"what To Do With The Special Lands"

[Izuel Flash]

Ok, so In regards to Murs latest Announcment about the lands Chatting to each other on what they should do about various things, I had a thought, And feel free to shoot me down if It really is a stupid idea...
So we got the random lands that don't belong to anyone right? Archives, Tribunal etc. Wouldn't it be groovy if The main lands could conquer them, or put them under their rule or whatever. It would be a good opportunity for RP, and an awesome excuse for people to rally together.
Or another idea is, that whichever alliances are outwaying all the others in a particular area (In terms of active players moving around there), get land bonuses etc as if it were their own turf. The areas would be in constant flux I guess, but it would encourage encampments in the more deserted lands.
Anyways, that's just a few thoughts.

P.s. Sorry if this is in the wrong place, hi everyone. lol

P.p.s Hey it was in the wrong place after all, thanks for moving it. XD

Edited March 25, 2010 by Izuel Flash

[dst]

[quote name='Izuel Flash' date='24 March 2010 - 11:47 AM' timestamp='1269424068' post='56827']
Wouldn't it be groovy if The main lands could conquer them, or put them under their rule or whatever. It would be a good opportunity for RP, and an awesome excuse for people to rally together.
[/quote]


O_O NO! I am independent and I plan to stay that way. Usually neutral lands are populated by guilds. Guilds have a different goal/mission then the normal military alliances. We have advantages but also lots of disadvantages. But most of all we have the freedom to choose. To choose our allies, our enemies.
And it would be difficult to "conquer" a guild. You can do that only by taking over the guild. Or at least this is the only way I see this to be possible. And to RP such a thing will probably be impossible since not everybody is a RP-er.

The second idea is not really applicable because the allies in one land usually work together for the good of that land. Starting a competition like that might lead to bad things (but hey! I could also be wrong, I am just talking from my experience inside MD).
The good part would be that allies will probably start recruiting active people and will start kicking out the inactive ones. This way noobs will have better chances of getting in an ally.


How I see the current issue:neutral lands don't have kings but this doesn't mean we cannot decide things. It will not be a one man decision but a collective one. At least for the lands with more guilds/allies. I am the leader of my guild. I don't have the power of a king but I still can decide whether a thing is good or not for my guild/land.

ps: moved to the alliances section

Edited March 24, 2010 by dst

[Kyphis the Bard]

[quote name='Izuel Flash' date='24 March 2010 - 07:47 PM' timestamp='1269424068' post='56827']
Ok, so In regards to Murs latest Announcment about the lands Chatting to each other on what they should do about various things, I had a thought, And feel free to shoot me down if It really is a stupid idea...
So we got the random lands that don't belong to anyone right? Archives, Tribunal etc. Wouldn't it be groovy if The main lands could conquer them, or put them under their rule or whatever. It would be a good opportunity for RP, and an awesome excuse for people to rally together.
Or another idea is, that whichever alliances are outwaying all the others in a particular area (In terms of active players moving around there), get land bonuses etc as if it were their own turf. The areas would be in constant flux I guess, but it would encourage encampments in the more deserted lands.
Anyways, that's just a few thoughts.

P.s. Sorry if this is in the wrong place, hi everyone. lol
[/quote]
Lord NO!

While yes, it would be concievable for a land to try to invade, there would be all sorts of consequences.

"Neutral" does not mean the same thing you seem to think it does.

I am a member of a Neutral Guild, and I would NOT accept that behaviour.

[Yrthilian]

LOL more talk of taking a land

Well i can tell you this much just because a land in neutral does not mean
it is there for the taking.

for example in RL Ireland is a neutral country but you cant just walking in and take it as your own.

Neutrality just mean being neutral not taking sides. That land still is owned by the people of it and
i am sure they will defend it well if anyone tried to take them over. I do NOT see any need to take a land
and those land can manage them self well enough i am sure. If they want changes made the can work together to
have them made. That is there advantage at the end of the day.

[phantasm]

Aye, and I think anyone that tried to invade any of these lands would find themselves against a very aggressive standing army. Many who belong to any land feel as I do, a deep rooted loyalty to its protection and progression. Not only would it cause a diplomatic whirlwind, but also it would mean aggression against a neutral land. I hope that one day neutral lands get kings also, just because you have a king doesn't mean your a part of a military stand. However, if another King were to be insane enough to try to capture the Tribunal, they would have to get through me. I'm sure Assira, Elthen, Sephirah, and others would say the same. Neutrality doesn't mean letting a military group try to take over. Only that the lands/alliances themselves can't initiate most kinds of military action.

[Jester]

[quote name='phantasm' date='24 March 2010 - 05:55 AM' timestamp='1269431734' post='56833']
Aye, and I think anyone that tried to invade any of these lands would find themselves against a very aggressive standing army. Many who belong to any land feel as I do, a deep rooted loyalty to its protection and progression. Not only would it cause a diplomatic whirlwind, but also it would mean aggression against a neutral land. I hope that one day neutral lands get kings also, just because you have a king doesn't mean your a part of a military stand. However, if another King were to be insane enough to try to capture the Tribunal, they would have to get through me. I'm sure Assira, Elthen, Sephirah, and others would say the same. Neutrality doesn't mean letting a military group try to take over. Only that the lands/alliances themselves can't initiate most kinds of military action.
[/quote]

Yes, how could I possibly defeat the 4 of you with my max Drachorn ritual and 60 alliance seats? MDA is even more pathetic, a few archivists and a single legend speaker. Face it, if a main land wanted to take a neutral one by force you couldn't do anything about it unless you got a different main land to help you.

However neutral lands aren't there to be taken over, they have a set purpose. If there were alliances to take over they would have to be part of one of the 4 main lands.

[Pipstickz]

Neutral lands have a purpose, yes

The idea of territory to fight over does sound neat, and it'd promote actual fighting, but neutral lands aren't the place to do it.

[LadyDawn]

[quote name='Jester' date='24 March 2010 - 02:31 PM' timestamp='1269441068' post='56838']
Yes, how could I possibly defeat the 4 of you with my max Drachorn ritual and 60 alliance seats? MDA is even more pathetic, a few archivists and a single legend speaker. Face it, if a main land wanted to take a neutral one by force you couldn't do anything about it unless you got a different main land to help you.

However neutral lands aren't there to be taken over, they have a set purpose. If there were alliances to take over they would have to be part of one of the 4 main lands.
[/quote]

There are two legend speakers now as from yesterday, if I am not mistaken, but that's not the point here

I completely agree with last two sentences.

---

My way of looking at neutral lands could be completely off, but still... I see them as a place where people from any alliance, friendly or enemy one, could gather and "mingle". A place of entertainment, trade, information-gathering etc. In times of wars, it could even be a place where the opposing sides would gather and conduct diplomatic discussions as the ground would be neutral. Further-more, it should be a hub of craftsmen, service providers of all sorts, places of culture etc.
Besides of that, there are people out there who would like to be a part of guild, if that is the word, but wouldn't want to be involved into military affairs. Neutral lands can or do provide that.

But again, that is my way of thinking and I could be completely wrong in perceiving what they are.

---
A bit off-topic:
If "we" would have need for a land that would be free to taking and holding until another alliance wouldn't take it over, which could actually be interesting perhaps, then it should be completely new area, Badlands of sort if you wish, with one or maybe just few scenes true which you would progress as in you start at the gates, break defenses and so on until you reach the "throne". Actually, something like the "King of The Hill" could be done, maybe once per month on specific day and hour, a sort of siege? Just a thought...

[CrazyMike]

I too disagree the idea of conquering a neutral land. They are there for a purpose.

Anyways, I do like LadyDusk idea of "King of the Land" competition.

A competition for the alliance to flex their muscles. Of course some would argue that the TR is there for that purpose.

[Izuel Flash]

Ok cool. I see now. All very valid points. I like this wave of patriotism coming through though. Heh heh.

I like ladydawns idea of having a set apart area specifically for conquering purposes, That way it doesn't step on anybodies toes.
I guess the Alliance or guild that win the comp would Be set up as defenders during the next competition.

Edited March 25, 2010 by Izuel Flash

[Elthen Airis]

[quote name='Izuel Flash' date='24 March 2010 - 10:47 AM' timestamp='1269424068' post='56827']
Ok, so In regards to Murs latest Announcment about the lands Chatting to each other on what they should do about various things, I had a thought, And feel free to shoot me down if It really is a stupid idea...
So we got the random lands that don't belong to anyone right? Archives, Tribunal etc. Wouldn't it be groovy if The main lands could conquer them, or put them under their rule or whatever. It would be a good opportunity for RP, and an awesome excuse for people to rally together.
Or another idea is, that whichever alliances are outwaying all the others in a particular area (In terms of active players moving around there), get land bonuses etc as if it were their own turf. The areas would be in constant flux I guess, but it would encourage encampments in the more deserted lands.
Anyways, that's just a few thoughts.

P.s. Sorry if this is in the wrong place, hi everyone. lol

P.p.s Hey it was in the wrong place after all, thanks for moving it. XD
[/quote]

Absolutely opposing the idea, as everyone. It's quite obvious, this game is not Command & Conquer. And i would be very sad to see it become one, if ever. What i like about the neutral lands is exactly the neutrality it offers. It gives you the opportunity to make something yourself, apart from all the alliances and all diplomatic matters you must be involved into, if you join any of the main lands. It gives you the freedom to create your own role and actually keep a neutral position, not opposing any of the main lands, as not everyone feels affiliated with any of the main lands. I, for example, didn't find myself suitable in any of the main lands, so i decided to go neutral and Thr Tribunal was already waiting for me, unexplored, waiting for new adventures and ideas.
Then again, looking from the point of view of the so-called "Uber-players"(Battle oriented players) the use of the neutral lands is absolutely useless. What's more, if they join the neutral land they get no bonuses for their stats, so that's even a stronger argument not to be asking for a citizenship for the neutral lands. Nevertheless, obtaining the citizenship for any of the neutral lands is quite hard, if not impossible at the moment, so i don't know if that should be considered an issue or not.

As for the King of the Hill idea, i don't know what to think. Something more informative should be proposed as to create an opinion for it. For the moment i don't quite see what that place would be like and how it would improve the Gameplay.

[quote name='Jester' date='24 March 2010 - 03:31 PM' timestamp='1269441068' post='56838']
Yes, how could I possibly defeat the 4 of you with my max Drachorn ritual and 60 alliance seats? MDA is even more pathetic, a few archivists and a single legend speaker. Face it, if a main land wanted to take a neutral one by force you couldn't do anything about it unless you got a different main land to help you.

However neutral lands aren't there to be taken over, they have a set purpose. If there were alliances to take over they would have to be part of one of the 4 main lands.
[/quote]

I don't fancy the way you speak of yourself, oh mighty one. 6 drachorns aren't unbeatable, no worries. But then again, in the spirit of sarcasm i'm MP4, not in an alliance, how can you beat me?

Elthen Airis

[dst]

[quote name='Elthen Airis' date='05 April 2010 - 01:55 PM' timestamp='1270464900' post='57664']
Then again, looking from the point of view of the so-called "Uber-players"(Battle oriented players) the use of the neutral lands is absolutely useless. What's more, if they join the neutral land they get no bonuses for their stats, so that's even a stronger argument not to be asking for a citizenship for the neutral lands.
[/quote]

I believe I am what you consider an uber-player and I have as homeland the Underground which is considered neutral. The stats offered by the alliances/guilds to strong players are useless compared to their real stats...


[quote name='Elthen Airis' date='05 April 2010 - 01:55 PM' timestamp='1270464900' post='57664']
I don't fancy the way you speak of yourself, oh mighty one. 6 drachorns aren't unbeatable, no worries. But then again, in the spirit of sarcasm i'm MP4, not in an alliance, how can you beat me?
[/quote]

I agree, it is beatable IF you know how or you have the proper...let's say gear...Also I will give you a friendly advice since let's say I know you and I know you are an ok person: it's better not to provoke an mp5 and moreover a strong one . There are ways to attack and defeat an mp4 or an mp3 even if that player is not in an alliance. And it's even worst cause an mp5 can do much more damage then just by giving you a loss.

Edited April 5, 2010 by dst
Bah! Sooo many mistakes...I just corrected them.

[Elthen Airis]

[quote name='dst' date='05 April 2010 - 07:47 PM' timestamp='1270493270' post='57679']
I believe I am what you consider an uber-player and I have as homeland the Underground which is considered neutral. The stats offered by the alliances/guilds to strong players are useless compared to their real stats...




I agree, it is beatable IF you know how or you have the proper...let's say gear...Also I will give you a friendly advice since let's say I know you and I know you are an ok person: it's better not to provoke an mp5 and moreover a strong one . There are ways to attack and defeat an mp4 or an mp3 even if that player is not in an alliance. And it's even worst cause an mp5 can do much more damage then just by giving you a loss.
[/quote]

@dst Of course, i agree that real stats are more important. But then again, how many people have followed your example by joining the Underground? 5 with your alt or so? Really, practically speaking, what would you choose? An alliance with many bonuses, not only stat related, you have many allies, people who you could rely on as well. King/Queen, which has WP giving option, lots of citizens(mostly Marind Bell and Loreroot, perhaps Necrovion, though i haven't seen too much lately), or a deserted place giving you nothing, but what you do yourself?

For me, the choice is simple, i prefer the innovation and selfreliability. That's why i chose The Tribunal. I believe you would make the same choice, but you are 1 person of the 20-30% of the people who play the game that are "uber-players". And i'm pretty sure the bonuses are welcoming for MP3s, MP4s and even new MP5s, as they do not have the stats you have. Especially the Action Points.

As for the provoking. I didn't. I simply stated i do not fancy the expression he made. The fact that he is strong in battle is more than obvious. And as i said "in the spirit of sarcasm..."

Off-topic: I saw the old post about DS. I finally got what dst means... Dimentional Shifters Taker.

Elthen Airis

Edited April 6, 2010 by Elthen Airis

[Burns]

But you are aware of the fact that Underground has some pretty neat stat-boni, right?

Nobody joins Underground because it's dst's land, and dst has standards. A lot of people would love to be Undergrounds just because of the stats, let alone the regens, thing is just, nobody CAN be underground because hardly anybody is good enough to be there

The main lands have big allies, with a lot of seats, they are made to be public, that's why they have more players.
If i applied standards like dst, my ally would consist of 3 people, and about 5 more would have remote chances to get in, even though they wouldn't want. You are putting the cart before the horse when saying that people join a land or ally because it has a lot of helpful allies, a king or even the land treasury.
Kings, treasuries and lots of allies are a by-product of lands being public mainlands, Firsanthalas and Yrthilian knew that all along, Jester and Lifeline are still working on it.

There are a few people in all of the lands who are there for a cause, for roles if you wish. Most people are in a land because they think that having a land is cooler than having none, those are the ones who go into public lands only, 'private lands' like Underground, Archives and Tribunal shouldn't even think about taking that kind of people imo. That some of them do it nonetheless is another thing.

[dst]

[quote]Really, practically speaking, what would you choose? An alliance with many bonuses, not only stat related, you have many allies, people who you could rely on as well. King/Queen, which has WP giving option, lots of citizens(mostly Marind Bell and Loreroot, perhaps Necrovion, though i haven't seen too much lately), or a deserted place giving you nothing, but what you do yourself?[/quote]

Honestly? I would choose Underground in the blink of an eye. I am an independent person. I have no master but myself. Also, I choose who I want in my ally. If that person wants to join, fine. If not then no problem.
I would choose a place that gives me nothing because all I have I have cause I worked for it. I was never given "presents". I was never given Wp codes to give out just cause I am pretty. I was never given credits or crits just cause my name is DST. The players that are in my guild know they will not receive things like that from me (unless certain circumstances occur).Look for example at Cutler. I believe he is the best example.He is SI but still he managed to get probably the highest number of rewards (to give to players) for a non-RPC player. All I can do for him is to support him in everything he does. And in case he will ever be in trouble or need anything I will do my best to help him. Also, I trust him. For me is important to be in an ally where you trust your men. I have taken over too many allies not to know how important loyalty can be. Not a day goes by without congratulating myself for having him in SI.
I don't want a guild full of beggars. I want capable, independent players. And maybe, in time, beside the moral rewards, material rewards will come. If not...no problem. I believe we already know (each one of us) how to get the maximum out of things.

And enough about SI and UG. I already said too much.

[Izuel Flash]

Oh jeeze. My embarasing thread came back to life. Well at least everyones changed the subject.

I would like to hope people wouldn't consider stats when joining the different lands. It should coincide with their characters temperament.