Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 3.7K All Categories
- 3K The Midnight Age
- 757 Announce posts
- 122 Newbies
- 6 Class Guides
- 803 Harpy's Head Tavern
- 57 Echo Canyon
- 309 Self-Affirmations
- 163 Town Crier
- 135 The Exchange
- 167 Sparring Grounds
- Combat Guides
- 30 Combat Logs
- 188 Idea Box
- 9 Classleads
- 578 Roleplay Logs
- 107 Aetolia Development
- 5 The Void
- 742 Miscellaneous
- 9 Announcements
- 417 OOC Chat
- 215 Tech Talk
- 45 Scripts
Comments
I will reiterate what I said earlier, this game is like a bowling alley with bumpers....where everyone gets a strike and you get cake afterwards, its like plastic left handed scissors. Sure part of the game finds them useful but the other finds it awkward and unwielding.
I have seen entitlement on the lifer side of the game and even moreso the victim complex...its like watching an angsty teenager on tumblr defend their best friend.
I have seen the same entitlement on the darkside, but less a victim complex and moreso a desire for something this game no longer offers, which is toxic in the amount of cursing and rage it produces
No one is right, but with both sides never coming to a fucking head and seeing compromise its like we are playing two different games, and ultimately it makes a terrible environment for new players. If you want to kill off Aetolia, keep playing it how you are.
Sorry @Valingar, some of you do try and have great attitudes.
That aside, do have thoughts on the original topic of glorious raiding. The reason I never try raid Spines is not guards. It's not difficulty. It's that I don't really have any reason to care about raiding it. I had no moral issues raiding Spines repeatedly during the last war, and I did, because I had a reason. Drain gold and resources away from troops, keep combatants away from protecting troops, etc etc. And it worked and was fun as hell, for me at least.
Bloodloch-wise, raiding is more unlikely to ever happen, I'm going to be honest. Either @Conner or @Mazzion, can't remember which, made a great defensive setup for the rooms ages ago. A real pain to raid due to both the room arrangement and the large PK population, and I have tried. For easymode raiding purposes, please visit Spines and Enorian, their room arrangements are a mess. Unsure about Duiran, probably somewhere in the middle of the pack.
Thing is, without a goal, raiding devolves into bored griefing a lot more often than not. I enjoy raid defense, I'm probably one of the rare people on the lightside who do. But I don't find it compelling to come home from work to see that "hey, all the guards were wiped while no PKer was here to defend." That's what a large part of the raids I saw amounted to. Or people camping a house and calling that a raid. Maybe if you could set a period of times during which the guards were more vigilant (read: more powerful) to cover your non-pk filled times or when you wanted to event up?
I don't think we need raiding for conflict. I think we need reasons beyond arena fights to fight outside lessers and outside ylem. Preferably at times we can choose ourselves. Capture areas (Ciem style) for personal or city benefits if no one defends. I'd even argue we need some form of group PK where the numbers have to stay within certain limits (I say that because I love 2vs2 and 3vs3 more than anything in the PK world), maybe a tourney or something.
I would like to note that it's hard to move forward in the future, and make progress in the design of Aetolia, or any of the IRE games for that matter, with the rose-tinted nostalgia glasses on. Everyone is guilty of this, myself included. That being said, I do think there is knowledge to be gained from past decisions, past experiences.
In my past experiences, being someone who was amongst the very first players of Imperian, and got to experience a fresh start on one of these games from the very foundation, I can honestly say that the more things are allowed to be decided by out of character thoughts, and interactions, the more of a situation we'll get like we have with both Imperian and Aetolia today.
In the past, there was an expectation of always remaining in character, always remaining in your role and doing things that would make sense for that role. There was a time when we didn't have Webs/Rings, and it was an interesting time. You didn't care for what the other side thought, you didn't have to explain yourself on forums, or in ooc tells, or any of these other things. It made things interesting, unpredictable, chaotic. Also note that in the past, when this stuff was true, was the height of when these games had the largest playerbase they've ever had.
There is a lack of immersion in Aetolia. This lack of immersion is a direct result of the Administration's decisions and guidance and the game design choices they've made and implemented. There is truly only so much that 'Raid Culture' or 'Player culture' can do. Yes, there are things we can do, but there are also a huge amount of things we can't do. We can't set the rules in this game, for one. We can't set the story, we can't implant immersion back into the system.
Until the immersion is restored, PK will suffer, RP will suffer, everything will continue to suffer.
So no, I don't think guards being toned down will fix the problem with conflict in Aetolia. I do think it would still be a good way to shake things up, which is exactly what the game needs. The pot needs stirred, the mix needs shaken up. Expectations need to be shattered.
This shouldn't be about -your- way of playing the game. It should be about being your character and doing what they would do, consequences be damned.
Seriously though, put yourself into the shoes of someone who is only doing a lesser for casual fun, or to get some city points or whatever. Not you or the few others who are constantly tweaking and building and thoroughly enjoy it for what it is. Better yet, put yourself in the shoes of someone who is not just taking care of themselves and their game but, as a few are, their org and their entire death-rattling -side- of the game. They're going to have less fun and be less interested in when they're drastically outnumbered. When they paused their rp or their whatever just to go to the fight.
I've ran in on more than a few lessers by myself. Alone or with someone else capable, I'll Leroy Jenkins the shit out of things. But when you're one of three active people on the lifer side who can or will actually lead a group, and you've taken a huge interest in trying to bring -up- the attitude in general, you learn when to pick your battles. I'm just not going to lead some kids into something that's going to turn them away from fighting.
You say all you can do is idle, and I say bs. Sorry bro. Love you, but bullshit. You absolutely can go out and find conflict. You absolutely can find reasons to attack people and not be griefy. You've all been around long enough to know that there's -always- going to be someone throwing the grief flag, and that that doesn't mean they're right or it was. But you also know wtf grief is and how to not be. You don't want to put the effort into your own personal characters or spendbyour own time between coding your systems or getting Ylem or the dozen other things it could be to -build- the conflict. You want predetermined routes and reasons already in place, so you can wake up and go hop on the wagon and ride to the party.
@toz, this is an argument we've had more times than I can count, and is not even worth re-hashing. Both sides have a habit of responding with overkill and you guys have mooooore than your fair share of 'waaahs'. That you would even point a finger on that tells me you're letting frustration talk and not sense or observation. As probably one of the most antagonistic lifers, I've picked plenty of fights and killed plenty of people for IC reasons and had to listen to them cry and whine, issue me for alting and metagaming, come back with friends to jump me, put me on ignore, come to forums with thinly veiled and passive-aggressive complaints, whatever. It happens. I deal with it and drive on, and so should you.
Jaru comes up over and over again. You go, we respond. We bring more, you bring more. It ends one of two ways - we bring more than you have and you go the fuck home. Or you bring more than we have and we go home and you do your thing. You know what? That's realism, dude. That's your war you want. Go home. Wait. Distract. Send in parties, keep people who are interested busy all night defending. Less people feel 'obligated' to defend a village than to defend in a raid.
How about you set up checkpoints on the highways, start trying to push Spirean influence. So what if we get a group and go oust you? That's fucking realism dude. How is that more lame than you just raiding us with the 15 people you could pull to do it? Pack your highwayman bags, get the fuck up and move out. You got busted. Set up somewhere else in a little bit, or go home and lick your wounds.
This shit is there. It doesn't need to be fed to you, and it doesn't need to come at the cost of enjoyment for large chunks of the game.
We do need more conflict outlets/opportunities, the objectives however should not be cities. There's no way to make city raiding interesting for everyone (or even most) involved.
Most of them will do maybe ~1k, with only the high mage and high guards having the ability to do double that, if they roll the right attack. The complacency system keeps people from raiding all day by increasing their strength slightly for each guard you kill. This maxes out to an 80% increase in damage after you kill 50 of them. We used to modify their damage based on the amount of players from the city online, but that has long been removed.
Once they start being pulled one at a time, it doesn't matter how much extra damage they can do. It's just about making that initial hole and then you're mostly set for raiding.
I think more then anything immersion is at a low. No one feels invested in their orgs and fiddling with raiding probably won't fix that much. War though, that's always a looming thought... Plus whatever happened to Severn? Hmm.
- Re: lifers - yes, it is primarily a toxic environment. This has to do with, imo, the concept. I've played darkie and I've played lifer, and I've been a LEADER in both sides. Lifers are more toxic and backbiting to their own - and I don't blame them. Someone who is going to play that sort of character is signing on for a very specific sort of experience. With that comes negative tropes. That being said, Spines was SUPER BITCHY AND LOST before I slid in. IRE games are small enough that a single person with enough charisma/drive can and does make a tangible difference. Debate what you want about me, I was that.
- To lifers: Yes, a bit more fingerpointing - I played both sides and I led wars for both sides. @rashar, your opinion is nice but, as pointed out, you do not have the full picture - as some who WON WARS for both sides, I think I have a broader view. I won as a darkie by amping up the murder/pk/ganking and facilitating it for people. As a lifer, I won by playing into the noble sacrifice trope. My own deaths (15 levels in one war, as level 80, yikes!) were turned around as inspirational fuel. Every time I died people were rabid to get out there to defend me - that's an ORGANIC result of building up a pk culture plus going out there as a leader. People see you dying and hell yeah they want to help. It's not just diving in, it's diving in after investing something with the newb - that something might just be RP, too.
- To Keroc: It's ultimately a strenuous and tiring effort for literally no gain. All you get is griefing the other city - come on, this is childish. Still, it's worth considering just to spark some conflict - oh wait, the last time we tried not only did players swap characters to metagame, a DIVINE showed up and started zapping. We killed all of 3 guards. No raid has been attempted since, and it's perfectly understandable why, especially when divine are involved.
- This thread is silly because people are suggesting opinions and they are being downvoted/ignored on what seems to be visceral reactions. How can you reconcile asking for opinions while discounting opinions in the next post?
- Bye! Imma be banned when admin figure out I can post.
Sauce: I'm being paid bank now to analyze gameplay and UX.
(and before someone brings up that the last time Spines did it and they got stomped and were 'forced' to get back together with Bloodloch - you were utterly crushed and people weren't having fun. When it happens to the 'other side' it's totally okay and they're just being entitled and should just suck it up and it's just that they have a terrible attitude and they DESERVE it?)
Was it fun in the last war when Duinorian ran roughshod over Bloodloch and Spinesreach, when Bloodloch literally stopped showing up after like day 3, when the west gate was pretty much taken uncontested and Spinesreach basically gave up after BL surrendered and the whole march was basically a week of babysitting divisions? I don't know how that's anything but evidence that players on all sides of the game dislike being stomped, that the opinions of those who really love this whole raiding/killing/adversity builds character thing are in the firm, firm minority, spirit and shadow.
I cut my teeth in Lusternia, when you got raided pretty much daily, when half the areas of the game was open PK, when giant fights developed off plane and lesser equivalents could last hours and raged across multiple areas and into aetherspace. And you know what, I saw the exact same thing. I saw people raging, I saw people quitting and the population of losing orgs dropping, I saw pretty much raiders having fun (except when no one came to contest then, and then they whined about people being cowards) and outmatched and outnumbered defenders getting steadily grinded down and slowly exhausted at having to carry their orgs, at seeing fresh-faced newbies get started, play, see how hard it was to get good, then quit. Were there @Toz's and @Draiman's and @Valingar's, who thrived off of the adversity, who let it hone them into keen-edged weapons? Heck yeah there were! Were they anywhere near the majority? Heck no they weren't.
In summary: people who thrive off the adversity of antagonistic conflict (war, holy war, raiding) seem to be the minority, despite the opinions posted in this thread. Most people just seem in it to winners, and when easy winnering isn't available to them, they qq/whine/quit/complain, whether spirit or shadow, because this is a /game/ and games are meant to be /fun/ and generally losing is /not/ fun. Expansion of this antagonistic conflict by parties that have it easier to winner /at the moment/ isn't some noble attempt to freshen up the game, but more of an attempt to improve their own time/fun ratio with blithe disregard to how it affects others.
Shadow, if you want conflict, go raid/fight/attack Spinesreach. It's right there. There's been historical precedent for a split. There's RP precedent and plenty of reasons for a split. And if you don't like it and complain about BL/Eno/Duiran all ganging up on you and how unfun it is, then I fail to see how your arguments hold any water at all.
It wasn't healthy and it certainly wasn't the norm, for all that you're undeniably great at this game and influencing some of the players of it.
I remember playing Argo/Nyrus in Enorian when the war system was in place, and when Bloodloch would start a war immediately after the cooldown ended.
Mind you, I know practically 0 about PK, and my usefulness in that regard was limited to spamming bashing attacks in the big group fights.
We lost a looooot. There was danger of leaving the city when you had your active roster aura up. Sure it sucked if you just wanted to go bashing for a bit, but actually having to be on your toes because, hey, there's no place safe besides the city for now, was awesome, and actually had you feel as a player like holy unicorns we're actually at war right now.
I can't think of many (if any at all) player-created conflicts that hit you on a level quite the same as that. Mind you, the first two wars in a short span were fun, despite bordering on griefy at times (not everybody has the ability/desire to log 12 hours managing troops in a day) but the atmosphere created was organic, and absolutely fantastic for developing roleplay. Even on the losing side.
The only other time when it felt like there was a legitimate threat was the Kerrithrim, Dreikathi, and Aalen Bloom events, and just a quick peek into the RP logs section of the old forums during that general timeframe will reveal that, even on the losing side, there was plenty of fun to be had there.
tl;dr Aetolia's not very dangerous anymore, and there's not much of a threat keeping you on your toes. Was there whining when it was? Absolutely. Was there ever a point in the existence of Aetolia when there wasn't whining about something? I'd imagine no.
Bloodloch:
Has good guard density and check points. Leadership seems to be very on point about people keeping things locked, sigil'd, and guarded. Sewers are full of death damage and their entrances are heavily guarded. Their largest vulnerabilities are ease of portals infiltration, breaking into org buildings (does not qualify as neighborhoods), and their high volume of idlers. Secondary weaknesses are the occasional unguarded new building/room, or an unlocked office.
Duiran:
Decent guard layout that doesn't usually have holes. Security seems to be active about finding them, and wormholes never seem to last very long. The sheer size of it and the low guard density in the unused upper layers could be problematic, especially with the weird unique exits some rooms have. Problems have historically occurred from mistakenly left open homes. Idlers usually hang in highly guarded rooms. Inside dens and tents can cause security holes that get exploited, and hidden areas may become problematic.
Enorian:
Large city expanse with a few weird nooks and buildings. Easy to overlook certain areas in security sweeps. Has a unique temple entrance that has been exploited but was plugged. Despite its size, guard layout and density has pretty good coverage with no holes in layout in the city proper. Sigils sometimes are missing. Largest weaknesses are guildhalls and offices missing locks, sigils, and guards. The secondary problem is players constantly leaving homes open or setting up uncloseable and unsecure areas. Wormholes go largely unnoticed until problems occur. Portals are typically hard to access.
Spinesreach:
Wide open, poor sigil coverage, strange layout that's hard to secure, new buildings and rooms crop up over night, and dens are impossible to locate. Even when security was a priority, the number of offices, buildings, and dens made lockdowns impossible. Very open to most forms of attack.
What is wrong with losing? Obviously, nobody wants to lose all the time, but if I refuse to try to win, then why should I be saved from any consequences?
Say Bloodloch gets raided, and @Ezalor begins to organize a defense. I'm busy RPing or idling, or maybe I just don't like to fight. Whatever the reason, he can't get enough people, and the city gets rolled. I fail to see what is so horrible about that...
We all make choices in the game, and I don't like that there are rarely any consequences. People leave orgs, go to the other side, then return and everyone acts like nothing happened. I have had people become indignant ooc, because IC I acted in accordance with their recent choices. Apparently, it is abusive and ridiculous to not pretend that a character's past is irrelevant. There can be no consequences for anything.
I like to fight. That said, 95% of the time, when I see the guards start yelling about intruders, I don't blink an eye. I just keep doing what I'm doing. Why? A) The guards almost always kill them before I get there. And if the guards don't kill them?
I think the current state of freedom from consequence discourages people from even trying.
Just my thoughts on the matter.
Without toning down the guards themselves, reducing the number could work, make everyone has less of them so they need to be placed at more strategic points and actually walk about, not just every other room being a complete deathtrap.
It is about 3 hours of the same headache because things go too far. It's about all of the responsibility being shifted to a select few people who have to address the issue or get harassed by the enemy (often times to a point that ceases to be anything remotely IC or 'engaging' or 'villainous'). It is about all of you complaining that there's no activity when we finally stop showing up after 2 and acting like we're terrible people and just whiners wanting to be coddled because we don't find that engaging or fun. It is about the Ascendril's master crystal being cleared for the fourth time in the same week with absolutely 0 consideration given to the the guild as a whole nor the amount of time it takes to build that back up. It's about people finding *enjoyment and no one on their own team either speaking up or making any headway* in discouraging camping out in a GH and sniping noobs trying to go learn from their tutor.
Even smaller scale shit when it gets started - Moirean raided Tainhelm with a mixed group of experienced and noobs. Made a big to-do about it, we mustered a defense (of mixed numbers too) and cleared them out. What happened? We got enemied to Carnifex and bountied for actually succeeding for a change, on top of OOC and IC grief over how terrible we were for ruining their fun.
For as positive an experience as many of you have had with conflict, there are an equal number of people who have equally as polarized negative experiences. It has been YEARS of this same dialogue, and not once have I seen the aggressors stop and go "Wait you're not having fun? What can we do to make things more engaging." No, I'm not looking for "What we can we do to help you win or baby you," but "I recognize that you are a necessary part of this equation of a thing I desire and another part of this playerbase, and rather than shittalking you OOC for not enjoying the same thing as I do, I want to help make the experience more worthwhile because that also means I get more of what I want" - IF what you want is meaningful conflict and not just trolling.
Edit: Because we're here trying to find a way. Even in this thread - let's come up with other ideas that can help make a MUTUALLY ENGAGING SYSTEM for the -range of player-types in the game-. Objectives, checkpoints, some limitations that help define the encounter. Some things OTHER than zerg and rushing in with guards.
It seems like ya'll don't even care that we're part of the playerbase too, and it feels like you really just want your wins despite your arguments otherwise, due to the utter lack of ability to come to the table and talk to us like we're partners in the game. It's like kids, one really wants to play chess because they like the strategy and know the rules so can win. The other doesn't like chess, and would rather play a different game. The first won't even negotiate or compromise on finding a different game that has *elements of chess* but has some aspects the other kid would enjoy too.
I like to do everything in Aetolia, I find enjoyment in pk, bashing, politics, shopkeeping, mudsex, all of it. Every last bit of it, I indulge in and enjoy. The game is much more fun that way. There seems to be a vast majority of people who only like one or two of these things.
I think that if @Razmael would actually tell us what he envisions his game to be then we might all actually have a better idea of what to expect moving forward. Is Aetolia a game driven by conflict? Is Aetolia a game driven by non-coms making helpfiles and crafting? Is it supposed to be both? Is it supposed to be skewed towards one or the other? I honestly have no idea, and until we're told what to expect, noone in this argument is going to be correct.
I am not saying no raids and no conflict. I am saying that the old way is not a good way and that the new ways need to be less one-sided. I have quite literally given some ideas and am happy to brainstorm more as to things that could make the system better and more enjoyable on this end while also enabling ya'll to get some of yours in.
To recap: Raids should have objectives. There should be some definition of a time frame. There should be more to it than simply camping out in some dormant dude's house for 3 hours. There could be interesting city defenses that enable defenders to do more than zerg - oiling roofs for mobility, nets and bottlenecking and incorporating the city environments into the story of the raid, as a few.
Renegging guards to how they used to be/simply nerfing them is NOT the solution or answer - it is a more complicated issue than that and requires an actual freaking conversation.
But no, as soon as we say "that isn't a good solution" it's immediately that we don't want conflict, instead of the reality that we want meaningful conflict that is engaging on this end as well as yours.
I give up. It's like trying to talk to a brick wall. I'm out.
(This has never been discussed I swear)
Okay it has.