Server 3.0 Info Dump

[Rhisereld 317]

The problem is that "good roleplay reason" very, very easily becomes "good roleplay excuse". War hasn't been naturally flowing on from good roleplay. Instead, roleplay is being fabricated in order to condone a war (only encouraged by the format of the war application, but I won't go into that here). Quite frankly, it disturbs me that attacking factions are immediately given the moral high ground in a war claim. Eliminating an entire roleplay group isn't "good war RP", it's taking away another player's fun for your own amusement. Terrible. Roleplay is about the mutual enjoyment of all.

This isn't real life, it's a game we play to have fun. To be quite blunt, the brutal slaughter of thousands of people isn't fun. This kind of aggressive playing style stains the innocent, fairytale type stories that some prefer. War is great for certain factions, but it just doesn't fit in with others. All I'd like is for small, peaceful factions to be able to say "no".

Forcing permadeath isn't condoned because it intrudes on a player's right to roleplay. It is your responsibility as a player to respect the rights of others. You cannot force permadeath of a character, so why can you force the permadeath of a faction? This is a breach of players' rights. If a player cannot have fun, they will no longer bother logging in.

[Space 2335]

-snip-

I think this is why a lot of players are quitting. When peoples RP groups are taken away from them for the sake of some lackluster RP via the Big Three.... It just gets stale and boring.

[｡◕‿‿◕｡ Hawk Whitestorm 715]

Disclaimer: After much confusion, a disclaimer must be added. This topic is completely speculation and is not fact, and is just a brainstorming location for a new map, something that isn't even in the near future, or even this year.

[Hiebe 2493]

Disclaimer: After much confusion, a disclaimer must be added. This topic is completely speculation and is not fact, and is just a brainstorming location for a new map, something that isn't even in the near future, or even this year.

How many times did I say this already? People need to read more :I

[Benedick Irontounge 51]

I understand update 3.0 I'd meant to be a separate client but my question is will we have to pay for the new client? Will there still be a minecraft part of the server?

[Hiebe 2493]

No payment. This is 3.0 map not game update .

[The Best Basileus 97]

It's fine to say that players cannot die, but it is not fine to say the same about factions. Factions are the circumstances a rp char finds himself in within his life, and are controlled and evolved through ingame conflict. Circumstances may change, yes, but your char is allowed to live on and experience new ones. I believe elimination of factions is fine, and is never ooc'ly forced. The same goes for player deaths. You can choose to have your player die, but it is never ooc'ly forced.

[Brokencrowe 111]

It's fine to say that players cannot die, but it is not fine to say the same about factions. Factions are the circumstances a rp char finds himself in within his life, and are controlled and evolved through ingame conflict. Circumstances may change, yes, but your char is allowed to live on and experience new ones. I believe elimination of factions is fine, and is never ooc'ly forced. The same goes for player deaths. You can choose to have your player die, but it is never ooc'ly forced.

Many smaller roleplay groups are not based around in game conflict or war. These roleplay groups tend to be based around their own selective culture and peaceful roleplay. Forcing war upon them, with war-claims or other means is something I don't find acceptable. Roleplaying is centered around all parties having fun. If one group does not want to fight, or have their group killed off or taken over, they should not have to have their roleplay uprooted and stripped from them. Player's tend to get attached to their land and work, and I don't see it as very much fun to have a warclaim imposed upon you.

A player's faction, or the circumstances surrounding their roleplay are just as important as a character's life to the player. For instance, my character Levant is one of the leaders of the Nawari Gypsies. This community, the Mallowyn Woods, and the atmosphere are my life in Lord of the Craft. The only time I see myself giving up that land is if we have a map change. My roleplay is centered there, strongly. I would hate to lose it. The Nawari are a peace loving trade group, who are politically neutral. The environment around my character, and the other characters who exist within the Nawari, are vital to our roleplay. Take the environment away, you take away my roleplay and my fun. This is wrong. Not that my land is being taken from me, I hope it never will be. My main point was, environment and circumstances surrounding a player and his or her character are nearly as or just as important as the character itself. Roleplay should never be imposed, it should flow from the center and be fun for all. Taking away other's fun for your own fun shouldn't be allowed either. Simply because you enjoy a certain way of roleplaying doesn't mean other's do as well.

[Tee-Tree 22]

1 question how long till the new map comes out

[no longer active 734]

^^^^^^^^^

Here:

Disclaimer: After much confusion, a disclaimer must be added. This topic is completely speculation and is not fact, and is just a brainstorming location for a new map, something that isn't even in the near future, or even this year.

[Shar'ku/jenspelao 410]

NO and just no, I couldn't stand another continent change, the only continent i would go is, of course, Aegis it is the place I would reconquer. but it's barely going to happen. That is my point of view.

[The Best Basileus 97]

Well it wouldn't be a good, or even likely thing for your people to be razed, then. Yes, you could be absorbed into another nation, but if you hate war so much, you wouldn't have to fight. Also, if they attacked you, you could request help from more powerful nations, or even flee the woods, but maintain your group. There is always the chance of taking your land back as well. In the end, though, it is a slippery slope to say "We don't want war, so you cannot make war upon us." This is because any nation that did not wish to participate in battle defensively could pull this, and essentially remain an invincible giant, if it so wished. I personally do not believe this would be an acceptable thing.

[Rhisereld 317]

If a nation tried to abuse this right given to small roleplay groups, then I imagine that somebody with a little common sense would step in. I do not think this should be a blanket rule. It would depend in the circumstances of each scenario.

How about this:

- Towns, villages and small miscellaneous roleplay groups have the choice to decline an invitation for war.

- They do not have the choice to decline if they have actively provoked a war ICly.

- They do not have the choice to decline if they are a nation.

- OOCly harrassing a roleplay group to participate in a war is not allowed.

Could that be abused?

[Lago 2572]

Yes. Small settlements would become invincible if they remained passive. The world would be covered in hideous, often near empty, Maple Ports.

[Rhisereld 317]

Bear in mind that a settlement can't really request to be left alone if there are no players.

How about this:

- Towns, villages and small miscellaneous roleplay groups have the choice to decline an invitation for war.

- They do not have the choice to decline if they have actively provoked a war ICly.

- They do not have the choice to decline if they are a nation.

- They do not have the choice to decline if they are inactive.

- An defending faction cannot be harassed to take part in a war.

Better?