Your View; War Rules! [ Inc. Raid Rules ]

[Jistuma 1996]

snip

This seems like a problem of warclaims, and not a problem of conquest. If forced conquest existed for that specific example, the end result would be the same. The warclaim would be set on a date, and the high elves would blow up the library and take all their items and leave the town and not show up at the warclaim as well.

The problem in your example was warclaims themselves, not forced conquest. To be fair, I would think it good to allow forced conquest with good reasons, but all the reasons I see in the warclaims are either "We don't like them", "they are at war with us, lets kill them and take their land", "We want their land", "their land should be ours", "we don't want them there", "we want to kill them". Those are pretty crappy reasons, and you can hide them all behind a lot of rp posts, but the end result is that the High Elves wanted to kill and destroy or control all elves, so they made a warclaim for conquest. Orcs wanted the land they think they owned so they wanted conquest. Oren was at war with dwarves so both dwarves and Oren just wanted to conquer land because they were at war, yet with nothing else in mind.

High Elves assassinated Oren's king, THAT'S reason for a forced conquest. All others are not "I want land" "I want them out" "We're at war" are not reasons.

[Aelu / Rel (Combustionary) 1540]

Forced conquest might make a war go more smoothly, but it results in the problems that we saw in Asulon - namely the further fragmentation of the playerbase and generally larger degrees of OOC discontent between players.

 

While consensual conquest certainly its own set of problems - yesterday's war exemplifies this, the problems it creates are by far less damaging than the problems caused by forced conquests. Forcing consent requires players to work together to get anything done. The current Oren v. Dwarf war certainly is an example of that not happening, but the alternative, where conquest is forced, would result in far worse ooc drama than yesterday's frustration.

 

Forced Warclaims didn't work in Asulon. They were removed for a reason.

 

 

Honestly, any conflict with so much ooc drama shouldn't be allowed to happen in the first place. If two factions can't get along ooc, nothing good can come from letting them fight.

[Tirenas 677]

I agree entirely with wardog. This system has already been incredibly abused, making forced conquest a neccessity. Even if the whole treasury stuff was forced, how would that change anything? People aren't willing to work together OOCly, so why would the side who runs out of money in their treasury agree to the forced bad terms?

[Hiebe 2493]

Hiebenhall was lost with the drop of dwarves in general. Which is fine. The clan has agreed to just deal with it and be in the capital which is good.

Bring back player plots that cant be conquered, all nexus plot are then forced conquest. People dont want to loose things they earned in a hard way, give them a alternative to have. These plots could.be very small btw

[CosmicWhaleShark 2488]

This seems like a problem of warclaims, and not a problem of conquest. If forced conquest existed for that specific example, the end result would be the same. The warclaim would be set on a date, and the high elves would blow up the library and take all their items and leave the town and not show up at the warclaim as well.

The problem in your example was warclaims themselves, not forced conquest. To be fair, I would think it good to allow forced conquest with good reasons, but all the reasons I see in the warclaims are either "We don't like them", "they are at war with us, lets kill them and take their land", "We want their land", "their land should be ours", "we don't want them there", "we want to kill them". Those are pretty crappy reasons, and you can hide them all behind a lot of rp posts, but the end result is that the High Elves wanted to kill and destroy or control all elves, so they made a warclaim for conquest. Orcs wanted the land they think they owned so they wanted conquest. Oren was at war with dwarves so both dwarves and Oren just wanted to conquer land because they were at war, yet with nothing else in mind.

High Elves assassinated Oren's king, THAT'S reason for a forced conquest. All others are not "I want land" "I want them out" "We're at war" are not reasons.

 

When things started to come to realization at the time, a lot of assumptions were made about our side by various individuals. We had legitimate RP behind it, but not everyone was aware of the RP that had occurred. Critiquing people's reason for wanting to conquest with a limited perspective and assumptions shouldn't be an argument against forced conquest. You're basically going on to say, you can make a lot of RP posts but that doesn't matter because the reason's still ****. People are RPing, and you'd essentially halt that because you thought it wasn't good enough. Not cool, we dealt with that ourselves.

 

It is an issue with warclaims as a whole, conquest is a pretty big part of warclaims to be fair, however. Also, initially, as far as high elves were concerned our side's uprising would have been considered conquest since they kicked all of us out of the region and then barricaded the entrance to our district with stone blocks. This was on the assumption, quoting here, "No I didn't mean to take away your perms. I took away your power to add an orc army to bulldoze anything. The owners of the nexus region get to decide." That said, even people who didn't have the ability to add others to the region were removed, so, you decide whether that's a legitimate accident or not.

 

So instead of confronting us with a non-existent military they simply removed us from the region (though eventually we were added back), told us to warclaim them, and then the following occurred in my post above.

 

This is the attitude that the current system enables. It needs to be less forgiving to get any sense of actual in game urgency. Right now people basically just lawyer up with the rule book tucked tightly against their chest, shaking their heads at the slightest infraction. Once they move their stuff everything is hunky dory, and it reaches an extreme when you decide to confront the greatest military on the continent with snow balls.

[Samson Option 9652]

Here is an experiment, short, sweet, and easier than enforcing some complex system among teenagers and young adults:

 

"Is this game a right where you are guaranteed a niche? Or is it a privilege where you have the possibility of carving a niche, but beholden to the fact that this is a multiplayer game intending on being a vibrant, fictional world that would be allowed an underlying, natural flow of events, actions and reactions, etc.?

[Skippy 2466]

I agree with forced conquests, Kal'Bogrin shouldn't even be ours at this point (Hiebenhall should though)

[Samson Option 9652]

 

Or at least someone who really dedicates himself to the dirty business. Be it a GM or as visible in the picture above, War Moderator.

This is not meant to be arrogant, but war roleplayers will definitely see reason to this. I would step forward as a War Moderator, I opened this Pandora's Box, let me play Hades [if you know the myth :P]. I can take the heat from assholes, I'm proficiently knowledgeable about history IRL [wars and all], and can make reasonable judgements and will be considerate to other players [past GM experience, a rather well-established impression of being chill].

[ski_king3 0]

The thing is, most people seem to not want conquest for conquest's sake, but instead because this war is shitty and ought to be ended. There has to be a way to improve the quality of wars and stop them being delayed OOC'ly without the problems that making conquests non-consensual will absolutely cause.

[Space 2335]

I feel like the current rules don't work well, and we need to fix them so stuff like the Great Snowball Fight of '15 doesn't happen, but I think any way people will be dissatisfied. I think that, ideally, we should be able to co-operate on these sorts of things, and be able to give up pieces of land to warclaims if the RP is there. But that might not happen. So, I'd say forced conquest on nation plots if there is acceptable RP reasoning.

[Aelu / Rel (Combustionary) 1540]

The thing is, most people seem to not want conquest for conquest's sake, but instead because this war is shitty and ought to be ended. There has to be a way to improve the quality of wars and stop them being delayed OOC'ly without the problems that making conquests non-consensual will absolutely cause.

 

Honestly, as extreme as it sounds, I'd say the best solution would be to just require consent by both sides for these big conflicts to even start. Don't let wars happen unless both sides are working together to make it fun for both sides.

 

It'd force players to work together, for one. It'd prevent these drama-ridden conflicts from starting in the first place. In their stead, we'd either have no war, or clean wars with allowances already agreed on.

 

The so-called 'Dynamic RP' just doesn't really work with a playerbase such as ours.

 

A system that would work is this:

-For a war to begin, all affiliated parties must work out and agree to a set of terms.

    -If terms can't be worked out, the war cannot happen and any hostile actions by either side is punishable.

    -If a third party joins in, they are bound by the decisions made by the original parties.

-During the war, all matters of conquest and raid rules follow the original decision unless both sides agree to alter them.

 

 

A war team, in theory, could work, but I don't see it actually doing so. So many different ideas of a just cause for war exist, and so many characters on LoTC are created with a predisposition of hatred towards a certain group, or a blind loyalty towards people with the aforementioned hatred. Anybody could 'find' a reason to go to war with anybody, solely because they desire somebody to fight.

[Heff 2460]

When we wanted to abolish VAs, many said it would result in too many villains and abuse of villainy. There are like no villains in the traditional sense anymore.

 

When we wanted PvP default, many said it would be the death of RP. Even PvP defaulters generally start with an RP fight unless it's a big crowd.

 

When we wanted to abolish MAs, many said it would result in too many OP mages with no moderation. I see less mages and those that do RP it are generally pretty sensible.

 

Now we want forced conquest and many say it will result in trolls warclaiming everything left and right until only PvP OREN trolls remain. It's not going to happen, it's a sensationalist doomsday prophesy, and we've empirically demonstrated that all those sensationalist nay-sayers in the past have been wrong every single time.

 

Give us forced conquest (with an appropriate casus belli system).

THISSSSSSSSSS

 

 

 

edit: War moderators were discussed in the war team chat and I think it'd be best if we just did the people who wrote the war rules 

[Cyndikate 2303]

 

 

Great Snowball Fight of '15 doesn't happen,

Did the dwarves pull the great big snowball fight to spite the human players? If they did, that's not grounds for a change, that's grounds for them to get banned.

[_Jandy_ 3519]

I think there should be some way to force a conquest.

[๖ۣۜ§osa (E.G.I.E.) 520]

There needs to be a way to force a conquest, exactly.