[Your View] Conquest Proposal Specifics

[mmat 7460]

Evening fellas, here's yet another thread for you all to vote on, regarding a slightly different topic. That being said, this will be the last your view poll on the topic.

 

Over the last day or two there has been a few feedback threads posted by Leo and Connor which have attempted to gauge the community's general reaction to 'forced conquest'. The reaction so far, in both, has been overwhelmingly in favour of the concept, and that has been taken note of by GMs and Admins alike, Aeto and I have made sure of that.

 

That being said, some specifics of the proposal still remain in the air... Throughout this entire process, the war chat, which includes people from every nation, and I have been consistently updating our idea in order to make it more efficient, more fair and more balanced. So that dynamic and fluid roleplay is balanced with non-wanton destruction. We believe we have come up with a couple of systems to make sure that this is the case. And we want to see which way everyone swings on this issue.

 

• In this proposed system, racial capital cities can be forcibly conquered and civilly occupied, however they cannot be wantonly razed to the ground and destroyed if they are conquered, everything else is hypothetically destructible by a conquering force. (Taking into account the other terms of the proposal)

 

The poll in this thread wishes to judge whether or not highly populated and obviously active city states which are not racial capitals should be exempt from destruction, or whether they should be treated the same as smaller plots. (Destructible as per the RP wishes of a conquering force)

 

If there are any clarifications needed on this, just throw them in a reply and I, or one of my lads in war chat will get to it.

[The Dennis 172]

Why should racial capitals be protected in the first place?

[Cyndikate 2303]

Why should racial capitals be protected in the first place?

Because it's supposed to be the ideal place to go for new players when they start.

[Jachnun 566]

Because it's supposed to be the ideal place to go for new players when they start.

Not when the staff have taverns holding them down.

[Pureimp10 5691]

Why should racial capitals be protected in the first place?

Like I've said before,

 

If a nation has done something to piss off "big bad Oren" or some other nation, their capital should be at risk. If you're gonna go to war, you should always take the chances of being defeated into account.

[Jonificus 2761]

Because it's supposed to be the ideal place to go for new players when they start.

I think Petrus fails in that regard.

[GodEmperorFlam 3447]

Because it's supposed to be the ideal place to go for new players when they start.

I don't see that as a valid reason, if the city is conquered, it doesn't mean the citizens are all dead. It'd just relocate them elsewhere and the new players would still be directed to where the majority of them are.

[mmat 7460]

Not when the staff have taverns holding them down.

 

That's another issue regarding regions and stuff that I'm gonna start dealing with after this is all sorted out. I just want to get the war rules nailed first.

[WuHanXianShi14 0]

This is us working towards a compromise between anti-conquest and pro-conquest people.

 

We make major hubs of roleplay shielded from complete destruction, however they still must learn to accept being occupied in RP.

 

Smaller areas will not be as protected, so a random hut, village or tavern unauthorized on a nations land is liable to be taken down if they don't comply with said nation's demands.

[mmat 7460]

Added a third option, change your vote if necessary.

[ℤ∃ʁ∅ 823]

Not when the staff have taverns holding them down.

Maybe the staff aren't the ones owning the tavern. Maybe just a simple player? 

 

 

And this proposal is rather not fair to be honest. 

 

Nations get prebuilt cities. and structures before the map release and feel threatened over small plots? Now thinking of having people kneel to them because some are butthurt or jealous over a building? Taking down a rb hub just to chance it ? What roleplay reason would it be if there is no rp reason for it? Im pretty sure most OOC will be taken into Ic. I may be wrong and paranoid ? Just a curious thing. Is this conquest over the small map or just some getting tired of abandoned settlements? maybe conquest abandoned plots not heavily populated. Or the people will just scatter again . What next "Wheres the roleplay at? where is everyone? " Where do I go? Who can I go to to ask where to go ?"

Edited May 12, 2015 by ℤ∃ʁ∅

[The Dennis 172]

It'd be possible to say "Oh we're not destroying it we're rebuilding" and just completely remake it, what do you classify as destruction?

[WuHanXianShi14 0]

It'd be possible to say "Oh we're not destroying it we're rebuilding" and just completely remake it, what do you classify as destruction?

Destruction is where something was originally there, and thanks to the invaders, now there is nothing there.

[Mj. 697]

Only reason why someone would pick yes is because the non-racial player-built cities, were, as I said, build by players. It would take them incredible time and effort to collect and build their city, and without creative like the racial capitals are given, it destroys months of their work. It also doesnt make sense for racial capitals to be exempt from it if the large cities are not. Keep it in rp! For example, the humans vs the dwarves a while ago, if the humans attacked the capital and won, their city would have been rply destroyed. Option 2 makes no sense. Make the right choice.

[zaezae 1098]

I'm perfectly fine with total destruction protection for capitols. Destroy government buildings, walls, temples, etc. but I'd rather us not start turning capitols into land scars. If there is to be a last bastion, racial capitols could be it. 

 

Basically, don't past the point that it wouldn't be worth restoring.