My Honest Thoughts

[JoshBright 2104]

10 hours ago, Spinzir said:

God forbid if the same stagnant nations we've had for 10 years take a tumble.

the thing is this does not apply to just nations, it applies to settlements too, well inactive nations and settlements will be killed off completely under the settlement rules. this isn't going to be used against strong nations with lots of lands left but against small nations that are yet to take off or brand new settlements 

 

9 hours ago, Basil Moroul said:

From what I understand is that they have to leave the nation 1 tile left so they can not kill an entire nation, with 1 tile left that could add a lot to rp idk why you think it wouldn't 

 

 

"I understand is that they have to leave the nation 1 tile left so they can not kill an entire nation"
no they need to have one tile left in order to take it over completely, in regards to small but growing nations or settlements this can kill them off completely before they even have a chance to grow.

13 hours ago, MapleSunflower said:

Good post. ngl

thank you :)

12 hours ago, Sykogenic said:

 

 

Agreed that I dont think subjugate really keeps the standard that they're setting. It's also rather confusing IMO, but I might be overthinking. Here's my original question in staff discord that did not get a response on re Subjugation:

 

"But can we get a little more clarification on this? Isn't this just conquest on a 3 month eviction timer for the attacker? What if defenders only have 1 tile to being with? What does that mean for non-nation settlements that dont have a single tile at all? Whats even the point of the 3 month timer? To give the original defenders time to rebel?"

I agree that the admin team needs to clarify it completely as it was left way too lose and can be interpreted 150 different ways, but IMO it needs to be scrapped altogether 

11 hours ago, Laeonathan said:

Yes, because flying horses force you to make your builds ugly and people want stuff to be pretty.

 

The scenery plays a big part in roleplay - imagine a movie with super ugly effect like in the past. Even though the acting was brilliant, very little people watch because the immersion just isn't as good. :)

 

12 hours ago, K_rusader said:

Hmm had that happen to me before can't remember who exactly but they had an Orange nametag. Really screwed up my Orenian Guard rp.

 

This is a fantasy server we have giant lizard monsters but we can't have flying horses????

krus, buddy, let the horses go

12 hours ago, Laeonathan said:

I agree, while I think CRP is a lot of fun - it's kinda odd tp CRP with more then 6 people...

 

12 hours ago, The60th said:

Running into a city, with
[!] A man runs forward his sword at the ready shouting "Halt!" lowering his blade he blocks the path
On copy paste, and hitting that sweet sweet ctrl+v enter
Then doing
#looc 12+ pvp?
Really brings a lot to my roleplay

 

 

Conquest should be a thing in my opinion, you live by the sword you die by the sword. If you can't make enough allies or rally your own troops to defend a nation or settlement you don't deserve to have a settlement. The idea that large nations will just gobble up smaller ones I feel is rather irrelevant because the costs are so much higher to conquer land then buy new land from WT. 

 

 

12 hours ago, wowj said:

>RP SERVER
>DOESNT WANNA CRP

> Y?

 

CRP is fun so don't get me wrong there, however. spending an hour rule lawyering over "can I do xyz to instakill you" is just.... not fun with  40 people or even 20 for that matter.  just not my cup of tea. 

 

 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

I see that people are both agreeing and disagreeing, I completely welcome this, I wanted this to be an open form of debate or at least an open topic, ill try to reply to as much as I can but I won't reply to anything that seems trolling or insulting :D 

[MadOne 3375]

You keep mentioning how there is a risk for smaller settlements that are growing to die, and thus we shouldn't have subjugation at all which I don't really see tbh. Founding a new nation should be hard, and people shouldn't get arbitrary protection status just because they are a smaller community.

 

If a smaller community wants to survive, they should play their cards right and engage in constructive roleplay such as diplomacy, or seek survival in other ways (for example having another nation protect them) or quasi-independent vassalage agreements. Yes, this gives already powerful nations slightly more power, but if you remove subjugation just because smaller settlements have a slightly difficult time, you would be also removing subjugation of powerful nations, and extending their already long lifespan by irl years. Nations should prosper and die to create a good narrative. 

[monkeypoacher 6993]

11 hours ago, argonian said:

roll with the punches

 

massivecraft is a great place if you just want tavern rp

 

this is a weird thing to say because the server has been diet massivecraft for the past 3 years since the w2emps. you can only find rp in cities, you have horrible mmorpg tier factions screaming at you on discord to get on and boost player numbers for the next raid/event, absurd lore power creep, and the exact same people & nations are in charge with no heed for progression or dynamic rp. the only thing massivecraft has that we don't is open, unmoderated erotic roleplay

 

boggles my mind that some ppl think this is all because there isn't enough pvp default, and if we just got back to raiding each other all the time the same edaters and powermongers wouldn't still be in charge

[argonian 12836]

13 hours ago, monkeypoacher said:

 

this is a weird thing to say because the server has been diet massivecraft for the past 3 years since the w2emps. 

and this rule change is a welcome move away from that. I don't see your point 

 

I agree tho activity checks and nations need to **** off next