Nation Application Community Feedback

[Kaiser 2347]

 

Hello LoTC. Considering there has been a lot of chat about staff often not seeking feedback from the community itself, I thought I’d try and undo that for my own project.

 

Nation Apps are returning soon™, but as it stands I thought I’d raise a few questions to the server and get some feedback. Below are the basic questions that have consistently found their way into the discussions I have had with my team and other players. I encourage you all to speak up on any/all of the topics. You will also have my own opinions and thoughts underneath with a hefty ** to denote what my own feelings are on each topic. Of course my feelings are simply my own, they’re not facts.

 

Before we get there however, I would like to note a few things. Firstly, the actual deciders of these apps. That would be the Implementation team (Myself, Domithicc, MCVDK, SoulReapingWolf, Fimlin, Riverbird, and Bhased). No, the Map Team doesn’t touch the application of nations. Admins may get consulted just for advisory reasons/opinions, but we tend to keep this stuff in-house to the best of our abilities. I trust my Imps to be impartial on these topics, and I hope the community does too. We also don’t exactly vote, we come to a consensus of what’s best for the communities and LoTC as a whole.

 

On to the fun...

 

I.

Are the physical requirements of nation apps (player signatures & money) too high or too low?

 

**The current physical requirements are 25 active signature players, and 25,000 minas. Minas and the economy seem to be not an issue, and while it takes time to get that pricetag, an active group of players can easily do it. Whether that’s the best option is up for debate - I don’t feel a community’s ability to generate minas is linked to how healthy their community actually is.

However, I wonder if 25 signatures is… inefficient. It’s rather easy to sign a thing, and then never actively participate. Ghost signatures abound, and that will create Ghost Nations. 

 

This may also be on us as a team to manage and actually become more stringent on people who sign to these realms, but I hesitate to punish or admonish players for not working for a nation. There are dozens of reasons a player may not be active in a new creation, or only semi-active, and not all of those reasons boil down to ‘Person signed but didn't actually care’. Very hard to moderate these things, and it’s arguably not on us to do that.

 

II.

 

Should the subjective requirement that a nation be unique (or fill a unique niche) be removed or modified?

 

**The two features here are that nations must be unique, and nations must not be recreations of immediate conquests. These aren't 'official' rules, more... guidelines.

 

As for conquest, I want things like wars to have meaning, and weight, and purpose. A nation that is smashed in a war, only to pop up 45 minutes later as if nothing happened, seems wrong to me. It creates a world where there are no consequences for RP or wars. It does not mean you can NEVER come back, obviously. Haense was destroyed last map, by the time realms reopen they’ve obviously had time to experience their conquest, and I’d say they’re free to start anew.

 

And as for uniqueness, it is a tricky subject. Really this just means we/I have a right to deny nations that we believe were created out of OOC spite, or out of pettiness to divide playerbases and decentralize RP. In short, this is about ensuring that a nation is adding to the ecosystem of LoTC. It is however, a very delicate thing, and it is not designed to be “I do not personally like the concept/culture of this nation, and therefore it is denied”.

It’s also not to codify what is a valid culture or not. Snow Elves often come up in these talks, and I routinely defend the point that your opinions on a playerbase don’t matter. By every objective metric they obviously qualify, no matter what you feel about that community or history - or any groups for example (sorry to pin you out, snowwies).

 

III.

 

Do you feel there should be a new, separate qualifier for new nations? 

 

**This is more an open question, spurred on by a specific event. When Vansk was approved for the last map, I knew in my heart it was not long for the world. I think I can say openly it was obvious it had become opponents to Norland, and I can say that without casting judgement to anyone or any group. It was just an open secret. However, just speaking honestly, it also had no real PVP players, and Norland did. It’s time was limited.

I have asked myself if that was, to some degree, on us. Perhaps we should have denied Vansk due to them obviously having almost no survival chance. I eventually came to the opinion that, no, we shouldn’t have a new qualifier for this (Or any other type), and this is due to the following: I believe it is my team’s duty to ensure active, healthy, nations to be created, but it is in no way my duty to ensure those nations survive or succeed. That is for them to do.

However, any other prospective qualifiers can be suggested, if there’s something we haven’t thought of. It has even been suggested I should deny certain communities due to toxicity of their playerbase, which is itself a very hairy subject.

 

 

---------

 

 

Those are the questions. I am very open to hearing what you have to share. However…

 

I will be very forward and say I am looking for feedback on improving this system -- what I am not looking for are snide remarks, insults, or suggestions of removing the Nation system entirely. Opinions about how 'freebuild is the best option' and 'activity checks are lame' may be yours to have, but not for this topic of conversation. I have my own opinions on this system, even radical opinions, but for the moment it’s here to stay, and for us to improve. You'll be able to give me your feedback on those topics another day, trust me.

 

Thank you everyone and @Haltfor helping me write this.

 

[Rig 17580]

1. Devise mechanics to prevent 'fragment nations'. I.E., groups that are one playerbase that have multiple different nations with PRO, but are overwhelmingly shared and have consensus. Keep nations consolidated, only reward unique player bases with nations, and establish perimeters for them. That way, if somebody seeks to make a nation, they are encouraged to change an existing one through political role-play, rather than OOC mechanics for land grabs that always result in empty piastdom 5 man kingdoms.
 

2. Decrease the cost of upkeep for current nations, emphasize other reasons to have money - such as the establishment of mines. Upkeep should be reduced, the cost of mines and agriculture could be a viable way to encourage change. 
 

3. Drop nations' penalizing debts. New builds on a new map should not be charged. Frankly, the nations did not choose to have a new map, it was staff. These settings are instrumental for serving as the backdrops where people RP, penalizing them with huge debt only sabotages role-play.

 

4. Devise new ways of making minas outside of voting.

 

5. No, the economy has not deflated - rent is up, there is less money being made, and the effort to just maintain the nation is so tremendous that it interrupts valuable role-play experiences. Our current system might provoke more cheating and OOC behavior leading to mina grubbing - minas should be used to purchase things which give your nation an edge on other nations, not to do tile upkeep where the money disappears into the abyss. That money is not in circulation. Keep the money in circulation, currency inflation is normal, gradually roll out more and more features that you can use minas for. Like blocktypes that aren't accessible in LC or etc. Greatly reduce the effectiveness of LC, make rare blocks more expensive, and encourage that LC zones are smaller unless it's for:

1.) A major rebuild.
2.) A small build (fiefdom, room, etc).

 

Ensure the scale of nation builds/lairs remain compact. Design rules limiting shitty ugly builds. We can discuss more on Discord if you like, but this is my mindset really from my month playing the new map. Despite these criticisms, I appreciate all the work you guys are doing. 

[Metamancy 1766]

25k mina too high imo. 25 people also too low.

[PolarLoLs 984]

Quote

**The current physical requirements are 25 active signature players, and 25,000 minas. Minas and the economy seem to be not an issue, and while it takes time to get that pricetag, an active group of players can easily do it. Whether that’s the best option is up for debate - I don’t feel a community’s ability to generate minas is linked to how healthy their community actually is.

This price just seems insane, I'm not sure if 25players combined at the moment have 25,000 mina to shill out when there's stilla  big risk of the nation being warred against in the few months it's established. 

For uniqueness i am not sure, i do have an idea for a tropical/Caribbean nation that's entirely fleshed out 'n' ready it's just the already struggling part of getting mina is my problem. Everything else seems fine. I say have a base price and a minimum tile size one can get when starting and the ycan pay more if they want to build up from there. lessens risk and waste of precious mina should it fail

[Rig 17580]

2 minutes ago, PolarLoLs said:

This price just seems insane, I'm not sure if 25players combined at the moment have 25,000 mina to shill out when there's stilla  big risk of the nation being warred against in the few months it's established. 

For uniqueness i am not sure, i do have an idea for a tropical/Caribbean nation that's entirely fleshed out 'n' ready it's just the already struggling part of getting mina is my problem. Everything else seems fine. I say have a base price and a minimum tile size one can get when starting and the ycan pay more if they want to build up from there. lessens risk and waste of precious mina should it fail

 

Nations should be monumentally inaccessible and have a lot of risk. That way, people do not make empty promises, and actually walk the walk when they form them. 

[PolarLoLs 984]

Just now, rigorous said:

 

Nations should be monumentally inaccessible and have a lot of risk. That way, people do not make empty promises, and actually walk the walk when they form them. 

Well yeah that's true but my only issue is that 25k, it just seems like TOO MUCH for the economy at the moment, i still say price it at how big one wants to start off 

[wowj 9747]

re-add settlements so 5 man nations can get a small plot of land

[PrimnyaQuorum 3999]

27 minutes ago, Kaiser said:

Are the physical requirements of nation apps (player signatures & money) too high or too low?

 

**The current physical requirements are 25 active signature players, and 25,000 minas. Minas and the economy seem to be not an issue, and while it takes time to get that pricetag, an active group of players can easily do it. Whether that’s the best option is up for debate - I don’t feel a community’s ability to generate minas is linked to how healthy their community actually is.

However, I wonder if 25 signatures is… inefficient. It’s rather easy to sign a thing, and then never actively participate. Ghost signatures abound, and that will create Ghost Nations. 

 

This may also be on us as a team to manage and actually become more stringent on people who sign to these realms, but I hesitate to punish or admonish players for not working for a nation. There are dozens of reasons a player may not be active in a new creation, or only semi-active, and not all of those reasons boil down to ‘Person signed but didn't actually care’. Very hard to moderate these things, and it’s arguably not on us to do that.

 

I would argue the mina requirement should factor in [somehow] to the mythical Monk Tax ™️ every nation pays; if a nation does not have the money to pay for their own existance for some pre-defined length of time that feels like a pretty simple way to say they shouldnt be a nation. It equally removes the 25K [why 25K anyway?] barrier to making a nation. The monks are evil landlords, not evil highwaymen; if its a tax, just ask for the first month or so of taxes upfront

 

I think the hot topic right now is haelun'or - everyone knows about the shadowrally of old haelun'or players who log on in times of crises, and then log off until the next one. Haelun'or as a vassal had some pretty good activity on Azuras [even before the discount anguel nuking] and I think because of that, past activity should factor in as well as the # of active signatures. I'll go on and on about this later, but lets not dance around the subject that there are a good chunk of PvPers who only log on to WC, then log off, or more simply just make alt personas to join the next WC - your nation have/not having these players should not factor in, imo. 

 

That is to say, simply, 25 as an arbitrary number should be done away with, and instead the culture/past iterations of that group as a nation/vassal should be examined

 

27 minutes ago, Kaiser said:

II.

 

Should the subjective requirement that a nation be unique (or fill a unique niche) be removed or modified?

 

**The two features here are that nations must be unique, and nations must not be recreations of immediate conquests. These aren't 'official' rules, more... guidelines.

 

As for conquest, I want things like wars to have meaning, and weight, and purpose. A nation that is smashed in a war, only to pop up 45 minutes later as if nothing happened, seems wrong to me. It creates a world where there are no consequences for RP or wars. It does not mean you can NEVER come back, obviously. Haense was destroyed last map, by the time realms reopen they’ve obviously had time to experience their conquest, and I’d say they’re free to start anew.

 

And as for uniqueness, it is a tricky subject. Really this just means we/I have a right to deny nations that we believe were created out of OOC spite, or out of pettiness to divide playerbases and decentralize RP. In short, this is about ensuring that a nation is adding to the ecosystem of LoTC. It is however, a very delicate thing, and it is not designed to be “I do not personally like the concept/culture of this nation, and therefore it is denied”.

It’s also not to codify what is a valid culture or not. Snow Elves often come up in these talks, and I routinely defend the point that your opinions on a playerbase don’t matter. By every objective metric they obviously qualify, no matter what you feel about that community or history - or any groups for example (sorry to pin you out, snowwies).

 

Eeeeeeeeeeeeh

 

Speak of the E[mpire]lephant in the room, I think. The Empire is a entity that has, since its existence and the wars leading up to its existence, wiped out a vast majority of nations. It will likely continue to do such. Does this mean they get a monopoly on the "human kingdom" status? How many other human nations can exist before they aren't unique enough? I think something more rigid being a visible part of nation apps might help with this matter, with how subjective it is. Besides, the matter is sort of self-resolving; I.E If humans wipe out any other group of humans who dont RP as they do, then the question of uniqueness does not need answering OOCly by a smaller set of players; it will get answered and resolved IRPly by this single entity that itself eats up anything it doesnt like. 

 

Here I'll also talk about the fact warclaims, literally, do not reflect RP. Sure, most do, but there is nothing stopping a nation from sitting in silence, and then posting a WC goal on uruguan just because! A war can occur for any reason, and any reason is really no reason on LoTC. With that said, and the volatility that comes with the existence of nations being decided by the function of the hamster and the # of grinders you have on retainer, I don't see a good reason why the ability to PvP [A function on the server that is totally, wholly, and for the forseeable future isolated from any and all aspects of RP/Lore on this server] is somehow a viable indicator on if some group deserves a nation. Hohkmat, in example, had no PvPers but fully embraced multiple magics alongside its own culture. By every metric set up so far, they deserve to be their own nation...-except that because all they did was magic RP, and not any grinding "RP" they would never have survived a WC against an equal sized group, much less the budding empire.

 

Most simply I don't think your ability to out-Click/Out-Grind the Empire is a fair metric for your right to make a nation. It should be determined by your RP - Haense is a good example imo, because they continued to exist and have a culture and engage with the server after losing the war.

 

27 minutes ago, Kaiser said:

Do you feel there should be a new, separate qualifier for new nations? 

 

**This is more an open question, spurred on by a specific event. When Vansk was approved for the last map, I knew in my heart it was not long for the world. I think I can say openly it was obvious it had become opponents to Norland, and I can say that without casting judgement to anyone or any group. It was just an open secret. However, just speaking honestly, it also had no real PVP players, and Norland did. It’s time was limited.

I have asked myself if that was, to some degree, on us. Perhaps we should have denied Vansk due to them obviously having almost no survival chance. I eventually came to the opinion that, no, we shouldn’t have a new qualifier for this (Or any other type), and this is due to the following: I believe it is my team’s duty to ensure active, healthy, nations to be created, but it is in no way my duty to ensure those nations survive or succeed. That is for them to do.

However, any other prospective qualifiers can be suggested, if there’s something we haven’t thought of. It has even been suggested I should deny certain communities due to toxicity of their playerbase, which is itself a very hairy subject.

 

Kinda up front, I don't think anyone truly buys that staff are a good judge of character after the various incidents that have occurred. They have friendgroups, they have biases, and sometimes they cannot separate themselves and the authority they hold from everyone else. Following the listed example, if we go by toxicity as a metric of being allowed to be, then 2 of the biggest realms would be deleted overnight and never be allowed to re-exist.

 

I think with Vansk, that needs to happen more. Sub-communities within Realms should always have [if they can meet the other criteria properly] the ability to just move out, and set up shop somewhere else. Realms, PROs, and cliques do not need more ability to centralize and control things, even if they are not currently exercising that. Again, as you kinda say yourself, you look at Vansk with no PvPers, and Norland with a large PvP rally; that issue ought be resolved IRPly, and not considered OOCly. By the same logic, Vinovia, if it was a proper realm, should've been okay [barring the obvious metaplay] because it was a nation full of PvPers. 

 

Overall, I think its a super slippery slope to put PvP-ability as a metric of realm acceptance. If Implementation Team is only responsible for nations being able to thrive on their own, and not for their survival, then a nation's ability to engage in the horrendous PvP systems we have is irrelevant, and only serves to further move the server away from RP-Factions into a "proper" factions server.

[Stag 3229]

On LotC we have always had smaller nations targeted for extermination by larger nations. I have witnessed the involvement of OOC warfare as a community member and as a staff member. We can’t necessarily separate the OOC from wars. It really is part of the game. However if you force the consolidation of roleplay too much it causes larger nations to bully smaller roleplay groups more than is acceptable. Suddenly it isn’t about actual roleplay discourse causing wars. It becomes fabricated roleplay to justify consolidating OOC activity. 
 

Small groups deserve the chance to build something and they deserve the right to fail. Being more stringent on new nations or nations reviving themselves isn’t healthy for the server. It takes a lot of work to build a nation and it takes a lot of work to maintain. Players need to practice and they need the ability to create those spaces for themselves.

 

1.) I think 25k is absurdly high but what do I know of the mina economy. A single player might be able to afford that.

 

2.) I think unless it is satire, a joke nation, or deliberately or intentionally hurtful that the staff should take a step back on this. I don’t understand when or why this would pose an actual issue.
 

3.) Add a cooldown, maybe? Again, OOC targeting is a thing. Don’t blame the one being targeted. Staff should assist in the launch of new nations? Maybe allow 1 new nation a month, total? I honestly wouldn’t know how to balance this. 

[Unwillingly 18103]

Are the physical requirements of nation apps (player signatures & money) too high or too low?

I think the real challenge of nation status isn't necessarily the barrier for entry but the ability to sustain it long-term. a lot of nations are made on a temporary hyperfixation or dopamine high that generally doesn't sustain itself in the long run, because realistically it's an incredibly menial task to get 25 people to comment on your forum post, and only maybe a little more difficult to accrue 25,000 minas? hot take I guess but I think 25k isn't that demanding, we had like 23 nations at one point last map I think it's fine lol. but neither of these, again, measures their ability to sustain themselves in the long-term. whether this means giving applicants a preliminary "trial" period as a pseudo nation- or some other system imp team can think of- is beyond me, but point being I strongly believe there needs to be a way to test whether or not these groups will go inactive 2 weeks after gaining nation status, something neither minas nor player signatures alone can solve

Should the subjective requirement that a nation be unique (or fill a unique niche) be removed or modified?

I have very strong opinions about bubblewrap nations that don't try to apply themselves to a certain identity, or nations/groups whose identity is that they have no identity. nations that unconditionally accept anyone and everyone and exist to be peaceful chunguses who live in isolated bubbles, and I think most of us will agree that these communities are better suited as vassals or guilds and not nations. outside of that, I'm sort of on the fence about it. anyone can bullshit their way through explaining the niche they fulfill in a nation app or gloating about how unique and revolutionary their community is, this can't be measured, but in an ideal world I agree that nations are better off politically and culturally defined- not unique, this server is 12 years old, everything has been done before- just have some thought put into it

Do you feel there should be a new, separate qualifier for new nations? 

yeah, but I feel the barrier for entry should be secondary to addressing what I mentioned under the first question- long term sustainability. I don't think forum signatures mean anything at all, be it 25 or 50, anyone can ask anyone to sign their forum application it means absolutely nothing and is stupidly easy to acquire, and people think that getting 25 people signing your nation app means all of those players are going to be active, dedicated, and contributing to your nation at all times, when in reality that number is more like 4-6. what exactly that barrier for entry is, I can't think of, though I'd see no issue with just having a mina down payment if it's combined with some way to measure their long-term sustainability, which I feel is most important

I also think people should be required to be a vassal or exclave before becoming a nation for x amount of time. somewhat piggybacking off islamadon's comment here in that it would help measure a group's "weight" prior to their actual elevation to nation status. I feel like we saw a lot of homeless people banding together and suddenly becoming a nation quite literally out of nowhere, and it may also prevent groups skirting around the consequences of being warred by requiring that they dedicate time towards their project before jumping into nation status

[Islamadon 9158]

Are the physical requirements of nation apps (player signatures & money) too high or too low?

Hate ghost signatures. Hate random nations that sprout up with zero basis. Hate friends giving +1s to projects they aren't involved in. If I had it my way, I would judge it based on actual prior Vassal Activity.

 

Should the subjective requirement that a nation be unique (or fill a unique niche) be removed or modified?

I think that there should not be any conquest protections. I think allowing nations, such as Haense, to re-manifest out of thin air also undermines RP of the people who vanquished the chimera. I think it's a very weak argument; they can always rebel in the Empire at a later point rather than receive staff hand-holding. Consider me a provocateur, but staff should not be trying to curb da Empire because they are on the other end.
 

Uniqueness not required, just have proper activity and RP underlying its existence. If a Vassal is active and given liberation, they should be a Nation. If its just a bunch of people trying to make another Human settlement in an unclaimed zone, they should try interacting with other Humans first.

 

Do you feel there should be a new, separate qualifier for new nations? 

Case by case basis in genuinely the answer. Trying to make a fit-all system will not work long term as people will learn to game it. Staff should consider the underlying reasons for nationhood and trust their gut as to whether it would survive or actually contribute to the server other than a perpetually closed gate hidey-hole.

 

[JudgeTrudy 610]

Quote

Are the physical requirements of nation apps (player signatures & money) too high or too low?

 

I can't really speak with any true "expertese" about the value of Mina in any kind of large-scale idea as I've never been involved in helping, say, run a nation's treasury, run a business, or really get involved in server economics. Though, with mere voting alone, I think 25k is something of a base cost that feels relatively fair as someone as far removed from this as I am. It's not a challenge that would take a group of 25+ players several months OOC to accomplish, but it's also probably not something that they could do overnight - and if they can, well, way to go. The way I'm looking at this scenario is, if I as a lonesome player who has only ever earned 99% of my total Mina by virtue of daily voting, can get over 1k Mina on each Persona over time, then it feels to me like this is a relatively fair cost. I do not believe that the value of a prospective community should be in their capability to whip up many thousands of the fake monies in a number of weeks or months except for the explicit purpose of proving they can maintain their tile/s outright. Beyond that, well, kinda comes down to them, I believe.

 

The number of signatures is definitely a tricky one for me. As someone who has such limited amounts of time to play on this server that moves so fast, the idea of getting 25 people to all sign on for a project seems daunting, and yet, I've at least seen folks rally around such ideas if there's passion behind them from the get-go. Do I think 25 signatures from players who have all been on the server less than 6 months is maybe the best sign of a healthy community that is TOTALLY gonna last? No, maybe not. But I know I would rather see those 25 naive players get to try something they're passionate about and fail, then get told they're not quite enough. I also agree with a point made in the original post regarding the consideration of folks who sign on because they do CARE and want to participate, but maybe can't login every day, other day, or even week from time to time.

 

It could be worthwhile to get some feelers on this proposed community of players during early discussions/debates/research on the application. Do I think the IMPs need to sit down and interrogate every signatory? No. Do I think it's a good idea to look at the list to get a vague idea of how many of them are truly active players, or to speak with the proposed/obvious leader/s of the community to make sure people signing on are ACTUAL players? Yeah, probably. I assume something like this already happens, but, worth a note in the rambling.

 

Quote

Should the subjective requirement that a nation be unique (or fill a unique niche) be removed or modified?

 

I do agree that new nations should have some kind of unique aspect to them. We don't need six carbon copies of the same human nation popping up all throughout any given year, for example. I agree that there is great importance in making sure that a proposed nation isn't being made to avoid consequences for major RP events (wars, storylines) or out of direct spite ("We the people of Newville do hate this one community, and wish to split it in twain with the establishment of the Grand Theologic Tribe of Newtown"), though nations birthed from actual roleplay scenarios (a diaspora reunifying years after a conflict, the folks of a prosecuted religious doctrine banding together for some strength) are, to me, valid and capable of being interesting, offering new opportunities, and advancing the everlasting communal narrative of the overarching server.

 

Ideally, I'd like to hope that when considering a new nation in this specific way, there is some communication between the Implementaiton Team and the people proposing that nation to better understand it, to get their views, and honestly, even try and help them if they're lacking in one or two areas. Admittedly I don't know what happens if, say, the Newville community's proposal for a nation gets denied - are they told why? May they reapply, and if so, after how long?

 

Regarding the validity of certain cultures (or religions, or races or subraces), I think there's probably some merit in considering these things so far as considering whether or not they have an actual playerbase to keep the community alive longer than two weeks. Otherwise, yeah, I don't think that whether or not the culture of this group is interesting enough to Groups A or B of the server, so long as Group C thinks so and they're the ones pushing for the nation to get made.

 

Quote

Do you feel there should be a new, separate qualifier for new nations? 

 

Nothing comes to mind at this particular time, no. I'm sure something will as I read through new replies, but for now: nada.

 

Thanks for making this post, and I hope the community hands you and your team some genuinely nice feedback that'll help make y'alls job a little better, and our future realms all the more interesting.

[Benleft 2580]

1

The signature count for applications is nowhere near the actual cutoff that prevents fudging the numbers (I figure that is in the ballpark of 40). However, I am not sure of the second order effects of raising the signature threshold so significantly. The goal of the signature threshold should be to indicate nations have whatever the critical mass of sustainability usually is. To measure this, I would compare signatures# against activity%, looking to see if patterns poke up (we probably only have good data for a handful of nations created via app, probably nothing super robust to be found here). 

 

25K minas is good for now, but it should increase gradually (perhaps a lump sum like 5K each time nations pay down their debt) before gradually lowering again if the server becomes too stuffy under the Malinorian Caliphate. 

 

2

I think these requirements serve their purpose adequately as-is, but it should be emphasized there are 'legitimate' ways to overcome this (such as a nation fragmenting or being released). These are probably times when it is helpful to pop out a new tag. 

 

3

Yes, but nothing that would get in the way of nation-to-nation engagement. Don't give The Pirate Republic of PVP 3 months of spawn protection, please. 

[Nectorist 12869]

It's a bit difficult to talk about the nation system without also touching on war, the economy, etc, but I'll do my best to stay on-topic here and just address the questions as they are.

 

1 hour ago, Kaiser said:

I.

Are the physical requirements of nation apps (player signatures & money) too high or too low?

 

The money requirement is too high, while the player count is honestly irrelevant. I think a 'nation fee' is just too gamey for my liking. I understand that this RPly reflects the process of settling new land, but why not instead go a more RP-intensive route and have the 'fee' be them actually roleplaying establishing this colony and new government. Planning out where to settle IRP through scouting, establishing small camps (presumably while the build is being made), developing their governing principles through whatever RP method (if it's a republic, some kind of town hall convention. if it's a monarchy, obtaining a pontifical dispensation and gathering prospective vassals. stuff like that). The monetary fee can be paid through LC cost. I'd very much like to see new nations have to go through the effort to legitimize themselves and actually have a story about their founding, which I think will also benefit the nation's RP in the long run. It's a harder standard to assess, but it's a much more rewarding one.

 

Player signatures don't matter, people just get their friends to do it. Gauge interest by seeing how many people show up when Johnny Horen calls for new settlers to his colony.

 

Spoiler

II.

 

Should the subjective requirement that a nation be unique (or fill a unique niche) be removed or modified?

 

I think it should be modified. Uniqueness on this server tends to be a bit overrated. Solid and immersive execution of a well thought-out concept (as generic as it might be) is actually a far better driver of RP success and storytelling. 

 

I think a better way to look at this requirement is: has this concept shown to be viable in the past?

 

This might mean prior success as a nation, or current success as some sort of smaller vassal group or organization. You can come up with the most unique niche in the world, but if you cannot make it a successful and active source of RP within the server as some sort of subgroup, then you're just not going to succeed as a nation. Very little of what gets written down in culture posts, government posts, etc, actually matters compared to what players want to RP on the server. New nations should form out of groups that have a track record of RP presence and have a reason to exist that can be RP'd out.

 

Two good examples of this are Balian and Caurost. In Balian's case, it was founded by Imperial exiles from the Brother's War, who had fled to this foreign desert land. Their initial culture was literally no different from Oren's at the time, and even when they tried to branch out months later, it was a bit muddled. However, it was a group that reflected a real RP constituency, and most of its founders had a clear story of who they were, how they came to be, and why they needed to exist. They had shown prior success within the Empire as vassals and knew how to make RP that could attract people. It fit seamlessly within the wider narrative of the server and ongoing RP currents, which allowed it to develop a coherent RP identity over time, even if it wasn't all that unique from the start, and for years remained an active part of human RP.

 

For Caurost, it was intentionally founded by elves who had grievances with the Vale, Haelun'or, and Celian'or, despite previously trying to hash it out in those nations. Unwillingly hosted countless RP meetings with elves to try and gauge interest for a new elven nation. Our characters discussed the problems within Elvendom, what was the best way to address these problems, and how to structure a new society that was built around the principles we thought were lacking among the elves. While we all had some very simple ideas at the start, Caurost's identity was forged over time, through fighting as mercenaries alongside the orcs, serving as their vassals for a time, and eventually involving ourselves within elven politics and seeing how we were positioned compared to other elven nations. Over the course of months, we proved that the basic concept for Caurost had plenty of interest from the community, proved that Caurost could survive as a subgroup, and proved that Caurost could occupy a position in elven RP that helped develop the wider narrative. 

 

Spoiler

III.

 

Do you feel there should be a new, separate qualifier for new nations? 

 

I think what I've written above should mostly suffice. I just want to see new nations be justified in RP and show viability as an RP concept before they're given nation status, but if there is a real desire for what a new nation might bring, then it shouldn't be hindered by fees, but instead have to prove its worth as a body of storytelling.

[Hom 1987]

27 minutes ago, Nectorist said:

I understand that this RPly reflects the process of settling new land, but why not instead go a more RP-intensive route and have the 'fee' be them actually roleplaying establishing this colony and new government. Planning out where to settle IRP through scouting, establishing small camps (presumably while the build is being made), developing their governing principles through whatever RP method (if it's a republic, some kind of town hall convention. if it's a monarchy, obtaining a pontifical dispensation and gathering prospective vassals. stuff like that).

 

i’ve been pondering over this post and what i want to see from the nation establishment system, and i think everything nectorist says here really hits the nail on the head with how to properly “trial” groups before letting them establish as a mechanical nation- through roleplay. now that is definitely harder to monitor since staff is presumably too busy to hover over people’s shoulders making sure they’re doing town halls, but we do already have an activity monitoring system in place. maybe groups who want to establish a nation could pay a smaller mina fee and show some lesser proof of group activity (posts, signatures, whatever) to set up a camp on an unowned tile. they wouldn’t own the tile, but would have a small region on it and staff would be able to check activity on that region. passing activity checks could lead to the camp upgrading to a settlement, and then eventually a fully fledged nation. if the checks are failed and the group goes dead, they just stay as a camp (that may eventually be knocked out by some natural disaster or another? maybe). there’s probably flaws in this idea, but i think it could be a decent start as a way to judge a group based on actual on-server activity in a way that’s still manageable for staff. it wouldn’t be easy, but making a nation shouldn’t be. if you want a chill little group of people to hang out and do their own thing, that’s awesome, and guilds, vassals, or lairs is a great way to achieve that without the stress of nation-building.