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

[Mike92574]

Your second two points make no sense at all. Why "force" a neutral faction to war you, when you can just war them yourself?

Your third point doesn't make sense either. What happens when a "not fun" faction declares war on you, and then sits in their gamey structure, on account of the strength of said fortification not giving any reason to go out and attack?

For the point on Rule II, if a neutral faction is annoying me while I'm attacking, I want a neutral faction to decide if they want to attack me, not for me to force their hand. But as Aanker has already pointed out, he was talking about internal claims, which I would be completely for.

I know a not fun faction may decide against this kind of thing. It's fairly easy to deduce which factions will not be fun to war, even before you war them. Avoid warring these factions if they decide they won't fight fair. If you're the faction that proves they won't fight fun, then so be it, you can probably white peace them, or it might be possible to show moderation that the war is pointless (if no fighting is occurring) so the war could be peaced, though that would be an extreme. I'm not sure there's many factions here that wouldn't try and fight a fun war. People seem to think the likes of NK are the anti-christ for war, but they are the complete opposite. They have arguably the gamiest fort on the server, but they barely use it. We should be trying to set an example to new players that using for gamey fort to defend should be a last example. I'm just hoping that as a community we can come to the realisation that if most factions fight fun battles then wars will be more common, then we have higher activity, thus better for the community. We really should also have a good community aspect towards looting. For instance, just today, NK looted Crusaders (my faction) base. They took what they found as value, but they left what they felt was not needed to be taken. They left an entire cow herd intact after clearly checking what was in that room. People really should use NK as an example for looting and for the majority how war is conducted. They get a huge negative bias from most of the server even though when they partake in war, you'll get a fair fight and they won't loot you senseless.

Also for the record, I think what they did with the Northmen base was pretty poor, but I'm sure most of the people on the server would have done the exact same thing in the same situation. But yes the discussion about whether it should be done or not is worth having. They did it, they shouldn't be given out to about it and as a community we should avoid doing it in the future. If we can't do something as simple as that as a community then I'm not sure we can survive for long as a server. No rule should be necessary.

Muh fascism though

Guy is completely right. So far you've added nothing constructive to this discussion. Your other faction mates have added things worth discussing, so maybe follow their example. The last thing we need on these forums is ridiculously sarcastic comments that literally achieve nothing. We're trying to prove that we're a mature community and the comments that you're applying in this thread make it seem like we're not. You're in the minority, please stop. If you want to comment, please comment something worth discussing.

[The Hedge Knight]

Also for the record, I think what they did with the Northmen base was pretty poor, but I'm sure most of the people on the server would have done the exact same thing in the same situation.

Neither Reiksgard or Cloudspire did despite being at war before NK. I think the server community Is generally better than that myself.

[Beny1995]

I don't understand that at all. The whole "muh embassy thing" was just a joke of course, the reason for claiming it is to deny the Northmen of their capacity to produce TNT. Upon finding your enemy's mob spawner unclaimed it would be a strategic blunder NOT to claim it. The Northmen chose to leave that chunk unclaimed in an attempt to maximise TNT output whilst they were at war. Choices have consequences.

RE Battlemoat hate: The drawbridge plugin quite frankly makes all overland forts redundant as you can just fly into the top of the defenders castle without going through any of the rest of it. Thus making a rule about pathways utterly pointless.

[Burgess]

Neither Reiksgard or Cloudspire did despite being at war before NK. I think the server Is better than that myself.

And can you prove they knew about it? We only stumbled across it anyway.

Well we knew you had a grinder for TNT but not where.

[Piepai]

Since NK fell off the wagon, I feel like I have to contribute a Moatist opinion.

II) unclaimed chunks surrounded by claimed chunks are counted as chunks intended to be claimed and are thus protected. Claiming such chunks, if part of another faction, constitutes griefing.

So here's the thing - I get that it must feel constructive to make new rules etc.. but I think this whole thing is a wee bit silly. It means factions don't have to claim all their land, undermining the (broken) factions pvp process if it still is supposed to work in the way I think it is. As in, you could just claim your chest room and then a around your walls to conserve power etc.

I think a better idea would be to just rely on mods to make sure that factions don't claim other faction's civilian land. There's no rules to be abused that way and the mods can just make sure only military stuff is claimed - which as far as I can tell, they do. I also think it's important to remember that if the war plugin was working properly the war could progress properly and Northmen would be digging moats for their new overlords etc...

The same goes for the making a rule to make sure forts are designed a certain way - if a rule is written it can be abused. Factions are capable of picking their targets, it's fun to think of a way to assault harder to assault forts, mods exist and and most of all - the war plugin doesn't work, so there's nothing to lose/gain.

[The Hedge Knight]

I don't understand that at all. The whole "muh embassy thing" was just a joke of course, the reason for claiming it is to deny the Northmen of their capacity to produce TNT.

How about you add a little weight to your words by:

A) Tearing down that tower today (you have access, We won't stop you).
B) Stating here publicly that you will unclaim the chunks at the conclusion at the war.

As they say, actions speak louder than words.

Upon finding your enemy's mob spawner unclaimed it would be a strategic blunder NOT to claim it. The Northmen chose to leave that chunk unclaimed in an attempt to maximise TNT output whilst they were at war. Choices have consequences.

RE Battlemoat hate: The drawbridge plugin quite frankly makes all overland forts redundant as you can just fly into the top of the defenders castle without going through any of the rest of it. Thus making a rule about pathways utterly pointless.

Once again you assume other factions have some kind of clairvoyance. We were having a war with someone else (not you) which you decided to jump in on with no reason or warning. You actions were to enter our base, kill all the animals (ignoring the two of each kind rule), raid as many chests as possible (and steal all the coal from the furnaces), claim two chunks and build an 100 tall cobble monstrosity before we had even logged in. You're confusing yourselves playing way too hard with us a making strategic blunder. You're also confusing being toxic actions with jokes (which are generally funny).

And can you prove they knew about it? We only stumbled across it anyway.

I find it hard to believe that anyone could fail to notice two wilderness chunks on an island less than 150 blocks long.

[Beny1995]

B) Stating here publicly that you will unclaim the chunks at the conclusion at the war.

Dobo has repeatedly said that we have no intention of keeping the claim after the war is done. But to unclaim it now would be a gift.

[The Hedge Knight]

But to unclaim it now would be a gift.

It would be a sign of good faith. Given the clear community consensus on your faction it is definitely one you should strongly consider.

[abbews]

Lots of fallacies here. North Korea say they claimed the chunks to disable our mob spawner, but they enable mob spawns in their claims.. Does not compute? And the fact that the mob spawner was found only after a huge cobble monstrosity was built.

[Gnomosapien]

Lots of fallacies here. North Korea say they claimed the chunks to disable our mob spawner, but they enable mob spawns in their claims.. .

What? Why wouldn't we?

And the fact that the mob spawner was found only after a huge cobble monstrosity was built.

No it wasn't

[High Chunker Greens]

What? Why wouldn't we?



No it wasn't

Nah he's saying we can still use the spawner even though you've claimed it, because you have mobs enabled.

[Gnomosapien]

Nah he's saying we can still use the spawner even though you've claimed it, because you have mobs enabled.

Oh, they're usually disabled, must have forgotten to toggle them off after last night.

[Burgess]

Nah he's saying we can still use the spawner even though you've claimed it, because you have mobs enabled.

They were only enabled to make sure your lot yesterday wandered into the wrong neighbourhood. As Dobo said we just forgot to turn them back off.

[High Chunker Greens]

Fair enough.

[DocterMunkey]

I think this discussion needs to be revisited after the war plugin is working again. As it stands, wars cannot technically be won or lost, barring a war of attrition. There really is no hard incentive for a faction to think critically about how to fight a war as there are no repercussions for pissing people off with grief claims/structures/whatever their actions may be. NK could theoretically lose every battle against the Norfs and never have a reason to remove an "embassy", siege tower, etc. Annexation needs to be a consequence before we start changing rules that could impact our ability to grow the community. I can't speak for NK, but maybe if the threat of annexation loomed, they would think twice before building structures offline or claiming within claims.
IIRC, NK has lost almost every battle thus far at Eldinghold, so this discussion might not even have come up if wartime manpower didn't regenerate, as the Norfs haven't a reason to siege the BM considering NK has come to them.


NK has existed on many maps, and though problems may persist with their fort design, these discussions have never been as heated as they have been recently.


I do agree that IDLs and gamey base designs do require further discussion, but at a later time when wars are back to the way they were.

Though I agree NK could be less troll and be more constructive in this discussion, these changes certainly appear to be targeting them specifically. I disagree with their builds and tactics as of yet, but rule changes targeting specific factions, whether or not that faction is in the right or wrong or somewhere in between, would piss anyone off and does not warrant a healthy discussion.

[Tiberius Decimus Maximus]

Well while I appreciate what you're saying, this is about as heated as it usually gets when discussing the Battlemoat.

[Beny1995]

What do you expect? The moat is a passionate beast.

[Burgess]

Rule changes are rule changes and if the base requies changes then so be it. To a point. If you ban moats or restirct them to a depth or whatever quite obviously targeteed and stupid rule changes you can say goodbye to the most active faction on the server.

[firebird1170]

I'm not for any of these proposed rules. We keep going down this path and it will take Council approval to build anything. There is enough bureaucracy in real life to deal with, we don't need it piled up here. It makes the game not fun. Also, trying to define "gamey structures" imo is a slippery slope, can't lead to anything good.

[Beny1995]

He's right. The game flows best when players are left to their own devices. Also, spamming a bit to get to 25 posts.