Nation Application Community Feedback

[_Sheylo_ 1177]

Re-implement settlements. Regardless of 'politics' and 'wars' and 'conquest' and countless other arguments. At the end of the day, it is a roleplay server, that, yes, is to tell a story, but also it is meant to be enjoyable, and with some of the systems implemented; is impossible.

I can often see how being strong-armed to be apart of a group that does not align or mesh well with viewpoints IC OR OOC can be seen as problematic. Yet player count trumps literally everything and can seem detrimental, especially when it is conquest for a large group that likely does not care for the community they are 'conquering' at all. It's either land grabs or ploys to disband communities, personal experience leads me to believe that assimilation never really happens. There should be space for player communities both small and large. If I'm going to be honest, the fantastical air the server used to hold for me kind of just doesn't work for me anymore with the state of what nations exist and/or are left. "Unique cultures" that are left have more blurred or vague things than ever. Elf nations feel like human nations with pointed ears, human nations are medieval peasant to lord larp cultures. Orcs atleast have their whole clan, klomp thing & shamanism. Dwarves are like, uh, venture capitalists or something.

We're focused on conflict, but we're also not really focused on server cohesion. Virtual gangs formed via staff, and the same goes for most things around war in character. It's all kind of feels like a glorified factions server. BUT, that's just my two nickles, since pennies are no longer made.  Nations are whatever, people who have them pay upkeep and the cost to form, especially when tile upkeep prevents nations (mostly) from expanding across the entirety of the map. It all sounds fine to me. Those that exist can easily afford it. And those that want to make a nation have a hoop to jump through. I see no issues there. Yeah, the signature thing is an issue, but what do we even constitute as active, two hours a week? Just make at least 2/3'ds of those signed be keeping up a certain amount of activity time per week for however long and then who cares afterwards??

The big thing is unique groups that actually DO things different from other groups that currently exist, and do it well. If every nation is a turkey roast with only a slightly different blend of seasoning, at the end of the day.. People are still going to get tired of turkey...

[Fishy 2709]

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

Player signatures have and never will be good. It is just grinding forum engagement and provides zero basis for sustainable activity. By no means should player signatures be taken as a serious metric and should be utterly removed. Forum history, lore history, precedence (Has this nation existed before successfully, or is it a vassal that could sustain itself) are all much better things to consider because they gauge actual involvement not just with the server but the community.
Money at 25k I am fine with, chartering a vassal from an existing nation should always be significantly cheaper.

 

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

 

If you can exist as a vassal then there is zero reason you should be given a nation. Woe unto the vanquished, suffer what you must or rise against your oppressor by pen or sword. There are RP avenues that should take precedence over any sort of Staff hand-out. Whether a nation is unique or not should only matter in the instance that they are an existing group, such as a vassal, that has achieved liberation via whatever means.

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

 

While no one system will be perfect, I am a strong believer in only what exists making the cut. If you can't find your start under someone else, you aren't going to find it running off into the middle of nowhere. Let nations rise and fall as a consequence of RP, keep forum-begging out of the equation.

[Morigung-oog 5697]

2 hours ago, Kaiser said:

 

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.

 

 

One thing I despised was how easy it was for destroyed nations to simply reform under a new name. A nation could be warclaimed and simply vassalise under another nation to avoid consequence or found their nation under a new name. This feels like a copout and subtracts to the real risk of annihilation warclaims.

 

I think nations should come from more longstanding communities- roleplay should be observed for at least six months, I'd say before nationhood can even be considered. 

 

 

[Laeonathan 5889]

More player requirement, less mina.

Maybe 10 k and 60 signatures. If you hold a leading role somewhere else, you cant sign. 

[Werew0lf 24180]

Try and make a new human nation. 

[PrimnyaQuorum 3999]

1 hour ago, Fishy said:

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

 

If you can exist as a vassal then there is zero reason you should be given a nation. Woe unto the vanquished, suffer what you must or rise against your oppressor by pen or sword. There are RP avenues that should take precedence over any sort of Staff hand-out. Whether a nation is unique or not should only matter in the instance that they are an existing group, such as a vassal, that has achieved liberation via whatever means.

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

 

While no one system will be perfect, I am a strong believer in only what exists making the cut. If you can't find your start under someone else, you aren't going to find it running off into the middle of nowhere. Let nations rise and fall as a consequence of RP, keep forum-begging out of the equation.

 

me when i hate anyone else but me and my friendgroup having fun.

 

This is a RP server not a live-action test of one of those 1000 people simulation civilization. At the end of the day, any system that exists should be engaging to interact with and be something to work alongside with, not prevent anyone except the same 5-10 people from making realms.

 

I think settlements could come back. The same strict standards that are going for realms would keep settlements unique and functional for those with a more unique niche

[Zindran 590]

Personally I feel @Nectoristhad a good basis on their suggestion for greater player activity focus, but I personally feel like it could be doubled down on and made into a new settlement system similar to what we used to have. Lairs would still be their own thing, but here's what I think it could be.

New Settlement System (4 tiers):

• Colony
  • Starts as just a couple people in a tent camp with their own small region on an unowned tile.
  • Small mina cost (like paying contractors to help build) and activity requirement to become the next tier.
• Settlement
  • Grows from a Colony and is a less-developed city. Probably looks like a halfling village.
  • Greater mina cost and activity requirement to become the next tier.
• City
  • Basically a vassal, but not under a nation. Proper city things. If a nation wants to buy the tile, this tier must either become a vassal of the nation or be forced out by war.
• Nation
  • Full nation status, must pay the amount required to buy a tile, and gains all the perks / requirements of normal nation status.

Note that any of these could be destroyed, they're meant as a more dynamic way to let people do their own thing, and must keep a certain activity requirement or be demoted to their previous tier (or be turned into an abandoned ruin if it's a colony).
 

It'd make the activity be the focus of the entire system, rather than some arbitrary amount of mina and signatures. This would also grant a great deal more freedom for people or groups who want to live in their own place outside of under a nation while not meeting all criteria for being a Lair. Also yes, that is a bit of a self-report on my side given current events, but I've held that standpoint on settlements and nations since I was on the World Team dealing with activity numbers in 2021.

[Ardory 2978]

Forming the Kingdom of Agartha but it is an ethnostate of Gnomes. (Agnotha)

[Rig 17580]

6 hours ago, PolarLoLs said:

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 

That's 1,000 minas per dedicated settler (of 25 people). I think it's doable and intentionally hard. However, I'm writing up a proposal for forms of settlement that exist outside of nations for players who want to be freer. I totally understand not wanting to be wrapped up in nation projects and hate that the entirety of the server revolves around:

a.) living in a nation
b.) magic rp

[Fluffy Horror 496]

I don't know enough about the economy or nation starting to comment on the 25 signature requirement or the 25k mina requirement.

 

I do have an opinion on nation uniqueness.

 

From what I have seen, LOTC does not have a culture that encourages unique groups. Anyone trying to do something different gets crushed almost immediately. For example, a cool new fantasy religion just cannot exist, it would immediately be warred out of existence by the Church. With this being a gameplay trend, I think that the uniqueness requirement should be lowered or dropped. If people can get the numbers and the mina, and also set up in a way where they will not be immediately destroyed, why not? We cannot culturally enforce homogeneity and then demand uniqueness as a requirement for someone to do their own thing.

 

The PVP question is a hard one. It sucks that, on a roleplay server, nations rise and fall from clicks. It means that a lot of really creative, cool nation ideas just can never happen, because they're never going to have more fleepers than the conventional nations. I don't think there's an easy solution to that, though. You can't exactly do CRP war claims.

Edited November 27, 2025 by Fluffy Horror

[Rig 17580]

7 hours ago, wowj said:

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

 

This, just don't give them the full privileges a nation has, and limit how many people can live in them. I miss the days you could see a tavern on the King's Road. Spontaneous, dynamic RP, requires a semi-freebuild setting. We have a Map Team and a Build Team, we can get prebuild assets made that players can buy, faintly tweak, and plop down after making an application for a minor charter to live in. It's not as sweet of an offer as people think, not being defended by a nation can lead to being raided by demons, bandits, or bad faith nations with big warcrime committing militaries. People should live in nations for better jobs and security, but players should also be free to apply for a homestead so long as they're limited to just their family or a couple of friends. Limited player counts would make this doable, and create an enforced gap between charters, so that they cannot develop into urban centers unless they unite and join money/player counts to form a nation application. Not a perfect solution, but allows for more freedom. I hate that I need to ask a NL for a cave to sleep in. Lairs/nations should not be the only way a player who has a few friends and a nice build can get a spot to live and play Minecraft in.

 

endrant

[___ 361]

1. It’s my opinion that the entire system for gauging a new realm’s potential player base should be reworked. It would make far more sense to only include people with one or two character slots who also meet certain activity requirements, such as dialogue in the past month or so. People with less characters are more likely to be dedicated to their communities, and imposing an activity requirement for signatures to be counted would ensure that people who barely log on aren’t counted. The signatures that are approved would then mostly consist of people who will actively RP in that nation. Of course, this would also make it far more difficult to get those 25 signatures, so if such a system were adopted, I think it would be a good idea to lower that slightly.

 

2. I think the requirement of a nation fulfilling a unique niche should be maintained, and if anything, most of the issues on Aevos were due to that rule not being enforced. The human groups all fell into the same niche with few exceptions, and yet there were so many of them that it fragmented the player base. Most of the nations weren’t divided based on their niche, but rather individual cliques formed by people who didn’t like other players OOCly and wanted to stay away. The issue was so bad that they had to add /realms activity. We have this same issue in this current map, only in a different form. In my opinion, the cost of tile maintenance should increase exponentially rather than linearly, making it infeasible to have countless vassals with their own individual cities and tiles. A nation with 20 vassals is just as bad, if not worse than having 12 different nations that fall into the same niche. I don’t think vassals are bad in general, but it’s not good to have so many of them.
 

3. It shouldn’t be possible for a nation that was destroyed through war to immediately reform. Aside from this, I don’t believe there should be an additional qualifier. Having a realm on its own is enough to open the door for additional opportunities that would otherwise be unavailable, and with the current resource scarcity, a nation could feasibly offer materials in exchange for protection. This would mirror similar systems that were commonly seen within Asian IRL in which smaller kingdoms were forced to pay tribute to larger kingdoms in order to survive. Worst case scenario, the entire nation dies in a war and people get some extra conflict RP. 

Edited November 27, 2025 by GibbousKong

[Venomous_Pup 2978]

On this specifically, I think it would be better if votes for making a new nation or whatever done on server through the realm plugin to automate the whole process, namely, when it comes to gathering votes, I think the realm plugin can view the person giving a vote to a Nation, check their forum ID and total and recent playtime before sending it as a valid vote, but this also gives us the option that should the Group they pledge to manages to become manifest, you put them on a 5-8 month cooldown before they can vote again so players can't just keep hopping around. 

I think the two other points can be addressed simply by expanding the scope somewhat and giving players more options when it comes to making places for RP. As of right now, you either gun for Nation, make a Vassal under another Nation, or try to make a Lair. For a group like Vansk, it could be argued that if it were to build up from a smaller-scale community rather than starting as a Nation, it might have had more luck and grown or otherwise just stayed as a smaller settlement. I think it is fine for any player/group to want independence from Nations and Vassals, as there are many factors that might contribute to them desiring such, both as a mixture of IRP and OOC reasoning. I think forcing players to interact with things they don't want to ultimately leads to a miserable experience for everyone involved, and if players want to blow mina on projects, just let them; they'll either learn from the mistakes or keep trying, and if we only care about engagement with the server, so long as it isn't maliciously OOCly driven, this would provide it plenty.

What it ultimately comes down to is what metric the server/RP group is considered successful by? Personally, for me, while I do understand the appeal of the server having 100s of players on at any time, I prefer more quality RP over the quantity of players that spam simple dialogue. Another thing to ask is whether these systems should be entirely aiming for longevity or promoting engaging RP. This is simply to say that if I wanted to, as a player, make a bandit camp fully player-run and driven, I can't exactly vassalize under a Nation as the Nation is held accountable for their existence (you can not claim a mechanical vassal was made IRP without knowledge), Lairs are more lore-based, and a Nation would get instantly warred for being overtly evil without any regarding to allowing some form of drawn out conflict and that is setting aside spending 25k mina for what would be a temp group to stir abit of RP is a bit of bad investment. I truthfully think a more nuanced and thorough approach needs to be taken in regards to how 'RP Hubs' are meant to exist and function on LotC and what the ultimate goal is, while giving players the freedom, tools and understanding what they are actually signing up for so people can generate RP without worrying about their shit getting nuked instantly. 

Edit to say, also all future systems need to be designed to prevent players 'optimising' the fun out of this server, force them to RP..

[_RoyalCrafter_ 5285]

1. I dont think there is any way to mechanically / with plugins, detect if a potential nation is worthy and active enough to be made into one. Not that there would be a point either since any method would have many flaws that dont reflect the nature of activity, it comes and goes based on countless factors.

2. the nation bloat "problem", which i was a part of as a leader of a small nation that got warred, literally got solved irp. All the tiny states got warred and destroyed, and I dont mind that. if you are worried about bloat again just war them, nothing is stopping you, its all roleplay. adding weird rules like if you are pro or a vassal or some other community or whatever other esoteric rule is pointless. if you and 25 friends want to go RP you should be able to do so freely. But also people can war you freely.
 

Changing the amount of players or mina required is rather arbitraty. 25 is enough people, 25000 mina is enough. its hard enough getting that many people, mina is the easy part.

I want to conclude basically that maximum player freedom should be the goal. People should be able to freely associate and form their own groups just as freely as other groups can war to destroy them. Like i reiterate, the nationbloat problem last map was fixed by RP without any staff intervention or anything. Only point to against maximum player freedom is recreating your nation after you got warred, I think it should be allowed but it is bad faith on the player's part, and if you do it preparred to be warred anyway.

Settlements would be a cool idea. I miss Barrowtown, most fun i had on the server was jousting in the rain there.

[___ 361]

13 minutes ago, _RoyalCrafter_ said:

2. the nation bloat "problem", which i was a part of as a leader of a small nation that got warred, literally got solved irp. All the tiny states got warred and destroyed, and I dont mind that. if you are worried about bloat again just war them, nothing is stopping you, its all roleplay.

Now we have vassal bloat, hence why I believe the cost of tile maintenance should scale exponentially rather than linearly. Having a few vassals wouldn’t be difficult, but having 10-15 wouldn’t be feasible. We can’t war these vassals if they’re all protected by three different nations pretending to be one, and their countless allies

Edited November 27, 2025 by GibbousKong