Roleplaying as cities

[Stevey]

A possible option is to make the resource world a free for all zone.

 

[atkrye]

Im going to have to disagree with you Legion. You will always get slightly bad looking buildings- but this is true of medieval times- peasants would have lived in mud huts and hovels!
Also, you could definately enforce rules against griefing if you thought it took it too far, and ban 1x1 towers as well. Alternatively you could include a wafer of sorts in the rules that says if something is deemed innapropriate or ugly, it can be removed by the admin team.
Also, you misunderstand what I (and i think megan) want in towns. Town justice- if a there is a murderer in a town, its not up to the admin team to deal with it, but the town mayor to implement a legal system unique to the town to deal with it. This is far more rp- if there is an evil town then surely they wouldnt have laws about killing inside the town? but a good town would have a fair legal system with trials.
Also, you seem to be arguing for an ideal medieval time, without crime where all roleplay is in good faith- your against people 'camping outside towns' and picking on the weak. In medieval times, people wouldnt dare leave towns if they knew they were going to an area full of bandits, and if they had to, they would go armoured and often with gaurds. If some unsuspecting innocent came across a bandit, they would be killed, and thats roleplay. This would encourage those on the good side of rp to protect the innocent, and it would alround further the roleplay of the server.
It could even lead to greater spontaneous events. If enough players were killed by bandits, it might cause a 'Good' group, for example the Paladins, to lead a war to cleanse areas of bandits and such.
So from a roleplay perspective, making the wilderness hardcore would be a massive bonus to the server. This is a medieval/fantasy server after all.

 

[atkrye]

Also, that would be cool lars, but it still doesnt cover the idea of bandits hiding in the areas around towns and people having to hire gaurds for their journeys and such, which are all cool rp things.

 

[Stevey]

I don't think it is realistically possible. Especially not at this moment.

Maybe in time when the RP community on the server matures and we have a good atmosphere, such things would work. I think at the moment too many people would abuse it. I can't know for certain though, and neither can anyone else.

 

[Dauntless001]

Also, that would be cool lars, but it still doesnt cover the idea of bandits hiding in the areas around towns and people having to hire gaurds for their journeys and such, which are all cool rp things.

Only thing with this is the timezones kind of ruin it again, I wouldn't be too fond of knowing people were outside the city waiting to rob me when I want to go out and gather and there is no one else on.

 

[Megan]

Actually legion... pvp is already forced... We still hold rules for pvp and the like. I find that combat between players is actually a necessity in online rp games. Am i saying wait outside of a town and kill players? no, because thats against the rules and will get you banned. Am i saying that making towns in the wild for the sole purpose of being raided and gathering supplies from random houses in the wild would be fun? absolutely. By building in the wild, players want to build more traps to protect them. Traps cost redstone. Redstone now has a purpose. Defending a base and attacking bases is fun, but pvp rules still apply. You must declare the attack publicly before doing so. This allows for reputations, bounties, etc to be made in towns. It causes town partnerships/fights. I still havent posted my forum about bandits yet because they kind of... cant really exist atm, but I have a whole forum about bandits and how to be one. Providing more options under the same rules we already have only increases options. 1x1 towers are still against the rules and if we find idiots that build them, we ban em. Crap builds in the wild are supposed to look like crap, so we can destroy them. Griefing, killing, and any other action taken in towns is currently up for the mayors to punish unless it is under extreme conditions. In the wild, griefing is legal. If people complain, they should join a town. If they lose items, they should join a town. I actually enjoy seeing old ruins every now and then to sneak inside and check out. If there are buildings we dont like, it would give moderators something to use TNT on and laugh. Will people abuse the system? of course! but they already try to! thats why we ban them

 

[Megan]

I don't think it is realistically possible. Especially not at this moment.

Maybe in time when the RP community on the server matures and we have a good atmosphere, such things would work. I think at the moment too many people would abuse it. I can't know for certain though, and neither can anyone else.

like lars said. I think it would be an awesome thing to have, but we arent ready yet. Lets stabalize the server and get everything working after minecraft is released before we go blowing up the map.

 

[atkrye]

Lars i feel the maturity of the server depends on the admin team and the rules. If you just wait for it to sort itself out, there will be a constant stream of new players who will stop the rp from ever properly growing.
However, we could enforce stricter roleplay rules. For example, if someone who is a paladin or a priest is found to be raiding innocents, you could have a specifically designated part of the admin team who just step in and go 'Hey, play your character'. This would reduce the number of players on the server who are bandits and raid.
Also, I agree no one can know for certain, but I can hazard a guess-ive been on Hardcore Servers before. People get scared of attacking people, because of the repercussions. On one server, one town was essentially never attacked and was feared, even though it didnt go out and raid much. They managed to gain an aura of respect and terror through making the life of any raider or griefer who stumbled into their town a living Hell. They once got declared war on, so they paid off a few other towns to help them lay siege to the city that attacked them. It went on so long and the defending city was so badly beaten that the owner of the city fled. They were never attacked again. People will learn not to mess with each other, unless they're really really good at it.
Although it may seem that everyone would go out and raid and pillage, and this would be the initial feel, it would quickly sort itself out. If you camp outside a large city for long enough, one day their going to put you on a deathlist, and you'll be hunted if you ever go near the city.

 

[Megan]

While that sounds like amazing fun atkrye, i think that it might be a bit too much to just let wars last forever like that. Little skirmishes on towns agreed by both sides before hand with towny are fun. Warning a town in the wilderness that you're going to attack before you do so they can either escape or prepare would be great too. But I'm not sure if everyone in the playerbase just wants all out constant war all the time. We still have RP stories to progress Hopefully in the future, we can get that perfect blend of the two.

 

[atkrye]

Megan you didnt understand. There wouldnt be all out war all the time there might initially, but people would make alliances and such to save their own skin, and would avoid conflict where possible. The number of actual wars would be low, but when a war does happen it would be an exciting, if brutal, roleplay event.

 

[Legion]

Atkrye, what you describe is exactly what i saw on CityCraft Survival server.
And i have to tell you that that is not rping.
Thats more like playing battlefield or call of duty.
With the element of town wwar and allowed griefing people stop worrying about typing out their actions, they just go kill and grief.

Megan, it is very possible that it will work, and i know we already force pvp, but this ultimately represents a massive increase in work by the mod team. With our recent change to letting anyone in, we have a lot of players thta dont know the rules of our server. If they dont know the rules, then they will abuse griefing and allowed pvp in the wild.

What if, right next to a town, just outside of its borders I went and just placed massive obsidian wall.
It was in the wild, so i wouldnt be breaking any rules, but it would take away massively from rp in that area until the town decided to remove it. And since its obsidian, they will have to spend a lot of time recovering from the grief rather than doing things that could help the town or rping.

Evil rolplay is all well and good, when heavily regulated. Everyone and their dog wil want to go kill people and grief and many will abuse it and will turn out badly.

So i think the server is not ready for this, and if it you ever believe it is, then go try it out.
But it wont work, and well remove it.
THats the great thing about our server, if something doesnt work, we get rid of it.

Atkrye that wont be a roleplay event, as there wont be people actually roleplaying. What that will be is a deathmatch.
And yes i would love to play a deathmatch, but we cant make that the standard for our server.

Remember Castle Corbenic? It was heavily regulated conflict in the form of pvp and battle.
But it was also so much more than that, there was the whole castle, fighting the different personas, going through the mazes and dungeons and working together for constructive means.
Conflicts such as raids and wars need to be regulated or we wil have a lot of abuse and a lot of complaining. And if there is a lot of abuse and a lot of complaining, then clearly it didnt work out well.

What bellon said is correct, conflicts need to be regulatd to an extent.
And megan once we allow building in the wild, people wont form communities like they used to.
Currently, to build, you either have to join a town or start one.
We did this becase previously, people were not froming commmunities. Even in towns, the people werent acting as a town.
What dauntless said is correct, the way towns usedto work (1.7 when we could build in the wild) people would join a town, but they wouldnt really be a part of that town, the only thing memebers of a town had i common was their houses were relatively close together.
Tyranna failed for that reason, we were a town, but there was not community.
Why? Because people could live just as well by themselves outside of a town.

Thats why we introduced towny in the first place, to force players to create and join communities, force them to thin about what they build before they build it, to make griefing a thing of the past and to stop absolutely crap builds from being built in the wild and then not being finished or not looking good.

 

[Kruziik]

A few weeks ago there was a spate (I love that word) of fights between random towns, I don't think any of them were really roleplay though and I got the impression there was the old "I'll have to kill him because he killed me" mentality going on.

I enjoy PvP and I'd love us to do as Atkrye suggests but I just think it'd end up as a bloody mess with not an ounce of RP going on and several bans.

 

[atkrye]

Legion we need to establish our meaning of roleplay . I feel that the acts of making alliances and having established enemies, and being able to freely act with/against them is a fundamental part of building up the background of a roleplay enviroment. If your town has an enemy, who you are at war with (even if it is bandits) it forces them together into a community (common enemy) and builds the whole community experience.

Also, a war would be a roleplaying event. Ive experienced two small scale wars on this server, and in both cases, players have stayed in character, and the wars have been resolved in roleplay terms (in the case of Saline Creek, we resolved it in a scenario where we were able to form a peace agreement that gave us special bonuses (as they were more keen on peace) in return for the agreement).

Also, a lot of players want to be a hero, or a good guy. You would be surprised how few griefers and war mongers there would be. If you look at most of the towns in the server, most of them are neutral or good, and very few are evil- i feel this is proportional to the actual players.

Also I have thought of a potential solution to griefing outside of towns- a compromise:
Specific areas- ideally large forests, deserts and snow biomes, could be specifically designated as "too large to maintain law in". Here, the laws we are talking about could be implemented and the area could be labelled 'Wilderness' or something. It is true that in medieval times, bandits would hide in remote places where the law would struggle to find them.
Its a great compromise as it stops your worries of lots of griefing as it would be limited within the lawless areas (which would probably be marked out by a low cobble wall, maybe even a high one as the government's attempt at containing the occupants). This could be limited even more. A player who is very keen on roleplay could be promoted to moderator to ward over each area, and possibly given a title like bandit lord? They would organise larger events in the area and remove excessive griefs.

 

[Kruziik]

Any issues would be dealt with by the current admin team, we've got enough custom titles at the moment

With all due respect atkrye with the opening of the whitelist a lot has changed on the server so anything suggested would probably take a while to be implemented. You've wanted a "free for all" area for a while I love the idea but I think realistically it'll be once we're post-release on a new map before we really consider it.

Also bandits aren't necessarily evil, if anything most would be classed as neutral. They are after all doing what it takes to survive.

 

[Legion]

^^ halfmad.
And generally yes, freedom to war would be nice.
But implementation and moderation would be a nightmare.
The two wars you mentioned were both wars that were regulated.
Im not saying no war, im saying no total free for all.
The raids on shipwreck cove and the Salin creek conflict were both heavily moderated and agreed upon ahead of time by the mayors and members of the town. But if wild was simply open to it, they wouldnt need to agree before hand.

And i see what you are saying and in many aspects i think it could be fun, but if we open up wild for building, we wont like what we see come from it.

So, if we want war, i think we need to wait for towny to fix their war mode, like steel said, or we need to wait until after full release to begin considereing this.

Oh and lars, what is this resource world, and how do i get there?

 

[Kruziik]

Wilderness will be a mess within weeks if it's opened up, not in a "no mans land - we're at war" way either, it'd be random structures most of which would be unfinished. That's something I was shocked to see when I joined Hollow World just under two months ago Our map looks vastly better now.

Never say never, if we find a way of doing it then I'm sure it'd be considered.

 

[atkrye]

Saline Creek wasnt really moderated or agreed upon it supposedly started when a lynch mob showed up from saline creek accusing an ascension member of murder- thats roleplay right there
Also, if you take into account the areas of lawlessness which are moderated by roleplay mods, you can have what im talking about without a major impact on landscape

 

[Legion]

Our admin team is already large.
Its at a good size. We dont need to add an entire other custom rank, and staff division for this.
Moderating this would be a huge job, as we have a huge map.

 

[atkrye]

Legion, compared to a lot of servers this admin team is smaaallll

 

[Legion]

Not from what i have seen.
Also, we are not like other servers, we are a step above.
Just because we may have a small team compared to others does not mean we need to make it larger, especially if we would have to promote people we dont fully trust.