Old Background Proposal

I. Introduction
        Generally speaking decisions for which plugins (i.e. mechanical changes) to implement for 4craft have been made either to eliminate strategies that feel "wrong" (treating symptoms) or to add new features people find [buzzword]fun[/buzzword] (item based). Little thought has put forth starting from what kind of PVP dynamic the server would like, and working backwards to the set of initial conditions. That is what this proposal will focus on, so called effects based planning.


II. The Ideal
        As far as we understand, the PVP dynamic desired by most 4crafters is a rough simulation of the Age of Castles (think Game of Thrones). Feudal lords jockeying for power and territory with their neighbors. Factions erecting and sieging walled fortresses in dramatic locations. Large armies clashing in the field. Sweeping sagas of heroic warfare. Mount and Blade with a "build your own castle" feature.


III. The Reality
        As it stands 4craft lies far, far away from the ideal. Successful factions for the most part rush to endgame resources while hiding out in autism cubes. The raids that actually occur often are 5am raids on small factions. The big raid(s) only occur(s) when the server is dying and mostly consist of waiting around a TNT canon, with the eventual fighting being quick and unsatisfying. The only reasons for raids to even occur are a)board-feuds and b)boredom.


IV. What Needs to Change

A) Castles have to make sense
        Currently open aired walled compounds (the most fun type of stronghold) are the least often built. Part of this is how useless walls are for defense in 4craft. The other part is how much the surface is outclassed by the deep underground and the sky (not to mention the disallowed nether) for the role of secure location. Both of these issues have to be addressed.

B) Sieges have to make sense
        Framed in the terms "how much faction protection should there be" this debate is one that comes up all the time, and for the most part neither "a lot" nor "a little" are acceptable answers. For our analysis we will consider that a hypothetical siege requires three kinds of resources: time, manpower (here meaning both the number of raiding players and their gear), and technology (TNT cannons, siege weapons, etc.). Time required is determined by logistical efficiency in mobilizing resources and how quickly the technology can break through the enemy's defenses. Manpower required is determined primarily by the expected enemy resistance, accounting for the force multiplier an enemy gets for being in their own stronghold. Finally technology required is determined solely by the complexity of the enemy defenses.
        A low amount of faction protection (also shitty bases) means simple technology (pickaxes, creepers, whatever) can break into an enemy base rather quickly. From there it makes perfect sense that a faction would attack when the enemy is not present, so as to minimize the expected resistance and thus minimize the required manpower. Thus the 5am raid is born.
        A high amount of faction protection (also autism cubes) is essentially an increase in the quality of the enemy's defenses. Its direct result is increasing the required technology in the form of complex tnt cannons. Setting up those cannons means more time for the raid, which means more manpower. With all resources at high, there's no surprise that these raids never happen except for e-peen reasons at the end of an iteration.
        What combination do we actually want? Time obviously needs to be high, because that allows for the enemy being sieged to collect and defend itself. Manpower should also be high because large sieges are, well, awesome. But technology? Ignoring the gear for manpower (which we will address later) technology creates the greatest drain on a faction in terms of both autism (in designing them) and things (TNT) that are depleted that have to be ground for again. High time requirement makes the siege fair. High manpower requirement makes the siege fun. Low technology requirement makes the siege economical. Factions as it stands is unable to provide this combination because the only variable it manipulates is technology, and the other two are positively correlated with it

C) Large Armies have to make sense
        Why? For starters battles between large armies are fun, why else would nearly every combat game primarily advocate its scope? Second of all, since for the most part no single 4craft faction can provide a large army by itself, a need for large armies promotes diplomacy, troop raising agreements, and ultimately feudalism, which is one of the defining features of our ideal PVP dynamic.
        Currently small "spec ops teams" are preferred over large armies, let's analyze why. The benefit of a small force is that it is easier to train and cheaper to outfit in high level gear. The benefit of a large force is that with more men to throw around more complex combat maneuvers and tactics can be carried out. Since most combat occurs in the form of a base assault, tactical choices (in terms of troop positions, flanks, etc.) are highly limited, and thus variations in tactics provide little benefit. In contrast due to the synergies so called "god gear" has training + gear can provide a force multiplier as high as 10x to 20x (see v5 raid against /a/). Unsurprisingly large armies are uneconomical compared to god gear and training.

D) Warfare has to make sense
        The goal of our ideal 4craft is to have long and heated power struggles. Sadly as it stands our 4craft does everything in its power to make just that as uneconomical as possible. The biggest force multiplier around is god gear. Sieges require complex, resource intensive TNT technology. Natural resources are distributed equally. As a result, rarely, if ever, the resources gained make up for those expended, especially if one counts the opportunity cost of not mining one's own resources. Until conflict is made profitable 4craft will forever consist of a buildup to a big board rivalry (external factor) driven final raid and a swift death afterwards


V. How to Effect Change

A) Use Citadel
        The "faction" plugin of civcraft achieves what the standard factions plugin cannot. It directly increases the time required for a siege (and by extension the manpower) without making technology so much as budge. It also makes walls more economical to reinforce than cubes.

B) Add Realistic Gravity
        i.e. make particulates (dirt/sand/gravel) fall diagonally and all other blocks fall vertically unless supported by arches or similar structures. This makes classical skybases impossible, messes with underground bases, and makes structures for getting over walls a more complex affair than 1x1 skybridges

C) Put Collected Resources in Large Nodes, Distribute Them Unequally, And Mark the Nodes on the Public Map
        This gives a reason for warfare, and makes warfare in the field economical. Bonus points if its resources that have to be held for a long time to be exploited such as, say, mob spawners. Finally by marking the nodes (generally, of course not precisely) from the get go you draw interest to them and create the seeds for conflict before endgame.

D) Make Farmed Resources Replenish Significantly Slower
        An abundance of resources is bad for promoting resource based conflicts. It also means that a faction is going to need more farms, which means they need to hold more territory, which means more to fight over.

E) Nerf God Gear
        Self-explanatory

F) Create More Dramatic Landscapes
        For tactics to matter geography has to matter. For example there could be no heroic last stand for the Spartans if Thermopylae wasn't a geographical chokepoint. In minecraft as it stands; however, geography is mostly irrelevant, since the player can rather easily get over anything. More dramatic landscapes, meaning steeper mountains, taller cliffs, longer ravines, and larger rivers, combined with the realistic gravity of point B) will make geography matter again. Additionally it will create its own strategic objectives, outside of the resources of point C), in the form of chokepoints, mountain passes, straits, etc., that would be advantageous to hold.



VI. TL;DR

WE WANT CASTLES

WE WILL GET THEM BY IMPLEMENTING:
CITADEL
REALISTIC GRAVITY
RESOURCE NODES
SLOW GROWTH
NERFED GEAR
DRAMATIC LANDSCAPES

YOU WANT CASTLES RIGHT?