Jump to content

Silverstatik

Moderation Manager
  • Content Count

    221
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

170 Brilliant

4 Followers

About Silverstatik

Contact Methods

  • Discord
    Silverstatic#1924
  • Minecraft Username
    Silverstatik

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Character Profile

  • Character Name
    Kazimar Lazar Alimar
  • Character Race
    Human

Recent Profile Visitors

2,030 profile views
  1. You where pretty alright to work with after I got to know you, hope everything goes well.
  2. Best of luck guys, thanks for all the help.
  3. Kazimar would frown upon hearing the news “He enabled stability, I pray another will be at least half as capable to guide others through the coming times.”
  4. Heya @rukio, player involvement in rules that effect how the server plays out it is pretty important, in the conflict section you can see that I am setting up a curated discord for feedback on war / conflict rules going forward. I know its not the full breadth of moderation, but if you want to get involved with discussions around war / conflict topics, feel free to get in touch with me and I will add you once it opens up within a day or so. Thanks for wanting to lend a voice to the discussions going on around the server.
  5. Heya @frill i can address your concern there regarding that statement about conflict. Its not placing blame on the players nor was it intended to. That portion of the conflict statement was placed to explain that a key issue with the rules, even when the two sides had agreement, became hard to broadcast and shared with the wider player base to ensure everyone participating / interacting with the agreed conflict where aware of the specific agreed rules due to the volume of info at times that had to be understood and shared with very few common rules to base that understanding from and the agreements often changing as negotiations went along. It made it very hard for players to know if they or other players where in the right with the rules in a given situation, and its not fair to expect players to play fair by rules they can't readily access for better understanding. By no means was that directed towards players, it was more so acknowledging the fact that the system had issues being communicated even in the most ideal situations, that left everything mired down.
  6. Username Cakefool UUID f3a1f8e5-b158-47a5-9df2-7c126ef766f9 Reason Excessive issues with Combat Situations regarding conflict specifically after multiple warnings. Blacklist issued as part of ban duration and content. Terms Docile Special Terms If the player fails to demonstrate proper RP not based around their problem areas on the server, the blacklist duration will be extended another month. The agreed intent is to demonstrate their willingness to interact with the server apart from the pvp where the majority of their issues exist. Expiry Date October 13, 2019 After an appeal
  7. Username sybashtian UUID b6829f52-15ac-4be6-a1b8-ea0502c2b308 Reason Excessive issues with Combat Situations regarding villainy specifically, from large to small situations, the player drew constant issues. Terms Docile Special Terms Conflict only gated around villainy actions due to repeat issues with villainy rp, but lack of issues within other conflict Expiry Date December 5, 2019
  8. Kazimar would sit alongside Katerina at the fire, comforting his daughter at the loss of Sarah.
  9. A good way to emphasize a fine method for running improvised or small scale events for your playerbase that has been around for a while but not really championed. Good stuff dingo.
  10. Kazimar Lazar Alimar would shout in anger, tossing the missive notifying him of the passing of the Stafyr aside in a crumpled heap. He’d glance about, suddenly noticing the stark silence. He’d huff and move to the window “Rest now little Leana.” he’d huff as he slumped into a nearby chair, calling for Matilda to bring him something to drink.
  11. tab lets me see the people important to me online much easier, not bad!

  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. @ferdaboys69 Seems we are in agreement then? Lines up with the post by fireheart and your confirmation and my view!
×
×
  • Create New...