Let's talk about Realms

[Hearth 873]

Just now, Xarkly said:

 

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.

 We'd certainly see alot more raids. But I mean- that's extra conflict roleplay. 

[Xarkly 12618]

8 minutes ago, Narthok said:

I agree with what is said here. I also don't think there should be any rule changes.
 

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

Specifically re nations not being proactive, I agree, and this is something boomers have been signing about for a while. I guess the point I'm moreso coming from is that I doubt anyone willing to break that mould is forthcoming -- from mina costs to resources to ooc headaches, its easy to see how a lot of NLs wouldn't bother.

 

In a game of chicken between staff and players over who should fix the problem, I just think it makes a lot more sense for staff to take a better stance on realm creation now rather than waiting on a change of player culture that may not come for a long time if ever.

[yopplwasupxxx 5665]

I haven't been too active, so I can't really state whether the diffusion of roleplay is readily apparent to the degree in this post. I just know that, the couple times I've been on, I just start doing goofy ass roleplay and I can typically get a group of 10+ people around me. Maybe it's a boomer habit of making your own roleplay, idk.

[monkeypoacher 6993]

33 minutes ago, Narthok said:

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.

 

The point at which this argument fails (and also the "just make vassals" argument fails, I'll get to that) is that as a self-interested Realm Leader why would I bother to annex some barely active settlement, spending at minimum a month of my time and effort and a fortune of minas to gain... what? Another tile I can just buy? The ill will of the server and all my neighbors? A "vassal" group who hates me?

 

I don't think the unwillingness to go conquer Clownst Isle comes from stringent rules or an overly concordant diplomatic system on LoTC, I think it's because no nation is particularly envious of, or threatened by, their cache of bicycle horns.

 

I think there is similar logic at play with vassals. Vassalizing external groups is fraught because your existing vassals will feel threatened if you move some group of randos up to their status, and it is difficult to sell those same randos on less land and lower status than they would get as independents. You also just don't get much vassalizing groups that aren't already a good fit for your nation. 

 

It's not even like it's easier to be independent. If I had a nation leader willing to vassalize me I could have land for my players the very same day, to make an independent nation I need 15 signatures and 5000 minas and I have to wait for staff to approve me and I have to listen to players complain about and question the existence of my player group. But the incentives do not align for a nation leader to take my playerbase, most of the time.

 

I think to encourage interaction between playerbases (and not just afk taxing collecting land and resources) we should make tiles purchaseable only through some form of activity. A playerbase must agree to settle the new territory, with the same 15 signatures, or the nation leader must conquer the tile from some NPC threat in a sort of warclaim-event, in which other groups can intervene. The requirements should be just as onerous and should beg the same sort of "why do I need this, exactly?" questions we ask of new groups.

 

On the other hand I think new Realms should be required to place themselves close to existing ones. As you attempt to build a new settlement from the ground up, you will need to trade with existing ones for resources and laborers, and so it should OOCly get more expensive to build further away. You should also be forced to roleplay at least some of the journey to your newly founded settlement. Events should be organized to defend your party and the growing settlement from the untamed wilds.

 

There should be more detailed, RP-centered requirements for new/expanding realms (i.e. if a tile is barren and cold, you should have to trade for food and fuel for the expedition. If a tile is infested with dragons, you should have to fight off dragons).

[Narthok 9213]

8 minutes ago, yopplwasupxxx said:

I haven't been too active, so I can't really state whether the diffusion of roleplay is readily apparent to the degree in this post. I just know that, the couple times I've been on, I just start doing goofy ass roleplay and I can typically get a group of 10+ people around me. Maybe it's a boomer habit of making your own roleplay, idk.

Agree with yoppl. it is laughably easy to drum up activity if you put the barest effort into making semi decent narrative rp. 

[monkeypoacher 6993]

3 minutes ago, Narthok said:

Agree with yoppl. it is laughably easy to drum up activity if you put the barest effort into making semi decent narrative rp. 

As somebody with neither Narthok or Yoppl's charisma, I also think the "activity" problem isn't that bad - I barely have any time for the server at all, and running around Haense or Veletz or wherever roleplaying a low effort character I still manage to find RP. Try to tell a short story and players who are sprint hopping around not doing anything anyway tend to get sucked into it. Let 2024 be the year you try to get creative and try to write your own plotline instead of passively looking for events or RP hubs. 

[ClassyDryad 1733]

I think the spam of vassals without any oversight is worse (as someone who tried to do a vassal that fell through.)

While there are 22 20 realms, there are essentially forty or more vassals on the map due to how you can essentially go as far as to stack multiple on a single tile with little oversight.

 

This means the map has 60 or more different cities/towns/yada on the map at any given time. If the server was evenly spread between each and every one of these places every settlement would have 2-3 players rn, rising to 5 during peak numbers.

 

Spoiler

Not to say there aren't based vassals.

 

[bravery 901]

The thing everyone thinks about smaller realms/nations is that they're "dead" just because they don't see anyone for the 10-30 minutes they're around. But these realms/nations have peak hours, where there are numerous people spread out through the cities. Just because you don't see anyone in the square or entrance of the city does not make it a "dead" realm/nation- it means you're not looking in the right places.

From my own position, I see an average of 10-12 people in Vortice most days of the week, usually at peak hours between 2pm to 11pm EST. And that's because most of our playerbase is of working age or college age, and either work or have class until specific times. But so many people operate on the belief that Vortice is dead, because 1) the gates are closed due to consistent banditing, and 2) people are spread through the entire, very large city. I do activity checks in the city frequently, too, about once every month and a half, without notifying players, meaning that they have to be active in the city to see that they've received one- which typically, with the exception of two people occasionally, everyone passes.


I find most of these arguments that smaller realms/nations are "dead" and "useless" to be in bad faith and based in bias of larger scale realms/nations that often have numerous new players poached into them.

[indiana105 2137]

just bring back activity checks, if you cant scrape together 1% of the server's activity then you probably shouldn't be a """"realm""""

[Nug 1885]

i have always hated the amount of redundant settlements on lotc! there's always multiple human + elf + multiracial settlements that get abandoned except when one friend group is all doing their echo chamber rp or forcing a lame player event. maybe the rules around destroying settlements (via staff, players, events, etc.) or the rules around getting your own (small) plot of land should be loosened, since clearly a lot of people's desire for their own, unique vibe causes them to go apply, since otherwise you're some nation's baby or you don't get land. not sure how lairs have continued on, but maybe we should have a little freebuild that's not kept entirely separate from the rest of the world or enable events or players to destroy inactive settlements. druids could overgrow forgotten places, or a new group could take it over instead of applying for a new tile? there's a lot of possibilities, but the bandaid solution of letting every group have their own realm is clearly hitting its limit. also the map is always HUGE!!!

also i haven't played a lot recently, so... i could just be wrong

[argonian 12838]

8 hours ago, ClassyDryad said:

I think the spam of vassals without any oversight is worse (as someone who tried to do a vassal that fell through.)

While there are 22 20 realms, there are essentially forty or more vassals on the map due to how you can essentially go as far as to stack multiple on a single tile with little oversight.

 

This means the map has 60 or more different cities/towns/yada on the map at any given time. If the server was evenly spread between each and every one of these places every settlement would have 2-3 players rn, rising to 5 during peak numbers.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Not to say there aren't based vassals.

 

imo this is the equivalent of saying "there are x million homes in New York, imagine how dead Times Square would be if they were all home at once"

 

like sure but they won't be. vassal groups will rp in the capital the way u and ur mates hang out in town. their fief is base of operations and is important not only because they will rp and do events there at times, but if you're a serious group you need a place for all your shit, for your gear and horses and farms, to breed your horses and make your gear, to retreat to if you piss off the wrong guy and they try to kill you, to defend in a wc if the nation gets attacked

 

does anyone actually care if a random castle is empty a lot of the time? 

[satinkira 5902]

 

our problems would be solved if the church was reformed 

[Eryane 3629]

12 hours ago, Narthok said:

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.

I couldn't agree more with this point. I don't think the rules should change entirely, I think the nations (hello there Haense) around now should try to vassalize a lot of these states if this is a concern. This isn't my end all be all argument either, there's of course other things to be done besides this, but I do feel it's important. I'm more on the side of playerbases/NLs need to be making change rather than staff, besides a few minor things such as 1) checking signatures more 2) potential activity checks? I'm hesitant on this. 

 

If you can't vassalize them in whichever way, diplomatically or otherwise (plenty of means to do this without military directly), then they should be left alone without being destroyed OOCly (with proper/thorough realm application checks to begin with, however). 

 

And, way easier said than done - I feel like we as a server need to learn to lose or find a middle ground with potential vassalized playerbases. It would be very interesting to see in RP. It's ok for people to lose (and it's ok to be a conqueror). I'm really hoping a lot of interesting RP comes out of the Stassion annexation, for example. This situation gives a potential for further vassalization, or other conquering. There's a lot of potential there. Please keep bulldozing if it's suitable RPly @Mio

 

This post brings up a very interesting discussion though, thanks @Xarklyfor the nice formatting. This is all I wanted to say o7

Edited January 15 by Eryane

[_RoyalCrafter_ 3242]

Gonna go over a couple of my thoughts here. I do not know if they are particulalry peritinant as i read the initial post 4 hours ago.

VASSALS
People need to be more willing to give their vassals respect. In the time i've been part of Urguani leadership, our vassals were pretty much given full autonomy. We did not interact with them much (due to dwarven culture) so we basically gave away land to people who were willing to pay, arguably better than having your own realm because you become protected by the Urguani army AND have autonomy. This is how Urguan has done things.

In other realms, mainly in human realms, getting a keep or settlement is basically just a reward for being active. I would not call them "vassals" in the IRL sense of the word. Those builds are just there for their families to occassionaly RP in, while all the activity takes place in the capital.

In general, there is a big fear with NLs that any hub around their capital that becomes active or popular will sap RP away from the capital. If they become too big, may lead to revolt or conflict with the main city. (whether fears are justified or not doesn't matter.) In Urguan this was rarely an Issue, since human or elven vassals did not pull dwarves away from the capital. However, if you are a human vassal that is part of a non-human kingdom, your community is not as respected or sometimes looked down upon by the other communities. I feel this is how some of our Urguani vassals felt, which caused them to leave in the transition from Almaris to Aevos.

So to give a short conclusion here: Being a vassal needs to be a more respected, important position. Either player mindset shift, or mechanics for better vassalage. (Lot's undelivered promises like carts, vassal treasuries, etcs are undelivered.)

ACTIVITY
Seeing a lot of people here asking for activity checks, brings sadness to my heart. Everyone invovled in leadership back in Urguan was sweating over weekly activity checks, fighting for our lives for events to go from 2.5 to 3.5%. If you look at the recent player whitelist report by CT, you see how easy it is for human realms to maintain activity just by the sheer influx of people making humans. while less popular subraces like orcs and dwarves struggle.

Granted, I will concede 1% is a reasonable goal that any nation should be bale to achieve. But let's not forget what happened to the Halflings last map. A racial hub that was threathened by evictions last map over failure to meet activity goals. I don't mean to use the slippery slope falacy here, but people can judge on their own the rulemaking and competence of staff to not suddenly change policies.

SOLUTIONS
While I cannot say if its a player issue, staff issue or so on as such I cannot say much. There are MOST CERTAINLY things staff can do better from the get-go.

I find it rediculous that staff only check the amount of signatures and money amount. Many of these new realms dont even have all the people who signed actually be part of the realm. Admitedly however, a difficult issue new realms face is buildings. These new realms are spending months without their builds because of the changes to pasting. So how can you judge them for being inactive? If they had a full city, and they were inactive, the case would be much more clear cut.

I think staff needs to revisit their process for realm acceptance, and the rules / mechanics for realms and vassals.

 

-

P.S Big props to @Javert

Edited January 15 by _RoyalCrafter_

[Demavend 286]

I am currently a Haenseman 😑, but Haense at the moment is a particularly egregious example of why it is so much more compelling to reach for independence than vassalage. There are few true examples of real vassals on the server, most seem to occupy the equivalent to gentry estates in the real word - that is to say they exist for no deeper purpose than to act as item storage and a place to hold the traditional bi-monthly family dinner. They are given little freedom, power or trust and yes this is really the only part of the issue that relies entirely on the playerbase to solve.

The few decent and recent examples of functioning vassals such as Adria and Stassion causing such strife has only compounded the push towards absolute tedious centralization. Clearly absolute freedom of conquest and vassalage is the ideal, but it's simply not a reasonable expectation within the current server climate.

There will always be groups of players that are unwilling to collaborate. And, as much as people express how easy it would be to simply conquest or threaten these smaller nation states into submission, lotc war is a gruelling process even between smaller nations that only a few very invested leaders are ever going to be willing to undertake it.
          Attempting to conquer Norland as a Haeseni vassal was both entirely unsupported by the server rules and easily the most unenjoyable experience I've ever had on here. Of the 20 Nls that the rules actually support, only half at most actually have the means for conquest and I'd imagine half again have the thick skin and the deep investment in their nation to warrant wading through the horribly boring discord plots and justifications that it requires.  (Though it's definitely something I would like to see more of.)

In an ideal world the community would regulate themselves and the bounds for every conflict would be happily agreed upon beforehand but it's not just a feasible hope for any time in the near future. I also don't think it's terribly hard to find roleplay either, if you're willing to be the one to kick it off - but these tiny micro states spread over the map certainly don't make it any easier.

Seems a bit of a no-brainer just to make realm applications a bit more stringent in the first place for all the reasons @Xarkly stated. Obviously it's not going to be an overnight fix but is certainly a step in the right direction.

 

Edited January 15 by Demavend