I don't think factions should be required to let people know their location. It goes against everything on stealth and base location outlined in Val's thread.
I don't think we'll use those. That would definitely classify us as "non-vanilla."
@MazerRunner:
Do you happen to know where I got my username, perchance?
I'm not sure about regularly-held server-wide war. You're right that that would have those effects, and those are good, but like I said before, I don't want to put any restrictions or rules on war. What would the factions be fighting for? How would we decide the winner? What are the prizes? How do we decide the losers? I don't want war on this server to become a sport. This is going to be a very political server, and wars will only be fought for concrete ingame reasons. Also, I think such an event would quickly become the focus of the server, and there would no longer be any desire for regular war.
@Weatherdog:
Support is good!
@Kevin:
Factions will never be forced to reveal their locations. I agree with you completely. Notice that I added nothing about that to the OP after it was brought up. But I guess I should say something about it, so hopefully people won't bring it up again.
Hey, about your problem with telling if someone has crashed or has purposely combat logged. It seems whenever a person manually leaves the server, this message appears in the server console:
2011-10-02 04:55:43 [INFO] rancorblood lost connection: disconnect.quitting
Now you could check the server console every time to someone is though to have combat logged, because other means of disconnected seem to produce different messages.
Or maybe someone who knows Java could make a plugin that when someone disconnects, checks if they have been hit in the last 5-10 seconds to see if it was them manually disconnecting from the server. This way you'd have a good way of detecting combat logging and can punish appropriately (insta-death would be suitable).
I am DEFINITELY going to join this server. My backstory, I was on another server like this one (smaller scale, wars only allowed at certain times to prevent a war where no defenders were on, had to be declared in advance, etc.). It shut down after a while, and I've been searching for one to join like this ever since. I haven't found any.
My full support is in for this server. If you ever need anybody to help build a spawn point or something before the server opens, I would be thrilled to help you. I love this type of server and you seem like a smart, well rounded person that could coordinate a server like this very well (not sucking up, but I was reading your responses and I think you're a person that thinks things through a lot. That's a good quality to have).
Anyway, there needs to be concrete rules for the foundation of different "factions." We can't have 15 factions with, say 3 people each. There has to be a set of rules. Maybe, "We have 7 people that would like to join, so can we make a faction?" would work. I've seen too many "small" factions that are just a burden to the game's politics.
Also, rebellions. How would you manage it if the, say, leader of a faction started to not be online much, or he continually refused his member's suggestions to do such and such. There should be a way for the faction people to rebel. I will outline this later.
I was just thinking abou a server like this earlier. If I had the money, I would start one on my own. I was outlining some of my ideas on paper, and boy was I surprised to catch this topic.
First off, I think the "factions" should be called "kingdoms." Gives it a more fuedal age, class system role. The "leaders" should be "kings." Tags on names wouldn't be necessary, but it would help distinguish who's who. Maybe tag the kings, and color names for their factions. But that's an option. For newer players, that would be a very helpful thing if the server gets large, as it's hard to start in a server of 50 people, not knowing who's "on your side" or not.
Secondly, each "Kingdom" would be ruled by exactly one king. This king could have different "manors" or "duchies," depending on the size of the server. If this gets large, it would be Kingdoms>manors>duchies. There would be set rules for the amount of duchies a manor gets, and the amount of manors a king gets. Maybe based off a kingdom's population.
Third, members of kingdoms should be rewarded for their good/bad actions. A good member, ie, one that donates a lot of time and resources to building up his kingdom should be rewarded by his king, maybe by being the next player in his kingdom to become a duke (ruler of a duchy), if/when the king makes another duchy. Good dukes and their duchies (that support a kingdom well, whether by time or resources) could be upgraded to manors, as long as the kingdom was allowed to have another manor.
Bad members could be punished some way. Maybe their resources would be confiscated, maybe the would be sent to jail (not allowed to do anything) for a certain amount of time. Bad dukes could be punished by losing control of their duchy. Maybe a good peasant (the lowest "class") who the king likes would be elevated to duke status, and the duke made a peasant. This is a viable way to punish and reward bad and good players, respectively.
Fourth, I think that each Kingdom/Manor (if manors are implemented) should have a "central" manor/duchy. As this could be considered favoritism and create resentment, this could be very controversial. I think this would be a good idea, but others may not.
There should definitely be a "capital" for each; while the above idea may be disliked, this capital could be "shared" by all duchies/manors and worked on together, for the good of the kingdom. It wouldn't ahve to be ruled by anybody except for the king, and would have no peasants. It would merely be the "center" of a kingdom's power and territory.
Fifth. Back to my earlier post about rebellions. They could happen at any time, provided the king/duke/lord (ruler of a manor) that is being rebelled against is online. It is up to said leader to recognize the signs before a rebellion takes place, and it is up to him to quell it. Maybe dukes could war against other dukes on behalf of the king. THey must watch out, however, because at any time a neighboring kingdom could sieze the opportunity and invade during the chaos. Makes for a very tedious and intricate political situation.
And those are MY ideas, at the moment. I had more, but I can't find the paper I was brainstorming on earlier.
Back to what was written above about the server.
-What should the server be called?-
I don't much care about names, I"ve seen some tacky ones. Other people have good suggestions. I'd be happy just with the server, let alone the name.
-Should factions/clans be called factions, clans, or something else? Not really essential, but I get tired of typing "factions/clans" all the time.-
As outlined above, kingdoms/manors/duchies. If you're only going to have a main "faction," just call it a kingdom. I'd be fine with factions, however.
-Should there be any roleplaying? If so, to what extent? Should we consider factions/clans as nations but not have character roleplay?-
Factions (kingdoms?) should be allowed to do whatever they want. It's not that important, really.
-Should there be any server-wide events (i.e. Olympics or other competitions, Arena matches, etc.)?-
Maybe PvP matches every month or so, but it's not important and doesn't affect much.
-Should we use any plugins/mods?-
As I believe stealing and murdering should be allowed(frowned upon if caught, maybe with punishment) I think lockette definitely should NOT be used. Most plugins merely serve to lag down a server and help very little; a few would be nice, however. Ones that make different chats for different kingdoms/manors/duchies, maybe, and a plugin that colors chat names. But not too many.
-Should factions be able to set their own spawn point by means of a plugin?-
It's not essential, but spawn points should probably be different for each 'faction.' If you plan on (as you stated earlier) have the factions hidden and secret, a single spawn would make it very easy to tail a faction member and find it out. Also, read below.
-What should we do about combat logging? How should we try to prevent it? How strict should we be? Remember, more often than not, combat logging is accidental. I'm not asking how to punish it, that's the easy part.-
I don't really know. I can't think of any ideas to help, but I"ll be brainstorming. -How far away should factions/clans be located from each other and the spawn point? I've never really gotten used to large measurements in Minecraft.-
This is what I was referring to about the spawn points. If factions are truly going to be some 5,000 blocks away from the spawn (this is about the average for what people have said, and would be necessary to keep factions hidden from each other), it would take a very long time to get back to your faction. Especially if you die from hunger or something. YOu'll be ready to diea again by the time you make it back.
Warfare should be totally rule-less, as long as no hacking or combat logging is allowed. ARchers should be allowed (makes it less fun if bows are banned), and you shouldn't have to all attack as one group. Setting up pre-attack strategies allow for flanking manuevers, sneak attacks, and people to infiltrate the base while the main fighting is going on outside. It should never be divulged how many people are going to participate in the fight on each side; you don't know that in a real war.
Anyway, I need to go for now. I'll try to think of some more things, and I realise my ideas are about polar opposites from yours (my ideas on kingdoms, duchies, manors, etc.) I would love to see them implemented, but I know that your faction idea is headed the opposite way of mine.
Whatever you decide to do is fine, I'll work with you either way. As stated earlier, if you need any help building anything, any help coming up with rules, any help admin-ing even, I'll admit I'm not great at any of them but I would be thrilled to help.
That is a VERY good idea. I think we just found our solution.
@Robinhood:
Sorry to shoot you down a little, but like you said, I don't agree with you. Actually, your idea isn't completely opposite of mine, we're just thinking in different ways. What you're outlining is the format for a faction. I've already said that I won't put any regulations on the layout of factions. If a faction wants to run itself this way and use these terms, that's fine with me. I just don't want to force it on everyone else.
Also, you're pushing for a level of roleplay I'm not going to require.
I'm not sure what you mean about "concrete rules for the foundation of different factions." I think this server is going to be very large, and there likely will be 15 factions, but they will have many more people than that. Take a look at the clan list on the original PAoW thread. A couple small factions are fine. There shouldn't be too many, because not many factions can survive long on this type of server without a lot of people.
What you say about "allowing" rebellions assumes that I have rules against them. Rebellions are fine, but they won't be official, like wars. You don't have to declare a rebellion, and there certainly won't be any rules on how to do it. Remember that we are playing Minecraft war. We're not pretending to be any other game. I consider rules like that Roleplay, and they're not going to happen on this server, unless a faction has such rules of its own. You said that there should be no rules for warfare, and I love you for being the first person to say it other than me, but you're trying to put the same sort of rules on politics.
Factions (kingdoms?) should be allowed to do whatever they want. It's not that important, really.
?? Sorry to point this out, but this is a direct contradiction to the rest of your post.
I guess I'm misenterpreting "roleplay," haha. I wasn't thinking about it in a sense that....
I don't know. It's hard to explain.
I'm headed more toward a.....
I don't even know! Haha it's hard to explain. Like I said though, whatever you decide to do is fine.
I see now what you mean about my making rules for factions. I hadn't thought about it that way, but now that you said it, I do. I'm more with you now...that I completely understand what you meant. I suppose I misenterpreted. My bad.
I was going more for a structured game, which is how my last server was set up. There were no concrete rules for taxes or anything within each kingdom, but the rest of it was structured. I understand that you don't want it structured...I hadn't, again, thought of it that way. But it makes sense, and adds less work for the admins.
I know it was a contradiction in hindsight, but I misenterpreted roleplay as above. I dont' know the concrete definition so I assumed it to be something else :tongue.gif: which now I see what I did.
Haha what I meant about the rules for foundation of factions was that somebody can't just apply and create their own faction, because that would cause a lot of people who want power to have a faction with very few people in it. Eventually, having too many factions with too few people adds a burden to the game's politics. That's where I was headed with the manors/duchies idea. That way, the power hungry would still have power, but they'd be under a ruler. That's who would control their "faction"'s political ideas. This would lead to larger factions and less small ones.
And that makes sense about rebellions, I understand it. But it would kind of suck to be a leader of a faction and come online to find out you're now just a player with no power at all. That's what I mean by the king or whoever has to be online when it happens; it can't just "happen" if they're not online. I suppose this is headed toward "rules" for rebellions but I think that in a rebellion, it has to be declared that they are rebelling, you can't just arrow murder the king and afterwards say "oh, you were deposed. I'm king now!"
I agree with you, too many rules bogs down the whole system...but too few rules allows for unfair play.
I guess I'm misenterpreting "roleplay," haha. I wasn't thinking about it in a sense that....
I don't know. It's hard to explain.
I'm headed more toward a.....
I don't even know! Haha it's hard to explain. Like I said though, whatever you decide to do is fine.
I see now what you mean about my making rules for factions. I hadn't thought about it that way, but now that you said it, I do. I'm more with you now...that I completely understand what you meant. I suppose I misenterpreted. My bad.
I was going more for a structured game, which is how my last server was set up. There were no concrete rules for taxes or anything within each kingdom, but the rest of it was structured. I understand that you don't want it structured...I hadn't, again, thought of it that way. But it makes sense, and adds less work for the admins.
I know it was a contradiction in hindsight, but I misenterpreted roleplay as above. I dont' know the concrete definition so I assumed it to be something else :tongue.gif: which now I see what I did.
Haha what I meant about the rules for foundation of factions was that somebody can't just apply and create their own faction, because that would cause a lot of people who want power to have a faction with very few people in it. Eventually, having too many factions with too few people adds a burden to the game's politics. That's where I was headed with the manors/duchies idea. That way, the power hungry would still have power, but they'd be under a ruler. That's who would control their "faction"'s political ideas. This would lead to larger factions and less small ones.
And that makes sense about rebellions, I understand it. But it would kind of suck to be a leader of a faction and come online to find out you're now just a player with no power at all. That's what I mean by the king or whoever has to be online when it happens; it can't just "happen" if they're not online. I suppose this is headed toward "rules" for rebellions but I think that in a rebellion, it has to be declared that they are rebelling, you can't just arrow murder the king and afterwards say "oh, you were deposed. I'm king now!"
I agree with you, too many rules bogs down the whole system...but too few rules allows for unfair play.
I'm glad you see the ideas behind the server clearly. You're one of the few people who do. If anyone wants to make their own faction and can get people to join, then I'll let them join, if they get accepted. But they will quickly find out that this server is very "survival of the fittest" towards factions. If the server turns out the way I want, small factions will not last very long, unless they happen to be exceptionally capable. Hopefully, most people will gravitate towards the larger, more powerful factions. If they want power, they should try to earn it within a clan. But if they don't get the hint, and keep trying to play as a small faction after they are continually defeated, they will find no help from the administration. They are completely on their own, and if no one likes them, they will get destroyed until they give up on their faction. If they refuse to do so, they will get a pm suggesting they join another clan. Places will be found in other factions, and they will be disbanded.
Power within a faction comes from the players under the commander. There is no possible way that a commander can log in to the server and find he has no power, with or without faction plugins. If a faction wants to replace their commander(s), they may decide without him, but the actual act is only possible when the commander is online. Anyway, if a faction is attempting to replace their commander, then he probably doesn't deserve any rules that make rebellion "fair." A coup in true Minecraft War is impossible to accomplish through murder. A commander's power isn't tied to his life; he doesn't lose power because he dies. Like I said before, let what happens, happen. On this server, this sort of thing will happen the right way.
We may not have many rules, but if you look closely, the rules we do have solve as many problems, if not more, than the rules of other servers.
so how will rebellions exactly work? is that another thing left up to factions? I feel like...there shouldn't be "rules" to how they work but we need an exact definition of what needs to happen before power shifts.
And another thing, it's all left up to the factions whether they have smaller parts to their faction. I understand that now, haha. However, how's it going to work if you get a small faction that gets defeated and wants to join a larger faction. Is that up to the larger faction that they join? I would assume so, with the direction this is headed. This leads to alliances and rivalries within each faction, so this could be used as a sabotage tool by other factions, if I understand it correctly.
so how will rebellions exactly work? is that another thing left up to factions? I feel like...there shouldn't be "rules" to how they work but we need an exact definition of what needs to happen before power shifts.
And another thing, it's all left up to the factions whether they have smaller parts to their faction. I understand that now, haha. However, how's it going to work if you get a small faction that gets defeated and wants to join a larger faction. Is that up to the larger faction that they join? I would assume so, with the direction this is headed. This leads to alliances and rivalries within each faction, so this could be used as a sabotage tool by other factions, if I understand it correctly.
Rebellions and power shifts will work differently in each faction. Every clan is set up differently, and each commander holds a different amount of power. Some factions have very loose, informal leaderships, and others are very rigid. One faction might replace their leader by holding a vote, and another might have to appeal to have their commander banned or kicked because he holds so much power over them.
If a small faction wants to join another faction, it could happen many different ways, similarly. The faction in question might break up and join separate factions as new recruits with an extra note to their resumes, or the entire faction might be incorporated into a larger one, as a new division. Or anything in between.
All of these possibilities have precedents, and we are going to have all sorts of factions on this server. It'll be great :smile.gif:.
Cool. Sounds great. I'll be waiting for the server! PM me if you need anything, and if I come up with anything in the next few days i'll post it. Best wishes!
Hey locke I love this idea and The Protectorate might decide to have a presence here as well. I hope you can get this server set up, let me know if you need anything.
How will factions mark their territory? By torches/signs? (ie, Territory belongs to ......"faction 1"). Maybe by fences with signs? will it be completely known and static, or will they be rough estimates? (ie, FAction one's territory borders faction 2's at this river).
Or will that be up to each faction to decide with their border factions?
Because theoretically, they'll be far enough away (and hidden) that you wouldn't really know ho's your "border factions" anyway, no?
Um, this is sort of a stupid question, but could there be bands of "mercenaries" that would have a small base that could sell themselves out to other, larger factions? These small bands could be considered "factions" but let themselves get taken out on purpose in order to aid a larger faction, for a price. They would then re-form their faction (after they were needed & did what they were paid for) and be ready for somebody else to hire them. Is this a plausible idea?
I guess it's bordering on the "not having a faction" part of the rules, but I thought I"d ask.
I had another thought, but I'll post it later when I remember
How will factions mark their territory? By torches/signs? (ie, Territory belongs to ......"faction 1"). Maybe by fences with signs? will it be completely known and static, or will they be rough estimates? (ie, FAction one's territory borders faction 2's at this river).
Or will that be up to each faction to decide with their border factions?
Because theoretically, they'll be far enough away (and hidden) that you wouldn't really know ho's your "border factions" anyway, no?
Um, this is sort of a stupid question, but could there be bands of "mercenaries" that would have a small base that could sell themselves out to other, larger factions? These small bands could be considered "factions" but let themselves get taken out on purpose in order to aid a larger faction, for a price. They would then re-form their faction (after they were needed & did what they were paid for) and be ready for somebody else to hire them. Is this a plausible idea?
I guess it's bordering on the "not having a faction" part of the rules, but I thought I"d ask.
I had another thought, but I'll post it later when I remember
~RH3~
Again, they can do it however they want, but this is a valid point. I think walls will be encouraged, or at least regular patrols. Definitely outposts within sight of the border. If a faction wants to mark the border of their territory with their name, that's fine. We'll see how the territory gets settled out first, and interfere if we need to.
As for mercenaries, there's nothing against a faction doing that. They don't even have to join the client faction to help them. It would be more like hiring an extra ally. Of course, the mercenary faction would need a base of operations, and territory with resources to support themselves between wars. Oh, and none of this will be official. Factions won't have to register on the server as mercenaries. They can just advertise among the other factions that they are for hire.
Again, they can do it however they want, but this is a valid point. I think walls will be encouraged, or at least regular patrols. Definitely outposts within sight of the border. If a faction wants to mark the border of their territory with their name, that's fine. We'll see how the territory gets settled out first, and interfere if we need to.
As for mercenaries, there's nothing against a faction doing that. They don't even have to join the client faction to help them. It would be more like hiring an extra ally. Of course, the mercenary faction would need a base of operations, and territory with resources to support themselves between wars. Oh, and none of this will be official. Factions won't have to register on the server as mercenaries. They can just advertise among the other factions that they are for hire.
So idk if it's been mentioned yet Locke. But when the person said that the line in the console shows what type of disconnect happened, it's not 100%
In my experience:
Black screens show up as quits, lock ups and process kills(Task manager/end-process on windows) show up as quits, and anything that disconnects the client from the server on the client's end is possibly going to show up as a quit. There's no way for the server to differentiate from a client crash that disconnects the player from the server and an actual disconnect.(They both disconnect the client from the server in the same manner, it's pretty much impossible for Notch to be able to detect black screen crashes - the client still thinks it's running when it black screens)
There's no solution to the problem of 'someone logging out in combat'
however; since blackscreens still leave the player logged in until the process is killed; they'll be killed after due to not being able to defend themselves. A computer shutdown or laptop dying would be just about the only event showing up as a quit that doesn't count as logging.
I'm pretty good at figuring out who did what, so if you'd let me have access to the terminal I can get you set up. A good idea is to change log files every two days (And then date the old ones, as sifting through two days of text is hard enough - try two weeks!)
---Edit---
I'm totally against the factions plugin, it drasticly takes away from the vanilla PVP outlined in val's thread. I'm sure he'd back me up in saying that not being able to enter a chunk of land because someone typed '/f claim' is no fun for anyone except the people who claimed it. Danger and risk lead to fun, as unpredictable events lead to a rise in adrenaline.
Locke, I'd totally be willing to run this server for you. We'd need to get donations from the community to get us started, maybe $100 for a 75-slot server to start(With the amount of interest I figure that should be easy to obtain)? If you're interested let me know (I can even build a server rig if we get enough money, and host from my home network to prevent monthly fees)
I've got the experience to run servers, you know I've run four total in the past that went over pretty well. Servers like these are comparatively easy to run in contrast to a heavy RP server like Cavera. I'd be able to handle it, and would get help if needed.
See, I know nothing about how servers work. You're right, there's no definite solution for combat logging. I need to think of a different way of dealing with it.
Unless I get a better offer, I'd be fine with you running the server.
But if anyone else reads this and has experience with that sort of thing, speak up. This server is for everyone, not just people I know. We want the best people we can find running it.
jk, jk,
I love the fact that you want to make a new PAoW server, Locke. I don't have much to as of now, but you have my support!
Imperator - Augustus
@jrodm:
I don't think we'll use those. That would definitely classify us as "non-vanilla."
@MazerRunner:
Do you happen to know where I got my username, perchance?
I'm not sure about regularly-held server-wide war. You're right that that would have those effects, and those are good, but like I said before, I don't want to put any restrictions or rules on war. What would the factions be fighting for? How would we decide the winner? What are the prizes? How do we decide the losers? I don't want war on this server to become a sport. This is going to be a very political server, and wars will only be fought for concrete ingame reasons. Also, I think such an event would quickly become the focus of the server, and there would no longer be any desire for regular war.
@Weatherdog:
Support is good!
@Kevin:
Factions will never be forced to reveal their locations. I agree with you completely. Notice that I added nothing about that to the OP after it was brought up. But I guess I should say something about it, so hopefully people won't bring it up again.
2011-10-02 04:55:43 [INFO] rancorblood lost connection: disconnect.quitting
Now you could check the server console every time to someone is though to have combat logged, because other means of disconnected seem to produce different messages.
Or maybe someone who knows Java could make a plugin that when someone disconnects, checks if they have been hit in the last 5-10 seconds to see if it was them manually disconnecting from the server. This way you'd have a good way of detecting combat logging and can punish appropriately (insta-death would be suitable).
Just thought I'd offer some help :smile.gif:
My full support is in for this server. If you ever need anybody to help build a spawn point or something before the server opens, I would be thrilled to help you. I love this type of server and you seem like a smart, well rounded person that could coordinate a server like this very well (not sucking up, but I was reading your responses and I think you're a person that thinks things through a lot. That's a good quality to have).
Anyway, there needs to be concrete rules for the foundation of different "factions." We can't have 15 factions with, say 3 people each. There has to be a set of rules. Maybe, "We have 7 people that would like to join, so can we make a faction?" would work. I've seen too many "small" factions that are just a burden to the game's politics.
Also, rebellions. How would you manage it if the, say, leader of a faction started to not be online much, or he continually refused his member's suggestions to do such and such. There should be a way for the faction people to rebel. I will outline this later.
I was just thinking abou a server like this earlier. If I had the money, I would start one on my own. I was outlining some of my ideas on paper, and boy was I surprised to catch this topic.
First off, I think the "factions" should be called "kingdoms." Gives it a more fuedal age, class system role. The "leaders" should be "kings." Tags on names wouldn't be necessary, but it would help distinguish who's who. Maybe tag the kings, and color names for their factions. But that's an option. For newer players, that would be a very helpful thing if the server gets large, as it's hard to start in a server of 50 people, not knowing who's "on your side" or not.
Secondly, each "Kingdom" would be ruled by exactly one king. This king could have different "manors" or "duchies," depending on the size of the server. If this gets large, it would be Kingdoms>manors>duchies. There would be set rules for the amount of duchies a manor gets, and the amount of manors a king gets. Maybe based off a kingdom's population.
Third, members of kingdoms should be rewarded for their good/bad actions. A good member, ie, one that donates a lot of time and resources to building up his kingdom should be rewarded by his king, maybe by being the next player in his kingdom to become a duke (ruler of a duchy), if/when the king makes another duchy. Good dukes and their duchies (that support a kingdom well, whether by time or resources) could be upgraded to manors, as long as the kingdom was allowed to have another manor.
Bad members could be punished some way. Maybe their resources would be confiscated, maybe the would be sent to jail (not allowed to do anything) for a certain amount of time. Bad dukes could be punished by losing control of their duchy. Maybe a good peasant (the lowest "class") who the king likes would be elevated to duke status, and the duke made a peasant. This is a viable way to punish and reward bad and good players, respectively.
Fourth, I think that each Kingdom/Manor (if manors are implemented) should have a "central" manor/duchy. As this could be considered favoritism and create resentment, this could be very controversial. I think this would be a good idea, but others may not.
There should definitely be a "capital" for each; while the above idea may be disliked, this capital could be "shared" by all duchies/manors and worked on together, for the good of the kingdom. It wouldn't ahve to be ruled by anybody except for the king, and would have no peasants. It would merely be the "center" of a kingdom's power and territory.
Fifth. Back to my earlier post about rebellions. They could happen at any time, provided the king/duke/lord (ruler of a manor) that is being rebelled against is online. It is up to said leader to recognize the signs before a rebellion takes place, and it is up to him to quell it. Maybe dukes could war against other dukes on behalf of the king. THey must watch out, however, because at any time a neighboring kingdom could sieze the opportunity and invade during the chaos. Makes for a very tedious and intricate political situation.
And those are MY ideas, at the moment. I had more, but I can't find the paper I was brainstorming on earlier.
Back to what was written above about the server.
-What should the server be called?-
I don't much care about names, I"ve seen some tacky ones. Other people have good suggestions. I'd be happy just with the server, let alone the name.
-Should factions/clans be called factions, clans, or something else? Not really essential, but I get tired of typing "factions/clans" all the time.-
As outlined above, kingdoms/manors/duchies. If you're only going to have a main "faction," just call it a kingdom. I'd be fine with factions, however.
-Should there be any roleplaying? If so, to what extent? Should we consider factions/clans as nations but not have character roleplay?-
Factions (kingdoms?) should be allowed to do whatever they want. It's not that important, really.
-Should there be any server-wide events (i.e. Olympics or other competitions, Arena matches, etc.)?-
Maybe PvP matches every month or so, but it's not important and doesn't affect much.
-Should we use any plugins/mods?-
As I believe stealing and murdering should be allowed(frowned upon if caught, maybe with punishment) I think lockette definitely should NOT be used. Most plugins merely serve to lag down a server and help very little; a few would be nice, however. Ones that make different chats for different kingdoms/manors/duchies, maybe, and a plugin that colors chat names. But not too many.
-Should factions be able to set their own spawn point by means of a plugin?-
It's not essential, but spawn points should probably be different for each 'faction.' If you plan on (as you stated earlier) have the factions hidden and secret, a single spawn would make it very easy to tail a faction member and find it out. Also, read below.
-What should we do about combat logging? How should we try to prevent it? How strict should we be? Remember, more often than not, combat logging is accidental. I'm not asking how to punish it, that's the easy part.-
I don't really know. I can't think of any ideas to help, but I"ll be brainstorming.
-How far away should factions/clans be located from each other and the spawn point? I've never really gotten used to large measurements in Minecraft.-
This is what I was referring to about the spawn points. If factions are truly going to be some 5,000 blocks away from the spawn (this is about the average for what people have said, and would be necessary to keep factions hidden from each other), it would take a very long time to get back to your faction. Especially if you die from hunger or something. YOu'll be ready to diea again by the time you make it back.
Warfare should be totally rule-less, as long as no hacking or combat logging is allowed. ARchers should be allowed (makes it less fun if bows are banned), and you shouldn't have to all attack as one group. Setting up pre-attack strategies allow for flanking manuevers, sneak attacks, and people to infiltrate the base while the main fighting is going on outside. It should never be divulged how many people are going to participate in the fight on each side; you don't know that in a real war.
Anyway, I need to go for now. I'll try to think of some more things, and I realise my ideas are about polar opposites from yours (my ideas on kingdoms, duchies, manors, etc.) I would love to see them implemented, but I know that your faction idea is headed the opposite way of mine.
Whatever you decide to do is fine, I'll work with you either way. As stated earlier, if you need any help building anything, any help coming up with rules, any help admin-ing even, I'll admit I'm not great at any of them but I would be thrilled to help.
Best wishes for the server!
*watches* topic
~RH3~
That is a VERY good idea. I think we just found our solution.
@Robinhood:
Sorry to shoot you down a little, but like you said, I don't agree with you. Actually, your idea isn't completely opposite of mine, we're just thinking in different ways. What you're outlining is the format for a faction. I've already said that I won't put any regulations on the layout of factions. If a faction wants to run itself this way and use these terms, that's fine with me. I just don't want to force it on everyone else.
Also, you're pushing for a level of roleplay I'm not going to require.
I'm not sure what you mean about "concrete rules for the foundation of different factions." I think this server is going to be very large, and there likely will be 15 factions, but they will have many more people than that. Take a look at the clan list on the original PAoW thread. A couple small factions are fine. There shouldn't be too many, because not many factions can survive long on this type of server without a lot of people.
What you say about "allowing" rebellions assumes that I have rules against them. Rebellions are fine, but they won't be official, like wars. You don't have to declare a rebellion, and there certainly won't be any rules on how to do it. Remember that we are playing Minecraft war. We're not pretending to be any other game. I consider rules like that Roleplay, and they're not going to happen on this server, unless a faction has such rules of its own. You said that there should be no rules for warfare, and I love you for being the first person to say it other than me, but you're trying to put the same sort of rules on politics.
?? Sorry to point this out, but this is a direct contradiction to the rest of your post.
I don't know. It's hard to explain.
I'm headed more toward a.....
I don't even know! Haha it's hard to explain. Like I said though, whatever you decide to do is fine.
I see now what you mean about my making rules for factions. I hadn't thought about it that way, but now that you said it, I do. I'm more with you now...that I completely understand what you meant. I suppose I misenterpreted. My bad.
I was going more for a structured game, which is how my last server was set up. There were no concrete rules for taxes or anything within each kingdom, but the rest of it was structured. I understand that you don't want it structured...I hadn't, again, thought of it that way. But it makes sense, and adds less work for the admins.
I know it was a contradiction in hindsight, but I misenterpreted roleplay as above. I dont' know the concrete definition so I assumed it to be something else :tongue.gif: which now I see what I did.
Haha what I meant about the rules for foundation of factions was that somebody can't just apply and create their own faction, because that would cause a lot of people who want power to have a faction with very few people in it. Eventually, having too many factions with too few people adds a burden to the game's politics. That's where I was headed with the manors/duchies idea. That way, the power hungry would still have power, but they'd be under a ruler. That's who would control their "faction"'s political ideas. This would lead to larger factions and less small ones.
And that makes sense about rebellions, I understand it. But it would kind of suck to be a leader of a faction and come online to find out you're now just a player with no power at all. That's what I mean by the king or whoever has to be online when it happens; it can't just "happen" if they're not online. I suppose this is headed toward "rules" for rebellions but I think that in a rebellion, it has to be declared that they are rebelling, you can't just arrow murder the king and afterwards say "oh, you were deposed. I'm king now!"
I agree with you, too many rules bogs down the whole system...but too few rules allows for unfair play.
I'm glad you see the ideas behind the server clearly. You're one of the few people who do. If anyone wants to make their own faction and can get people to join, then I'll let them join, if they get accepted. But they will quickly find out that this server is very "survival of the fittest" towards factions. If the server turns out the way I want, small factions will not last very long, unless they happen to be exceptionally capable. Hopefully, most people will gravitate towards the larger, more powerful factions. If they want power, they should try to earn it within a clan. But if they don't get the hint, and keep trying to play as a small faction after they are continually defeated, they will find no help from the administration. They are completely on their own, and if no one likes them, they will get destroyed until they give up on their faction. If they refuse to do so, they will get a pm suggesting they join another clan. Places will be found in other factions, and they will be disbanded.
Power within a faction comes from the players under the commander. There is no possible way that a commander can log in to the server and find he has no power, with or without faction plugins. If a faction wants to replace their commander(s), they may decide without him, but the actual act is only possible when the commander is online. Anyway, if a faction is attempting to replace their commander, then he probably doesn't deserve any rules that make rebellion "fair." A coup in true Minecraft War is impossible to accomplish through murder. A commander's power isn't tied to his life; he doesn't lose power because he dies. Like I said before, let what happens, happen. On this server, this sort of thing will happen the right way.
We may not have many rules, but if you look closely, the rules we do have solve as many problems, if not more, than the rules of other servers.
And another thing, it's all left up to the factions whether they have smaller parts to their faction. I understand that now, haha. However, how's it going to work if you get a small faction that gets defeated and wants to join a larger faction. Is that up to the larger faction that they join? I would assume so, with the direction this is headed. This leads to alliances and rivalries within each faction, so this could be used as a sabotage tool by other factions, if I understand it correctly.
Rebellions and power shifts will work differently in each faction. Every clan is set up differently, and each commander holds a different amount of power. Some factions have very loose, informal leaderships, and others are very rigid. One faction might replace their leader by holding a vote, and another might have to appeal to have their commander banned or kicked because he holds so much power over them.
If a small faction wants to join another faction, it could happen many different ways, similarly. The faction in question might break up and join separate factions as new recruits with an extra note to their resumes, or the entire faction might be incorporated into a larger one, as a new division. Or anything in between.
All of these possibilities have precedents, and we are going to have all sorts of factions on this server. It'll be great :smile.gif:.
-fathead
How will factions mark their territory? By torches/signs? (ie, Territory belongs to ......"faction 1"). Maybe by fences with signs? will it be completely known and static, or will they be rough estimates? (ie, FAction one's territory borders faction 2's at this river).
Or will that be up to each faction to decide with their border factions?
Because theoretically, they'll be far enough away (and hidden) that you wouldn't really know ho's your "border factions" anyway, no?
Um, this is sort of a stupid question, but could there be bands of "mercenaries" that would have a small base that could sell themselves out to other, larger factions? These small bands could be considered "factions" but let themselves get taken out on purpose in order to aid a larger faction, for a price. They would then re-form their faction (after they were needed & did what they were paid for) and be ready for somebody else to hire them. Is this a plausible idea?
I guess it's bordering on the "not having a faction" part of the rules, but I thought I"d ask.
I had another thought, but I'll post it later when I remember
~RH3~
Again, they can do it however they want, but this is a valid point. I think walls will be encouraged, or at least regular patrols. Definitely outposts within sight of the border. If a faction wants to mark the border of their territory with their name, that's fine. We'll see how the territory gets settled out first, and interfere if we need to.
As for mercenaries, there's nothing against a faction doing that. They don't even have to join the client faction to help them. It would be more like hiring an extra ally. Of course, the mercenary faction would need a base of operations, and territory with resources to support themselves between wars. Oh, and none of this will be official. Factions won't have to register on the server as mercenaries. They can just advertise among the other factions that they are for hire.
Are you using the Factions pulgin?
In my experience:
Black screens show up as quits, lock ups and process kills(Task manager/end-process on windows) show up as quits, and anything that disconnects the client from the server on the client's end is possibly going to show up as a quit. There's no way for the server to differentiate from a client crash that disconnects the player from the server and an actual disconnect.(They both disconnect the client from the server in the same manner, it's pretty much impossible for Notch to be able to detect black screen crashes - the client still thinks it's running when it black screens)
There's no solution to the problem of 'someone logging out in combat'
however; since blackscreens still leave the player logged in until the process is killed; they'll be killed after due to not being able to defend themselves. A computer shutdown or laptop dying would be just about the only event showing up as a quit that doesn't count as logging.
I'm pretty good at figuring out who did what, so if you'd let me have access to the terminal I can get you set up. A good idea is to change log files every two days (And then date the old ones, as sifting through two days of text is hard enough - try two weeks!)
---Edit---
I'm totally against the factions plugin, it drasticly takes away from the vanilla PVP outlined in val's thread. I'm sure he'd back me up in saying that not being able to enter a chunk of land because someone typed '/f claim' is no fun for anyone except the people who claimed it. Danger and risk lead to fun, as unpredictable events lead to a rise in adrenaline.
Locke, I'd totally be willing to run this server for you. We'd need to get donations from the community to get us started, maybe $100 for a 75-slot server to start(With the amount of interest I figure that should be easy to obtain)? If you're interested let me know (I can even build a server rig if we get enough money, and host from my home network to prevent monthly fees)
I've got the experience to run servers, you know I've run four total in the past that went over pretty well. Servers like these are comparatively easy to run in contrast to a heavy RP server like Cavera. I'd be able to handle it, and would get help if needed.
Imperator - Augustus
Unless I get a better offer, I'd be fine with you running the server.
But if anyone else reads this and has experience with that sort of thing, speak up. This server is for everyone, not just people I know. We want the best people we can find running it.