Jump to content
Server time: 2019-02-18, 13:28 WE ARE RECRUITING
Sign in to follow this  
Caesar

Settlement attack rule modifications

Recommended Posts

- Snip -

Here's my suggestion:

If you have past hostilities with a group that maintains a known heroic settlement, don't visit that settlement.

If, for whatever reason, you simply have to visit, then don't expect to be let in without suspicion or caution from those manning the location.

Additionally, you should absolutely expect to be disarmed at the door before being allowed entry, or be turned away. It's not the settlement owner's fault if you don't understand why a heroic group is unable to fully trust a known bandit group with weapons within their settlement walls...

I don't see how you can expect otherwise.

That's exactly my point. Now try looking at what Moxy said. He believe in character leadership meetings and Bandit groups should meet before hostilites happen, thank you for agreeing with me and thinking that this is a bit silly as well.

Also, thank you for confirming my point. How are bandits expected to go to a Hero camp without being robbed? It doesn't make sense, therefore limiting the RP by adding a rule such as moxy proposed is limiting as well as it would close to force bandits to lose all their gear and talk to someone and "work things out" basically forcing Bandits to be a hero's play thing.

Share this post


Link to post

Honestly I think all of these rules could have been avoided in the first place. A lot of the scenarios that play out just don't make sense because CR rules are set in place. For instance, a group shouldn't have to sit idly outside while one of their members are being taken hostage and killed. Being disarmed as a precaution is one thing, but lining someone up for execution is a whole different story. The victim's group should be able to initiate and try to get their member back. I understand why this could become a slippery slope of baiting reports if abused, but something needs to be in place to protect bandit groups as well, it'd be only fair.

This 24 hour hostility makes it harder to attack, but people are just going to continuously declare hostilities and the camp is going to get attacked regardless if you look at this realistically. Frank makes a good point that I can support, if a group is attacking a settlement multiple times a day, make it a punishable offense but don't add on a laundry list of rules that makes the settlement unrealistically untouchable. By doing this, it takes care of the issue settlements were having initially having while still being fair to other clans and not making the settlement a 'power house'

Share this post


Link to post

-snip-

I can agree with most of this but why is the settlement viewed as a PvP ground? I understand it would be boring if it was safe like TP was but why does it need to be attacked once a day? There's plenty of other places to go and people to find. As soon as the settlement is put in FANGS are everyone's biggest enemy.

Share this post


Link to post

- Snip -

Here's my suggestion:

If you have past hostilities with a group that maintains a known heroic settlement, don't visit that settlement.

If, for whatever reason, you simply have to visit, then don't expect to be let in without suspicion or caution from those manning the location.

Additionally, you should absolutely expect to be disarmed at the door before being allowed entry, or be turned away. It's not the settlement owner's fault if you don't understand why a heroic group is unable to fully trust a known bandit group with weapons within their settlement walls...

I don't see how you can expect otherwise.

That's exactly my point. Now try looking at what Moxy said. He believe in character leadership meetings and Bandit groups should meet before hostilites happen, thank you for agreeing with me and thinking that this is a bit silly as well.

Also, thank you for confirming my point. How are bandits expected to go to a Hero camp without being robbed? It doesn't make sense, therefore limiting the RP by adding a rule such as moxy proposed is limiting as well as it would close to force bandits to lose all their gear and talk to someone and "work things out" basically forcing Bandits to be a hero's play thing.

I actually didn't say anything about robbing anyone.

I said:

Don't be surprised if you are asked to disarm yourself, before entering the settlement. Depending on your actions inside the settlement will determine your exit method - whether willfully, or against your will.

Our [Fangs'] aim, as it has been from the start, is to present an enjoyable RP settlement for people to get involved with. Unfortunately, rules like in this thread are needed for people - like yourself and others - who see the PvP potential and/or danger, and want to have less hindering rules to allow you to play as you would; namely, as bandits.

I'm not disagreeing. I feel you should play how you wish. That said, I also feel that - left unchecked, and without specific rules - most bandits wouldn't be able to self-regulate their robbing and attacking, and the settlement/s would just become abandoned and pointless, as those wanting RP would simply avoid them.

So, ultimately, the rules are needed, and any bandit who visits should expect to play ball or be asked to leave the proverbial field - or, better yet, avoid the stadium altogether, unless seeking legitimate RP.

Share this post


Link to post

-snip-

I can agree with most of this but why is the settlement viewed as a PvP ground? I understand it would be boring if it was safe like TP was but why does it need to be attacked once a day? There's plenty of other places to go and people to find. As soon as the settlement is put in FANGS are everyone's biggest enemy.

It shouldn't be viewed as a PvP ground, but it is an enemy clan to many people and for legitimate reasons. The Fangs knew that if they made their presence known again it would piss a lot of clans off. I can appreciate the RP there with their friends, but it shouldn't in turn, make them nearly untouchable to their enemies.

It's not even the 'once a day' rule I have an issue with. It's the declaration and unrealistic preparation for an attack that I can't bring myself to agree with.

Once a day from a clan might be a bit much considering that there are multiple clans who would be willing to attack the settlement, that I can agree with. But what if instead of once a day, it could be dragged out to once every two days, or even three. That would give the camp some breathing room, wouldn't you think?

Share this post


Link to post

-snip-

-snip-

But what if instead of once a day, it could be dragged out to once every two days, or even three. That would give the camp some breathing room, wouldn't you think?

Is this not the exact reason that the declaration rule was put in place? Obviously it makes for more RP between the groups (realistic or not) but I'm pretty sure the whole cool down time is the exact reason that the OOC declaration was put in place.

Share this post


Link to post
- Snip -

Sadly, the past has shown that most bandit clans aren't capable of regulating their initiations. Some do, most don't. That's why the rules are in place.

And, as is the case with any game involving imposed rulesets in a sandbox environment, there will be a disconnect between 'what a character can do' and 'what a player is expected to do'... but, sadly, most of us have seen firsthand how little regard some bandits have for controlling their actions, and it's proven to be a disappointing road.

As it stands, the rules keep a settlement from becoming a constant scorched hole in the earth - which, if all evidence from the past indicates, would be the case on a daily [sometimes multiple times daily] basis.

Share this post


Link to post

-snip-

But what if instead of once a day, it could be dragged out to once every two days, or even three. That would give the camp some breathing room, wouldn't you think?

Is this not the exact reason that the declaration rule was put in place? Obviously it makes for more RP between the groups (realistic or not) but I'm pretty sure the whole cool down time is the exact reason that the OOC declaration was put in place.

I'm simply proposing that it be taken out though as it doesn't make much sense to announce you are going to attack an enemy's settlement. The clans are at war, it should always be expected. Furthermore, stating the same message in declarations doesn't promote any RP in my opinion. If anything, it just takes out any kind of 'shock value'. Keep track of when you initiate and don't do it again for another 2 days, giving the other clans their chance to do their thing or you get reported. Why shouldn't it be that simple?

Share this post


Link to post

A 2 day break between a single bandit clan's initiation being renewed? There's quadruple that number of bandit clans; and they need to work out a schedule for all of them to fit in initiations, in a 2 day cycle? Settlements wouldn't stop being attacked.

What you're proposing is essentially the same rule, but without the declaration.

Share this post


Link to post

A 2 day break between a single bandit clan's initiation being renewed? There's quadruple that number of bandit clans; and they need to work out a schedule for all of them to fit in initiations, in a 2 day cycle? Settlements wouldn't stop being attacked.

What you're proposing is essentially the same rule, but without the declaration.

What if it was on a first come first serve basis (announced on the thread) with a total per x amount of time?

Share this post


Link to post

The only way I could see it working, would be for a post-declaration.

Namely, a settlement is attacked, and the clan responsible posts in the settlement thread 'We've attacked'. From there, there would then be a 2 day minimum before another 'random' attack could occur from either the same bandit clan, or a different one.

But ultimately, as you said, first come, first served - so long as there was a method of alerting everyone to the fact of an attacking having taken place.

Ideally, it would then come down to the bandits to self-regulate and perhaps even delay attacks beyond the 2 days - just to keep things interesting. There's no point if it's just a consistent 2 day attack wave, with no break or change in the pattern - A 'ticket line', if you will.

[2 days being used as an example]

Share this post


Link to post

A 2 day break between a single bandit clan's initiation being renewed? There's quadruple that number of bandit clans; and they need to work out a schedule for all of them to fit in initiations, in a 2 day cycle? Settlements wouldn't stop being attacked.

What you're proposing is essentially the same rule, but without the declaration.

I suggested three in my second comment, I just forgot to include it in the other comment. (oops)

And I don't believe that it should be 'any' bandit clan. It should be a clan that is an enemy of the CRs with a long standing hostile history otherwise you're right, you might see an influx of groups that would want to attack.

So 1-2 days would not give you guys space, but once a week seems like a bit of an overkill. Maybe there could be a middle ground?

Share this post


Link to post

A 2 day break between a single bandit clan's initiation being renewed? There's quadruple that number of bandit clans; and they need to work out a schedule for all of them to fit in initiations, in a 2 day cycle? Settlements wouldn't stop being attacked.

What you're proposing is essentially the same rule, but without the declaration.

I suggested three in my second comment, I just forgot to include it in the other comment. (oops)

And I don't believe that it should be 'any' bandit clan. It should be a clan that is an enemy of the CRs with a long standing hostile history otherwise you're right, you might see an influx of groups that would want to attack.

So 1-2 days would not give you guys space, but once a week seems like a bit of an overkill. Maybe there could be a middle ground?

Making it hostile diplomacy based would be reasonable. That way there's an actual solid RP reason for attacking a settlement - as opposed to 'just cause I'm a bandit'.

This notion, combined with the one SumoS and I are also thinking on, might lead to something promising as an alternative to the current ruling.

Also, I think 4 days is a good medium. Not 2, not 7, but somewhere in the middle.

Share this post


Link to post

-snip-

Like I said I agree with the declaration not really making sense, but I don't think that such short cool downs are appropriate. I think 5-7 days for each clan makes more sense.

It makes attacks more special, more enjoyable and can create great RP.

Stories about massive attacks, spreading the news that Solace isn't safe today and creating fear in people who were planning to go there makes for a lot more interesting role-play than people being so used to attacks that it's not special. There is a fine line between enjoyable, tense and spontaneous attacks and boring, expected daily attacks.

Share this post


Link to post

I think there should be a rule that if the settlement owners are being unreasonable or nasty, or do anything that would make people so angry they would attack, that they should be able to if they amass a sizeable force and initiate properly. gosh i miss ravens nest. RIP ravens nest 15ish/9/2013.

Share this post


Link to post

I think there should be a rule that if the settlement owners are being unreasonable or nasty, or do anything that would make people so angry they would attack, that they should be able to if they amass a sizeable force and initiate properly. gosh i miss ravens nest. RIP ravens nest 15ish/9/2013.

You're making the mistake of thinking you have a say in how a settlement is run, by the people who run it. Remember that you voluntarily visit a settlement... it's not your right to take action if the owners aren't treating you how you feel you should be treated.

That's like saying you visit the house of a friend of a friend, but you aren't that close and don't like his attitude, so you decide to rally some of your buddies and trash his place.

Doesn't seem like a good ruling to me.

Share this post


Link to post

Why is it that only members of another hostile groups or "clans" can claim they want to attack and give the 24 hour notice. Of late I feel as though the game has moved more towards clan wars than actual survivor on survivor RP. If you are a lone survivor and find another 10 lone survivors who feel as you do. And want revenge for whatever reason on the settlement, they should be able to do so. If they can organize themselves and launch a proper attack I say all power to them. I understand how clans are a good part of the RP experience, but at any given time when you run in to someone now, they have a clan. And if you do anything to them, their clan comes after you. I feel as though the survivor aspect of well, surviving. Has slowly decreased and the need for a big group with stored cars and top range weapons has ever so increased.

Share this post


Link to post

Why is it that only members of another hostile groups or "clans" can claim they want to attack and give the 24 hour notice. Of late I feel as though the game has moved more towards clan wars than actual survivor on survivor RP. If you are a lone survivor and find another 10 lone survivors who feel as you do. And want revenge for whatever reason on the settlement, they should be able to do so. If they can organize themselves and launch a proper attack I say all power to them. I understand how clans are a good part of the RP experience, but at any given time when you run in to someone now, they have a clan. And if you do anything to them, their clan comes after you. I feel as though the survivor aspect of well, surviving. Has slowly decreased and the need for a big group with stored cars and top range weapons has ever so increased.

This pretty much hit the nail on the head.

And reacher i meant no disrespect. I didnt mean just your settlement, others will come in time and some might even be run by bandits. I feel that if the roleplay leads to an angry mob of people out for blood due to the actions of the CRs of an establishment then they should be able to attack. ive always felt this way.

And as for your analogy, Settlements are not the houses of a friend of a friend. They are places where large groups have settled in a lawless land. In the Apocalypse, people who wrong you run the risk of dying.

Share this post


Link to post

Why is it that only members of another hostile groups or "clans" can claim they want to attack and give the 24 hour notice. Of late I feel as though the game has moved more towards clan wars than actual survivor on survivor RP. If you are a lone survivor and find another 10 lone survivors who feel as you do. And want revenge for whatever reason on the settlement, they should be able to do so. If they can organize themselves and launch a proper attack I say all power to them. I understand how clans are a good part of the RP experience, but at any given time when you run in to someone now, they have a clan. And if you do anything to them, their clan comes after you. I feel as though the survivor aspect of well, surviving. Has slowly decreased and the need for a big group with stored cars and top range weapons has ever so increased.

This pretty much hit the nail on the head.

And reacher i meant no disrespect. I didnt mean just your settlement, others will come in time and some might even be run by bandits. I feel that if the roleplay leads to an angry mob of people out for blood due to the actions of the CRs of an establishment then they should be able to attack. ive always felt this way.

And as for your analogy, Settlements are not the houses of a friend of a friend. They are places where large groups have settled in a lawless land. In the Apocalypse, people who wrong you run the risk of dying.

Agreed

Share this post


Link to post

I am talking about all settlements.

And to follow up your points, again, it comes down to you voluntarily visiting. And I feel if you don't like the place you went to consciously, then you can voluntarily leave that area and do other things. No one is forcing you to stay there and be 'abused or treated badly' in a settlement, and no one is forcing you to start an angry mob to deliver 'mob justice'.

Voluntary.

I feel overall it's a double-edged ruling, especially when you consider all the issues we had a while ago with mobs of civilians banding together randomly to rob groups/clans, and then the KoS fallout that happened when groups had to determine which individual civilians were involved or not.

Allowing for that to happen in settlements would likely result in civilian mobs moving across the map and starting that whole situation all over again.

Share this post


Link to post
-snip

You're right about it being voluntary Reacher, but I think Solice (like most TPs and settlements in the past) is a magnet that attracts everyone on the server. If you start up your game and you want to have RP, then I'd say the Solice area is the best place to go. The rest of the map is much more deserted now.

For that reason I don't think its entirely voluntary and its unfair just to brush it off as 'you have a choice, you don't have to come here'. Sure, they have the choice to A. Wander around the map, small chance to find more then one person, or B. Go to Solace area to have a high chance finding a lot of players and having much more fun.

II have no problem with the '2 days and announcement on thread' rule. Solace would be under constant attack if there was no rule about it, and this should not be. I know how it is to be under constant attack, having been in NRF with their settlement.

Share this post


Link to post

New revision (not live yet), there are some major changes throughout the text:

Definition

The intention of the camp rules is to allow camp representatives to fully manage their settlement without being interrupted by attacks or be exposed to revenge rights. Members of the group which owns the settlement are called Camp Representatives - CRs. By entering a settlement you must obey all reasonable orders given to you by the CRs. Failure to comply can be punished by the CRs in whatever way they deem appropriate.

You enter a settlement at your own risk and accept that CRs are in control of everything and everyone while you are within the area of influence of the settlement. Settlements area of influence is an area inside and around the settlement where CRs are allowed to use their authority. It extends 100 meters from the settlement walls.

Settlements can only be attacked in one of the following scenarios:

1. Approved groups can officially declare hostilities towards the settlement owners and add them as enemies in their diplomacy table. Declaration of hostilities should include reasonable IC reason and must be approved by a GM or an Admin before being authorized. A settlement can only be attacked when 24 hours have passed since the declaration of hostilities and only once every 72 hours.

2. Settlement owners have attacked or initiated on your approved group with hostile intent. Self defense or initiations that were provoked by other players do not count.

In this scenario you can attack the settlement immediately, ignoring the above time restrictions, but you can only do it once. An attack caused by this scenario resets the attack cooldown for the scenario 1.

Any hostile actions or KoS rights on groups or individuals inside a settlement should be firstly discussed and handled with present CRs, if any are available.

Examples and extras

Settlement CR's can ask you to disarm yourself, lower your weapon, move to another part of the camp, leave the camp or pay any appropriate entrance fee without you or your group having any kind of revenge or KoS rights on them.

Your group has stolen a vehicle that belongs to CR group. CRs initiate on you to get it back. Your group does NOT gain ability to attack the settlement, because your group were the ones who provoked the hostilities.

What NOT to do

Take revenge for robbery or death of yourself or group mates that took place in a settlement.

Enter the settlement while the owners are offline and wait for them to show up in order to initiate hostilities.

Attack the settlement with undercover members inside the settlement.

Share this post


Link to post

-SNIP-

Attack the settlement with undercover members inside the settlement.

Does that include alts?

Is your alt a member of the attacking group? Depending on the answer, see above :)

Share this post


Link to post

-SNIP-

Attack the settlement with undercover members inside the settlement.

Does that include alts?

Is your alt a member of the attacking group? Depending on the answer, see above :)

Thanks :D

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...