Jump to content

Conflict & War FAQ


Telanir
 Share

Recommended Posts

hi credentialed pvp goon here

 

i’ll actually be interested to see where this goes

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, IZipZapManI said:

New conflict blacklist system that’s been developed and will be released soon. Report conflict that you believe is fueled by OOC, is toxic, or generally contain poor emotes. 

Players already had an issue with how VBs were given out, and how vague some of the reasoning for their VBs being given were. All this is is an even more encompassing VB with even vaguer conditions for being given. I don’t see this new system not being abused and numerous players being CB’d over a bad emote or someone crying that they’re being attacked for being an ass in rp, claiming its “oocly driven” and staff just dropping the hammer without consulting the other party involved as has become the norm with VB’s.

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, L0rdLawyer said:

It just sounds like youre going to listen to anyone that whines and ban whoever causes them problems. 

The.... purpose of a blacklist is to keep players on the server and instead restrict them from the roleplay that got them blacklisted in the first place, rather than resorting to bans? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Telanir The other works that you have made in the past have put a mixed reputation on you, and I myself disliked those changes, but this post is one of the best changes I have seen!

I also think that raid CD's should still exist, even if they are short, so nations can have their gates open for a short time so players can hop right on in if they want. One might say to establish more rp.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A sophisticated, promising change.

 

Good ****.

 

 

We’ll just have to see if all of this alleged ‘new era’ talk comes through. The details haven’t been worked out, yet, so there’s no point in discussing them before they have even been properly announced – but this is a blank canvas for wars, now, which I prefer far more than the bias that ensued from the last Warclaim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s a big flaw in this.

 

Wars have to be consensual now? Well, what happens if two sides agree to go to war and then the other starts losing and essentially this happens?

 

Image result for i don't want to play with you anymore meme

 

Sorry Oren, I don’t want to play with you anymore.

 

What now? By trying to eliminate the toxicity of the old war system all you’re going to do is create a server where either no one will bother to start conflicts or when they do will pull out of those conflicts using this new system to do so with little to no RP consequences once or ever. @Telanir I hope your new war rules have a specific rule where when two sides agree to go to war they have to finish what they started.

Link to post
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, SaltAlt said:

I honestly don’t know how staff expect players being in control will suddenly make everyone cooperate when players haven’t even been able to cooperate when staff were enforcing them to. This whole “people will naturally respect each other” mentality is nonsense and all that this change in rules will do is get rid of any consequences people used to have to face for being shitters in rp. Before if you were an ******* you’d get raided, now if someone’s an ******* you get to just watch **** be flung at you as you wait for a nation leader to give you permission to attack their people they’re supposed to be protecting. I don’t ever see a Nation leader consenting to any sort of war with any real consequence, who would willingly put their necks on the line? All this will do is allow players to harass each other in rp and rest easy knowing that they can’t be touched.   

yeah this

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Harold said:

 

Cheers,

H x

bang on mr h. couldnt have said it better myself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Q: How can you push the buzzword of ‘dynamic RP’ whilst putting a barrier up to block consequence RP for nations (Wars)?

Dynamic roleplay is roleplay that progresses. What kind of progression is this scenario:

  1. Nation X abuses Nation Z RPly over an extended period of time
  2. Nation Z has had enough, and ‘proposes’ to war attack Nation X
  3. Nation X says no, and keeps abusing Nation Z through RP

If my nation constantly provides what would formerly be CBs, but then does not provide consent to go to war with the other faction, that is completely OOC and not RP - which is that you’re trying to prevent. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What happens to third-parties, who aren’t in wars, but have other incentives to raid a settlement? It sounds like you’re going to make raids exclusive to warclaims

Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, IZipZapManI said:

The.... purpose of a blacklist is to keep players on the server and instead restrict them from the roleplay that got them blacklisted in the first place, rather than resorting to bans? 

Blacklists do nothing. I know. I fought to revamp the system. I never finished. 

 

What you all did to blacklists is make them worse then ever. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, L0rdLawyer said:

Blacklists do nothing. I know. I fought to revamp the system. I never finished. 

 

What you all did to blacklists is make them worse then ever. 

The replacement for VBs has yet to be pushed through. There’ll be development of policy on when to employ them and so on and so on. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

hold up can we talk about ladders though

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, IZipZapManI said:

The replacement for VBs has yet to be pushed through. There’ll be development of policy on when to employ them and so on and so on. 

 

5 minutes ago, Harold said:

 

You make noises but none of it has any substance.

 

He says it best.

 

Nothing of point actually gets done because of two things:

1. Admins stonewall everything outside of their vision.

2. The people working on it aren't competent enough in the field. 

 

Not every GM knows how wars, raids, and roadside banditry works. They have just listened to a select groups whine about it and act on that. There are dangers to travelling or living in smaller settlements. Those dangers push players to live in centralized locations that can offer protection. Instead admins and mods want to remove these dangers to make select groups happy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, frill said:

Simply “saying no” would be a meta-action and in bad faith because it’d be an RP nation acting on OOC preservationism instead of a motivation to create and sustain the RP that the conflict would foster. It’s not that wars can’t happen, but it’s that they’re happening for entirely different reasons following the reform.

Nice hand-wave. You know full well that these rules will allow NLs to reject wars and you whole-sale support that since you’re terrified of Ves ever getting invaded. Stop trying to pretend that there’s some magical fairy dust attached to these new rules that will suddenly stop NLs looking out for their own interests and self-preservation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...