Claim Griefing Discussion / Let's Make the Server Great Again

[Jeregor]

People leave uglier things than giant robots (which they call siege towers) outside of the battlemoat all the time and we have never complained once. I already said if there is a rule to not build siege towers while people are offline we will gladly comply in the future so I dont see why you are still trying to argue with us.

[ForteS]

As an official statement from North Korea all I have to say is if you provide us with rules to follow regarding things in this thread we will gladly follow them. We were unaware that building siege towers while the enemy is offline is against the rules and I would like to point out that we gave them ample time once they were on to build and use their fortifications. Its not like they logged on into cannon fire or a drawbridge. Fighting took at least 20 minutes to heat up once they were on and probably 30-40 minutes before they charged into our tower (in a battle which we clearly lost). If moderation doesn't agree with our claims inside their base feel free to remove them or have me log on and remove them whichever works. But we would like a rule regarding claims inside enemy territory to follow in the future. As for people complaining about the battle moat I feel like Aanker couldn't care less about "gamey forts" and just doesn't like how it looks. In which case I would officially say that I don't like holes in the ground that do not form moats or how they look and all holes in the ground which are not moats should be removed including any and all dwarven structures as I do not find them visually appealing

Thing is, this shouldn't even need to be a rule, you should be conscious enough to realize that that isn't the correct way to play the game, that's like cheating, and a d$&? move. Just saying...

[High Chunker Greens]

I think the siege tower outside our base is fine and I'm also perfectly fine with them claiming it; that seems more than fair in my opinion. That they built it before the battle is... questionably "honourable" (if such a concept exists in a game of blocks and overinflated egos) but I don't really see an issue with it. I enjoyed the siege, and NK played graciously and without tactics. It was good.

The claims inside our base are still dumb as though. I've made my complaints about this before and am just waiting on moderation to make a call on it.

[Burgess]

The issue with the battlemoat is function not form.

Your issue with it that it is hard to attack?

Are we going to mandate that if you can't take a castle after x attempts or x deaths you be granted it because you tried?

[abbews]

Your issue with it that it is hard to attack?

Are we going to mandate that if you can't take a castle after x attempts or x deaths you be granted it because you tried?

Or how about it having a natural path to attack? That the way to access it (even in peacetime) isn't to bridge yourself over several moats. If a fort can't be walked up to by the owners in peacetime without constructing makeshift bridges, it's pretty gamey.

[Jeregor]

I think the siege tower outside our base is fine and I'm also perfectly fine with them claiming it; that seems more than fair in my opinion. That they built it before the battle is... questionably "honourable" (if such a concept exists in a game of blocks and overinflated egos) but I don't really see an issue with it. I enjoyed the siege, and NK played graciously and without tactics. It was good.

The claims inside our base are still dumb as though. I've made my complaints about this before and am just waiting on moderation to make a call on it.

Thanks, it was a fun fight even though we lost. Hopefully we can do it again soon .... but maybe you guys can lose next time

[Aanker]

Your issue with it that it is hard to attack?

Are we going to mandate that if you can't take a castle after x attempts or x deaths you be granted it because you tried?

It's also hard to attack an obsidian box 5-20 blocks thick, and we have rules against that.

[The Hedge Knight]

I suggest that a castle be fun to attack. I suggest that presence of instant death moats which must be bridged across, lava traps, mazes, claimed surroundings etc all be taken into consideration when judging that. As things stand the whole server needs to stoop to NKs level or play at a disadvantage.

[Keelos Penguinos]

I suggest that a castle be fun to attack.

Thats not the most specific rule proposal ive ever seen.

[High Chunker Greens]

Your issue with it that it is hard to attack?

Are we going to mandate that if you can't take a castle after x attempts or x deaths you be granted it because you tried?

I'm not saying we all need to be civil engineers to build and plan a castle but I think the general consensus for most of the server is that a castle should at least be plausibly structurally sound rather than a floating block of cobble. I don't think that's unfair because everyone else but NK builds their castle in that way and it does make sieges more fun. Spending literally hours building a siege tower to assault the Battlemoat is not a fun experience and in all honesty I suspect that you guys don't even find it that fun to just take potshots and win every time someone tries to assault the Battlemoat.

[Gnomosapien]

Or how about it having a natural path to attack? That the way to access it (even in peacetime) isn't to bridge yourself over several moats. If a fort can't be walked up to by the owners in peacetime without constructing makeshift bridges, it's pretty gamey.

As chief architect of the Battlemoat I can personally assure you the next version will have the Moat providing a parental hand for you to hold every step of the way. And another hand to scratch your head while you wonder why there isn't some magical mod that can make large bridges draw out of the horizon to seal these inaccesible gaps

[The Hedge Knight]

Thats not the most specific rule proposal ive ever seen.

You can have specific and complex rules or complex and subjective rules. Nobody here has time for the latter, saying your castle walls must be X blocks thick with Moats y blocks wide would be pointless. MC has to be judged subjectively and I'm confident that the moderation committee could enforce that reasonably.

[abbews]

As chief architect of the Battlemoat I can personally assure you the next version will have the Moat providing a parental hand for you to hold every step of the way. And another hand to scratch your head while you wonder why there isn't some magical mod that can make large bridges draw out of the horizon to seal these inaccesible gaps

Ah, a mature response. At last.

[Aanker]

I'm not saying we all need to be civil engineers to build and plan a castle but I think the general consensus for most of the server is that a castle should at least be plausibly structurally sound rather than a floating block of cobble. I don't think that's unfair because everyone else but NK builds their castle in that way and it does make sieges more fun. Spending literally hours building a siege tower to assault the Battlemoat is not a fun experience and in all honesty I suspect that you guys don't even find it that fun to just take potshots and win every time someone tries to assault the Battlemoat.

But Greens, do you remember that obsidian castle fifteen servers ago that was 20 blocks thick and took hours to besiege? Half a day went into just clearing all the obsidian for a plausible attack. And then there was a lava wall. So we should allow the Battlemoat, because an equal amount of time went into attacking the obsidian castle. Oh wait.

[123brogan]

There was a proposal before map 5 about making "gamey" castles illegal. It did not receive much support. Though the community has changed since then. If you want to make a poll with your new rule change Josst, it might be implemented.

[Gnomosapien]

Ah, a mature response. At last.

I didn't realise there was a ban on satirical logic aswell which made it be dismissed immediately

[abbews]

I didn't realise there was a ban on satirical logic aswell which made it be dismissed immediately

You didn't respond to my arguments, in fact you brought forward none. Except saying attackers should use drawbridges from siege towers. For last time I checked, the battle moat has no drawbridges and is unaccessible unless you bridge across, especially the floating part. Went to all levels, had a blast.

[High Chunker Greens]

But Greens, do you remember that obsidian castle fifteen servers ago that was 20 blocks thick and took hours to besiege? Half a day went into just clearing all the obsidian for a plausible attack. And then there was a lava wall. So we should allow the Battlemoat, because an equal amount of time went into attacking the obsidian castle. Oh wait.

We banned obsidian for just that reason.

[123brogan]

What constitutes a gamey castle? Etat de L'Or built a floating castle on map 1, but I don't think that was gamey. What criteria will we use exactly?

I'm not shooting down the idea of banning gamey castles. If most people want it, that's what we'll do. Several staff members, including Ditronian, support the idea. But I'd like to know the details.

[Tiberius Decimus Maximus]

As much as I dislike sieging the Battlemoat, if there was going to be a decision on the matter it should have been reached prior to the server launch. Like it or not, its here and I'm not in favor of applying a rule retroactively. In any case, it is an immense challenge and frankly at this point almost a rite of passage on this server to attempt to take it. So as much as I dislike it... I've got to say it is a part of the server.

The issue of claiming territory inside the borders of a another faction's claims is another thing, going forward I think that shouldn't be allowed.