AstriaS 3709 Share Posted January 15 I can't tell if this is pro-Númendil or anti-Númendil, however I choose, in the spirit of friendship and goodwill, to assume that it is pro-Númendil. I appreciate your appreciation of our work. 10 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
argonian 12839 Share Posted January 15 3 minutes ago, Xarkly said: Your only mention of the Sinners' War was that you fought in it, so I don't see how your comment about that makes any sense. Again, you're bringing up 2 Emperors as a basis to dismiss what I've written here. If you want to disagree with it, that's fine. I can sit here and tell you how I wouldn't have written to Admins appealing to help because Haense got itself in that mess itself or that it wouldn't be all that terrible if it got deleted in the Sinner's War or today because I think it's getting stale, but based on how you're concluding I'd change my mind in a heartbeat in different circumstances with no evidence there's probably not a whole lot of point in that. If you want to point to any parts of what I'm saying in the post and discuss them, that's fine, and I'd be happy to engage, but you've just come on here to dismiss the entirety of it on the basis of who I am, which isn't really something we can discuss? There's no basis to engage on "sounds good but bet you'd change your mind if your side was affected!!!". What point about the War of Two Emperors do you want to make? I was on Haense's side during it. Anyone around at the time can confirm it. This just comes across as you looking for any reason to call me a traitor, but it's weak as **** because I was with Haense in that war from the start unto the end. And not because I liked Haense, as I told Yoppl and Boby at the time, but because I loved Oren. But that was enough for me. So what is your point? 9 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twodiks 483 Share Posted January 15 (edited) I can agree with a lot of the sentiment on the thread, but I'm going to be honest. I think I prefer a more Laissez-faire system regarding realms than being extremely restrictive about it. I get that its probably bad for the server for the player base to be rather spread out but I don't see forcing anyone to be under anyone due to a lack of choice is the solution to it. I'd prefer just more strict enforcement for failing nations. I think while many projects will fail, there will be some who stand out and become a unique place on the server. I don't really care if this is done through activity checks or some other sort of means. Either way I think there's no point in limiting player agency in terms of creating nations, when there's nothing forcing nation leaders to be accepting of groups. I think you kinda simplify the process of just folding into another nation of similar niche as well. Honestly back in the old system, I saw way too many cases of extremely clashing ideas for groups in certain nations that only happened because it was the only nation they could find who gave them land. I accidentally deleted this portion of my comment so I'll also just try to make it short. I think its easy to say people would be more than willing to give land if people just brought an active group and roleplayed in a manor in the city for a while, but I think the nation leader would be a bit hesitant if say they found out they person leading the group was someone who rebelled before or just had a bad history with them before. If we're supposed to limit people's choice in creating nations when say others serve a similar niche, I think it's unfair for them to have to settle in another nation when they can't find a place in the existing nation Edited January 15 by Twodiks 7 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotEvilAtAll 9944 Share Posted January 15 2 hours ago, Xarkly said: So, put simply, Realm Bloat represents the dilution of activity. Why consider Realm Bloat to be any different from existing realms purchasing tiles to settle vassals upon? Both generate new settlements and roleplay hubs through increasing the amount of settled tiles on the map, and only Realm Applications even give staff the option to decline it. If you view the server as a dot density map with all of the political boundaries removed, then the processes of Realm Applications & buying new tiles are identical. Many new Realm Applications are from communities that were first CREATED as VASSALS, and thus the process of vassalization as a means to spread out and increase the quantity of roleplay hubs and communities on the server cannot be discounted! We get too obsessed with our fun little realm toys that we don't realize that merging all of the human realms into a giga oren won't centralize anything unless all their cities get nuked with it too. 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xarkly 12618 Author Share Posted January 15 Just now, argonian said: What point about the War of Two Emperors do you want to make? I was on Haense's side during it. Anyone arouns at the time can confirm it. This just comes across as you looking for any reason to call me a traitor, but it's weak as **** because I was with Haense in that war from the start unto the end. And not because I liked Haense, as I told Yoppl and Boby at the time, but because I loved Oren. But that was enough for me. So what is your point? I'm genuinely just lost at this point James, and you don't seem to be following what I'm saying either. I'm saying if you want to bring up the 2 Emperors and Telanir's shield to dismiss what I've written on this post as bullshit, then okay, whatever, but I don't understand at all what you want me to say about that because that's your own uncertified belief and I don't see how I can argue with that except schizo back at you. I haven't a clue about where you're getting an idea about someone trying to call you a traitor. I don't know what point you're asking from me because your comments are getting increasingly nonsensical - you started saying my post is disengenous because of who I am (haensa), then throwing in Sinners' War without clarifying how this ties into the debate at all, to then saying you're being called a traitor, to then asking me what I'm trying to say. 3 minutes ago, NotEvilAtAll said: Why consider Realm Bloat to be any different from existing realms purchasing tiles to settle vassals upon? Both generate new settlements and roleplay hubs through increasing the amount of settled tiles on the map, and only Realm Applications even give staff the option to decline it. If you view the server as a dot density map with all of the political boundaries removed, then the processes of Realm Applications & buying new tiles are identical. Many new Realm Applications are from communities that were first CREATED as VASSALS, and thus the process of vassalization as a means to spread out and increase the quantity of roleplay hubs and communities on the server cannot be discounted! We get too obsessed with our fun little realm toys that we don't realize that merging all of the human realms into a giga oren won't centralize anything unless all their cities get nuked with it too. This is a pretty interesting point actually, but I don't agree that vassals and independent Realms are entirely the same. I'd say that they definitely can be the same, but the benefit (overall) is that vassals usually require a level of interaction with the nation as a whole that we don't really get from a lot of the newer Realms, some of which specifically outline isolation neutrality as their niche. You're right in saying that the process is the same (and I think this feeds a bit back into what Spurf was saying about how the economy/resource system encourages less condensed placements and more wayward expansions) but I think the way it plays out in terms of vassal interaction is different. 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nectorist 7422 Share Posted January 15 6 minutes ago, NotEvilAtAll said: Why consider Realm Bloat to be any different from existing realms purchasing tiles to settle vassals upon? Both generate new settlements and roleplay hubs through increasing the amount of settled tiles on the map, and only Realm Applications even give staff the option to decline it. If you view the server as a dot density map with all of the political boundaries removed, then the processes of Realm Applications & buying new tiles are identical. Many new Realm Applications are from communities that were first CREATED as VASSALS, and thus the process of vassalization as a means to spread out and increase the quantity of roleplay hubs and communities on the server cannot be discounted! We get too obsessed with our fun little realm toys that we don't realize that merging all of the human realms into a giga oren won't centralize anything unless all their cities get nuked with it too. I don't think it's always even that everything has to be centralized, I think people's favorite nations were those that had a variety of vassals, but it's that a lot of these small nations don't really interact with each other and rp plummets accordingly. In an era where you have to be fanatically loyal to one nation to really get any opportunities there, not having roleplay channels for any cross-nation contact is a big killer. It makes things boring (everyone is doing the same rp within their fully centralized nations), stale (there is no war, diplomacy, plotting, negotiation, etc), and every nation stands in their own little corner like kids at a school dance. This is where I break with Xarkly a bit in that I think nations themselves have to be very proactive and make roleplay with other nations themselves, but there are some of those groups that try to be totally self-contained and are obviously set up to fail that should be reviewed a bit more diligently. As it stands, vassals do a lot more in promoting interaction and widespread roleplay and dynamic roleplay, but for one reason or another 99% of nations will refuse to accept vassals that could possibly pose any threat to them. 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elennanore 2775 Share Posted January 15 27 minutes ago, Xarkly said: I'm not sure how it worked when Norland was a vassal before -- I assume it was entirely autonomous with an oath of fealty? Most recently, Norland existed as a vassal of the Empire of Man(renatus). However, such was mostly facilitated by Narthok and Mogroka's OOC friendship, thus Norland was left alone for the most part IRP. We existed as 'mostly' independent polity that was self-governing. Such fell apart for a variety of reasons. Though, in my personal opinion, it is easy for vassal states to exist in an empire if there is a genuine OOC connection between the parties involved. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
argonian 12839 Share Posted January 15 21 minutes ago, Xarkly said: Your only mention of the Sinners' War was that you fought in it, so I don't see how your comment about that makes any sense. Again, you're bringing up 2 Emperors as a basis to dismiss what I've written here. If you want to disagree with it, that's fine. I can sit here and tell you how I wouldn't have written to Admins appealing to help because Haense got itself in that mess itself or that it wouldn't be all that terrible if it got deleted in the Sinner's War or today because I think it's getting stale, but based on how you're concluding I'd change my mind in a heartbeat in different circumstances with no evidence there's probably not a whole lot of point in that. There's nothing there we can discuss because you're using an uncertified personal belief so I'm not sure why you're even commenting. If you want to point to any parts of what I'm saying in the post and discuss them, that's fine, and I'd be happy to engage, but you've just come on here to dismiss the entirety of it on the basis of who I am, which isn't really something we can discuss? There's no basis to engage on "sounds good but bet you'd change your mind if your side was affected!!!". Think I made it clear. I brought up the last time Haense was vulnerable and questioned your commitment to free conquest. I do think it's an unlikely story that you are the one hero of the tale who would have argued for impartiality, but hey, you are a good writer, and biased writing is shitty writing, so perhaps you are right. I'll take your word for it and just warn other pro-war Haeseni authors who are less worldly that what goes around comes around. 10 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xarkly 12618 Author Share Posted January 15 8 minutes ago, Twodiks said: I can agree with a lot of the sentiment on the thread, but I'm going to be honest. I think I prefer a more Laissez-faire system regarding realms than being extremely restrictive about it. I get that its probably bad for the server for the player base to be rather spread out but I don't see forcing anyone to be under anyone due to a lack of choice is the solution to it. I'd prefer just more strict enforcement for failing nations. I think while many projects will fail, there will be some who stand out and become a unique place on the server. I don't really care if this is done through activity checks or some other sort of means. Either way I think there's no point in limiting player agency in terms of creating nations, when there's nothing forcing nation leaders to be accepting of groups. I think you kinda simplify the process of just folding into another nation of similar niche as well. Honestly back in the old system, I saw way too many cases of extremely clashing ideas for groups in certain nations that only happened because it was the only nation they could find who gave them land. I accidentally deleted this portion of my comment so I'll also just try to make it short. I think its easy to say people would be more than willing to give land if people just brought an active group and roleplayed in a manor in the city for a while, but I think the nation leader would be a bit hesitant if say they found out they person leading the group was someone who rebelled before or just had a bad history with them before. If we're supposed to limit people's choice in creating nations when say others serve a similar niche, I think it's unfair for them to have to settle in another nation when they can't find a place in the existing nation Yeah, this is all pretty fair to say. Enforcement would have done a lot to make activity checks actually useful when they were more of a thing in the past. One of the main reasons that system was discredited is because they were frequently just not acted on by Admins (there were obviously a couple of other issues with activity checks, mainly NLs getting hyper-focused on trying to keep players in their nation and discouraging travelling outside of it to get their number bigger, but that's moreso an issue with NLs and not the actual system). Staff have traditionally struggled with this enforcement aspect no matter what the regulation system is. When it comes to nations being forced to accept groups, the idea in theory is that nations will be inclined to take in groups to boost their own strength, and those that wouldn't would be at a disadvantage. Obviously this is in theory and in practice there is the limitation of certain relationships between playerbases -- i.e., certain nations would never want to give land to certain groups because of past altercations, and other nations who might be more inclined could be discouraged by those other nations. This is sort of an occupational hazard with anything on LotC, but it's definitely a particular issue here especially when there's a central power/alliance on the server. I'm not sure what the best approach to dealing with this aspect of it would be, to be honest. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Borin 5259 Share Posted January 15 If these places vassalised under a nation and still wanted to pursue being neutral, isolationist (which is in itself an issue w them being in a nation, most-all would be p miffed if you didnt pull your weight if there was a conflict or smthn) there'd still really be the same effect. They sit in some place away from a capital city in a box, same affect as if they were sat in some nation-shaped box rather than a vassal-shaped one. Perhaps theyre slightly more accessible but it doesnt= the whole '50 ppl sat in 1 place rping' that u deemed preferable to the current situation thats been put down to too many 'realms' (I use realms and nations interchangably idc) 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hearth 873 Share Posted January 15 2 hours ago, squakhawk said: I'll bully them because they are short but Halflings are an example, with functioning vassals last map, and getting a settlement right at fuckin cloud temple which was still mostly empty after being told by Llir they'd get an exception where they couldn't expand and could just exist, to now this map them owning a ton of tiles despite still being that same settlement (and were they to be conquested, i'm sure they'd just get another settlement, similar to how Nevaehlen has gotten one) Dúnwen numero uno!!!!!11!!1 Patriotism aside, I agree that there are a lot of realms and that can drastically spread out roleplay to the point of it being hard to find- though instead of some grand nation purge or whichever brute force method may resolve this- I instead believe that centralization can be achieved by just- allowing players to know which realms are active by making the command public. They'll flock to the realms that actually have players and in turn those without will have little capability to pay their upkeep if they don't have a consistent and loyal playerbase. (Which should absolutely be increased because if the barefooted hill dwelling Communists can gather enough capital to support a realm the size that Dunfarthing is then it must be too cheap.) 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xarkly 12618 Author Share Posted January 15 7 minutes ago, Borin said: If these places vassalised under a nation and still wanted to pursue being neutral, isolationist (which is in itself an issue w them being in a nation, most-all would be p miffed if you didnt pull your weight if there was a conflict or smthn) there'd still really be the same effect. They sit in some place away from a capital city in a box, same affect as if they were sat in some nation-shaped box rather than a vassal-shaped one. Perhaps theyre slightly more accessible but it doesnt= the whole '50 ppl sat in 1 place rping' that u deemed preferable to the current situation thats been put down to too many 'realms' (I use realms and nations interchangably idc) On phone now so I'll be a bit more to the point - Like Evil mentioned, this isn't wrong necessarily but I do think it ties back into what Nect is saying about isolationism. I theory a NL can let a vassal sit off on its own forever, but I dont think that would play out exactly like that and that being part of a wider entity would require more interaction than an isolationist realm. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
argonian 12839 Share Posted January 15 26 minutes ago, Xarkly said: I'm genuinely just lost at this point James, and you don't seem to be following what I'm saying either. I'm saying if you want to bring up the 2 Emperors and Telanir's shield to dismiss what I've written on this post as bullshit, then okay, whatever, but I don't understand at all what you want me to say about that because that's your own uncertified belief and I don't see how I can argue with that except schizo back at you. I haven't a clue about where you're getting an idea about someone trying to call you a traitor. I don't know what point you're asking from me because your comments are getting increasingly nonsensical - you started saying my post is disengenous because of who I am (haensa), then throwing in Sinners' War without clarifying how this ties into the debate at all, to then saying you're being called a traitor, to then asking me what I'm trying to say. It ties in because you're saying third party nations should be killed. I'm out here saying "nah not really" and that you should be careful what you wish for. 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Narthok 9213 Share Posted January 15 2 hours ago, Xarkly said: LET'S TALK ABOUT REALMS Reveal hidden contents - Fantasy Ambience" width="200" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ocJlogyxxNY?feature=oembed"> This one’s been cooking over the last few days. The topic of ‘Realms’ (which are now synonymous with Nations) and ‘Realm Bloat’ have recently been in contention ever since players started noticing the exorbitant rate of growing Realms on Aevos, largely thanks to the Admin’s approval of nearly all new Realm Applications. It’s been discussed a lot in Moderation Discord, and Tree made a post on it recently that you should check out here, but the issue boils down to the fact that LotC currently hosts a grand total of 21 unique Realms, with more Applications pending and on the way. This is going to be my own take on the issue, which will try to explain (1) what the current process is, (2) which it’s bad, (3) why players don’t have the current tools to realistically deal with the problem, and (4) what a better solution might be. I: CURRENT REALM APPLICATIONS To understand this issue, it’s important to look at the current process of creating new Realms. If you want to make a new Realm, there’s four components to the process: Submit a Realm Application: You can find the template for these here, but you’ve probably seen them often enough by now. Basically, you answer some straightforward questions about your Realm, its lore, its structure, etc. As we’ll see in a minute, these questions (and ergo the majority of the application) are entirely useless. Collect 15 Signatures: For those of you who played on Axios, you might remember the signature process for applying for old land charters -- this is basically the same thing. 15 people have to comment on your Realm Application as an indicator that “yep, I am going to roleplay in this place”. For the same reason this system was abolished on Axios, this is very one-dimensional and very silly. It’s not at all a difficult thing to get 15 people to comment on anything, and, even if these signatures are given with the best intent of roleplaying there (which all of them won’t be), intention doesn’t always translate into action. Starting activity from scratch is an enormous undertaking and usually requires leaders to be unreasonably active to drive RP until their settlement kicks off, which rarely happens. We’ve known signatures are not an accurate indicator of activity for over seven years since the system failed in Axios. Pay 5,000 Mina: This is simple enough, it’s just a deterrent from spamming Realm Applications (which is undermined by the issues discussed in this post), but, when paired with the costs of buildings etc., this is a reasonable aspect of the application. 5,000 isn’t a small number by any means, but it’s not colossal, either. Soft-Approval: This is one of the bigger problems of the application process, since there is actually no review of the contents of the application. The Admins say as much in the rules: “although all fields [of the application] are required, the application is mostly just for tracking purposes and collecting signatures”. This firstly begs the question of why bother getting people to fill out the application at all if it doesn’t matter, and it’s especially nonsense that the application mandates a 1,000-word minimum submission for your Realm’s lore. In the same vein, there’s evidently no qualitative review of the merits of the application and why, as asked in the application, this applicant can’t fit inside of the many pre-existing Realms. So, long story short, the current Realm Application process will let you make a new nation from scratch by: (1) submitting an application form, the contents of which are not reviewed nor relevant; (2) getting 15 people to comment on your application; and, (3) paying 5,000 mina. Staff do not conduct any kind of review on the content of the application or its impact on the server, which is what gets the problem going. Tldr; Realms are very easy to create. II: WHY THIS IS A PROBLEM Okay, so, Realms can be made with minimal barriers - why is that actually a problem? Like I mentioned earlier, one of the main criticisms this system is getting is enabling Nation/Realm ‘Bloat’ to a far worse degree than in previous maps. Before we talk in detail about what bloat actually is, it’s worth mentioning the two competing ideals when it comes to deciding how Realms should be created. Micro v. Macro: LotC is a server that tries to market itself as a very sandbox experience where you can forge your own story in a world populated by hundreds of other players -- the server’s advertising mantra of “become a king, an emperor, a wizard, or a warrior. Your path is your own; what will you choose?” is on our website’s homepage. While this has been memed on from time to time, it is true that one of LotC’s strengths is player agency. It is a major appeal for the server to say “you can make your own nation and become a king!”, and this is some of the agency that the Realm Applications are (admirably) trying to realize. But, when you’re playing on a server with lots of other people, your agency is naturally limited by the agency of the other players. In a nutshell, it’s a balancing act between letting players pursue their ideal fantasy experience (such as wanting to become a warlord or king), and making sure this pursuit doesn’t harm the experience of other players. So, does being easily able to create a Realm harm the experience of other players? My answer is yes, and this is where we get to unpacking the issue of Realm Bloat. Realm Bloat: So, what exactly does this mean? The term is pretty self-explanatory in that it describes a state of affairs where there’s a lot of Nations/Realms existing at once (like there is right now). But why is this a bad thing? If it lets players pursue their idea of fun and make their own kingdom, what’s the big deal? Like I mentioned earlier, LotC currently has 21 Realms (as of the annexation of Stassion yesterday), which is far higher than it has been in years past (previous maps would usually regard an excess of 10 as too many). Let’s say LotC has a population of 200 on a given night; while some nations will always be hubs with a large activity percentage, the Bloat issue largely comes from the balkanization of the smaller Realms. This could mean that 100~ players are split up and scattered across their various Realms, trying to keep them active and relevant. So, put simply, Realm Bloat represents the dilution of activity. There’s not necessarily less people playing, but it can sometimes feel like that if there’s enclaves of 5~ players spread out across the map. I’ll put it like this, and you can tell which sounds better for the overall health of the server: 50+ players regularly active inside a single Realms; or, 5 players spread out across 10 Realms. When you have a highly-populated Realm, this facilitates stuff like guilds, armies, government, knights, magic, religion, courts, vassals, conflict, and dozens of other niches. These are good, because they, in turn, drive activity within that nation without any particular people having to ‘grind’ activity. Put simply, roleplay breeds more roleplay. In a community limited by tiny numbers, the same isn’t true. Instead, it typically devolves into a few individuals breaking their backs to grind activity, or, as we often see, the Realm falling inactive. It would be a different story if there was potential for these Realms to grow, but in a climate where we have 21 of these Realms and several applications pending & on-the-way, it’s hard to argue that there is room for meaningful growth. Even then, you could set aside all this is not for another problem … Isolation: So much of the server’s history and memorable periods have come from roleplay between nations, whether that’s from fighting wars, building empires, etc. The main boon from Realm-to-Realm interaction is a sense of dynamism and the immersion of a wider world, with a wider story. Conflict is the mother of all stories, but in a server where most communities are conflict-averse, this leads to stagnation. In other words, one of the main issues current Realm Bloat has is that the majority of Realms are isolated and inwards-focus. In other words, there’s a commitment to avoiding other Realms. To be fair, this is a natural instinct while building up a new community, but the consequence is still that a new Realm with this policy (i.e., nearly all of them) don’t drive any Realm-to-Realm roleplay. I don’t bring this point up with a view to identifying a solution per se (since, like I said, preservation is a natural instinct when starting up), but to further highlight that the benefits of Realm Bloat definitely do not outweigh the issues. III: INSUFFICIENT TOOLS A problem might not always be a problem if methods exist to deal with it. In the case of Realm Bloat, Staff have taken the position that the issue is one for players to solve themselves. There are tools to deal with this problem -- chief among them are diplomacy (i.e., convincing a fledgling Realm to vassalize under a stronger, pre-existing Realm), and warclaiming (i.e., conquering a weaker Realm). But, while these tools do exist on paper, in reality they’re not really feasible solutions to Realm Bloat. Part of the problem is the culture that easy Realm creation has made. For lack of a better word, this does feel something like a sense of entitlement to unburdened land. What I mean by this is that it’s not exactly an easy sell for a strong Realm to convince a weaker one to join them, because … well, why would they? As an independent Realm with few barriers to creation, you don’t don’t have to answer to anyone either IRP or OOC. Your culture and niche is unfettered by that wider Realm, and you yourself can do whatever you like. Even if your sandcastle is tiny, you’re still the King of it -- for many of our players (especially younger ones), this is a decisive factor. The most obvious reason why a small Realm would merge with a bigger one is for protection, but, again, the reality is that this is an uncompelling factor. While raids can and do happen outside of war, they don’t happen to the extent where a small Realm feels the need for protection (in fact, even big Realms struggle to fight raids by PvP-centric groups). The end result is that there’s no real reason for a small Realm leader to give up their independence for a diplomatic union. This leaves us with a big Realm warclaiming a small one to take it over. Again, this sounds fine in theory, but it doesn’t compute with the way the server and its culture operate. This simply boils down to a balance of costs -- is it worth a Realm spending the mina to warclaim and annex a smaller one? If we consider that some new Realms do appear to be placing themselves in out-of-the-way tiles, this can make warclaims fairly pricey. For pure example’s sake, if we look at Ravenswood’s Realm Application, it looks as if it would cost close to a minimum for a minimum of 50-mina per player for the nearest Elven tile (I’m not sure if Talarnorr is still a thing, but we’ll use that as an example) to reach Ravenswood for a warclaim, so 500 mina for every 10 players. That cost alone isn’t wild, but this is before accounting for the subsequent Enclave upkeep and the general complications of having new land that can be an enormous distance away from your actual Realm. Paired with the general headaches of organising war, frequent accusations of harassment when targeting a small community, and gear costs, it’s easy to see why most Realm leaders would decide that it’s not worth trying to absorb a small Realm (absent any other factors). Even if they did, the ease with which new Realms can be created again is further undermining -- there is a 2-month cooldown on a group from re-making their Realm if it’s conquered, from the point of view of tackling Realm Bloat as a whole, warclaiming is definitely not worthwhile. IV: TOWARDS A SOLUTION How, then, should this issue be tackled? It’s a difficult problem to solve when we’re in this deep and have 21 Realms and more on the way. You can’t realistically roll-back these newer Realms or create conditions where they’ll be forced to vassalize, so any solution will take time to have an effect, anyway. That said, I think that solution already lies in Realm Applications. While Admins for some reason have taken the stance that the content of these Applications don’t matter (again, all that matters is your 15 buddies and your 5,000 mina), the answers applicants put in these forms is the handle Staff need to judge the actual merits of a Realm Application. The Niche Standard: There’s one particular question on the Realm Application that should serve as the handle on this issue, and it’s this one: “How does your settlement offer a unique niche not already found in an existing polity on the server?”. When we say “niche”, we normally mean a particular flavour of roleplay that every Realm tends to have as a general guide for their culture and style - this can range from high-fantasy Gondorian-esque (like Numendil), to low-fantasy Slavic mediaeval (like Haense), and everything else in between. These niches shape a nation from its architecture to the different kinds of roleplay you can experience within them, and the diversity of Realms with different niches is a big selling point for LotC -- there’s something for everybody. Multiple Realms inhabiting the same niche, though, is a problem. A Gondor nation is great for attracting like-minded classical fantasy enjoyers to build something together, but if there’s two Realms with that same niche, then surely that only serves to dilute the niche - instead of a large body working together to build that niche, it’s pointlessly divided. When a niche is already occupied, Admins should definitely be denying a Realm Application that wants to fill the same niche and encourage them to go under the existing Realm. But why be a Baron when you can be a King?: Obviously, the issue the above solution would run into is Realm Applicants arguing something along the line of “well, I could do a better job at this niche …”, “I don’t like the Nation Leader of the Realm filling this niche” … etc. While these concerns will sometimes be valid, this ties back into what I mentioned already about a certain entitlement to Realms - since they’re handed out so freely - and there’s no compelling reason to ever go under another Realm. Why would you give up your independence to answer to someone else? This will be a natural and perpetual complaint, and, in dealing with it, we have to remember the balance between the Realm Applicant and the rest of the server. Limiting player agency in this regard is definitely a good thing, and I’ll list a couple of reasons as to why: Making Groups Work Together is Dynamic: A large reason why a lot of Realms feel so internally stale these days is because of a lack of dynamism and conflict. Stable Realms these days so often struggle with stagnation because of this, paired with an apparent void of ambition within its non-leading players, because, again, anyone with ambition can just go create their own Realm with ease. However, in a situation like I mentioned above where a group that would have made their own Gondor realm instead works under an existing Realm, it not only boosts numbers but can create dynamism and competition as the former group might try to work their way to the top of that Realm themselves, so that they can be the big dogs. A system like this is ideal because it allows new ideas to surface, and the best ones to come out on top to keep niches fresh, rather than everyone doing their own thing without any contest and stagnating. Nation Status should be Inherited, not Created: This is a big one in preventing Realm Bloat. In an ideal world, I don’t think there should be Realm Applications at all (though I will list some exceptions a bit later); instead, if you want to be a Realm, then you and your group should have to achieve that status in roleplay. How? Again, this boils down to a product of dynamic interaction. Realms are difficult to run, and so it doesn’t make sense that they’re not difficult to achieve. Having a group work their way up within an existing Realm not only vindicates that group’s activity, but also their ability to run and maintain a Realm to begin with. Whether that’s being affirmed as heir through peaceful means, or usurping a throne in a coup, these are far more organic means of Realm creation and self-regulating means of keeping your nation fresh and active. It is a valid point to make that this may not always lead to OOC good faith, but I think we as a server do need to move more in a direction of dynamism and energy instead of stagnation, towards which something like this is a necessary step. “But I can’t get land :(“: This isn’t a reason for limiting player agency, but it is an important argument to address for this system. It is true that some existing Realms are quite stingy when it comes to giving groups land within their nation, usually from the perspective of stability, but it’s not accurate to say that this is the case for all Realms. Smaller Realms that grow often do so because they let various groups settle in their land and bolster their overall strength, and this remains true to this day. I often find that this argument is better interpreted as “but I can’t get land in the place that I want it”. But even if it was true that no Realm was willing to hand out land from the get-go to an aspiring junior Realm, this shouldn’t be a huge deterrent, either. Particularly in human circles, so many factions (i.e, Noble Houses) have risen to prominence simply by getting a manor in a city and conducting an active family through it. This is another example of a self-affirmation of activity that a group does actually have the tools to grow as an eventual Realm, and, in cases like these, they’ll often be awarded with a keep and tracts of land in time. With the above understanding of niches in mind, let’s look at some Realm Applications currently pending and some accepted over the last few months. I apologise to any Realm leaders if this comes off as criticism; it’s not aimed at you, but the Realm system: - Gotrek Union: A Dwarven industrial settlement with a focus on lore like Golemancy/alchemy. Its only attempt to differentiate its niche from Urguan is “... the settlement offers a more unique style of roleplay - that being one not governed by leaders or kings, but instead one led by its head of operations”. This not only doesn’t make sense (head of operations is a leader), but it’s not a niche. - Ravenmire (not sure if this still exists): A magical settlement that cites the incorporation of alchemy and clockwork as its standout features. Its niche is difficult to define, but it has repeated mentions of “progress” and “evolution”. This is no discernable reason why this niche could not be filled in an existing Realm. - Vikela: This appears to represent the current “Sutica” niche, which is, in essence, the lack of a niche and defines itself as a gathering place for characters that don’t fit in elsewhere. On its merits, it is difficult to see how the Application’s answer it’s niche being populated by tradesmen warrants a new niche (economics is inherent in any city). A self-proclaimed desire for freedom in a monarchy does just seem to be a product of every player wanting their own sandcastle. - Aeltarys: A settlement with extreme Targaryen/Game of Thrones inspirations. The unique class structure cited as its niche isn’t elaborated to feature any practical distinctions from nobility in any existing human nation, and while it’s dragon-based religion is notable, there exists non-religious nations wherein it could be practised, and even then it could be adapted to fit within existing religions (i.e., folklore-based spins and sects). - Vlachia: This one is notable for its actual history on the server, but fails to say why it could not exist within an existing Realm. It’s puzzling why this didn’t vassalize under Veletz, which it lists as a nation in which it previously participated. - Ravenswood: This defines itself as a “true melting pot of people … we welcome everyone and remain neutral”. This appears to mimic the niche of Vikela precisely, while also adhering to the tenets of isolation which this post discusses as problematic. Of the above six Realms examined, there is no identifiable reason why any of them could not exist within a current Realm and serve to bolster that playerbase, create dynamism, and nurture themselves in an environment where there’s not a risk of going inactive and populating the map with dead builds reminiscent of the free-build era. This is not to say that each of these should be doomed to stay as vassals - instead, it should be part of the road to becoming a realm. It would be much healthier, for instance, to see Ravenswood work together with Vikela for their niche, for Veletz to sponsor Vlachia’s conquest of Haense, etc. The point I am trying to make by this is that this is the kind of critical thinking Admins need to engage in for the wellbeing of their own server. With that in mind, I will say I think there’s two instances where Admins should consider approving a Realm Application with the above withstanding: An Actual New Niche: This speaks for itself, but Realm Applications should be a tool for new niches that are actually new and unique. While I will always advocate for new groups to grow themselves within an existing Realm and either take over that Realm or expand from there, I do think there could be a place for some new Realms via Application. An example doesn’t immediately come to mind because I do personally believe most niches can be facilitated in the vast network of existing Realms, but Farfolk cultures is probably a vague indicator. Roleplay Events: What I mean by this is when a roleplay event leads to a new Realm being made. A good example of this is a successful rebellion, or a vassal being granted independence. More loosely, I also think cases where it makes roleplay sense for a Realm to form at alright - think Balian, where a huge chunk of Oren went into exodus after the Brothers’ War. I'll bring this ramble to an end at this point. It's a difficult issue to manage, mainly because of that balance of facilitating players looking for the freedom to do what their want with roleplay and preserving the overall wellbeing of the server. That said, I feel like I've gone into pretty explicit detail as to why the wellbeing of the server isn't served through Realm Bloat. Ultimately, I'd hope that Admins will reflect on their policy and the kind of server they're looking to foster, and change their approach to Realm creation accordingly. Have a good Sunday folks. I agree with what is said here. I also don't think there should be any rule changes. 2 hours ago, squakhawk said: non-reflective opinion of administration but i agree with most if not all your points here. while im coming from the point of view that for 6 years before I joined LOTC i only ever roleplayed on servers with 1 city-state kingdoms and found it jarring (BUT COOL!!!) that there were multiple on LOTC, I don't think i am alone in saying that too many realms harms not only the playerbase at large, but server culture and new players arriving. I think vassalage has been something that is so strangely shunned, maybe maly is right about possessive PROs/ROs (but im unsure how to really solve that, other than maybe saying NLs can't eminent-domain their vassals, but im pretty sure they already can't?) being the root cause of the issue, but it is so frustrating to me how isolative communities are and immediately hostile to anything but the hugbox. I'll bully them because they are short but Halflings are an example, with functioning vassals last map, and getting a settlement right at fuckin cloud temple which was still mostly empty after being told by Llir they'd get an exception where they couldn't expand and could just exist, to now this map them owning a ton of tiles despite still being that same settlement (and were they to be conquested, i'm sure they'd just get another settlement, similar to how Nevaehlen has gotten one) I think its silly that the ideas of conquest we'd worked out during Itdontmatta's tenure being that we wouldn't allow people to just make new settlements elsewhere was completely forgotten about as soon as it started happening again, what is the point other than to cause animosity between playerbases? There is so much cool availability between playing in a nation rather than playing a gimped map painter game outside it. I don't know how to solve it myself because I think there are greater root issues than just easy allowance by admins (despite during mapdev my policy was that moderation team would design and implement their own standards and acceptance policy for new realms, but somehow that got absorbed to just being one person who decides y/n - but thats a different set of gripes I have). I know my argument is imperfect and my opinion isn't correct by any means, nor is it close to it, it's simply a different style of roleplay for a different style of person. Maybe war should be easier, maybe there should be a different vetting process, maybe activity should return (it was planned and agreed upon during Mapdev that we'd maintain a 1% activity check, but i have no idea why that never happened), but it's frustrating nontheless because I think isolationism/tribalism in nations just serves to further divide and harm the server and its playerbases than it does to provide any form of cozy small group roleplay. Something too that frustrates me about the signatures is that it isn't really double-checked at all. An example of one of the realms you mentioned doesn't even have players on it's region from it's signatures. Unfortunately I don't think there will be change anytime soon because it's not just my decision to make. maybe i'm wrong though, we'll see. I think that change needs to come from the playerside rather than rule changes. The only thing that should be done more by staff is actually checking the signatures because right now people spam them. 1 hour ago, argonian said: Close your ears when Haensers tell you about international conflict and the Social Darwinism of "Might makes Right" and the "Strong eat the Meek" because they spent 99% of their history demanding the admins defend them from such strandards. I agree that endless balkanisation is shit, but let's be consistent, shall we? There would not be a Haense at all if Telanir hadn't intervened when Renatus tried to bury it in 2020. The last nation who accepted big vassals was Aaun and it literally only went sour because they were dumb enough to (1) put it on the road to everywhere else, against all other vassals' consent, and (2) to then ******* provoke them by plotting to kill them, but also letting @Illuminaire leak it to all of Adria (bro bro what could go wrong just help me coup, bro let me leak first; not a smart guy). And ever since, that failure has been used as a reason for why your country can ONLY be your capital and a distant set of eunuch forts. And so it shall remain. And now people are complaining that there are people who find that idea not-so-cool and wanna do their own shit either way. You know, I do find it cringe when people insist on forming their own entities instead of being a vassal of a similar or supporting group. But that's what they're gonna do when the alternative is to be your *****-boys for eternity. Haense for example, OP's country, has a habit of absorbing the titles of dead vassals like some kind of parasitical beast. "Hey hahaha bro, join us, we'll help you out!" - "Oh actually you guys are only Baron level activity, so now the King gets your county title" - "Oh, now you guys are dead, so we get the barony too. What a cool signature we have!". Imagine, people not wanting to vassalise under a country who'll steal their identity for clout the second they snooze! Well, you know, **** you. What if the staff let Renatus kill Haense? It would have been a whole other story out of your mouth. Haensers are all talk when they're on top, but when they're on the backfoot, they'll demand the rules defend them. Here's where they'll say "**** you James you biased Irish potato retard", yet I fought for them in every warclaim of the Sinner's War. They don't have to make sense; they never even try to. First time I've laughed out loud reading the forums in a long time. I hope you don't get punished for this. The forums are so much more fun when people can actually say what they think. I think the 'nations should only be inheirited' line is a bit silly tbh. I have personally made multiple nations. Whenever Norland has died I have had to revive it essentially from scratch. Morsgrad was something I had to build entirely from scratch after the previous Norlanders burnt the entire nation down in their 50th iteration of the same idiot diplomatic policy. It is from Morsgrad that the modern Rurics trace the origins of the 'Kingdom of Norland' title. Arichsdorf and other settlements are the same. I do not think the problem here is being able to make settlements. It is more that nations are too spineless to actually annex random sleeper nations. Half the reason we can't do this is because essentially every nation is semi permanently guaranteed by the major super powers. This is a solveable problem without any rule changes. Haense is easily strong enough to vassalize essentially every polity and make a new Empire. Haense could wipe out or vassalize any of these piastdoms they wanted to without even a war. Send a single diplomat or post demands on the forums. All of these tearpers will fold immediately. 15 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xarkly 12618 Author Share Posted January 15 5 minutes ago, Hearth said: Dúnwen numero uno!!!!!11!!1 Patriotism aside, I agree that there are a lot of realms and that can drastically spread out roleplay to the point of it being hard to find- though instead of some grand nation purge or whichever brute force method may resolve this- I instead believe that centralization can be achieved by just- allowing players to know which realms are active by making the command public. They'll flock to the realms that actually have players and in turn those without will have little capability to pay their upkeep if they don't have a consistent and loyal playerbase. (Which should absolutely be increased because if the barefooted hill dwelling Communists can gather enough capital to support a realm the size that Dunfarthing is then it must be too cheap.) Public activity is a wild idea. I think I remember this was a thing back on Axios, and I think it would actually work better than activity checks. I think we'd see a return of nations trying to dunk on each other because one of them has more people at X time, but there's no flawless solution either. Not a bad idea at all. 6 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ByUniBearse.thumb.png.a4b527c03666cb1b844a73d69e6dd4b4.png)
Recommended Posts