Proposed Fort Changes

[The Guy With No Imagination]

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.

You're still banned, right?

My concern with the two block rule is just that we're getting close to legislating what you're supposed to build. Slippery slope and whatnot

[King Of Scotland]

I'm against both rules. Given that we can break blocks, open doors and chests in enemy land and people actually tend to cooperate more here than other PvP servers, I think we have it pretty easy both attacking and defending. People just need to give it a proper shot. Of course completely ridiculous gamey forts could be removed by enforcing a certain ruleset banning super high, narrow etc entrances to bases or whatever but mostly it's pretty basic castles and I don't see a problem with it.

[Selukon]

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?

pretty sure every version of the bm was taken at some point. and why is there a problem with having to build to take a fort?

[Beny1995]

1. I don't have enough posts to vote, so add one to "abstain" because these are both silly.

2. You can take the battlemoat with minimal casualties as the dwarves have done many times. Its not unsiegeable at all.

[123brogan]

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.

We think it's a valid strategy for the defenders to design their castle to make it easy for reinforcements to enter. This will nerf the types of forts people complain most about.

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...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).

Before we created this proposal, we looked at most of the forts in the world. The majority of them are actually closer to your description of new Eldinghold than the Battlemoat, deliberately designed not to be considered gamey by others. We don't foresee their owners changing that due to any incentives we give them. In fact, Reiksgard's fort is the only one apart from the Battlemoat that I have heard complaints about.

We would like to see the effect of this new rule before we introduce more new rules regarding ladders or anything else.

[Aanker]

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.

Excellent points, I think. Regarding instant death ladders this was under discussion but a final decision was put on hold to fully gather the effects of this rule change. If indeed it turns out that your predictions regarding no beds are true (and the community still votes for that option) there is always the possibility that the path and ladder rules may later be put into force instead of or in conjunction with the no beds rule. I have over the course of the last few days heard very good arguments for the 2nd option and am myself now somewhat in a neutral position, nevertheless, I do not feel inclined to change my vote at this moment.

[The Hedge Knight]

Its always the case that you don't know before you try it. Regardless I think one of the most important factors in a siege being fun is continued momentum. Sitting at the base of a wall lowly building is never as fun as working ones way up a castle step by step.

[High Chunker Greens]

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.

Tell me more, o Mighty Consul.

[Benz282]

Before we created this proposal, we looked at most of the forts in the world. The majority of them are actually closer to your description of new Eldinghold than the Battlemoat, deliberately designed not to be considered gamey by others. We don't foresee their owners changing that due to any incentives we give them. In fact, Reiksgard's fort is the only one apart from the Battlemoat that I have heard complaints about.

Reiksgard's castle is still under construction. Major changes have been made during the war, including a large stairway between the 1st and 2nd tier which will be continued in some form up to the top.

We would like to see the effect of this new rule before we introduce more new rules regarding ladders or anything else.

Regarding instant death ladders this was under discussion but a final decision was put on hold to fully gather the effects of this rule change. If indeed it turns out that your predictions regarding no beds are true (and the community still votes for that option) there is always the possibility that the path and ladder rules may later be put into force instead of or in conjunction with the no beds rule.

Fair enough. I'd still prefer for the 2nd option to be implemented immediately instead of the no beds rule, but I am glad to see that moderation is keeping an open mind and seems willing to made further changes if the bed change doesn't have enough of a positive impact on sieges.

[elofan]

I don't think either of these would do any good, but if I had to choose, I'd pick the no beds option. That being said, there should be a "neither" option.

[alimungo]

Both of these are ridiculous, half the point of castles is making them defendable so to say there has to be a two block path kind of defeats the point in my view. I agree there should be a neither option.

[Beny1995]

Furthermore, the fact that a significant portion of the server community cannot vote for bizarre TWC reasons, should be accounted for. Perhaps a strawpoll?

[Beny1995]

EDIT: like this https://strawpoll.de/982da8b

[Mike92574]

Furthermore, the fact that a significant portion of the server community cannot vote for bizarre TWC reasons, should be accounted for. Perhaps a strawpoll?

I think you might need 25 comments or something like that before you're allowed to vote.

[alimungo]

I think you might need 25 comments or something like that before you're allowed to vote.

Aye but it seems harsh to exclude a large amount of the player base just because they don't post on the forums much (myself included).

[The Hedge Knight]

EDIT: like this https://strawpoll.de/982da8b

Unless it has some kind of player identification its not reliable.

[Ditronian]

Furthermore, the fact that a significant portion of the server community cannot vote for bizarre TWC reasons, should be accounted for. Perhaps a strawpoll?

I'm actually ok with TWC's restriction of this. I mean we are located on TWC, adding to their forum activity by posting is the least we can do if we're going to be on TWC. Positive forum participation was always one of GED's higher priorities, as such I think it should remain one of ours so long as we're on his resource.

[The Guy With No Imagination]

Yeah. Post here and in other subforums, make acquaintances, spread the glorious word of the server and have them join make more posts

[Beny1995]

I'm actually ok with TWC's restriction of this. I mean we are located on TWC, adding to their forum activity by posting is the least we can do if we're going to be on TWC. Positive forum participation was always one of GED's higher priorities, as such I think it should remain one of ours so long as we're on his resource.

Alright, but the poll is clearly skewed in favour of long term players. If that acceptable to you then fair enough. But seems like a damn good way of alienating a portion of your user base.

Furthermore, not reliable straw poll is coming out overwhelmingly in favour of no change.

[Katsumoto]

Can't blame others you haven't participated in the forum. How hard is it to make 25 posts.