Jump to content

poll: freebuild y/n?


Slorbin
 Share

freebuild y/n?  

143 members have voted

  1. 1. freebuild: yes or no

    • yes freebuild
      71
    • no freebuild
      72


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, UnBaed said:

 

i just feel like freebuild has grown more useless with the lair and settlement apps being a thing, players can still have a chance/freedom to try out something away from the already established nations on the server while also ensuring its not another build that will landscar the map

?

The point of freebuild is not that it is possible to get land outside of a nation at all, but rather that there's a very low barrier to entry to do so. Settlement applications that require 5k minas, 1% server activity, and can be denied by the World Team for subjective and arbitrary reasons do not have that low barrier to entry.

 

It is true that a lot of things that happen in freebuild can also theoretically happen within nation land in vassals or in a settlement, it is just much less likely for said things to actually occur due to the increased difficulty of doing anything. Freebuild lends itself towards more things happening rather than less things happening, as a general rule.

 

With this in mind, I do not think our current settlement system makes freebuild obsolete.

5 hours ago, UnBaed said:

also side opinion, activity checks has really damaged a lot of mindset on the server.  too many nations cling to quantity over quality rp and scramble around to promote the most casual of rp to show to everyone how active their settlements are.  nations like oren suppress and try to stomp out any conflict out of fear of losing their crown of activity (though also because a lot of other groups are looking for any excuse to go to war with them)

Yeah, you're kinda correct here. Activity checks ruined a lot of the vibes LOTC used to have. Back in the day what defined your community's survival was its ability to rally people for warclaims in its defense. Nowadays, what decides your community's fate is how many Slice of Life roleplayers you can keep around to boost up activity numbers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, drfate786 said:

If we don't implement Freebuild in some form the server will continue to suffer. It's near impossible to get land if you're trying to start a new group and it's led to stagnation and favoritism. Getting a small plot of land to build something shouldn't be a massive head ache. 

Then again, starting new groups is what continues to further divide the playerbase to the point where many capitals are ghost towns instead of bustling cities, we need less diversified rp not more, but with all the new nations it seems it will continue to divide and freebuild would only amplify that

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ShouHeiKun said:

Then again, starting new groups is what continues to further divide the playerbase to the point where many capitals are ghost towns instead of bustling cities, we need less diversified rp not more, but with all the new nations it seems it will continue to divide and freebuild would only amplify that

 

If people feel the need to divide and go elsewhere it's because they aren't satisfied with what's available, this means nations are failing their playerbases. There's nothing wrong with Freebuild in this sense, in fact you seem to be repeating an argument that others have said without knowing the extent of the issue and how Freebuild would help solve this.

 

Forcing people to RP in one place doesn't actually solve any existing problem and only makes the issue worse.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, drfate786 said:

 

If people feel the need to divide and go elsewhere it's because they aren't satisfied with what's available, this means nations are failing their playerbases. There's nothing wrong with Freebuild in this sense, in fact you seem to be repeating an argument that others have said without knowing the extent of the issue and how Freebuild would help solve this.

 

Forcing people to RP in one place doesn't actually solve any existing problem and only makes the issue worse.

 

I agree, but a big turn off when I played in the past was the feeling of emptiness that plagued and continues to plague every town. Colossal megabuilds with often times 1-3 people actually RPing within it unless it's high peak.

 

IMO, one town with 20+ people walking around and living lives inside and feels like an actual town vastly outweighs four different towns thousands of blocks away from eachother with five people scattered around each. It just isn't fun, engaging, or immersive to walk into a city that feels empty, regardless of culture or how well the people making it were able to express themself through unrestricted building.

 

I believe it would be more productive to tackle this issue, as a prerequisite to tackling the freebuild issue.


Without proper execution, freebuild will always be bad. In order to be executed properly, the issue with ghost-towns and constant dividing of activity would need to be a non-issue as freebuild would again only amplify this effect. Not even mentioning that it would likely be very bad for new players who already have an insanely hard time to find consistent RP, as now many people would be in split off into areas that mainly experienced people would know of or straight up secluded from everyone else.


If we can agree that many (not all) people who create nations aren't doing so only out of annoyance with a current one but moreso that they have the means and people to make a nation which they can rule over -- Making it easier for people to make nations will feed into the current loop where all large cities are drained of activity via their own playerbase segmenting.

I've experienced, witnessed, and even partaked in efforts like this many times when I was none-the-wiser. Many cities, for example Sutica, used to actually be very active and feel /alive/, and now when you go there you'd be hard pressed to find four whole players within the entire city.
 

Edited by ShouHeiKun
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's evidently clear that nothing will be changed if we are all calling for action in different areas, if we as a community overwhelmingly targeted one issue prior to moving to the next in ascending order, there might be a chance that someone will listen. For example, if 100 people were yelling to add fast travel, it would be magnitudes more effective than 20 people vying for fast travel, 20 for freebuild, 20 for smaller map, 20 complaining about warclaims, etc. The latter only ends up with jaded admins who end up following their gut (and whichever group is prodding them the most about it on discord) instead of what the community actually wants, through no fault of their own. Granted this is an idealist take but it's the only way I can see any of anything getting done, with hordes empirical evidence indicating it. 

Edited by ShouHeiKun
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ShouHeiKun said:

I agree, but a big turn off when I played in the past was the feeling of emptiness that plagued and continues to plague every town. Colossal megabuilds with often times 1-3 people actually RPing within it unless it's high peak.

 

IMO, one town with 20+ people walking around and living lives inside and feels like an actual town vastly outweighs four different towns thousands of blocks away from eachother with five people scattered around each. It just isn't fun, engaging, or immersive to walk into a city that feels empty, regardless of culture or how well the people making it were able to express themself through unrestricted building.

 

I believe it would be more productive to tackle this issue, as a prerequisite to tackling the freebuild issue.


Without proper execution, freebuild will always be bad. In order to be executed properly, the issue with ghost-towns and constant dividing of activity would need to be a non-issue as freebuild would again only amplify this effect. Not even mentioning that it would likely be very bad for new players who already have an insanely hard time to find consistent RP, as now many people would be in split off into areas that mainly experienced people would know of or straight up secluded from everyone else.


If we can agree that many (not all) people who create nations aren't doing so only out of annoyance with a current one but moreso that they have the means and people to make a nation which they can rule over -- Making it easier for people to make nations will feed into the current loop where all large cities are drained of activity via their own playerbase segmenting.

I've experienced, witnessed, and even partaked in efforts like this many times when I was none-the-wiser. Many cities, for example Sutica, used to actually be very active and feel /alive/, and now when you go there you'd be hard pressed to find four whole players within the entire city.
 

 

That's a failure on nations, the way to think about it is this:

 

Every nation is comprised of veteran players as its leading playerbase, this leading playerbase has "co-leads" co-leads are people who help lead but can also become leaders on their own. If your co-leads dislike what you're doing or feel like they need to segment their clique then that's a failure on the NL as he was unable to keep his co-leads in line. Weak NL's are supposed to be purged through a coup, civil war or external nation declaring war on them.

This natural cycle of selection has been discouraged for over two maps, the staff (and by extent the playerbase) simply don't allow wars to happen and don't encourage them. In fact, everything is done by players and staff alike to discourage conflict and so incompetent or bad leaders are continuously allowed into positions they shouldn't have. Once in these positions, the only option is to leave the nation but then because there's no freebuild you have nowhere else to go. This means that you are effectively shackled to a bad nation lead and any bad co-leads he may have kept.

This is more-so an issue because of a lack of proper wars, coup requirements, etc. There's simply no way for power hungry co-leads to attempt power grabs inside nations without essentially controlling a large chunk of the playerbase. Even if you do control a large chunk of the playerbase, your only option is to take all of them and quit the server. There's no where to go and the world team won't accept your charter without admin involvement.

 

Another issue is that new players aren't cultivated into new co-leads, because there's no freebuild natural leaders are not allowed or encouraged to create cliques. This means that the only way leadership material can grow and prosper is if a nation actively gives these players opportunities to grow and develop which they do not. This is because co-leads are a threat to existing co-leads and their leader.

 

Norland is a great example of this, the original clique (which I am a part of) was very dominant but refused to cultivate new leadership. This meant that when the staff decidedly banned over half of the original clique, Norland was left virtually leaderless and the individuals that had come in previously were clueless on how to proceed. This led to a period in which various power grabs were attempted and ultimately the Elysium clique under Daengie and Astrias took over after my failed removal of Astrias's character IRP. This was then further complicated by the arrival of disowned co-leads that had caused issues for the dominant clique prior. 

In conclusion, freebuild is great because it allows players to learn leadership qualities and seek more from nations which in turn means that weak nations (and their leaders) get culled from leadership positions and power dynamics. Norland originally started as a freebuild, Talons started as a freebuild, Elvenesse (when welves were dominant) was freebuild I believe. Freebuild is needed so that disenfranchised players have somewhere to go when nations fail them.

 



 

37 minutes ago, ShouHeiKun said:

It's evidently clear that nothing will be changed if we are all calling for action in different areas, if we as a community overwhelmingly targeted one issue prior to moving to the next in ascending order, there might be a chance that someone will listen. For example, if 100 people were yelling to add fast travel, it would be magnitudes more effective than 20 people vying for fast travel, 20 for freebuild, 20 for smaller map, 20 complaining about warclaims, etc. The latter only ends up with jaded admins who end up following their gut (and whichever group is prodding them the most about it on discord) instead of what the community actually wants, through no fault of their own. Granted this is an idealist take but it's the only way I can see any of anything getting done, with hordes empirical evidence indicating it. 

 

Untrue, I have spoken to some admins on these issues and they're well aware of all of them and want to solve said issues. The problem is that the playerbase itself is conflicted and some individuals on staff like to cause drama when the admins do decisions that they dislike. The world team for example will most likely have a stroke if freebuild is added, mainly because it would have to be an executive decision that they have no control over.

Ultimately, there are those who are self-serving and are undeserving of staff or leadership positions. These individuals can be linked to many of the issues we as a community have faced over the years as all they do is cause division on issues that should be pretty simple. They treat LoTC as a popularity contest and will actively shitpost on anyone they deem to be a threat to them or their clique.

Edited by drfate786
Link to post
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, drfate786 said:

 

That's a failure on nations, the way to think about it is this:

 

Every nation is comprised of veteran players as its leading playerbase, this leading playerbase has "co-leads" co-leads are people who help lead but can also become leaders on their own. If your co-leads dislike what you're doing or feel like they need to segment their clique then that's a failure on the NL as he was unable to keep his co-leads in line. Weak NL's are supposed to be purged through a coup, civil war or external nation declaring war on them.

This natural cycle of selection has been discouraged for over two maps, the staff (and by extent the playerbase) simply don't allow wars to happen and don't encourage them. In fact, everything is done by players and staff alike to discourage conflict and so incompetent or bad leaders are continuously allowed into positions they shouldn't have. Once in these positions, the only option is to leave the nation but then because there's no freebuild you have nowhere else to go. This means that you are effectively shackled to a bad nation lead and any bad co-leads he may have kept.

This is more-so an issue because of a lack of proper wars, coup requirements, etc. There's simply no way for power hungry co-leads to attempt power grabs inside nations without essentially controlling a large chunk of the playerbase. Even if you do control a large chunk of the playerbase, your only option is to take all of them and quit the server. There's no where to go and the world team won't accept your charter without admin involvement.

 

Another issue is that new players aren't cultivated into new co-leads, because there's no freebuild natural leaders are not allowed or encouraged to create cliques. This means that the only way leadership material can grow and prosper is if a nation actively gives these players opportunities to grow and develop which they do not. This is because co-leads are a threat to existing co-leads and their leader.

 

Norland is a great example of this, the original clique (which I am a part of) was very dominant but refused to cultivate new leadership. This meant that when the staff decidedly banned over half of the original clique, Norland was left virtually leaderless and the individuals that had come in previously were clueless on how to proceed. This led to a period in which various power grabs were attempted and ultimately the Elysium clique under Daengie and Astrias took over after my failed removal of Astrias's character IRP. This was then further complicated by the arrival of disowned co-leads that had caused issues for the dominant clique prior. 

In conclusion, freebuild is great because it allows players to learn leadership qualities and seek more from nations which in turn means that weak nations (and their leaders) get culled from leadership positions and power dynamics. Norland originally started as a freebuild, Talons started as a freebuild, Elvenesse (when welves were dominant) was freebuild I believe. Freebuild is needed so that disenfranchised players have somewhere to go when nations fail them.

 



 

I see more of your perspective now. Generally, this would work given the servers population was growing rapidly, but it seems not to be.

 

From what I've gathered, you're saying if everything is working properly, new strong communities will be built at the expense of communities which have lost their prime / are no longer run properly. This way, the nations wont be endlessly divided into minimum activity nations over time.

 

The problem with this is that in the context of a stagnating server, for each new nation, a nation must also perish 100% of the time, which it is not / won't ever be.

If a nation does not perish, it's playerbase will still be there, If there's 8 nations among 200 people, that's 25 players per nation. If it turns into 10 nations, that's 20 players per nation, the amount of nations is intrinsically tied to the amount of active players within any given nation. If it is easier to make a new nation than it is to destroy an old one, over time you will see more and more nations among the same 200 players, such that any given nation feels like a ghost town and is arguably active enough to be considered a nation.


Take for example, nation A has 100 active players, but is far out of its prime. One player takes 40 players and makes nation B. With no entire takeover of nation A or nation B, this will always lead to a recursive divide of the playerbase. Now, instead of Nation A having 14 people online during peak, they have roughly 8. Nation B will have roughly 6.

 

In order for this to be viable for the server, 100% of the time nation A or B will need to be destroyed to allow for their playerbase to be reabsorbed by the server, contributing to nation B's populace or various other strong communities within the server rather than having two semi-active nations. 

 

The interval in which a nation's population is divided is heavily tied to how easy it is for someone to make a new nation. If it is easy (i.e. you can do it in freebuild without considerable barrier to entry) to make a new nation, the interval will decrease, as eventually you will have someone who doesn't like how things are going / wants power, and they will take people to form a new nation.

Despite the lack of freebuild, there already is a comical amount of new nations being established even now, that each feed into a very niche style of rp that can often times be found or !merged! within parts of other nations. It feels like each time you go to cloud temple there's a new sign for a new starting up nation.

 

The ONLY way for the proposed viewpoint to be healthy for the server is if it is growing and can afford to continuously divide the playerbase to scale with playercount, right now it is severely in the red and the nations to player ratio is in need of a massive purge which I don't think will ever happen.

Edited by ShouHeiKun
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, ShouHeiKun said:

I see more of your perspective now.

The major value that is being presented along with freebuild is new communities / towns. In order for this to work, the creation of new communities cannot exceed the destruction of old communities, otherwise it will be endlessly divided over time and most towns will be operating at minimum activity. Generally, this would work given the servers population was growing rapidly, but it seems not to be.

 

From what I've gathered, you're saying if everything is working properly, new strong communities will be built at the expense of communities which have lost their prime / are no longer run properly. This way, the nations wont be endlessly divided into minimum activity nations over time.

 

The problem with this is that in the context of a stagnating server, for each new nation, a nation must also perish 100% of the time, which it is not / won't ever be.

If a nation does not perish, it's playerbase will still be there, If there's 8 nations among 200 people, that's 25 players per nation. If it turns into 10 nations, that's 20 players per nation, the amount of nations is intrinsically tied to the amount of active players within any given nation. If it is easier to make a new nation than it is to destroy an old one, over time you will see more and more nations among the same 200 players, such that any given nation feels like a ghost town and is arguably active enough to be considered a nation.


Take for example, nation A has 100 active players, but is far out of its prime. One player takes 40 players and makes nation B. With no entire takeover of nation A or nation B, this will always lead to a recursive divide of the playerbase. Now, instead of Nation A having 14 people online during peak, they have roughly 8. Nation B will have roughly 6.

 

In order for this to be viable for the server, 100% of the time nation A or B will need to be destroyed to allow for their playerbase to be reabsorbed by the server, contributing to nation B's populace or various other strong communities within the server rather than having two semi-active nations. 

 

The interval in which a nation's population is divided is heavily tied to how easy it is for someone to make a new nation. If it is easy (i.e. you can do it in freebuild without any barrier to entry) to make a new nation, the interval will decrease, as eventually you will have someone who doesn't like how things are going / wants power, and they will take people to form a new nation.

Despite the lack of freebuild, there already is a comical amount of new nations being established even now, that each feed into a very niche style of rp that can often times be found or !merged! within parts of other nations. It feels like each time you go to cloud temple there's a new sign for a new starting up nation.

 

The ONLY way for the proposed viewpoint to be healthy for the server is if it is growing and can afford to continuously divide the playerbase to scale with playercount, right now it is severely in the red and the nations to player ratio is in need of a massive purge which I don't think will ever happen.

 

The reason it's diminishing is because of the points I previously mentioned. People want conflict and are driven towards it but are denied it and have nowhere else to go. The nations that are made are made as a result of the world team accepting new nation charters which is a result of players no longer wishing to be a part of those nations that are failing them. Instead of leaving, they should be dealing with whatever is in their way IRP but simply can't because they aren't allowed or able to destroy that obstacle.

 

Political conflict is essentially banned, the only solution to any nation conflict is to quit the server, somehow make a new nation (which is becoming increasingly problematic) or get the NL and his co-leads banned/purged off the server through some immoral means. The primary reason the server is stagnating is part of the issue I described above, player conflict isn't allowed so stagnation ensues. Freebuild was integral to player conflict because it mean't that even if you took away a person's land they would still be able to have land elsewhere and could continue to oppose you.

Edited by drfate786
Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, drfate786 said:

 

The reason it's diminishing is because of the points I previously mentioned. People want conflict and are driven towards it but are denied it and have nowhere else to go. The nations that are made are made as a result of the world team accepting new nation charters are a result of players no longer wishing to be a part of the nations that are failing them. Instead of leaving, they should be dealing with whatever is in their way IRP but simply can't because they aren't allowed or able to destroy that obstacle.

 

Political conflict is essentially banned, the only solution to any nation conflict is to quit the server, somehow make a new nation (which is becoming increasingly problematic) or get the NL and his co-leads banned/purged off the server through some immoral means. The primary reason the server is stagnating is part of the issue I described above, player conflict isn't allowed so stagnation ensues. Freebuild was integral to player conflict because it mean't that even if you took away a person's land they would still be able to have land elsewhere and continue to oppose you.

Yes, I lean towards maximizing the amount of avenues that players can take within their nation to cause change. But with my issues on freebuild, I am already considering things with best-case scenario in terms of staff and rules.

Even if everything was structured perfectly, and 60% of the time people rebelled and caused change instead of splintering off, what I said still applies. 

 

Let's say political conflict is reintroduced in full force, it is a very brittle thing to rely on to regulate this as there can be very long periods of peace, nations which don't cause conflict with one another due to there being thousands of blocks to travel to reach one another, and alliances which an older nation is more likely to have such that even if they're weak the new nation can't declare war and fully destroy them.

Another thing to consider is even if the old nation is conquered, often times the new nation will annex the land, when the old nation would need to be razed 100% of the time in order to be healthy for the server. If the new nation simply annexes it, they still split their population (which will naturally be less than the original population of the old nation in their one city) among two cities.

 

Freebuild also poses an issue where rather than a defeated nation's populace splitting off into various other nations or the new nation, they'll resort to freebuild and have a new makeshift hub built in rocket-speed, many of these people are in a discord community with eachother and would have no incentive to be reabsorbed into the server's wide array of other nations. 

 

From my point of view, the solution comes in small pieces. Vying for a smaller map would lessen the distance from one nation to another, increasing probability for war. Vying for some form of cart hubs will allow for much more interaction between player groups, increase likelihood for new players to stay due to being able to quickly find rp. Vying for a better system for political conflict / nation conflict will lessen the interval in which new nations are made due to coups and changes being made by people within the nation rather than them requiring a new nation. Vying for a warclaim system which makes it easier to conquer and destroy old and barely active nations without rules or staff inhibiting it. And eventually, the benefits of freebuild would outweigh its negative effects on player interaction. 

Edited by ShouHeiKun
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ShouHeiKun said:

Yes, I lean towards maximizing the amount of avenues that players can take within their nation to cause change. But with my issues on freebuild, I am already considering things with best-case scenario in terms of staff and rules.

Even if everything was structured perfectly, and 60% of the time people rebelled and caused change instead of splintering off, what I said still applies. 

 

Let's say political conflict is reintroduced in full force, it is a very brittle thing to rely on to regulate this as there can be very long periods of peace, nations which don't cause conflict with one another due to there being thousands of blocks to travel to reach one another, and alliances which an older nation is more likely to have such that even if they're weak the new nation can't declare war and fully destroy them.

Another thing to consider is even if the old nation is conquered, often times the new nation will annex the land, when the old nation would need to be razed 100% of the time in order to be healthy for the server. If the new nation simply annexes it, they still split their population (which will naturally be less than the original population of the old nation in their one city) among two cities.

 

Freebuild also poses an issue where rather than a defeated nation's populace splitting off into various other nations or the new nation, they'll resort to freebuild and have a new makeshift hub built in rocket-speed, many of these people are in a discord community with eachother and would have no incentive to be reabsorbed into the server's wide array of other nations. 

 

From my point of view, the solution comes in small pieces. Vying for a smaller map would lessen the distance from one nation to another, increasing probability for war. Vying for some form of cart hubs will allow for much more interaction between player groups, increase likelihood for new players to stay due to being able to quickly find rp. Vying for a better system for political conflict / nation conflict will lessen the interval in which new nations are made due to coups and changes being made by people within the nation rather than them requiring a new nation. And eventually, the benefits of freebuild would outweigh its negative effects on player interaction.

 

A smaller map would just acerbate the situation and make it even worse. We've tried smaller maps and it just led to mass inactivity. The only time a smaller map worked was with Anthos, and that was because Anthos was a period in which player conflict was very sought after. IE, it was acceptable for human supremacists, in the form of the white lotus.. To literally form blockades on the roads with the sole intent of "trimming" elven ears, all to make them look passably human. Try that now and you wouldn't even be able to build a blockade let alone attempt such a conflict without being meta-rallied against.

Which is another thing, player raids were uncapped and statuses didn't exist. You had to know friend from foe and had to coordinate.

Edited by drfate786
Link to post
Share on other sites

Untrue, I have spoken to some admins on these issues and they're well aware of all of them and want to solve said issues. The problem is that the playerbase itself is conflicted and some individuals on staff like to cause drama when the admins do decisions that they dislike. The world team for example will most likely have a stroke if freebuild is added, mainly because it would have to be an executive decision that they have no control over.

That's what I'm saying. The playerbase is conflicted and I believe a big reason is because of the diversification of issues which we discuss. It's very hard to reach a consensus when most of the discussion around suggestions are happening on small scale. Take the freebuild issue, if 20 people are arguing about it in a thread when theres 4 other issues that 20 people are also arguing about in a thread, the opinions of staff will likely hold more weight. Conversely, if 100 people are arguing about it in a thread, you will be able to see which side the community favors greatly, and the opinions of staff would hold less weight. Furthermore, more members of the community would be indoctrinated to hold the current position and push for change.


Ultimately, there are those who are self-serving and are undeserving of staff or leadership positions. These individuals can be linked to many of the issues we as a community have faced over the years as all they do is cause division on issues that should be pretty simple. They treat LoTC as a popularity contest and will actively shitpost on anyone they deem to be a threat to them or their clique.

Agreed heavily.

9 minutes ago, drfate786 said:

 

A smaller map would just acerbate the situation and make it even worse. We've tried smaller maps and it just led to mass inactivity. The only time a smaller map worked was with Anthos, and that was because Anthos was a period in which player conflict was very sought after. IE, it was acceptable for human supremacists, in the form of the white lotus.. To literally form blockades on the roads with the sole intent of "trimming" elven ears, all to make them look passably human. Try that now and you wouldn't even be able to build a blockade let alone attempt such a conflict without being meta-rallied against.

Which is another thing, player raids were uncapped and statuses didn't exist. You had to know friend from foe and had to coordinate.

The current map is large beyond proportion. It is simply too big. Gone are the days when orcs used to interact with humans, now they only do laughable raids on elvenesse simply because it's the only place they can run to within an hour. Smaller maps mean more interaction both with players and with nations. Border disputes, trade disputes, etc. I believe it's essential. I wasn't aware it led to mass inactivity, or if it was a miscorrelation, but I believe if done correctly a smaller more cohesive map would go a very very long way. After all the alternative is a massive amusement park where you personally can't really impact it in any significant way.

Edited by ShouHeiKun
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ShouHeiKun said:

Untrue, I have spoken to some admins on these issues and they're well aware of all of them and want to solve said issues. The problem is that the playerbase itself is conflicted and some individuals on staff like to cause drama when the admins do decisions that they dislike. The world team for example will most likely have a stroke if freebuild is added, mainly because it would have to be an executive decision that they have no control over.

That's what I'm saying. The playerbase is conflicted and I believe a big reason is because of the diversification of issues which we discuss. It's very hard to reach a consensus when most of the discussion around suggestions are happening on small scale. Take the freebuild issue, if 20 people are arguing about it in a thread when theres 4 other issues that 20 people are also arguing about in a thread, the opinions of staff will likely hold more weight. Conversely, if 100 people are arguing about it in a thread, you will be able to see which side the community favors greatly, and the opinions of staff would hold less weight.


Ultimately, there are those who are self-serving and are undeserving of staff or leadership positions. These individuals can be linked to many of the issues we as a community have faced over the years as all they do is cause division on issues that should be pretty simple. They treat LoTC as a popularity contest and will actively shitpost on anyone they deem to be a threat to them or their clique.

Agreed heavily.

The current map is large beyond proportion. It is simply too big. Gone are the days when orcs used to interact with humans, now they only do laughable raids on elvenesse simply because it's the only place they can run to within an hour. Smaller maps mean more interaction both with players and with nations. Border disputes, trade disputes, etc. I believe it's essential. I wasn't aware it led to mass inactivity, or if it was a miscorrelation, but I believe if done correctly a smaller more cohesive map would go a very very long way. After all the alternative is a massive amusement park where you personally can't really impact it in any significant way.

 

In order for a smaller map to work players need to want conflict and it has to be promoted, rules can't be used as a shield to defend against orc raids and general banditry. The issue with nation RP is that the community has created a hug box where no conflict is allowed because they're afraid of losing. Simply put, the hugbox has to be dismantled and the players must be re-introduced to conflict. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, drfate786 said:

 

In order for a smaller map to work players need to want conflict and it has to be promoted, rules can't be used as a shield to defend against orc raids and general banditry. The issue with nation RP is that the community has created a hug box where no conflict is allowed because they're afraid of losing. Simply put, the hugbox has to be dismantled and the players must be re-introduced to conflict. 

Couldn't have said it better myself. Quite a bit is done to promote this behavior. Tying in OOC rewards with IC, such as voting to get mina, donating for soulbinds, etc etc, promotes a very negative mindset which can only serve to encourage people to merge OOC and IC. Many other small things feed into it like for example the lack of a fleshed out combat system making it very easy for OOC tension to build, such that party A gets mad at party B OOCly and now amplifies their IC efforts to ruin party B's experience, and vice versa. There's no other option aside it devolving into each side trying to find whatever rule they can exploit / bait the other side into breaking, or have friends who are staff do their bidding which is a reality that is ignored by many with conflict of interest.

Edited by ShouHeiKun
Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, NotEvilAtAll said:

Atlas actually looked pretty good in all honesty (even the freebuild areas).

 

It really didn't, it had some ******* dreadful builds even jammed between nation regions and so on. Like yeah there were some nice builds, but the majority were either half-finished or like "my first Minecraft house" builds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 7/28/2021 at 9:10 AM, NotEvilAtAll said:

Arcas wasn't a freebuild map? Unless you are talking about the wildlands, which was not full of griefed builds whenever I explored that corner of the map.

 

Did you mean to say Atlas? Atlas actually looked pretty good in all honesty (even the freebuild areas). I fly around it regularly on the museum server and I prefer it to Almaris. Love it or hate it, the freebuild system of Atlas set up a lot of the nations we now know and love. Elvenesse used to be Aegrothond in freebuild back in Atlas. The modern Dwarven Urguan state was founded in freebuild in Atlas. Orcs used freebuild to get back on their feet after losing their nation status twice (it was twice, right?). Adria in Arcas used to be Belvitz in Atlas (and Curon too I think, I remember Curon was in freebuild when it was first founded).

 

If you think about it, early Arcas was really just a map with all the successful freebuild towns on it (plus a few nations that lived all the way through the big coalition wars of Atlas).

 

based and objective take. 

 

Though I dont necessarily want to see map-wide free build again there should be a substantial wildlands area for players to use so that they can avoid WT chokeholds on land.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...