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

[Mike92574]

There's a huge difference, its called object permanence. Just because you cant see it doesn't mean that its not there. People usually learn that at 8 months old. Just because we covered it up, doesn't mean they have to rebuild it.

Ya I agree it's fine you left it there, and with a god pick it wouldn't take long to dismantle your building. But we're trying to prove we're not a toxic community. Comments like this don't belong. I personally don't mind when stuff like this is said in Skype or TeamSpeak, but can we just leave it off the forums.

[Ditronian]

There's a huge difference, its called object permanence. Just because you cant see it doesn't mean that its not there. People usually learn that at 8 months old. Just because we covered it up, doesn't mean they have to rebuild it.

Exactly the kind of toxicity everyone's been talking about lately. And as Brogan said, that is still griefing, and not in a manner designed to reach/kill your enemy who wasn't even online at the time.

Funny part is that back in Map 3, NK claimed a chunk in the middle of Byzantium's town moat, when I approached moderation about it, they gave me the most eloquent of responses: "If tou want your chunk back, just beat NK and annex the spot".

This is not possible with the way wars currently work. With manpower regeneration there is no way to get someone to the point where you can annex chunks from them, when you die you can literally just respawn on your bed and regenerate manpower in safety. Current wars are therefor more likely to be decided by the loss of loot etc.

[Pat89]

I don't mins fighting a battle-moat which isn't more than a floating box of cobble because they lack sense of building skill or don't have any feel for fair fights, except I think a proper castle would look prettier. Tbh, what's the difference between sieging a floating cobble box and a platform on a 100 block high wall like Reiksguards? The difference is fairly minimal imo. The wall just provides some cover while building a stairway up.

As for building a siege tower while offline, I do have to say that if we would have had the time to claim more land around our castle, there wouldn't have been an issue. Or even if we had build our castle in the centre of our claim instead of on the edge it would have made a difference.

I do however think claiming a single chunk in the middle of a base which we used for mob spawns is a little bit cheesy. Especially if you build a ginormous ugly structure on it that has 0 functionality other than pissing us off. I don't think we need a rule against such stuff though, common sense should be enough. And perhaps moderation could provide better information on how to allow mob spawning in your lands without leaving a chunk unclaimed...

Other than that I think it's mostly a case of, meh it happened, we learned how to make it not happen again and lets move on! I'm pretty sure it won't ever happen to anyone else now to leave an unclaimed chunk in your base or build defenses too close to the edge of your claim.

[The Guy With No Imagination]

Funny part is that back in Map 3, NK claimed a chunk in the middle of Byzantium's town moat, when I approached moderation about it, they gave me the most eloquent of responses: "If tou want your chunk back, just beat NK and annex the spot". Hehe, I was so mad.

So, what I can tell, is that we really have problem of wanting better rulings vs not being stripped of the freedom mc offers. If you ask me, this shouldnt even involve moderation at all, people should know when their behaviour is just plain destructive and refrain from engaging in it. Yes yes, I know MC is a game where frustration plays a significant role, but we are all grown up here, I think we can discuss things, without any dickwaving, trolling, countertrolling, etc.

So here I am just hoping for it to be solved among players, and avoid they ever controversial banhammer.

This post just represents my opinion, not the moderation's formal statement on the matter.

The red bit is the most important part. If we want to get ing anywhere as a community, to gain more players and trying to make this a fun, consistantly active server (I'd love to see an average of around 40-50 players a day, tbh) Everyone needs to calm their damn rage and troll boners. It gets everyone nowhere, and only validates everything GeD said about us when we were exiled and the server was dead.

Moderation shouldn't get involved here. To address Aanker's specific points, because lord knows the dwarves would be ridiculously pissed if anyone did what NK did North to them.
Fact of the matter is that they're at war and the land was claimed. The tower is ridiculously ugly, but I, and others, would've likely done the same thing. Not just that, it'd be unfair to retroactively enfore a rule (Pretty sure most countries have laws against just this sort of thing)

However, as for the attitude and behavior of players, the truth is that North Korea hasn't ever really bothered to foster much in the way of positive relations. Although there is some RP that the players (everyone in this server) deals with to some degree, that NK continually enforces an aggressive policy on usually smaller, weaker, or unprepared factions that include the whole "dig a moat" practice - which at its surface seems alright enough. However constantly killing players that might not want to dig to bedrock, continually being hounded about the moat, and taking nothing seriously or genuinely (One need only read this thread to see exactly what I mean) generally pisses people off or drives them away. That gets us, again, nowhere and shows exactly what GeD called out about us.

Im not saying that NK are dicks, but they can stand to be a little less dickish. And everyone else can stand to grow a slightly thicker skin, and absolutely everybody needs to appreciate this server for what it is, and that even if, personally, you could care less about the server, its spirit, and that we want this to last a long time for everyone, then I only ask you; why are you playing here?

Because if you answer that it's fun or certainly a bit unique with what we're all trying to accomplish here, then not being too snarky on the forums or a general prick go a long way.

/endrant

[The Hedge Knight]

It wouldn't be retroactive. Its a clear case of greifing.

[The Guy With No Imagination]

It wouldn't be retroactive. Its a clear case of greifing.

I wouldn't say clear cut. An FOB in an enemy base is pretty useful. It's ugly too.

If the intention was solely to troll or otherwise piss off Northmen, and NK never meant to actually use the tower, then yeah that's more griefing than anything else.

[The Hedge Knight]

It ain't a fob. There is nothing useful there. its sole intention is to cause annoyance.

Its utterly useless. It doesn't challenge Eldinghold or provide a safe point. They admit as much when they describe it as an 'embassy'

[Mangerman]

It's so easy. Make the thing vanish and all is well. These shenanigans...

//sel extend
*select cobble thing*
//set 0

[Aanker]

Having read through the thread and gathered my thoughts, I find myself agreeing with Ditronian on almost every point. Regarding the central point of contention I still think it is a case of griefing but moderation will have to handle the issue as seen appropriate.

[Gnomosapien]

It ain't a fob. There is nothing useful there. its sole intention is to cause annoyance.

Its utterly useless. It doesn't challenge Eldinghold or provide a safe point. They admit as much when they describe it as an 'embassy'

The claims are over your mob farm, stopping you getting tnt in a war seems to be pretty useful imo

[The Hedge Knight]

The claims are over your mob farm, stopping you getting tnt in a war seems to be pretty useful imo

Your actions betray your words. If that was your intention the tower wouldn't exist. Regardless, taking advantage of a misunderstanding in order to try and influence a war once again isn't something that promotes a good sense of community. While the server is fundamentally competitive I feel like your sense of sportsmanship is severely lacking. Your inability to recognise that is why you are so reviled.

[Gnomosapien]

The tower was a potential place for us to siege you from but that idea was pretty much halted when you built walls around it stopping us from being able to access it again. And can we not resort to insulting as Dit already pretty much nailed that.

[The Hedge Knight]

Don't you think it would be easier if you unclaimed the damn thing and admit you made a mistake? I'm astounded that despite the overwhelming community consensus you continue to try and justify your action.

Aside from the tower we have had some good fights so far. It would be great if we could just put the bitterness aside and have a fun war.

[Gnomosapien]

As I said before the claims have military value and it would be stupid to unclaim them while still at war, the only way I would see this as griefing is if we kept the claims permanently which we have said multiple times we never intended to do.
As for the community consensus it has been mixed from what I've read. I had completely forgotten about how the Byzantium war started on Map 3 and that turned out to be a great war with them gaining their Moat back by the end of it and no, or not much, bitterness attached to it (though iirc that was from a server crash and before we could actually decide a victor).

[The Hedge Knight]

Ignoring the opinions of the respective factions we have:

If moderators merely reset claim griefing like this, without any threat of further punishment, it will still be an easy way to troll other players and stall events while waiting for moderator intervention.

Totally agree, this is done with the sole purpose of harrassing and annoying other players and should be stopped and punished,

ForteS[/FONT]]it doesn't seem fair and log on a with a massive enemy structure right next to you.

ForteS[/CENTER]]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...

don't think Northmen should be punished because we staffers failed to properly communicate all the features of the factions plugin.

I agree that you shouldn't be allowed to build siege towers when the enemy is offline, as it indeed renders defences pointless.

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.

Under existing rules the only allowed griefing (aka altering of blocks) of claimed land or lands neighboring claims is griefing performed to reach or kill your enemies. Sitting right smack underneath the two now NorthKorean claims used to be a Northman wooden tower, which has since been effectively torn down by NorthKorea and replaced with the new cobblestone structure. It would seem to me that total destruction of a pre-existing structure, while the enemy was offline, exceeds the protections offered by the rule as it was not 'griefing performed to reach/kill your enemies'. Ultimately this is up to moderation to rule on.

If you ask me, this shouldnt even involve moderation at all, people should know when their behaviour is just plain destructive and refrain from engaging in it. Yes yes, I know MC is a game where frustration plays a significant role, but we are all grown up here, I think we can discuss things, without any dickwaving, trolling, countertrolling, etc.

Moderation shouldn't get involved here. To address Aanker's specific points, because lord knows the dwarves would be ridiculously pissed if anyone did what NK did North to them.
Fact of the matter is that they're at war and the land was claimed. The tower is ridiculously ugly, but I, and others, would've likely done the same thing. Not just that, it'd be unfair to retroactively enfore a rule (Pretty sure most countries have laws against just this sort of thing)

I make that 6 people who think the tower should be returned. One person who thinks its an unsportsmanlike like move but that it should be fought over and one who thinks that it shouldn't. That is just about the strongest community consensus I have seen on these maps. There isn't much of a debate here.

[Gnomosapien]

If the community was made of 8 people then that would but that. I would have suggested a poll but seeing as half the people I know can't vote in them it would be a little redundant.

End of the day we broke no rules, if the majority thinks the rules should be changed then that's fine but it should be done when the war is over.

[The Hedge Knight]

The majority clearly disagrees with you.

[Ditronian]

End of the day we broke no rules.

Except for you know, the one that says you can only grief lands to reach and kill your enemies.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

Nerva's words carry wisdom.

[Aanker]

So to summarize a series of rule suggestions based on the chief complaints in this thread;

I) siege towers may not be built while the enemy is offline. No construction of buildings adjacent to enemy claimed land while the enemy is offline, if these can later be used or converted into siege structures. Constructing siege towers should be possible to contest and part of the siege battle. After the conclusion of a siege battle, the attacked faction may ask for moderation to remove the siege structure.
To expand on the intent to claim rule,
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.
And with respect to what Abbs said, who I think provided the most sensible solution to the super fort problem,
III) All present and future forts must have at least one non-ladder pathway that is at least two blocks wide and two blocks deep from the fort entrance(s) to its bed area. Any structure that is used for defence and built before the commencement of a siege battle, and is within a faction's own claimed land, must have a pathway that is at least two blocks wide and two blocks deep leading up from the immediate beginning of defences to the uppermost placed beds. The pathway may be interrupted at any place and any amount of times by portcullis gates and drawbridges, the latter of which may be at most 20 blocks long and at least two blocks wide.