[Your View] Forced Conquest: A New System

[Destroyer_Bravo 1054]

This is necessary.

you're literally the arbiter on war rules

 

just implement it lol

[Porko 397]

I suggested a system in the community meeting where nation leaders could force conquest on plots that are within their territory in RP. I thought it would be a good start to ease the staff against it into being more comfortable with forced conquest. Well, apparently that step wasn't needed. I'm all for complete and fair forced conquest. It'll keep RP moving and dynamic.

[__WaterFox__ 636]

The only reason I don't support forced conquest is because of trolls. Especially the ones who say deal with it, its rp, when they don't /actually/ rp themselves

[mmat 7460]

The only reason I don't support forced conquest is because of trolls. Especially the ones who say deal with it, its rp, when they don't /actually/ rp themselves

 

If that is the only reason, then I think you need to read the proposal's terms a tad more closely. Rather than seeing the words 'forced conquest' and saying no.

[Space 2335]

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

 

 

And yeah, I think the ideal system is just co-operation, but... YOu know.

[KarmaDelta 969]

Your anime is irrelevant.

 

Forced Conquest or I kill the hostages.

[mmat 7460]

୧༼ಠ益ಠ༽୨ Forced conquest or we RIOT boys. ୧༼ಠ益ಠ༽୨

[Cyndikate 2303]

Make forced conquests troll proof and we'll talk.

[Raomir 1855]

Make forced conquests troll proof and we'll talk.

just got out of skygod prison and is already back in the game.daaaym

[InfamousGerman 1553]

Make forced conquests troll proof and we'll talk.

provide proof of conquest trolls and why anyone would spend money, time and resources to destroy your 4 man cottage in the middle of ******* nowhere.

[Ser Paul Ryan 1139]

Make forced conquests troll proof and we'll talk.

 

 

I'm surprised you didn't make a whole new feedback thread 2 post that comment tbh.

 

 

In all reality, the voice of the community will only once again tell us what we know - this is the desired system by the majority. We can create however many polls we want to, but at the end of the day, facts are facts. No one has an alternative system that

A. Works

& 

B. Has the backing of the community. 

 

Why keep using a flawed and disgusting system? To quote a well known Kenyan,

 

"It's time for change." 

[Aetosion 2062]

you're literally the arbiter on war rules

 

just implement it lol

That would be ideal, but I am not. I'm the GM that began managing the player-driven War Rules chat, but anything created and approved there (like this proposal), tends to next be taken to the other GMs, then to the Admins for final approval. 

[Cyndikate 2303]

provide proof of conquest trolls and why anyone would spend money, time and resources to destroy your 4 man cottage in the middle of ******* nowhere.

Maybe ask yourself why we have consentual conquests in the first place?

[XSKip 40]

I agree with the forced conquest. Not only does it make sense RPly, but it could lead to some very interesting RP. Here is an example:

 

Back when I was new to the server, the uruks were fighting a civil war with the Uzg against the Azogs. I remember BoogerBuster doing some awesome shamanism RP to prepare ourselves for the pvp oriented Azogs. However, both he and I realized that in a war, the Azogs would probably win. That made our uruks uneasy. We did underground stuff to prepare a resistance in case the unthinkable did happen if the Azogs and dark shamanism prevailed. Every day people were preparing for this war, and it was fun. Perhaps I deal with the stress of foreign invasion differently from other people though.

 

The only things that I would be concerned about would be the foreign influence over the conquered people and people's reactions. I'm concerned that it'd be more like orc slavery of "get in the cages!" more than an armed occupation like the one that led to the American Revolution where the soldiers didn't want to be there guarding people they were just fighting and the conquered not wanting them there. On the problem of how people react to being conquered and quitting, there is no good solution. However one could argue that with those people quitting it mimics the fact that the losing faction probably lost most of its fighting men (and women) in the war that they lost.

 

Anyway, I'm still a noob and my opinion should be taken with a grain of salt if not with the whole shaker.

[Jistuma 1996]

I think before doing anything about forced conquest, we need to actually state what a conquest is.

 

I mean, if someone wants to destroy a town, and I really mean destroy it, then it's a conquest. That very rarely happens.

Many times what happens is that the attacking side wants the defender to swear a oath. Is that a conquest? Sounds more like the attacking side has a -------------------------- for someone bending their knee. If the leaders of the town, the ones that actually take charge and lead the town, doesn't change, it's not a conquest.

 

Then the idea of conquest I agree most is that conquest is a forceful change of leaders to one of their own.

 

This has a problem that some have commented on. The new leaders might be awful. If a town has rp, it normally means that  the leadership is active and is a friend with the people that live there. If the leadership changes, most likely will all the players that live there. If the one that a player talked to after finding the town, asking for a house and a job, and receiving perms to the land, and maybe or not paying taxes, and talking about the government there is kicked out, he will probably leave as well. Is that something anyone wants? Unless you're planning to rebuild a town from the ground up, new leaders, new residents, new buildings, then players leaving from there is something bad.

 

Sometimes the attackers just want those people to move. As I said above, that's just destroying the place. If a nation just wants control over a piece of land to control what is built and who can be there, that's a change of leadership, with the associating problems.

 

The attackers want tribute? That's not a conquest.

The attackers want that guild dissolved? That's not a conquest.

The attackers want someone arrested and executed, or banished? That's not a conquest.

The attackers want a law changed? That's not a conquest.

The attackers want one of their military orders to have free pass through the land? That's not a conquest.

These can be rewards for winning a war, if the leader isn't removed.

 

The attackers want to destroy and rebuild in that place? That's a conquest.

The attackers want to replace the leaders with some of their choosing? That's technically a conquest.

 

So why is conquest so discussed and wanted when the times you might need a conquest is so little? Simple, OOC government over a plot of land. I chose who lives here, I chose what is built, I chose if this person can have perms, I chose who I obey IC, I can do what I want with the town, if there's unrest I can pillage the town without a warclaim because the land is mine. I'm the leader, but I might just have others actually do the rp in the place. Don't get me wrong, this might be great help to a nation and might make it run smoothly. But that leader of the nation has no IC power if the people don't do what he says. The leader only has power because others do what is commanded by him. If a town claims independence and the one that governs the town says the nation leader is no longer his leader, you can't just click a few buttons and remove him from the town perms, you'll have to remove him by force. If a nation makes a warclaim to make a town be their vassal, I want the leadership changed to someone who will actively be leading there, not a OOC leader that just controls what's built and who has perms there, but an IC leader being the same person, and actually being there to do it.

 

I don't want the King/Rex/emperor/Sohaer owning all plots in a land, yet I want him to be able to warclaim the land and change the owner of the plot if roleplay leads to it.

I don't want the King/Rex/emperor/Sohaer doing "/modreq I need the owner of this plot changed" without doing anything IC to make sure the actual leader doesn't contest it (this has happened before). I want him to be able to warclaim the land and change the owner of the plot if the leader denies it.

 

If anyone is saying that this will happen a lot, have you imagined if a leader of a vassal town of Oren denied being removed from power? He'll be fighting all of Oren, with only a few of the town's residents on his side, and the residents could very well deny him as the leader and join Oren's side. Same thing for all other nations.

 

As to finish this long post, I want Conquest to be: "The forceful and unwilling change of an acting (this means that he actually is there to roleplay and command) IC/OOC leader of a plot of land, or the destruction of the buildings in the plot of land."

For anything else, it shouldn't be a conquest claim.