Settlers of Azuras

[Areon 947]

Activity requirement for the personas attached to the settlement instead PLEASE we already have this for /warcheck 

[Daisy 9725]

1 minute ago, Spoopy_Duck said:

Big moves, my only question is since they require 20 signatures to make a settlement is it still going to remain 25 for a realm or is that number going to go up in scale?

 

Oh I forgot to mention that in the post -- it was raised to 40 as part of this change.

[Stag 3229]

A sensible approach to modern LotC

[fizzyquack 564]

THIS IS PERFECT I LOVE THIS!!!

[Werew0lf 24180]

-puffs on cigar- 

[Zindran 590]

6 minutes ago, Areon said:

Activity requirement for the personas attached to the settlement instead PLEASE we already have this for /warcheck 

I believe that's already a part of it :)

However when testing, it seems like it's an account-based cooldown when active

[Nectorist 12869]

What expands must contract and what contracts must expand again

 

Looking forward to some cool settlements

[Kardika 1057]

idea

[Turbo_Dog 3566]

Nor’asath returns 

[Xarkly 17299]

not really sure I see the point or how this just isn't the same recipe nation bloat we had with a different name.

 

If you're a group that doesn't want to pursue nation status why are you not just joining a nation?

 

Sandcastle syndrome will always be bad.

 

Edit: why are Tech writing how war rules operate for these?

[MailC3p 2402]

9 minutes ago, Xarkly said:

why are you not just joining a nation?

>Dwarves are KoS
>Guess Dwarves have to find a nation that, for some reason won't kill on sight them if they want to do their RP.

>Lol

[Silly Zero 93]

[Tide1 4535]

It is my firm belief that nation bloat should be dealt with by the players (as happened at the end of Aevos), rather than be gated by high m o n e y requirements.

 

I don't believe this addresses the problem correctly. Just make nations cheaper - who cares if more of them appear? That's a roleplay issue that has always been dealt with via roleplay, and has been a source of some of LotC's best narratives through the years. The ridiculous 25k mina investment to found a nation also doesn't encourage roleplay leadership at all. As if it wasn't stressful enough to lead a collective of people, you're also responsible for their pre-invested time on an OOC level, just because you have all agreed that making a nation would be cool. Do you think that this would encourage an NL to roleplay the fear of death if they were ever captured?

 

I'm sure it would be an unpopular take, but nations should really be cheap to make and just require the sign-ups of 20+ people who have war-eligibility type hours on their founding personas (which is something we can evidently check for). Let the roleplayers take care of the rest. And make war cheaper so that it can't only be done by career-winners who already dominate the entire map.

 

Very icky, no good. Fix nations. They can be small; that is okay.

 

 

Edit and sidenote; Just because the Empire is big doesn't mean it should should be the standard for what a realm is. Your perception of a minecraft nation is off.

 

Secondly: your effort to create, without a mod admin present, a type of nation that is easier to make, but "requires" different war rules so that you can make them less player-friendly, does not go unnoticed. I'm not sure how much of this is a Daisy-special, and how much actually got approved by the rest of the admins, crucially lacking in the admin that should be responsible for most of the server's rules being up to par - but it has the same look about it as what almost got you a metaplay ban regarding your Haelun'Or affiliated admin actions.

 

Just my opinion though.

[Beardicuss 486]

22 minutes ago, Tide1 said:

It is my firm belief that nation bloat should be dealt with by the players (as happened at the end of Aevos), rather than be gated by high m o n e y requirements.

 

I don't believe this addresses the problem correctly. Just make nations cheaper - who cares if more of them appear? That's a roleplay issue that has always been dealt with via roleplay, and has been a source of some of LotC's best narratives through the years. The ridiculous 25k mina investment to found a nation also doesn't encourage roleplay leadership at all. As if it wasn't stressful enough to lead a collective of people, you're also responsible for their pre-invested time on an OOC level, just because you have all agreed that making a nation would be cool. Do you think that this would encourage an NL to roleplay the fear of death if they were ever captured?

 

I'm sure it would be an unpopular take, but nations should really be cheap to make and just require the sign-ups of 20+ people who have war-eligibility type hours on their founding personas (which is something we can evidently check for). Let the roleplayers take care of the rest. And make war cheaper so that it can't only be done by career-winners who already dominate the entire map.

 

Very icky, no good. Fix nations. They can be small; that is okay.

I agree with this however 

 

DIASPORA RP 

[LoTC's Next Top Model 1626]

functionally, to me, if these are now costed at approx what realms were before, and realm prices have gone up, settlements arn't actually a new system at all.

these are slightly cheaper and with five (5) less signatures, and in exchange you also have way less rights LMAO.

the actual functional mechanics of this going forward is that the currently existing "legacy" realms are going to be the actual bosses of the server, and these settlements are just realms but worse. anyone who could've raised 10k could also raise 15k. anyone who could've rallied 20 people could've rallied 25. this has just made proper realm ownership unachievable for most of the community, and given a watered down slightly more attainable version of the old system in it's place.

i don't think settlements realistically solve any issues at this current pricing structure. it just seems like a nerf for new communities that might want to try and sprout up.