View Poll Results: Choose the rule you prefer. Note: One of these rules WILL be implemented.

Voters
30. You may not vote on this poll
  • Bed-Free Forts Rule

    15 50.00%
  • Two-Block Path Rule

    7 23.33%
  • Abstain

    8 26.67%
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 89

Thread: Proposed Fort Changes

  1. #1

    Default Proposed Fort Changes

    Administration has decided that a rule change is necessary regarding fort structures on the server. This poll includes the previously suggested option of there being a two-block wide path from the fortress entrance to the bed area, and a new suggestion from administration wherein beds would be banned completely from forts.

    The rule options suggested are worded thus:

    Option 1: Bed-Free Forts Rule
    No present or future fort may include any beds. Beds may not be placed in any chunk that the fort involves. Defenders may not respawn inside their fort. 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, cannot have any beds placed within the bounds of the chunks that the fort involves. It is however permissible to have any number of secret passageways, tunnels etc. from an off-chunk spawn area, into the fort. If the defenders opt to defend city walls instead of a central citadel, the city walls (and the chunks thus involved) will be counted as a fort. Beds may therefore not be placed in city walls or gates or the chunks involved by those structures. Moderation makes the judgement call on what constitutes a fort, if this is not abundantly clear.
    Arguments
    + Straightforward and simple, and requires no edits of existing builds
    + Forts that are time-consuming to reach become disadvantageous to respawned defenders who attempt to reinforce
    + Provides the defending side with the same sort of staying power that the attacking side has
    + Reinforcing defenders will have to battle their way through the siege lines of the attackers, placing them on the same level

    Option 2: Two-Block Path Rule
    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.
    The exact specifications of the rule (width of path, depth of path, drawbridge distance) may be subject to later adjustment.

    Arguments
    + Provides a clear path for attackers to take, limiting the need for time-consuming siege structures and focusing the siege battle on the fighting itself
    + Introduces a strategical aspect where players may consider the advantages of placing beds below the less accessible, last line of defence in their fort
    - Implementing this option would place a large strain on moderation due to the many specific requirements involved in fort design which will have to be monitored.
    - Requires players to potentially make large changes to their existing forts.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Proposed Fort Changes

    Where's the option for think this through better and come up with alternative solutions.

  3. #3

    Default Re: Proposed Fort Changes

    The two-block path rule will require major changes to a lot of forts. I much prefer removing beds from forts. That will create interesting battles to prevent respawning reinforcements from entering forts, and also encourage secret passageways to allow reinforcements to enter secretly without being killed by the besiegers.

  4. #4
    Aanker's Avatar Concordant
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    7,071

    Default Re: Proposed Fort Changes

    I would have supported the two-block path rule but the bed-free forts rule is simple and elegant. The wording is especially clear and leaves little open for controversy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Adar View Post
    Russia have managed to weaponize the loneliest and saddest people on the internet by providing them with (sometimes barechested) father figures whom they can adhere to in order to justify their hatred for the current establishment and the society that rejects them.

    UNDER THE PROUD PATRONAGE OF ABBEWS
    According to this poll, 80%* of TGW fans agree that "The mod team is devilishly handsome" *as of 12/10

  5. #5

    Default Re: Proposed Fort Changes

    What about capital cities and castles then? Should they be besieged are we supposed to move our beds down somewhere?

  6. #6

    Default Re: Proposed Fort Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by The Guy With No Imagination View Post
    What about capital cities and castles then? Should they be besieged are we supposed to move our beds down somewhere?
    Cities by themselves are not forts, as specified within the rule. The only location inside a city where you could not place a bed would be chunks containing a fort inside the city, or chunks containing the walls/gates.

  7. #7

    Default Re: Proposed Fort Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by The Guy With No Imagination View Post
    What about capital cities and castles then? Should they be besieged are we supposed to move our beds down somewhere?
    In the bed proposal, a spawn bed would not be allowed to occupy the same chunk as a defensive structure, be it a city wall, watchtower or main pvp keep.
    Last edited by 123brogan; August 13, 2016 at 10:21 PM.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Proposed Fort Changes

    Welp. C'est la vie, not my favorite idea but something I can live with.

  9. #9

    Default Re: Proposed Fort Changes

    I havnt made enough posts to vote but ughhhhhhhh, Ill vote for the no bed rule ;p

  10. #10

    Default Re: Proposed Fort Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by The Guy With No Imagination View Post
    Welp. C'est la vie, not my favorite idea but something I can live with.
    Your bed can be hidden underground just outside the wall of your pvp keep, with a secret passage to the top.

  11. #11
    Magister Militum Flavius Aetius's Avatar Aetī Avēas!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Rock Hill, SC
    Posts
    16,312
    Tournaments Joined
    1
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Proposed Fort Changes

    I guess this would add a certain advantage to cities. Constantinople will primarily be defended from its encompassing walls which means players could set their spawns in nearby houses or whatnot.

  12. #12

    Default Re: Proposed Fort Changes

    That bed rule aint gonna change anything. Any reasonably sized castle is too big for an attacking force to police the entire perimeter meaning people could easily respawn outside and sneak their way in, and if theyre caught and killed theres no working manpower mechanic so you can just die and retry over and over.

    The second rule is better imo as it should streamline the whole sieging affair while people will still have the option to build siegeworks to gain an extra advantage as well as giving castles a bit more realism (Which isnt really key but always nice).

  13. #13

    Default Re: Proposed Fort Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by Magister Militum Flavius Aetius View Post
    I guess this would add a certain advantage to cities. Constantinople will primarily be defended from its encompassing walls which means players could set their spawns in nearby houses or whatnot.
    That is certainly legal.
    Quote Originally Posted by Keelos Penguinos View Post
    That bed rule aint gonna change anything. Any reasonably sized castle is too big for an attacking force to police the entire perimeter meaning people could easily respawn outside and sneak their way in, and if theyre caught and killed theres no working manpower mechanic so you can just die and retry over and over.
    Manpower will hopefully be fixed soon enough. Spawning outside the castle will be a huge hindrance to some castle designs. For example the Battlemoat has no entrance and the defenders have to build their own siege tower just to get in. It would be very hard to reinforce the Battlemoat from outside, and there is no room in that design for secret passageways.

    Yes, in other designs, the respawning defenders can easily reach the top of the castle through secret passageways or simply walking in the main entrance. That is not true of the most-complained about designs such as the Battlemoat.

  14. #14

    Default Re: Proposed Fort Changes

    Okay but were not making changes just to the battlemoat here it needs to affect all forts, and you have to bare in mind that it is much easier for a defender to get into a castle than an attacker, they can easily stack up the side the defenders arent on or get a faction mate to pour water down. It would also be fairly easy to implement a secret passageway by taking the sand/lava out of one block of the wall and just having the defenders know where it is.

  15. #15
    Mike92574's Avatar Tiro
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Gaillimh
    Posts
    217
    Tournaments Joined
    1
    Tournaments Won
    0

    Default Re: Proposed Fort Changes

    The passageway thing makes it too easy for attackers to attack a good castle. I'd be for the no beds option as it'll make dying at sieges as a defender more vital, which will make the battles more intense, which at the end of the day is what makes pvp on this server so much fun.

  16. #16
    Benz282's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    East Coast, US
    Posts
    2,955

    Default Re: Proposed Fort Changes

    Enforcing a no-beds rule doesn't actually address the issues I see with fort design and sieges at the moment. If anything, all it does is exacerbate the problem by further encouraging players to hole up in simply unassailable positions, as defenders are punished even more for every death they sustain.

    Instant death ladders and huge pits are the lowest common denominator in fort design on this server, and very few forts that I have seen in the past few years have not subscribed to these features. IDL's and pits are a problem because of how little effort it takes to make them and how easy it is for defenders to score kills using them, while offering no counterplay for attackers beyond building a siege tower to bypass the defenses. Their effectiveness makes them an extremely popular addition to forts on the server, as they make defending extremely easy even with a small force, but they are not fun to siege nor interesting to defend.

    The only fort that I've seen on this server (thus far) that doesn't use IDL's or huge pits is Eldinghold. It is a comparatively small fortress that nonetheless offers its defenders a massive advantage over enemy attackers. It is already compliant with the 2-wide path rule, except it has two <10-block tall double-wide ladders. During a siege, attackers are subject to arrowfire from positions that cannot be reached readily. Advance arrow towers are accessible from inside the main body of the keep to provide additional firing angles on the attacking force, but small drawbridges pull back to separate these towers from the keep once the attackers breach the outer layer of defenses. Once past the water-filled moat, attackers can take cover from arrowfire by hugging the walls of the keep, but the defenders are able to drop TNT and anvils from above to kill them. Attackers can, alternatively, mine through the walls of the keep and try to tunnel up under the defenders, but the walls are filled with sand to delay this move, giving the defenders time to recognize the possibility of a sapping operation and react accordingly. Finally, attackers can easily reach the top layer of the keep with ender pearls from within the fort's outer walls, offering attackers with a strong numerical superiority the ability to bypass the lower levels of the keep entirely.

    It should be clear that the fort design of Eldinghold offers more options, and more interesting options, for both attackers and defenders when it comes under siege. There are multiple viable ways for an attacking force to breach the fort's defenses and overwhelm the defenders, but the fort is designed in such a way as to offer the defenders viable countermeasures for the attackers' choices. A siege of Eldinghold is as much a battle of wits as it is a battle of brawn, as an uncoordinated assault down the obvious path leads to sure death (which I have personally witnessed).

    Contrast this to a siege of a fort where an IDL separates the defender's main staging area from the entrance (and any attackers). There is no reasonable way for an attacking force to reach the defenders. Even if there is an enclosing wall, building/digging a staircase to reach the defenders with a reasonably-large force is a risky and time-consuming endeavor. Thus, the attackers are forced to build a siege tower, possibly 100+ blocks away from the defenders' position, first building up to the height the defenders are at and then building a magic carpet long enough to carry them to the battlements. This is an extremely time-consuming process and provides little opportunity for either side to interact with the enemy (generally 1-2 cannoneers per side, with the rest taking potshots that should never result in a kill). Once the tower and carpet are complete, the attackers all fly over to the enemy base and then engage in melee, resulting in a battle with an hour or longer buildup, but with only ~5 minutes or less of actual fighting.

    If I, as someone building a fort, know that anyone who dies on my side during the battle will be isolated from the rest of the defenders, I would do everything I could to ensure my side is exposed to as little danger as possible, while ensuring the attackers are subject to the highest risk possible. Currently, without any rules against instant death ladders, accomplishing these goals means putting my force at the top of a huge ladder surrounded by a pit; offering practically 0 odds for success for an attacker and practically 0 risk for my defenders. This is the problem that exists now and enforcing no beds within the fort will only further encourage that.

    Having no beds in the fort also removes much of the strategic/material benefit attackers stand to gain during a siege, as the spawn room in forts currently necessarily have some number of kits out in the open. A successful siege, in which the attackers reach the spawn room of the defenders, places the defenders completely at the mercy of the attackers and generally nets them a few extra kills as the trapped players scramble to gear up or flee. With no beds in the fort, there's little reason to actually siege the fort itself, unless the attackers are only after fun or challenge. There's nothing wrong with that mentality, but if there's no strategic reason to attack a fort, I don't see any reason to attack a fort unless its during a pre-arranged "fun" war.

    In spite of that final point, I don't mind a "no beds in forts" rule being implemented, as it does change how sieges would play out. The problem I have with the "no beds in forts" rule is that it doesn't actually address the issue. That's fine if the majority of players think that being required to build a siege tower for every attempted siege is fun, but I'd personally rather siege forts like Eldinghold that allow attackers a chance to actually succeed. If moderation is going to implement the "no beds rule", please address IDL's and pits in some way. I understand that there are legitimate problems with implementing something in the vein of the "2-block path" rule, not least of which being the already-constructed forts that aren't compliant, but the community and moderation need to understand that the "no beds in forts" rule won't make IDL's, death pits, and siege towers any less prevalent.

  17. #17
    Vicarius
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Oregon,USA
    Posts
    2,830

    Default Re: Proposed Fort Changes

    nobody ever took eldinghold in a legit fight. people took the bm. map 2 eldinghold was more than the bm ever was, it just looked prettier

  18. #18
    Benz282's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    East Coast, US
    Posts
    2,955

    Default Re: Proposed Fort Changes

    Quote Originally Posted by Selukon View Post
    nobody ever took eldinghold in a legit fight. people took the bm. map 2 eldinghold was more than the bm ever was, it just looked prettier
    To clarify, everything I said about Eldinghold in my post refers to the current Eldinghold on the map. The basic design is the same, but there are a number of important changes that have been made to the design.

    The problem I have with a Battlemoat isn't its aesthetics, but the basic design elements that make it unfeasible to siege as an attacker. Since you brought it up: who successfully sieged a battlemoat, and which version of the battlemoat was it? Did they not rely on a siege tower + drawbridge?

  19. #19

    Default Re: Proposed Fort Changes

    how about instead of blaming the forts you should just get better at fighting and attacking things. like literally, the forts you've made is childs play to other servers.

  20. #20
    Katsumoto's Avatar Quae est infernum es
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    11,780

    Default Re: Proposed Fort Changes

    I can't see why the Two-Block Path Rule would really be that difficult to implement? Changes to existing forts would have to be made but it would be a one-time thing, and monitoring the rule would surely be little harder than monitoring the no-obsidian rule?

    As Benz has suggested Rule 1 would probably just result in defenders withdrawing even further into their defences and creating less PvP by their avoidance of risk and danger, whereas Rule 2 would encourage actual fighting by its inherent requirement that defenders will have to fight to keep out attackers. I think most people would agree that they would prefer spending more time actually fighting than spending hours building siegeworks. We've removed the grind of aquiring gear, let's now remove the grind of actually fighting.
    "I pray Heaven to bestow the best of blessings on this house and all that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof."
    - John Adams, on the White House, in a letter to Abigail Adams (2 November 1800)

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •