Jump to content
Server time: 2017-08-17, 17:39

Sign in to follow this  
Caesar

Camp Settlement attack frequency rule - Public Poll.

Which proposition do you support?  

209 members have voted

  1. 1. Which proposition do you support?

    • Proposition 1
      49
    • Proposition 2
      87
    • Neither
      73


Recommended Posts

Caesar    438

So we have been over the last little while been tossing around ideas to reduce the ridiculously high amount of attacks that happen on settlements. While none of the options we have decided are perfect these are the best ideas we have come up with at this time. One of these two rules will decide how camp attacks must be performed.

The goal is to reduce the amount of attacks on the settlements, be able to track attacks and make the settlements a bit more peaceful RP hubs.

Proposition number 1:

- All settlement attacks must be announced in a forum thread, with a proper in character and role playing reason why the settlement is attacked and what is the objective in doing so.

- One settlement cannot be attacked more than once in a 24h period and one clan cannot attack the same settlement twice in a row. A clan can only have one attack announcement open at any time.

- The only exception to these rules are from in game hostilities between clans that were started by camp representatives.


Proposition number 2:

You can only attack a settlement if you:

- Have announced it on the settlements thread and given 24 hours for the settlement to understand and comply with any demands given. This announcement must include a robust role-play reason for the attack.

- The only exception to these rules are from in game hostilities between clans that were started by camp representatives.

You cannot attack the same camp twice in a row nor have multiple announcements up at once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
   0

Rule 2 seems quite good. However, does this mean we can no longer pound a settlement into submission? And what about if no CRs are present? Can the camp be taken over then? We tend to use the Ravens Nest as a Gulag when they're not around.

Plus, does giving hostile demands on the forums give them KoS on us? That wouldn't be fair at all.

Another scenario that may raise question is if we rob a 501st, and he runs into Altar not complying. Does that give us rights to attack?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest magw33d   
Guest magw33d

I think these are good ideas, but I get a feeling settlements are going to get a little empty if people have prior knowledge of an attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rolle    2443

For the sake of rule simplicity settlements can not be taken over and only the clans in the settlement thread are considered CRs. Makes things much more simple and we don't have to add another 5 rules about settlement takeover and misidentification of CRs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caesar    438

option 2 is my personal favorite, any updates on the upcoming CR rules aswell?

No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think these are good ideas, but I get a feeling settlements are going to get a little empty if people have prior knowledge of an attack.

Personally I'd stay around for an attack. Can make for interesting roleplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
   0

For the sake of rule simplicity settlements can not be taken over and only the clans in the settlements thread are considered CRs. Makes things much more simple and we don't have to add another 5 rules about settlement takeover and misidentification of CRs.

If that is the case, can the SKA have a settlement implemented so we can have a place to bring hostages?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bush    10

Proposition 2 seems pretty good. It could probaly lead to great ropeplay if the CRs have enough time to either gather enough tools to defend the settlement or get whatever that clan state that they wants in the thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest magw33d   
Guest magw33d

I think these are good ideas, but I get a feeling settlements are going to get a little empty if people have prior knowledge of an attack.

Personally I'd stay around for an attack. Can make for interesting roleplay.

Same here, I have only been executed twice in DayZRP, and both times were pretty lackluster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caesar    438

For the sake of rule simplicity settlements can not be taken over and only the clans in the settlements thread are considered CRs. Makes things much more simple and we don't have to add another 5 rules about settlement takeover and misidentification of CRs.

If that is the case, can the SKA have a settlement implemented so we can have a place to bring hostages?

If you follow the established procedure.

Alternatively there are a few PCB's I know of that could work. I suggest the one NW of NWAF on the hill. Decent sized building with closable doors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rolle    2443

For the sake of rule simplicity settlements can not be taken over and only the clans in the settlements thread are considered CRs. Makes things much more simple and we don't have to add another 5 rules about settlement takeover and misidentification of CRs.

If that is the case, can the SKA have a settlement implemented so we can have a place to bring hostages?

That's a wrong thread to ask that, see settlement ideas forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zhunk    2

[align=justify]Both options sound great. It will definitely add to the Role-Play spirit, lower the amount of attacks, might also lower the amount of misunderstood "KoSes" while attacking. And will give a chance for a fair fight between the PREPARED defending force and the attacking force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
   0

Proposition 2 seems pretty good. It could probaly lead to great ropeplay if the CRs have enough time to either gather enough tools to defend the settlement or get whatever that clan state that they wants in the thread.

Or so they can be sure that they are not logged in at the time... Easily abused and bias towards the defenders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ktbur    9

I have a feeling the CRs are just going to leave the camps empty when an announcement is made against their particular settlement. Though, I might be proven wrong. Who knows.

Proposition 2 does sound better though, espeiclaly the part where it says:

"The only exception to these rules are from in game hostilities between clans that were started by camp representatives."

A little clarification though, Caesar. By in-game hostilities, does this include CRs refusing entry or CRs initiating on players inside their camps? As the rules stands, KOS rights are not passed on when CRs initiate while they're inside their settlement. I'm wondering whether we'll gain rights to attack a settlement, not to be confused with getting KOS rights, when CRs initiate inside their camp. I think the term "hostilities" is loosely used and it would be good to give clear cut examples of what is considered hostile and what isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caesar    438

Proposition 2 seems pretty good. It could probaly lead to great ropeplay if the CRs have enough time to either gather enough tools to defend the settlement or get whatever that clan state that they wants in the thread.

Or so they can be sure that they are not logged in at the time... Easily abused and bias towards the defenders.

You have gotten away with a ridiculous volume of attacks for too long, you cannot justify the volume in a RP way really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Proposition number 1:

- All settlement attacks must be announced in a forum thread, with a proper in character and role playing reason why the settlement is attacked and what is the objective in doing so.

- One settlement cannot be attacked more than once in a 24h period and one clan cannot attack the same settlement twice in a row. A clan can only have one attack announcement open at any time.


Proposition number 2:

You can only attack a settlement if you:

- Have announced it on the settlements thread and given 24 hours for the settlement to understand and comply with any demands given. This announcement must include a robust role-play reason for the attack.

- The only exception to these rules are from in game hostilities between clans that were started by camp representatives.

You cannot attack the same camp twice in a row nor have multiple announcements up at once.

Proposition 1 makes more sense but I would remove the "in a row" requirement as a group may only wish to attack one camp. This favors groups that only attack camps.

The 24 hour requirement should suffice or move it up to 48 hours to allow the CR's to even try to rebuild or counter for the next attack.

Perhaps look into a cumulative system to increase the amount of time you are able to attack on the frequency of your attacks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
   0

For the sake of rule simplicity settlements can not be taken over and only the clans in the settlements thread are considered CRs. Makes things much more simple and we don't have to add another 5 rules about settlement takeover and misidentification of CRs.

If that is the case, can the SKA have a settlement implemented so we can have a place to bring hostages?

That's a wrong thread to ask that, see settlement ideas forums.

It's not an idea, just a question while this new rule is being discussed. Quite frankly it will ruin a lot of our RP. And giving the CRs the time of attack can let them abuse the rule by either making sure that they are all logged out (or logged in).

Attacks no longer being spontaneous and unpredictable will allow CRs to abuse the rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caesar    438

I have a feeling the CRs are just going to leave the camps empty when an announcement is made against their particular settlement. Though, I might be proven wrong. Who knows.

Proposition 2 does sound better though, espeiclaly the part where it says:

"The only exception to these rules are from in game hostilities between clans that were started by camp representatives."

A little clarification though, Caesar. By in-game hostilities, does this include CRs refusing entry or CRs initiating on players inside their camps? As the rules stands, KOS rights are not passed on when CRs initiate while they're inside their settlement. I'm wondering whether we'll gain rights to attack a settlement, not to be confused with getting KOS rights, when CRs initiate inside their camp. I think the term "hostilities" is loosely used and it would be good to give clear cut examples of what is considered hostile and what isn't.

No, only things done outside the camp would count. These being the things that give KoS rights.

We all know if we did it the other way certain people would simply bait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
   0

Proposition 2 seems pretty good. It could probaly lead to great ropeplay if the CRs have enough time to either gather enough tools to defend the settlement or get whatever that clan state that they wants in the thread.

Or so they can be sure that they are not logged in at the time... Easily abused and bias towards the defenders.

You have gotten away with a ridiculous volume of attacks for too long, you cannot justify the volume in a RP way really.

Foreigners in our land must be removed. Those that mock our laws and do not comply to our reasonable demands must be crushed. How are they not RP reasons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Proposition number 1:

- All settlement attacks must be announced in a forum thread, with a proper in character and role playing reason why the settlement is attacked and what is the objective in doing so.

- One settlement cannot be attacked more than once in a 24h period and one clan cannot attack the same settlement twice in a row. A clan can only have one attack announcement open at any time.


Proposition number 2:

You can only attack a settlement if you:

- Have announced it on the settlements thread and given 24 hours for the settlement to understand and comply with any demands given. This announcement must include a robust role-play reason for the attack.

- The only exception to these rules are from in game hostilities between clans that were started by camp representatives.

You cannot attack the same camp twice in a row nor have multiple announcements up at once.

Proposition 1 makes more sense but I would remove the "in a row" requirement as a group may only wish to attack one camp and as such this favors groups that only attack camps.

I agree with SumoS for both propositions. At least define "in a row". Can I not attack a settlement and then attack the same settlement weeks later?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ktbur    9

For the sake of rule simplicity settlements can not be taken over and only the clans in the settlement thread are considered CRs. Makes things much more simple and we don't have to add another 5 rules about settlement takeover and misidentification of CRs.

What do you mean by we can't take it over? So when CRs are absent from a settlement, other clans cannot go inside and just occupy it for the time being? For example, SKA likes entering Raven's Nest when it is empty, turning it into our gulag. We never claim CR rights and we never state that we are camp representatives. Would that be considered okay?

EDIT: Perhaps I didn't read it properly, but for Prop 1, how long prior to the attack should the notification be posted? Does the 24 hours notification still stand or can it be minutes before the planned attack?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Caesar    438

If that is the case, can the SKA have a settlement implemented so we can have a place to bring hostages?

That's a wrong thread to ask that, see settlement ideas forums.

It's not an idea, just a question while this new rule is being discussed. Quite frankly it will ruin a lot of our RP. And giving the CRs the time of attack can let them abuse the rule by either making sure that they are all logged out (or logged in).

Attacks no longer being spontaneous and unpredictable will allow CRs to abuse the rule.

You know why we can't have such nice things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yuval    2

for me num 1 can be abused, clan fights clan, and retreats to a settlement, fights over...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×