Jump to content

Conflict & War FAQ


Telanir
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, frill said:

 

It’s about encouraging a different kind of conflict RP.

 

The conceptualising of good faith as intrinsic to RP is to prevent PvP warclaims and general goonery as being resultant from some OOC desire to screw people over, something that seems to fester as a latent attribute to most of the more veteran players to the bigger nations – reforming the rules so that they necessitate co-operation through a good faith caveat of “this war is just meant to be for fun RP” is something that is there for just that; encouraging roleplay that is far more enjoyable for both parties involved as opposed to encouraging domination and conquest alone.

 

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.

 

Yes, the previous wars and warclaims had a significant amount of roleplay stoking their flames but the lingering necessity of having both parties agree to conduct the war puts the onus of war on needing to sustain that consent through OOC cooperation – if people’re repeatedly refusing to go to war with your nation, you should have a long stare in the mirror and consider just why that is.

 

 

I can easily tell you why people refused and would refuse to go to war: because they’d lose.

 

Regarding your other points: I wholeheartedly agree with the necessity of wars deviating from the normality of domination and conquest, which is something I tried to champion in the past years, when I still believed I would be listened to. At the same time, I do not concord with your stance on OOC cooperation / good faith, as I can assure you, people do NOT LIKE TO LOSE. A war is a big deal, its goal is to achieve superiority, whether martial or economical is irrelevant, over your nation’s or group’s enemies, and that includes taking things away from the losing playerbase.

 

No cut deals about this, for a war to be a war, someone has to lose, and when people have a chance not to, they will grab it, whatever that chance is. This means rule-sharking, whining to staff or, in Haense’s case, threatening you’d leave the server if the warclaim on them went through in order to strong arm the staff.

 

So, that is a no from me. Cooperation inside a group of 10 players may very well happen. Cooperation between two groups of over 100 players each that have been at each other’s throats for months, you can’t reasonably expect to enforce something of the sort.

 

Not a chance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, LaffenOutLoud said:

I like to hear how the staff is gearing to raids to be more rp-esque and purposeful IRP, and a suggestion to further develop that is to allow the defender of a raid to call RP default instead of MC mechanics default, just as you can call RP default when being banditted – Since just anyone would be able to raid now. 

 

3 minutes ago, Dimitri_P said:

 

 

I like that idea a lot, it would be much more fun if raids were like that.

 

 

Have you ever been in a roleplay fight with 10 people. When we ignore magic. 10 people say in a 5 v 5 swords is so complicated and hard to follow because of player greed, pging, and just no knowledge how combat actually works its chaos. Throw in one or two mages and it gets so much worse. 

 

Roleplay fighting is fine for 4 people. Get to 10 or above and it's not. 

 

That's why raids are pvp. That's why warclaims are pvp. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, frill said:

 

It’s about encouraging a different kind of conflict RP.

 

The conceptualising of good faith as intrinsic to RP is to prevent PvP warclaims and general goonery as being resultant from some OOC desire to screw people over, something that seems to fester as a latent attribute to most of the more veteran players to the bigger nations – reforming the rules so that they necessitate co-operation through a good faith caveat of “this war is just meant to be for fun RP” is something that is there for just that; encouraging roleplay that is far more enjoyable for both parties involved as opposed to encouraging domination and conquest alone.

 

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.

 

Yes, the previous wars and warclaims had a significant amount of roleplay stoking their flames but the lingering necessity of having both parties agree to conduct the war puts the onus of war on needing to sustain that consent through OOC cooperation – if people’re repeatedly refusing to go to war with your nation, you should have a long stare in the mirror and consider just why that is.

I wish I lived in your LoTC where mental gymnastics, powergaming, subtle metagaming and rule lawyering wasn't your average tuesday.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, L0rdLawyer said:

Have you ever been in a roleplay fight with 10 people. When we ignore magic. 10 people say in a 5 v 5 swords is so complicated and hard to follow because of player greed, pging, and just no knowledge how combat actually works its chaos. Throw in one or two mages and it gets so much worse. 

 

Roleplay fighting is fine for 4 people. Get to 10 or above and it's not. 

 

That's why raids are pvp. That's why warclaims are pvp. 

That’s true, I didn’t think of that. It sounds a lot better in concept, but in practice it would probably be extremely messy. I wish everyone could play fairly, but I’m not sure that could happen, people will always try to make themselves win, even if it doesn’t make sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mavromino said:

I wish I lived in your LoTC where mental gymnastics, powergaming, subtle metagaming and rule lawyering wasn't your average tuesday.

 

let me pretend

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, L0rdLawyer said:

 

 

 

Have you ever been in a roleplay fight with 10 people. When we ignore magic. 10 people say in a 5 v 5 swords is so complicated and hard to follow because of player greed, pging, and just no knowledge how combat actually works its chaos. Throw in one or two mages and it gets so much worse. 

 

Roleplay fighting is fine for 4 people. Get to 10 or above and it's not. 

 

That's why raids are pvp. That's why warclaims are pvp. 

Raids have a maximum of 10 players anyways, and from what I’ve seen raids never play out like a war.

The important thing to me is RP mechanics>MC mechanics. So gates, doors, etc – A gate in Atlas which IRP could only be opened by druids by IC lore was easily gone through by the group of raiders because MC mechanics overruled that – Which in my opinion is incredibly idiotic and makes IRP preparation and defense obsolete.

Link to post
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, TheAlphaMoist said:

Why else would the server be most active when a war is going on

 

Oh, I should mention this point—both NL’s and our own research pretty much brings us to one conclusion. Wars bring a lot of people to log on—but once the war is spent they burn out and vanish for weeks or months at a time. It’s hard on the people involved, especially leadership, and the toxicity and pressure really gets to them. We’ve studied the wars in LotC history that worked with mutual cooperation between the nations, and everyone came out on top and had a good time. Since the conflict was founded in RP and not OOC, nobody came out to deliberately upset each other. This is our ultimate goal, and the new meta for wars. Negotiating fair terms and offering something the other side will want from you.

 

Nations who prefer active combat and PvP can negotiate free-for-all raids, weekly warclaims, and anything else that interests them. Nations who prefer an alternative form of conflict can negotiate their own terms. The system behind the rules is dynamic in the truest sense of the word.

Link to post
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, L0rdLawyer said:

Try a no-mechanics war: special raids locked to text-combat for two willing nations, try magic wars (however you might define that)

 

no offense. Read next time.

“Special raids locked to text-combat for two willing nations” 

“special raids” 

“special”

special =/= all

 

no offense. Read next time. 

 

26 minutes ago, gandalfo said:

the new rules if both sides agree then its a thing

If both sides agree, who cares

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Telanir said:

 

Oh, I should mention this point—both NL’s and our own research pretty much brings us to one conclusion. Wars bring a lot of people to log on—but once the war is spent they burn out and vanish for weeks or months at a time. It’s hard on the people involved, especially leadership, and the toxicity and pressure really gets to them. We’ve studied the wars in LotC history that worked with mutual cooperation between the nations, and everyone came out on top and had a good time. Since the conflict was founded in RP and not OOC, nobody came out to deliberately upset each other. This is our ultimate goal, and the new meta for wars. Negotiating fair terms and offering something the other side will want from you.

 

Nations who prefer active combat and PvP can negotiate free-for-all raids, weekly warclaims, and anything else that interests them. Nations who prefer an alternative form of conflict can negotiate their own terms. The system behind the rules is dynamic in the truest sense of the word.

 

Could you please clarify whether or not a nation can simply deny all wars or raids, as I think it’s implied both nations have to be willing from now on? Unless I misread that, but could you clarify please, just so we know for sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Telanir said:

 

 We’ve studied the wars in LotC history that worked with mutual cooperation between the nations, and everyone came out on top and had a good time.

 

 

May I get examples of saltless, cooperative wars where EVERYONE INVOLVED had a good time and came out on top?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Friendly reminder that combat rp is complete **** and it doesn’t work, ever. 

 

If you wanted it to work a GM would have to be present for every fight, and it seems like they don’t feel like working that hard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with this but disagree with the “consent to losing part”.. I’d hardly call it a war. Even if a side is victorious there are no real accomplishments for said “victory” other than bragging rights. Peace summits and treaties should always be dynamic and so should the wars, but with that being said NL’s consenting to specific terms of war literally makes the entire concept of claiming it to be “dynamic” seem backward, the proper way to word this post would have been “the Nation Leaders make the story”, not the players. Also.. sides can consent to “not losing”? What the hell is the point of war then..?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Salvo said:

May I get examples of saltless, cooperative wars where EVERYONE INVOLVED had a good time and came out on top?

 

I’m sorry but any event online including more than a dozen people where everyone involved had a good time don’t exist.

 

With that said, that’s not my point. When leadership agrees to cooperate and work out terms that will promote activity in good-faith within their nation, i.e. retention, and develop engaging events—there is a fundamentally different dynamic than when they are at odds and hate their guts. We’ve had too much targeted toxicity—to the degree that no amount of punishments or blacklists or second chances may fix. The broken system is the old war policy itself. It festered for years and grew into the kinds of toxicity-laden conflicts we see today. Nobody will deny, many of them have had roleplay-grounds and reasons to be held the way they were. But that is their one semi-positive trait that I’ve seen and tried to keep to the best of my ability while fixing the other issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Icarnus said:

Friendly reminder that combat rp is complete **** and it doesn’t work, ever. 

 

If you wanted it to work a GM would have to be present for every fight, and it seems like they don’t feel like working that hard.

As someone who prioritizes crp over PvP, I can just say easily that this is blatantly false. Most of the people I meet who argue that crp never works are the same people who can’t handle losing or are just bad at combat rp

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...