you said, it's a building game. I like spending time building stuff knowing people can't just destroy it. But then, I like the PvP element (otherwise i'd just go back over to the builder's server), and I think the PvP element needs relaxing the rule, otherwise it simply doesn't work. I'm not proposing a ruleset where people would destroy what i've built, but I don't mind if they punch a hole to some treasure or bypass a wall with a small tunnel.

[.Mitch.]

Build on build server

PVP on PVP server


??


Hello ??












?

[Poach]

The way I see it, Aanker, is that we have a large group of people on the PvP server who should be on the Build Server. As they will not move, they are imposing their pro-building stance on those of us who wish to see a server where PvP is the main focus, where rules regarding buildings and protection of buildings are of secondary importance to rules regarding PvP.

You're advocating simply forcing those who want to PvP on the PvP server out of the TWC minecraft community.

[Katsumoto]

How about this: griefing to get to treasure rooms is permitted, within reason. Also, nobody is allowed to have ridicilous defences - if someone believes someone else has over-the-top defences, they bring it to the forum, after which the community votes on whether they believe it is over the top or isn't.

The only way this is going to work though is that people behave reasonably and fairly, that people don't just vote according to their Kingdom allegiances. I wish people would just realise that this is a game and we're all here to have fun - griefing past defences is no fun for the defenders, just as running through a ridicilously trapped entrance isn't fun for the attackers. There needs to be trust, between 'enemies' as well as friends.

[Musthavename]

@ Mitch - That would work, if the PvP server had allowable griefing, which it doesn't.

[abbews]

How about this: griefing to get to treasure rooms is permitted, within reason. Also, nobody is allowed to have ridicilous defences - if someone believes someone else has over-the-top defences, they bring it to the forum, after which the community votes on whether they believe it is over the top or isn't.

The only way this is going to work though is that people behave reasonably and fairly, that people don't just vote according to their Kingdom allegiances. I wish people would just realise that this is a game and we're all here to have fun - griefing past defences is no fun for the defenders, just as running through a ridicilously trapped entrance isn't fun for the attackers. There needs to be trust, between 'enemies' as well as friends.

I'm in agreement with this.

[Makrell]

Im with mitch. We need to go either as far as possible or not at alll

[Selukon]

How about this: griefing to get to treasure rooms is permitted, within reason. Also, nobody is allowed to have ridicilous defences - if someone believes someone else has over-the-top defences, they bring it to the forum, after which the community votes on whether they believe it is over the top or isn't.

The only way this is going to work though is that people behave reasonably and fairly, that people don't just vote according to their Kingdom allegiances. I wish people would just realise that this is a game and we're all here to have fun - griefing past defences is no fun for the defenders, just as running through a ridicilously trapped entrance isn't fun for the attackers. There needs to be trust, between 'enemies' as well as friends.

This, and tbh, if I was attacking, I wouldn't find just griefing past the defence very fun either.

[Poach]

That'll really work in the middle of an attack.

"Hold up guys! Call off the fighting. I'm going to take some screenshots and post on the forums because these defences seem silly. We'll continue this raid in a few days."

We might as well ban PvP altogether: every compromise rule is simply abused (see the ladders rule) and the full-on rules are beset with whining before they can even be voted on.

Take your pick: have it all or have none of it, because a 100% ban on any griefing can and will always be exploited. There is no halfway house: we can be allowed to grief in PvP to access defences or we can simply abandon PvP, because as long as we can't grief the defenders will abuse this handicap, it's already screamingly obvious on the server: people will not play fair with defences.

I, for one, am sick and tired of showing up at enemy bases and thinking "The hell with going through that, I'll just go through this wall and patch it up on the other side." and then going to the forums suggesting a relaxing of the rules and having the same people guilty of these ridiculous defences coming out the woodwork and claiming I'm the one that's going too far.

[Bregil]

That'll really work in the middle of an attack.

"Hold up guys! Call off the fighting. I'm going to take some screenshots and post on the forums because these defences seem silly. We'll continue this raid in a few days."

Are you saying that you never scout defenses or do solo raids? That's when I would take screens. Tbh, if this was implemented I think you would see all the offending defenses on the forums within a day or two and then you would only have to worry about anything new after that.

Personally, I support Kat's proposal and I would expect my kingdom members to tell me if they think I've gone too far on my defenses. I'm honestly not sure on mine as it seems like it could be borderline. Any other opinions?

[Poach]

The only way into your tower is to grief into it. As such, too far.

[Bregil]

When I'm offline, that is true. I have the back door open when I'm on though. It was my understanding that the access rule only applies to attacks not thefts. If that is not the case, I will make some changes.

[Makrell]

OOnly to attack so when your offline its legal

[Poach]

- Defences of any structure cannot be unreachable: there must be a method of sensible access.

I see nothing requiring the structure's owner to be online for that rule to apply.

[Remlap]

it's not like any thief will have an easy job now either, seeing as how everyone is hiding their stuff in hard to locate or access places.

[Makrell]

Players may not construct defensive structures that are entirely unreachable by the attackers. The attackers must be able to get to the defenders and engage them in close combat. Griefing is still not permitted, but if the attackers find themselves opposed by inpenetrable defenses, they may bring the case up in the forums.

Thats the case that was voted though and it says defenders. When there are no defenders its ust an unreachable structure

[Remlap]

Must we fight semantics? besides those are the old rules this is dedicated to new rules if you want to fight over those go to a different thread please.