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

[Ditronian]

I agree with all of Aanker's points.

[Katsumoto]

Seems fair to me.

[Benz282]

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.

Those points are agreeable.

Aanker's Rule II seems to be more of a new rule, in my view, than a clarification on the existing griefing rule. Thus, I don't think punishment should be retroactive. I think it'd be better to accept this rule going forward and move on with the understanding that NK will be unclaiming the chunks inside the Northmen base at the conclusion of their war (regardless of the peace terms/etc).

Rule III is more limiting than I think many would like (no ladder-paths), but its adoption would undoubtedly help alleviate the problems I see with current fort designs (instant-death ladders EVERYWHERE). Having a guaranteed path for attackers to advance along through an enemy fort is a boon for both attackers and defenders alike, as it offers both more options in terms of how to approach a siege, rather than being reduced to a standard IDL-based defense and siege tower offense.

Edit: Added a quote of Aanker's post, since it is on the previous page.
Edit 2: Something to consider with regards to Rule II: What if a faction has a large amount of unclaimed chunks surrounded by claims? In other words, instead of the 2 chunks the Northmen didn't claim, a 5x5 square of unclaimed chunks (potentially with structures inside). At what point does it become acceptable for another faction to claim within those borders? Should moderation/community give the faction to whom the surrounding claims belong a timeframe before allowing other factions to claim the land?

[Nerva]

My english completely failed at understanding number III

[Burgess]

Basically the proposal is that there has to be a path to the bed in the fort.

[Ditronian]

Edit 2: Something to consider with regards to Rule II: What if a faction has a large amount of unclaimed chunks surrounded by claims? In other words, instead of the 2 chunks the Northmen didn't claim, a 5x5 square of unclaimed chunks (potentially with structures inside). At what point does it become acceptable for another faction to claim within those borders? Should moderation/community give the faction to whom the surrounding claims belong a timeframe before allowing other factions to claim the land?

Until a faction claims a wall of chunks around several hundred unclaimed chunks I don't think this is an issue that needs addressing. Some factions may prefer to build/claim a city's wall first, leaving the interior largely unclaimed in an area greater than your 5x5 square. I don't see the need for any other faction to be able to claim that interior, unless it was the absurd scenario I mentioned above which would be such an obvious abuse for moderation. Not claiming a chunk still comes with several other drawbacks in that you can be killed by neutrals, and there is no pain build in those chunks.

Ultimately the problem of dealing with abusers who leave everything unclaimed will be far easier to identify than one where someone troll claims the inside of a city that was under construction because it was greater than whatever size we set.

[The Guy With No Imagination]

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.

Make the Server Great Again.

[Diglytron]

Those points are agreeable.

Aanker's Rule II seems to be more of a new rule, in my view, than a clarification on the existing griefing rule. Thus, I don't think punishment should be retroactive. I think it'd be better to accept this rule going forward and move on with the understanding that NK will be unclaiming the chunks inside the Northmen base at the conclusion of their war (regardless of the peace terms/etc).

Rule III is more limiting than I think many would like (no ladder-paths), but its adoption would undoubtedly help alleviate the problems I see with current fort designs (instant-death ladders EVERYWHERE). Having a guaranteed path for attackers to advance along through an enemy fort is a boon for both attackers and defenders alike, as it offers both more options in terms of how to approach a siege, rather than being reduced to a standard IDL-based defense and siege tower offense.

Edit: Added a quote of Aanker's post, since it is on the previous page.
Edit 2: Something to consider with regards to Rule II: What if a faction has a large amount of unclaimed chunks surrounded by claims? In other words, instead of the 2 chunks the Northmen didn't claim, a 5x5 square of unclaimed chunks (potentially with structures inside). At what point does it become acceptable for another faction to claim within those borders? Should moderation/community give the faction to whom the surrounding claims belong a timeframe before allowing other factions to claim the land?

I agree, rule III is to limmiting. I would be ok with the ladders, but not with the two wide stairs, I like building small stairs, 1 wide, and I don't think this makes them more gamey. Two is just to big for our scale of the fort, to limiting. A path, other then with instant death ladders, is more clear and would be a better possble rule.

[Mike92574]

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.

Rule I was a rule before and not sure why it's not a rule atm.

Rule II I don't agree with. It's very easy to abuse, and for some attacking factions it may be necessary to claim a siege tower in order to force neutral factions to war them. This would become important if the manpower was the same as before.

Rule III I think is too restrictive. I'm not sure what's wrong with spawns at the moment. It's very easy to avoid attacking gamey structures by refusing to attack them. If the other faction is a fun faction to war (not sure why you would war any faction that isn't) then they'll accept your decision and should meet you in a more even battle. I've seen it happen and the past and if we start making it a norm as a community, then people will begin to accept it as norm. There's no need for a rule to be made for this.

[clarky3094]

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?

Glorious base, I remember that being built. But it was above water so you didn't die when you fell and it wasn't particularly a fortress either. I mean there was a rather fun battle there but I don't think it was hard to siege really.

[Tiberius Decimus Maximus]

Rule I was a rule before and not sure why it's not a rule atm.

Rule II I don't agree with. It's very easy to abuse, and for some attacking factions it may be necessary to claim a siege tower in order to force neutral factions to war them. This would become important if the manpower was the same as before.

Rule III I think is too restrictive. I'm not sure what's wrong with spawns at the moment. It's very easy to avoid attacking gamey structures by refusing to attack them. If the other faction is a fun faction to war (not sure why you would war any faction that isn't) then they'll accept your decision and should meet you in a more even battle. I've seen it happen and the past and if we start making it a norm as a community, then people will begin to accept it as norm. There's no need for a rule to be made for this.

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?

[Aanker]

Rule II I don't agree with. It's very easy to abuse, and for some attacking factions it may be necessary to claim a siege tower in order to force neutral factions to war them. This would become important if the manpower was the same as before.

N.B. it does not apply to claims adjacent to someone's claims (so siege towers can still be claimed without issue). Only if a claim is surrounded by claims. Like Benz said that would involve some degree of arbitrary judgement (because theoretically a faction can then just claim a circle of territory and that way block off a large amount of land in the middle), but you could theoretically set up a distance limit or say that if the chunk is surrounded by three or more chunks of enemy territory it is protected.

Also, Elite has tested the auto claim function and found that the dynmap merged claims in a way that made it seem like a chunk was claimed, when in-game in fact it was not.

Rule III I think is too restrictive. I'm not sure what's wrong with spawns at the moment. It's very easy to avoid attacking gamey structures by refusing to attack them. If the other faction is a fun faction to war (not sure why you would war any faction that isn't) then they'll accept your decision and should meet you in a more even battle. I've seen it happen and the past and if we start making it a norm as a community, then people will begin to accept it as norm. There's no need for a rule to be made for this.

I think the reason we've gotten to this point is because the community hasn't been able to handle this on their own, and its exhausting both faction leaders and enemy players alike.

[123brogan]

I agree, rule III is to limmiting. I would be ok with the ladders, but not with the two wide stairs, I like building small stairs, 1 wide, and I don't think this makes them more gamey. Two is just to big for our scale of the fort, to limiting. A path, other then with instant death ladders, is more clear and would be a better possble rule.

No interior changes are required. We simply build a smaller tower 20 blocks away from the eye of Allah, with a drawbridge across. We retract the drawbridge during war.

[The Hedge Knight]

Aankers rules seem pretty sensible to me. I feel like an extension to rule III allowing ladders of say 10 blocks would be a little less restrictive though. I also think limiting 'moats' which have to be blocked across to 20 blocks depth (maximum non lethal fall) would be fair as this would force defenders to actually damage attackers rather than simply relying on mistakes/lag.

[Burgess]

But what's the point of limiting moats? If you attacked any floor level other than the ground floor of the BM you'd still falll to your death (because I know full well this thread is about the BM)

[The Hedge Knight]

The difference is simple. Firstly moats tend to be external hence present a first obstacle often with lacking any cover which makes the initial stages of a siege unnecessarily painful. Later stages of sieges generally allow the attacking force some shelter. Secondly while tall walls provide a disadvantage to defenders by making archery downwards harder moats allow defenders to be on the same level and hence make pot shots a lot easier. Finally such a rule would compress the maximum vertical distance of a fortification (generally) from 256 blocks to less than 214 blocks hence making the total number of drops lesser and easing item retrieval etc. On that last point as an attacker retrieving items is generally easy due to simply having to travel to the wall base, moats make that much harder than it needs to be.

[Burgess]

It's a fort they're not meant to be easy to take.

[Gnomosapien]

While we're on the topic of things I don't like while sieging, I dont like how the enemy can shoot me when I am trying to get into their base? Also i think Bows just generally look ugly (even if enchanted to make them sparkly). So i think we should ban bows.

Also I don't like how I come into an enemy base and am not directed by arrows and signs directly to their spawn/chest room, so I think we should ban people who don't xray so everyone can find main storage easily

[The Guy With No Imagination]

While we're on the topic of things I don't like while sieging, I dont like how the enemy can shoot me when I am trying to get into their base? Also i think Bows just generally look ugly (even if enchanted to make them sparkly). So i think we should ban bows.

Also I don't like how I come into an enemy base and am not directed by arrows and signs directly to their spawn/chest room, so I think we should ban people who don't xray so everyone can find main storage easily

You're not adding anything to the conversation. Please, I know it's painstakingly difficult for you, but the memes can wait.

[Gnomosapien]

You're not adding anything to the conversation. Please, I know it's painstakingly difficult for you, but the memes can wait.

Muh fascism though