Jump to content

9.0 Your View - Building on Roads


itdontmatta
 Share

Road Rules  

388 members have voted

  1. 1. Restrict building on roads?

    • Yes
      178
    • No
      210


Recommended Posts

Nations should absolutely be able to build on roads. 
 

The flow of trade and foot traffic is a core part of RP and storytelling. That entire mechanic is totally lost by these unimpeachable “staff” roads which functionally deny nations sovereignty over their own lands. 
 

At this time in the server’s life, we need to be preserving more avenues for RP rather than getting rid of them. In addition to being totally unrealistic (i.e settlements throughout history largely cropped up on trade routes, rather than miles away from them in the manner of a modern-day highway turnoff), these “theme park” roads make the world ugly and static. Why should your character care about trade flows when the staff take responsibility for ensuring nothing ever impedes them? 
 

If a build on a road is obstructing the flow of traffic, then as I see it there are two options:

 

1) Use it as an opportunity for RP/storytelling and address it that way; or 

2) Simply find or create another route. Go around! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let nations do what they want with their lands man

Link to post
Share on other sites

roads should go through towns because that's how roads naturally develop (discounting modern motorways) and that's what creates the most RP.

 

it's annoying and bad for noobs (and returning players) to have every settlement be at the very end of some turn-off, instead of just on the road where they should be.

 

so that's a no for me. let ppl put their towns, forts, etc. on roads.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am very much for being able to build on or around roads. Having roadside caravans, taverns, stalls or other such helps with the mercantile aspects of roleplay, adds some cool flavour.

 

Being able to blockade a road, though I am mixed on this, a positive I see is that, encourages the player to then seek other ways to get to their destination that otherwise they would have never gone. If the mountain pass is blocked, then the player could head through another nation and enter a different way. Through that there is more exploration and then people visit more places that otherwise they would have never known about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Sarven said:

I am very much for being able to build on or around roads. Having roadside caravans, taverns, stalls or other such helps with the mercantile aspects of roleplay, adds some cool flavour.

 

Being able to blockade a road, though I am mixed on this, a positive I see is that, encourages the player to then seek other ways to get to their destination that otherwise they would have never gone. If the mountain pass is blocked, then the player could head through another nation and enter a different way. Through that there is more exploration and then people visit more places that otherwise they would have never known about.

yeah one time in axios haense collapsed the mountain pass between themselves and oren during a rebellion

 

n then it had to be dug out again by the interior ministry after the war ended

 

was cute

Link to post
Share on other sites

Restrict the building to things that will benefit road travellers. Camps, taverns, stables, markets and such. Create cross roads in certain spots, perhaps, to allow smaller settlements a connection to the road, whilst still being a decent distance away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fed up of Oren's hideous roadside builds. Needs to be restricted and builds like that ultimately held to a higher standard when pasted in.

 

There's a difference between pretty roadside tavern or small camp or memorial and hideous ******* fort or gardens landscar that is clearly meant to CC in PVP with no additional purpose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Howdy.
I find it nonsensical to restrict building on roads... Much like I find it nonsensical roads are prebuild, rather than following the most logical courses between settlements, both existing and newly arising.

From historical perspective, settlements predate roads. Roads are build to link settlements. Once they exist, other settlements arise aside these roads to cater to various needs of its travellers and serviced towns. Dealing with these settlements and roads arising irp should be the ideal LotC goes for.

From a mechanical perspective, regarding speed bonuses... This may need more staff engagement with road-maintenance. Regarding warfare, it may require better ways of dealing with lone settlements, without engaging in full blown war with a tile and its associated nation...

But, control of roads should also open up opportunities for proper smuggler rp and finding 'alternative' routes into places.
If a road is closed, it needs to be obvious what the rp reasons for it are and what alternatives there are for travellers finding themselves stuck in front of a blockade.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe allowing building on roads is less invasive of player agency over way the map is played, which is something that is often yearned for. Itll help the world feel more moldable and interactive.

 

I can’t say whether that is ultimately good or bad because I am not speaking in hindsight, but at the very least allowing seems to be more natural to dynamic rp and may even be more in line with the mission statement.

 

Curious to read what others are thinking but I wanted to put my initial thoughts into the vortex first.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I do think that we should try to keep the actual roads 100% clear, I do think that it might be okay if you’re building on the roads if they’re right outside of a city. I know during the Heartland War recently that some cities put up barriers on the roads leading into their cities to prevent opposing forces from getting in as easily.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, argonian said:

yeah one time in axios haense collapsed the mountain pass between themselves and oren during a rebellion

 

n then it had to be dug out again by the interior ministry after the war ended

 

was cute

 

Sounds like good RP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A nation's road, a nation's business. If it affects RP, then fix it IRP. There's no need to hide behind OOC rules in regards to nations building on their own land when you can easily solve it IRP too. Hell, do what the MRA or other insurgent LOTC groups did and burn shit down if you don't like it

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, argonian said:

yeah one time in axios haense collapsed the mountain pass between themselves and oren during a rebellion

 

n then it had to be dug out again by the interior ministry after the war ended

 

was cute


Absolutely - and myself and fellow amateur history writers got a few paragraphs out of these ‘trade’ dynamics alone, as brief as they were. It wouldn’t have been possible with the unimpeachable CT highway! 
 

There is really no case for eliminating these RP hooks for some imagined efficiency bonus - particularly when you have functional FTs from spawn to settlements, as well as possible inter-settlement FTs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Esterlen said:


Absolutely - and myself and fellow amateur history writers got a few paragraphs out of these ‘trade’ dynamics alone, as brief as they were. It wouldn’t have been possible with the unimpeachable CT highway! 
 

There is really no case for eliminating these RP hooks for some imagined efficiency bonus - particularly when you have functional FTs from spawn to settlements, as well as possible inter-settlement FTs. 

Yeah I think this is a classic case of keeping a solution to a problem that no longer exists.

 

The whole system that turned roads into some United Nations extranational zone was brought in because with a CT on the map, you'd inevitably have nations that couldn't be reached without going through other nations. So if that other nation had a town on the road, they could starve your nation of activity entirely. All because they won the lottery with new map placement. So it was a sensible rule, even if it brought in negative side-effects.

 

But with an off-map CT, no nation is ever in the way of another since there's no central hub. So you can't starve a nation of activity just by putting shit on the road to them, because people will just warp straight to that nation, or else take a different road. Anyone who's seen the new map can tell that there's no one main road to a place, with everything else being an arduous detour (as with this map), but rather there's always a couple routes of roughly equal length and importance between any two locations. So the issue this system was brought in to solve simply doesn't exist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...