DrakeHaze. 2483 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Couldn't agree more, Supremacy. There is no problem with fighting back, it's just incredibly ******* boring. Everybody agrees that the Fringe is boring as owt, warfare especially. Also, the fact that many tend to raid when nobody is online isn't a very helpful factor. These raids, mind you, are driven entirely by OOC hatred and grudges and the sole goal is to destroy RP and demonize the enemy. If we can't warclaim, then let RP happen, staff. Nothing to gain in combat on the fringe other than another pixel tear. "give us what we want or ur not being diplomatic :)" Sounds pretty legit. This happens every temp map you do realise this. Everyone does agree that the Fringe is boring. I can't exactly help when people decide to raid, people have different timezones and haven't even taken part in a raid since the plague was cured. As for 'give us what we want or ur not being diplomatic :)', we've tried being diplomatic countless times and were either ignored, insulted or killed.. or at least attempted to be killed. You're pretty well twisting my words to make your point valid. Cheers. Still curious about those demands. You didn't answer the question and then you insulted Lin'ame, not sure who is perpetrating the drama and hate with that established, I'm genuinely trying to understand the RP behind all of this. Guessing you're not up to date on attempted peace talks and the terms brought forward at that halfling thing. Also guessing you haven't spoken to your people who I've also told my demands IC, namely one of the druids. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellfiazz 878 Share Posted June 26, 2014 He denied it because you refused to allow the Azog clan to participate because apparently they are all alts, when they've existed since even the first Teutonic Order was formed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrakeHaze. 2483 Share Posted June 26, 2014 We accepted your war claim. We said you could war claim Haelun'or with all your allies and the high elves would bring all of theirs. DrakeHaze was the one who denied his own war claim, not me. i.e. The orcs, for all intents and purposes, decided not to attack IC. DrakeHaze was given the choice and decided not to pursue a WC. You declared the Orcs to be alt characters and decided you won't accept the warclaim if allies weren't brought in. The entire RP behind the warclaim was for Orcs to fight alone against the Elves, however once I accepted allies to be involved I realised that my character has lost his reasoning to attack the Elves as everyone and their mother was involved, losing all point in honor. You're getting off track from your original post, do try and keep on track next time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaCabra (Soda) 1515 Share Posted June 26, 2014 The rules seem fair to me, but the argument going on here seems to be over something much different than the rules themselves. You guy should either take the argument over why Orcs are attacking to PMs or perhaps a different thread. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdwhisperer 1173 Share Posted June 26, 2014 The rules seem fair to me, but the argument going on here seems to be over something much different than the rules themselves. You guy should either take the argument over why Orcs are attacking to PMs or perhaps a different thread. Indeed. Stick to the topic of the rules proposed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Best Basileus 97 Share Posted June 26, 2014 To start, I'd like to say I completely support these rules, as they eliminate the problems that we seem to be having in regard to this current mess of a war. Perhaps the text needs slight amending at points, but overall, the proposed rules are fair, and would be effective I'm not sure if this is the right thing to do, but I really can't help but to respond to Omnyaxle's rather blatantly flawed argument. When countries irl are occupied they don't write up a piece of paper saying you can't be here for 15 more minutes. Countries IRL don't have to write warclaims to occupy foreign nations. On LotC, however, we do. The Krughanistani Bloc's constant denial both on skype and once on the forums (that turned into a real enjoyable thread, eh?) to accept a warclaim for pillage or conquest has proven that they are unwilling to war through proper channels. The attempt to achieve warclaim results by occupying a city without actually writing the conquest warclaim because of fear that you'd lose is blatantly obvious here, and it's kind of pathetic, to be honest. On top of that, however, you actually have the gall to say that the people who did try to orchestrate a proper battle are the ones hiding behind rules. I don't think anybody here has trouble seeing right through this argument. EDIT: I'd also like to note the warclaim which the orcs made on the elves, the rules stipulating "no allies," and that all forces involved be listed beforehand. Upon reading this list, you called of the battle, because you realized that you would be absolutely annihilated. This is just another piece of evidence to show which side is the one afraid to engage in proper roleplay. 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crayfishchris 748 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Stick to the topic, please. We're not looking for the reasoning behind the proposal, instead we're looking for feedback on the proposal. Anyone have any constructive criticism for the ideas at hand? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrakeHaze. 2483 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Countries IRL don't have to write warclaims to occupy foreign nations. On LotC, however, we do. The Krughanistani Bloc's constant denial both on skype and once on the forums (that turned into a real enjoyable thread, eh?) to accept a warclaim for pillage or conquest has proven that they are unwilling to war through proper channels. The attempt to achieve warclaim results by occupying a city without actually writing the conquest warclaim because of fear that you'd lose is blatantly obvious here, and it's kind of pathetic, to be honest. On top of that, however, you actually have the gall to say that the people who did try to orchestrate a proper battle are the ones hiding behind rules. I don't think anybody here has trouble seeing right through this argument. EDIT: I'd also like to note the warclaim which the orcs made on the elves, the rules stipulating "no allies," and that all forces involved be listed beforehand. Upon reading this list, you called of the battle, because you realized that you would be absolutely annihilated. This is just another piece of evidence to show which side is the one afraid to engage in proper roleplay. The best part was how only 1 azog was even on that list for them to start complaining about alts, the rest of the azogs didn't sign onto the list. When I read that list I saw rp-defaulters. No side is scared, there is nothing to lose when dying in a battle, even a warclaim battle. It's a temp map. lol Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galendar 631 Share Posted June 26, 2014 It seems you've made these suggestions. To make your silver walls of oppression more difficult to tear down and raid due to the fact you don't want to deal with it. I don't like the suggestions and don't think we need anymore changed -1. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PtahWithin 1318 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Raids are rp. The point of a raid is to disrupt the city's residents. When you make a rule to try to avoid the "breaking of rp" its literally a rule to try to take away the purpose of a raid. Raid is roleplay meant to disrupt the city which it usually does. This would have been a cogent argument - were it not for the fact that most raids are intenionally performed during a city's low-activity hours. It is not clear to me how one can disrupt a city's residents without them being there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellfiazz 878 Share Posted June 26, 2014 If there's no-one there then said city doesn't have any RP disrupted and they can't be raided again for the day. Don't see how someone would complain about that. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dougstalicious 721 Share Posted June 26, 2014 +1 I support this if anyone cares. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aelu / Rel (Combustionary) 1535 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Raids are rp. The point of a raid is to disrupt the city's residents. When you make a rule to try to avoid the "breaking of rp" its literally a rule to try to take away the purpose of a raid. Raid is roleplay meant to disrupt the city which it usually does. Disrupting the city is one thing. Disruption of a city is rp - Organization against the raid, fighting back, hiding and whatnot. The issue arises when the raiding party goes further, and the area becomes devoid of any rp at all. The issue at hand seems mostly to be on the part of 'camping', rather than raids themselves. None of the rules would actually hinder or restrict a raid. Well, a good raid, at least. A good raid will create rp rather than destroying it. Breaking into a city, fighting with the local guards, trying to beat them is all rp. It's conflict. Sitting there afterwards, talking on Teamspeak as you look around for stragglers and giving them nothing but a couple lines and pvp count only blocks any possibility of rp from happening there. If you want to occupy a city, there are warclaims for that. If there's no-one there then said city doesn't have any RP disrupted and they can't be raided again for the day. Don't see how someone would complain about that. It's indicative of the grudges. Instead of attacking when rp could result, smaller parties are killed and camped during hours when it's not really possible to get an army online. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellfiazz 878 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Surely you would prefer having the RP of few disrupted rather than the whole population of a city? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aelu / Rel (Combustionary) 1535 Share Posted June 26, 2014 Surely you would prefer having the RP of few disrupted rather than the whole population of a city? When it's the 'whole population', things tend to be less one-sided. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts