Following up on a previous thread that discussed how to help regulate raiding, one idea we are considering, going for simplicity, is that if you enter an affiliated plane where you are an enemy, you cannot return to that plane (once you leave) for one hour unless you are killed on that plane (in which case you can return immediately).

Is this a good idea? Bad idea? Would people use heartstop to game it? Any better ideas? Would like to hear your thoughts!

Raiding needs to be made easier, not harder at this point. With the way distortion works, the heavy costs of death, the fact that discretionaries, shrines, etc can easily overpower a raid force... it's turned into where raids now only happen at dead times when there are very few defenders around, or they simply raid godrealms. I know that years ago raids were exciting to do, fun for both sides (mostly) and were frequent.

A lot of the older players that I speak to echo these remarks, so please consider trying to curb back these "anti-raider" policies and bring it a little more back in line with how it was back in, say, 2009

Planar raids most definitely need some revision. I am of the mind that there needs to be some serious balancing out in terms of essence loss/gain. Whether this will entail drastically reducing the loss or dramatically increasing gain from killing on an enemy plane is something that I feel should be brought up.

I really do not like the proposal of a one hour "grace period" - I, and I am sure many others enter an enemy plane simply to be nosey and see who is there. (With a view to raiding, of course.)

That is not to say I completely disagree with said proposal, but how about we could still freely enter leave, but once any form of hostility is caused on the plane, your one hour proposal would then apply?

This idea would certainly help solve kick & run harassment raids, the larger problems (that defenders best option to "defeat" an enemy raid it to stop showing up) is not solved. In order solve this, I feel that a resurrection delay should be implemented for dying in enemy territory multiple times in the same month or two (because the fates/avechna get's angry at your aggression or something).



I feel that, with something like this would allow discretionaries to be weakened or made less spamable; this would allow for more raids, but also make them defeatable with effort by the defenders.

Hrm.

Well, there certainly needs to be a balance. I generally like the high penalty for death on an enemy plane, because it put an end to the "lets go attack an org that can barely defend itself for a long period of time and do every butt-hole thing we can think of". That is disheartening.

The scare I see in the "lock out" solution, which I assume would be in lieu of an essence cost- Supermobs, a rare fight now, would probably never be slain in this scenario.

The other problem, which would be resolvable I'm certain, would be the impact of death avoidance abilities. For example, currently, a well-used Lich can let someone that dies in enemy territory escape for a much more negligible penalty- similarly, for a lock out, if someone dies, then liches, are they booted out? Or locked out if they leave? Or if a mooncoven resurgems you within the same territory, do you circumvent the lockout? Crow-rebirth? Sacrifice?

I could totally see a combination of reduced essence costs for death in enemy territory plus the thing Draylor said three posts up.

Rainydays:
Supermobs, a rare fight now, would probably never be slain in this scenario.

The "lockout" would explicitly not work if you left the area due to death. You'd only be locked out if you were to attack a Supermob and then cubix out or something. If you die to defenders/the Supermob, you can come back right away.

I'm not sure where this idea that raiding only happens during off hours. That's mostly a team Magnaserefax thing, speaking from experience over the past few days. The other side raids when it pleases.

With that said, Draylor's caveat that this cooldown only starts once you initiate something aggressive is needed for this idea.

Furthermore, I agree that raiding mechanics could use a bit of a finetuning especially if the admin keep increasing the effects of distort, implementing new mechanics to discourage hit and run raiding, and so forth.

Personally, the simplest ideas to encourage more beneficial raiding is this:
1. Decrease the cost of dying in enemy territory. Or implement increasing costs. First death = regular xp loss, second death = more, etc
2. Implement those sweet shrine changes, specifically allowing only 1 offensive area shrine power at a time. This is in the special report
3. Consider simply just nerfing shrine effects to only work within their influence. This is not in the special report.

EDIT: Btw if people choose to heartstop and eat increased xp loss to avoid the lockout, I say let them.

If it is made forgiving, then there needs to be a real "GTFO" mechanic to stop the real over the top stuff.

I agree, which is why the admin are considering the lock out option, which is great because it solves the issue about raiders...perma raiding.

Edit: Generally speaking, I feel like if you tighten more aspects of raiding, you need to loosen others.

Sojiro:

I'm not sure where this idea that raiding only happens during off hours. That's mostly a team Magnaserefax thing, speaking from experience over the past few days. The other side raids when it pleases.

2012/02/27 13:35:05 - Azula slew Moyra, the blackjack dealer that was loyal to you.
2012/02/27 13:35:45 - Azula slew Suklub, a roulette spinner that was loyal to you.
2012/02/27 13:37:50 - Azula slew the esteemed scientist Tunika d'Murani that was loyal to you.
2012/02/27 13:44:09 - Azula slew Gerid, the locksmith that was loyal to you.
2012/02/27 13:44:41 - Azula slew Kebira n'Rotri that was loyal to you.
2012/02/27 13:47:18 - Azula slew Seritul d'Vanecu that was loyal to you.
2012/02/27 13:49:42 - Azula slew a viscanti nobleman that was loyal to you.
2012/02/27 13:50:45 - Azula slew Snaikka i'Xiia that was loyal to you.
2012/02/27 13:51:09 - Azula slew a viscanti nobleman that was loyal to you.

Now, I'm not saying it happens -all- the time... but there are a LOT of cases in where both sides are guilty of off-peak raiding. Just recently it's gotten a little more... visible?

I think there needs to be more reward for successful raids, and more reward for fending off a raid... most of all it would be pretty great if there was a PURPOSE to raiding other than:

Option 1) Herp derp let's poke around and be a nuisance

Option 2) Herp derp let's kill Smobs when we have 70 people to overwhelm their 5 (yes, exaggeration, but you DO need a lot of people to take down an smob :P)

The problem is in the solution, sadly :(

Sojiro:

I agree, which is why the admin are considering the lock out option, which is great because it solves the issue about raiders...perma raiding.

The one Estarra suggested? How so? Generally during raids, most people exit the plane due to death, which isn't covered. We would need some one of the suggested addendum to prevent perma raids.

I misspoke, I was talking more about hit and runners. Har har.

Sojiro:

I misspoke, I was talking more about hit and runners. Har har.

Agreed. It is certainly a good idea, though it doesn't solve the entire problem.

Revan:




Now, I'm not saying it happens -all- the time... but there are a LOT of cases in where both sides are guilty of off-peak raiding. Just recently it's gotten a little more... visible?

I think there needs to be more reward for successful raids, and more reward for fending off a raid... most of all it would be pretty great if there was a PURPOSE to raiding other than:

Option 1) Herp derp let's poke around and be a nuisance

Option 2) Herp derp let's kill Smobs when we have 70 people to overwhelm their 5 (yes, exaggeration, but you DO need a lot of people to take down an smob :P)

The problem is in the solution, sadly :(

Wasn't that raiding actually a counterraid to you guys raiding early in the morning (I know Glom only had Alacardael around)?

If you really just want something that will definitely discourage perma raiding, give the defenders a win condition:

1. Kill x enemied people within an IC day in the territory. Once you do, blam something something supermob protection and kicks out enemied raiders for x time.

Something like that should do it.

With this idea though, I'd also prefer it if the raiders got their own win condition too that gives the same thing at the end (kicks out raiders/ends the raid)

Sidd:


Wasn't that raiding actually a counterraid to you guys raiding early in the morning (I know Glom only had Alacardael around)?

Yea, but does that disprove my point that it was done? :P The point here is that I think that current raid mechanics encourage this type of raiding. it doesn't truly matter who does it, because everyone has... I'd just like to see mechanics implemented where raiders are ENCOURAGED and REWARDED for facing off against an equal/superior team

I don't like the suggestion in the first post. You don't have any reason to go to a plane, leave, and come back short of being killed.

Revan:

Yea, but does that disprove my point that it was done? :P The point here is that I think that current raid mechanics encourage this type of raiding. it doesn't truly matter who does it, because everyone has... I'd just like to see mechanics implemented where raiders are ENCOURAGED and REWARDED for facing off against an equal/superior team

But it kind of does disprove your point.... You started it, they retaliated, they didn't initiate it. The only thing that encouraged them to raid was the fact that YOU raided first, not because it was early morning.

I like Shuyin's idea. Give a win condition so people leave. Then again, the past few raids I've seen have turned into Faethorn brawls where I think none of what we're discussing would apply.