Your View: Regions 2.0

[monkeypoacher 8055]

Simply, to fix the problem we're having with nations and activity, make every settlement, inside a nation or outside, require a fee and an activity check. The reason we have so many dead settlements is simply because of Oren/Courland's sovereigns gave all their friends land without the resources or manpower to back it up. 

 

Freebuild areas should be close to capitals: As odd as this sounds, it will greatly improve the activity of the cities. If the capitals can be a nucleus around which resources can be gathered, bought and sold, they will always have a purpose, and always have activity. This will, in the long run, prevent the decay of massive cities due to inactivity and changes in leadership. 

 

The charter system should require screenshots of roleplay rather than "signatures," quite simply. The amount of inhabitable land both for nations and non-nations should be severely limited.

 

1 hour ago, drfate786 said:

 

The trick is to have all nations centralized and allow communities such as Norland to construct their towns and cities in the wilderness wherever they please at the expense of being under constant threat from the antagonist. If Oren wants to warclaim them, they won't be able to take the land from them or expand into the wilderness/free build areas since the antagonist will actively contest it. Oren should serve as a "sanctuary" for human role players that acts as a stronghold against the antagonist, not a conquering empire that shits on people's roleplay and steamrolls over half the server's active playerbase with their army of screeching twelve year olds. 

0

 

 

Drfate has a pretty interesting idea here.

[Man of Respect 5471]

GUYS REMEMBER

what is decided here will be set in stone for like, idk, 6 months to a year or more. we're going straight for 6.0 instead of some sort of 5.5

[WuHanXianShi14 0]

Rp should trump ooc when it comes to nation organization. Would make no sense to force norland and oren into one hub for example to consolidate human rp. Would make no sense in rp to shove the high elves and wood elves together either, two people's whose culture and history couldn't be more diametrically opposed.

[drfate786 1690]

1 hour ago, 吳憾戰士14 said:

Rp should trump ooc when it comes to nation organization. Would make no sense to force norland and oren into one hub for example to consolidate human rp. Would make no sense in rp to shove the high elves and wood elves together either, two people's whose culture and history couldn't be more diametrically opposed.

0

 

 

You don't shove them together, you give them land NEXT to each other and take away their ability to take said land from the opposite faction. They can warclaim sure, but they can't take their land away.

[ForeverGinger 148]

Dang, bringing some decent points to the table drfate.  Giving related factions land adjacent to each other would certainly provide RP potential, what with expansion wars and the like.

[Danny 2232]

Currently the poll is suggesting the highest number of votes goes to 'partial freebuild'. To those voting for this option on the idea of particular freebuild regions, please remember this has failed in the past and to repeat it is to ignore the lessons we need to learn. Total freebuild, with minimal regions on capitals, spawn and the road, implemented correctly eliminates these issues and make an for a system that works best for the community as a whole.

 

The notion of one nation per race is an ideal that, if could be achieved, would be the best solution for the server as a whole despite the damage it may well do to particular player's egos. It may well not be possible to achieve in a way that truly works and is undamaging to roleplay and if the that's so, one staff-sponsored nation needs to be picked and be the only one entitled to regioning initially. As difficult as this may be for some to accept, it's the only solution to enable a consolidation of a very widely dispersed playerbase.

 

If the other nations prove themselves capable of sustaining an active playerbase without being to the detriment of the rest of the server's figures and are located within the central belt of the map, then regioning should be permitted for the them. This should not be done via a charter system because this actively encourages a dispersion of players to these wilderness areas but rather via discussion with the staff team. This enables us to ensure we have a constantly active set of capital cities that act as rp hubs but that we also enable organic and dynamic settlement growth for the playerbase. 

[_Sug 2809]

2 hours ago, drfate786 said:

Clearly, you've never been to Norland. We usually have 6+ people active there 24/7 and even more when we do a small event or rally, it's just a matter of providing fun events/RP for the people in the nation to participate in and to develop their characters from. For example, some places in Oren are inactive due to the lack of a proper playerbase and by extension the lack of events and roleplay. These people will only log on during the weekends or during warzones to participate in the PVP because that's all they look forward to doing. 

Clearly you didn't understand what I said pal. I was just listing off the most active ones, I wasn't excluding Norland hahaha. I do agree with my dude Fate that finding a good balance is imperative because catering to both sides is important on this server, period. He's got this on the dot, there are tons of people who only log on for warclaims and don't roleplay and sure it's their choice but we as a playerbase need to find stuff that draws people to roleplay. Well said Drfate.

[MangoArt 399]

Activity checks sound like a good idea, HOWEVER, I think you should only do activity checks on cities/regions of a certain size. Say, if they take up a large region then you can administer an activity check. What's the point in annihilating a tiny settlement? (coughhalflingvillagescough)

[MangoArt 399]

Activity checks sound like a good idea, HOWEVER, I think you should only do activity checks on cities/regions of a certain size. Say, if they take up a large region then you can administer an activity check. What's the point in annihilating a tiny settlement? (coughhalflingvillagescough)

Oh, also, maybe racial capitols don't need them? That'd solve the conundrum of Halfling Villages being destroyed.

[CaptainBrock 254]

No fast travels at all, the islands aren't far off from the mainland they can build a nice big old bridge

[Archipelego 2188]

I am for complete freebuild, except for spawn and nations, ofc. I'm pretty happy with all the ideas currently being thrown around, and all my thoughts have been pretty much explained by those who have already commented.

[herculean_wud 3662]

- Should 6.0 be free build?

---

I always liked the prospect of freebuild, but it should be more refined and regulated than in Athera:

• Within the outskirts of the map there should be plots of varying sizes scattered about: a limited number that can be claimed by anyone (with a /claim, or something) much akin to the NexusRegion system. Thereafter an auto member + activity checker will ensue.
• The limited plots would incite rp of all kinds imo. The scarceity of land would encourage rp and conflict rp, and similarly provoke alliances between nations. 
• If after 3-4 weeks (times to be altered on region size etc) the settlement is inactive blocks become breakable, and within reason, people may take what they wish. Chests and the like cannot be altered, and animals cannot be slaughtered. Items in item frames are too exempt. 
• If after a further 2-3 weeks (times to be altered on region size etc) the region will collapse fully. Chests will be lockpickable and the region may be claimed by whoever gets there first. 

 

- Should fast travels between settlements in 6.0 be removed?

---

 

 

 

 

- Is nation status too easy or too hard to get?

---

 

 

 

 

- What are your thoughts on the current charter system?

---

 

 

wip))

 

 

 

Should we do activity checks on nations?

[NotEvilAtAll 10906]

3 minutes ago, Grubgoth Wud said:

- Should 6.0 be free build?

---

I always liked the prospect of freebuild, but it should be more refined and regulated than in Athera:

• Within the outskirts of the map there should be plots of varying sizes scattered about: a limited number that can be claimed by anyone (with a /claim, or something) much akin to the NexusRegion system. Thereafter an auto member + activity checker will ensue.
• The limited plots would incite rp of all kinds imo. The scarceity of land would encourage rp and conflict rp, and similarly provoke alliances between nations. 
• If after 3-4 weeks (times to be altered on region size etc) the settlement is inactive blocks become breakable, and within reason, people may take what they wish. Chests and the like cannot be altered, and animals cannot be slaughtered. Items in item frames are too exempt. 
• If after a further 2-3 weeks (times to be altered on region size etc) the region will collapse fully. Chests will be lockpickable and the region may be claimed by whoever gets there first. 

 

- Should fast travels between settlements in 6.0 be removed?

---

 

 

 

 

- Is nation status too easy or too hard to get?

---

 

 

 

 

- What are your thoughts on the current charter system?

---

 

 

wip))

 

 

 

Should we do activity checks on nations?

0

 

abcabcabcabc

Define "Inactive" Please, How many active people does a plot need to have to be considered "active"?

[Lark 2227]

3 minutes ago, NotEvilAtAll said:

Define "Inactive" Please, How many active people does a plot need to have to be considered "active"?

0

 

Id say no ones been there for a week with no notice whatsoever, if they give notice and then exceed that notice by a week, i'd say its inactive

[NotEvilAtAll 10906]

Well, alongside with what I said earlier, I think freebuild is the best for us all. It'll help concentrate RP, and also possibly improve player retention, because the server wouldn't immediately be incredibly unfamiliar and vastly different from all other forms of Mincraft, be it Minecraft Roleplay, or otherwise