Updated Ruleset 4/17/15

Hello everyone! In order to deal with the growing population, we have added a white list to the server. All this means is you need to provide the information below in a reply to this post, answer some questions regarding the rules, and one of the admins will transfer that to the server. This will help with random hackers joining the server, and will help to improve the player community as a whole.

Read the rules, and information posted below, then create a topic with your username then Whitelist Application. EX. Fraccas Whitelist Application. Afterwards, be sure to PM Fraccas the answers to the questions below!  

Rules:
1. You must communicate with another player before taking hostile actions, this includes using restraints.

2. You may opt out of sieging. If you are not opted out of sieging then you may be sieged while you are online. If you are on the no-siege list then you cannot get sieged. If you want to opt out you may submit a Siege Application on the forums. Also, if you want to opt out of sieging build your base a reasonable distance from the bridge.

3. You may only use siege weapons on a player's base while at least one guild member of the home  is online, and you must give them a 10 minute notification. They must have submitted a Siege Application in order to have protection from sieges.
UPDATE: You must use /list, give the 10 minute notice in chat in all caps, and then do /list again and screen shot it to show that they are online.

4. Any structure on the King's castle or the bridge may be sieged at any time without notice. No RP is required once you are on the bridge/castle, or at the base of the bridge. If you go to the castle be on your guard at all times because it is a PVP zone, and anyone can kill you without giving you a reason, or communicating with you.
Also, you may not block the King's tree, or build within the head of the castle. You may fortify the bridge as much as you like. Men who attack the king may not build sky bridges around the bridge fortifications, or build around the back.*This rule has be implemented because explosive kegs have been taken out of the game.*

5. No floating or physics breaking structures. Do not build non-block objects to build stairs into a base.

6. Structures left unattended without notification for the duration of 1 week are considered abandoned and may be sieged without prior warning being given. You must get admin permission before doing this.

7. Structures without crests, be it due to recent destruction or player oversight, are considered abandoned and do not require siege warning. (Hide those crests and hide them well)

8. Do not build over, or block nodes.

9. You may not log out while in combat. Combat is defined as someone initiating the roleplay necessary to attack, or rope you. You may log out after 10 minutes of being held captive.  Furthermore, you may not log out within twenty minutes of a declaration of siege being made against you. If you do log out your base will still be free to siege.

10. If you want any type of compensation from someone illegally sieging your base then you need to get with an admin when your base is finished and we will inspect it to make sure it is raid proof. If it is a raid proof base we will add to a list of people who may receive compensation.

Punishments:
KOS (Killing/Kidnapping)
First offense: 12 hour ban
Second offense: 24 hour ban
Third offense: permaban

Sieging/Raiding Base Rulebreaking
First offense: 72 hour ban
Second offense: permaban

Floating Base Rulebreaking
Items will be deleted.

Covering/Blocking Nodes
First Offense: 24 hour ban/deletion of entire structure
Second Offense: 48 hour ban/deletion of entire structure
Third Offense: permaban

Combat Logging
First Offense: 12 hour ban
Second Offense: 24 hour ban
Third Offense+: 48 hour ban


When you submit a white list application include the following information:

EXACT in game name:

EXACT in guild name:

Steam ID:

Age:

RP community experience:

Also be sure to read the FAQ:
https://fraccasgames.forumotion.com/t4-reign-of-kings-faq#4

After submitting your application you will need to answer a series of questions that will test your knowledge of the rules. Please PM these answers to Fraccas. I hope you enjoy the server!

If you have submitted your whitelist app, re-read the rules and answer the questions below.

1. When are you allowed to use siege weapons on the bases on the bridge of the castle, and the castle?

2. It is currently 2AM CST and you find a base made out of tier 3 wood. You realize that the player is offline. What are the rules regarding breaking into this base?

3. A group of men just killed your friend because he would not give up his gear. You know where they live, you have siege weapons ready, and the men to fight them. These men are not on the no siege list. What must you do before you attack using your siege weapon?

You will need to answer these questions correctly before you are whitelisted. Send the answers to Fraccas in a PM on the forums.

Fraccas

These rules are under consideration and will not take affect until tomorrow night when we come to a final decision on all the rules. Please post your suggestions and ideas below.

I think most of the things are fine except the king things and the crest stuff

1. What if the king is putting taxes to 20% and everyone on except the king is on the no siege list? If it's 20% then we shouldn't just have to take it or wait until someone who can siege gets on.

2. A leather crest is much too small, I'd be fine with 1 iron crest or 2 leather crests, anything like that.

I personally find many of these changes deplorable.

The only thing that seems reasonable that I agree with is the crest limitation. The server has been running just fine up until people started pumping out massive bases.

With that said there shouldn't be any changes regarding pvp or the kings road. These features were all working as intended prior, we had several good fights over the kings castle including many siege list and non siege list players.

Reducing non siege players down to PVE drones simply isn't fun. Period.

I don't know about everyone else, but I play this game because it's fun, and I enjoy interacting with the community. If non siege list players are going to be restricted in such a way, they might as well play the game set to a private server.

I enjoy pvp.

I don't enjoy losing a base.

The rules were perfect the way they were prior aside from the crest limitation. I do agree with that.

-Grishnak the Ogre

Grishnak_The_Ogre wrote:I personally find many of these changes deplorable.

The only thing that seems reasonable that I agree with is the crest limitation. The server has been running just fine up until people started pumping out massive bases.

With that said there shouldn't be any changes regarding pvp or the kings road. These features were all working as intended prior, we had several good fights over the kings castle including many siege list and non siege list players.

Reducing non siege players down to PVE drones simply isn't fun. Period.

I don't know about everyone else, but I play this game because it's fun, and I enjoy interacting with the community. If non siege list players are going to be restricted in such a way, they might as well play the game set to a private server.

I enjoy pvp.

I don't enjoy losing a base.

The rules were perfect the way they were prior aside from the crest limitation. I do agree with that.

-Grishnak the Ogre

The main issue with the way the rules were set up is that many times people would kill/rob people, then retreat to their non-siegable base until the party they wronged got offline, or got bored. I had his happen to me a couple of times and I very rarely play as a non-admin.

EX. About 4 days ago about 5 men were going around the land robbing people who traveled alone. They got tons of gear by killing people who didn't have a chance to defend themselves. They eventually stumbled upon me and asked me to give them gear that I didn't have and I died.

I went around and gathered a large group of people who were wronged by these men and formed a small army. We found the wrong-doers and chased them inside of their base where they hid for about an hour and we got bored and left. We had the siege ready to blow them off the map, but they were on the no siege list.

Ex2. A few days ago there was a group of guys who kept the taxes at 20%. I formed a small army and we went to kill them and take the kingship. When we came to kill them they all ran away and hid in their base until we left. They then went back to take the throne when we left and made taxes 20%. Repeat.

And I have heard many more stories of this happening and I believe them because in my very limited time actually playing this game it's happened to me a couple of times. I do not think it's fair for people to go around killing/robbing people without repercussions.

As Fraccas has already demonstrated, the rules we had before were not working. There is almost nothing that can be said in defense of keeping the rules as they were. People just want to have their cake and eat it too.

If you hold the kingship your guild base should be also up for grabs. If you don't like 20% taxes and are on the no siege list, then man up and do something about it and reconsider your choice.

Losing a base is part of the game. Don't expect to be able to rob people and melee raid bases with ZERO consequences. The rules before created a PvE/PvP hybrid environment with too many loopholes. We've closed many of them with these new rules.

Grishnak, you say you like PvP, but not losing bases. PvPing means possibly losing a base in this game. Creating safe zones for people to run away from their problems doesn't work. We have restricted siege mechanics in place to ensure the sieging is as fair as we can make it. People can't just destroy your base whenever they feel like it, they have procedures to follow.

I agree with having limitations on building, I however do not agree with everything else. My views are shared with Grishnak's. I read your response to his post Fraccas, and I can see the issue that have a potential of arising. Regardless those two examples you gave are the only ones I remember ever occurring. The rules were fine the way they were, I vote to keep rules as is, with the exception of putting a limitation on building bases who are on the no siege list. People who are abusing or using the rules to their unfair advantage I think should be dealt with situation to situation, and not alter the entirety of the server over a couple of instances of unfair play.

Weado wrote:As Fraccas has already demonstrated, the rules we had before were not working. There is almost nothing that can be said in defense of keeping the rules as they were. People just want to have their cake and eat it too.

If you hold the kingship your guild base should be also up for grabs. If you don't like 20% taxes and are on the no siege list, then man up and do something about it and reconsider your choice.

Losing a base is part of the game. Don't expect to be able to rob people and melee raid bases with ZERO consequences. The rules before created a PvE/PvP hybrid environment with too many loopholes. We've closed many of them with these new rules.

Grishnak, you say you like PvP, but not losing bases. PvPing means possibly losing a base in this game. Creating safe zones for people to run away from their problems doesn't work. We have restricted siege mechanics in place to ensure the sieging is as fair as we can make it. People can't just destroy your base whenever they feel like it, they have procedures to follow.

Losing a base is as part of the game as blocking nodes is a part of the game. You can't claim something is "part of the game" when we are clearly laying down rule sets which specifically say what you can and can not do.

I've never robbed anyone, and I know for a fact that I play more than you Weado, I know what goes on in this server on a daily basis. We rarely have incidents with players running amok and when we do, we handle it.

In regards to the examples given I can actually defend them quite easily even though you claim they are indefensible.

Example 1 - If you see a gagle of men... in armor... approaching you in the field and you refuse to take heed of the fact that they are probably up to no good. Then you deserve to lose what you're carrying. Simple as that. You don't want to get robbed be more careful.

Example 2 - They abandon the kings castle only to come back for it later?

Fine. Treb or use other means to break down the wall they placed on the bridge to thwart them from jacking the taxes up again, simple as that. They only returned and jacked them up because no one took action against their wall... I wouldn't exactly call that an exploit of the no siege list.

Sorry Grishnak, everything you said makes zero sense. Of course we will lightly modify the game to make an enjoyable experience. Node blocking is a ridiculous move, yes it sure is part of the game, but it's a part of the game we can do without right now. If explosive barrels were still in the game we may explore removing that modification. But as it stands right now you can fight people for the nodes which creates a better aspect to the game other than rushing stone blocks and blocking nodes. It creates interaction and PvP and keeps an open economy. Even without blocking nodes groups of people held stone for quite some time by number and base proximity.

Not sure where the people in the field dressed in armor comes in to play. Of course you can still be attacked in the wild by wandering bandits, nothing has changed here except for the fact that if you want that play style you are now open for retaliation by siege. If you are on the no siege list you can defend yourself or run back to your base. No idea where you wanted to go with that one.

No idea about example 2 either. What we have done with the rules is made it so people who hold the kingship stand more to lose than 1 wall on a bridge. If you want to be the king, then make sure you can defend the crown and your base. Build your base close to the bridge so you can respawn and regear. If you want to overthrow the king, same thing applies here, make sure you can handle retaliation from the king and his men if you try and overthrow. You should not be protected from a botched coup attempt by scurrying back to your base.

Like I said before, these rules prevent abuse from people who rob in the wild and it prevents people from taking the kingship and losing a set of gear and a wall on the bridge instead of real consequences like your base.

Guess who gets to hear about the rule abuse. I do. I do because I help run the server in the background with Fraccas and Fraccas comes to me about ideas to prevent abuse. I know Fraccas plays more than you. I also know that people talk to Fraccas about these incidents more than you, which I in turn hear about. We did not come to these rules over lunch, we have been talking about them for a number of days. You have to make compromises to your play style if you want to be on the no siege list and people were getting away with murder because of the previous rules.

These don't seem to rare instances where the no siege list has been exploited. I have been getting many reports of people hiding in their base after doing something "bandit" like to avoid repercussions for those actions.

I understand that you guys aren't scummy and wouldn't do the things that are listed, but it's definitely happening often. I think it is a natural reaction to hide in your base for protection when you are likely to lose a fight and that is why in my opinion the old ruleset is flawed.

The Pussy Raiders are on the No Siege list, yet we can still be attacked. Lets say some kills us and take our stuff and run inside their base, yes they can have their base attacked but we can't be the ones to do so, even though its our stuff due to the no siege list that we are on. The problem can still occur, this doesn't resolve much.... I also think one leather crest for an entire guild is a bit much, I could see one steel crest for entire guild and leather crest for individuals who are not apart of a guild. I don't think these extreme rule changes fix anything all your doing is basically making people opt back in to attacking each other when they don't want to... You are basically forcing their hand.

People on no-siege list cant raid either, but they can still be raided? That makes no sense. If no-siege can't raid, they should not be able to be raided either.

*I think everyone should be eligible to take the kingdom, but if you do, you and your base can be sieged immediately (even if you're on the no-siege list).

*Also if you're on the no siege list and you raid/rob from another, there should be a retaliation period of x hours. (this will probably solicit an abundance of "he said, he said"... just own up to it if you get caught).

*I was fine with everyone being able to engage in pvp, it does make the game more interesting.

*I agree with a crest restriction, but one leather crest is not enough.

Basically... there is a price to be king and a price for stealing from people. You can still just build your little heart out, but taking materials from others could have a consequence.

CherrieDoll wrote:People on no-siege list cant raid either, but they can still be raided? That makes no sense. If no-siege can't raid, they should not be able to be raided either.

You are right. I will write that in now.

the leather crest rule is just going to cause more buildings to pop up. so our guild has almost 10 ppl and we're supposed to live in a tiny house with one leather crest? then we will just make our own guilds and you will have ten houses to lag you out instead of one. I think these rules are really unfair to the majority of the people on the server. Anyone should be able to fight for the throne, but if you take the throne, you should be able to get sieged, regardless of your siege status. just because I'm no no siege, that means i dont have a right to fight for fair taxes? That doesnt make sense...

As far as the crest size go, perhaps it can be based on location. I understand everyone is dying of lag on the flax fields, but when my house was in the cliffs where nobody went, i dont see why having a steel crest would matter if there's nobody there to lag out.

If people can raid you, you should be able to raid them back. it's not fair to say no-siege cant raid but can be raided. that's bullshit.

also if these rules are going into affect the server should be wiped again because it's not fair to those of us who have been working our asses off building our bases to have to downgrade and everyone else gets to keep theirs

I think Imslyh is onto something as long as players can be identified that would be best it allows players who do wrong take a risk in losing their stuff/base for so many hour(s) and players who are just minding their own business has no risk in losing their base if they are on the no siege list. This solves your whole unfair aspect of bandits without these extreme rules. Worst case scenario the player will have to screen shot as evidence to prove they are in the right to attack a players base for being wronged. It has some what ifs but I think it's a better step in the right direction for this server over what is currently being added. Oh and please change the crest rule there's a happy medium not one extreme or the other.

i think that if you are king and you are on the no siege list and you go to hide from the people in your base your base should be up for siegeing. BUT THE KING HAS TO BE IN HIS BASE to be sieged other wise people will say oh thor is king let go siege his base when im sitting at the kings castle wall.. i think if we did it like that it would be more fun and people wouldnt just put taxes at 20% and just leave the castle ive done it plenty of times but i stay at the kings bridge to fight

Rules have been changed back to the original rules with minor changes. Please read over them.

We will not implement the new ruleset until the next wipe.

hey fraccas when you see this jump on your ts