Blacraft Forum

Public Forums => The Battleground => Topic started by: Bla on 2012 06 14, 11:51:58


Title: Battleground Information
Post by: Bla on 2012 06 14, 11:51:58
The Battleground is a special region where teams fight for control of the zones. The zones are divided by orange borders and each zone has its own number:
(http://images.wikia.com/blacraft/images/6/60/The_Battleground_Zones_2.png)

See this article (http://blacraft.wikia.com/wiki/Blacraft/The_Battleground) for more information.
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: bong on 2013 01 14, 21:43:06
What happens if someone has no zone/team?
Are they forced to make their own or join one?
And if they join a team does the WHOLE team have to fight?
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Bla on 2013 01 15, 14:23:22
What happens if someone has no zone/team?
Are they forced to make their own or join one?
And if they join a team does the WHOLE team have to fight?
1: Nothing happens.
2: No, but they can if they want to (and the team they want to join accepts).
3: You're never forced to fight, but if someone attacks your zone, you would probably want to defend it yes. And the more players on a team, the higher the probability you have more people to defend the zone.
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: bong on 2013 01 28, 21:28:56
Hey what happens if a dude is banned but he want's to fight a b-itch that is f-uckingly abusing his admin powers in Blacraft?
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Hellpotatoe on 2013 01 29, 10:18:12
Hey what happens if a dude is banned but he want's to fight a b-itch that is f-uckingly abusing his admin powers in Blacraft?
He keeps banned, I hope.
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Bla on 2013 01 29, 18:33:46
Hey what happens if a dude is banned but he want's to fight a b-itch that is f-uckingly abusing his admin powers in Blacraft?
Then the dude explains in the kindest language possible how the person is abusing his admin powers and why the player was unjustly banned so that there is a probability that the dude may get unbanned.
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: b-ong on 2013 08 15, 23:59:36
1. i think there should have been a player to zone ratio, because people joining later would have a disadvantage to getting zones
2. what if the person cannot make it within 3 days because he is a: inactive or b: active but is busy
3. is there any difference if you capture the "capital" or the zone the names are on or just any regular zone?
4. can you have deathchest?
5. are nether portals allowed?
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Bla on 2013 08 16, 16:36:09
2. what if the person cannot make it within 3 days because he is a: inactive or b: active but is busy
Then the person/team owning the zone loses the zone.
However I've been thinking of increasing the duration to 7 days, because there haven't been any fights yet, so waiting up to 7 days shouldn't be too problematic.
3. is there any difference if you capture the "capital" or the zone the names are on or just any regular zone?
There are no capital zones, the names on the world map can be in any random location inside the area they're naming, the location has no meaning and is only judged from where it blocks the least important surface details.
4. can you have deathchest?
I haven't made any rules on this, but back when we made The Battleground there obviously was no DeathChest system. I will not allow DeathChest currently, as it is a PvP zone and risking losing items is a part of the battle.
Allowing it could maybe encourage people to battle more because it's less dangerous, so we could consider it.
5. are nether portals allowed?
In a battle, you should stay in the area you're fighting over, so you shouldn't use the Nether for that. The Nether isn't a part of The Battleground and shouldn't be used to get an advantage in a battle.
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: b-ong on 2013 08 16, 22:43:02
Since Quontex is mostly inactive, could we turn his area back to neutrul? or do i still have to wait seven days to battle him
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Bla on 2013 08 17, 09:39:00
You still have to wait 7 days to battle him, additionally you need to be a part of a Battleground team which has a zone next to one of his zones to battle one of his zones that border you, and your Battleground team must accept that you try battling him.

There are still unclaimed zones on the map btw.

I don't remember if you're on any team.
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: b-ong on 2013 08 17, 15:23:07
oh ok. prob. going to make a new team or something
but the hard thing is, i can't really tell the difference from each team and stuff like that
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Bla on 2013 08 17, 15:35:18
Each team has its own flag and name which shows up on the battleground map like municipalities (red borders).
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: b-ong on 2013 08 17, 19:34:30
i outlined the red lines
so the Red Front is really that big?
(http://i.imgur.com/lC9OjCV.png)
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Bla on 2013 08 17, 20:23:49
You outlined it on an outdated map. Use this one.

http://zoom.it/PkPv

And the map is correct.
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: b-ong on 2013 08 18, 21:02:21
Oh. Then the wiki is outdated as that's the last picture I think
Edit : the flag that's yellow yellow yellow and white doesn't have a name
Also, do I have to leave the über if I have to make me own team? Like with the collective storage a and everything
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Bla on 2013 08 19, 18:29:18
The wiki is very outdated yes, nobody has the responsibility to keep it up to date. That would take a lot of devotion.

If the flag doesn't have a name I think it's because I didn't know the name of the team with the flag. I think it's Fiah who made the team, but I don't remember if he named it.

You can make your own team and stay in UBSR.

Edit: I think Fiah's team is Ahere Front.
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Bla on 2013 08 19, 18:39:02
Actually, this speak about capital zones gave me a fun idea:

Every team should have a zone designated as base. It has speial properties:
- 2 weeks instead of 1 week chance to find a fighting date if attacked.
- If it is conquered, the enemy gains control of all the team's territories. (Or should the team just relocate the base?)
- All zones must be connected to the base zone. So if another team takes control of a zone in a way that makes some zones disconnected from the attacked team's capital, the enemy automatically gains control of all of those zones as well.

(This makes the map look better and also makes fighting more strategic. If we could build a beacon in The Battleground around the center, that would help a lot to bring more strategic PvP options to the zone as well. Therefore I propose that the UBSR devotes its first beacon materials to The Battleground, the beacon would then be conquerable property but not allowed to be destroyed.)

Do people understand what I'm proposing? Do people like the idea? If you've played Empire Attack, the system is supposed to work a bit like how your outer zones decay when your supply lines are cut, here the enemy just takes everything that depends on the point (zone) where the supply line was cut (zone was conquered).
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: b-ong on 2013 08 19, 21:20:50
yeah empire attack on the battle ground

edit: kol i didn't read the last paragraph didn't realize you compared it already

problrems
1. For the get the capital get all, that's overpowered because for new people they have to have their capital exposed and for Red Front, it's almost impossible to get to the capital
2. if we start working up the battle ground up again and a lot of people play we might need to make it a big bigger, or do you think it's okay the way it is? the hard part would be that it's in the middle of developed area so it doesn't have anywhere to expand to
3. yeah i get your idea it's a good one, but need to think about the beacon
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Bla on 2013 08 20, 05:23:54
1: But the new players have nothing to lose if their capital is one zone. Red Front on the other hand would lose a gigantic amount of zones if you took the capital. This should make up for the fact that it's harder to get to.

2: I really don't think we will ever need to make it bigger, if anything it's too big, it has been inactive for more than a year.
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: b-ong on 2013 08 20, 21:23:12
i like how everyone has 1 or 2 zones while the red front has 30
stats:
Front: 29, 64%
Sequoia Front: 2, 4.4%
Ahere Front: 1, 2.2%
Neutral: 12, 26.6%
Misc: 1, 2.2%
Total: 45, 100%
nearest 10th percent
(http://i.imgur.com/H5OGOrA.jpg)
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: b-ong on 2013 08 20, 23:37:34
can i use vacation mode? like because i have to go to vacation from Aug 22 to Aug 30 thanks
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: b-ong on 2013 08 21, 01:02:03
last post- that was stupid nvm i ddin't even have a team
so for the flag placing, does it have to be in plain sight or something?
also when you calim a place all you do is stick a flag somewhere right? and add a base if you want and post it here
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Darvince on 2013 08 21, 15:01:33
i join sequoia front
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Bla on 2013 08 21, 19:35:08
can i use vacation mode? like because i have to go to vacation from Aug 22 to Aug 30 thanks
Vacation mode isn't an option.

last post- that was stupid nvm i ddin't even have a team
so for the flag placing, does it have to be in plain sight or something?
also when you calim a place all you do is stick a flag somewhere right? and add a base if you want and post it here
The flag should be in plain sight, I don't think the rules say so officially, but all flags in there are afaIk currently in plain sight and it certainly shouldn't be underground. Also, the higher up it is, the harder it is for the enemy to climb up the flagpole to change it. However, I hope people won't be making 200m tall flagpoles because of this. I hope people will make relatively realistic flagpoles so that the flags are visible around 10-20m above the surface. That would be my suggestion and how most of Red Front's flags are currently.

i join sequoia front
Atomic needs to approve this.
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Darvince on 2013 08 21, 19:59:03
atomic will never approve it lol
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: AeriOwl on 2013 08 21, 20:14:50
I am going to make a new fort that will serve as my capital later
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: b-ong on 2013 08 21, 20:46:47
how would you know, like where each territrot begins/ends?
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: atomic7732 on 2013 08 21, 23:21:00
apprové
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Bla on 2013 08 22, 05:33:24
how would you know, like where each territrot begins/ends?
Look on the map.
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: b-ong on 2013 08 22, 10:39:56
oh i was talking about where they begin/end like block tro block, but i guess that's not that important
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: yqt1001 on 2013 08 22, 17:47:13
Do I need a front to just run around and kill people randomly?
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: b-ong on 2013 08 22, 18:00:20
Sadly, no
I mean thankfully, no

Read the wiki link on the first post
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Bla on 2013 08 23, 15:38:33
Do I need a front to just run around and kill people randomly?
That's not legal even if you are in a front, the fights need to be organized in The Battleground.
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Darvince on 2013 08 28, 22:16:38
hey bla how do I claim neutral territories? just set up a SKA flag in them?
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Komrage on 2013 08 29, 01:34:35
yes darvince thats what the wiki says
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: b-ong on 2013 08 29, 02:05:16
Don't forget to put the zone on he map so other people don't overlap
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Komrage on 2013 08 29, 02:06:28
a few rules are unclear imo

are we allowed to build/mine the blocks in the buildings/environment of owned/unowned zones during war/peace?

that was a handful.
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: b-ong on 2013 08 29, 04:59:34
Yes that's wa the question I forgot
Yqt also mentioned it

Conclusion: with all these specific questions, people must be getting ready to battle!!!

Also Bla can you clear out what happens to youe inventory like if you die do yu get he items/lose the items and if you lose the items does opponent get items or something like that
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Bla on 2013 08 29, 05:19:07
are we allowed to build/mine the blocks in the buildings/environment of owned/unowned zones during war/peace?
You are allowed to build and mine blocks in the environment of unclaimed zones.
You are allowed to build and mine blocks in buildings and the environment of zones you've claimed, if your Battleground team agrees to it.
You are not allowed to build or mine any blocks in buildings and the environment of zones which other teams have claimed.
All of this applies to peace.

During war you may build and destroy blocks in buildings and the environment of the zone that the battle goes on in. Otherwise you could simply put the flag in a place you can't reach.

Also Bla can you clear out what happens to youe inventory like if you die do yu get he items/lose the items and if you lose the items does opponent get items or something like that
When you die, you drop your inventory. As I said DeathChest is not allowed. If the enemies pick up the items you drop, you've lost them, if they don't, you can go back to pick them up before they despawn.
Those are the current rules.
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: b-ong on 2013 08 29, 14:02:14
wait so that means that someone can mine, like mine, another zone with tnt and when someone claims it just explode t???
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: b-ong on 2013 08 29, 14:07:46
Oh and two more things, will you disable /whois, and we just break the deathchest before battle i guess
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Bla on 2013 08 29, 18:10:24
wait so that means that someone can mine, like mine, another zone with tnt and when someone claims it just explode t???
You are not allowed to build or mine any blocks in buildings and the environment of zones which other teams have claimed.
So no.

Oh and two more things, will you disable /whois, and we just break the deathchest before battle i guess
I don't think I would disable whois, it would be easier to tell people not to use it and checking the logs afterwards to see if they used it. DeathChest should be broken before battle yes.
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: yqt1001 on 2013 08 30, 05:09:57
Can we name battleground zones? Would make any possible war reporting much easier. Or at least number them, so that battles can have clear names (ie, Battle for Zone #1 on 20130102).

Anyways if something big happens in the battleground soon, I plan on logging any battleground actions taken, including belligerents, activity during battles (eyewitnesses) and fatalities based on log reports. The logs get so detailed that we could even determined how much damage was done by a front to another one.
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: b-ong on 2013 08 30, 13:42:38
Or you could just ask kipz to make a filtering program or something like that, but he needs a sample of the logs
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Komrage on 2013 08 30, 13:47:30
how do flags work.

can the defending team repair their flag/try to destroy the flag the enemy is putting up?
would it be legit to have a flag different by one block, so the attacking team only has to change one? (But then They'll have a hard time defending too so it's a weakness)
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: b-ong on 2013 08 30, 13:50:32
About the color flag things, Bla would Ceci the logs to make sure that all he blocks were changed
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Bla on 2013 08 30, 19:56:03
Can we name battleground zones? Would make any possible war reporting much easier. Or at least number them, so that battles can have clear names (ie, Battle for Zone #1 on 20130102).

Anyways if something big happens in the battleground soon, I plan on logging any battleground actions taken, including belligerents, activity during battles (eyewitnesses) and fatalities based on log reports. The logs get so detailed that we could even determined how much damage was done by a front to another one.
Good idea with the zone numbering. Are you editing the world map atm? Otherwise I'll name/number the zones.

how do flags work.

can the defending team repair their flag/try to destroy the flag the enemy is putting up?
would it be legit to have a flag different by one block, so the attacking team only has to change one? (But then They'll have a hard time defending too so it's a weakness)
The current rules say that you take over the zone if you manage to replace the flag within a timeframe of 30 minutes. There is no repair option.
You would simply try getting to the enemy flag, like by pillaring, destroy it, and place your own wool blocks. If you manage to do it, you win the zone.
No matter your flag, you should have to replace all the blocks, so all teams are equal in that sense.
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: yqt1001 on 2013 08 30, 20:51:46
Good idea with the zone numbering. Are you editing the world map atm? Otherwise I'll name/number the zones.

Go ahead, I changed my mind about what I was going to do with the map anyways. :P
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Komrage on 2013 08 30, 22:01:24
yes the wiki doesnt say there is a repair option, but to clarify, if the attacker only manages to destroy 1 block of the defending flag each time before dying, the defenders cant repair it?
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Bla on 2013 08 31, 07:28:26
I haven't considered that. I would say yes they can repair it then, but it depends on what people want.
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Bla on 2013 08 31, 14:15:05
The zones have now been numbered, shown in the first post. Working on updating the wiki page with more info as well. Done.

Do people think we should set up rules on how the teams should be allowed to form during battles?

My proposal would be:

- People from all fronts can join the attaking/defending teams during a battle. They need permission to join from the front they want to support.
- The number of attackers must not be more than 1.35 times the number of defenders, rounded down. (So 4 attackers can play against 3 defenders, but not 3 attackers against 2 defenders.)
- The number of defenders must not be more than 1.50 times the number of attackers, rounded down. (So 3 defenders can play against 2 attackers, but not 2 defenders against 1 attacker.)
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: b-ong on 2013 08 31, 19:04:31
sounds liek it'd take a long time to organize if someone wanted to fight someone and then they couldn't and then another person wanted the same spot but there were already a person in there and then we have to wait for the front leaders to agree and if they have a team it might take a while to agree
and i thought it was front to front not everyone battle everyone if they want
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Bla on 2013 08 31, 19:16:22
I didn't understand the first part of your post.

Yes originally it was front vs front, but now all fronts are pretty much just 1 person, so to make the battles bigger, I thought it would be more exciting if we let them support each other in battles, so they will be bigger.
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: b-ong on 2013 08 31, 20:03:14
okay first part
so what if everyone went to one front? yeah there's a limit, but then there's a lot of people who want to fight, and not all the people can fight
so is it first on first server, or is it chosen randomly, or does the front leader decide?
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Bla on 2013 08 31, 20:31:00
Obviously you can't let more people join a battle than there is space on the server, so the front leaders would decide, and would get 4 slots each to balance the battle in case that many people wanted to join. However, I don't think that is going to happen.
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: b-ong on 2013 09 03, 21:18:14
Max number of defenders            Max number of attackers
for that ammount of attacker.            for that ammount of defenders.

Attackers      Defenders                                   Defenders       Attackers
1                   1                                                 1                     1
2                   3                                                 2                     2
3                   4                                                 3                     4


not very entertaining, but i guess that isn't the point
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Bla on 2013 09 05, 17:23:15
Unless a lot of people complain, I'll implement this new rule so people won't be able to conquer an entire front simply if they can't find dates in a week:

By default, a front has the right to issue 1 attack pr. week against every other front, that is, one week must pass from one battle is finished until the next battle begins.
You can organize more attacks above this limit, but the defending front has the right to decline without losing the zone.
(However, a problem would then be that the defending front has no motivation to accept the battle, because by doing that it risks losing it, while declining means it loses nothing. I'm not sure about what do to about this, but if we just accept that 1 attack pr. week is an acceptable rate that attacks happen, it shouldn't really matter.)
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: b-ong on 2013 09 05, 17:27:12
hmm, but then if we have battle like sunday 19:00 then the next week we can't have it at sunday 19:00 again we'd have to wait will sunday 19:30.
so can we have it like 1 week - 1 hour?
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Tugagon on 2013 09 06, 18:16:09
Are there weapon restrictions? Can we use things like fire charges? Could we even use enchanted shovels if we wanted?
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: b-ong on 2013 09 06, 18:59:16
you can use anything you want
*thinks about yqt and wither*
okay most things
anything other than spawning a wither, which might be allowed but it might stray from the zones so i don't think that would be a good diea
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Bla on 2013 09 06, 21:40:34
hmm, but then if we have battle like sunday 19:00 then the next week we can't have it at sunday 19:00 again we'd have to wait will sunday 19:30.
so can we have it like 1 week - 1 hour?
I would say no, that makes the rule unnecessarily complex when you already have to agree on a time. Your motivation to start the battle a bit earlier could be so you'll have one week from that point where you don't have to battle that enemy, I forgot about that, so putting battles exactly one week apart could still happen if people actually wanted to.



There currently are no weapon ristrictions, but you shouldn't spawn a wither, because you can't control what it damages and you may end up damaging other zones.

What do people think about DeathChest? Should we allow it in the battles? Otherwise, the battle may pretty much be determined by who dies first, because if you lose all your good gear the game is pretty much over. If lava is involved losing good gear may not be very fun either.
We could also set ristrictions on the weapons/armor allowed, such as only unenchanted iron armor and unenchanted bows, arrows, iron swords, TNT, lava buckets, fire charges... Possibly other items.

Ender eyes should probably be banned, because they'd make teleporting to the flag or getting into the base too easy.

I think actually setting these ristrictions and allowing DeathChests could make the battles much more fun. If people are less afraid of dying, they are more likely to engage each other and fight instead of trying to take complex routes to avoid each other and such. I might implement ristrictions tomorrow unless people complain or something.
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: b-ong on 2013 09 06, 22:17:18
i think we should at least give it a try, because for poor people, this wouldn't benefit them. but for rich people with lots of armour, nothing would deterrent them from using their best, as they have nothing to lose. also, this gives the attacker a lot more chance to win, as he can just retry and retry any amount of time, as he'd just get his armor back, and wouldn't be a bit more conscious of trying to win.
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Tugagon on 2013 09 06, 23:55:49
Oh kol just as i start enchanting everything i own
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Bla on 2013 09 07, 11:55:40
You could still use enchanted items for PvE, and we could also build a PvP arena somewhere for different kinds of battles, where we could allow enchants and diamond and stuff.

Updating the rules now:

====Item Regulations====
To make battles more equal/skill based and less expensive, certain items are banned:
*Diamond swords
*Diamond armor
*Enchanted weapons, tools and armor
*Ender pearls
*Potions
The battling teams may use DeathChest and beds at their respawn points during the battle, and may not destroy enemy beds/DeathChests. For this reason, the respawn points should be located at the edge of the zone.

Is this ok?
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: b-ong on 2013 09 07, 13:09:12
wtf no potions -.-
sounds nerfed
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Bla on 2013 09 07, 13:44:11
I've set up a poll for whether potions should be allowed or not. Please vote.

Also, we could consider limiting the amount of TNT and possibly fire charges people can use pr. battle.
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: b-ong on 2013 09 07, 13:57:07
hmm so will those things affect the battles on sunday?
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Komrage on 2013 09 07, 14:03:40
all these restrictions seem to defeat the spirit of the battleground, that is to say: blacraft is a primarily pve server where pvp is only allowed in the battleground. Now it seems that pvp too is banned in the battleground, and you are only allowed a watered-down version of fighting.

instead of banning items, maybe people should just come up with ways to counter them.

diamond tools and weapons are banned, i'm not sure why. however, the argument that 'poor people' don't have them and will have less incentive to battle makes little sense. First of all, diamond tools and armor are not prohibitively expensive. with the end exp farm, it's almost a joke to enchant them compared to before. secondly, most players already do have these tools, active players like smjjames, yqt, bla, me, etc all have the diamond items and enchantmnets, so it's not a hindrance.

enderpearls are banned because they let you get up close, but i think that banning them is the wrong way to handle the problem. why not instead surround the flag by moats of laval to make enderpearls a bad idea? what about strategically placed glass walls? I'm quite sure enderpearls can be easily defended against.

i'm not sure why potions are banned, but if it's for the same reason as diamond tools, then the same argument applies

unless you're worried that the tnt will kill the server, i have no idea why you'd want to limit tnt. do we limit the amount of sword strokes?
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Bla on 2013 09 07, 14:04:08
It depends on whether people are for or against them. I will probably allow potions if it's unclear whether people want it or not by tomorrow.

Maybe we should make another rule - if the people who battle for a zone agree not to ban some of the banned items during the battle, they can use them during that battle.
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: yqt1001 on 2013 09 07, 14:31:46
I could see banning block breaking items, maybe. Banning other items though? If you want perfectly fair battles just ask someone outside of the battleground to fight you in iron everything. :P

Potions are probably the most overpowered items though, hardly enchanted diamond gear, if you wanted to ban overpowered things.
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Tugagon on 2013 09 07, 14:34:50
How about this:
A by default status of no diamond items, but all items below diamond with any material is fine, along with potions.
or
a 'league' system with no material limit but a limit of enchantment level.
or
avoid tedious micromanagement and allow free for all as before, but raise awareness of the locations of exp farms and how to use books to get better weapon enchantments.
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Bla on 2013 09 07, 14:39:45
all these restrictions seem to defeat the spirit of the battleground, that is to say: blacraft is a primarily pve server where pvp is only allowed in the battleground.
It is currently only allowed in the BG, but we could easily make another BG region with different rules or, like I suggested, an arena, where those items may be more fun to use compared to where the objective is "capture the flag".

Now it seems that pvp too is banned in the battleground, and you are only allowed a watered-down version of fighting.
PvP is banned in the BG except from the arranged battles. None of the rules I added banned PvP during those battles.

diamond tools and weapons are banned, i'm not sure why. however, the argument that 'poor people' don't have them and will have less incentive to battle makes little sense. First of all, diamond tools and armor are not prohibitively expensive. with the end exp farm, it's almost a joke to enchant them compared to before. secondly, most players already do have these tools, active players like smjjames, yqt, bla, me, etc all have the diamond items and enchantmnets, so it's not a hindrance.
The thing isn't that most people can't afford them - all people can obviously get them with some effort. But it takes a lot more time to get good, enchanted diamond tools and armor compared to simply making iron swords and armor. The enchants don't take that much time anymore, but vary a lot, so the gear you get in the end is rarely what you exactly wanted, so it often takes several tries/diamonds to get the gear you actually want, unless you enchant books to apply those, but that takes a lot of time. If people get a lot of different enchants, they will also have very different stats in the fighting, and will not be as equal compared to if they simply used the same weapons and armor. For simplicity's sake and to reduce the amount of time we need to devote to the battles, I think using unenchanted iron swords and armor is a better option. That way people are still equal in the battle, and the more equal people are in what they have, the more they can battle based on skill, and I think that is the most important thing.

enderpearls are banned because they let you get up close, but i think that banning them is the wrong way to handle the problem. why not instead surround the flag by moats of laval to make enderpearls a bad idea? what about strategically placed glass walls? I'm quite sure enderpearls can be easily defended against.
They still make you able to teleport directly to the flag if you just throw them correctly, even if there are glass walls, by then just tp'ing to them instead and from there to the flag. They're also a pretty cheap way to get across obstacles. You can probably invent some system defending against them, but I think it would be more fun if they were simply banned.

unless you're worried that the tnt will kill the server, i have no idea why you'd want to limit tnt. do we limit the amount of sword strokes?
One reason would be to protect the server, but the main reason would be to make the battles less costly. If people want to battle every week now, or have the "right" to do it, I think we should let the BG also have room for people who don't have time to gather lots of TNT, potions and have enchanted diamond stuff ready for that in the long run. At least, if that would be expected of me, I think I would disband the Red Front and ignore the BG. I could afford some battles definitely, but there's no way I'd be willing to spend that many resources on it - and I don't think the added resources actually would make the battles any more fun.

I could see banning block breaking items, maybe. Banning other items though? If you want perfectly fair battles just ask someone outside of the battleground to fight you in iron everything. :P

Potions are probably the most overpowered items though, hardly enchanted diamond gear, if you wanted to ban overpowered things.
Remember the BG is all about changing the flag and not simply killing, so the defenders try to make defensive structures. I think the attacker should be able to break these, otherwise I think it will be too hard to get to the flag, even though we could also change the rules so that the flag would have to be reachable or something like that by the attacker.

I didn't say I wanted perfectly fair battles, I'm just saying I think battling with all of those expensive items isn't any more fun than if you used their cheaper and simpler equivalents, and battling for the BG flags is not comparable to some randomly arranged duel in some random location.
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: b-ong on 2013 09 07, 15:30:49
first of all, we should decide what happens during the sunday battle and then we can do long term stuff later
because i have no idea when the poll ends and if it even does end, and if we're banning items or whatever
also, if you change some of the rules we might need to postspond some of the battles as i built some mechanism prior to the rule change, if it is even changing.
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Bla on 2013 09 07, 17:41:35
Based on feedback I will try deciding which rules should apply on Sunday.

As it looks now, there are 3 votes for and 3 against potions in BG, so I'm not sure whether to allow them.
If you built a defensive mechanism using potions, I think it's ok for you to use it tomorrow.

The other rules it would be helpful if you would state whether you're for or against in text, and state if you change opinion.

Currently I have the impression that Lotz and I are for my rule changes (except Lotz against banning potions), while Mudkipz is against the rule changes. I'm not sure about Yqt's or Matty's opinions on the issues, although Yqt told me he was against banning diamond armor. So diamond armor ban would be tied like potions, and 2 would favor the other bans over 1 against currently.
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: b-ong on 2013 09 07, 17:49:06
hmm, how about no splash potions, so you can still use them, but only on yourself, along with the defence mechanism
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Bla on 2013 09 07, 18:24:14
Yqt's argument that potions are overpowered:

Quote
an iron sword with a strength 2 potion does 10 more hearts of damage than a diamond sword
18 vs 8
base iron sword is 7
sharpness five isn't an increase of 11 hearts of damage, only 3-7
clearly potions are much more overpowered than you think!

In your battle you and Fiahstorm could try discussing the rules on potions for your battle, and possibly the other rules as well. If you can agree to any rules different from what I proposed, those are the ones applying to the battle.

Darvince should write some feedback on the rules I wrote to see if we can agree to some rules for this battle.

Remember you can change votes in the poll.

What I would say about potions/diamond armor is that it seems a bit like the trees competing for sunlight. Therefore they grow dozens of meters tall and spend a lot of resources on building their large trunks. But the trunks don't actually give the trees any energy, they only server as infrastructure to move their leaves above the competitors. The same I think is the issue here with diamond vs. iron (or leather or no) armor/weapon. If all the trees could just agree not to grow taller than 1 meter, there would still be the same amount of sunlight for everyone, but they wouldn't waste resources on their trunks. My point is, spending those extra resources on diamond stuff doesn't increase the fun of the battles. Potions could add a bit of diversity I can agree, which might add to the fun, but I ultimately don't think they're worth their cost. Enchants add more diversity, but I don't see how they make the battles more fun, and potions and enchants seem to me to mostly just make the stats of the participants uneven compared to if they weren't there. On the other hand, the time spent gathering xp and materials for potions is the cost of allowing it, and I think this cost greatly outweighs the fun they add.
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Darvince on 2013 09 07, 19:47:42
add ender pearls and diamond sword for the zone 36 battle
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: b-ong on 2013 09 07, 20:06:40
darv you're suppose o vote
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Bla on 2013 09 07, 20:24:13
add ender pearls and diamond sword for the zone 36 battle
Plain or enchanted diamond sword?
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Darvince on 2013 09 08, 08:14:15
non-enchanted only (while yes, I could get a yqt sword if I put in some hours of work, I can't do that now)
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Komrage on 2013 09 08, 11:42:42
about the problem with the defending side not accepting the battle because they have nothing to gain and everything to lose from it:

you could have two-sided battles where if one side wanted to take a zone of another front, the defenders could pick an enemy zone bordering the attacked zone to attack, so there would be a defense and offense simultaneously and allowing both sides to gain something.

of course this works poorly the less players you have

Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Komrage on 2013 09 08, 12:20:49
---cost

assuming that it takes 2.5 seconds per sword-hit (since knockback on the sword and other effects can throw the players quite some distance), and that diamond armor has on average around 469 durability, it takes 19.5 minutes to wear down a set of diamond armor.

for iron armor, i'll assume that it takes 1.5 seconds per sword-hit. iron armor, with 213 durability, takes 5.3 minutes to wear down.

so although diamond is more rare and expensive versus iron, it lasts longer, which might nearly make up for the difference.

---damage done

another benefit is that diamond and enchantment allows for potions:

damage to diamond armor prot iv from damage II potion: 0.5
damage to diamodn armor prot iv from diamond sword sharpness v: 0.5

damage to diamodn armor from damage II potion: 1-1.5
damage to diamond armor from diamond sword : 0.5-1

damage to iron armor from damage II potion: 2.5
damage to iron armor from iron sword: 1.5
 
as progressively weaker items are used, mroe damage is done, but diamond armor prevents potions from becoming op

---battle length

with iron armor, sword, and damage potions, a battle might last only 10 seconds (6 seconds to land 4 sword hits and 4 seconds to throw two potions), and the defeated has trudge back from where he came. assuming that takes 30 seconds, 25% of time is used for whacking at each other.

with diamond armor and enchants , a battle would last up 40 seconds (40 seconds to land 20 sword hits). again, assuming the two parties meet every 30 seconds, more than half the battle is spent... battling.

Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Bla on 2013 09 08, 13:29:06
From my experience it has been much harder to keep a stable supply of diamonds if I used diamond armor than a stable supply of iron if I used iron armor. Your calculations make some correct assumptions about stats but I think they're simply too simplified to be practical in the complex reality in Minecraft.

For example, as you say, if you use iron armor and no enchants, you take much fewer hits to kill, so the total hits in battle would be lower than if you used diamond armor.

Also I think you forget the ranged part of the battle. If a lot of the battle will be spent by trying to sneak up on the enemy underground, swordfighting will be the most important thing, I hope the rules can be made so that ranged fights will be more common however and to disencourage people to dig lots of underground tunnels rather than fighting, but I'm not sure how to do it.

However, I do agree that more hits before you die makes fighting more fun, so I would be open to allowing diamond armor with no stat-affecting enchants (such as only unbreaking, that way we can also save materials). We could also allow only stone-swords maybe, then you will again take more hits to kill, and we'll use less iron on weapons, but more on armor. (I'd be against wood swords and punching mainly because it looks stupid and doesn't feel like a real fight :b)

Since a majority has voted against potions now, we'll consider potions banned in battles until a majority decides otherwise, except for when the battling parties can agree to use them and in Blotz's battle today.
4 votes for banning and 3 against.
I have set up a new poll, please vote.

I planned to record the battles, however I can't possibly record all battles. I might record some, I hope to record the battle with Darvince today.
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: b-ong on 2013 09 08, 14:40:14
i'll try to record my battles if i can, but it won't have sound
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Darvince on 2013 09 08, 19:35:32
Hey next time can there be rules for spectators because bong was in the fort invisible and I accidentally killed him.
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: b-ong on 2013 09 08, 19:43:08
i don't mind if that happens accidentally
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Komrage on 2013 09 09, 01:02:32
is there going to be a subforum for each front or do we have to discuss through pms and ****
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Bla on 2013 09 09, 04:28:43
is there going to be a subforum for each front or do we have to discuss through pms and ****
There will not be subforums for each front.
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Komrage on 2014 02 19, 23:57:46
is it just me or is it really hard to tell who controls which zones on the battleground map unless you squint your eyes and guess well?

http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130905173940/blacraft/images/f/ff/The_Battleground_20130905.png
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Bla on 2014 02 21, 18:17:02
I don't have a problem with it, but it might be because I drew it. At least for me it's not hard to tell which zones are inside the different red lines.

And Blotz, do you accept the battle to happen on Saturday at the time Fiah proposed?
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Bla on 2014 02 22, 18:14:39
I have found out that DeathChest is unneeded in the future for these battles, as I can simply disable item drops on death, which is more convenient as you won't have to reorganize your inv and pick up stuff from chests every time you die, leaving more time for the battles. So in the future, this system will be used instead of DeathChest.
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Bla on 2014 02 22, 23:15:58
I've changed the rules a lot on the wiki, also added a few new ones that may be controversial but which I hope will make the battles more interesting. One is max build height not above the flags, to avoid giant pillars and flooding each other in lava from abovem, which creates a big mess (and having the whole flagpole covered in lava creates a dubious situation for where to place the new flag, I considered saying that you'd have to remove the lava first, but then realized that it could be exploited by the defenders to bathe their flagpole in lava and then force the enemies to remove it, even though the defending team could just be banned from it, I think it was better simply to do away with the situation this way).

Also reduced battle time from 30 to 20 minutes, because it seems like 20 minutes is at a more balanced point from the previous battles. I also think making the battle shorter will hopefully give people time to fight more battles and make them easier to arrange. I am open to changing this parameter in the future however, if it turns out to be too little time to conquer zones in most battles, it will be increased again.
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Komrage on 2014 02 23, 01:32:36
i suppose you have to specify that the max build height is below the bottom block in the flag or else they'd just surround it with lava instead of putting it above, and that the flagpole is exempt from this max build height limitation

but isn't there that rule that the flag must be visible or something which means the defenders could not cover it in lava anyways so the build height rule is not necessary to prevent that from happening.
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: b-ong on 2014 02 23, 01:36:48
hmm bla, you also have to do 10-20 m above ground level. also it only has to be visible at the beginning of the battle right?
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Bla on 2014 02 23, 12:31:24
i suppose you have to specify that the max build height is below the bottom block in the flag or else they'd just surround it with lava instead of putting it above, and that the flagpole is exempt from this max build height limitation

but isn't there that rule that the flag must be visible or something which means the defenders could not cover it in lava anyways so the build height rule is not necessary to prevent that from happening.

The rules say
Quote
Building at or above the height of the bottom block of the flag on a zone is not allowed by either team during or before a battle. Growing trees/mushrooms or using pistons or other methods to get above this height is not allowed either.

I wrote in a post, but the visibility isn't in the current rules:
Quote
I hope people will make relatively realistic flagpoles so that the flags are visible around 10-20m above the surface.

Anyway, I've written this rule, which should ensure it doesn't happen:

Quote
*The flagpole, however, should be built so that it is 1x1 block wide and leads up to the flag along its side, and reaches the same height as the top block of the flag.
*Lava and water should not be placed such that it flows within 4 blocks of the flag and flagpole.
*The flag should not be surrounded by blocks such that it isn't visible from most of the surface.

So the max build height limit rule should be unnecessary now to deal with the lava problems. However, do we really want people to build so high up? I personally think the battles will be more fun if people assault the base head-on instead of building skysnakes very high up.

We might also want to write some rules on the base spawn position, such as minimum distance from the flag, so the defenders don't respawn right next to the flag, then it probably becomes too hard to take the flag. Therefore I have written this rule:
Quote
No spawnpoint may be less than 20 blocks from the flagpole.
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: b-ong on 2014 02 23, 13:39:45
packed ice anyone
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Bla on 2014 02 23, 15:11:00
packed ice anyone
?
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: b-ong on 2014 02 23, 15:32:34
20 blocks away, so we have to get there ASAP which is ice road fastest
also bla is it 20 blocks horizontally or vertically too?
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Bla on 2014 02 23, 15:40:42
It's 20 blocks so that would be in any direction.

I also made a rule saying flagpoles must be at least 5m from the borders of the zone. The flag that we fought over yesterday was on the border of the zone, which means it's not visible with the border layer on. To add to it, the respawn for the zone was actually outside the Battleground region, which was against the rules. That seems a bit silly.

Now that the Blue Front has the zone, I hope you will clean it up and ensure that it follows the rules before the next battle.
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Bla on 2014 03 07, 20:33:07
Rule changes:

- Infinity and unbreaking enchants are now allowed.
- Clarified rules on flagpoles and flags:
Quote
The flagpoles in the region, including the top block of the flag, must not be taller than 20 meters from the surface, and the flag blocks may not exist outside y = 65 to y = 130. Additionally, sunlight must be able to reach the top of the flag, and the flagpole must be at least 5 blocks from the borders of the zone.
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: b-ong on 2014 03 09, 02:15:29
http://dev.bukkit.org/bukkit-plugins/bettercombat/
i found it
the only problem was it would mess up our pvp habits on other servers
damnit only version 1.5.1
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Bla on 2014 03 30, 01:23:24
I removed the rule saying that you have to be on a team to be able to place the flag of the team. I had forgotten about this rule during our last battle, and imo it doesn't really seem to help make the BG more fun, it just means another rule you have to remember. I think we're better off without it, but if anyone think we should keep the rule, they can say so.

Also changed the DeathChests option in the poll to "Vote yes here if you want items/xp to drop on death" because we abandoned DeathChests.
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Bla on 2014 04 02, 19:41:01
The rule saying that you get all of the enemy bases from conquering the enemy base zone seemed a bit unfun, so I think I'll change it to getting something like
- A percentage of enemy zones (balanced for all front sizes)
- A specific number of enemy zones (favors large fronts)
- Each zone adjacent to the conquered base zone owned by the team that lost their base (favors large fronts)

I'm not sure which one of the options it should be yet, so tell me if you have any ideas or alternatives, I think a percentage seems most fair, but rounded down so you always get at least one bonus zone, and I'm not sure how big the percentage should be yet. There'd also be a rule that all the enemy zones you choose must end up connecting to your front.

The front that lost its base zone would need a new zone. Should they be able to pick it themselves, or should it be relocated automatically, such as to the closest zone they own to the one they lost?
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Komrage on 2014 04 14, 20:19:19
Quote
<osmotischen>blabla44 is a piston mechanism that rebuilds the flag when it is mined legal in the battleground?
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Bla on 2014 04 14, 20:48:47
Quote
<BlaBla44>A piston mechanism that interacts with the flag sounds pretty messy so I'd say keep it out of the battles. "Building at or above the height of the bottom block of the flag on a zone is not allowed by either team during or before a battle." and "The flag should not be surrounded by blocks such that it isn't visible from most of the surface."

The current rules don't really forbid them I guess, depending on how you make them.
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: b-ong on 2014 04 15, 15:57:01
it has to be below the flag which would make it really easy to break though
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Komrage on 2014 05 09, 10:42:51
tnt mines lower the ground level and effectively raise the flag height. is it legal for the defending team to place mines to deliberately lower the ground level so that the flag is harder to reach?
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Bla on 2014 05 09, 13:15:00
The rules don't mention it. Do you think it should be allowed or not?

I think it's a cheap move that I'd discourage but I don't really see a way to define when it's not allowed and when it's legit use of tnt. Maybe a rule about keeping tnt away from the flagpole.
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Bla on 2014 06 28, 16:39:42
In the battle for Zone 26 yesterday, I think the Red Front's defenses were too strong to make the battle fair. Yqt said it was mainly the obsidian. The design I had used (ignoring the new terrain obstacle design) was based on the other obsidian bases I had made, but this one, unlike the others, had no lower section near the flag with a ladder leading up to the flag. Only our spawn base had a ladder to ground level. As a result, the enemies had to go through the spawn base or had to pillar up along the sides, and that made for too strong defenses.

1) I think the problem can be solved by making the rules say that at least one of the four blocks adjacent to the flagpole (all the way up from ground to flag) may only be air or ladder. That way the base I made yesterday would resemble the other obsidian bases I had constructed that we had more fair fights for.

2) Another idea I've had is to make a rule saying that the defenders' (or both teams') spawn must be at ground level, as well as being 20m from the flagpole. That should stop skybases.

3) Additional ideas I've considered are banning water and lava before the battle, because they probably cause a lot of lag when we have so much flowing water as in The Blue Front's zones. Natural water and restoring natural rivers would be allowed, though.

What do people think?
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Komrage on 2014 06 28, 18:53:30
if you take the effort to build a unassailable base then you should be allowed to. no one else seems to be doing it. battles don't seem to be much slanted towards defenders or attackers.

of course, adding more restrictions lowers entry cost, but i think there's a line to draw here. if a player can't improve their chances by spending effort on a better base, should players be restricted from honing their skills?

moreover, restricting creative bases on the battleground narrows the field of people who are interested because of the construction aspect.

if the lava and water actually increase lag by a significant fraction, maybe something can be done. but they also allow somewhat of a "gradient" -- if you can't afford an obsidian base, a coating of lava is almost as good, and water is pretty effective too.

banning water isn't as bad -- lava doesn't flow nearly as much and is way harder to collect, so i think it is balanced.

---

if it actually turns out that after a few battles involving both fronts attacking, that obsidian bases are utterly impenetrable, maybe lift restrictions instead -- maybes team can use enchanted diamond pickaxes to mine,  or 10 enderpearls permitted per person per battle etc.
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: b-ong on 2014 06 28, 19:08:03
or 3 hit explosion so tnt will be useful
edit http://dev.bukkit.org/bukkit-plugins/obsidiandestroyer/
i read they have like /ob [value] and /ob toggle
so you can like do it only for battltes
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Bla on 2014 06 29, 19:56:28
if you take the effort to build a unassailable base then you should be allowed to. no one else seems to be doing it. battles don't seem to be much slanted towards defenders or attackers.
I agree that in our previous battles, they haven't been slanted too much in our battles for Blotz' zones and the obsidian forts I've built. We've seen many people get to the flag, burn it down, etc. But in the battle with Yqt and TMC, some improvements to the design made the base too strong in my opinion:

1) I dug out the terrain in a checkered pattern with lots of holes, which made the ground much harder to move across. This might be op and I'm open to considering banning it, although I like the idea of making the terrain hard to navigate. But if it means people would have to use skybridges to win, I'd prefer to ban this defense system.
2) The defender spawn was at the same height as the upper segments of the flag, and we had a skybridge directly to it. Additionally, our flag base had no lower segment and no ladder to the top, but had its bottom filled with lava. This meant TMC and Yqt pretty much had to use pillars to get up there (and they got shot down every time they tried), or use the ladders leading up to our spawn to get to the flag.

I think 1 would be a bit hard to make rules against. 2 on the other hand, could be solved by the rules I proposed above. Basically that would revert the fort here to one on the same level as the others we've had challenging fights for, but with the terrain obstacles still making it harder.

of course, adding more restrictions lowers entry cost, but i think there's a line to draw here. if a player can't improve their chances by spending effort on a better base, should players be restricted from honing their skills?
No, players should of course be allowed to use their skills as much as they can. Spending effort on a better base, I'm not sure - you can make a floating obsidian fortress at y = 220 with 20 layers and a flag inside, with a bed right next to the flag, and wait to see the attackers trying to get through... We really need rules to say how you can spend effort without making bases that there would be no reason to even try attacking.

moreover, restricting creative bases on the battleground narrows the field of people who are interested because of the construction aspect.
I think rule 1 and 2 takes away only a tiny portion of creative solutions for bases in the BG, so I don't think they should affect that. The older of my obsidian bases would still work, for example. Having spawn on the ground can also require new creative solutions, like how the defenders can make a base that ensures they can get to the flag easily, without letting the enemies get there too easily.

if the lava and water actually increase lag by a significant fraction, maybe something can be done. but they also allow somewhat of a "gradient" -- if you can't afford an obsidian base, a coating of lava is almost as good, and water is pretty effective too.

banning water isn't as bad -- lava doesn't flow nearly as much and is way harder to collect, so i think it is balanced.
It's not hard to gather a lot of lava due to its abundance in the nether, but I'm not sure if it's really overpowered for battles. It might be, I mean, you can also construct a cliff that makes a single source block flow down to a lot of blocks, and I don't think it'd be that hard to cover all the zone in lava, it'd probably take shorter than mining all the obsidian I've used in the bases and the ~4 hours I guess it took to construct them.
We had a pretty cool fight for one of Blotz' water bases and I actually liked moving forward and pouring lava to stop the water, and we managed to win the battle, so I suppose water isn't that op. But once you have to go up a high drop with water or lava, it starts to get hard.
I'll leave water and lava allowed for now.

if it actually turns out that after a few battles involving both fronts attacking, that obsidian bases are utterly impenetrable, maybe lift restrictions instead -- maybes team can use enchanted diamond pickaxes to mine,  or 10 enderpearls permitted per person per battle etc.
I think enderpearls is a bad idea to introduce, enchanted diamond picks sound like a better solution, and Blotz' plugin also looks like a pretty cool addition (even though it's also nice to have the flagpole made out of obsidian to ensure it stays intact). I think 1 and 2 would be a better way to roll the battle balance back to the old obsidian base designs, though.



So far, a sketch of the rule changes I'll probably make are:

1: Skybridges that are longer than 5 meters are banned.
2: Attacking and defending bases now play both roles, so either side may change the other's flag, and both sides can gain or lose their zone. Battle stops after 20 minutes, or once either side has changed the flag on the other zone. The Start zone is an exception, as it cannot be conquered.
3: The spawn of defenders must be at least 20 meters from the flagpole, and additionally, not higher than the ground level of the flagpole (bed may be placed at same height as bottom block of flagpole).
4: At least one column of blocks directly adjacent to the entire flagpole, must not contain obsidian or liquids.
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Komrage on 2014 06 29, 20:48:28
what's a sky bridge? does a bridge above a river of lava count? what about a bridge between two high walls? can defenders connect parts of their base with sky bridges?
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Bla on 2014 06 29, 21:20:54
what's a sky bridge? does a bridge above a river of lava count? what about a bridge between two high walls? can defenders connect parts of their base with sky bridges?
Thanks for the questions. I'll suggest this more precise version of 1:

1: Skybridges that are longer than 5 meters are banned. A skybridge is a bridge constructed more than 5 meters above the ground (or liquid surface) that does not have supporting pillars reaching the ground more than every 5 meters.

So a bridge above lava does count, but if it's constructed sufficiently close to it, it is allowed. The rules apply equally to attackers and defenders, and the high walls should be covered.
Then again, you could pour water on the lava to put it out, so I suppose we wouldn't actually need to allow them for this.

The intention of the rule is mainly to avoid attackers building a bridge in the air around the flag height, such as in battle 14 (and earlier battles from e.g. before the max build height was defined where they were used to jump down upon the enemy base and again render the terrain completely irrelevant in battle), as this is overpowered and goes against the intents of having the battles going on near the surface of the zones.
Maybe 10 meters would be more suitable. Idk. The problem is basically when the battles end up on things like these:

(http://i.imgdiode.com/iZ09zn.png)
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Komrage on 2014 06 29, 21:30:39
won't they just drop a sand pillar down and call it a support? or some lava/water cobble magic.
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: b-ong on 2014 06 29, 22:29:26
Heh, it'd be cool if the battle ground was made of giant bridges with sand bridges. We should require bridges over 30 meters to be like 2 or 3 wide.  That would look really cool.
Title: Re: Battleground Information
Post by: Bla on 2014 06 30, 00:50:50
won't they just drop a sand pillar down and call it a support? or some lava/water cobble magic.
Interesting, it might happen, although having to drop several sand pillars while building such a thing would make it take significantly more effort to build. I'm not really sure if people might still choose it over focusing on the ground level.
Do you have any other ideas for how to prevent sky pillars? To me it seems like it's pretty easy to see a sky pillar when you see it, but it's also a bit hard to define and prevent them at the same time.

I could add that only solid blocks not affected by gravity count as support. That should at least solve the problems you mentioned there.

Heh, it'd be cool if the battle ground was made of giant bridges with sand bridges. We should require bridges over 30 meters to be like 2 or 3 wide.  That would look really cool.
With sand pillars I asssume, I don't really agree. Sky bridge battles simply aren't the point of the BG. The region was chosen for its varied terrain with snow, forest, mountains, rivers and flat land, so we could have battles in many different terrain types, with strategic points to build bases, etc. It's the intention that the battles should resemble semi-realistic warfare (not with modern weapons ofc), where people use the terrain and fight at ground level, inspired by a gameplay experience that could be a bit similar to FPS games like Day of Defeat: Source. I try to define the rules so that we can keep the experience in this direction at the same time as either side doesn't get too overpowered.

Edit: The BG rules on the wiki have been updated now.
If we arrange a battle for Red Front zones, I'll downgrade the defenses so they follow the rules if they currently don't.