Jump to content
Muratus del Mur

Fate of Necrovion

Recommended Posts

Well, I'm not good at giving an impartial suggestion at the moment considering I'm part of the "wounded party" but here is the most I can manage:

 

I would prefer it if the decision would be something that would spur action in the realm. Be it (and not necessarily anyone of these) rebuilding the ally / reopening the land / restoring 'land-balance' because one is missing / (Trying to think of something that's not pro-Necro and totally failing at it >_< Urh, help?) / etc.

 

I think it would make a more interesting history to have a "what happens next" instead of ending it at implementing a large handicap / end-result (e.g. completely close/open the land) and just end it right there. Something that continues the story, sort of like the events in AL.

 

As to the "why" I would prefer it so. I would like to see the most made out of the situation, and what I think that could be is spurring more activity in the realm. The realm is really quiet of the late.

 

On the other hand,  I'm not certain if this is possible without implementations that would be "expensive" on the coding side or the organization side or both. And you could argue that it might be too much to have a "higher-power" trigger a reaction/activity from players rather than let players take initiative themselves to pick up from the after-effect of having all alliances of a land down.

 

After writing this, I wonder if I'm even making sense... also being impartial is hard, dangit. Not even sure if this is..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Blackwood & anyone else using EH and PoL as examples. You cannot link these two. EH is a virtual land, it is OUTSIDE the standard system whilst still being INSIDE it. DoB being disbanded has nothing to do with PoL and everything to do with EH. Our alliance defends Bob but also an idea and a system that it maintains because it forced it to exist. It isn't equivalent.

 

Now Ive cleared that up...

 

I'm in favour of the wasteland option - but to do so, the design of the land would have to change, degrade, so in my mind this is also a technical change. That leaves only the close the land option as a choice.

 

On another note: What does everyone think an alliance is and represents? Maybe that is for another thread but I feel like all this talk about how the land can exist without an alliance is ignoring something. So as a prompt from my thought pattern: No Man's land is the only land where alliances are for all intent and purpose banned. To have DoB, EH was forged. That maintains the NML ruling, technically. That facet clearly points to other lands 'having' alliances, else they are potentiality, or black. I dunno, just how I'm thinking on it.

 

Z

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Closed :)

 

I might open this in a couple days time. People need to cool down before I start banning everyone


If people want to discuss this, please open a new topic, but be civil and stop flaming each other in a massive cluster of hate :)

 

Either way, please also consider that many people have invested a WP to gain access to the Graveyard (Tormented Souls location). 

 

Dont worry, I know this and will consider a solution depending on what Mur and I decide.

 

No, we don't. I haven't asked for anything. Not from you not for Chew or Mur (they can confirm since you will never ever believe me).

 

No requests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition to Chewett's closing:

Removed all the posts that didn't relate to the thread.

Since that covers all the reported posts (and then some), consider this the 'response to all reports', if you will: Yeah, those posts really didn't belong in here. Thanks for keeping your eyes open :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

good its closed, gave me a chance to read it all.

 

- a land is social unity combined with placement. If one fails , all fails. Don't confuse citizenship with nationality

- read sun tzu -> the art of war, yes defeating an entire land without hurting a single one is not only possible but the ultimate purpose of a perfectly done war.

- of the land gets closed, the purchased or given access will not be revoked but will become useless... however if the land opens, the access will be meaningless.

 

 

i will get back with a decision after hearing what chew has to say. Azull sent me his view on things, so did dst,

 

For now, what things i am thinking so far:

 

- Name of the land will not change

- Land will not be fully opened, this would be like mocking its long guarded secrets forever, and has no meaning in all this, this is the problem of the people of this land not of the land itself.

- This will trigger a series of changes not a single one, expect to see them announced one by one..and some will not be permanent.

- I received offers to "buy back" the ally via wishpoints and trust points, answer is no, not this time

 

This issue is... there is a king, the crown(s) are valid. there is a land, there are no people, or at least they failed to defend themselves against treason. If i punish the people i hurt the land, if i hurt the land i hurt md, the question is WHO will take all the mess in the end, the ex citizens, the king, the land, md?

 

From a principle point of view, to solve this issue it requires motion and should lead to motion, not a static solution. A punishment, direct or indirect, would be fastest way, but i admit its the bad way (still might do it)...the correct way would be "change", that means motion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Forum Statistics

    15,831
    Total Topics
    173,480
    Total Posts
  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
  • Recent Event Reviews

×
×
  • Create New...