Jump to content
xxx

activity checks (___)ing (___) my (____)

do you like the way land is being given in 7.0?  

50 members have voted

  1. 1. do you like the way land is being given in 7.0?

    • yes, I like the way land is being distributed in 7.0
    • yes, but I am a GM and my opinion is not valid
    • no, I have concerns with how land is being distributed in 7.0


Recommended Posts

GMs have 0 control over land

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Sky said:

 

Admins not GMs – No other staff have any say on which groups get land.

 

World devs*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tofuus said:

 

World devs*

 TIL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Sky said:

 

Admins not GMs – No other staff have any say on which groups get land.

 

f3abaaf091038041a1c0e45058f33844.png

 

I know you didn’t have a say, but you branded them as ‘inactive’ – my problem is that word is incorrectly used and only serves to destructively justify keeping a group down rather than constructively seeking ways to help them.

Edited by Hobbs_Burrows

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Hobbs_Burrows said:

 

f3abaaf091038041a1c0e45058f33844.png

 

I know you didn’t have a say, but you branded them as ‘inactive’ – my problem is that word is incorrectly used and only serves to destructively justify keeping a group down rather than constructively seeking ways to help them.

 

Every time I use the word inactive I specifically am sure not to namedrop any settlement, why? Because I don’t go around to places to check on activity, though my opinion is still that of inactive groups shouldn’t be given places – What I mean by this is, genuine inactive places shouldn’t get it and places with activity should be given land, perhaps not nation-sized land if they don’t require it but land nonetheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Sky said:

 

Every time I use the word inactive I specifically am sure not to namedrop any settlement, why? Because I don’t go around to places to check on activity, though my opinion is still that of inactive groups shouldn’t be given places – What I mean by this is, genuine inactive places shouldn’t get it and places with activity should be given land, perhaps not nation-sized land if they don’t require it but land nonetheless.

 

Then we agree. Under the current system it’s all or nothing. You are either a major world power with the biggest land on the map, or you’re declared inactive and cast off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the way tiles were handed out was fine, like the most active nations getting first pick to start bidding, while everyone else gets to bid afterwards. Nations still have to maintain their activity up until 7.0 to get their tile, which I think is fair.

 

If a group has activity that fluctuates, and is still semi-active, I think they should get a small portion of land set aside for them.  I don’t think they should be completely catered to or get their builds pasted in. 

 

Completely dead and inactive nations should not be given land in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jollybee said:

I think the way tiles were handed out was fine, like the most active nations getting first pick to start bidding, while everyone else gets to bid afterwards. Nations still have to maintain their activity up until 7.0 to get their tile, which I think is fair.

 

If a group has activity that fluctuates, and is still semi-active, I think they should get a small portion of land set aside for them.  I don’t think they should be completely catered to or get their builds pasted in. 

 

Completely dead and inactive nations should not be given land in my opinion.

 

Except basing land distribution on “activity” (which, TIL, doesn’t mean activity but rather % of the playercount, so groups who are constantly online and roleplaying are just getting beaten out by AFK rulers who own large cities with good geography) is setting the next map up for failure. Activity on 6.0 doesn’t guarantee activity on 7.0. Nations who are popular right now are guaranteed to stagnate in the near future. So why is it fair, if we’re not trying to optimize for the most active new map, that only nations who could scrounge up 6% of the playerbase get plots? I’d like to hear that instead of the GMs repeating “inactive nations should not be given land.”

Edited by xxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, xxx said:

 

Except basing land distribution on “activity” (which, TIL, doesn’t mean activity but rather % of the playercount, so groups who are constantly online and roleplaying are just getting beaten out by AFK rulers who own large cities with good geography) is setting the next map up for failure. Activity on 6.0 doesn’t guarantee activity on 7.0. Nations who are popular right now are guaranteed to stagnate in the near future. So why is it fair, if we’re not trying to optimize for the most active new map, that only nations who could scrounge up 6% of the playerbase get plots? I’d like to hear that instead of the GMs repeating “inactive nations should not be given land.”

 

As a note - being afk in a town does not add to the activity of that town.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sky said:

 

As a note - being afk in a town does not add to the activity of that town.

 

doesn’t change my point, making the activity requirement be 6% of players just ensures that large cities and their (from experience, usually inactive) leaders get land and nobody else

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, xxx said:

 

Except basing land distribution on “activity” (which, TIL, doesn’t mean activity but rather % of the playercount, so groups who are constantly online and roleplaying are just getting beaten out by AFK rulers who own large cities with good geography) is setting the next map up for failure. Activity on 6.0 doesn’t guarantee activity on 7.0. Nations who are popular right now are guaranteed to stagnate in the near future. So why is it fair, if we’re not trying to optimize for the most active new map, that only nations who could scrounge up 6% of the playerbase get plots? I’d like to hear that instead of the GMs repeating “inactive nations should not be given land.”

 

If a nation has a playerbase that actively roleplays in the tile, I think that's completely fair for them to get a tile. If a nation can meet the 6% requirement, they get to move onto the auction and purchase a tile. Seventh even said in his thread, that this auction isn't the only chance to get land. Groups can still make activity check now and will get to pick from the rest of the tiles until 2 weeks before 7.0.

3b25fa0dc25c25524094f2e7389dcc05.png

Nations who have activity on 6.0 have to keep their activity up until 7.0 to keep the plot. While it's true that you can't say with 100% certainty that every nation that gets a tile will be active 6 months into 7.0, nations do have to work hard to keep activity up, build a playerbase, and keep new players roleplaying in the area. It would be extremely unfair to cut the nation out of a tile because of that possibility, and it would just demotivate everyone currently in that nation and they would most likely move elsewhere.

 

As I said before, nations who meet the 6% requirement got /first pick/ on the tiles and had the opportunity to buy them. Since GMs literally have no control in how land is handled, I can't tell you if anything is planned. I think that after the most active settlements are taken care of, nations or groups who maybe meet 3-5% activity could get smaller tiles on 7.0, which is fair. I'm trying to talk to you as a player, not as a GM. I roleplay on this server as well and my time in staff has been pretty short compared to the time I've been here. As a note, when I say completely dead and inactive nations, I mean exactly that. If there is nobody roleplaying in nation for months, it's a ghost town, and shouldn't get land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Jollybee said:

 

If a nation has a playerbase that actively roleplays in the tile, I think that's completely fair for them to get a tile. If a nation can meet the 6% requirement, they get to move onto the auction and purchase a tile. Seventh even said in his thread, that this auction isn't the only chance to get land. Groups can still make activity check now and will get to pick from the rest of the tiles until 2 weeks before 7.0.

3b25fa0dc25c25524094f2e7389dcc05.png

Nations who have activity on 6.0 have to keep their activity up until 7.0 to keep the plot. While it's true that you can't say with 100% certainty that every nation that gets a tile will be active 6 months into 7.0, nations do have to work hard to keep activity up, build a playerbase, and keep new players roleplaying in the area. It would be extremely unfair to cut the nation out of a tile because of that possibility, and it would just demotivate everyone currently in that nation and they would most likely move elsewhere.

 

As I said before, nations who meet the 6% requirement got /first pick/ on the tiles and had the opportunity to buy them. Since GMs literally have no control in how land is handled, I can't tell you if anything is planned. I think that after the most active settlements are taken care of, nations or groups who maybe meet 3-5% activity could get smaller tiles on 7.0, which is fair. I'm trying to talk to you as a player, not as a GM. I roleplay on this server as well and my time in staff has been pretty short compared to the time I've been here. As a note, when I say completely dead and inactive nations, I mean exactly that. If there is nobody roleplaying in nation for months, it's a ghost town, and shouldn't get land.

 

Let’s examine this seriously for a moment, ignoring the fact that there will obviously be a chance to get some land sometime in the future. I should damn well hope that everyone who makes 6% “activity” (playercount) gets land next map. But there are obviously nations below that threshold that deserve land. That’s my argument, and I hope that if you’re talking to me as a player, you’ll understand me here. 

 

If there has been nobody roleplaying in a nation for months, chances are they aren’t online right now asking for land in 7.0. But what if, by some strange coincidence, they do? Does giving an inactive group land necessarily take anything from anyone else? No. What are the risks, here? Some players who left the server coming back? A new group having the potential to rise in popularity? I can see these are things that current nation leaders might not like, but tough ****. If you can’t keep your own nation active and can’t stem the tide of players leaving for greener pastures, then what’s the point of this entire competition?

 

Nothing bad would happen if we gave everyone (and I mean everyone) land next map, so long as most of the plots were close enough to CT. This is what happened during Athera, when LoTC was easily twice as active as we are now. The only people who don’t want other players to receive land are players who are already getting land. And they want traffic in their cities for free. We’re talking in ‘deserves’ and ‘should gets’ here, but do any of the active settlements right now deserve land? Sutica, Haense, Aegothrond, none of these settlements would even exist if the same 6% activity requirement was applied to the Axios->Atlas map transition. It’s ridiculous to say they ‘deserve’ land when they got it no questions asked at the beginning of this map. Nobody ever threatened to delete their charters or take their nation status, even when the first two of these nations had extended periods of zero activity

 

Lastly, it isn’t “you can’t say with 100% certainty.” You can say with 100% certainty that one of the active nations from the land auction is going to be dead on arrival to 7.0. We’ve observed this every single map change. Please don’t mince my words; I guarantee you, whatever nations are the most popular now, entirely different ones are going to be active in 7.0. Hence why it’s positively silly we’re using a 6% activity check right now to determine who’s going to be active months from now. 

Edited by xxx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, xxx said:

No. What are the risks, here? Some players who left the server coming back? A new group having the potential to rise in popularity? As far as I can see, the only arguments for giving land

 

Giving everyone land spreads RP thin. It’s why activity has to be moderated. I think the system’s fine to an extent, though I did have concerns with the way the activity was moderated (being purely reliant on numbers), and how harsh the threshold was.

 

5 minutes ago, xxx said:

This is what happened during Athera, when LoTC was easily twice as active as we are now.

 

Also briefly adding here. Activity was around the same, it was just more centralised which was why RP felt more lively and common. The downtime hours were worse during Athera than what it is now – averaging about ~10 to 15 in Athera, where we average now from ~25 to 35.

 

Anyway I’ll respond properly to this thread a bit later. I saw you address me in an earlier message, and I stand a bit differently in my opinion than I did before. So I’ll plonk that in sometime later today as it’s 1am for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×