Settlers of Azuras

[Xarkly 17299]

3 hours ago, Zindran said:

I think it's more so addressing the issue where the big 3 (Empire, Idunia, Koyo) are allied, and anyone that doesn't agree with them just gets warclaimed and conquered, then listed as KOS pretty much everywhere.
They wouldn't be eligible for a lair because they're either too big or are a group that would generally be accepted as a public entity, but aren't able to survive under any of the current realms due to current circumstances.

 

Even if it were true, I don't think designing a long-term system based on current nation geopolitics is very sensible. Geopolitics change often, so unless there's a commitment to change this system along with them, the two are likely to diverge within a few weeks-months.

 

But like I said, I'm not sure if that's even true. Admins have said they discussed at their meeting that there's already looking likely to be two dwarven vassals, and for any race or group genuinely KOS, that is literally the point of lairs. I'm not sure where this concern of lairs and sizes has come from, some lairs have huge builds with large groups of players already, i.e. Azdrazi.

 

Even aside all that, I wouldn't have so much ab issue with the above if the system was actually a promising one, but it's not -- it's a reincarnation of what led to realm bloat under a different name and the war rules, written by Tech and not Mod for some very strange and frustrating reason, are full of holes.

[Britannicvs 2508]

2 hours ago, Laeonathan said:

adria literally has dwarves

my situation is unique tho tbf

[Reece Nolan 996]

6 hours ago, Tide1 said:

- snip -

 

Probably the best take here on the discussion, you and Crevel. These are just re-skinned lairs without the persecution requirements and stinkier war rules. Could definitely use some revisements.

 

5 hours ago, Luto said:

while my biggest concern lies in this being misused to dodge irp consequences of the war system,

 

I've seen this take a couple times already and every time I see it, it really does seem like nobody can actually tell you what it means. Like the word Woke. The consequences of war are displacement, not exclusivity. Yes, some dwarves are picking themselves up in the empire, I myself have found ways to continue my Character's narrative too. However, for the vast majority of dwarves, it would require an OOC, meta play level break of their character in order to turn their character around and disavow Urguan so that they can join the empire. The problem here isn't some consequences free pass, that's not what a lair or settlement is, they still lose the entire build, their political standing, a lot of their playerbase, resources, reputation, and most importantly, time. The problem here is staffs lack of alternative for racial hubs, because an entire map controlled by one nation/race has only happened a handful of times in LOTCs history. Although I will concede, a lot of the dwarves who aren't in that sticky position have taken this scenario less than gracefully. I've only really seen Dorin, Belegar, Obok, Thriku, Media, and myself, actively searching for an alternative. There are dwarves who aren't legionnaires or nationalists who very well could disseminate into the empire without breaking their character, that are just sitting on their hands waiting for a lair handout.

 

4 hours ago, PanicZealot said:

Super funny how seemingly the only people giving this hate are Empire players.

 

Let's not stoop to Kurai-Kuni's level. No generalizations.

[The Tough Guy 4319]

4 hours ago, Riot said:

see you at the tavern!

 

Cant Join a Nation and Cant Afford a Realm. No positive income to assist. Most people who left and didnt fight in the war are staying gone like xMuted and Stinthad, Obok, Etc. and building a realm will get war'ed and feels contradictory

 

I did fight in the war. I'm just a winner.

[wowj 9747]

3 hours ago, Xarkly said:

Even aside all that, I wouldn't have so much ab issue with the above if the system was actually a promising one, but it's not -- it's a reincarnation of what led to realm bloat under a different name and the war rules, written by Tech and not Mod for some very strange and frustrating reason, are full of holes.

again, (although my previous comment was hidden) The Mod Admins (Daisy & Squak) had a hand in alongside Implementation Team, in re-adding this system, settlements were a system in Almaris, and weren't exactly removed, but more-so put on the shelf, and now is back, it was written in system rules prior to this update and was never removed, for all purposes it was still a system in the rules, thats why settlements came back with little conversation, it still existed, it just didn't have applications open.

Also these war rules seem very similar/the same as Lairs in war? Bar that Settlements can join wars.
(Ie; Buy Settlement's Tile, to Warclaim them) Also Mods did write these rules, specifically, the Moderation Administrators.

[ferdaboy 3472]

200x200 is a ridiculous size

 

admins didnt want mercenary groups last map, yet they’re going back on this it seems

 

all on top of encroachment of another team’s work, which is genuinely unsurprising at this point as the tech team does tend to do as it pleases 

[Xarkly 17299]

26 minutes ago, wowj said:

again, (although my previous comment was/probably still is hidden) The Mod Admins (Daisy & Squak) had a hand in alongside Implementation Team, in writing this system, and it wasn't a fully re-writing/creation of a new system, as settlements were a system in Almaris, and wasn't exactly removed, but more-so put on the shelf, and now its back, it was written in system rules prior to this update and was never removed, for all purposes it was still a system in the rules, thats why settlements came back with little conversation, it still existed, it just didn't have applications open.

 

I'm not sure what redemption "Mod Admins" is meant to bring, because that's quite obviously not the point I'm making. It's not some issue of pride "wahhh why weren't we consulted" but of practically - war is not exactly a simple system and it has knock-on effects on the majority of other mechanical systems so I don't think it makes very much sense to defer the writing of that system to a team that has no prior involvement in it. I don't feel like this is a controversial take.

 

It's also not a hypothetical take because the way these non-mod war rules are written don't make much sense (i.e. the tile ownership status is too vague and the travel cost proviso doesn't make any sense ((are you paying travel costs on a tile you own?)) and they are extremely inconsistent with the rest of the war rules (i.e. the grace period for settlements is substantially greater than that for nations and the cost of warring a settlement is higher).

 

The distinction between the settlement system being scrapped or 'shelved' is totally moot and I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make with it. The point is the system hasn't been operated for a long time and is largely in response to issues like realm bloat; whether you're resurrecting the system or u shelving it doesn't really address the issues that led to it being defunct no matter what you want to call that defunct.

[MrMojoMordor 2412]

ok.
tbh - cool idea, but i fear the 'settlements' will end up being some mega-builds & i think the cost should be lower perhaps?
Or the amount of signatures. One of the two. I'd vote for signatures tbh, otherwise some settlement's may outgrow the realms.

Also raising realms to 40 ppl. There's like ~200 ppl at best online in peak hours usually. Imagine a less popular race (orcs/dwarves) getting the chance to make a realm for themselves again. Idk if they'll even hit that goal lmao. The server is already just Lord of the Humans.

Also sizes - a village in comparison because i was curious how big a 'settlement' would be. 
smallest is Lair (green/white)
then 150x150 size (thought maybe that's a good size for a settlement - probably not.)
then 200x200 size. 

[Morigung-oog 5697]

Hello, local neighbourhood-friendly triage/implementation member here. I played a role in the finetuning of this system.  I was brought into this following the decision to make the settlement system but have good knowledge of what went into its creation. As such, I'll try to answer as many questions and concerns as I can.

 

13 hours ago, Xarkly said:

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?

 

I do agree that there should be lasting consequences for nations/settlements who were destroyed in this warclaim. I did voice during the meeting that I was concerned about the weaponization of this system to avoid said consequences.

 

I've since been reassured that while such may not be avoidable, the Settlements system  will be one closely observed, with server rules enforced by the appropriate staff teams in the event of abuse of the system. Settlements are not an OOC shield for playerbases to hide behind to avoid IC political and wartime consequence and for as long as I sit on the team, I shall sit on the side of appropriate roleplay consequence. Groups being hunted should engage in roleplay diplomacy to resolve issues, even if the outcome is initially unfavourable on their end. Sometimes that is just how the cookie crumbles-- nothing lives forever, and sometimes concepts must die in order for newer and greater ones to live. The settlement system appears to be the admin approach of establishing some sort of middleground so niche but sizeable roleplay demographics aren't entirely wiped off of the map.

 

As someone who has sat behind the desks of both story team and tech, I operate by a cynical, yet somewhat realistic mindset: "If it can be abused, it will be."  It is an unfortunate truth of LoTC, especially given its size that there will always be bad eggs who try to take advantage of systems that were created with the intent of benefitting the playerbase. 

 

To clarify, we suggested rules which I'm told were to be reviewed, modified and approved by moderation/administration per the appropriate system implementation process. We covered a number of topics and concerns and war rules were one of them. 

 

12 hours ago, LoTC's Next Top Model said:

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.

 

The total signatures for nations have been upped to forty. During the meeting in which we brainstormed the system, I voiced concern that there needed to be some clear distinction between vassals and settlements. Charging a notable amount to settle on a tile independent of any nation alongside securing twenty five signatures serves as a means to cement player sincerity with establishing a settlement. This also exists as a means to mitigate one of the issues of the past- bloat.

 

If you don't have enough minas or players, become a  vassal. Vassals have the unique benefit of price being a flexible factor, with costs and upkeep being decided by the realm leader-- activity requirements and costs are often generous and, if not negligible. Being established on owned tiles, they may also intercept warpaths and grant resources from mining nodes. There's less mechanical expectation associated with vassalage, and it is generally a much less demanding path than the nation/settlement system. The potential downside is, of course, that ultimately, you are at the mercy of the realm leader and their decisions; a key example of enforced weaknesses exist in both iterations of Haelun'or on this map, who were allowed to exist almost independently, though met their downfall through the orders of their realm leaders the first time, and the surrendering of The Horde the second. An example of a vassal maximising their potential exists in Alba and Petra, who have a large playerbase, and high activity levels to boot while also contributing to their liege lords.

 

The benefit of settlements comes with the sheer amount of perks offered- an LC region, green soulstone pillar, an area of up to 200x200 blocks and a unique set of protections that makes warclaiming them with the intent of destruction additionally taxing.

 

Settlements are supposed to serve as a middle-ground for communities who lack or otherwise dislike the requirements for nation status, but want something larger than a lair.

 

Well-known past and prospective settlement and  realm leaders were also asked about the system itself prior to its submission so that we could submit a system that existed as much in the interest of everyone as possible.  Examples of successful settlements in the past were The Vale and Lurin a few maps ago, both of which were able to meet and beat activity requirements.

 

1 hour ago, MrMojoMordor said:

Also sizes - a village in comparison because i was curious how big a 'settlement' would be. 
smallest is Lair (green/white)
then 150x150 size (thought maybe that's a good size for a settlement - probably not.)
then 200x200 size. 

 

Ugly cube mega-cities will not be approved, we gave 200x200 to factor in aspects like wall-size and areas outside of city walls like farms & stables. Each build will be reviewed on a case-by-case business and builds that are unrealistic in scale will not make it to the main world. Don't worry, this was addressed. :)

 

 

 

Any glaring issues can and will be amended as time goes on. Any system created and implemented operated in part through trial and error and no system is ever truly perfect. We're more than aware of this and are prepared to adjust and balance aspects as time goes on.

 

I hope this clears up a few of your concerns :)

[Xarkly 17299]

27 minutes ago, Morigung-oog said:

Hello, local neighbourhood-friendly triage/implementation member here. I played a role in the finetuning of this system.  I was brought into this following the decision to make the settlement system but have good knowledge of what went into its creation. As such, I'll try to answer as many questions and concerns as I can.

 

 

I do agree that there should be lasting consequences for nations/settlements who were destroyed in this warclaim. I did voice during the meeting that I was concerned about the weaponization of this system to avoid said consequences.

 

I've since been reassured that while such may not be avoidable, the Settlements system  will be one closely observed, with server rules enforced by the appropriate staff teams in the event of abuse of the system. Settlements are not an OOC shield for playerbases to hide behind to avoid IC political and wartime consequence and for as long as I sit on the team, I shall sit on the side of appropriate roleplay consequence. Groups being hunted should engage in roleplay diplomacy to resolve issues, even if the outcome is initially unfavourable on their end. Sometimes that is just how the cookie crumbles-- nothing lives forever, and sometimes concepts must die in order for newer and greater ones to live. The settlement system appears to be the admin approach of establishing some sort of middleground so niche but sizeable roleplay demographics aren't entirely wiped off of the map.

 

As someone who has sat behind the desks of both story team and tech, I operate by a cynical, yet somewhat realistic mindset: "If it can be abused, it will be."  It is an unfortunate truth of LoTC, especially given its size that there will always be bad eggs who try to take advantage of systems that were created with the intent of benefitting the playerbase. 

 

To clarify, we suggested rules which I'm told were to be reviewed, modified and approved by moderation/administration per the appropriate system implementation process. We covered a number of topics and concerns and war rules were one of them. 

 

 

Avoiding war consequences isn't really my big gripe with this -- it's easy enough to just squash an enemy group again if you've won a war against their predecessor and as a separate note I think racial protection should still exist for groups like orcs and dwarves.

 

The substantive concern is that really this is just the same exact conditions that led to last map's realm bloat, and the overall logic here is one I pretty strongly disagree with. I think the server becomes watered down and more boring when people can go off and make huge independent regions all over the map. Sand castle syndrome is when there is no incentive to collaborate because everyone wants to be their own boss. Some of the servers most interesting and organic stories have come from different factions cooperating or competing under the umbrella of a wider nation - it concentrates roleplay to create more activity, leads to actual stakes, etc.

 

There is a reason the system was scrapped after the colossal realm bloat we had last time, and this feels like you're just running it back with a vague promise it'll be better this time. I acknowledge elements like the heightened costs mitigate it a little but it doesn't fix the underlying problem.

 

To confirm, no Mod was consulted about this at all afaik and Spoopy and Trinn were both unaware. It's very frustrating to see another team try to adapt rules written in a specific way by another team and as mentioned in a previous post there are some issues with what Tech has written (not huge ones but issues nonetheless). 

 

In general, I disagree with Tech being given what was once the Mod jurisdiction of handling nation stuff.

 

Also vassals can't intercept war paths.

[_RoyalCrafter_ 5285]

Good feedback posted, none of it will be ever accepted. status quo forever.

i agree with all of tide1's statements and mojo statements.

nation bloat was resolved irp, the current settlement system will result in bloat which will be much harder to resolve due to having to buy tiles to war settlements. How are dwarves and orcs supposed to make their own nations with 40s signatures. 40 signatures is absolutely heinous when at peak server has 200 people but daily like 140-160.

Nothing implemented is ever based in player reality. If you wanted to throw the recently exterminated communities a bone, i suppose this works as a temporary stop gap. But this will do nothing at best in the long run but most likely continue to stifle the server.

[monkeypoacher 8053]

when you have to write an application like this for a settlement you are guaranteed that people will only ever RP in it after peak hype has already passed. I don't think this will do anything to combat "realm bloat" (sic). It seems like we had "realm bloat" last map with the same system.

 

You guys really need to free yourself from the delusion of creating "systems" and rules for the non-game of LoTC. A bunch of rules and systems does not make a game. You are a bunch of tabletop roleplayers stuck on session 0 talking about cool mechanics and character builds for a campaign you will never play.

 

"Realm bloat" is acceptable because uncertainty and spontaneity are radioactive. Lore and applications and systems are all an excuse to avoid interacting with another friend of Malinor. 

 

Besides I really don't understand why you guys waste so much time making a low throughput manual version of Nexus Regions. Just bring back the plugin lol

 

[JokerLow 1317]

3 hours ago, Morigung-oog said:

Hello, local neighbourhood-friendly triage/implementation member here. I played a role in the finetuning of this system.  I was brought into this following the decision to make the settlement system but have good knowledge of what went into its creation. As such, I'll try to answer as many questions and concerns as I can.

 

 

I do agree that there should be lasting consequences for nations/settlements who were destroyed in this warclaim. I did voice during the meeting that I was concerned about the weaponization of this system to avoid said consequences.

 

I've since been reassured that while such may not be avoidable, the Settlements system  will be one closely observed, with server rules enforced by the appropriate staff teams in the event of abuse of the system. Settlements are not an OOC shield for playerbases to hide behind to avoid IC political and wartime consequence and for as long as I sit on the team, I shall sit on the side of appropriate roleplay consequence. Groups being hunted should engage in roleplay diplomacy to resolve issues, even if the outcome is initially unfavourable on their end. Sometimes that is just how the cookie crumbles-- nothing lives forever, and sometimes concepts must die in order for newer and greater ones to live. The settlement system appears to be the admin approach of establishing some sort of middleground so niche but sizeable roleplay demographics aren't entirely wiped off of the map.

 

As someone who has sat behind the desks of both story team and tech, I operate by a cynical, yet somewhat realistic mindset: "If it can be abused, it will be."  It is an unfortunate truth of LoTC, especially given its size that there will always be bad eggs who try to take advantage of systems that were created with the intent of benefitting the playerbase. 

 

To clarify, we suggested rules which I'm told were to be reviewed, modified and approved by moderation/administration per the appropriate system implementation process. We covered a number of topics and concerns and war rules were one of them. 

 

 

The total signatures for nations have been upped to forty. During the meeting in which we brainstormed the system, I voiced concern that there needed to be some clear distinction between vassals and settlements. Charging a notable amount to settle on a tile independent of any nation alongside securing twenty five signatures serves as a means to cement player sincerity with establishing a settlement. This also exists as a means to mitigate one of the issues of the past- bloat.

 

If you don't have enough minas or players, become a  vassal. Vassals have the unique benefit of price being a flexible factor, with costs and upkeep being decided by the realm leader-- activity requirements and costs are often generous and, if not negligible. Being established on owned tiles, they may also intercept warpaths and grant resources from mining nodes. There's less mechanical expectation associated with vassalage, and it is generally a much less demanding path than the nation/settlement system. The potential downside is, of course, that ultimately, you are at the mercy of the realm leader and their decisions; a key example of enforced weaknesses exist in both iterations of Haelun'or on this map, who were allowed to exist almost independently, though met their downfall through the orders of their realm leaders the first time, and the surrendering of The Horde the second. An example of a vassal maximising their potential exists in Alba and Petra, who have a large playerbase, and high activity levels to boot while also contributing to their liege lords.

 

The benefit of settlements comes with the sheer amount of perks offered- an LC region, green soulstone pillar, an area of up to 200x200 blocks and a unique set of protections that makes warclaiming them with the intent of destruction additionally taxing.

 

Settlements are supposed to serve as a middle-ground for communities who lack or otherwise dislike the requirements for nation status, but want something larger than a lair.

 

Well-known past and prospective settlement and  realm leaders were also asked about the system itself prior to its submission so that we could submit a system that existed as much in the interest of everyone as possible.  Examples of successful settlements in the past were The Vale and Lurin a few maps ago, both of which were able to meet and beat activity requirements.

 

 

Ugly cube mega-cities will not be approved, we gave 200x200 to factor in aspects like wall-size and areas outside of city walls like farms & stables. Each build will be reviewed on a case-by-case business and builds that are unrealistic in scale will not make it to the main world. Don't worry, this was addressed. :)

 

 

 

Any glaring issues can and will be amended as time goes on. Any system created and implemented operated in part through trial and error and no system is ever truly perfect. We're more than aware of this and are prepared to adjust and balance aspects as time goes on.

 

I hope this clears up a few of your concerns :)

So, when you say that settlements are not meant to give nations that lost their land in war a way to abuse the settlement system and instead to join other nations, I'm a bit confused.

Let's include the current situation of the dwarves.
A core race has lost its nation, and is on a KOS by all the nations left on the server. Since they lost their nation during the war, the dwarves applying for a settlement as to avoid the KOS, would be considered them abusing the settlement system?
"Groups being hunted should engage in roleplay diplomacy to resolve issues, even if the outcome is initially unfavourable on their end. Sometimes that is just how the cookie crumbles-- nothing lives forever, and sometimes concepts must die in order for newer and greater ones to live."
So, with the current status quo of the dwarves being literally on a KOS list, we should, just keep being killed, since, that is jst how the cookie crumbles as per your words.

I understand that systems should not be abused by those who went to war and lost their nation, but in this situation particularly, the dwarves have zero options, and cannot solve this by "engaging in roleplay diplomacy".
To be clear to what I'm trying to ask, should the dwarves leave the server and eventually the dwarven race to become a CA playable race?

It simply seems too short-sighted and pretty focused on forcing something unachievable as per the current status of roleplay, consequences of war should be a real thing, forcing an entire playerbase of a core race to cease playing the deserve because you've ruled in such favor shows the true reasoning behind your ruling, atleast, as long as you are in the team, again, as per your own words.

Thank you!

[Islamadon 9158]

14 minutes ago, JokerLow said:

 

 

Dwarves are not KOS in Kurai you just hate Yamatai Hatsu and are mad I called Urguan out over auction houses.

[JokerLow 1317]

1 minute ago, Islamadon said:

 

Dwarves are not KOS in Kurai you just hate Yamatai Hatsu and are mad I called Urguan out over auction houses.