Player Accountability and the lack thereof

Seir

While I realize this may be a controversial opinion, I want to open up a CIVIL discussion concerning a perceived problem that I've noticed with Aetolia's player population in concerns to player accountability when it comes to PvP and the role play attached to it.

First, I don't think there can be any doubt as to that group combat has completely dominated Aetolia for the most part. Most formal events, whether encouraging solo combat or not, inevitably seem to end up as group combat scenarios and most PvP events seem to be centralized around group combat.

However, I have noticed a pretty alarming tend and one that has largely dissuaded me from getting involved in PvP again and that is that there a very strong lack of player and character accountability when it comes to actions taken against others these days. It seems that, from my perspective, there are players who will commit crimes against another organization or individual and then when someone comes to claim retribution on them, they will frequently alert their respective organization who will then swarm the hunter and obviously kill them. Should the hunter then go after the people who attacked him, the same cycle repeats itself. The hunter is then forced to bring people who largely have no real cause to go after the people that helped the huntee save that the hunter attacked them and so I ask all of you: has Aetolia lost any sense of player accountability and role play when it comes to those sorts of decisions?

While I understand many will disagree with me for this, I find it in pretty poor form to use "defending a city mate" as justification for jumping into every single conflict (and I literally do mean every single conflict) that concerns someone from their organization. Keep in mind that I am not pointing fingers and I realize that everyone does it, but I think we're edging closer to a dangerous precedent where players will no longer be held accountable for the actions of their character because they can simply fall back onto this endless cycle of players helping one another on flimsy reasoning.

Now, while I may view "defending a city mate" as flimsy reasoning myself, I am not doubting that it is a potent argument to jump to the defense of another. What I am saying is that it has established an environment that has all but nearly wiped out solo combat which is NOT a good thing regardless of how much you like/dislike group combat in Aetolia.

So I ask: What solutions can we put forward to address this endless cycle, or is it even viewed as an issue by the population these days? I definitely think there is an issue when players can do whatever they want, bounties or no, and get off scot free because there are other players that will always jump to their defense (even when they have no real idea as to why they're doing it or why that person is being attacked in the first place). Personally, while I dislike the Avechna Avenger system in Lusternia, I cannot deny in what it has achieved against constant teaming and the fact that players are still held accountable for their actions on Prime plane. I feel like some form of mechanical enforcement will be better for Aetolia in the long run because there's no real roleplay reason why someone would not jump in if someone was attacked right in front of them or called for help. Anyway, discuss.

Seir

Alarming tend should be alarming trend. It's late. I'm tired. Hmph.

Lin

Aldric

Seir said:.

So I ask: What solutions can we put forward to address this endless cycle, or is it even viewed as an issue by the population these days? 

I think the latter part you mentioned there is a big chunk of the issue. A lot of darkie players, or at least a bunch I've heard on TBA, have blatantly said, "I like group combat, I see no reason to go back to individual combat."

I believe at this point it's nearly a lost cause. As fun as duels are and whatnot, the playerbase has for the most part simply given up in trying to promote such things. If the players themselves as a majority aren't interested in fostering such a thing, mechanical implementation will do nothing but hurt the situation.

Damonicus

From a non-com view, for me everything now is group pvp. Order wars, former war system, lessers, pack challenges, besides going up and saying I wish to fight you and only you for this sole purpose and please keep your people out of it, (Hoping they will). Someone is going to jump in some how or some way. Instead of trying to bring back which pretty much is all but history now. We should be looking more into making group combat better. Better CC, less damage all around. Have skills interact with others or completely nullify. Find ways to make these group battles fun for both parties, where even if someone losses they can be like yeah but we sure gave one hell of a fight.

Rammus

I'm new to world pvp and it's all I do.  I have plenty of one on one fights that aren't duels.  I'm confused here.

Exodus

Here's some Shadowsnake philosophy for you.

Number of times Snakes complained they'd been attacked = rarely, only if newbs..

Number of times non-snakes would complain to me about something a Snake had done = several times a day.

Number of times I would give a damn or get involved = Zero.

Number of times I would even reply to their tell = you're more likely to win power ball.

Why? That's really the most important part, and it's not because I was lazy.

Some players are too emotionally invested in their characters, and that leads to their friends getting emotional as well. Leaders though should know how to stand back and realise that it's a game we're playing, and that non-rp conflicts aren't remotely important enough to get involved in. Through them, their subjects should be guided to understand the same, and just let small conflicts play out and stay small.

Death is an RP opportunity as well, remember. Getting mouthy at that team that crushed you is par for the course, but then again so is talking to them one at a time to explain the situation and detail how much of a douche the person they defended is.

I don't pretend to know who is in what position these days, but if you want to point the finger at anyone, point it at the leaders. While not the only ones that can affect change, they're the most readily recognised as being able to.

Seir

While I'm under the opinion that a group of players enjoy group combat, there's also a similarly large group of players that enjoy solo combat and feel that it has lost its place in Aetolia. The fact of the matter is that no IRE game has successfully managed to balance group combat. It is still to this day being ironed out in each and every game because there are so many variables and outliers that it becomes impossible to effectively control.

I think Exodus really hit the nail on the head in that small conflicts should be allowed to stay small and the leaders are likely to blame on both sides for encouraging the team at all costs atmosphere so we can win or team them because they're teaming us (I know I've argued this one). Unfortunately, I'm also of the opinion in that the playerbase has proven itself in the past to be unable or incapable of policing themselves in this matter and that I think mechanical enforcement will go a long way in solving this problem. There is a time and a place for group combat, such as war, ylem, or when there is meaningful reason for two organizations to get involved. However, if Susie is going after Bob because Bob decided to insult and harass Susie at every opportunity then Enorian shouldn't rush in to help Bob and trounce Susie because she finally decided to do something about it. Like I said, there are instances where it makes absolutely no RP sense why the organization is getting involved at this point and people are farming excuses or reasons to get involved so that they can participate in any form of PK that they can find and not necessarily for the roleplay behind it.

I think down the road that a mechanical enforcement of a non-teaming system, either something that allows diminishing returns when you team one person with multiple people or a mechanical enforcement like the Avenger system will be healthy for Aetolia in the long run and cultivate a larger and healthier PvP base.

Xavin

While I am all for small conflict being kept between parties involved I also think that if we introduce too much of an anti-teaming mechanic we'll risk damaging holywar/ylem conflict.

Could you detail what this avenger system is for those of us that don't play any other MUD?

Haven

Aetolia has a wide variety of different types of people that play with varying levels of maturity and understanding to match. And that's all right. It's my opinion that the playerbase as a whole needs to man up. Remind themselves that they are playing a game and learn how to roll with the punches and or move on. But truthfully? That's not something that any of us can enforce, only hope for.

Exodus said:

I don't pretend to know who is in what position these days, but if you want to point the finger at anyone, point it at the leaders. While not the only ones that can affect change, they're the most readily recognised as being able to.

I disagree with you there in that the finger should be pointed at the leaders but I'm with you on your other points. It is not the leader's job or responsibility to teach/nurture/whatever anyone OOCly. Ever. If they opt to do that then more power to them assuming it was an invited action. The blame falls upon anyone who forgets/fails to understand and recognize that this is a game. And a shared one at that.

@Seir Can you describe the Avenger system for those of us unfamiliar with the comings and goings of the other IRE games? Or give a link or something?

Malak

Personally I engage in group combat solely because its about the only kind of opportunity I get to fight these days. I don't find it enjoyable, I don't think it's particularly strategic and I think that it's a colossal waste of the myriad skill sets, individual abilities and strategic intricacies that forms up unique player classes.

By this I mean, how often does a group fight go beyond the sheep mentality of a damage train pile on and into a true strategic battle of tactics? Rarely. The majority of team fights involve one group senselessly mashing at the other group hoping the other side dies first.

Aetolia and indeed most MUDs have hundreds if not thousands of individual abilities that, in a one vs one fight, often require a lot of thought and tactical savoir-faire behind their use, throwing these away for group pummel trains is a tremendous shame.

Seir is absolutely right in what he's saying; people like to start shit but do not like having to face the consequences of their actions and so they resort to hanging around in packs and/or never leaving safe zones so as to avoid getting their comeuppance. This is ridiculous when were playing a combat centric game.

If I had my way, the people who I infamously dub "pseudo fighters" would be called out by ther city mates for being so craven.

Daskalos

This is a large part of why I've basically dropped out of PK. Rammus, no offense, but you're newer and people don't really know if you can fight, but the biggest problem is that a lot of people (especially those who are mid-tier combatants who think they're top tier) have this problem where they don't want to lose, ever, so they always call in help.

I'd rather lose a 1 on 1 fight where I learned something, saw something, et cetera, than win a team fight. It's really that simple. Tyrak, Mazzion, even Dourif have given me 1 on 1 fights lately, but there are a lot of people who simply -won't- and -only- team. I can't change this fact, so I've pulled back a lot out of the PK realm because it just doesn't interest me anymore. It's part of why I hate the bounty system, I've been bountied twice for being within two rooms of city - because that's where wings\amulet exit near there. But that's another rant for another thread.

Haven

Malak said:

Personally I engage in group combat solely because its about the only kind of opportunity I get to fight these days. I don't find it enjoyable, I don't think it's particularly strategic and I think that it's a colossal waste of the myriad skill sets, individual abilities and strategic intricacies that forms up unique player classes. By this I mean, how often does a group fight go beyond the sheep mentality of a damage train pile on and into a true strategic battle of tactics? Rarely. The majority of team fights involve one group senselessly mashing at the other group hoping the other side dies first. Aetolia and indeed most MUDs have hundreds if not thousands of individual abilities that, in a one vs one fight, often require a lot of thought and tactical savoir-faire behind their use, throwing these away for group pummel trains is a tremendous shame. Seir is absolutely right in what he's saying; people like to start shit but do not like having to face the consequences of their actions and so they resort to hanging around in packs and/or never leaving safe zones so as to avoid getting their comeuppance. This is ridiculous when were playing a combat centric game. If I had my way, the people who I infamously dub "pseudo fighters" would be called out by ther city mates for being so craven.

I used to think that way too but since I've switched sides I've come to learn differently. Group combat is just as strategic as solo combat. "Mash the opponent with damage until they die" is a low-tier maybe mid-tier tactic and it's unfortunate that that's what a large portion of the game (more so on one side than the other) interprets group combat to be.

I don't like group combat largely because of the sheer difficulty in getting other people motivated and organized to win efficiently or operate on the same level on a consistent basis. It's bad enough learning combat on your own and getting yourself motivated to improve and hike over that high learning curve but now you have to do so for others? [-(

For a long time I didn't understand why Bloodloch's fighters (just to name one group) were so good at group combat. There have been times where they were outnumbered 2:1 or something and they still came out on top with a win. I had to keep asking why did that happen if "mash to win" was the only way to go/better tactic? And know what I learned? It's a myth. Their group consistently fights as a unit. They don't just pray and spray. They're synchronized and have assigned roles.

I respect players like @Serrice, @Belgarion, @Valingar, and more who have actually taken more steps to synchronize their group combat with things like assigning who is going to go play support/damager/hinder/etc.

Don't believe me? Seriously, just look at a team fight log. You'll notice people like @Mazzion or @Tralendar who do nothing but hinder the crap out of you with transfix/touching web tattoo while the rest of the team like @Borscin goes to town on you for a quick efficient kill. You'll see when they're outnumbered how they'll sometimes send 1 or 2 people in to suicide to split the large group up with quake or something to whittle them down. They play and fight smart.

Keroc

A small light of hope for those of you that love 1v1 combat. A lot of my current and future changes will revolve around balancing the 1v1 aspect a bit more between the various classes, and making that foundation more solid and rewarding (for example, making it harder to use escape skills to avoid confrontation).

If the foundation is solid, I think we'll see more people wanting to rejoin the 1v1 aspect of combat.

Seir

Since an explanation of the Avenger system was requested, it basically works like this:

If you wish to fight someone on the Prime Material Plane in Lusternia, you must DECLARE that person to declare your intent to Avechna, the Avenger (basically omnipresent god of justice dude guarding creation) that you intend to kill them. The person declared on receives no notification. If they are attacked and killed, the declared slain person gets status on that attacker for 30 days. If the attacker decides to attack that person again, the attacked person gets Vengeance on that person. They get it twice if they're slain in the process. The attacked person then goes to Mount Avechna and requests vengeance to the God, who then sends one of his unkillable avatars (who basically one-shot the aggressor, stalk them, and pretty much you have no chance against) and kills them and gives the xp that the attacked person lost from being killed a second time. The one slain by the avatar is then peaced for a length determined by how many individuals have status on them.

Any attacks against an org results in the aggressor auto-declaring against that entire org. Meaning that the org can defend themselves without fear of reprisal from Avechna. Individuals of that org may declare their intent to DEFEND an ally if they're attacked but while they can defend that person, they cannot attack them aggressor if the aggressor has status on them else they risk vengeance.

If it seems complicated, it really isn't. Here's the help file link: http://www.lusternia.com/game/helpview/lusternia?what=Avenger&x=Help

tl;dr. It enables player accountability as far as fighting on Prime goes. You cannot constantly jump into fights at your leisure else you risk getting killed/peaced by Avechna. People do not jump into every fight because of this and if it were not for the other planes being Open PK and free from Avechna, you'd see more solo combat because of it.

@Haven:

The tactics you've described are no different than tactics used elsewhere when it comes to group combat. Hindering is not a foreign concept. As Malak said, group combat comes down to either trying to outrange one side or pick them apart individually. If melee encounters occur, they become a match of who can spam AoE damage the most enemies or who can damage/hinder the one leading/target calling for the group. It's a waste of all the abilities that we learn, there's no place for affliction classes in it really, and it's boring.

Ilyon

1v1 requires individuals willing to participate in such a setting. In the absence of these, enforcing these with mechanical changes will only lead to lack of participation in combat as a whole, and is a bad idea for this reason.

Seir

Not everything should become a group combat scenario, Ilyon, and the current environment outright discourages players from being accountable for any actions that they take against another or against an organization. This is a problem that has existed for some time now.

Seeing as how there is no lack of conflict in Lusternia despite the Avenger system, I'd say that's a pretty inaccurate statement on your end. All mechanical enforcement would do is prevent people from jumping into every fight as they please because they know with the way the system is now: they'll get away with it. Why? Because if the person they attacked in a group comes seeking retribution when they're alone, the earlier pack will descend for the same flimsy roleplay reasoning. It has happened many times over and in my opinion has caused a pretty stagnant combat environment in Aetolia.

I am not trying to kill off group combat. I personally believe that it has an appropriate time and place such as when wars are declared between organizations, ylem is involved, Orders are going to war, or other various reasons. Going after someone because they insulted me or maybe even harassed me by trying to attack me in my own org via Abduct (and I'm citing an actual example here) is a reason for when conflict should be Seir vs Aggressive Syssin and not Seir vs Bloodloch. Bloodloch has no business jumping into a fight that I started because I'm entitled to defend myself in the first place and the Syssin in question should be held accountable for being aggressive

Ilyon

Oh, I'm not against 1v1 - you are free to do it to your heart's content. I guess my question is, why don't you? If there exist people interested in this style of game play, why are there no attempts to organise them together, to hold competitions or whatever it is that the duelists do? There's even the Hunting Grounds, specifically tailored for this purpose - yet almost nobody visits with the intention to fight. Why is this?

Seir

I have tried multiple attempts at 1v1's in the past against those that have been aggressive against myself or Duiran and earned a bounty for their efforts.

What has happened is that in every instance, and I mean every instance, individuals from Bloodloch have come to the aid of that individual on false pretense that I am just randomly attacking them when I am in fact going after them for wrongful actions that they have committed.

I am sure I am not the only one that this has happened to. Daskalos has pretty much said the same thing as has Malak.

I can out numerous names that this has happened with, but I don't feel it would achieve any purpose. I will say that it happens frequently and likely more than you might be aware of. I know that you don't particularly enjoy 1v1 combat and don't partake in it. I can respect that if that is your choice to only participate in group combat scenarios that involve Bloodloch.

Hypothetically, however, if Ilyon were to go out and start exterminating and thus create a scenario where he has committed action against an organization, he would be expected to be held accountable for it and should expect to get attacked. It would be incredibly poor form if he were (and I'm not saying that you would) to call for help against the aggressor when he was the one being aggressive in the first place. This is the problem I'm referring to and what many of us are frustrated with. There's no accountability and there's no distinction now as to what should involve an organization and what should remain a personal conflict. People are so afraid of losing that they'll resort to any and all options to avoid death. I think Keroc's suggestions are a step in the right direction from making death in Aetolia optional to making defending yourself actually required again.

Edit: Keep in mind that in the above scenario: If Ilyon was attacked by multiple people, he'd probably be entitled to call for some backup then, but even then it'd be on very flimsy foundation. It's like attacking a person and they defend themselves and then calling for help when you were the aggressive one in the first place.

Malak

I just don't get why people don't enjoy single combat. As far as I'm concerned there's not much pride to be had in pummelling someone with a group and/or starting shit with the confident knowledge that you'll never have to face the repercussions of your actions because you can hide/team whenever the going gets tough. I personally find it a lot more enjoyable facing off against one person; hell, I only ever get hunting grounds items in the hope someone will jump me (ideally without a group) but with the exception of borscin and xarian, the conflict that arises from m having those items is either nonexistent or involves a group killing me for them.

Death is incredibly negligible in terms of experience loss and (at most) a couple of minutes ressing; it's incomprehensible to me that people would rather take the easy route than put themselves to the test and duke it out.

Not necessarily relevant to aetolia but in another mud I've played, combatants would be -incredibly- upset if someone came along and interfered in fights they were having...

Surely there's some pride in being a good fighter. I'm not particularly good but I sure as hell feel better about beating someone myself than a 20 on 20 damagefest that is predicated on whoever manages to get that to 21.

Edhain

I think if people encouraged the concept of being 'honorable', player and character alike, this situation would slowly be amended. The problem is a social understanding that it's okay to team. 

When I am on a team that is bigger than the opposing team, I have this ingrained feeling of shame and guilt - even when it's something like a raid or a war or a leyline fight. I'm not proud of winning anymore. It's the same thing with beating up someone smaller. To be proud of winning, I have to feel outgunned. If I'm about to lose some important roleplay issue due to being outgunned and it has nothing to do with an honorable duel, I'll ask for help but I'll feel pretty awkward as a player for doing so.

It would be good if the players who have this sensibility - I know there are plenty of them - try to socialize it into the other players. Even the worst offenders against a concept of "honor" usually have the seed of this understanding - when beaten, often they complain about their beater being "overpowered". So if it's not right to be overpowered and kill people, it's not right to entirely outgun other players and bully them with teams.

The idea that we should ignore "honor", I think, largely stems from people who are roleplaying characters that tend to ignore "honor". This is fine. But the problem is that it's become a fad to be that sort of ends justify means character. This is nothing about being a Light or Dark character. Plenty of characters on both sides are like this. You don't have to be an "honorable" character, though, in order to actually have that effect as a player. 

There's two ways to encourage the correct sort of atmosphere, in order to cater to different roleplay spectrums.

The first is much like Exodus' summary of the Shadowsnake administration: if somebody gets beat on and can't defend themselves, you don't listen to them whine. This portrays a hard, almost cruel atmosphere where people are encouraged to get tough and take care of themselves - a situation where "tattletaling" is discouraged and people are wimpy if they ask others to help them. An important point is that you don't have to be an "honorable" character to follow this version of honor. All your character needs to have is the least bit of pride.

The second is trying to be honorable and good. If someone is getting bullied then you try to encourage them to get stronger and you help them get stronger, but you don't gang up 2v1 on the attacker because that's dishonorable and then you become the bully. It's okay to ask for help but not in a way that outrages this sense of honor. It's a tricky balance but I have seen it work in organizations where honor is highly valued. 

Daskalos

It's one thing to protect the weak, it's another thing to empower an idiot.

Malak

Daskalos said:

It's one thing to protect the weak, it's another thing to empower an idiot.

+1

Xiuhcoatl

Hopefully I'm putting this the right way, but I THINK the type of group combat that I THINK you're talking about helps to produce more 1v1 combat. I use to do it all the time to farm reasons to PVP. You bump into someone somewhere, and start talking to them. You figure out their personally very quickly is xyz. With this realization you attack them based on mno. You delay the killing so they run their mouth somewhere and you get jumped by 4 people. Most likely you die. If you're smart about it, you will die. You lose 3 million experience. You have the right to 12 million experience.  If they get another group to kill you for attacking one of these members you get more rights. Usually not on the same exact people. That's the type of combat I THINK you're talking about. 

That's just how I view it, but I also view being jumped by 20 people as a chance to get a 20 kill streak. So, I don't see being jumped by people as anything besides getting new people to pvp against when they're out and about. 

Haven

That's well and good up until they stay in their respective city or in large groups until your cause is an old boring stale or forgotten taste in your mouth.

It's a common trend for 1v1 to go unresolved for weeks, sometimes months if ever. Maddening really.

Malak

Absolutely my point. Xiuh's situation is great, if only it actually happened. Hiding in cities and never facing the music means 1 v 1 cause goes left unresolved and if you are "that guy" who bears the grudge, you get called out for not being able to let things go.

Hiding in a city IMO shouldn't be a viable and rewarding way to 'out wait' cause when you've earned it.

Haven

I have to ask. Do any of you believe this to be a common trend among the higher tiers of combat?

Daskalos

I think it's people don't want to lose, so if they don't think they can beat someone one on one, they get a team. I've encountered this for RL years.

Malak

Daskalos is right about people wanting risk free PK and therefore abstaining themselves if there's any minute chance they'll lose.

To answer your question, Haven, I'm not sure that tiers has much relevance to this situation. Higher tier fighters tend to be less concerned with losing than they are about having enjoyable fights,though,so I'd have to say that no it's not the top tier people who are the ones getting cause on themselves then hiding (most of the time.)

It's almost always 'not very good' for lack of a better term, people who make a point of messing with others exclusively because they know that the system allows them to dodge the consequences indefinitely.

I really don't think much can be done about this until people start encouraging their allies to deal with the situations they've precipitated, and this is unlikely to happen.

I also think we should separate 'group combat' from 'ylem combat' because in ylem conflicts I don't think anyone cares about teaming. In other things though such as bounties or possession of hunting grounds items, teaming people for either of those things is not only irritating but it doesn't even foster combat; all it does is make people more and more bitter about (and therefore more reluctant to engage in) the combat system at all without a group.

If you don't like to 1 v 1 then you shouldn't be giving people reasons to kill you. Simple. Man up and realise that actions have consequences. (Directed at nobody in particular!)

Seir

Agree on basically everything but ylem. Lessers and majors are group avenues that should involve the organization.

Bounties on the other hand... I shouldn't get all of Bloodloch coming after me because I decided to go after someone who thought it was a good idea to raid Duiran and then insult me from the safety of Loch when they're next out hunting. I'd be wrong, however, and I've generally conceded that people taking responsibility for their character's actions has died out.

Malak

What I meant was that we can't put ylem combat under the umbrella of group combat because they're separate entities in that ylem is city focused. Not that we should start having 1 v 1 lessers in case I was unclear