[Your View] Forced Conquest: A New System

[WuHanXianShi14 0]

Hello Lord of the Craft,

 

Forced Conquest has been a topic of controversy for awhile, with the disputed majority calling for it's implementation. Recently in the war-rules chat, a set of new conquest rules were devised and are now in the process of getting GM and Admin approval.

 

The first step to do this, however, is to get the community's stance on the matter before any changes are implemented. The majority opinion of the playerbase is important.

 

The basis of this new system is that forced conquest is allowed until certain rules have been broken, in which case that priveledge is revoked, and is covered by the following rules:

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the system of Forced Conquest default, the main mentality (much like VA’s), is that players will be trusted with the right to force conquest in order to promote roleplay, but with the caveat that this right CAN be taken away if they abuse it to a ridiculous extent, similarly in concept to villainy blacklists. However there will certainly be exceptional objective circumstances where forced conquest can be taken away and will NOT be allowed.

• There must be a legitimate reason (other than “I want the area OOCly.”) for an aggressor party to force the conquest on a defending party. Every IC reason can count as Casus Belli, as long as it is a purely IC decision and is obviously not related to an OOC grudge or grievance. Even the IC reason of “I want the plot because it will aid my nation’s war effort.” is legitimate. If a territory was originally in the sphere of influence of its aggressor (particularly in reference to nexus plot sniping), that is Casus Belli by itself.

• When the Casus Belli for the beginning of a war has been blatantly meta-gamed or has been obtained through the breaking of server rules in any way.

• In the case of blatant OOC harassment and outright bullying by the conquering side’s leadership and command structure, who simply want to take the territory because it would be funny to simply exterminate a group.

• In addition to these rules, a conquering nation or force must take adequate measures in-game and on the forums to occupy a city and/or territory and provide some form of roleplay to the inhabitants of that city within a week of the conquering, or else grant civil control of the area back to its original leaders.

    There are two cases in which this rule can be rendered null and void:

• The original inhabitants of the conquered territory OOCly do not co-operate simply to receive the lands back under their control, halting dynamic RP in its tracks.

• The region was originally in the sphere of influence of the nation/entity which is now attacking it.

  • In these cases, the territory in question will remain indefinitely in the control of the conquering force, until an agreement is reached. Particularly concerning OOC halting of RP.

 

The opinion of the community needs to be discovered, as the first step to deciding whether or not change should be made.

 

[Pureimp10 5691]

Only question, what happens if there is an IC reason to conquest someone you hate OOCly? The defender could argue in the case of the conquest being purely OOC, whereas the attacker would argue having an IC casus belli. Who would be the mediator?

[Space 2335]

Only question, what happens if there is an IC reason to conquest someone you hate OOCly? The defender could argue in the case of the conquest being purely OOC, whereas the attacker would argue having an IC casus belli. Who would be the mediator?

Why do you hate anyone on the server OOCly?

[Ricky 321]

I think A simple if they are looking for it (raiding, cut somones head off, etc.) they can be conquested, but if a group raids them and they raid back in response that is not a valid reson for war to destroy a peacful town and ruin somones RP (towns are never the same after a pillage, many lose energy and commitment). A 3rd party staff decision on this could work.

 

It's not about whats best it's about what is fair. A pillage if they can come up with a good enough RP bullshit reason is not fair or the best.

 

Edit: I said this when we fist made the new system and again with badlands idea, it did not address the underlying problem which is that the systems youa re makign do not apply to the land or current RP situations. So they will always fail, badlands will fail war will fail! If you make a simple fair system which works with the RP situation and understands how groups use and work with regions it will work.

Edited May 10, 2015 by Ricky

[Birdnerdy 1539]

I am a nerd who likes birds, and I support this system, and forced conquest!

[WuHanXianShi14 0]

Only question, what happens if there is an IC reason to conquest someone you hate OOCly? The defender could argue in the case of the conquest being purely OOC, whereas the attacker would argue having an IC casus belli. Who would be the mediator?

Be civil OOCly, don't shitpost, and your IC casus belli would go through.

[Cjmate 1270]

Force conquest is ideal. Though, an exception would be capitals for the races. I believe that these too should be force conquest, but the races should be allowed to keep their pillar/build rights without

interference.

I hate the system as it is, as well as the playerbase reaction to conquest. People tend to just leave

their region after being taken over, and that is not realistic. Conquest people should stay and submit.

It is more realistic than just moving. That's a community problem, not a staff problem.

[Pureimp10 5691]

Force conquest is ideal. Though, an exception would be capitals for the races. I believe that these too should be force conquest, but the races should be allowed to keep their pillar/build rights without

interference.

I hate the system as it is, as well as the playerbase reaction to conquest. People tend to just leave

their region after being taken over, and that is not realistic. Conquest people should stay and submit.

It is more realistic than just moving. That's a community problem, not a staff problem.

I disagree. If one nation has done something to piss off another, I believe that their capital should be at risk. Of course, as was seen with the Haelun'or-Human war, the capital plot will most likely be shrunken down, and another plot enlarged to form another capital plot.

[Aetosion 2062]

This is necessary.

[Ragadorus 113]

To be perfectly honest, I feel like denying conquest is taking control of roleplay in such a way that you have nowhere close to the in-RP ability to control.  Imagine if you're being attacked by bandits and you just emote not being stabbed when there's no realistic way you weren't stabbed.  Or, more accurately, you just emote that the bandits choose not to attack you.

 

Like, I understand that it'd be less than fair to certain isolated groups that lack powerful forces being attacked by larger ones, but part of roleplay is having to realistically face situations in which you are almost inevitably going to lose.

[The Dennis 172]

Why do you hate anyone on the server OOCly?

lots of people on this server are disgusting, lots of people to hate

[zaezae 1098]

The only thing I would change is a stipulation that if the aggressor party, for any reason, stops having a presence in that area then their claim be released. 

 

Literally the only reason is that it's kinda dumb to be occupied in name only.

 

And that the victims aren't auto-magically locked out of their locks.

[WuHanXianShi14 0]

The only thing I would change is a stipulation that if the aggressor party, for any reason, stops having a presence in that area then their claim be released. 

 

Literally the only reason is that it's kinda dumb to be occupied in name only.

 

And that the victims aren't auto-magically locked out of their locks.

We dont need a rule to enforce this.

 

Naturally, when an occupying force doesnt have a presence in their vassal state, who's to know what those vassals are doing or RPing?

[Noer 577]

Why do you hate anyone on the server OOCly?

 That's a joke, right?

[zaezae 1098]

We dont need a rule to enforce this.

 

Naturally, when an occupying force doesnt have a presence in their vassal state, who's to know what those vassals are doing or RPing?

Well I mean, if I'm not terribly mistaken, isn't conquest the transfer of plot ownership? That part wouldn't make sense if the new owner isn't doing anything with it. I'd like to see occupation RP