L0rdLawyer 2271 Share Posted July 5, 2019 49 minutes ago, Telanir said: I don’t recommend doing that. Endlessly banditing those people will earn you a CB. As @Burnsider points out, where did this sudden passion come from to bandit these people? So he's not allowed to do the roleplay he enjoys? Why aren't you blacklisting players for only doing slice of life or magic roleplay. You're targeting players that enjoy conflict roleplay and play on this server for that reason. Half of this server strives off conflict. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Telanir 6432 Author Share Posted July 5, 2019 21 minutes ago, Haseroth said: why did you delete my reply? so ur not allowed to bandit anyone period? Your rules have left an uncountable amount of grey area. I deleted your reply because it was a lot of incoherent question marks. As for banditing, yes you may do that without problem as long as you’re not being intentionally rude and upsetting. 1 minute ago, L0rdLawyer said: So he's not allowed to do the roleplay he enjoys? Why aren't you blacklisting players for only doing slice of life or magic roleplay. You're targeting players that enjoy conflict roleplay and play on this server for that reason. Half of this server strives off conflict. Someone in this thread pointed out that nobody who does slice of life arrives at your settlement and forces it upon you. As for the people who enjoy conflict, they can keep doing it as long as their intent isn’t to deliberately upset people. It’s not a hard line to tread. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haseroth 949 Share Posted July 5, 2019 7 minutes ago, Telanir said: I deleted your reply because it was a lot of incoherent question marks. As for banditing, yes you may do that without problem as long as you’re not being intentionally rude and upsetting. Someone in this thread pointed out that nobody who does slice of life arrives at your settlement and forces it upon you. As for the people who enjoy conflict, they can keep doing it as long as their intent isn’t to deliberately upset people. It’s not a hard line to tread. okay but that doesnt change the fact that people are gonna find loopholes to exploit the consent warfare rule, being publicly insulting to a nation or just generally being ***** because they know their nation is safe from retaliation as they could just deny any wars. No wars in history have ever been consensual, otherwise they wouldnt be wars. If you are going to hide conflict behind a consent barrier then u might as well disable pvp altogether and just add a pvp minigame to lotc so that people dont ever use the main server for anything other than rp. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnsider 4542 Share Posted July 5, 2019 One thing I would recommend everyone to consider when examining these rules and how to apply them to themselves is, in my opinion, the cardinal rule of role-playing: "Play to Lift." The best role-play is generous role-play as opposed to selfish role-play. As you RP around Atlas, ask yourself if your play is giving other players time to shine and get the ability to enjoy themselves. In all play, we should endeavor to lift others into the spotlight and give them their moment. Sometimes it may mean letting the villain do his dastardly deed. And, of course, for the villain, it means letting others finally come and make you pay your dues. For someone being declared war upon, ask yourself, "by denying this, am I lifting that other nation's story or putting it down?" I know these are idealized words (some may even say naive) but after over two dozen years of this stuff, I'm appreciative of these lofty goals. And, if the community plays to lift, then it leads to other areas where staff can give players an almost radical level of trust. Play to Lift. I recommend it. 5 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Telanir 6432 Author Share Posted July 5, 2019 8 minutes ago, Haseroth said: okay but that doesnt change the fact that people are gonna find loopholes to exploit the consent warfare rule, being publicly insulting to a nation or just generally being ***** because they know their nation is safe from retaliation as they could just deny any wars. No wars in history have ever been consensual, otherwise they wouldnt be wars. If you are going to hide conflict behind a consent barrier then u might as well disable pvp altogether and just add a pvp minigame to lotc so that people dont ever use the main server for anything other than rp. I know there have been mixed messages regarding a “consent barrier” but I’ll say it right now that it’s not necessarily about consent. There is a specific way to refuse a war and it mostly has to do with animosity and toxicity. If a nation is going to lose something, ostensibly they don’t want that—however, there are ways to negotiate war that aren’t ‘whole conquest’ because yes, those terms could be outright denied. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lemontide331 1613 Share Posted July 5, 2019 step in the right direction, keep up the good work Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferdaboy 1551 Share Posted July 5, 2019 idk a single nation that will agree to war unless they will win, NLs dont care abt a story as much as they care abt their nations Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeoRabbit99 360 Share Posted July 5, 2019 (edited) 7 hours ago, Burnsider said: So, I've had a night to sleep on this, and I believe that such an action (refusing a war for ooc reasons like "I want my settlement to act with impunity without risk of war") is definitely metagaming, which is already against the rules and can be punished by staff. So, I think that this behavior can be quashed. Not entirely what metagaming means. Metagaming is using ooc knowledge and using it in character, ie knowing where someone was kidnapped irp because they were told in PMs. Making a choice based in OOC is a horrible way to play the server, agreed, but a situation like a nation refusing to go to war because they don’t want to be squashed for their actions is hard to prove. Anyone can come up with a roleplay reason for almost anything. Edited July 5, 2019 by LeoRabbit99 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burnsider 4542 Share Posted July 5, 2019 5 minutes ago, LeoRabbit99 said: Not entirely what metagaming means. Metagaming is using ooc knowledge and using it in character, ie knowing where someone was kidnapped irp because they were told in PMs. Making a choice based in OOC is a horrible way to play the server, agreed, but a situation like a nation refusing to go to war because they don’t want to be squashed for their actions is hard to prove. Anyone can come up with a reason for anything. You're right, and I concede the point, while agreeing its a shitty way to play. Hence my later post on Playing to Lift. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmeepicus 3942 Share Posted July 5, 2019 Only a group of three bandits can raid a city of 50? There goes raid RP which I enjoyed, defending or attacking... 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenevolentManacles 2232 Share Posted July 5, 2019 I’ll have a full post on this thread later today, but I just wanna say a few things. This system was designed to motivate people to cooperate, and where they aren’t interested in cooperating we can surmise that the conflict will not be a healthy endeavor. The incentive to cooperating is you can do WHATEVER YOU WANT. You can decide your warclaims on Mount and Blade. You can decide it by a duel between two champions. Your rules guys. if you’re upset that you can’t impose conquest or war on others, that’s not an unreasonable thing to be upset about. I would say, though, that I would rather make an effort towards making a happy, healthy community that tries to work together to make interesting roleplay. Better that then the constant toxicity. This will work, or it won’t. If it works, that’s a huge win, and if we fail, we go back to the drawing board. But the system we have now is just not viable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmeepicus 3942 Share Posted July 5, 2019 3 minutes ago, BenevolentManacles said: I’ll have a full post on this thread later today, but I just wanna say a few things. This system was designed to motivate people to cooperate, and where they aren’t interested in cooperating we can surmise that the conflict will not be a healthy endeavor. The incentive to cooperating is you can do WHATEVER YOU WANT. You can decide your warclaims on Mount and Blade. You can decide it by a duel between two champions. Your rules guys. if you’re upset that you can’t impose conquest or war on others, that’s not an unreasonable thing to be upset about. I would say, though, that I would rather make an effort towards making a happy, healthy community that tries to work together to make interesting roleplay. Better that then the constant toxicity. This will work, or it won’t. If it works, that’s a huge win, and if we fail, we go back to the drawing board. But the system we have now is just not viable. I can live with this, thanks Tango! Must say I’m disappointed with the bandit raid rules though, I don’t know why people get upset about losing max 27 iron in a video game.. y’all need to get over your fear of loot loss and play Escape from Tarkov to do so or something. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BenevolentManacles 2232 Share Posted July 5, 2019 15 minutes ago, Shmeepicus said: I can live with this, thanks Tango! Must say I’m disappointed with the bandit raid rules though, I don’t know why people get upset about losing max 27 iron in a video game.. y’all need to get over your fear of loot loss and play Escape from Tarkov to do so or something. The cool thing is, if you and your bandit target are cordial ooc you can work out bigger raids, events, situations, and just take over the whole thing so long as everyone’s making an effort to make a story, which is what we’re here for. You can draft your whole own set of bandit rules that you and that nation leader can agree to, and get exactly what you want out of it, insofar as everyone thinks it’s fair and can turn it into a fun experience. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmeepicus 3942 Share Posted July 5, 2019 9 minutes ago, BenevolentManacles said: The cool thing is, if you and your bandit target are cordial ooc you can work out bigger raids, events, situations, and just take over the whole thing so long as everyone’s making an effort to make a story, which is what we’re here for. You can draft your whole own set of bandit rules that you and that nation leader can agree to, and get exactly what you want out of it, insofar as everyone thinks it’s fair and can turn it into a fun experience. I’m just saying with standalone bandit groups to clarify, I think they should be allowed to have more than 3, as bandits were huge during the medieval era, (regardless of whether this is fantasy or realistic) and I think raids were fun to roleplay during, maybe the rule should have been that more RP must be involved instead of running into a city and calling PvP immediately. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitrox911 2 Share Posted July 6, 2019 51 minutes ago, BenevolentManacles said: I’ll have a full post on this thread later today, but I just wanna say a few things. This system was designed to motivate people to cooperate, and where they aren’t interested in cooperating we can surmise that the conflict will not be a healthy endeavor. The incentive to cooperating is you can do WHATEVER YOU WANT. You can decide your warclaims on Mount and Blade. You can decide it by a duel between two champions. Your rules guys. if you’re upset that you can’t impose conquest or war on others, that’s not an unreasonable thing to be upset about. I would say, though, that I would rather make an effort towards making a happy, healthy community that tries to work together to make interesting roleplay. Better that then the constant toxicity. This will work, or it won’t. If it works, that’s a huge win, and if we fail, we go back to the drawing board. But the system we have now is just not viable. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't war supposed to anything BESIDES COOPERATION? Why would both sides need to agree to a conflict ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts