[OPEN] Discussion about the war plugin: Tips, suggestions, debate relating to the war plugin

[ketchupdrinker]

It seems like many people are excited on EMC for the new war plugin Features like this don't come often to the server so it's nice to see change in the way the server runs and functions to keep people active and engaged. The war plugin was originally developed to enhance the geopolitical experience, but as I've seen with the war plugin in it's final stages and the server preparing for the new feature, players seem to interpret the use of the war plugin differently.

It seems that there are 2 ways players interpret the use of the war plugin on EMC

1. The war plugin was made to enhance the geopolitical aspect of EMC, encourage people to be less toxic, form alliances with more nations, and to have war as a feature for nations that wrongfully invade claims or harass and kill their nations members.
2. For nations with mostly pvpers, they will be able to use this feature to invade all nearby towns and nations and to bully towns and nations not alligned other pvp meganations into submission.

I've seen players on EMC think of war as just a training for PVPers and this worries me greatly because EMC is not a PVP oriented server.

Back to my original point, it seems like one of the intentions of the plugin was to stop toxic players from harassing other nations without circumstances but this defeats the original purpose of that point when the toxic players are often experienced PVPers.

If the war plugin on EMC takes this turn for the worse and people take advantage of it with no geopolitical interest or no reason for warring a nation and invading them, it seems like this would frustrate the non PVPers in the server (because EMC isn't necessarily solely a PVP server).

(Opinion) I want the war plugin to be implemented, but I fear people can take advantage of the power it gives them and make EMC a more hostile environment full of petty PVPers who invade you if you are anywhere close to their nation.

This is an open debate/discussion chat, please correct me if I've made any mistakes. Aswell feel free to agree or disagree and make points/opinions in the comments

[MineHero43]

Can people please stop this mass hysteria driven argument that “pvpers will take over everything!!!” You can literally win a siege by never pvping..

Your first interpretation is the right one.

I think the war plugin is great however I’d like to see more people actually inform themselves before making judgements and false claims that somehow a small group of pvpers will conquer everything.

[ketchupdrinker]

Can people please stop this mass hysteria driven argument that “pvpers will take over everything!!!” You can literally win a siege by never pvping..

What are you referring to, just not logging online?

[MineHero43]

Can people please stop this mass hysteria driven argument that “pvpers will take over everything!!!” You can literally win a siege by never pvping..

What are you referring to, just not logging online?

Gaining siege points requires 0 pvp at all, maybe play the plugin first and you’ll know how it works and how pvp plays an extremely minor part (if any) in winning

[ketchupdrinker]

Can people please stop this mass hysteria driven argument that “pvpers will take over everything!!!” You can literally win a siege by never pvping..

What are you referring to, just not logging online?

Gaining siege points requires 0 pvp at all, maybe play the plugin first and you’ll know how it works and how pvp plays an extremely minor part (if any) in winning

You need to be in a seige zone (pvp area) to gain seige points. How can that make it a minor part of the plugin? Literally killing people gives you seige points, I don't know what you are referring to with "no pvp at all" maybe you are referring to seiging inactive nations.

[MineHero43]

Can people please stop this mass hysteria driven argument that “pvpers will take over everything!!!” You can literally win a siege by never pvping..

What are you referring to, just not logging online?

Gaining siege points requires 0 pvp at all, maybe play the plugin first and you’ll know how it works and how pvp plays an extremely minor part (if any) in winning

You need to be in a seige zone (pvp area) to gain seige points. How can that make it a minor part of the plugin? Literally killing people gives you seige points, I don't know what you are referring to with "no pvp at all" maybe you are referring to seiging inactive nations.

Killing people gives you roughly 100 points, trust me that’s virtually nothing in the grand scheme of things. Not to mention that’s not even the main way of gaining points. Points are gained by achieving banner control which can literally be done with 0 pvp, it just involves a lot of camping although becomes much easier if there are more people to help.

The point I was making is that sieges aren’t won by pvping. As we’ve seen on beta all you really need is an active nation with a decent amount of players online who are dedicated and active enough to remain at the banner to get the points up. It’s really just a numbers game.

From a defenders point of view the plugin is heavily biased in your favour, not only do you keep your inventory upon death but you can just teleport to your town and easily get to the banner, the attackers don’t have that luxury of teleporting. As we’ve seen on beta this makes defending capitals extremely easy if you’re an active nation.

Really any well established nation that can amass roughly 10 active and dedicated players will be fine with this plugin. A small group of players won’t be able to conquer everything as they wouldn’t have the numbers to sustain it. 5 pvpers won’t win against a nation that can amass 15 defenders as the defending nation will be able to gain points much faster. (Especially when you factor in the distance the attackers need to travel to get to the banner)

Now having said that, if you’re a smaller nation within the reach of a larger regional power, yes you will have problems. You’ll most likely fall. However frankly I don’t see any issues with that. (If you disagree please tell me why)

Anyone who claims that some pvp group will run around conquering everything is clearly uninformed as to how sieges are won or how the plugin works, I suggest actually playing it and testing it for yourself on the beta server before making your judgement.

[Goosius1]

Hi Ketchup.

I have a few comments related to different sub-areas of this topic:

ATTACK MOTIVATIONS

• In the first paragraph an assumption is stated: "it seems like one of the intentions of the plugin was to stop toxic players from harassing other nations without circumstances".
• This is not an intention I am aware of
• I believe it is much LESS toxic if people attack without any reason or excuse.
• Think of a game of chess you are playing with your friend:
  1. Your opponent moves one piece to challenge one of your pieces.
  2. Do you immediately complain that they didn't have a good reason for that, that the attack was not justified, that you didn't previously insult them sufficiently to deserve the move, and insist that he move the piece back immediately?
  3. No of course not. You'll consider your position, come up with a strategy, and try to win. This is simply how normal competitive games are played.

PVP in Battles I will disagree with Minehero that PVP can be expected to be a minor part of battles on Towny main. From my own experience participating in battles on other major servers, I can confirm that it will likely be a major part. On Emc Beta, the one major battle we had, had a few anomalies which made it different.

1. The attacker had no nearby 'battle town' where they could spawn (they do now, thanks to neutral towns)
2. Many soldiers had noob-pvp-immunity, making things weird

Nation Strategies

• In the short to long term, nation strategies will need to change.
• With this system, nations cannot continue as before, and must adapt:

1. Militarily strong nations who want to conquer --- These nations must adapt to achieve their goals. i. Rethink if your current strategy is simply brute attacking and plundering of every nearby town, with no thought to longer term empire building. This path will lead to mass revolts and alliance building against you, and ultimately failure to make any significant territory gains.

2. Militarily weak nations who want to defend their lands --- These nations must adapt to survive i. Train your soldiers ii. Make military alliances to bring good fighters to assist you iii. Spin up your god-kit and potion factories to equip your troops iv. Hire mercenaries! v. Use your economic power to boost all of the above vi. For an extreme option to build up without being attacked at all, temporarily take your nation 'underground' by disbanding it (with 80-90% refund), then taking all your towns peaceful (making then immune to attack). Then when you are ready, revolt and rise from the ashes.

3. Nations who are completely unwilling to defend themselves militarily --- These nations must adapt i. Disband your nation (with 80-90% refund) ii. Siegewar does not support kings making territorial claims which can never be challenged iii. On a potential main server deploy, EMC may possibly provide a custom complete opt-out. I don't know how this will work or how long it may be available for, but the effect would be to isolate your nation from much of the server. iv. IMO It may be best to adapt by letting go of the idea of nation-as-purely-social-club and just jump in as a peaceful town. v. Toggle all towns peaceful, making them completely immune to attack

Plugin Adaptations

• The plugin has many configuration options which are available to EMC staff
• After a potential main-server deploy, staff will no doubt continue to monitor how the system is working, and will have many options to shift the system in one direction or another.
• One example is the 'counter-attack-booster' feature, currently active on Beta. This feature gives a boost to the siege underdog, giving them extra kill points while their opponent has banner control

[DeadGlamour]

I have a few problems, most were disccussed here so Ill leave just a few points and add more if I feel I can add anything else:

1. It encourages making "battle towns", this may seem innocent at first but this will make town claim blocking way more common.
2. Currently, walls and stuff arent that useful because unless you're making massive complicated walls which will have to be 2 chunks wide then people can just glitch over your walls, also no walls is actually really that useful in battle since from some reason the battle happens in the outside of the town instead of the inside of it.

[Goosius1]

1.

• A battle town is just a temporary town to allow attackers (or defenders) to spawn near the siege. No houses but maybe some fortifications.

• Claim blocking is presumably a town which sits there after the siege is over, without being removed.

• I haven't heard yet of any server having a problem distinguishing between these two types of things.

2.

• To say that 'walls and stuff' aren't that useful in battle, this is pretty speculative given all the factors involved. But I would like to see this tested. So if possible, log onto Beta, gather an army then siege Slyville, FuzeCity or some other town with walls. The we can find out if you are able to render the walls useless in battle.

[Nikocholas]

Goosius, I'd really like to see some restriction for foreigners in sieges to not be able to participate in the fight unless they're added as allies for any of the two sides... It's pretty annoying to have random pvpers joining battles that have nothing to do with them... they ruin them.

[Goosius1]

Ach, 'ruin' is a strong word for a Friday morning.

I like non-official players in siege zones because:

1. Nomads don't have any other way to fight
2. Non-nation towns don't have any other way to fight
3. Secret assistance is possible from crafty nations who don't want to be 'officially' involved.
4. Battlefield reporters can report on battles without having to officially join a side
5. Spectators can turn up just to watch

Now, what's the difference between 'official and non-official soldiers?

Official Soldier

• Can Get Banner Control: Yes
• Kill Reward Siege-Points: 150
• Kill Reward Items: None

Unofficial Soldier:

• Can Get Banner Control: No
• Kill Reward Siege-Points: 0
• Kill Reward Items: God-Set, Potions, All items in inventory

So an unofficial soldier avoids a small few siege-points if you kill them, but is otherwise a walking goodie bag, especially for the god-set. Target them, kill them, etc.

[Nikocholas]

Sounds good. So if an unofficial soldier kills you during a siege (inside the warzone)... do you still keep the inventory?

[Goosius1]

Yes, as long as you are official yourself, the cause of death is not relevant, you keep inventory in all cases.

[shirazmatas]

Please follow format

[CorruptedGreed]

Old SiegeWar discussion