Thoughts on Migrational Invaders on LOTC?

[Javert 5573]

Back at it again with more curiosity from my ADHD induced mind. We all are aware of Nomad RP and its scarcity (Despite how fun it is). However, something that hasn't really been explored or considered on LOTC that had a profound impact on IRL history is Migrational/Nomad Invaders. Examples of such include the Magyars, Anatolian Turks, etc. Therefore I want to know the opinion of the community - how would you feel if a group of people tried something similar on LOTC? Perhaps a staff eventline, or simply players doing it themselves? Who knows, just a thought I had.

[HIGH_FIRE 4118]

@CasualNuker did an event called the Ruffian's War in early Balian, which you may remember as Norland were involved in. It was this concept of Balianese migrants fighting the tribes of the southern lands.

[NotEvilAtAll 9943]

Sadly nomadic lifestyle does not work well with a tile system and minas fees, applications, etc. required to move your realm. Maybe a lair could work but again it’d take a lot of effort to move it around.

[ClassyDryad 1733]

I'd honestly dig a full nomadic culture. I think the only way it would work though is if a large number of nations let you have a tiny outpost on each of their lands. The red tape around settlements prevents it otherwise.

[JuliusAakerlund 1780]

For event applications I can and have seen this been done before, may these events be player - or ST made. When it comes to sort of "Group" vs "Group" warfare it just dies in the womb due to griefers and abusers. I think the most important thing to consider first and foremost is how you yourself would abuse something. Though obviously it shouldn't stop us from creating good content, there's some mindfulness that needs to exist. I think unfortunately this idea is one of those that gets filed away in the cabinet under "Good on paper but not in practice". In the real world there's actual consequence if a nomadic group fails in their conquest. While on LoTC there's no real way for us to not make it a broken war / pvp fueled loophole that can easily be abused, bar making nomadic groups no fun. I think the way we meassure investment on LoTC that makes you worthy of participating in war also excludes groups that has nothing to lose. Likewise it makes me ask the question, how would a nation go about going to war with a nomadic group? What benefit would there be?

 

There's been a few nomadic groups on LoTC and while they can't declare warclaims it seemingly fulfilled the enjoyment most of them were looking for.

 

Anyway, always interesting to see these topics and just as interesting to theorize. This is just my two cents and obviously I'm not the fun police by any means. I hope you have a good week @Javert.

[TheosVult 325]

Would be cool if staff allows people to build tents and small structures in empty tiles or with permission of the tile owner.... tile fee could be like 50 mina person each week to be added to empty tiles. Would be cute...

Although reading Julius' comment it would definitely be an issue if they started raiding... 

[Azukazi Khuzai 138]

I used to run and play a great nomad tribe called the scydri, based on old charioteer and Scythian type bronze age cultures. It's a ton of fun and if there's more people interested, come join because I've already got some people in our tribe again! 

 

In the last map we had camps in the north, in dwarven lands, in krugmar, and in old Elysium and our rp was often maintaining herds and moving between the camps, and doing fun cattle raids against the settled men. 

 

There was a time when all of myrine rallied to try and chase us since we kept taking their cattle brazenly. But in the feigned retreat we captured the whole army and the Lord of myrine had to bend for amnesty and offered to maintain sacred cattle. 

 

The cattle raids were because people kept keeping cattle, sacred beasts gifts of the creator, are kept within tight barns and walls or in caves, hidden from the open sky. Denied pasture and place to roam. This is cursed and they must be freed, their spirit back to the sky. 

 

Before, we often raided and did cool tribal rp and war with the cimmerian tribe in the north. To defeat them we allied with the conchuks after defeating them and taking them into our tribe

 

If you guys wanna retvrn to the steppe, then let us. And we will bring about an era of True Men, not the settled men who have lost the way of the creator when we all lived under the sky   

Edited October 17, 2023 by Azukazi Khuzai

[TN_TURKEY 101]

I come out of my rock to speak on this topic, as it is one I enjoy:

Nomadic/Tribal rp has and is done on the server. We've had groups such as the Cimmerians, the Azukazi/Hongali, the Svarlings, the Cingedoz, so on so forth. There have been plenty of tribes with plenty of aesthetics ranging from germanic to mongolian. The problem honestly comes down to player interest and accessibility. It is not very easy to play a nomadic or tribal people due to the mechanics of the tiles yes, and also just its not the most popular method of play on this server. I've had time in a small number of these groups over the past year and rarely have I ever seen any of them get more than 5 players active at once. Its a very Very niche grouping that only really hits the world stage of popularity when directly involved with other player factions, or with ST events. The only real answer to making it more prominent is to get more players involved with that sort of thing.

((Edit: another obstacle I realize is also just people being able to Find these groups. Often when Nomads do manage to create lairs or settlements they are off the beaten path and secreted away, meaning its very difficult for potentially interested players to even Find these groups. 

Edited October 17, 2023 by TN_TURKEY

[Ibn Khaldun 7729]

3 hours ago, NotEvilAtAll said:

Sadly nomadic lifestyle does not work well with a tile system and minas fees, applications, etc. required to move your realm. Maybe a lair could work but again it’d take a lot of effort to move it around.

 

I personally believe that good lobbying from good-faith players can usually overcome this obstacle. I have had good outcomes from simply sitting with Nation Leaders and negotiating reasonable "encampments" being pitched.

 

2 hours ago, JuliusAakerlund said:

For event applications I can and have seen this been done before, may these events be player - or ST made. When it comes to sort of "Group" vs "Group" warfare it just dies in the womb due to griefers and abusers. I think the most important thing to consider first and foremost is how you yourself would abuse something. Though obviously it shouldn't stop us from creating good content, there's some mindfulness that needs to exist. I think unfortunately this idea is one of those that gets filed away in the cabinet under "Good on paper but not in practice". In the real world there's actual consequence if a nomadic group fails in their conquest. While on LoTC there's no real way for us to not make it a broken war / pvp fueled loophole that can easily be abused, bar making nomadic groups no fun. I think the way we meassure investment on LoTC that makes you worthy of participating in war also excludes groups that has nothing to lose. Likewise it makes me ask the question, how would a nation go about going to war with a nomadic group? What benefit would there be?

 

There's been a few nomadic groups on LoTC and while they can't declare warclaims it seemingly fulfilled the enjoyment most of them were looking for.

 

Anyway, always interesting to see these topics and just as interesting to theorize. This is just my two cents and obviously I'm not the fun police by any means. I hope you have a good week @Javert.

 

I know you to be a good-faith player, so I will not interpret this uncharitably. The real-world consequences you speak of are actually more mitigated for nomadic civilizations versus sedentary civilizations. You also ignore the very obvious benefit of "waging war on a nomadic group" which is the promotion of conflict and to give players the opportunity to break monotony of SoL roleplay.

 

2 hours ago, TN_TURKEY said:

I come out of my rock to speak on this topic, as it is one I enjoy:

Nomadic/Tribal rp has and is done on the server. We've had groups such as the Cimmerians, the Azukazi/Hongali, the Svarlings, the Cingedoz, so on so forth. There have been plenty of tribes with plenty of aesthetics ranging from germanic to mongolian. The problem honestly comes down to player interest and accessibility. It is not very easy to play a nomadic or tribal people due to the mechanics of the tiles yes, and also just its not the most popular method of play on this server. I've had time in a small number of these groups over the past year and rarely have I ever seen any of them get more than 5 players active at once. Its a very Very niche grouping that only really hits the world stage of popularity when directly involved with other player factions, or with ST events. The only real answer to making it more prominent is to get more players involved with that sort of thing.

((Edit: another obstacle I realize is also just people being able to Find these groups. Often when Nomads do manage to create lairs or settlements they are off the beaten path and secreted away, meaning its very difficult for potentially interested players to even Find these groups. 

 

This feedback is probably the most valuable regarding the topic broached by the OP. Nomadic roleplay is only as good as the members composing it and since nomadic roleplay tends not to feed into the nation system mechanics - you don't find a lot of players staying consistent unless they are driven by something other than the accrual of land, OOC clout, or min-maxing variables (though I abuse the use of the min-maxing part). TN_Turkey was actually part of the nomadic phase of the Cingedoz in the late Almaris map that, quite frankly, was bust given we were mainly composed of older semi-retired players who didn't give a damn about that land, clout, or min-maxing but had difficulty navigating the different migrations; so he speaks true about the matter.

 

For the sake of putting my money where my mouth is. If there are enough players interested in a nomadic cultural player-group, let me know. I won't lead it, but I'll certainly write for it and will try to build connections between the smaller existing nomadic groups.

[ScreamingDingo 16990]

The true direction for orcs is having them pop up as an 'event' horde every 4 months that allows players to join and invade different nations and establish temporary camps before disappearing.

The never-ending green tide crisis

[JuliusAakerlund 1780]

16 hours ago, Ibn Khaldun said:

 

I personally believe that good lobbying from good-faith players can usually overcome this obstacle. I have had good outcomes from simply sitting with Nation Leaders and negotiating reasonable "encampments" being pitched.

 

 

I know you to be a good-faith player, so I will not interpret this uncharitably. The real-world consequences you speak of are actually more mitigated for nomadic civilizations versus sedentary civilizations. You also ignore the very obvious benefit of "waging war on a nomadic group" which is the promotion of conflict and to give players the opportunity to break monotony of SoL roleplay.

 

 

This feedback is probably the most valuable regarding the topic broached by the OP. Nomadic roleplay is only as good as the members composing it and since nomadic roleplay tends not to feed into the nation system mechanics - you don't find a lot of players staying consistent unless they are driven by something other than the accrual of land, OOC clout, or min-maxing variables (though I abuse the use of the min-maxing part). TN_Turkey was actually part of the nomadic phase of the Cingedoz in the late Almaris map that, quite frankly, was bust given we were mainly composed of older semi-retired players who didn't give a damn about that land, clout, or min-maxing but had difficulty navigating the different migrations; so he speaks true about the matter.

 

For the sake of putting my money where my mouth is. If there are enough players interested in a nomadic cultural player-group, let me know. I won't lead it, but I'll certainly write for it and will try to build connections between the smaller existing nomadic groups.

 

While true that Nomadic Groups in real life certainly had less to lose than a hunkered down civilization, there were still stakes. What I try to point at more firmly is that in real life there's actual consequence to your actions. If you go to war and fail you've lost many precious individuals, someone's son, someone's daughter - perhaps your father. To the bad faith actor none of these elements matter, their characters are a service to a goal - not to roleplay. If they die they simply return with a new name and the same position, to fight another day - towards their goal. While to those of good faith the loss of their character is a large one, months of work and roleplay lost in a conflict - one without worth. To make a conflict worthy of someone losing such time investment, player, nation or otherwise there must be equal stakes. While I wish I could believe that a mechanic like this, if introduced, would not be abused by the bad faith actors. I fear it will and unless you make a overcomplicated system chances are slim it would ever see the light of day. I have myself lead a nomadic group (albeit peaceful). My words speak not towards nomadic groups having no place on the server, but rather as a war group. I strongly believe in the beauty and roleplay potential that nomadic groups can and have brought to the server. Do I think there are ways for Nomadic groups to participate in war in the current system? I certainly think so. Though most of those groups will have a piece of "land" or a location they call "home" that can be conquered. I think to me the question becomes more how would you prevent nomadic groups being able to warclaim nations from being abused? 

 

While promoting conflict and breaking SoL Roleplay is certainly a part of the greater experience of LoTC. I think it's also fair to say that there is a lot of stake in those situations. In my belief I wager to say that there are very few instances where a nation facing a horde of enemies that have no tangible assets, or any sort of consequence for losing, would be willing to bite this bullet, and why should they? We're all volunteers at the end of the day. It's important to remember that the stakes here are based around respecting the time and investment of the playerbase. While I wish I could be as hopeful as you on the subject I suppose I am more of a realist. While we have our disagreements I have nothing but respect for you, as I have had for many years. I hope you have a good week @Ibn Khaldun and at the end of the day, I am just a retired LoTCer. These are just my thoughts, no more, no less.

 

Side note: I support raids and pre-planned battles or agreed upon warclaims. My critique is entirely based on and against the idea of nomadic groups (without land of their own) being able to Warclaim anyone wantonly.

[Ibn Khaldun 7729]

2 hours ago, JuliusAakerlund said:

 

While true that Nomadic Groups in real life certainly had less to lose than a hunkered down civilization, there were still stakes. What I try to point at more firmly is that in real life there's actual consequence to your actions. If you go to war and fail you've lost many precious individuals, someone's son, someone's daughter - perhaps your father. To the bad faith actor none of these elements matter, their characters are a service to a goal - not to roleplay. If they die they simply return with a new name and the same position, to fight another day - towards their goal. While to those of good faith the loss of their character is a large one, months of work and roleplay lost in a conflict - one without worth. To make a conflict worthy of someone losing such time investment, player, nation or otherwise there must be equal stakes. While I wish I could believe that a mechanic like this, if introduced, would not be abused by the bad faith actors. I fear it will and unless you make a overcomplicated system chances are slim it would ever see the light of day. I have myself lead a nomadic group (albeit peaceful). My words speak not towards nomadic groups having no place on the server, but rather as a war group. I strongly believe in the beauty and roleplay potential that nomadic groups can and have brought to the server. Do I think there are ways for Nomadic groups to participate in war in the current system? I certainly think so. Though most of those groups will have a piece of "land" or a location they call "home" that can be conquered. I think to me the question becomes more how would you prevent nomadic groups being able to warclaim nations from being abused? 

 

While promoting conflict and breaking SoL Roleplay is certainly a part of the greater experience of LoTC. I think it's also fair to say that there is a lot of stake in those situations. In my belief I wager to say that there are very few instances where a nation facing a horde of enemies that have no tangible assets, or any sort of consequence for losing, would be willing to bite this bullet, and why should they? We're all volunteers at the end of the day. It's important to remember that the stakes here are based around respecting the time and investment of the playerbase. While I wish I could be as hopeful as you on the subject I suppose I am more of a realist. While we have our disagreements I have nothing but respect for you, as I have had for many years. I hope you have a good week @Ibn Khaldun and at the end of the day, I am just a retired LoTCer. These are just my thoughts, no more, no less.

 

Side note: I support raids and pre-planned battles or agreed upon warclaims. My critique is entirely based on and against the idea of nomadic groups (without land of their own) being able to Warclaim anyone wantonly.

 

Before I start my reply, let me preface by saying that I respect your opinion and appreciate you replying in a neutral tone rather than a belligerent or defensive tone. Thank you:

 

I certainly do not deny the existence of bad-faith actors. I do not know what all maps you have played on before retiring, I was only around for 1.0 Aegis, 2.0 Asulon, then helped firespirit44 run the antagonists in I think the 5.0 or 6.0 maps before returning last year to a semi-active playing position. I think it would benefit the discussion if we name and explain who the bad-faith actors are and give as detailed examples of their bad-faith actions as possible so we can identify "red flags" in general both from a player's perspective & moderation perspective.

 

Perhaps it is the nostalgic & idyllic times of Aegis, but I personally have difficulty wrapping my head around the existing system of "warclaims." I think nomadic player-groups should forfeit the ability to "claim" land in a warclaim, but can "claim" a parcel of land to leave a camp if they succeed in defeating a sedentary nation. Likewise, perhaps harkening too much to the "Aegis" days, Im struggling to understand why an attacked nation wouldn't be able to find the nomadic camp and raze it to the ground.

 

I think my question regarding naming and explaining bad-faith actors & their actions will go a long way to working through a lot of the consternation towards promotion of conflict roleplay. I remember when I returned in Almaris, a consistent issue I observed and anecdotally heard was the sheer sluggishness & stagnation of the map changing to reinvigorate interest in the majority of players who would be bored of only Slice of Life roleplay. I think players need to come to the table more to negotiate good-faith conflict and I am seeing it in this map: Petsch2k and his "Deadmund Order/Order of the Deadmen" undead-thrall group is a great example - he has negotiated with various nation leaders that he will attack, sets parameters on what he will do (if he fully succeeds in an attack) and does a good job fostering conflict where both sides have been enjoying it (see Petsch2k's ST application for anecdotal evidence).

 

Cheers mate and have a wonderful week yourself!

 

PS: I read your side note and re-read the thread. I wouldn't be opposed to nomadic groups being restricted from warclaims that "claim" land, if anything, I think culturally nomadic groups can reasonably be expected to avoid "settling" for cultural or other reasons.

[JuliusAakerlund 1780]

4 hours ago, Ibn Khaldun said:

 

Before I start my reply, let me preface by saying that I respect your opinion and appreciate you replying in a neutral tone rather than a belligerent or defensive tone. Thank you:

 

I certainly do not deny the existence of bad-faith actors. I do not know what all maps you have played on before retiring, I was only around for 1.0 Aegis, 2.0 Asulon, then helped firespirit44 run the antagonists in I think the 5.0 or 6.0 maps before returning last year to a semi-active playing position. I think it would benefit the discussion if we name and explain who the bad-faith actors are and give as detailed examples of their bad-faith actions as possible so we can identify "red flags" in general both from a player's perspective & moderation perspective.

 

Perhaps it is the nostalgic & idyllic times of Aegis, but I personally have difficulty wrapping my head around the existing system of "warclaims." I think nomadic player-groups should forfeit the ability to "claim" land in a warclaim, but can "claim" a parcel of land to leave a camp if they succeed in defeating a sedentary nation. Likewise, perhaps harkening too much to the "Aegis" days, Im struggling to understand why an attacked nation wouldn't be able to find the nomadic camp and raze it to the ground.

 

I think my question regarding naming and explaining bad-faith actors & their actions will go a long way to working through a lot of the consternation towards promotion of conflict roleplay. I remember when I returned in Almaris, a consistent issue I observed and anecdotally heard was the sheer sluggishness & stagnation of the map changing to reinvigorate interest in the majority of players who would be bored of only Slice of Life roleplay. I think players need to come to the table more to negotiate good-faith conflict and I am seeing it in this map: Petsch2k and his "Deadmund Order/Order of the Deadmen" undead-thrall group is a great example - he has negotiated with various nation leaders that he will attack, sets parameters on what he will do (if he fully succeeds in an attack) and does a good job fostering conflict where both sides have been enjoying it (see Petsch2k's ST application for anecdotal evidence).

 

Cheers mate and have a wonderful week yourself!

 

PS: I read your side note and re-read the thread. I wouldn't be opposed to nomadic groups being restricted from warclaims that "claim" land, if anything, I think culturally nomadic groups can reasonably be expected to avoid "settling" for cultural or other reasons.

 

So far I have participated in all the maps, though I took a rather lengthy break for large chunks of Elysium. I think we more or less agree in most regards at least almost 96% if not more. It seems more so that perhaps because we've not been able to talk at length about the depths of the subject we've made some assumptions - through no fault of our own.

 

When it comes to bad faith actors I would say that there's been many groups who have clearly used these kinds of strategies in the past, causing great damage. While some of these names can refer to current day groups or not, I mostly refer to specific compositions, during certain points in time (specific maps). This could be anything from the Dunamites, de Salt Pans, Dreadlanders, Flays etc. Whenever there has ever been a easy way for people with bad intentions to create large damage readily, without much commitment - they've done so. I suppose I would point more specifically to the many assassination attempts upon NLs that are often a group effort, yet done on throwaway characters. These characters have not built anything in RP to facilitate the movement or their actions. Yet if you cut off one head of that hydra they return three more, each with the same title, played by the same player and with the same goal. This in my view is a level of harrassment many have experienced over the years that the server simply neglects. It's extremely difficult for staff to make a judgement call as these groups will then just alt if banned, or have already done the deed - prior to staff intervention. This is a tug of war that sort of began since the end of the Duke's War and has only gotten worse over the years. I think this is also what has caused the effect you've noticed, where people are not as willing to trust each other anymore.

 

Though these are my observations from anywhere to having experienced it myself as a NL or seeing it done to entire communities. I think it's fair to say that you and I both remember the days when raids were a every day experience. This too had to be given a cooldown due to bad faith actors using it to simply bully or mob groups out of existence, none of which were good RP or really added to the server. I of course in the same breath commend good villainy RP and any time it takes place, such as the Ferrymen, who while infamous, have a penchant for RP themselves.

 

When people are willing to work together and when mechanics are balanced properly the server is at its best. As I stated previous and as we both seem to agree. I think there are plenty of ways for Nomadic groups to participate in combat as it stands. In my case I just have a specific worry when it comes to warclaims. Though not a article used in the past this is also another mean made due to the evolving culture, much of which was toxic for a time. But, we could spend many paragraphs discussing that in specific.

 

I think the conclusion I decide to draw from our back and forth is that we both love nomadic groups. We likewise seem to agree on the majority of points. It seems likely instead the few differences we have is due our different experiences.

 

As always, I wish you none but the best,

Sincerely, Julius