Proposed Fort Changes

[Tiberius Decimus Maximus]

Because there was no agreement on a solution. We've got a couple solutions now, we can pick which one we'd prefer.

We don't need a particular situation to reflect on the precedent of past issues and seek to correct them, in one way or another.

[Aanker]

Its been brought up.. and voted down on every map.

So again, what situation or problem has arisen on the server this map which makes the new rules necessary.. so necessary that it is implied the server will be shut down if they aren't implemented?

Proactive server management means preventing problems seen on previous maps before they arise on this one. Those problems have caused ever-repeating cycles of frustration and complaints that never result in a solution, only suggestions that are discussed to death and beyond. We're fixing those cycles.

[firebird1170]

Yes there was an agreement, and a vote - not to implement anything specific on "gamey forts" other than the Obsidian rule.

As for changing rules, sure Admins can go back and try to correct things stuck in their craw from previous maps. But if you want to do something useful without a crap ton side effects which create new problems, it is advisable to be solving a problem which is actually happening in this map.

You can do what you want, but I don't see anything actually happening which makes these changes necessary.. let alone so necessary the server will shut down without it. And imo, the "solutions" will simply create new, real problems, instead of solving not-currently-happening hypothetical ones.

[Tiberius Decimus Maximus]

You haven't given what those new problems would be, you've only disagreed with change on principle.

[Buddydog]

You haven't given what those new problems would be, you've only disagreed with change on principle.

I have thought.

Banning beds in forts would destroy a smaller faction's ability to fight. As you said before in regards to NK vs the world, this rule change is designed to enable high numbers of attackers to easily overwelhm defenders.

This server has, and always be a server where combat favors a defender, making attacks tactful and strategic.

This change would permit factions with more than 10 players to dominate all smallers factions overnight.

[Tiberius Decimus Maximus]

I still don't see how that logic follows. The only difference is the length of the battle, not necessarily the result. In all other ways the disadvantage in numbers is the same.

Even if it in some way meaningfully impacts a smaller factions ability to resist, there is no reason they cannot react dynamically and utilize the age old art of diplomacy to even the odds and attain victory.

[Jyrre]

Where would the bed be if not in the fort then? Are we to respawn in barns and sheds? Where is the fun (that we hold so dear) in dying and then being forced to respawn away from the fighting?
The enemy fort is first taken when the enemy is standing still on their beds.

[firebird1170]

You haven't given what those new problems would be, you've only disagreed with change on principle.

That in itself is a good enough reason, given that we are not dealing with a real problem. You can literally only do harm, not improve something needing it. Unlike the statements being made that voting no is asking for the server to be shut down.

[Tiberius Decimus Maximus]

Server ain't perfect, bud, sorry to say.

[firebird1170]

Sure I agree, can't argue with that.

[Tiberius Decimus Maximus]

It can, however, be better. Obviously. Considering the premature demise of the past 6 maps and general ill feeling.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

I'm overall felling like the 2-block rule might be a better one. I'd like to change my vote in favor of that.

[firebird1170]

I'm thinking either of these rules may make actual situation worse, not fix a theoretical problem (presumably forts being too hard to conquer). Both may push the most common attack mode towards surprise decapitations, with no follow-up counter or defense. It will tend to make battles very short. Especially against smaller factions, because it will have nerfed an important means of smaller factions defending themselves. Thinking along the lines of what Buddy said earlier.

[Nerva]

I noticed yesterday that enemies can now place water/lava in your land... seems to me like attackers are having an easier time already on this map.

[Mike92574]

I noticed yesterday that enemies can now place water/lava in your land... seems to me like attackers are having an easier time already on this map.

Took you a week to discover that I think that's down to the fact that you gain permissions that allow you to alter blocks in enemy lands, which covers placing lava and water. The same thing happens when allies grant you building rights on their land.

[Tiberius Decimus Maximus]

Aye, I found that out the hard way. XD Was none too pleased with that discovery.

[Diglytron]

Oh with being able to place water/lava taking the battlemoat sure must not be a problem, as you can simply place water under your siege bridges. That tackles a lot of the problems I think?

[The Hedge Knight]

The fact that placing breaking now does twice as much damage and that arrows are considerably more powerful means it isn't flat out easier.

[abbews]

I'm thinking either of these rules may make actual situation worse, not fix a theoretical problem (presumably forts being too hard to conquer). Both may push the most common attack mode towards surprise decapitations, with no follow-up counter or defense. It will tend to make battles very short. Especially against smaller factions, because it will have nerfed an important means of smaller factions defending themselves. Thinking along the lines of what Buddy said earlier.

Not sure how many sieges you've been in..

But it's not fun to construct a siege tower for hours, nor is it fun to defend against it. Making sieges shorter is exactly what should happen. This is PvP, not PvE after all. I've spent so many hours sieging down ridiculous structures, structures so physically impossible it's not even funny, that I know it's not worth it, even if you slaughter the enemy during the two minutes of actual combat. I do not think grinding in this game is a good use of my time. I do it for easy access fun. Now someone will say that you need to grind to get a good reward, well do that in real life mate. This is a game.

One big problem is that factions intentionally declare war so they find themselves numerically inferior, giving them reason to hole up in forts that require extreme numerical advantage on the side of the attackers to win. Gamey structures has NOT been a problem for the entirety of the server. The communal spirit on "what is a fair fort" has sadly disappeared, now replaced by forts with the intention of being deterrents to PvP, not challenging PvP. A fort should be hard to take. By ingenious traps and by defenders having higher ground and greater view of field. But what it has come to now is too much. A siege should not take several hours.

A solution is to not attack gamey forts. That however falls futile when your enemy holds up in said fort as soon as they are outnumbered, turning the so called war into a waiting fest.

[Selukon]

sieges wouldnt take hours if people werent awful at building towers.