Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

136 Brilliant


About Silverstatik

  • Rank
    Iron Miner
  • Birthday December 28

Contact Methods

  • Discord
  • Minecraft Username

Profile Information

  • Gender

Character Profile

  • Character Name
    Kazimar Lazar Alimar
  • Character Race

Recent Profile Visitors

1,614 profile views
  1. Kazimar would frown deeply upon hearing the news. Never on the best of terms with the interesting character that was Bottle, he'd dip his head low regardless and murmur some short words for the slain man.
  2. tab lets me see the people important to me online much easier, not bad!

  3. As a roleplay server, I feel that forcing forts to include a certain number of “rooms” to be garrisoned could help with forts being entirely built as non-nonsensical deathtraps. Just some ideas: to require, x number of X sized rooms that are clear in function and not trapped, such as barracks, kitchens, storerooms, mess halls, map/planning rooms, armories, a gatehouse with x wide a pathway and access to allow for a sensible flow of troops and supplies. I also feel that adding a “standing structure” effect or something could help as well, if a structure existed for x number of weeks prior to the war, lets say 3, it gets a base benefit for garrison as well / cost reduction. I would also say that forts be separated into tiers based on size, for example 50x50x50 / 100x100x100, and so on, if a fort is of a certain size, it should succumb to a sizable increase in upkeep. Ultimately players should be left to build what they want in so far as meeting certain requirements and checkboxes, along with scaling upkeep based on size and time of building, all skewed towards encouraging rp’d forts with some history to them, and planning ahead, but still allowing for some flexibility if required at great cost. A hardcap on defenders based on the fort at hand could also allow for leniency in defenses, as the numbers would be more skewed towards the attackers, instead of having massive lag inducing war claims for everything, in response, the cost of raising a larger army for attacks could have a scaling price on the upper limit as well, to encourage more of utilizing an army, instead of mustering every last single a player base can manage, which creates a very disabling mindset as both sides in a war attempt to garner as many fighters as possible for every fight, it could instead be focused on those that enjoy the fighting without feeling the need to drag everyone into the fray. I’d also propose that some sort of running list of each nations standing forts should be public knowledge and readily viewed, as forts are the type of structure that would be common knowledge. If a nation has a fort that was newly built or have not been paying upkeep on, it must pay a logistics fee of however many weeks of the war have transpired for upkeep X 3 or something akin, a rather high cost to promote factions supplying forts earlier on in the war as the scope of things develop, without having to rush in from day one paying for all their forts. In addition to this fee, they would be required to wait an additional week for the fort to become active so some foresight is required. If a fort was not active, it could simply be bypassed and would be forced to remain inactive till the territory was retaken. This allows players in a faction to still freely build without being stopped by staff if they say, own a keep during war but their side is not paying upkeep, but prevents a fort being thrown up on a technicality before a war claim is posted. I would only truly police nonsensical traps, and gamey design such as unrealistic ways for entry to a fort, crazy pathways, narrow tunnels into forts that are supposed to house massive garrisons and keep them supplied. I would also encourage that any fort/keep that is housed by players meeting a certain level activity and having some rp lore surrounding it from said players be given some sort of discount, to encourage people to rp around these structures during peacetime and give a reason to have lands assigned to vassal players, perhaps at certain levels of activity nearing 50% cost reduction or similar benefits. I feel this is a good direction to go as it would become more clear on what is a fort and what isn’t at a given moment, allow players to still mostly build as they want besides policing traps and requiring some rooms to give backing to the rp claims these forts seem to want to make at times. As far as siege equipment is considered, I feel what we have now is fine, I don’t like to bring realism into my lotc arguments, but if a defending force wants to sit inside its walls without sallying out, I feel they should deal with the consequences of such an action. We don’t have the time to sit and rp out a realistic siege, so allowing the rapid destruction of a fort with siege I feel finds a decent middle ground. However feel that rules concerning sieging and marching around forts and zones of control is beyond the scope of this feedback though.
  4. How do the staff feel about the current state of wars? Any intent to defang the system somewhat to allow for aggressive warring without a defensive side having to worry about the destruction of their rp / locations? Edit: This was poorly worded, when referring to defang the system, I was inquiring if the staff hoped to perhaps make wars possibly more collaborative between the warring sides, and make them less about achieving ooc goals and means and more about furthering rp and things to interact with and discuss while rping, as war is a very interesting facet of LotC, but currently an extremely hostile one as well.
  5. @ferdaboys69 Seems we are in agreement then? Lines up with the post by fireheart and your confirmation and my view!
  6. Sounds like it was a good fight, hope all involved enjoyed it!

  7. @ferdaboys69 As far as I am aware, they have no active PEX, but retain their ability to see vanished with their staff rank. Again, this is only as I have heard it from multiple people and as was stated by Fireheart in the post I believe. Edit: Listed spectator by accident, don’t think that works, but don’t know enough either way, mostly going off of Firehearts post for this information and some word of mouth to support it.
  8. JD (the one who killed Dfate) has story team perms, and was able to see him, notice how its JUST JD who kills him. Perhaps one or two accidental hits went his way prior as well, due to the small nature of the box. Questions like this make me wonder, did you even read Firehearts post prior to coming to the forums to berate the staff for their decisions? Or did you just tag along on a discord link to mob the place when things aren’t headed your way.
  9. 1.Fort Loch is given time to meet standards required for use instead of being outright removed, time is wasted not doing such and fighting about it while making minor adjustments that fail to comply. If you wish to contest the validity of fort Loch being permissible or not, that is understandable, but as far as I can see it at the moment, compliance was not a priority of the defenders. 2. Can’t speak towards nordengrad and why it was not used, but I feel its more two faced than you present, and would not have been an issue had Loch been made in compliance. 3. Helena literally turned into a pvp fort the likes the server has not yet seen before, denied for failing to comply to standards, staff still generously allows and aids in new defenses being erected. 4. Affected both sides heavily, staff helped setup items for the war claim. Should it have happened? No, but did it affect everyone and was resolved prior to the warclaim? Yes, if you had an issue with this, why not bring it up before the battle was underway, if you did attempt to do so then all I can say is it seemed that both sides had plenty of supplies by the time fighting was underway. 5. I failed to see evidence of this, but don’t deny it I suppose? Still effected both sides if the claim is true, running 400 man pvp in minecraft is really a tough prospect, not trying to excuse issues that came up, but we should all understand that they will happen to some degree of variance each time this comes along. 6. Hackusations have been thrown multiple ways, claiming one as fact over another being disregarded is silly, but I also acknowledge I lack full breadth of understanding of hacks involved in the WC. 7. It has been well spoken on how the fight in the lobby went down, but you can stick to your story if you want and just ignore discussing the issue and claim that some people dying is evidence of clear intent to pugsie, the only people that know what went down are the ones who where there, I’m willing to bet it came down to 2 confused players attacking each other and spiraling out of hand. 8. So issues effecting your side negatively are huge issues, and the lobby really impacted renatus more of course, those marnas really just have just let the renatians in the lobby kill them, and Dfate is a Dev, it’s not his fault he can’t keep his ducks in a row, and his impact really wasn’t THAT big guys, c’mon really. You have taken constant steps to make things far more complicated and unfriendly than needed to be, and when issues arise from it, think you can throw it all at the staffs feet like some kind of atrocity is being acted against you. Make no mistake, you are the ones who drove fort Loch out of contention, no one had issues attacking it should it have followed guidelines, and in put all your defensive hopes in one castle thrown up on a warpath that was declared prior to its existence. You are the ones you made Helena into such a overwhelmingly nonsensical structure that the staff literally had to roll back the server and give you another shot while helping you build, but act as if the staff just rolled up and deleted your stuff out of the blue. It almost seems as if you invite trouble, you will find it. Say the truth out-of-character, or say nothing at all. Separate the trickery, manipulation, and deceit of your character from yourself. In their bloody reality of steel and sorcery, they conspire to survive. Here, as a community of writers, we instead merely cooperate to produce an interesting story. @Medvekoma I’m not calling you a liar on anything, but choosing to intentionally skew things to your viewpoint / favor when presenting them is just as bad. If anything my reply is more to show that typing a bunch of things as if fact while trying to sound righteous is just misguided, and I realize the hypocrisy when comparing my words to your own, I simply wanted to show there is more to things than what you simply say.
  10. Lion: Names Thread Staff Bias and Incompetency Also Lion: Ayy lets keep it civil lads. Like, what did you expect.
  11. I’m sorry, but why should we have to wait an extra week because one side couldn’t follow multiple attempts to get them to follow reasonable guidelines for a fort. That is just horrible logic, oren did nothing prior to the forts failure to meet guidelines and gets delayed a week because of it?
  12. Yall are so ready to bend the narrative to your side, it is sad at this point.
  13. “Continue to cower in your pit of a throne room till you find the stomach for a real fight.”
  • Create New...