Board Thread:Event Discussion/@comment-76.186.93.246-20140317075821/@comment-4681356-20140317170323

Hey there, everyone. I want to preface by saying that I enjoy the Conquest: Azeroth system and what we have been able to pull off with it. My guild and I have had a blast being along for the ride. I would like to see the system evolve and become a real hinge for the goings-on of the server. The simple genius of the system is that the map provides both consequence and incentive for RP-PVP, creative development, story, conflict... all while managing to not limit RP. How great is that? Pretty great, I'd argue. The fact that hundreds of people and dozens of guilds have been on board with this from the beginning attests to that.

We can scratch beyond the surface of these tough questions in the OP and really begin to improve the system by considering what the core philosophy of the system is. What is the Conquest map really? Is it an event series, or is it a tool for a discourse community and a creative engine? If it is an event series, that is, a sequential group of events, one following another, with one central party and set of determiners, we have to accept the fact that it will not be permanent. However, this system can find something very close to permanence if it is set loose on the creative free market and discriminate its function as a series from its function as an engine.

What is an engine? Simply put, an engine is a mechanism that turns potential into motion. It is not a pipeline for creative energies to one project or campaign. Rather, it is more like a springboard. I know that many people want to keep together with these campaigns, and the fact that everyone can cope with being in Ventrilo with one another so often is entirely amazing to me; but the fact is, when you make a system contingent on an extremely diverse group's ability to decide where the whole server will go, you have yourself a very temporary state of affairs. What's more is that we are always going to exclude stories by this "majority rules" idea. Obviously, it is advantageous for the Alliance that the Alliance should be unified, but this system shouldn't force that unity. Good role-play, networking, and story-writing should force that unity.

I am not suggesting that there can't still be a main campaign. Obviously, if the Horde goes to take over Tanaris for its value in oil, chances are that the Alliance will suddenly take an interest in drilling. There should still be a model campaign to keep interest flowing and to give people ideas of how to rightly use the tool. What I am trying to drive home here is that we should think of the map ultimately as one on which several things can concurrently and simaltaneously be displayed.

So...

1 and 2) Don't let arbitrary decisions affect who can and cannot contribute to this. I trust Tendael to be fair-minded, and I think that many of the contributors are fair-minded, too, but arbitrary decisions, whether they come from a majority or the progenitor, are not way to run something like this. Make a fair and inclusive ruleset to prevent exploit and stick with it.

Ideas for rules, will qualify further if requested:

Rather than require a majority to determine a campaign, '''make it to where independent groups (guilds or meta-guilds) can challenge the opposition's hegemony or contested territory. '''This opens this unique medium to individual use and gets more heads in the business of creating role-play.

'''Have a notice of a challenge precede the campaign. Discriminate in the time it takes to challenge established hegemonies versus contested/unclaimed land.''' Obviously, the faction with established control should have the advantage of a greater amount of time to respond with the challenge. This promotes in-character alliances, not out-of-character ones. It prompts decisions of necessity from our characters. It gives us an opportunity to do something in an RPPVP campaign that hasn't been done before. It gets us in the business of role-playing.

Ensure a level of cooperation in the parties planning these campaigns. It would not be faired if today I decided that I was going to challenge Horde control over Arathi Highlands, waited the time limit, and took two-hundred people out to sack Hammerfall and call it a campaign. There should be no quantifying what merits a "legitimate campaign", I think, but the aggressors should be willing to cooperate and synthesize with the defenders. There is no way nor, I think, can there ever be a way to qualify what is cooperation in a campaign. Surely, each party should be able to get together and agree on a way in a loos e which victory will be determined whether by points or some great battle. Groups should be within their right to make a challenge, but these battles are determined by campaign rules that have to be honored. This should really be an RPPVP culture, not a rule.

3) In my line of work, I deal with spatially referenced information and geomatics and am every day amazed by the limitless possibilities of what can be displayed on a two-dimensional map. So, why should we display on a map what can be displayed with a bullet-point list? Even if we don't make a website for the conquest map and don't extend it to an interactive Flash pane, we can still display more valuable information on a map. For instance, we can have a system where groups can pass through contested territory and display markers for where groups are. An interactive map may be helpful in this endeavor, and I do believe that the talent is on Moon Guard, but improving the map is not contingent on our ability to make a website for it all immediately. Having a website for it would be great, but we can have intermediary steps that are less ambitious and risky.

If meetings are on Sunday between 8PM-9PM, my vent will more than likely end up muted as I am doing a weekly liturgy.

I am interested in input and discussion.