Looking for more active discussion? Join our Discord at https://discord.gg/x2s7fY6
Best Of
Re: Mildly Irritating: Aetolia's Pet Peeves
@Whirran
You sound like a reasonable guy so I hope you don't take this as criticism as much as a suggestion/reminder in what I hope is going to end up being a fruitful conversation that leaves the game and the community in a better place.
Sometimes IC actions can bleed over into how people feel OOC when we take things too far. When your character is constantly shouting about picking on the inexperienced while hiding from all of our combatants in the safety of his city and essentially goading us, it is easy to see why people may start to find his IC actions quite distasteful as OOC players. Given they have no real IC recourse, eventually it's going to bleed over and make the players themselves angry. I can never agree with going to discord or whatever to OOC rant at or insult somebody, but I also think that it doesn't come out of nowhere (for the most part, anyway - I know some people will go off at anything).
I am going to agree with Benedicto about Naos. His character is awful but he plays it incredibly well, and at the end of the day it's clear he's not just in it to "win". He's ready to take a loss. That, to me, is a much more sustainable way of playing a villain. People are more willing to engage with him as a character, despite how awful he might be.
You sound like a reasonable guy so I hope you don't take this as criticism as much as a suggestion/reminder in what I hope is going to end up being a fruitful conversation that leaves the game and the community in a better place.
Sometimes IC actions can bleed over into how people feel OOC when we take things too far. When your character is constantly shouting about picking on the inexperienced while hiding from all of our combatants in the safety of his city and essentially goading us, it is easy to see why people may start to find his IC actions quite distasteful as OOC players. Given they have no real IC recourse, eventually it's going to bleed over and make the players themselves angry. I can never agree with going to discord or whatever to OOC rant at or insult somebody, but I also think that it doesn't come out of nowhere (for the most part, anyway - I know some people will go off at anything).
I am going to agree with Benedicto about Naos. His character is awful but he plays it incredibly well, and at the end of the day it's clear he's not just in it to "win". He's ready to take a loss. That, to me, is a much more sustainable way of playing a villain. People are more willing to engage with him as a character, despite how awful he might be.
Czcienn
0
Re: Mildly Irritating: Aetolia's Pet Peeves
@CzciborI disagree. Shouts are as opt-in as pretty much any other form of communication. In game, you can always IGNORE someone entirely. Out of game, you can block them from whatever platform they are using to contact you. I think it is victim blaming a bit when we say that people should "monitor their emotions". Yes, people should learn when to step away from the game, but the rest of us should also show our own "emotional maturity" and realise that there is a person on the other side too. I am not justifying the bad behaviour (in fact, I even said as much in my post), but I am saying that these things don't come out of nowhere and everyone has a responsibility to make this game enjoyable for everyone else. I am saying that "IC actions" is not a blank cheque to do whatever we want if we want other people to engage with.
I have some immediate feelings about what you are posting. Shouts are opt-in and if someone is shouting in a way that is bothering you ooc and not just ic, then it might be a good idea to use shoutsoff. Because essentially in your post you are justifying bad behavior by saying his ic actions made them ooc mad. Ultimately it is up to the player to monitor their emotions and show some emotional maturity. And if shouts are hurting your ooc feelings it might be time to take a step back and examine yourself.
Edit: Also, I am curious who is 'inexperienced'? From deathsights I mostly see Whirran engaging with Spirit veteran players in combat and most shouts are directed towards them.
The "inexperienced" person that comes to mind is Sardara. He is by no means innocent, because he has been shouting back just as much, but my point was about the fact that Whirran has specifically gone after him while avoiding the rest of us as much as possible. I used the word "inexperienced" because this was the exact word used in some of the shouting matches about who exactly would be targeted.
Czcienn
3
Re: Mildly Irritating: Aetolia's Pet Peeves
I sure hope you're including all your own friends in that "general attitude" comment of yours, as well.
Getting a real big, "we can be dicks but you're not allowed to be dicks" feeling here...
Getting a real big, "we can be dicks but you're not allowed to be dicks" feeling here...
Akrios
1
Re: Announce post #3295: Year 500 Bloodbath(s)
I distinctly remember something involving Spirit, the orrery, a bucket of blood and an otherwise inaccessible area to play keep away with the globe. But nothing to see here when Spirit is the 'bug' abuser? (My personal perception is that it is a loophole.)
You come out ahead if you choose to participate. Shadow will be down 1-4 of its best combatants. Spirit will be able to fight amongst themselves for credits, honors, and placement points while also getting a free participation point for their trouble. But perspective.
And yes, that should be your mindset going forward. HELP 15.5 FWIW. Using org gold in gold auctions is within these rules, for example. I'm sure I can come up with more if you want.
You come out ahead if you choose to participate. Shadow will be down 1-4 of its best combatants. Spirit will be able to fight amongst themselves for credits, honors, and placement points while also getting a free participation point for their trouble. But perspective.
And yes, that should be your mindset going forward. HELP 15.5 FWIW. Using org gold in gold auctions is within these rules, for example. I'm sure I can come up with more if you want.
Wjoltyr
0
Re: Announce post #3295: Year 500 Bloodbath(s)
Hah, how is it? It's not really off topic because it was an out of character reaction to something that was entirely in character when you're calling the people bothered by the bloodbath situation hypocrites because they're reacting to what is literally bug abuse.
Bug abuse shouldn't be rewarded with honors lines, credits, or participation points. Bug abuse actually should be punished. Everyone who benefited from that bug being abused should at the very least not be getting credits, participation points, or honors lines from participating in that bloodbath. Y'all want to defend bug abuse by saying 'spirit does it to' but get outraged when spirit acts in character during an event? I'm calling bs.
Bug abuse shouldn't be rewarded with honors lines, credits, or participation points. Bug abuse actually should be punished. Everyone who benefited from that bug being abused should at the very least not be getting credits, participation points, or honors lines from participating in that bloodbath. Y'all want to defend bug abuse by saying 'spirit does it to' but get outraged when spirit acts in character during an event? I'm calling bs.
Xavin
1
Re: Announce post #3295: Year 500 Bloodbath(s)
I mean, Spirit did get a lot of solo wins in Orrery because of the use of WF/Shapeshifter bug combinations. Shamans would songline people into instakill rooms that had monoliths.
So, it's not that anyone -wants- it to happen... it's more that it -is- going to happen. You use the resources that are available to you.
So, it's not that anyone -wants- it to happen... it's more that it -is- going to happen. You use the resources that are available to you.
Rhyot
1
Re: Announce post #3295: Year 500 Bloodbath(s)
I never said Shadow hasn't pulled shenanigans. I also never once said it was a bug, so that's your own interpretation. Ictinus only said that there was never a bug report put in for it either.
So either it was a bug and was never reported, which makes it not a bug. OR it was just a general unwritten player rule to not use ally_follow (a 200 credit artifact that literally anyone can buy) inside arena events like this. Either way, you use the resources available to you.
And this right here, sir, is tether tribalism. While I am pretty sure I know exactly what you're talking about, that situation is completely polar opposite to what is going on now. As such, off-topic to the conversation at hand.
So either it was a bug and was never reported, which makes it not a bug. OR it was just a general unwritten player rule to not use ally_follow (a 200 credit artifact that literally anyone can buy) inside arena events like this. Either way, you use the resources available to you.
Xavin says:
Edit: And considering the barrage BS I was on the receiving end of just the other day for taking an in character action during the starfall, I think it's hilarious that people on the Shadow tether are actually trying to justify the abuse of a bug.
Edit: And considering the barrage BS I was on the receiving end of just the other day for taking an in character action during the starfall, I think it's hilarious that people on the Shadow tether are actually trying to justify the abuse of a bug.
And this right here, sir, is tether tribalism. While I am pretty sure I know exactly what you're talking about, that situation is completely polar opposite to what is going on now. As such, off-topic to the conversation at hand.
Rhyot
1
Re: Announce post #3295: Year 500 Bloodbath(s)
Two points here...
Fist, this is why any arena event is absolute garbage unless it can specifically be made into a 1v1 or 1 v PVE, such as Bait the frog or Champion duel with the winner/losers bracket. Teaming is going to occur and it will always devolve into spirit/shadow tether tribalism (much to the ire of everyone).
Second point, there's a lot of pot calling kettles here. Now I've got no stake in the outcome here, because I don't participate in any yearly events except GH anymore nor do I care who wins.... but this seems like a very one sided complaint. If Spirit had the ally_follow artifact, I'm 10000% certain that they would have utilized it too in order to secure a win inside a Bloodbath event. Had that happened, we would not have seen everyone dropping out of the arena nor a spamming of ideas to blacklist ally_follow. Shadow would have just scratched their head and said "Well, that's kinda messed up. Let's keep killing them!! Strength in Slaughter!! May we never know peace!!"
I think yall need to take a step back and look at the realism factor here and see the hypocrisy for what it is. There's something that can be said about sportsmanship, however sportsmanship is an irrelevant topic. Shadow only does what Spirit would do to them if it were possible, just as Spirit does what they feel Shadow would do to them. As the golden saying goes, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."
That's my two cents.
Fist, this is why any arena event is absolute garbage unless it can specifically be made into a 1v1 or 1 v PVE, such as Bait the frog or Champion duel with the winner/losers bracket. Teaming is going to occur and it will always devolve into spirit/shadow tether tribalism (much to the ire of everyone).
Second point, there's a lot of pot calling kettles here. Now I've got no stake in the outcome here, because I don't participate in any yearly events except GH anymore nor do I care who wins.... but this seems like a very one sided complaint. If Spirit had the ally_follow artifact, I'm 10000% certain that they would have utilized it too in order to secure a win inside a Bloodbath event. Had that happened, we would not have seen everyone dropping out of the arena nor a spamming of ideas to blacklist ally_follow. Shadow would have just scratched their head and said "Well, that's kinda messed up. Let's keep killing them!! Strength in Slaughter!! May we never know peace!!"
I think yall need to take a step back and look at the realism factor here and see the hypocrisy for what it is. There's something that can be said about sportsmanship, however sportsmanship is an irrelevant topic. Shadow only does what Spirit would do to them if it were possible, just as Spirit does what they feel Shadow would do to them. As the golden saying goes, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."
That's my two cents.
Rhyot
1
Re: Post War Thoughts
I think you have the timeline wrong here. Enorianite citizens were already independently joining the official war declared by Duiran, but it was only after Enorian declared war from the blockades at Duiran that Nipsy started his solo dives, and then it progressed into something more with the rest of the militia. Even after that, we decided against raiding Enorian despite the fact that the bulk of the raiders came from Enorian. We largely tried to keep it city-focused and directed the rest of any larger skirmishes or actions upon Duiran itself.Czcibor said:What was your city's objective going into the war to begin with? Because if you're entering a war with no idea of what objective you're trying to reach, then that is the problem.We entered to help Duiran, and also to beat down Bloodloch which has been antagonising Enorian for as long as I've been here. And by the end I don't see a world where it isn't clear why Enorian fought so hard. It wasn't even about Mamashi or Duiran anymore, because Bloodloch quickly showed it didn't care about them either. People literally suiciding into our city and losing multiple levels just to kill our guards and NPCs, blockades on the road killing everyone who tried to enter or leave the city including non-militia becoming a daily occurrence. Duiran may have instigated the war, but for us the war became much more personal and punitive. If that doesn't count as RP I don't know what does.
I also think we were pretty good at trying to minimize casualties with non-militia. I do remember that we accidentally killed Jezreth but we rezzed him in the tear and told the web not to attack him anymore as he's non-militia.
I'm sure that by the end of it, Enorian had a personal reason for remaining in the war and being a part of it by the end, but it is probably disingenuous to think there was an initial objective to begin with, other than to be there to support allies.
Elene
2
Re: Post War Thoughts
I'm going to post something that some people might not want to hear or disagree with, but it does reflect my personal views and from my conversations with many people in Spirit throughout and after the war, a fairly common view among Spirit.
I absolutely loved the PK, how energetic, galvanised, and united Spirit has been since the start of the war, and how so alive the game felt on both sides. And in the context of a war, PK is definitely important, but behind it all we're actually playing a roleplaying game. It makes sense then that we don't have mechanical objectives, but it's also the lack of mechanical objectives can, and did, led to a very disjointed roleplaying experience.
The simple fact was that Spirit actually just outnumbered Shadow significantly for most times of the day throughout most of the war. There were very few battles where we actually lost. We more or less controlled Mamashi throughout, we managed to kill off far more troops, we mostly led on killstats and avoided deathstats, we managed to organise raids on Bloodloch proper during primetime including one where we killed dozens of guards despite there being many player defenders, Spinesreach was effectively shut out of the war from the start. But despite all of this, we could not actually push our agenda because of the lack of mechanical objectives.
In a roleplaying game, there has to be an acceptance that if you're going into a conflict you might end up having to play the role of the losing side. When either party enters a conflict with no intent on ever playing the losing side no matter what happens during the war, it's no longer for the roleplaying experience. Yeah I know, losing sucks. I hate losing! But I'm not going to pretend to win my sect fights when I clearly did not, and part of me entering into that sect fight was the implicit agreement that I was willing to take a loss. It happens with conflicts with mechanical objectives, so why shouldn't it also happen with conflicts without mechanical objectives?
There are also the pains of how far people will push when it seems like everything is on the table. I appreciate that most players on both sides didn't go too far with this, but there were things some players on Shadow did that left a very sour taste in our mouths and I am certain there are some things players on Spirit, maybe even myself included, did that Shadow felt the same about. While there are some things that I am sure both sides policed, there are also things that would have just slipped through or happened regardless.
Ultimately, I cannot advocate for more wars without objectives such as this one. It was absolutely one of my favourite experiences in Aetolia, but I just get the feeling that it would start feeling less and less amazing as we get more of these with resolutions that are, frankly, quite lame.
I absolutely loved the PK, how energetic, galvanised, and united Spirit has been since the start of the war, and how so alive the game felt on both sides. And in the context of a war, PK is definitely important, but behind it all we're actually playing a roleplaying game. It makes sense then that we don't have mechanical objectives, but it's also the lack of mechanical objectives can, and did, led to a very disjointed roleplaying experience.
The simple fact was that Spirit actually just outnumbered Shadow significantly for most times of the day throughout most of the war. There were very few battles where we actually lost. We more or less controlled Mamashi throughout, we managed to kill off far more troops, we mostly led on killstats and avoided deathstats, we managed to organise raids on Bloodloch proper during primetime including one where we killed dozens of guards despite there being many player defenders, Spinesreach was effectively shut out of the war from the start. But despite all of this, we could not actually push our agenda because of the lack of mechanical objectives.
In a roleplaying game, there has to be an acceptance that if you're going into a conflict you might end up having to play the role of the losing side. When either party enters a conflict with no intent on ever playing the losing side no matter what happens during the war, it's no longer for the roleplaying experience. Yeah I know, losing sucks. I hate losing! But I'm not going to pretend to win my sect fights when I clearly did not, and part of me entering into that sect fight was the implicit agreement that I was willing to take a loss. It happens with conflicts with mechanical objectives, so why shouldn't it also happen with conflicts without mechanical objectives?
There are also the pains of how far people will push when it seems like everything is on the table. I appreciate that most players on both sides didn't go too far with this, but there were things some players on Shadow did that left a very sour taste in our mouths and I am certain there are some things players on Spirit, maybe even myself included, did that Shadow felt the same about. While there are some things that I am sure both sides policed, there are also things that would have just slipped through or happened regardless.
Ultimately, I cannot advocate for more wars without objectives such as this one. It was absolutely one of my favourite experiences in Aetolia, but I just get the feeling that it would start feeling less and less amazing as we get more of these with resolutions that are, frankly, quite lame.
Czcienn
6