[POLL] Looting Rules

Which approach to looting do you prefer? (See post for expl.)


  • Total voters
    52

Malcovent

Geezuslike
Donor
Contributor
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
1,148
Reaction score
3,081
Points
263
As promised in this thread, I'd like some quantifiable input on what peoples preferred attitude to looting is. To explain the four options...

All chests must be reachable
Keep it simple, all chests must be reachable and owners aren't allowed shortcuts that potential raiders wouldn't be able to use.​
All Chests can be covered/hidden/locked
Oldschool rules, cover your chest with a block of dirt, password it, hide it - users can't access it.​
Clans get a limited number of 'safe chests/slots'
Upon founding, clans get a clan chest - the number of slots scale with the number of clan members. This clan chest can only be placed by the clan leader and only accessed by clan members.​
Individual players get a limited number of safe chests/slots.
Each player gets one chest with a varied amount of slots (?) to place.​
Apologies for not including a "other (describe below)" option but, the other thread was meant for suggestions and i see these four as the most viable suggestions that people lean towards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Duffie and Notme

cheatyface

Developer
Developer
Contributor
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
598
Reaction score
508
Points
93
I voted individuals get safe chests, but really I think you should just give players access to a free ender chest. Starting with it might be rough for people who die before they find a spot they like, a one use command that gives you one would be perfect. I've been finding it rather easy to keep the real valuables hidden there, and all my other chests can be reachable for all i care.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Duffie

Malcovent

Geezuslike
Donor
Contributor
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
1,148
Reaction score
3,081
Points
263
Seems like the winning suggestion is small amount of person private slots and reachable chests, I'm happy to test this out - if the private chests cull PVP too much I'll re-review the decision and potentially renegade on it ,but we'll see how it goes for now.

- Reachable chests rule will be kept simple, as promised. All chests will require a reachable path, only caveat is no shortcuts that aren't publicly accessible (so if you build a combolock safe and grief through the wall to get access to it - you will probably have the contents of the safe confiscated. this is to stop people abusing 1k long entrances for 'everyone else' and a 2 block entrance for themselves).

Though no promises to how large/small the private slot allowance will be, we'll run a beta with the allocated amount and see how people cope with that.
 
  • Thank You
Reactions: Duffie

Psycho

Insufficient Data
Donor
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
2,601
Points
263
- Reachable chests rule will be kept simple, as promised. All chests will require a reachable path, only caveat is no shortcuts that aren't publicly accessible (so if you build a combolock safe and grief through the wall to get access to it - you will probably have the contents of the safe confiscated. this is to stop people abusing 1k long entrances for 'everyone else' and a 2 block entrance for themselves).
This is what the Terra clan was all about during Kami's realm - The 1k block long entrance into our walls and then multiple fake entrances and mazes along with three vault locks. I think we essentially skirted the rules as they were either vague, too focused on certain points, or not as well enforced.
 
Last edited:
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Notme and Hunter

Hunter

Member
Mafia Host
Joined
Aug 9, 2011
Messages
2,630
Reaction score
3,023
Points
138
This is what the Terra clan was all about during Kami's realm - The 1k block long entrance into our walls and then multiple fake entrances and mazes along with three vault locks. I think we essentially skirted the rules as they were either vague, too focused on certain points, or not as well enforced.
dude you literally got mad navigating your own maze, this is the opposite of terra

Don't think a single member used all that mess every time they used a chest, correct me if I'm wrong

missing disagree tbh
 

Psycho

Insufficient Data
Donor
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
1,466
Reaction score
2,601
Points
263
dude you literally got mad navigating your own maze, this is the opposite of terra

Don't think a single member used all that mess every time they used a chest, correct me if I'm wrong

missing disagree tbh
I probably should have highlighted what I was referring to when I quoted Malc because I believe you misread what I wrote. Anyway, the whole point of my post above is that players will find holes in the rules and use it to their advantage. Plus I'm sure the majority of the other clans that wanted to invade Terra were plenty frustrated at what Terra did with their base.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hunter

cheatyface

Developer
Developer
Contributor
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
598
Reaction score
508
Points
93
- Reachable chests rule will be kept simple, as promised. All chests will require a reachable path, only caveat is no shortcuts that aren't publicly accessible (so if you build a combolock safe and grief through the wall to get access to it - you will probably have the contents of the safe confiscated. this is to stop people abusing 1k long entrances for 'everyone else' and a 2 block entrance for themselves).
I essentially did this with my vault at air clan. However, I broke through the door itself, and replaced it behind me for my "shortcut". No 1k block walks for anyone, just a frustrating and time consuming lock that I ignored. Is this the sort of thing that will result in the loss of goods?
 

Malcovent

Geezuslike
Donor
Contributor
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
1,148
Reaction score
3,081
Points
263
Listing is correct - if people want to make a frustrating time consuming process to access their goods, we won't penalize them/stop them - however they have to use the same process themselves.

This is because
- It's not worth the effort of trying to have a half-measure rule on shortcuts ('some are ok, some aren't)
- Even if we managed this, it's such a subjective stance that it'd be impossible to determine what a reasonable shortcut is vs an unreasonable shortcut.
- Realistically this should factor into your decision about how complicated to make your vault.
- This forces clans to share the key combination/secret to getting into a vault, increasing the risk of betrayal.
 
  • Like
  • Thank You
Reactions: Duffie and JtTorso

cheatyface

Developer
Developer
Contributor
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
598
Reaction score
508
Points
93
I think it'll be better this way. My lock wasn't fair anyway, you basically pushed a button and hoped the door opened, with a slim chance that it would. There were also pressure plates, which mostly made the lock have a smaller chance to open.

This does, however, raise concerns about the amount of personal space that independents will have. Because a clan can stack their diamonds into multiple safe spaces, while a single person will be significantly limited in this respect. Or is there some expectation that most players will be in clans?
 

Malcovent

Geezuslike
Donor
Contributor
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
1,148
Reaction score
3,081
Points
263
I think it'll be better this way. My lock wasn't fair anyway, you basically pushed a button and hoped the door opened, with a slim chance that it would. There were also pressure plates, which mostly made the lock have a smaller chance to open.

This does, however, raise concerns about the amount of personal space that independents will have. Because a clan can stack their diamonds into multiple safe spaces, while a single person will be significantly limited in this respect. Or is there some expectation that most players will be in clans?
We're going to rely on enderchests to provide safe spaces but, conversely - for now, we've limited enderchests down to 9 slots.

Hopefully this will force people to prioritize their items and, keep raiding fruitful.
 

Friendy

SMP Overlord & Events Manager
Admin
Donor
Survival Staff
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Messages
2,528
Reaction score
1,402
Points
138
Listing is correct - if people want to make a frustrating time consuming process to access their goods, we won't penalize them/stop them - however they have to use the same process themselves.

This is because
- It's not worth the effort of trying to have a half-measure rule on shortcuts ('some are ok, some aren't)
- Even if we managed this, it's such a subjective stance that it'd be impossible to determine what a reasonable shortcut is vs an unreasonable shortcut.
- Realistically this should factor into your decision about how complicated to make your vault.
- This forces clans to share the key combination/secret to getting into a vault, increasing the risk of betrayal.
Well wouldn't it be quite simple to just add a mechanic into the "super frustrating time consuming process" that allows the owner to simply place a redstone torch and it unlocks a route? Since griefing won't be allowed, nobody else will be allowed to place blocks to gain entrance, so wouldn't that be a loophole?
 

Malcovent

Geezuslike
Donor
Contributor
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
1,148
Reaction score
3,081
Points
263
Well wouldn't it be quite simple to just add a mechanic into the "super frustrating time consuming process" that allows the owner to simply place a redstone torch and it unlocks a route? Since griefing won't be allowed, nobody else will be allowed to place blocks to gain entrance, so wouldn't that be a loophole?
By your own definition, it's an unreachable place. So no, the rule would exclude that. The idea would be that if you can do something that someone else cant to gain access - it's invalid. In fact that's the entire point of the 'no shortcuts' notion.
 

Friendy

SMP Overlord & Events Manager
Admin
Donor
Survival Staff
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Messages
2,528
Reaction score
1,402
Points
138
By your own definition, it's an unreachable place. So no, the rule would exclude that. The idea would be that if you can do something that someone else cant to gain access - it's invalid. In fact that's the entire point of the 'no shortcuts' notion.
Alright I see, but then what's the point of even having locks then? This would hugely deter players from making locks to keep their items safe as they know if they make it too hard then they may lose their own items through not being able to access them.

I think it is slightly unfair to limit the protection of the enderchest down to 9 while also limiting what players can do to protect their items while still being able to access their items, it should be the raiders that have to go out of their way to steal items, not the players who want to grab 2 glass panels.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Duffie

Hunter

Member
Mafia Host
Joined
Aug 9, 2011
Messages
2,630
Reaction score
3,023
Points
138
Alright I see, but then what's the point of even having locks then? This would hugely deter players from making locks to keep their items safe as they know if they make it too hard then they may lose their own items through not being able to access them.

I think it is slightly unfair to limit the protection of the enderchest down to 9 while also limiting what players can do to protect their items while still being able to access their items, it should be the raiders that have to go out of their way to steal items, not the players who want to grab 2 glass panels.
1. Locks have a key, genius. Write down the pass or something, jeez

Even if you do lose the pass, just solve it the way raiders would

2. Did you even notice the poll results?
We're in favor of raiding. Not everything has to be kept under lock and key.
 

Friendy

SMP Overlord & Events Manager
Admin
Donor
Survival Staff
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Messages
2,528
Reaction score
1,402
Points
138
1. Locks have a key, genius. Write down the pass or something, jeez

Even if you do lose the pass, just solve it the way raiders would

2. Did you even notice the poll results?
We're in favor of raiding. Not everything has to be kept under lock and key.
Did I say anything about being pro-safe? I'm a raider, always have been and always will be. But I'm thinking rationally, for myself and for others who may not feel it is fair to be treated as a raider in your own home. I shouldn't have to enter my safe the same way raiders do, what's the point of having a safe when you can't access it with ease?

Imagine someone is attacking your house, but you can't get into your safe because the entrance is outside of your house so you have to sit there till they leave or let them in and die, how exactly is that fair?
 

Malcovent

Geezuslike
Donor
Contributor
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
1,148
Reaction score
3,081
Points
263
what's the point of having a safe when you can't access it with ease?

Imagine someone is attacking your house, but you can't get into your safe because the entrance is outside of your house so you have to sit there till they leave or let them in and die, how exactly is that fair?
Regarding the first point - what's the point of having the rule if people can make entrances so needlessly complicated that they're night impossible, only because they know they'll never need to use that entrance themselves? It is perfectly viable to make easily accessible chests that are secure, this rule shouldn't limit anyone in this function.

Regarding your second point - It's a pretty niche/extreme scenario. I guess i'd refute with how is the above, far more likely scenario, of people creating obscenely complicated entrances only to avoid ever using them fair?

It's certainly a more commonly encountered scenario in past SMP's. Thus i'd rather tailor the rule to the common scenario rather than the edge case.


I think it is slightly unfair to limit the protection of the enderchest down to 9 while also limiting what players can do to protect their items

Regarding this point - there has to be a trade off somewhere in that we cannot support people keeping vast deposits of items completely safe from raiding and support raiding. People do not want to raid in a server where every chest is basically a glorified deposit of dirt.

Arguably it is a balance but I'm comfortable we've struck the right balance in giving players a safe-space for their most valuable items whilst offering a fruitful raiding environment. If we feel during the early stages 9 slot enderchests aren't enough, we will happily raise it. But i'd rather act on case evidence than speculation at this stage.
 
Last edited:
  • Useful
Reactions: Duffie

Friendy

SMP Overlord & Events Manager
Admin
Donor
Survival Staff
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Messages
2,528
Reaction score
1,402
Points
138
Regarding the first point - what's the point of having the rule if people can make entrances so needlessly complicated that they're night impossible, only because they know they'll never need to use that entrance themselves? It is perfectly viable to make easily accessible chests that are secure, this rule shouldn't limit anyone in this function.

Regarding your second point - It's a pretty niche/extreme scenario. I guess i'd refute with how is the above, far more likely scenario, of people creating obscenely complicated entrances only to avoid ever using them fair?

It's certainly a more commonly encountered scenario in past SMP's. Thus i'd rather tailor the rule to the common scenario rather than the edge case.


I think it is slightly unfair to limit the protection of the enderchest down to 9 while also limiting what players can do to protect their items

Regarding this point - there has to be a trade off somewhere in that we cannot support people keeping vast deposits of items completely safe from raiding and support raiding. People do not want to raid in a server where every chest is basically a glorified deposit of dirt.

Arguably it is a balance but I'm comfortable we've struck the right balance in giving players a safe-space for their most valuable items whilst offering a fruitful raiding environment. If we feel during the early stages 9 slot enderchests aren't enough, we will happily raise it. But i'd rather act on case evidence than speculation at this stage.
I see where you're coming from, if anything we'll have to see how things go further down the line when players/clans are more developed and raiding starts to fruition! Thanks for replying however.