|
Post by tavisthewhite on Mar 30, 2018 13:44:33 GMT -5
Can we have some clarification on the halting/demand rules. It seems to change with every admin. The rules state that I have to wait 5/10 seconds for a halt/demand. Some admins say this: It's not exactly 5 seconds! You can only attack on the 6th!!! --- While other admins claim that on the 5th second, if they have not halted, you may bludgeon their brain mush out of their skulls. So, which is it? I personally find attacking on the 5th second simpler and easier; If you had to attack on the 6th second, then why not just say you have 6 seconds to comply with the halt?
|
|
|
Post by nikkle on Mar 30, 2018 13:45:28 GMT -5
So you only have a kill reason if they threaten you with death. Does tht mean if someone threatens to rob me or something along those lines I wonβt have a kill reason?
Also logging off to get rid of someoneβs kill reason seems like a stupid rule and can easily be abused
|
|
|
Post by Roy on Mar 30, 2018 14:31:13 GMT -5
Yeah we're going to spoiler this one. A few things: 1. I think that if this is the same version of Phoenix scripts Royal used, it should tell you when gates are being broken, so you wouldn't really need a screenshot in that case? 2. If you log underwater it will spawn you back with no gear and 1 health so you can probably just take that one out. 3. "You may not post or release personal information about the player that is not well known within the community." I take issue with this because this just allows you to add fuel to the fire of a cancer. For example, say somebody had your facebook and was spreading it around, I am then allowed to continue to spread it just because many people already know it? The admins should nip that kind of thing in the bud and try to stop all further spreading. 4. The war rules are a complete and total mess. Under it, I am allowed to declare with 50% of my people within an enemy castle. If I attack a castle and lose, and its been 15 minutes, I'm not allowed to regear and push? It was much better under a new push must be renewed every 15 minutes, under these rules this isn't an option, and there are countless instances of people losing on the first assault and regearing and doing it again. Not being able to re a re is a completely retarded and stupid rule, wars should be determined to be prolonging on a case to case basis, not this drivel. If faction a attacks faction b, but peaces as they lose, faction b redeclares and faction a goes for another push, and then faction b as they are getting capped decide to peace, well, under these rules you can't rewar can you? That is nonsense. Furthermore, there is no rule about how long I have to be peaced, so I could just say "well, I'm not re-ing a re, I'm just declaring. There's no rule against waiting how long I have to to declare." Also, this shouldn't really even be a thing in the first place. Advantages are gained and lost within a few minutes, a good clan leader can capitalize on them immediately, but rules that limit when you can and can't go to war only make everybody in one clan pissed that they only missed their ability to curb stomp their enemy because the admins said "uh you cant war because...war!" because in that timespan the other faction was able to amass a bunch of pubs and clan members to deter an assault. You are thinking in terms of an admin and not a clan leader, and as somebody who has been and may very well be a clan leader in the future, these rules have more holes in them then swiss cheese and the packers defence. First and foremost, thank you for the feedback. 1. You're correct actually, thank you for catching an oversight of mine. This list began as the community ruleset I had worked out in the forums on EU Oasis. Will correct it. 2. Same as above. 3. How would you write that rule then Roy? Lets be honest - some things are clearly not harassment - I,e Quake's name is Chris - it's in his steam name and on his profile. This is clearly visible to the community, so I'd never ban a player for calling him Chris in-game. 4. Few things : - I lowered the amount from 70% to 50% to make it more of a 'round' number. I personally think making players do math to figure out if they need 12 rather than 11 players in a castle to declare - 70% just seems so arbitrary. Would 75% be more agreeable? - This ruleset originally allowed the perpetual wars the EUs preferred - no limits on redeclares, only required attacks every 10 or 15 minutes to force the wars along, rather than a perpetual castle camp. Again, would that be what the clans would be interested in? I had thought the clans were the ones who did NOT want that, so pubs couldnt constantly war them to keep them on the server. - As it sits theres an unwritten policy of not being able to re a re on this server - I'd personally like to see it as written as above. ^ I am thinking of this in terms of an admin, this is true. This is why I made this post - I won't force rules upon the community if they dislike them. This is far easier than pushing a ruleset up, and having it be changed every week. ~M The 70% or 50% is kind of peanuts, I was referring to the fact there is no rule against declaring with people inside the castle, so as it is written in this suggestion. If these rules go in as written, I'm going to declare with 50% of my faction in the enemy castle and there's nothing the admins can do about it unless the rules are changed. Again I believe that long wars should be dealt with on a case by case basis. For example, when Edwards was like "We're going to continue this war just so you guys can't move out or log off" and he was punished on NA Phoenix severely. Now, I will recall to you a certain siege on Game of Thrones last summer, when Normandy and all its faggot allies were sieging Blackfyre. In the first assault they got to the banner point, we pushed them off and their plan sank into the swamp. But they attacked again just to show it to me. We shot the engi and their plan sank into the swamp. The third time we pushed them out of the gate and their plan sank into the swamp. But the fourth attempt, the fourth attempt stayed up! After four whittling attempts they finally took the castle in an hour and a half of combat, and I will say that for me even though we lost in the end Jesus Christ that was a fun war and I would say that everybody involved would incline the same. Long wars can be good, such as when the coalition regroups after a defeat to attack again, which is why I think it should be "it must be peaced if a new attempt hasn't been made. When Baratheon loses an attack, we regroup, call more people on and attack again, many of which have succeeded. This isn't allowed in the current rules, and to be honest I think that it should be left to the clans to be civil with each other and not be like "oh you cant log off haha", and if that fails then the admins have their own discretion to peace a war if they believe it isn't going to be going any longer, but if they do, the clan leader of the offensive should be allowed to have 5 minutes to prepare an attack, its only fair. Its those sort of "loopholes", or rather just holes, that you need to look for. The admins look at it from an admin perspective, and the clan leaders are not given proper ability to voice their opinion on the matter -- which is worth more than anybody else on the server. It would be a good idea to be able for the clan leaders and their representatives to be able to influence the rules as they are at the end of the days the ones who actually give the server population, and they understand the current dynamic better than anybody else, including the admins.
|
|
mastr
Full Member
Posts: 281
|
Post by mastr on Mar 30, 2018 19:03:47 GMT -5
Can we have some clarification on the halting/demand rules. It seems to change with every admin. The rules state that I have to wait 5/10 seconds for a halt/demand. Some admins say this: It's not exactly 5 seconds! You can only attack on the 6th!!! --- While other admins claim that on the 5th second, if they have not halted, you may bludgeon their brain mush out of their skulls. So, which is it? I personally find attacking on the 5th second simpler and easier; If you had to attack on the 6th second, then why not just say you have 6 seconds to comply with the halt? The rationale behind a player not being able to attack on the 6th is because, to be frank, there is no reason you should be stabbing someone on the 5th second - you aren't using an admin sword. Attacking takes time. Giving a full 5 seconds means attacking on the 6th is legal. ~M
|
|
mastr
Full Member
Posts: 281
|
Post by mastr on Mar 30, 2018 19:08:57 GMT -5
So you only have a kill reason if they threaten you with death. Does tht mean if someone threatens to rob me or something along those lines I wonβt have a kill reason? Also logging off to get rid of someoneβs kill reason seems like a stupid rule and can easily be abused Not sure what you mean by this - if someone is threatening to rob you, they'd have to have given a halt demand, no? The kill reason should last a sufficent period of time - i,e. 10 minutes - because this is a video game and people have shit to do. Im not going to have kill reasons last forever. This is no different than now with the 15 minute rule, but explicitly states that, lets say a player logs off after halting and killing a member of your faction legally in their castle - you can't kill them when they log back on. I can rewrite that to make it more clear if that doesn't make sense. ~M
|
|
mastr
Full Member
Posts: 281
|
Post by mastr on Mar 30, 2018 19:20:09 GMT -5
Yeah we're going to spoiler this one. First and foremost, thank you for the feedback. 1. You're correct actually, thank you for catching an oversight of mine. This list began as the community ruleset I had worked out in the forums on EU Oasis. Will correct it. 2. Same as above. 3. How would you write that rule then Roy? Lets be honest - some things are clearly not harassment - I,e Quake's name is Chris - it's in his steam name and on his profile. This is clearly visible to the community, so I'd never ban a player for calling him Chris in-game. 4. Few things : - I lowered the amount from 70% to 50% to make it more of a 'round' number. I personally think making players do math to figure out if they need 12 rather than 11 players in a castle to declare - 70% just seems so arbitrary. Would 75% be more agreeable? - This ruleset originally allowed the perpetual wars the EUs preferred - no limits on redeclares, only required attacks every 10 or 15 minutes to force the wars along, rather than a perpetual castle camp. Again, would that be what the clans would be interested in? I had thought the clans were the ones who did NOT want that, so pubs couldnt constantly war them to keep them on the server. - As it sits theres an unwritten policy of not being able to re a re on this server - I'd personally like to see it as written as above. ^ I am thinking of this in terms of an admin, this is true. This is why I made this post - I won't force rules upon the community if they dislike them. This is far easier than pushing a ruleset up, and having it be changed every week. ~M The 70% or 50% is kind of peanuts, I was referring to the fact there is no rule against declaring with people inside the castle, so as it is written in this suggestion. If these rules go in as written, I'm going to declare with 50% of my faction in the enemy castle and there's nothing the admins can do about it unless the rules are changed. Again I believe that long wars should be dealt with on a case by case basis. For example, when Edwards was like "We're going to continue this war just so you guys can't move out or log off" and he was punished on NA Phoenix severely. Now, I will recall to you a certain siege on Game of Thrones last summer, when Normandy and all its faggot allies were sieging Blackfyre. In the first assault they got to the banner point, we pushed them off and their plan sank into the swamp. But they attacked again just to show it to me. We shot the engi and their plan sank into the swamp. The third time we pushed them out of the gate and their plan sank into the swamp. But the fourth attempt, the fourth attempt stayed up! After four whittling attempts they finally took the castle in an hour and a half of combat, and I will say that for me even though we lost in the end Jesus Christ that was a fun war and I would say that everybody involved would incline the same. Long wars can be good, such as when the coalition regroups after a defeat to attack again, which is why I think it should be "it must be peaced if a new attempt hasn't been made. When Baratheon loses an attack, we regroup, call more people on and attack again, many of which have succeeded. This isn't allowed in the current rules, and to be honest I think that it should be left to the clans to be civil with each other and not be like "oh you cant log off haha", and if that fails then the admins have their own discretion to peace a war if they believe it isn't going to be going any longer, but if they do, the clan leader of the offensive should be allowed to have 5 minutes to prepare an attack, its only fair. Its those sort of "loopholes", or rather just holes, that you need to look for. The admins look at it from an admin perspective, and the clan leaders are not given proper ability to voice their opinion on the matter -- which is worth more than anybody else on the server. It would be a good idea to be able for the clan leaders and their representatives to be able to influence the rules as they are at the end of the days the ones who actually give the server population, and they understand the current dynamic better than anybody else, including the admins. So you'd like it clearly stated that no members of the warring faction may be in the enemy castle - which I'd actually just extend to enemy land, including farms etc just to prevent that from being abused. So, in addition, you'd like the war rules to allow perpetual war provided that there are at least periodic attempts at a capture. I see merit in this suggestion, but I see 5 minutes as a bit low tbh. Sending a wave of nakeds at a castle for the sole purpose of keeping the war within 5 minutes between attempts seems rather low. If we're going for fun wars, then I'd suggest allowing a 10 minute timer - this gives the warring faction to reform, rearm, and restrategize for a another assault. The admins have to enforce the rules, and the community needs to follow them. If we only looked at things through the perspective of the clan leaders, the pubs wouldn't have a chance in hell. The clan leaders are being able to influence the rules with this thread - I do like community involvement, though I have not always been afforded the chance to do so under some of the SOs I have worked with. Clarky, however, has been very accommodating to the idea of the community being more involved. Also - I'll be adding some of the discussed edits tomorrow, giving ample time for more people to chime in. ~M
|
|
mastr
Full Member
Posts: 281
|
Post by mastr on Apr 4, 2018 11:53:02 GMT -5
Bit delayed but following updates made:
- Removed KR for global chat insults. (As per suggestions from multiple people, including Clarky) - Removed screenshot requirement for castle gates being attacked for KR. - Removed combat logging for under-water logging as scripts deal with this. - Added "No players from the aggressor faction may be in the defending faction's castle, or land. (Includes Farms)" as per a suggestion from Roy. - Added "You may redeclare wars at will - however, after two (2) redeclares from either side, there must be at least periodic - and legitimate - capture attempts, every 10 minutes. (Sending a naked with a banner is not acceptable, admin discretion applies)" - Added "You may not stack multiple demands at once. (Halt Clarky, dismount, sheathe, show pouch all at once is not permitted)" - Clarified "You may not demand that a player complete an act that is impossible. (I,e. "Drop all" when a player has 0 in their pouch)" - Added/Clarified "You must allow the full time allotted for demand compliance before attacking. (Attacking on the 6th second after a halt demand, or 11th after any other demand)" as per a comment from Loras. - Clarified - Kill reasons and amount of time between conflict allotted before logging out is permitted both adjusted to 10 minutes. - Added "If a player has killed you, you may not incite hostilities by ignoring a no loot demand - constant abuse of the 'No loot' demand will result in punishment." as per a suggestion from Simon via TS. - Added existing ruleset rules for glitching, as per a comment from Loras.
More feedback would be appreciated.
~M
|
|
|
Post by Roy on Apr 4, 2018 12:32:17 GMT -5
- Added "You may not stack multiple demands at once. (Halt Clarky, dismount, sheathe, show pouch all at once is not permitted)"
So, I'm allowed to tell somebody to halt, show pouch, dismount, sheathe, etc. correct? I just can't do it all at once? For example, if I say "Halt __, show pouch", they'd have 5 seconds to halt, then after that, 10 seconds to show pouch, yes (so 15 seconds to do the demands in total)? Or are you saying you can't do more than one demand?
|
|
mastr
Full Member
Posts: 281
|
Post by mastr on Apr 4, 2018 12:42:16 GMT -5
- Added "You may not stack multiple demands at once. (Halt Clarky, dismount, sheathe, show pouch all at once is not permitted)" So, I'm allowed to tell somebody to halt, show pouch, dismount, sheathe, etc. correct? I just can't do it all at once? For example, if I say "Halt __, show pouch", they'd have 5 seconds to halt, then after that, 10 seconds to show pouch, yes (so 15 seconds to do the demands in total)? Or are you saying you can't do more than one demand? Correct, just not all at once. Recall that admin complaint about the ban that was extended? Clarky ruled against the senior staff citing that you made the show pouch demand and it wasn't followed within 10 seconds, regardless of the demands being stacked at once. /rant and at the risk of slight thread derailment, that was cancer to argue about lol. Removing that interpretation from the rules, and being quite clear about it - demands must be issued in sequence. Multiple demands is fine, but a halt, sheathe, and show pouch should be given 5, then 10, then 10 seconds again. Removing the scenario of people issuing multiple demands at once, then killing if not all demands are completed within 10/15 seconds. ~M
|
|
fatih
Junior Member
Posts: 131
|
Post by fatih on Apr 4, 2018 22:14:07 GMT -5
Hey Mastr, regarding the war rules section, could the war declaration ruke perhaps be reworded or made more specific? Specifically the line "No players from the aggressor faction may be in the defending faction's castle, or land. (Includes Farms)".
Does this mean, for example, that attacking players can't be present in defending territory the moment when war is declared? Also, what of, for example, Players from either side logging in purposefully/accidentally in the opposing side's lands, either during war declaration or during war time itself? If players are allowed to do that, for example, are they to be treated immediately as combatants or taken prisoner or escorted out, etc?
These situations should probably be addressed.
|
|
|
Post by Roy on Apr 4, 2018 22:36:49 GMT -5
Hey Mastr, regarding the war rules section, could the war declaration ruke perhaps be reworded or made more specific? Specifically the line "No players from the aggressor faction may be in the defending faction's castle, or land. (Includes Farms)". Does this mean, for example, that attacking players can't be present in defending territory the moment when war is declared? Also, what of, for example, Players from either side logging in purposefully/accidentally in the opposing side's lands, either during war declaration or during war time itself? If players are allowed to do that, for example, are they to be treated immediately as combatants or taken prisoner or escorted out, etc? These situations should probably be addressed. You are retarded
|
|
mastr
Full Member
Posts: 281
|
Post by mastr on Apr 4, 2018 23:34:26 GMT -5
Hey Mastr, regarding the war rules section, could the war declaration ruke perhaps be reworded or made more specific? Specifically the line "No players from the aggressor faction may be in the defending faction's castle, or land. (Includes Farms)". Does this mean, for example, that attacking players can't be present in defending territory the moment when war is declared? Also, what of, for example, Players from either side logging in purposefully/accidentally in the opposing side's lands, either during war declaration or during war time itself? If players are allowed to do that, for example, are they to be treated immediately as combatants or taken prisoner or escorted out, etc? These situations should probably be addressed. Yes, players from the attacking faction cannot be in the defenders castle or lands during war declaration. If a player logs into the war zone and is in one of the combative factions, then they are to be treated as combatants - wrong place at the wrong time, but war is war. ~M
|
|
mastr
Full Member
Posts: 281
|
Post by mastr on May 31, 2018 21:19:13 GMT -5
This ruleset will be discussed in the meeting on the 1st - I support a complete adaption of it, as opposed to our current ruleset.
~M
|
|
speno
New Member
Posts: 31
|
Post by speno on Jun 1, 2018 7:02:10 GMT -5
Could you specify in the ruleset that anyone can steal items from carts and demand carts (or if they can't)? And that that gives KR?
|
|
|
Post by tavisthewhite on Jun 1, 2018 7:06:20 GMT -5
Could you specify in the ruleset that anyone can steal items from carts and demand carts (or if they can't)? They can and have always been able to. I don't know what's hard to understand about this: You can be robbed of anything but your weapons or armor unless the person halting you is an outlaw.
|
|