Fireheart
-
Posts
3935 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Personas
Wiki
Rules
War
Systems
Safety
Player Conduct
Forums
Forms
Posts posted by Fireheart
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
A follow up
Hello there. It’s been a couple of days of a lot of silence on my end as I’ve watched a ton of reactions continue to unfold both from the events that transpired Saturday and Sunday with my follow up post to those events. I’ve taken some time to listen to people’s reactions, talk with various members of the community, and continue to review new information that has been brought to my attention after I made my post Sunday.
To recap...the details I went over Sunday were in relation to the warclaim we had Saturday. To summarize the post touches on three major issues: The incident, the cause, and the unclear and incorrect communication. The decisive action in my mind and those around me was to redo that specific part of the warclaim where the bug became game breaking. The logic and thought process behind this was that the bug caused a clearly different outcome than what likely would have happened which we now know to be incorrect.
Upon hearing the verdict large parts of the community came forward with more information regarding the warclaim. This included mostly unfair play and hacking from both sides during the warclaim. I would like to preface this and thank those of you who came forward and provided these details for us to look at. There are three specific instances I want to go over:
- The spawn killing issue: Several players from both sides of the conflict were sent to the lobby area. During this time period of them being stuck several, players were killed as they were awaiting transport from the area. In total, after speaking with players who brought forward information and going through server logs; we found seven confirmed defenders killed and four confirmed attackers killed in the lobby area.
- The hacking issue: During the warclaim, specifically at one part, there has now been released video of a player hacking and cutting down multiple players from the defending side. [Gif] The total amount of kills this now banned account achieved was seven before being killed themselves.
- Alting issue: There were instances where some players were ban evading during the warclaim as well as other players loading up several accounts that they either provided to other players or used themselves after their first account died to gain an edge. In total five accounts from the defenders were banned and two accounts from the attackers were banned.
I apologize for jumping the gun on Sunday rather than waiting a little longer for more information to possibly come in. The amount of pressure put on this whole ordeal by all parties both directly after the warclaim and Sunday night was immense... Which is why I’ve taken a bit longer to do my follow up to ensure that this is the correct path forward.
Taking into account the spawn killing that occurred in the lobby area, the hacking, and the alting issue that took place during the warclaim on Saturday; I can no longer in confidence believe that redoing that specific part of the warclaim would be overall fair to both sides. The outcome of Saturday will stand and all roleplay relating to it is now unfrozen. There were a lot of complications that we will need to go over together as a community and figure out. So keep your eyes peeled for a ‘Your View’ later on this week as promised in my post last week.
Thank you,
-Ryan
86 -
Data May 18th 2019
Total Avg Players: 112.07 (Last week was 100.52)
Nations:Sutica 12.73 | 11.36%
Curon 5.37 | 4.79%
Aegrothond 5.72 | 4.7%
Renatus 9.7 | 8.7%
Druids 2.18 | 1.95%
Haense 8.65 | 7.72%
Adria 12.52 | 11.17%
Fenn 5.04 | 4.5%
Urguan 4.1 | 3.66%
Highelves 6.47 | 5.77%
Orcs 3.64 | 3.24%
Charters:
Rosenyr 0.47 | 0.42%
gehenna 1.15 | 1.66%
bradshawe 0.04 | 0.04% [!]
harrowfall 0.04 | 0.04% [!]
Warwick_Castle 0.52 | 0.46%
Albion 0.21 | 0.19%
Starfall 0.00 | 0.00%
Nyfe'andria 0.01 | 0.01%
Vasiliand 0.00 | 0.00%
nenzing 0.25 | 0.22%
Kadarsi 0.1 | 0.09%
Ayr 0.03 | 0.03%
Sherwood 0.00 | 0.00%
Ashfeld 0.01 | 0.01%
Vira'ker 1.22 | 1.08%
Attica 0.06 | 0.05%
Gurmazg 0.31 | 0.28%
Hua-jiao 0.0 | 0.0%
Fuerte 0.01 | 0.01%
Marsumar 1.46 | 1.3%
Llyria 2.02 | 1.8%
Hallowfall 0.2 | 0.17%
Lyonesse 0.00 | 0.00%
Whiterock 0.3 | 0.27%
Thyra 0.95 | 0.85%
Ichma Muscia 0.01 | 0.01%
Asylum 0.11 | 0.1% *
Rempyrean 0.32 | 0.29% *
Irrinor 0.27 | 0.24% *
Athalia 0.48 | 0.42% *
Muscovy *
Defy 0.27 *
Other:
brandybrook 0.27 | 0.24% *
Vallberg_estate 0.25 | 0.22% *
harlond 0.02 | 0.01% *
eldar'seal 0.5 | 0.45% *
Cloud Temple Tile (33) 4.7 | 4.19%
Irongutia 0.00 | 0.00% *
Fimlingrad 0.00 | 0.00%% *
Vakvel 0.02 | 0.02% *
dwarffarm1 0.00 0.00% *
dwarftunnel 0.07 0.06% *
Omargrimmer 0.36 0.32% *
* Wildly off due to how little data was collected on those plots this week or overlapping. DOES NOT REPRESENT ACCURATELY
[!] Activity warning. Nation / Charter low on activity.
[X] Status revoked. Nation / Charter status revoked / downgraded.
2 -
MC Name: PandaHugger117
Character's Name: Moon-Moon
Character's Age: 3
Character's Original Race (N/A if not applicable):
N/A
Transformed form:
Ker Wolf
Creator's MC Name:
N/A
Creator's RP Name:
N/A
Briefly explain the lore behind this construct or creature:
A Ker Wolf of the Wildlands and a sole survivor of her litter. She tends to travel around, fascinated by odd smells and views. She has a curious and friendly personality.
She's 6ft in height and sports a thick, dark coat.
Do you have a magic(s) you are dropping due to this app? If so, link it:
No magic.
Do you agree to keep the MT updated on the status of your magic app by using the Magic List Errors topic?:
I agree.
Are you aware that if this creature's lore is undergoing an activity trial and that trial fails, you will no longer be able to play this creature and will be forced to either revert the character back to its normal form (if it was a transformative type) or stop playing the character entirely (if it is an entirely new creature)?:
I am aware.
Do you consent to accepting what may happen to this character?:
Yes.
Have you applied for this creature on this character before, and had it denied? If so, link the app:
Nope.
0 -
since we are married when do we meet and get to roleplay?
2 -
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Outcomes of Yesterday’s Warclaim
Hey guys, yesterday during the warclaim there was a visual bug that resorted in a game-breaking issue that caused players not to be able to see a staff member from the defending side in the warclaim. This issue was first raised immediately after the battle to moderators by the attacking side and the issue started to be looked into for details. Thanks to multiple recordings and perspectives of the fight we were able to verify and replicate the visual bug on the war server. This has been passed along to technicians alongside some other more minor non game-breaking bugs discovered during the battle.
It is unclear how big of an impact this visual bug played on the overall battle beyond the final push from the attackers into the throne room. Due to this issue as well as the improper verdict provided of the attackers being forced to push into the very backend of the throne room we will be repeating the tale end of the battle where the attackers held a point outside of the palace and the defenders held a point inside the castle.
There are three points of information that feed into this which has forced a needed redo of this section of the battle:
-
The staff member who was reported to be invisible was in fact invisible to other players, but not other staff members.
- Zac was live-streaming the event and was able to see the bugged staff member “GM_Deportter” due to their account having staff permissions for the purpose of spectating and live-streaming the event.
- “jdesarno” was able to see the invisible player due to them also having staff permissions as a team member for Story staff. This resulted in them being the player to kill the invisible player since they were able to see them whereas other players not on staff were unable to.
-
The staff member who was reported to be invisible was verified to have been placed out of vanish; meaning it was a visual bug.
- After the fight the player reported for being invisible was approached by a moderator and screenshared to provide ingame client logs of the battle.
- These logs provide a timestamp of the player not being invisible leading up to the final battle after being informed that he was not seeable from crashes and relogs.
- This bug alongside two others were replicated after testing on the war server last night. These were reported, but will not be disclosed so that other players can not replicate it for future battles while it is looked into.
-
There was a stalemate situation which resulted in an incorrect verdict requiring attackers to push the defenders.
- War rules define siege victory terms as invaders (attackers) driving the defenders from the city or gain control of the majority.
- In this case the location under contention was the throne room area. Defender’s fortified position in the back of the throne room was not a majority and would require them to repel the attackers out.
- Throne room length is 46 blocks. Defenders held a six block deep area of the throne room whereas attackers were able to hold a thirteen block deep area of the throne room. (Assuming both sides never pushed and they stalemated at those defensible locations on the throne room)
Bringing us to the redo. Leadership from both sides has been contacted and informed of the current situation. Details will be ironed out and a post will be going up below this detailing the time and information regarding the battle. This redo will not be an entire warclaim but rather of the specific point where the visual bug became game breaking. All current roleplay and forum related rp post will be frozen until this battle can determine a fair verdict. Afterwards roleplay will either be unfrozen or voided depending on the outcome. Current in-rp perspective will be prior to the warclaim and siege.
108 -
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
War & Its Issues
Hey guys, in an effort to be more transparent, we are making this thread to describe a decision we are making. As some of you are aware, Renatus has recently been edited a good deal to become into a PvP fortress.
Here are some images of the place in question:
Spoiler
Here’s what it looked before:
Spoiler
Mod management informed the leadership that was managing the warclaim that they could make edits, but nothing major/significant. Rather than adhering to that, they have decided to:
-
Tear down the top of the palace and turned it into a PvP fort.
-
Filled the city with soulsand and walled off the side streets to create an “Alley of Death”.
-
Filled the lower levels of the fort with cobblestone fences.
-
Made the only path up to the fort a parkour mix of ladders
-
Run none of this past Management when told that they were present any massive edits to the team for review.
At the moment, the alley is now deemed as fine, but the problem lies with the PvP Fort/former palace. As such, we have reached out to the group and have told them that we will be reverting the palace to how it was due to them breaching what we said they could do. We are also offering support in the way of /fly, building materials, et cetera, to help speed things along should the playerbase wish to work with us in order to ensure that the fortifications are completed before the warclaim.
We recognize that some of the recent calls made, such as the warpath decision, was seen as off due to the fact that there was nothing in the rules talking about these things. We agree that we need to patch the rules to prevent issues like this again and we will be working on this in the upcoming week. We intend to make a your view on the patch ideas we have to address:
- Changing warpaths.
- Fortification criterias (what is and what isn't a PvP fort).
- Fortification edits (what is a minor edit, what is major, et cetera).
We apologize for the confusion/mess and hopefully we can work with the community on this.
56 -
-=Rule Update=-
Type: Change to current rule
Details:
If a fortification is within 200 blocks from a road, it will be valid as an extra siege target to progress to the capital if able. This allows for chokepoints and tactical placement from nations if they wish.
0 -
-=Rule Update=-
Type: Rule Change
Details:
● The staff is here to help. We volunteer ourselves to this community out of love and a desire to see it succeed. If you have issues with any of us please contact that member’s respective Manager or Administrator.
0 -
Data May 11th 2019
Total Avg Players: 100.52 (Last week was 99.79)
Nations:Sutica 10.51 | 10.51%
Curon 5.79 | 5.76%
Aegrothond 5.78 | 5.75%
Renatus 5.59 | 5.56%
Druids 2.91 | 2.89%
Haense 5.93 | 5.9%
Adria 13.4 | 13.3%
Fenn 3.52 | 3.5%
Urguan 2.76 | 2.75%
Highelves 5.9 | 5.87%
Charters:
Orcs 4.51 | 4.51%
Rosenyr 0.6 | 0.61%
gehenna 1.67 | 1.66%
bradshawe 0.05 | 0.05% [!]
harrowfall 0.04 | 0.04% [!]
Warwick_Castle 0.35 | 0.35%
Albion 0.07 | 0.07%
Calais 0.04 | 0.04% [!]
Starfall 0.11 | 0.11%
Nyfe'andria 0.01 | 0.01%
Vasiliand 0.00 | 0.00%
nenzing 0.95 | 0.95%
Kadarsi 0.09 | 0.09%
Ayr 0.04 | 0.04%
Sherwood 0.11 | 0.11%
Ashfeld 0.01 | 0.01%
Vira'ker 1.89 | 1.88%
Attica 0.09 | 0.09%
Gurmazg 0.29 | 0.29%
Hua-jiao 0.0 | 0.0%
Fuerte 0.12 | 0.12%
Marsumar 0.67 | 0.67%
Llyria 0.63 | 0.63%
Hallowfell 0.05 | 0.05%
Lyonesse 0.01 | 0.01%
Whiterock 0.33 | 0.33%
Thyra 0.82 | 0.82%
Ichma Muscia 0.05 | 0.05%
Other:
brandybrook 0.34 | 0.34% *
Vallberg_estate 0.01 | 0.01% *
harlond 0.00 | 0.00% *
eldar'seal 0.38 | 0.38% *
Cloud Temple Tile (33) 4.92 | 4.28%
Irongutia 0.01 | 0.01% *
Fimlingrad 0.00 | 0.00%% *
Vakvel 0.08 | 0.08% *
dwarffarm1 0.05 0.05% *
dwarftunnel 0.03 0.03% *
Omargrimmer 0.49 0.49% *
* Wildly off due to how little data was collected on those plots this week or overlapping. DOES NOT REPRESENT ACCURATELY
[!] Activity warning. Nation / Charter low on activity.
[X] Status revoked. Nation / Charter status revoked / downgraded.
5 -
-=Rule Update=-
Type: Change to current rule
Details:
Also, if a Nation has not built a fortification prior to a warclaim being posted, the set up of a “temporary” fortification is allowed for a base price of 10,000 minas.
-=Rule Update=-
Type: Change to current rule
Details:
Temporary fortifications must be realistically constructed in what would be perceived as a hastily time-frame prior to battle. These fortifications would likely have wooden palisades, trenches, tunnels, traps, wooden towers, loose stonework, and other building specifications similar to what has been stated.
2 -
Data May 4th 2019
Total Avg Players: 99.79 (Last week was N/A)
Nations:Sutica 9.57 | 9.59%
Curon 5.33 | 5.34%
Aegrothond 8.06 | 8.08%
Renatus 6.11 | 6.12%
Druids 3.24 | 3.25%
Haense 6.21 | 6.22%
Adria 11.81 | 11.83%
Fenn 2.61 | 2.62%
Urguan 3.02 | 3.03%
Highelves 5.41 | 5.42%
Charters:
Orcs 5.01 | 5.02%
Rosenyr 1.53 | 1.53%
gehenna 1.85 | 1.85%
bradshawe 0.06 | 0.06% [!]
harrowfall 0.24 | 0.24% [!]
Warwick_Castle 0.56 | 0.56%
Albion 0.09 | 0.09%
Calais 0.0 | 0.0% [!]
Starfall 0.19 | 0.19%
Nyfe'andria 0.13 | 0.13%
Vasiliand 0.02 | 0.02%
nenzing 0.88 | 0.88%
Kadarsi 0.2 | 0.2%
Ayr 0.11 | 0.11%
Sherwood 0.01 | 0.01%
Ashfeld 0.02 | 0.02%
Vira'ker 3.1 | 3.11%
Attica 0.35 | 0.35%
Gurmazg 0.34 | 0.34%
Hua-jiao 0.0 | 0.0%
Fuerte 0.21 | 0.21% *
Marsumar 0.23 | 0.23% *
Llyria 0.56 | 0.56% *
Asylum 4.27 | 4.28% *
Other:
brandybrook 0.39 | 0.39% *
Vallberg_estate 0.0 | 0.0% *
harlond 0.01 | 0.01% *
eldar'seal 0.32 | 0.32% *
Cloud Temple Tile (33) 4.92 | 4.28%
Irongutia 0.01 | 0.01% *
Fimlingrad 0.00 | 0.00%% *
Vakvel 0.08 | 0.08% *
dwarffarm1 0.14 0.14% *
dwarftunnel 0.02 0.02% *
Omargrimmer 0.61 0.61% *
* Wildly off due to how little data was collected on those plots this week or overlapping. DOES NOT REPRESENT ACCURATELY
[!] Activity warning. Nation / Charter low on activity.
[X] Status revoked. Nation / Charter status revoked / downgraded.
6 -
?
0 -
Moderation Staff are in need of more volunteers. If you are interested in contributing to the server in the form of a moderator please apply.
Moderation Staff Update Log - April 2019
Spoiler‹ Introduction ›
Howdy, second month in the books for Arcas with a ton of exciting changes taking place and more on the way! As moderation staff we’ve gotten more situated with this change of work flow now with the new map and for the most part the growing pains are over. War rules have been released and we have had two warclaims already handled which is an awesome start. Over the next couple of weeks, months, and so forth we will be implementing small patches to warclaim rules to make corrects and changes as needed. In this update I’ll be covering in more detail items such as warclaims, coups, rule changes, and some changes in the team.
‹ New Changes ›
Starting off we have war rules. War rules were released last month after months of work and we have had two warclaims reviewed. @ScreamingDingo has been a huge help with aspects relating to reviewing CBs and we have had one actual battle so far. For the most part it is the same old same old with this rule set offering more offensive options for warclaims compared to the defensive version we last had that people did not enjoy. There has been some feedback given on having more specific rules and guidelines for actual battle details which is something I’ll be looking at working on and implementing this month.
Coups are going to be going through a community review. A couple months ago we started our drafting process for the rule set which resorted in a large divide where sections of the player-base were very against the rule set and others were really looking for something at least to be implemented. This draft is looking to strike a compromise and we have had a handful of people that were originally against coups wanting to see more solid rules implemented especially after recent roleplay events. If you are interested in reading over the rules and giving your feedback please refer to the community review post here. Do note the disclaimer at the top of the post and and read it prior to giving your feedback. Nonconstructive feedback will be hidden if it does not provide a comprehensive opinion or provides actual feedback in nature.
Moderation Management has been a very steady group since February. However, @Riftblade has recently stepped down due to real life related reasons which left a position to be held. Our process for selecting a new manager has several steps which include: self nominations, paper based interviews, voice based interviews, team feedback collection, and a discussion amoungst the current management which includes administrative input. After going through this process and having a very solid group of candidates @IZipZapManI was ultimately selected to fill the position. This should not be a major change for general playerbase beyond the fact that forum related support, especially when it comes to sub-forum support, might be lacking for the next couple of weeks. If you have specific changes that need to be done to certain sections of the forums please shoot me a private message on the forums for the time being and I’ll handle it. This will be until we come up with a better system. For nation and charter leaders you will still be able to use the dedicated Discord channel on the public LoTC Discord.
‹ Current Team Roster ›
‹ Monthly Statistics ›
Moderation Staff received a total of 2835 modreqs in April.
Congratulations and thank you to: Kaelan, Keening, and Pun for taking the most tickets in that respective order!
The monthly quota for Moderation Staff 3%, for this month that meant an individual Mod had to complete a total of 85. Below you can view the general statistics for all members of the team. Keep in mind some new Mods were added to the team late in the month and some Mods were on leave for real life reasons.
‹ Roster Changes ›
+ Potts244 was added as a moderator
+ Sykogenic was added as a moderator
^ ZipZapMan was promoted to a manager
- Riftblade stepped down
- Aythyinae stepped down
- jollybee stepped down
- GenericUwU was removed
- Welsh was added this month and then removed
‹ Special Thanks ›
Lomrun for having a big hand in drafting the coup rules for the community review
Pun for having a big hand in drafting the coup rules for the community review
Sporadic for putting up with a lot of crap and helping moderation staff out still despite that
Jollybee for a substantial contribution in terms of helping with charter management
...and of course Riftblade for being an amazing FM Director and then Moderation Staff Manager
-------------------------------
7 -
Hello I’ll be speaking with Joel in relation to this warclaim. We already have a warclaim set-up for this weekend so this one will be planned around the following weekend on the 4th / 5th. More information will be provided and chats will be created later on this week. Thanks.
1 -
This is a development side of things issue, but the purpose of activity is to gauge whether or not a nation / charter is active enough to maintain their status. For the cases of nations that struggled with activity we added flags to their sub-region to better gauge activity to see if that would push them above into what we would consider an active nation. There are active nations such as Sutica and Haense which have an activity check across their entire region which gets around the issue with manually pulling activity. Since this process is not automated when we receive the data it has to be compiled and manually converted into a form that is readable in the public activity data I have been publishing. The reason why I haven’t been adding flags to every single sub-region nations make is because we would be going from around 15 or so current points of data for nations to way over 50+ which makes the task of compiling and organizing the data very time consuming. If we had an automated process that converted the data on the plugin side of things or if we had a plugin such as Territories this current issue would not exist.
0 -
Good morning! Hope everyone had a good weekend and had a good time Sunday. Going to be jumping right into it and laying out a couple of changes that are hitting the server today. Before that to reference our last update we asked for some ideas to add items to the Cloud Temple market. We’ve implemented some of the suggestions, but some of the items will not be able to be pushed out either due to an item blacklist or due to technical concerns for our server’s setup / economy. If you have ideas always feel free to forum message me which is the best way to contact me.
Rule Update 1: (Why are thieves so damn expensive!!!)
-We have updated the cost to heist per member and have lowered it from 1000 per member to 500. The logic behind this is there has been consistent feedback that heist has a very high barrier of entry and while we want to keep it like that we do not have as strong of an economy as we did last map.
Rule Update 2: (Bolt cutters are made of gold,,, wth?!?!?)
-Bolt cutters is another knob we are gonna be turning down on heist. Bolt cutters are stupid expensive and they still will be, but now they will be 10k instead of 12k.
Rule Update 3: (Hot potato with personas, OUCH!)
-Personas (characters) can’t be transferred between other players. This is a patch to stop several issues that were arising with it happening a lot recently and there being a bad way of handling it and a very bad way of handling it. Until we have a better method in place we are turning it off competently. If the community has ideas on how to fix this issue please post some feedback detailing how you would like the rule to work or be changed.
Rule Update 4: (English m’lord)
-We have run into issues where players will be speaking alternate languages to evade being caught doing sketchy actions by moderators. Google translater is a thing, but super annoying to pull up so we’re ending it altogether to avoid further issues. This is something that is already implied and explained in our whitelist process so it shouldn’t be new to anyone. Do note that speaking elven languages or blah is okay since that is an approved roleplay language.
Rule Update 5: (Speedy Jones is CRAZY!!)
-We have seen a constant stream lately of people throwing themselves into conflict roleplay and then dipping out as soon as things start going poorly. To still allow this, but give everyone a fair chance we are requiring a countdown before a party leaves mechanically through sufficient roleplay.
Details for the rule changes can be found on their respective rule pages in the form of a comment to the post. It’ll be the most recent one posted at the end of the 1st page for heist and 2nd for server rules. I also want to throw out a notice that I’ll mention later in another update but @Riftblade will be departing as a manager from moderation staff. We appreciate the many months of contributions he has brought staff and wish him the best of luck as he focuses on school and his personal life. @IZipZapManI will be stepping in to fill that spot and will be getting settled in this week. We look forward to this next page in management for moderation staff. Have a great week and happy roleplaying! Moderation update log will be out next week.
5 -
-=Rule Update=-
Type: Rule change
Details: Removed mentions of game moderator and replaced it with moderator.
0 -
-=Rule Update=-
Type: Rule Addition
Details:
§3.17 You cannot transfer a persona to another player. The only exceptions are between alternative accounts.
○ [3.17 is a temporary patch for Persona Rules]
-=Rule Update=-
Type: Rule Addition
Details:
§1.20 We are an English speaking community. We require communication to be done in said language unless otherwise done properly in roleplay.
-=Rule Update=-
Type: Rule Change
Details:
§7.1 You may not escape an encounter in which both parties have interacted with each other without sufficient roleplay to justify your escape. There must be a completed /countdown before any running or moving occurs. If a player runs their opponent may down them. The runner may not fight back.
0 -
Nations:
Sutica 12.69 | 11.03%
Curon 7.74 | 6.73%
Aegrothond 3.74 | 3.25%
Renatus 7.38 | 6.41%
Druids 5.35 | 4.65%
Haense 5.98 | 5.20%
Adria 11.87 | 10.32%
Fenn 7.57 | 6.58%
Urguan 4.83 | 4.20%
Alderyn 1.14 | 0.99% [X]
Charters:
Highelves 6.47 | 5.62%
Orcs 3.87 | 3.36%
Rosenyr 1.14 | 0.99%
gehenna 0.62 | 0.54%
bradshawe 0.04 | 0.03% [!]
harrowfall 0.44 | 0.38% [!]
Warwick_Castle 1.50 | 1.30%
Albion 0.35 | 0.30%
Calais 0.10 | 0.09% [!]
Starfall 0.31 | 0.27%
Nyfe'andria 0.10 | 0.09%
Vasiliand 0.01 | 0.01%
nenzing 0.19 | 0.17%
Kadarsi 0.29 | 0.25%
Ayr 0.12 | 0.10%
Sherwood 0.10 | 0.09%
Ashfeld 0.52 | 0.45%
Vira'ker 3.65 | 3.17%
Attica 0.56 | 0.48% *
Gurmazg 0.27 | 0.23% *
Hua-jiao 0.18 | 0.16% *
Other:
brandybrook 0.23 | 0.20% *
Vallberg_estate 0.01 | 0.01% *
harlond 0.09 | 0.08% *
eldar'seal 0.28 | 0.24% *
Cloud Temple Tile (33) 4.92 | 4.28%
Irongutia 0.01 | 0.01% *
Fimlingrad 0.00 | 0.00%% *
Vakvel 0.09 | 0.08% *
dwarffarm1 0.20 0.17% *
dwarftunnel 0.05 0.04% *
* Wildly off due to how little data was collected on those plots this week or overlapping. DOES NOT REPRESENT ACCURATELY
[!] Activity warning. Nation / Charter low on activity.
[X] Status revoked. Nation / Charter status revoked / downgraded.
6 -
=Rule Update=-
Type: Rule Change
Large wording changes to region and nation rules relating to evictions. This is due to the introduction of an automated eviction plugin.
1 -
-=Rule Update=-
Type: Rule change
Details: Lowered cost of heist from 1000 per member to 500
Type: Rule change
Details: Reduce cost of bolt cutters to 10k from 12k
0 -
The developers are now one step closer to having complete control over the server!!!!
0 -
Data April 13th 2019
Total Avg Players: 111.05 (Last week was 110.22)
Nations:
Sutica 11.53 | 10.38%
Curon 6.57 | 5.92%
Aegrothond 3.97 | 3.57%
Renatus 8.51 | 7.66%
Druids 4.52 | 4.07%
Haense 9.19 | 8.28%
Adria 8.87 | 7.99%
Fenn 8.5 | 7.7%
Urguan 4.6 | 4.14%
Alderyn 1.23 | 1.11%
Charters:
High Elves 4.98 | 4.48%
Orcs 4.85 | 4.38%
Rosennyr 0.77 | 0.7%
Gehenna 1.4 | 1.3%
Bradshaw 0.01 | 0.01%
Harrowfall 0.69 | 0.62%
Starfall 0.75 | 0.68%
Warwick Castle 1.51 | 1.36%
Albion 1.02 | 0.92%
Calais 0.00 | 0.00%
Eldar'seal 0.3 | 0.27%
Nyfe'andria 0.11 | 0.09%
Vasiliand 0.27 | 0.24%
Nenzing 0.28 | 0.25%
Kadarsi 0.36 | 0.32%
Ayr 0.39 | 0.35%
Sherwood 0.25 | 0.23%
Ashfeld 1.75 | 1.58%
Vira’ker 1.62 | 1.46%*
Other:
Brandybrook 0.56 | 0.5%
Valber_estate 0.0 | 0.00%
harlond 0.57 | 0.51%
tile_33 5.8 | 5.22%*
Irongutia 0.01 | 0.00%
Fimlingrad 0.0 | 0.0%
Vakvel 0.39 | 0.35%
Dwarffarm1 0.02 | 0.02%
Dwarftunnel 0.05 | 0.05%
* Wildly off due to how little data was collected on those plots this week or overlapping. DOES NOT REPRESENT ACCURATELY
2 -
Hey Elven. Tuesday we had an event unfold in Renatus which resulted in a large group of people heading to Adria with the intention to raze the city to the ground with permission from the PRO. Server rules protect this from happening to settlements and in order for the city to be destroyed a region wide eviction notice had to be placed on all the housing. This was done through a region flag greeting message. The understanding of this was that actual destruction to housing could not be done until after the eviction noticed passed. At which point Ave could do what he pleased with the actual housing in the area. Moderators provided some fire and did some modifications to the front of the city to provide a look of a city on fire and being destroyed.
Last year when I was looking into coup rules there was a lot of concerns and there was a very large voice coming from two sides. On one side you had nation leaders and certain sections of the playerbase involved in government roleplay not wanting a whole dedicated rule set for coups. The biggest concerns was coups happening over the course of an hour and two and suddenly changing the dynamic of the city and disrupting roleplay. The other side had a lot of sub-groups within nations who wanted some sort of mechanic built in to remove a nation leader from power in the event that they did something out of line or against the wills of their playerbase. Ultimately during the rewrite of Server Rules with Lumiin I opted for a mechanic to be built in as a way for a nation leader to be removed, but to make the bar rather high for that to happen. This was to compromise with the feedback given to me during that period in time.
There are two very specific rules that feed off of each other which would be 4.6, the one you are referencing throughout your post, and 4.4. As far as how they all tie into roleplay you're completely right that many governments function off of no form of parliament or democracy and oftentimes roleplay leaders act off their own will with the support or advisory of their small council. Which is why I included 4.4 to be the supporting rule of 4.6. This rule is also often used mainly by the primary region owner to pass it along to the next nation leader, but the mention of region owner majority is what happened when roleplay took place and they signed off on removing Ave. We’ve had close calls with this before where in the Dominion Eli almost had his region owners vote to remove him since he accepted to duel with Pond with their nation tiles as the prize. Another example is Gladewynn and the orcish tile which caused a very large war to take place in order to get the capital back.
Coup rules were looked into earlier this year as war rules were winding down and we came across the same divisions in the playerbase that happened last year. As was mentioned in the moderation update for this month war rules will be posted this week. Once that is out of the way I am planning to shift my focus back to coup rules and continue that process. The current rules 4.4 and 4.6 are far from perfect and make the ceilings for the primary region owner being removed extremely high, but they are in place since we do not have any form of a coup system. If a primary region owner is concerned of this happening they can always issue eviction noticed to the region owners and remove them. Which is what makes the bar so high and why this does not happen a lot.
I’ll be locking this thread since it’s beginning to devolve into a back and forth with people throwing personal insults and jabs at one another.
12
[Your View] Not my PvP fort!!!
in Announcements
Posted
Good
eveningmorning. For some reason forums decided to not auto post this on the schedule placed on it so apologizes for the like twelve hour delay. As promised in my previous post we will be throwing out this centralized post for people to give their thoughts and opinions on several topics. The two specific topics for this thread are the follow:- Fortification criterias (what is and what isn't a PvP fort).
- Fortification edits (what is a minor edit, what is major, et cetera).
To break it down and to give context to how it currently has been handled most of this is under moderation discretion. Some questions to think about and answer when giving your input and feedback could be…
Are you for or against modifications in the middle of a war?
Should players be allowed to create giant 100 block tall forts over the timespan of a day or two or should it be restricted to something smaller?
For sieges; what would constitute fair defensive modifications?
Are there specific types of traps or building structures that should be outlawed for not being realistic or friendly to our roleplay atmosphere?
...and many more beyond that. I look forward to hearing people’s thoughts on the topic and remember that suggestions do have to fit within a rule set so detail and accuracy is appreciated!
p.s. I hope Med loves me now since this post isn’t locked ❤️