Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
LotsOfWonks

[Your View] Coups

Recommended Posts

 

Coups

TJmX-924wRnWy33qfO7AXQbp8TZxZxkrBH6J2d5968Knwm9V_ZHBxZDNdW1mfGtqDVGd4DN_r_6Ir2zvhxws7NIhTo4bf2GYdcWVuVGxceDSpZGRtNyxUmW4fR5lzy8NcJPPCuaK

Helena, Arcas

 

Ayo all! The Community Team is looking for some feedback on how coups are handled on the server!  Things like should they require PRO/RO consent to happen, feedback on the rules surrounding the topic, etc. Quite literally any feedback revolving around the topic of coups. We’d like to take a gander at what the community thinks of the current state of this aspect, so all feedback is welcome!

 

Feel free to reply to this thread with your opinions and suggestions. If you’d like to reply anonymously, we’ve set up a form you may reply to with such.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Druids have their own method of ousting a leader, so coup rules will always be awkward and won’t work with regards to us.

 

Let nations figure out their own means to coups and RP it as they know it goes, instead of wrapping it up in red tape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coups should be looked at as a play driven event. Players involved in a coup should have PK clauses placed on them, aswell as the leaders who are being deposed (nation Leader/Stewards/Religious & Military Leaders). Obviously a GM or EM should oversee and watch, however they must act in an unbiased way; no GM/EM that frequent or play a character which inhabits the area of effect should be able to oversee it, and no one who play a character currently fighting a warclaim should oversee it either.

 

If you have failed to the point you are having a coup of your people held, then you should understand that Roleplay means you play a role, and if your role in that coup is getting killed then you should PK; likewise the parties attempting are putting themselves in a dire situation if they fail, thus they need to understand that their role at that point is to die and thus be made to PK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coups are always a very tricky thing, since there needs to be some actual backing to it. Someone running into a town and randomly trying to coup the leader is definitely not how something should be handled, but I believe that a system with Region Owners (specifically council members) leading a coup would definitely work as realistically it would usually be another person of power to hold such an event. All coups should be overseen by a GM of course, as theyre 1. always going to be messy oocly, and 2. it is a region change in its entirety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Aethling said:

Let nations figure out their own means to coups and RP it as they know it goes, instead of wrapping it up in red tape.

remember the war rules being worded this way and how absolutely nothing has worked or gone like this since

as much as i’d love it I don’t think the server can handle something like that. There needs to be at least light guidelines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, SquakHawk said:

remember the war rules being worded this way and how absolutely nothing has worked or gone like this since

as much as i’d love it I don’t think the server can handle something like that. There needs to be at least light guidelines

 

Rules will always be lawyered and GMs will always make mistakes or be biased. Neither solution is perfect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should have the majority or at least half of the ros to coup. When couping a pk clause is put on the couping side and defending side. 1 hour to coup the person. And person can escape or just repel the coupers. If either side wins it can be agreed to have a mass capture or somthing and then execute them soundly.

 

If the people being couped are aware of the inevitable attack, they may call allies to aid them. And if they are taken down before the allies arrive allies have a chance to defeat the coupers and help their past leader back into power.  And many other ideas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well someone tried to coup my region after being evicted without any actual rp on the server taking place and as a compromise to this the staff deleted the region instead x)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The RO majority coup rules are weak as hell. Region owner status correlates to absolutely nothing in roleplay and allows people to stage coups without any in-character support. I was there when Cascadia/tile_56 got couped multiple times in the course of 48 hours through people coordinating in discord group chats and irl phone calls (lol). None of that would have happened if coups were a roleplay mechanic and not an out of character RO vote.

 

A coup should not require PRO consent, this makes no sense. The PRO would have no reason to give consent. Similarly, the PRO can manipulate which region owners are on a region to make coups impossible. Neither PRO or RO consent should be necessary, but rather:

  1. A player  who wants to stage a coup on a region must be a member of that region. (Let’s call him/her the coup leader.)
  2. The coup leader must then gather at least 10 region members to support his/her coup. 
  3. When these 10+ players, the coup leader, and the PRO of the region are online, the coup leader can make a modreq. After a GM replies to the modreq, a coup begins.
    1. The coup leader must select a status for his party. The GM can then confirm that there is a total of 11 players (the coup leader and 10 supporters) on the status selected.
    2. The coup can end in favor of the sitting PRO in two ways:
      1. The coup leader is killed or captured.
      2. The party staging the coup is reduced to fewer than 10 players.
    3. The coup can end in favor of the coup leader in two ways:
      1. The sitting PRO is killed or captured.
      2. 10 or more coup supporters stay inside the region for 1 hour.
  4. If the coup ends in favor of the sitting PRO, nothing happens. The PRO can remove the coup leader and his supporters from the region, and /evict any protections belonging to them immediately.
  5. If the coup ends in favor of the coup leader, the sitting PRO is removed from primary region ownership. The coup leader is added as primary region owner, and may add whichever ROs/members he pleases as well as evict region owners as normal.

This system is a little rough, but it would provide a much more dynamic and roleplay-friendly alternative to the current OOC region owner vote. Coups could play out in a variety of ways, either as large PvP skirmishes, or even as peaceful occupations where a group of citizens resist the rule of the PRO. The time and number of players required could obviously be altered for balance purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coup rules in general are a massively bad idea. 

 

i ) As a nation leader, I am encouraged for the sake of stability to set up my government and region in a way that will prevent any of the clauses of any coup rules coming into effect. Require a minimum amount of ROs? I’ll just add my friend to the region. Better yet I’ll add my friends that aren’t really active on LOTC any more to the region and all it’ll take is one message over discord for them to appear and side with me.

 

ii ) Coups if done for the wrong reason, or done by a minority force within a nation, can result in that nation being pushed away. The potential for a nation dying because of a change in leader to someone who was just power hungry and not at all capable is incredibly high if you enable them. Nations in general serve as the way to capture new players on LOTC and retain them so that they become veterans. Seeing the destruction of them or them made to be unstable will affect player retention.

 

As a side note related to this, this can be especially bad if we see the outright removal of certain cultures that have existed on LOTC for years in place of something entirely bland or surface level. 

 

iii ) NLs should be in tune with the feeling of their playerbase. If you aren’t, you’re a bad community builder and probably don’t have a community to begin with. If your community doesn’t want you, they’ll let you know either by saying that to your face or by leaving. There are other playerbases on LOTC to have fun with, or they’ll start up their own. 

 

iv )  The systems for everyone’s governments vary nation to nation. Off the top of my head, Druids operate off of three archdruids with one being labeled the nation leader. Welves are an elected monarchy from a certain class of citizens. Humans are inherited through bloodlines. Fenn is elected from a bloodline. 

 

You are not going to make a system that fits all nations cleanly.

 

In general, just let us do our own thing. If someone wants to come to me and try and coup and they have a plan that’ll maintain the community, sure. I’ll work something out for you that is in the best interest of the community we share. 

 

However if you’re here to stir **** and get giggles from destroying something worked on for years, you can **** off. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Kaelan said:

ii ) Coups if done for the wrong reason, or done by a minority force within a nation, can result in that nation being pushed away. The potential for a nation dying because of a change in leader to someone who was just power hungry and not at all capable is incredibly high if you enable them. Nations in general serve as the way to capture new players on LOTC and retain them so that they become veterans. Seeing the destruction of them or them made to be unstable will affect player retention.

 

You say this, but then you say

 

44 minutes ago, Kaelan said:

iii ) NLs should be in tune with the feeling of their playerbase. If you aren’t, you’re a bad community builder and probably don’t have a community to begin with. If your community doesn’t want you, they’ll let you know either by saying that to your face or by leaving. There are other playerbases on LOTC to have fun with, or they’ll start up their own. 

 

So which one is it? Does mismanagement by a nation leader affect player retention because it “pushes nations away,” or are there plenty of other playerbases to have fun with and ways for players to start their own? You’re inconsistent. You said in your second point that it’s bad when players leave a nation because of a power hungry leader but in your next point you say that players can just leave if their nation is run by a power hungry leader.

 

Having a community does not mean ipso facto you are a good leader or a “community builder.” I’ve pledged loyalty to my fair share of **** leaders and **** nations in the 7 or so years I’ve played LoTC. I’ve dealt with lots of communities that were run by greedy, power-hungry, short-sighted leaders. I’ve seen those communities thrive. Why? Because the people in those communities liked playing together enough to tolerate their shitty leader.

 

As a nation leader on LoTC, your position is entirely fictional. I mean, literally, you’re playing a fictional character in charge of a fictional nation. If you think you deserve any authority over players in your nation something is wrong with you. People agree to roleplay in your city, to gather resources for it, to make it active and prosperous. They shouldn’t be subject to OOC authority from you, and if they don’t like you they should be free to cut your character’s head off and name a new leader.

 

44 minutes ago, Kaelan said:

However if you’re here to stir **** and get giggles from destroying something worked on for years, you can **** off. 

 

I can think of several instances where I’ve been fucked by nation leaders and forced to abandon something I’ve worked on. I’ve had my regions OOCly evicted, lost homes I worked hard to build and had chests full of my items stolen. Months of my roleplay have been completely flushed down the toilet before because I OOCly expressed disagreement with an almighty benevolent primary region owner. I’ve had to give up IC power and wealth for reasons completely outside my control.

 

And you know what? I’m okay with that. Because LoTC isn’t a game about accumulating power at the expense of others. It’s about telling stories, and if you can’t write a fall from grace for your character then you really aren’t much of a storyteller at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, howard said:

So which one is it? Does mismanagement by a nation leader affect player retention because it “pushes nations away,” or are there plenty of other playerbases to have fun with and ways for players to start their own? You’re inconsistent. You said in your second point that it’s bad when players leave a nation because of a power hungry leader but in your next point you say that players can just leave if their nation is run by a power hungry leader.

 

The first point was written with the scenario in mind of having a stable playerbase that currently gathers players and supports them, and to have some band of 10 players (from your example, which is a trash set of rules as well) just throw it all out the window. The rules shouldn’t enable people who might be incompetent, minority leaders to just stir **** in stable nations that actively support player retention. 10 players isn’t reflective of the majority of a community. 

 

Second point was just a general statement that most nation leaders are in tune with their core playerbase and are mature enough to realize when they aren’t wanted. If you have a problem that we didn’t cater to your needs, there are other options for you to do your thing than couping and destroying a playerbase because someone took your legos. 

 

49 minutes ago, howard said:

if they don’t like you they should be free to cut your character’s head off and name a new leader.

 

Then do it. Do you need a set of rules written so the mod team can hold your hand because you’re entirely incapable?

 

Simply put, coups are a niche within LOTC. We do not need to cater to this group to enable them with a specific set of rules that are made to destabilize communities.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coups should be conducted through a game of tic tac toe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Kaelan said:

Then do it. Do you need a set of rules written so the mod team can hold your hand because you’re entirely incapable?

 

Simply put, coups are a niche within LOTC. We do not need to cater to this group to enable them with a specific set of rules that are made to destabilize communities.  

 

You’ve missed the point entirely. 

 

Does your community collapse into nothing the moment your fictional character gets removed from power? Or are you just afraid you might get deposed if there were rules that let other players depose you? Are you incapable of maintaining a guard force that can deal with 10 of your own citizens?

 

1 hour ago, Kaelan said:

 

The first point was written with the scenario in mind of having a stable playerbase that currently gathers players and supports them, and to have some band of 10 players (from your example, which is a trash set of rules as well) just throw it all out the window. The rules shouldn’t enable people who might be incompetent, minority leaders to just stir **** in stable nations that actively support player retention. 10 players isn’t reflective of the majority of a community. 

 

Your nation isn’t special and it doesn’t support player retention. The scenario in your mind is nonsense, every group on the server tries to gather players and support them to some extent. “Some band of 10 players” can’t “throw (your nation) out the window,” but a quorum of 10 players from your community can oust you, if they think they can run the nation better. Invest in some security and deal with things in roleplay instead of crying for the mods to protect your IC position of power. 

 

Most new players have limited awareness of the political landscape of Arcas, and no loyalties to a particular nation. They find spaces to roleplay and make friends, but the latter of those is more important. You have a massively inflated ego if you think that your leadership has anything to do with it. You have zero faith in your community if you think your community will fall apart the moment it encounters conflict roleplay. You suggest that “stable nations” shouldn’t have to deal with players “stir(ring) ****,” but what exactly is a “stable nation” that can’t survive player conflicts without GM intervention?

 

The rules I suggested (which are a spitball at best) allow a group of 10 players to contest the leadership of a region through roleplay. While minority rule could be a regrettable consequence of these rules, these rules don’t allow a minority group to maintain power if even a small group of players (10+) can be mobilized to combat them. My suggestion isn’t perfect for sure, but what I’m suggesting is we change PRO from a monolithic OOC power into a dynamic system that’s answerable to the players through roleplay. On the other hand, you think that any system that would allow players to challenge PRO rule is a “massively bad idea,” and I think it’s fairly obvious why. 

 

1 hour ago, Kaelan said:

Second point was just a general statement that most nation leaders are in tune with their core playerbase and are mature enough to realize when they aren’t wanted. If you have a problem that we didn’t cater to your needs, there are other options for you to do your thing than couping and destroying a playerbase because someone took your legos. 

 

Evidently, you’re not mature and in tune with your playerbase enough to trust that they won’t oust you. No coup has ever “destroyed a playerbase.” Coups happen in the human playerbase all the time. We actively encourage conflict and dynamic roleplay, and we are still thriving despite a disastrously mis-handled war. The orcs were hideously abused by the Dominion/welf playerbase, and had their entire nation taken away by a rigged pvp duel, and yet they’re still kicking. Friendships and community exist outside of the fictional world of Arcas. It’s silly to think that allowing conflict roleplay would destroy those friendships or dissipate those communities. 

 

TL;DR allow coups and get rid of primary region owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

coups will happen if the players want it and won't happen if the players don't

 

literally zero need to put it into rules, it just encourages malicious takeovers with no regard for rp. no more redtape, just force players to not be absolutely fuckwits and actually contribute and collaborate

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...