Inactive claims should be possible to defend

[Detharon]

The rage cost increase is cancer, just reduce rage cost and increase vandal cost since this is what i think the change was intended for (so fences are somewhat of a defensive layer for a bit longer). First hours alts spamming to defend the claim is not a good mechanic. +1

Would be funny to see the 1st day fist fights to defend the claim, hehe. But yeah, rage shouldn't be that expensive. Getting koed or dying on the first day is basically nothing, it's much worse to get the claim destroyed and the base raided as it delays the first palisade construction, rage isn't needed for that.

[vatas]

Rage = cheap
Theft = Expensive
Vandalism = Very expensive

This actually sounds like a good idea to me. Gate the ability to loot your opponent, not the ability to form an early Hobo Militia to defend your claim.

[LeeroyJenkns]

Rage = cheap
Theft = Expensive
Vandalism = Very expensive

Hard agree. However, very unlikely to be considered by Jorb because cheap rage = pvp = noobs killed = noobs leave the game and never come back. At least I think this is the justification behind him making rage even more expensive and not touching combat balance even slightly.

[Halbertz]

Rage = cheap
Theft = Expensive
Vandalism = Very expensive

This actually sounds like a good idea to me. Gate the ability to loot your opponent, not the ability to form an early Hobo Militia to defend your claim.

Reasonable stuff. Also, I'm not sure (lazy to check it, tell me if I'm wrong), but there is an ability, as claim owner, to attack people on your land. Make it work even on an inactive claim, let people share this option (party perms idk). To avoid obvious retardation, limit claim extension until it has fully dried. Done.

[vatas]

Claim owners can attack people on their claim without Rage (basically a Castle Doctrine) and I'm not sure if it requires an active claim. I have to assume it does.

Also only now I do remember that people other than claim owner share this ability, if they have Vandalism permissions.

The main issue is most likely that inactive claims do not have this ability. Like one of the above posters mentioned, simply changing that alone wouldn't be good. A group could create a massive zone where they can gang on anyone who dares to enter, and only if everyone entering has Rage, can they properly fight back (gang aggros only one person at a time, and bodyblocks the rest.)

[RenatusCartesius]

Claim owners can attack people on their claim without Rage (basically a Castle Doctrine) and I'm not sure if it requires an active claim. I have to assume it does.

Also only now I do remember that people other than claim owner share this ability, if they have Vandalism permissions.

The main issue is most likely that inactive claims do not have this ability. Like one of the above posters mentioned, simply changing that alone wouldn't be good. A group could create a massive zone where they can gang on anyone who dares to enter, and only if everyone entering has Rage, can they properly fight back (gang aggros only one person at a time, and bodyblocks the rest.)

Exactly, you cant aggro on non-active claim. The point of thread that even if claim is not active yet - you should be able to aggro ppl who actively start destroy it (not just in the area)

[SpacePig]

need the ability to attack anyone without rage if there is no visitor buff. Need red attack not to fall from small animals or horses.

[Dawidio123]

Rage = cheap
Theft = Expensive
Vandalism = Very expensive

This actually sounds like a good idea to me. Gate the ability to loot your opponent, not the ability to form an early Hobo Militia to defend your claim.

Exactly. Ko doesn't mean anything, hell, even theft doesn't mean anything early on. The real issue is vandalism, getting that vandal day 1-2 is such a huge deal when you can just wreck every fenced base around you and probably mine into quite a few more.

[DonVelD]

After some thought, fuck it, +1

[dafels]

Please refer to Bible verse Matthew 18:19 to find out what is my opinion of this idea