Forced Conquest: Your View

[Supremacy 3361]

Greetings Craftians,

 

This will be our final poll on the matter of if the community wants forced conquest or not to be implemented on the 4.0 map. The previous polls lacked voter identity and thus could be skewed, as the PVP vote was skewed a year ago by people making alt accounts.

 

• This thread is to be linked around to as many LotC chats as possible.
• Your votes are public.
• Your votes will be recorded and the votes made by non-player or non-primary accounts i.e. "The Crimson Heart", "The Kingdom of Oren", "The High Elves", The Druidic Order" will be discounted and you will receive 1 forum warning for voting with them. You may only vote on your primary account.
• The poll is done using a Likert Scale, in order to measure opinions more accurately.
• Votes are not forced and a neutral option is available, thus there is no "forced choice".
• You should not change your votes after your initial voting selection.
• Banned players may not vote.
• We are discussing simply the concept of forced conquest so far.

Have fun.

[mylimo7 409]

Holy Shitsnacks

[L0rdLawyer 2272]

Forced conquest should only be allowed if there is an actual reason for it. If there is no reason for a Warclaim, then it should just be a pillage. If they have a reason, it should be a conquest that people can't deny.

[Cyndikate 2303]

Forced conquest should only be allowed if there is an actual reason for it. If there is no reason for a Warclaim, then it should just be a pillage. If they have a reason, it should be a conquest that people can't deny.

Edit: Second

[Jonificus 2751]

Why ask again when the opinions are already known?

[CosmicWhaleShark 2488]

I think the point of this thread first is to gauge whether or not people would like to have some form of forced conquest, which if they're sane they do. Something definitive.

 

The regulations and rules will come later, the community opinion on forced conquest comes now.

 

Also, support forced conquest, otherwise you support the pussification of the entire playerbase, you rubbery tripes. 

[Ford 1996]

Bless

[Aislin 4354]

Forced conquest = good

 

Unregulated forced conquest = room for error

 

Allow forced conquest by default, but allow staff intervention if necessary. Having staff intervene by default is going to cause problems, but leaving it for extraordinary circumstances will allow players to have the necessary freedoms while still having the protection of the staff if need be.

 

Furthermore, I'd like to expand on Wardog's point. There will always be angry players over war and losing and ban reports and etc etc etc. Players quit. Players get upset. This is a constant. Should we really shy away from a beneficial boon to RP only because a small minority fear it?

[Acornlad 206]

My big issue is that forced conquest may encourage PvP to an unsatisfying degree where world conquest can happen. I think we all like our wars and our PvP, but I feel like going into forced conquest is going to open the flood gates to a whole new world of problems. Thats just my opinion though and its speculation. Might as well just put in my two cents.

[Harri 4815]

As long as forced conquest is kept to being reasonable (which I'm sure it will be) then we shouldn't really have a problem with it. I mean, one 'troll' nation can only go around force conquering people for so long, as they'll soon just have conquered the server if they keep winning.

[Z3r05t4r 855]

I see the upsides on one hand, and the downhands on one side. Or so. So I am neutral towards this. Not too much of a maker of war, but I also see that in some cases it has to be enforced.

[Rethai 163]

I will be voting on the 16th!

[Cjmate 1270]

Make it cost more money to conquest than to pillage. Use monetary system to regulate it. I agree to

forced conquest, but there needs to be drawbacks for conquest so that people have options: to pillage or to hold.

[Aelu / Rel (Combustionary) 1540]

I support forced conquest as long as steps are made to ensure that those conquered receive actual rp as a result. Occupation and whatnot.

Conquest just to destroy somebody's town and rp is a no. Conquest to control it sure.

[Skippy 2466]

I support forced conquest as long as steps are made to ensure that those conquered receive actual rp as a result. Occupation and whatnot.

Conquest just to destroy somebody's town and rp is a no. Conquest to control it sure.

Conquests aren't done to "destroy someone's RP". If you're that paranoid that conquests are out to get you, the wilds could be a safe place for you and your RP group, where no one will bother you.

 

But I agree with proper reasoning behind conquests. I also agree with the idea of "This land will help in the war effort" as a reason: this reason has been used in real life time and time before.