Atlantic Roleplay Community Boards

[Mairsil]

---

Comrades, we've had a good deal of discussion in Hallister's Change and Evolve thread. One of the topics that came up was conflict, and with conflict always appears the sub topic of land claims.

While we've had some good discussion so far, its been said that we need more than just discussion. This is my effort to make an actual proposal for changing the land claim system.

I am completely open to any and all criticism's, and really just want to share an idea I had that could potentially solve some of the problems with the land claim system.



Okay, as the land claim system exists now, any guild can claim a home base territory that can't be taken from them. Once a guild acquires a certain number of people, they can then expand and claim X number of territories.
Example:

1) The Kingdom of Stonegate (S|G) and The Doom Patrol (=DP=) both have home bases in Northern Malas with a few surrounding territories claimed. Please see below:




Now, as seen in the example above, SG (NM6) and DP (L17) both own a home base in Northern Malas, and between those two home bases are two bordering territories. One territory is owned by SG (L15), the other is owned by DP (L16).

With the current system in place, there is a whole plethora of rules that regulate the following:
1) Our two guilds can war eachother for L15 and L16 because we own land that borders the territory we want.
2) If we war each other and one guild manages to take a territory from the other, the guild that lost has X amount of time to try and retaliate for the lost land.
3) If the guild that lost land retaliates and looses again, there is a time limit before they can try and make a claim for the land they originally lost.
4) etc, etc, etc.

That is the system that currently exists, but please look to my next example below:




Per my screenshot above, I am proposing the following:

1) Each guild still gets to claim a home base, but no other territory can be officially 'owned' on paper.
2) Per the example: If SG and DP own home bases, and are interested in surrounding land, they are free to 'contest' that land.
2.5) In my proposal, to 'contest' land does not indicate that two guilds have to be fighting over it, it just means that a guild is claiming the land as their own.
3) As Stonegate and Doom Patrol are both interested in L15 and L16 above, both territories become 'contested' by both guilds.
4) While L15 and L16 is contested by both guilds, neither territory can ever be officially 'owned' by either guild, as per my first point.

Now for some explanation of the points above:

I've stated that a guild can own a home base, but can't 'own' any other territory, they can only contest them. By essentially limiting a guild to only really owning one territory, I'm hoping to address the following:

A) Take the emphasis of land ownership away out of character, and place the emphasis of land ownership in character.
To 'contest' a land essentially means that in character you state the land is yours... But without that magical forum in the sky to prove its yours, what makes it yours?
Role play in the area: Build outposts, send patrols, hold events, drink there, fight there, go hunting there - do whatever it is you do on that land you are claiming at least some of the time if not frequently.

B) Keep the purpose of the land claim system intact, but remove some of the drama that inevitably follows.
As mature as we all try to be, we always face a potential problem when land wars come about.
-Guild members get worried about houses they own on guild territory that is lost
-People feel that their hard work to earn the territories in the first place is thrown away
-Let's face it, as even as we hope the battles will be, it rarely works out that way. When someone looses land because they got steamrolled 15 to 5, it feels crappy.

If a guild never really owns a territory aside from their home base in the first place, and they just claim a land is theirs because they role play on it, well what changes if someone comes along and wants the land too?
Now you can avoid all of the above drama and just stick to the RP. We can send warriors across the lands and skirmish for it, we can both try to host events there, we can build houses there, whatever. IN CHARACTER we still consider the land ours, but it all comes down to presence. Without the picture on the board and a guild abbreviation on it, whats the difference to the people involved?

C) Less rules = Simplicity. Simplicity = fun.
Complexity can certainly make things interesting, but with the proposed changes I'm talking about here, we can essentially throw out half the rules we have on land ownership. Just think of some of the rules we have in place right now that wouldn't even matter anymore?
-To claim X number of territories, you have to have Y number of guild members. The problem with this rule is that land doesn't decay, and sometimes members do. You wouldn't ever have a problem with a guild of five people owning 30 territories again. Sure, they can 'contest' the land and say IN CHARACTER that the land is there's, but so can you. Again, all the emphasis is now on the RP.
-To take a territory form someone, you have to get the opposing GM to agree to a time, if you want to take a lot of land, it could take days or it could take months to acquire it all - NOT ANYMORE!
-My land was taken, but it is hard for me to muster the forces on one day to ever take the land back - NOT ANYMORE.
-I am sure there are other rules we don't need either, but no need to go over them all. The point is that there is significantly less work involved.


I'm going to pause there because I've already said a lot.

Again I WELCOME criticism, but I really just wanted to try my hand at a change that might help.

I also welcome other ideas entirely, but lets talk about it.
_________________
"You see I can not be forsaken, because I'm not the only one. We walk amongst you, beating, r#ping, must we hide from everyone?" - Jon Davis

[Zerin]

---

I agree with the overall idea behind this, but feel that we may be better off not having even that one territory be OFFICIALLY owned. Instead, I propose that we list on each territory all of the guilds that currently make an in character claim to that territory (within reason of course... after all, there's no way a group that never goes somewhere should be listed there). Just for the sake of letting people see more information on the map, we could still note that a particular territory is a guild's primary focus, but there may be other groups living alongside them even there, whether cooperating or in conflict. Naturally, if a particular place really is your primary focus, you'll be around there more often to make your presence known, thus satisfying the need to own it through rp rather than a forum listing. This would effectively make the whole map on this forum serve as just a tool to help players be able to see the big picture of where others are located and would force nearly every conceivable conflict regarding land to be an in character one.

[Mairsil]

---

Right, well I still figured we'd use the map, just that territories would be 'contested'.
_________________
"You see I can not be forsaken, because I'm not the only one. We walk amongst you, beating, r#ping, must we hide from everyone?" - Jon Davis

[Inkari Northwind]

---

I personally think the land claim system is botched and has more less lessened the conflict than encourage it. People are scared of losing their VIRTUAL LAND....get real folks. I liked it better when you would claim a city ex. magincia and thats yours or you have a player run town like Sanctus and its yours. You want to invade and take control of it? GREAT! we can work something out where if you win you got slaves for a week or something. Rally a rebellion its cool. But claim where you have housing, Im looking at these maps and people claim territories where their guild has no housing nor has any vested interest.

I mean progress is the result of reformation. Mairsil I applaud you for trying to change this, but why don't we waive it all to the point of housing and actual city limits? Claiming a mountain range that you have no housing in is....BAD RP. ESPECIALLY when you don't even take the time to put a mule out there to mine or craft...

Just my two cents that means....absolutely nothing.
_________________
"Life is but an Image, Of what honor truly is"
-Inkari Northwind

AKA Kurbda' PwNub

[Lady LaBelle]

---

I do not know or understand much about "land claims" but it seems to me that multiple guilds should represent a city and in order to lay "claim" they should have a functioning governing body, like in Yew or Magencia. A city could have various guilds that represent the claim no? Seems it would be more realistic. Maybe it is this way already? But it seems it is just one guild for each city, less I am missing something?
~Player of LaBelle~

[Thraxas]

---

I like this much better than what we have now, for all the reasons you listed. It solves lots of problems and makes more sense to me. We claim a city or town or player-run spot, and go from there. Housing will matter more, which it should. This would encourage raids or skirmishes or roleplay of some kind on a daily basis among antagonists. It also leaves plenty of room for newcomers who have housing to claim a spot as their own without infringing on someone's claim who actually has none there. Let's make this work.
_________________
"If a criminal has what you want, you do business with him."

[Darrien Church]

---

What I think should be considered is why the rules were created in the first place.


How does the ARPC handle a situation where two or more groups insist they control/own certain regions or cities and merely refuses to engage in PvP or RP to the contrary. How is that handled? It was RP like that which led to literal years of deadlock stalemate RP that spawned the current system, how is a repeat of that avoided?

Don't just rewrite rules, place safeguards in place.

The current system, if it is indeed flawed, at least creates a clear and concise policy of what guild has earned what. Thinking back to the 3-4 year era between maps we had massive splinters and divides in RP where entire groups of guilds would refuse to recognize one guild's RP over another's.

[Willow Smythe]

---

Well we have the stalemate rp as it is with the very rules that are in place. just because they were the original doesn't mean they are appropriate now. When they were created, no doubt they were a vast improvement from how things were. But we are needing a change, if it can be done amicably and if we all agree I say we give it a shot. We have an oppertunity to enhance rp and make it better. Worst case senerio we go back to the current existing rule. If land claim rules are preventing and stiffling rp shouldn't we revive it any way we can?
_________________
Malorn ‎(12:14 AM):
I'm an idiot

[Zerin]

---

[Merci d'Rue]

---

Kudos to Mairsil for actually, doing something.

I want to say first off, the Land claim system we have was put in place for a very good reason. When it was first set up it settled alot of OOC fighting. Kudos to the person that wrote our original Land claim system, as it changed our community for the better.

However I do feel that due to the changes that have occurred in game with house teleporter tiles and town signs ect, as well as the fact that this community is not the same as it was back then calls for some change.With that said, I think his proposal is a great compromise.. I support Mairsil's proposal. Though we will need to look at the changes carefully and consider all ramifications of it. Below is my opinions on what the current issues are and how this new land claim system will help. I also included my concerns iwith the new one.

The current issues I deal with, our current land claim system are:
1. New guilds often after going thru the work to claim land and build themselves up often will quit when another guild swoops in and takes thier land. Few are encouraged to go after land they have lost it often kills the drive the guild had.

2. People have grown so afraid of losing land they make alliances with guilds that makes no rp sense to protect thier land.

3. Guilds in an effort to retain land will agree not to attack each other as that way no one loses land and they are both safe, even though an attack is warranted and makes roleplay sense.

4. Guilds by having one or two members log on once in a while, retain huge quantities of land that hinders new guilds. They hold land that it is not rply viable that they could not actually defend but because of #3 above they are rarely challenged on it.

5. taking Land is well regulated, but there is no regulation for removing or losing land unless its contested or the guild does not respond to an activity check. GM's can even go so far as shutting down thier accounts in Ultima as long as a few Rpers in thier guild log in to move a house decoration it is still considered an active guild.

6. Often times when a guild is challenged they will just give up the land to the person challenging and RP even less (again motivation to rp killed). It does not cause conflict anymore.

Mairsils Land Claim Change Proposal would then inspire the following in my opinion:
1. Frees up more land for new guilds, so they can come in and feel confident.

2. Creates a demand for a guild to be IN GAME and active in order to retain thier presence on the land.

3. If the rule for this is created right, it would push two guilds that wanted the same land, to interact with each other either via fighting or via setting up a council or government structure to rp together on.

4. It allows guilds to move around and interact more with each other.

5. Sometimes a battle is done over land between two guilds that would not normally have fought. (Because someone wants a moongate to claim land somewhere else).

6. Guild members that have houses on the contested land dont have to worry about thier house being placed on it if thier guild loses a battle..

However we would need to consider the following issues that may arise from it:
1. Not just anyone can put thier mark on a land and constest it, that would have to be verified by rp that is visible in the community. (By doing events, holding tavern nights there, battles on the land, rp plots playing out there ect.)

2. We would have to have some manner of removing guilds that are contesting land if they become inactive and lose thier presence upon that land.

3. We may need to look at the homebase rules and determine if those need some changing (ie we may need to change the activity checks for guilds to make sure that guilds with homebases are remaining active-just a thought)..

Please note: I definitely think we need to keep homebases as that keeps a guilds individuality in this game. It is also a safe haven for that guild.

These are just my opinions, it is what i have come across time and again, frustrations I have heard from others. If we are going to truly change and evolve as Halister called for in his post, the issues with the current system need to be adressed. Mairsil's proposal is one way of doing that. If you have a better one I would love to see it.
_________________
May destiny guide you...

[Arlin]

---

From the sounds of it, there are too few RP'ers left, and far too much land, to effectively RP land claims right now.

I know it is just a video game, but before I quit UO I bumped heads with an old guild that had few active members but laid claim to all of Yew. I moved in, took it, and IC and OOC there was a lot of...arguing, shall we say.

That said, it prompted a flurry of activity from both my guild, and the opposing guild. But while the RP interaction was great...OOC'ly it just wasn't worth the arguments over pixels. I'm not solely blaming the other side either...I was stupid and bullheaded in my own ways.

But the problems Merci lays down are the same ones I encountered years ago.

Again, I urge this community to consider starting over with a clean slate. The history of this shard is rich and detailed, but it is also an anchor that holds back new roleplay.
_________________
As the fire fades to night, remember always the ember that started it all.

[Zerin]

---

[Acheron]

---

you would think owning a house in an enemies territory would create good rp but all it does it create whining and crying and pressure to give YOUR OWN house away to them and resentment when you dont do it....................there needs to be reasons to contest land other than "liking" it. or else itll turn into a few hotspots contested by most guilds leaving the rest of the map barren

.........some way to recognize resource control through contested landplots......mines, monsters, forests, main roads and intersections for trade routes....
......... how about adding RP to specific locations on these plots making them meaningful to certain groups....ie> Pointy Ears Plains the field where elves first migrated to sosaria would be a sacred area for all elves regardless of their guild..areas and background could be made to fit current rp philosophies and groups
..........having certain groups control certain resources would promote trade and economic rp all around

[Acheron]

---

THANK YOU ZERIN for paraphrasing everything I've found wrong with this dealy....."your rp isnt valid because it conflicts with my goals".........that's the truest thing i've heard about arpc since i heard about arpc

[Dealthagar]

---

To validate your idea in my mind, I simply apply your rules as to how it would stand up to the last time I was involved in a major territory war (The DA! Siege of Yew taking it from YTC - 2002, fought under the Consensus War Project - the original map control rules)

a) YTC has Y5 as homebase
b) DA! has Y11 as homebase
c) Y1-4, 6-8, 10, 16 all become contested.
d) During a series of planned fights, DA! and Yew have a running fight from Y10 to Y7 to Y1 culminating in an actual siege of the Court of Truth.
e) DA! places a nightly patrol to monitor the moongate in Y6. This causes conflicts with The Regency , The Army of the Frontier and the Runic Knights who all at various times decide to contest our control of the area.

Benefits Seen from this Conflict:

The war doesn't conclude, resulting in hurt feelings. insurrections, conflicts and spontanious RP with PvP continue.
The "loser" of the conflict is still viable and still has a stake in the area.
The "winner" of the conflict cannot simply set restfully, causing inactivity and apathy.
Losing a fight is a momentary setback, not a reduction in percieved power or ability. Rebounding far easier.
Smaller groups that get involved later in the conflict are not brushed off as insignificant, but become players in the conflict and politics of tha area. This leads to smaller guilds not feeling like bit players or insignificant.
Facilitates coalition building and in game RPed politics, diplomacy and spontinaety.
Because territories are contested, and not owned, attitude of entitlement or respect, whether real or percieved become null, as no guild or organization, no matter how large or small only "owns" a single territory ever.
Organizations that don't get along can find common ground, especially when a third party becomes involved in a conflict.

Negatives seen from this conflict:

PvP hungry/minded organizations have more leeway to wreak havok on hosted events by opposition guilds.
No closure to conflicts.
Griefing far easier to couch in terms of "But we were just RPing".
Agressive beavior, while potentially appropriate to the RP in a contested area can lead to some bad situations, especially involving player housing in contested areas.

I see this requiring alot of communication between GM's to keep it civil when areas come into direct contest, but overall, not a bad idea.
_________________

The Three Truths of Singularity
Do something to the best of your abilty or don't do it at all
Feel to the fullest of your ability, cutting yourself off from your emotions leads to spiritual death
Control your being, your existance, your destiny.
www.adriandrake.com