Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

Drafting a policy proposal for intel gathering and players in enemy settlements

Baron Malthius
This is a rough draft idea I came up with to try to address the things we were talking about on the previous thread. Hopefully this will help get the ball rolling. and get some progress towards a final agreement. Whatever the end result is, there will need to be some agreement to stick to both the letter and spirit of the agreement.

I tried my best to cover as much ground as possible but I am sure there is stuff I missed…

1) If you are at war with another faction, don't scout their settlement hexes, period. Don't even go in them unless it is for something like Settlement sieges (when that mechanic comes in) or a full fledged battle.

2) If you are in enemy territory, die, and have the unfortunate bad luck to respawn at a shrine in an enemy base, go away from the settlement hex immediately if you are aware of it. Do NOT stay in the area unless there is a battle going on. Whatever you do, do NOT go further into the settlement for any reason. Doing so can and most likely will be considered a hostile action by the opposing faction.

3) Proper warning and notification should be given beforehand, at least 2-3 messages would be a good guideline to start with. While it is possible to miss said messages having said messages (preferably screenshots until we can all decide we can give each other the benefit of the doubt in good faith) does constitute a good faith effort by the defender. Said messages should be respectful in nature.

3) If you notice a player not responding after a few deaths (maybe 3-5 though that number can be tweaked), do not continue to kill them. If they weren't leaving before their gear breaks then it is highly unlikely that the person will leave afterwards as well. Whether they are being a stubborn scout, confused newb, or actually AFK will not change the fact that they are not moving and continuous killing has clearly not proven to be an effective deterrent.

The nature of the situation dictates which side has a case for recourse. If the attacker moved further into the settlement previously or initiated a hostile action against the defending faction, then the defender can report a violation of this policy. The burden of proof will then be on the attacking faction to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the attacker had in fact had a problem with their game, went AFK or otherwise failed to react properly through no fault of their own. Failure to do so will result in a violation on the part of the attacker.

If however there appears to be no evidence that the attacker moved further into the settlement or initiated any other hostile action, the burden of proof is on the defending faction to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that a hostile action was in fact initiated. Failure to do so will result in a violation on the part of the defender and the attacker has the right to report it.

If the attacker attempted to leave the settlement hex and the defenders continuously killed the attacker despite this, then this constitutes a violation on the part of the defenders.

If the attacker initially leaves and then returns at a later time (say within an hour or two but that can be negotiated), that is considered a hostile action and the attacker is in violation instead.

4) Both sides will be allowed to present their side of the story and be given a fair hearing in a respectful manner to prove their cases.

5) If you knowingly go AFK or log out in enemy territory you assume any and all risks therein.

6) It is the responsibility of the company which the attacker belongs to make them aware of the current political status between the warring sides and warn them of the risks of remaining in enemy territory.

7) It is incumbent on all companies involved in the war to inform their members of the terms of this agreement.

8 ) A player who was not properly informed of either can and should be forgiven and will have some form of recourse (TBD later). A player who, through their actions or words, has indicated awareness of what they are doing and/or has been informed of this agreement cannot masquerade as one under any circumstances.

9) Actions and words that indicate awareness consist of, but are not limited to:

a) Participating in PvP against the enemy faction.
b) Being caught smuggling or placing holdings/outposts/smallholdings in enemy territory
c) Indicating through words (either through in game chat, the GW or Paizo forums, TeamSpeak, Mumble, gathered intelligence, etc.) that they are aware of the current status between the warring factions.

10) No company may, for any reason, knowingly withhold this information from players in attempt to keep them genuinely ignorant. The only reason for such behavior is for duping the player in question into a situation where their actions will be perceived as hostile without them realizing it. No company should use players in this way.

If there is clear evidence that the player in question was genuinely unaware then the burden is on that player's company to rectify that.

Admittedly, #10 is probably the hardest one to enforce and is probably going to be moreso done on the honor system than any of the others.

So there are my thoughts on a proposal we can try out. What does everyone else think?
re #1 People crave intel. They'll just scout with alts. I'm not even sure why scouting is bad, except that we have no way to evict a scout, yet. Also, what constitutes "war"? Not always clear.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
I don't know why anyone would EVER scout except with an alt in the settlement you want the info on.
Not a member, representative, or supporter of Brighthaven Alliance.
Baron Malthius
re #1 People crave intel. They'll just scout with alts. I'm not even sure why scouting is bad, except that we have no way to evict a scout, yet. Also, what constitutes "war"? Not always clear.

In itself there's nothing wrong with it. At this point though the idea was to avoid the issue of players in enemy settlements entirely. What I am thinking now is #1 can be only a temporary thing until everything else hashed out. Afterwards #1 can be removed.

What do you guys make of the rest of it?
So, the concept of hit-and-run tactics has been brought up. Is it the case that when a character is using hit-and-run tactics to engage a larger force (dancing around the h-word here, because it means something specific in the military context and something VERY different in the community context), that the larger force should allow the smaller to escape at will?

I say no; parties at war can and should make attempts by each other to exit the field with intact equipment intact. I don't believe that is controversial.

I also say that surrounding a shrine and preventing someone from escaping from that shrine despite them attempting to is wrong.

I don't think that those two statements are consistent with each other. I can't reconcile the principles involved.

I can say that I see nothing wrong with logging out at a shrine to avoid repeated equipment damage, even though I do see something wrong with logging out in a skirmish to avoid equipment loss. (I expect that trolls will misquote me on this; interpret my intent this paragraph in accordance with strict construction of American English.)
Relevant suggestion:
I think the policy has to first define some terminology:

1. A Hex is Held by a Company if it contains a Settlement, Holding, or Tower owned by that Company.

2. A Hex is Contested by a Company if it is adjacent to a Hex that is Held by that Company, or if it can be captured, its PvP Window is open, and that Company has an Active Feud against the Company that Holds that Hex.

3. A Hex is Claimed by a Company if it is either Held or Contested by that Company or by that Company's Allies.

4. A Character is Unprotected if they are a Known Hostile knowingly in Territory you Claim and either: 1) they do not promise to leave your Claimed Territory; 2) they promise to leave your Claimed Territory but knowingly return to your Claimed Territory during the same server day; or 3) they have a known and repeated history of promising to leave your Claimed Territory but knowingly returning to your Claimed Territory during the same server day.

Policy: Do not kill any Character at a Shrine unless that Character is Unprotected.
@ Baron Malthius

I can clearly see what you are doing here and I appreciate it. Trying to make arrangements that we can all agree to so as to avoid future repeats of the incidents that ignite community. It is a noble effort AND unfortunately doomed. No way (at the player level) to enforce it, investigate things, or even to get beyond "He said - She said".

Gathering intel, light enemy harassment, and even misdirection are all viable playstyles and tactics. The term "Spawn Camping" is a perfect trigger for controversy in an already heavy propaganda rich environment. The circumstances seem to be of little value in the discussion when the community gets wind of an incident. There is no room for any "grey area".

In effect, it is something that leaves both settlements and defenders (in any hex) pretty much powerless.

The only real cure for this is in GW's hands.
Virtute et Armis
I'm just going to go by what Lisa told us, until she tells us otherwise.
Good… Bad… I'm the guy with the bow.
I'm just going to go by what Lisa told us, until she tells us otherwise.

As is Ozem's Vigil. This is a good step toward GW working out a solution.
To be clear, I would like to see some discussion and opinion (from the community) about their possible solutions, before they gel into permanent policy. As long as we can keep it civil! smile
Virtute et Armis
The only thing I will say about this entire thread…. "If you are at war with another faction, don't scout their settlement hexes, period."

You obviously have no clue what 'war' is. Enough said. I won't even begin to comment or make opinions on anything else in this thread because you WILL NOT like what I have to say.
After living the life as a U.S. government face of the public I have learned very well that the only way most people will really take notice is if you Speakly Loudly AND Carry an even bigger Stick (or Dagger or Greatclub or the Grandest Greatsword any dwarf would die and live out all of their greatest fantasies with).

MC1 Donald P. Rule, USN(FR)
Sheila Silverwind, Commander Excelsior (Free Highlanders)
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post