Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 3.7K All Categories
- 3K The Midnight Age
- 757 Announce posts
- 125 Newbies
- 6 Class Guides
- 804 Harpy's Head Tavern
- 57 Echo Canyon
- 310 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
- 744 Miscellaneous
- 9 Announcements
- 417 OOC Chat
- 217 Tech Talk
- 47 Scripts
Looking for more active discussion? Join our Discord at https://discord.gg/x2s7fY6
Comments
If you seriously can't think of something spontaneous, then metagame it. By that I mean talk to someone to oocly arrange the in char org conflict, then enjoy it.
I can't think what the point of working for your guild is, if not to later trade that effort for fun rp and conflict.
Edit: my use of metagame there is facetious. Obviously that isn't even really metagaming.
The Syssin declared war on all Consanguine and started fighting Bloodloch, got the treaty between Bloodloch and Spinesreach dissolved, got involved in internal conflict with Spinesreach over the Consanguine, had some short-lasting fun, and I personally got harassed by several people OOC for being "lame," "ruining their fun," and being a "unicorns." Then, when there was no ends because there rarely ever can be with player-driven events... Everyone just moved on. It was basically like it never happened except there was this vague idea that the Syssin hated the Consanguine floating out there. Until like... A year later when oh, wait, the Syssin were right about Ati and the Primus (but no one cared by that point).
Between the Consanguine/Syssin conflict and waiting for a result, more people stopped playing because... Why bother? Nothing happens. "Game sucks cause nothing matters." That's what I was told as the Syssin's robust playerbase (10-15 players online regularly) that I had worked so hard to cultivate started slipping through my fingers.
Now... I have invested a lot of time, finances, and energy into the entertainment of others in this game. And, while I no longer lead the Syssin because I got frustrated (understandably so, I feel), I think it is incredibly unfair to put the expectation on paying players of this game that they do even half the work I've done (or take even a fraction of the OOC abuse) for them to be considered successful organization leaders. Even more so because the playerbase of this game really hates player-driven conflict. Just ask anyone who has tried how much OOC harassment they had to deal with, and whining, and tears, and loss of their character's status as they became persona non grata...
To get an active, thriving Guild takes a lot of work. It's babysitting a lot of personalities and trying to convince each person in the organization that playing... That just logging in, is worth their time. Getting them interested in the story, the lore... Building relationships that are worth sustaining. GMs do that heavy lifting. Why do they do it? I did it because I enjoy the challenge of building a strong, populated, organization. I also find making the game fun for others very rewarding. However, GMs need the Administration to support them (by providing content) so that they aren't left hanging when they make promises to their Guild members that the game is even worth playing in the first place.
I remember distinctly a time in which the Carnifex came to Enorian and demanded a fight with the Templar. Which, cool I love the rival guilds conflict, but they ended up picking a time SMACK DAB in the middle of the constant raids on Enorian from Akara and Trikal. So, by the time this cool, rp driven conflict came around, we were just too freakin' tired and burnt out to do anything. So yeah, the Carnifex tried to go out there and make shit happen, but as said, you can only get so far.
I got a LOT of flack from people, IC and OOC, for not dragging the Templar out to fight. But after the constant raids, nobody wanted to go out, shit I didn't even want to go out. It's why I think the leaders channel will be great. You can sit down and go "hey when are you guys open for a conflict" and leave it at that. No real planning, just "hey we wanna fight you, you good for it?"
And, well, there's also the matter of doing what your guild, as a whole, wants. A guild will die FAST if a leader wants to do something the core group doesn't want, I saw it recently. Even a fantastic guildmaster can only get so far without the consent of their guild, same for cityleader. If the majority says "nah, I don't wanna do that", you have to basically go "fuck you, I'm doing it anyway", which damages the trust you've built up with people.
You can't expect players to really stick their necks out to stir conflict in the current climate of Aetolia. Maybe, one day, we'll all mature and be able to play nice with one another... But my overall impression is that we are pretty far away from that right now. As an aside... I also just think it's the Administration of a game's job to ensure that there is regular content for that game. I don't think that's a novel concept.
Don't buy into that excessive carebear and consent crap. We're all here to have fun and we can't do that worrying about everyone else. You'll never please everyone all of the time. So do by you and learn your audience, you'll find out that more often than not things fall into place.
And I guess if all else fails and something is truly making your experience miserable as a player, you can address it OOC, although personally I'd only suggest that after IG avenues are exhausted.
"The smell of dusty fur, sweet smoke, waiting and patience, a thing that time cannot kill. The moth that candles won't burn."
...That actually brings to mind a question...
What about the "consent" that is implicit in playing a character in a City that (1) stands for something that others are opposed to and (2) has enemies that wish to do it harm?
I have SEEN GMs take over and do whatever they wanted and I also saw the guild die. I don't think it's too much to say "Hey maybe my guild doesn't want this" or even have consideration for a rival guild before starting a ton of shit.
People straight up STOPPED PLAYING during the Akara raids and I don't think, with that knowledge, it's too much to toss a cursory "Hey is this chill?" At a player who is, ultimately, there to have fun just like you are.
Edit: I see it like a game of DnD. Sure, I can technically do whatever I want. But the other players are trying to have fun too and, if I ruin shit for them, I won't get to play anymore.
Here's an example... Duiran, which at the time was far weaker than Spinesreach, decided to poke the sleeping giant by stealing Spinesreach's catapults. The giant woke up and stomped Duiran over, and over, and over again because it wanted its catapults back. However, Duiran's players decided that their characters "wouldn't give in" so they kept taking the abuse and started complaining about it OOC. A lot. (Some actually said "I want this over but our RP won't let us.") This is a wonderful example of players complaining about the repercussions of their own, chosen RP. In fact, a common complaint I heard when I played Faerah was "my character's RP makes me HAVE to get involved but I hate this and I'm not having any fun." My response to that is to play a different kind of character... Not to get mad at other players for putting your character's RP to the test.
Now, that's not to defend actual griefy behavior. It does exist and players from both sides should step in and stop it for the betterment of the community. But the definition of "griefy" can't be "things I don't want/like happening" in a game where conflict is meant to be a driving force. And that is... Pretty much how "griefy" is defined in Aetolia right now.
Saying "I want this to be over, but our RP won't let us" is a very bad excuse to try to win a conflict. If I happen to start a knife fight, and my opponent actually seems to be able to handle a blade, I shouldn't be saying "but you can't kill me, because everyone else I've RPd with thinks I'm an awesome knife fighter. You should let me win!" or even "It's not like my character to lose, so you should let me win". I'd have to graciously accept that this person is my superior in this. Or I'd have to keep returning and get killed until I can prove I'm better, but I'd have no right to complain, since I was the one who started the thing in the first place and they proved themselves better.
Now, if my friend starts a knife fight with someone and starts dying, and I go to help, and we both get killed, I still can't complain either and claim RP won't let me back down because it's my character's thing to defend friends. I'd have to make a choice:
- keep defending my friend, which will not allow me to complain OOCly, because my character chose to participate for RP reasons and will have to accept the concequences
-OR-
- let my character come to the realization that this fight can't be won, step back and grumble at having been defeated. Possibly grumble loudly, yell insults and look petty for it. It's alright, because that's what RP is. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose.
Should be mentioned that Zaila once managed to stabbed Teani to death, even though Teani is probably a better fighter. However, when this happened, she had the element of surprise, which made it reasonable for her to win and me (as player) to accept defeat. Meanwhile, at a Spirean Fight Night, Teani managed to defeat Ishin (who is definitely a better fighter than Teani), simply because she played dirty and kicked him in the nuts.
@Rasani Lol, sorry. I wasn't referring to you specifically. Back when I was playing there was a strong movement in the community to require consent for meaningful conflict between players and then some. There's no problem with taking into account the whole picture or sending a message to ask or whatever. But by no means should it ever be required or expected - unless of course the action falls outside the scope of the game. Unless you derive enjoyment in that sort of thing - worrying about everyone else all the time more often than not is a fast track ticket to burn out and unnecessary stress.
There are so many avenues available to players to disengage that there is little reason for people to not at least try.
I'm talking about arcs. Let's take something specific. We had a player recently get pulled into long, drawn out drama rp that that player wanted no part in. It involved two cities and a guild just because one player wanted drama. Suddenly, that player has to deal with the fallout of an rp arc they wanted no part in. I don't think asking for consent before rp is too much to ask for.
Let's venture back to the Templar Carnifex thing. Nobody left that happy. Carnifex didn't get the fight they wanted and I had to deal with getting flack for not forcing people to PK after dealing with endless hours of raiding. Literally nobody is the winner. Communication between leaders, even a simple "when are you open as an org for conflict" could've made that into an awesome rp. You may run into orgs that don't want conflict, sure, but then you look for it with orgs that do. And this doesn't even have to be an all the time thing, things will happen spur of the moment. But man alive, that moment always stuck with me because I would've loved more conflict, but it was just the timing, something that is easily avoided with "hey when are you free for this"
if a guild or city shies away from conflicts they will either be left behind in rp arcs or eventually the leaders will be replaced. And honestly, that's fine. Conflict is the driving force behind a game like this, but it's not even about "let's not hurt anyone's feelings" which again if things move into ooc harassment you should talk to admin, it's about making sure people are READY for conflict so that each party gets the MOST out of their time. Because there's no way anyone is having fun just hearing "no thanks" because of bad timing.
Personally, I find the potential for spontaneity to be part of what is fun about playing these games. It makes them feel more life-like and engaging. And... That's what I meant by the question I asked @Haven. I feel that there is implicit acceptance that conflict will happen in playing a game of this nature. To think otherwise is to go against the premise of the game.
Again, I'm not supporting "griefing," but there's a big difference between "griefing" and, for example, the Carnifex challenging the Templars at any point in time. Whether they are "ready" or not.
I also concede that there have been times when player-initiated conflicts have been poo-pooed.
There have also been player-initiated things, specifically GMs thowing their characters on the line to have fun and initiate change. Go back quite a few years and consider Hadoryu's Paladins as an example. Hadoryu gambled his character's reputation and hard work, and something good came of it. If he was not as respected as he was, it probably would have turned out very differently.
It's not always guaranteed to succeed of course, but it doesn't always need to be that drastic either.
Moving on from that though, I'll go back to my little metagame joke. I couldn't explain it at the time as I was typing on my phone, but I was thinking of other things from the past when I wrote it.
In a guild in Achaea, our GM was friendly with and order that had a number of strong PVPers. Our GM wanted us to learn to enjoy conflict so he had an ooc chat with his friends, and the order attacked, and we were essentially griefed into submission. It was fun though, because they did actually restrain themselves. Our GM let them know if it was going too far and they made a point of giving us a chance. When it started to get old, the conflict ended.
There is a leaders channel now. I don't know exactly how it is supposed to be used, but I'm sure Oleis wouldn't object to two org leaders planning a conflict, laying a few ground rules, and then during the conflict having a daily chat just to make sure both sides are still having fun.
"Hey Toz, I want to have a small scale conflict where my guild tries to free your dogs. You guys can retaliate by, I dunno, burning our library or something, and we'll try to end it in about a week. We'll keep all teams at 3 or less fighters. What do you think?"
Again, never suggested that spontaneous rp was bad, just stating a fact that Hey, there might be more conflict, something everyone keeps pushing for, if we stop being so afraid to plan stuff with each other.
Edit: And, as an aside? It wasn't 'oh you're weak' that I mean by flack. That's something that Templar always hear from Carnifex and, well, who cares? We don't seek their approval. It was being told, OOC, that I was killing conflict because we didn't feel like fighting after dealing with a raid for 5 hours.
Also, I still take issue with the idea that spontaneous, player-driven conflict should be as discouraged as it presently is. Or that wanting it makes someone a "jerk." Wanting Aetolia to not be a play-pen with padded walls does not make someone a "jerk." Wanting your exceptionally hard work to pay off via striking down your foes some does not make you a "jerk." If your foes don't want to be struck down as much, they should also work hard or learn to RP defeat.
Either way, throwing around the word "jerk" in this case just perpetuates the idea that people who come to Aetolia for compelling content and spontaneous, player-driven conflicts built upon the conflict axis provided, are not welcome. And... Because they feel unwelcome... They leave.
Not at someone wanting spontaneous conflict. It's fine to want it. And even to instigate it.
Just be more understanding if someone doesn't feel like a fight. If you don't actually care, then don't ask, just attack. That's perfectly acceptable. Everything in character.
If you do ask the person oocly though, then you need to accept their response and be more understanding. The moment you ask, it isn't spontaneous anymore, is it? It's organised oocly, through a negotiation. Instead of accusing them of stifling conflict, suggest postponing until the next day.
Incidentally, I used the word jerk. In Australia, that's about as soft an insult as exists. I've called my boss a jerk and just got a chuckle in return. But apologies if it offended.
There was a discussion on this a few years ago but I maintain that it's not a leader's or any player's job to worry about the overall health of the game.
Edit: Aha! Found it http://forums.aetolia.com/discussion/comment/30384/#Comment_30384
I agree that "jerk" is pretty light. I would never tell my boss he's a jerk, but it's light nonetheless. My beef with name-calling is not whether or not the name used is nasty or crude... My problem is that name-calling is a practice used to discredit and belittle people of differing opinions. It undermines their valid positions by characterizing them in a negative light and it stops conversation and discourse from occurring. I know it's the popular rage right now to just label people and toss them aside because, for example, they're jerks so they shouldn't be considered anyway! ...But I am resistant to that trend. I'd rather dig to the root of a person's motivations and understand them.
To use my example above... Plenty of people can consider those who stifle conflict to be "jerks" too. This isn't the real world where wanting conflict and to beat up on people is "bad." This is a fictional world where conflict is a large part of the point. Accordingly, as I said, I don't think that people who don't want conflict have the higher moral ground here simply because they have "non-action" on their side. Standing against player-driven conflict is, in and of itself, an action. It takes away an element of the game people rightfully expect to exist. Some people might even call those people "bullies" because they make others who want player-driven conflict feel unwelcome. (This is why name-calling undermines discussion! Most of the time, it's a matter of perspective.)
...Insert the usual disclaimer that griefers do in fact exist and should be stomped out, collectively, by the community. That's not the kind of player-driven conflict of which I am discussing. Also the obvious OOC harassment should not happen to players. Keep IC things IC. etc. etc.
On both hands, people want conflict because it drives their RP experience... BUT at the same time they don't want conflict because they don't want to lose, they don't want it to interrupt their RP (beit mudding, events, or even that cliquey crap that people do with their close friends because they like the control it makes them perceive), or they just feel that its against their RP. No matter what you do, anyone who tries to drive conflict is in a lose/lose situation, and this includes the admins. Because how much flack have admins been given about doing some event or another that didn't go the way the players on one side or another wanted?
Prime examples: Lanu Du destruction of Enorian (I heard many people complain about how they were mad that Enorian got blown up), Three Widows War (people (non-PKers or non-PKer sympathizers) were all up in arms because it was an open PK event). As for player driven events: city raids, Syssin vs Consanguine war, Tainhelm wars, Order Wars. No matter what is done, people complain.
Now, personally, alot of these events stop because everyone tries to adhere to the lowest common demoninator, the squeaky wheel, or the outcry of the masses who have lots of friends who can be bribed/convinced to side with the loudmouth. This has been seen on multiple occasions where a player tries to entice conflict and then everyone runs to forums and starts spouting about how much they hate X conflict, and that Y player(s) are doing X conflict, and how the admins would step in and stop the event or that the Y player(s) doing said conflict would stop. Additionally, it has been seen/heard that players will assault Y player(s) in tells and all but beg/demand for the event to stop because the people losing aren't having fun because it goes against THEIR fun.
We've got a game where people would much prefer to sit there and idle all day, only roleplay with their five friends in their house/haven, or sit there and ignore the rest of the playerbase because they can't do anything without being yelled at by the squeaky wheels or the lowest common denominators. Its why raids aren't done. It's why guild vs guild combat situations aren't done. It's why people don't randomly attack/jump people. It's why Order Wars aren't done. Because NOBODY wants to listen to the bullshit that is spewed when one side starts losing and starts complaining about the ongoing event.
It's not about being a 'jerk', its not about negotiating with someone to start a conflict. Conflict is, and should be, spontaneous. But why stir up something when all you're going to get is yelled at by a handful of people and all but demanded to stop? Why subject yourself to that pain/torture unless you're a masochist?
So, we're in a state of stale status quo. Everybody KNOWS they want conflict, but NOBODY wants to do conflict because of how much shit they're going to get for it. Until we mature as a PLAYERBASE and move on from being able to cry to mommy/daddy (admins/friends) because we aren't winning and things aren't going our way, until we can stop trying to control everything in our tiny little world and relinquish the fact that we do not, in fact, need to control everything in the game/around us... then, AND ONLY THEN, will we be able to have the conflict systems and events that the playerbase wants.
For all the talk of "We need to mature", people are AWFULLY against the idea of being mature and making sure the HUMAN on the other side of that game is down with something. It's an embarrassment, to see how much people fight the very basic idea of just making sure it's a good time to start a fight. Like, shit, if I deny you a conflict, I promise it isn't because I'm afraid of losing. it's because, as a real life person with other real life shit to do, I don't have the mental energy.
I'll tell you why order wars aren't done, because they're BORING. They need a serious overhaul because, man, just rebuilding and taking down shrines is boring and we all know it. People complained about Three Widows because, while there was a huge pk element, there was also a HUGE RP element, and getting killed every time you wanted to go talk to an NPC got dull as shit, and limiting an event that has such a big impact on lore and rp to being accessible to only pkers is kinda garbage. But, I'm also someone who thinks it's not a huge to do to make sure everyone is having fun. Because, again, everyone is here to enjoy themselves and I'm not going to enjoy myself if I'm making another real, honest to God human have a shitty time.
It's not a problem of "oh raiding sucks", it's a problem of people knowing when to QUIT. And frankly, I don't think a lot of people DO know when to quit. They either take the complaints as "oh it's just people bitching about losing" or, they take it as a sign of their victory, and continue to do it because "oh, who's going to stop me?" If we wanna talk about maturing enough to handle loss, that's fine, but we also need to talk about maturing enough to know when to knock it off.
Either way, I'm done. I don't want this to get heated, all I wanted to say, and said at the start, is that I think the leaders talk will be a great way to start to resolve the lack of conflict. It's not 'spontaneous' but who cares, conflict is conflict
I've been victim to an RP conflict where the end result was simply to get rid of me. There was zero effort put forth to actually explore it or create a story. It was simply "You do or are X? We don't like X, stop it or you're gone." And since I didn't have anyone in my corner, GONE is what was given to me. I think they'd be less boring if the Gods were around and fighting each other too. You've been this person to me, at least once. Not as Leana, though. I 100% agree with you. The Duiran raids by Trikal and Akara ended the game for me. I wasn't going to come back at all until I heard about Oleis.
If you're afraid of getting angry tells, be responsible and start policing your own communications. You don't have to take it. If it escalates and gets to be too much there is the issue and or ignore command for a reason. There are so many avenues to disengage from a situation here - there's almost no reason not to engage other players. The audience is clearly there.
Sure, we forget ourselves sometimes in the heat of the moment and yes, there's the occasional bad apple but most players who play this game ARE reasonable.
Edit: of course, if my ruining your fun is stopping someone from killing dwarves in tainhelm, I gotta I'm sorry XD
First of all, I appreciate the tact and how constructive @Oleis is being. If the whole Daru/Luminary thing was handled with nearly as much goodwill, I might have felt different about it. (And by different, I mean more than "Indifferent") I am still not sure how I feel about the overarching changes being made - do I think they're positive? Sure. I've spent some time bouncing between games and guilds in Aetolia (I put quite a bit of time into a Carnifex a while back - it's a shame that they're going to be the biggest casualty from this sort of change).
My own thoughts on Aetolia were basically "Move towards more city-integration" in regards to newbies (After having played Lusternia) and there have been steps taken to combat idling/player accessibility. (Something which Lusternia does poorly)
Thankfully for myself, I am at the point in Aetolia where getting involved demands more time than I can give (Rewriting a system and all of that) and wanting to *do* something. So I'm in a place where I don't have a particularly strong connection to my city (Aside from occasionally causing trouble) and not feeling strongly enough about any guild to say "-that- is what I want to try!" my concern personally is in attaching guilds so firmly to city means that the identity of a city can be enough of a deterrent for you to join a guild. Sure, you can go without a city, but with the (What I presume is) deeper integration between cities and guilds, you're effectively cutting off a big part of what the game offers mechanically. (Ylem conflict is city-based, presumably a war system will be city-based and so on).
One question I do have is - are organisational identities going to be reviewed? I'm thinking more about cities as I can see how, for example, Enorian for me as a player is just really.. ehh.. nothing against the current leaders or anyone working on it, but the focus on city Gods is pretty much exactly what -Kylan- would have wanted Enorian to be. As a player, it is not particularly.. thrilling? Before that Enorian was a city of Light with religious zealots (Not just of the Daru variety).
I suppose what I am driving at is are the city identities going to be broader to allow for different viewpoints in the cities?
tl;dr - I think it's a positive step. Sorry for Carnifex. What about city as a detraction for guilds and core mechanic engagement?
One of the hardest things to remember, on both ends of the spectrum, is that there are real people you are playing with. It is a bit like sports:
- If you are too rough and underhanded, people stop wanting to play because they are bruised and wornout.
- If you cry foul and try to get the Ref involved every time the other team wins a point or outmaneuvers you, people stop wanting to play with you because the game gets lost in wake of your feelings.
And both of these things happen on both tethers - the exaggerated soccer injuries as well as lead-lined gloves to a friendly match - and sometimes simultaneously. The hard rub is that if you want others to come out and play, you need to make it worthwhile for them (to a point), be it being willing to take a few bruises to learn from, or knowing when to restrain yourself.
You learn through experience and trying, and being open to both ends of the critique (and to stop condemning the other party for not being on board with your particular flavour).
My spare change, anyway. And some pocket lint.
First, you have chosen your own, personal definition of "fun" and are applying it universally. You do not get to define "fun" for other people just as they do not get to define "fun" for you. Second, you have discarded other people's arguments about what would be "fun" for them as "confusing" and "embarrassing." Therefore, why consider that other human on the other side of the game? In fact, you even ask "who cares" at the end of your post which just shows your disregard. Third, you even go as far as to call your position "basic" as though those who disagree with you are inferior because they can't grasp that simple "basic" point.
When broken down and put into the context of the words you've chosen to use... It does not sound as magnanimous, does it? If the losing side chooses not to surrender, then it is not the fault of the winning side that they do not stop. Going back to the Duiran catapult situation (which addresses @Leana's comment) - Duiran stole a catapult and decided not to give it back despite the raiding that their citizens, presumably, did not enjoy. Yet, there was, in this instance, a clear path to ending the raiding that the players decided not to take because "RP." I'm not sure how else the situation should have gone. Was Spinesreach supposed to keep asking on repeat when it was a good time to raid Duiran to get their catapults returned? Were they supposed to just stop raiding without getting the catapults back? I would wager a guess that the answer to "but who cares?" is... "Many people who play this game."
Ultimately, to answer your question personally... This is an issue I care about because I have seen a lot of people leave the game over it. People that I feel made the game better. People that I feel made the game more complex, dangerous, immersive, and alive. And, there are many that I know with their foot out the door heading toward other games that provide the player-driven conflict and regular content that they seek. I am not a combatant. I barely participated in lessers when they came up. This isn't about me and some desire to ruin other people's "fun." It's about what I think is healthy for the game as a whole, because if all that is left is people who politely ask permission before instigating conflict... My opinion is that would create a very boring and flat game.
Something that confused me at the start of this discussion, is the question of why, in this age of multiclassing, is it even an issue? Why would a templar actually want to join Duiran? Why would a shaman want to join Enorian? If I want Duiran's RP/environment/company, but like the Templar class, then I can join Duiran, and even one of its guilds, and keep using the templar class. There is no need for a Shaman in Enorian. Choose one of the (each different) Enorian guilds, and multiclass shaman. You get your cake and you can eat it. It's a never-ending cake: choose the guild/city RP you like, match it with the class you like, and enjoy the game. So much easier than the old days.
I'm sure there is the odd situation where someone loves the Daru RP but hates so many people in Enorian they can't be a citizen. The odd outlier like that just needs to be a casualty, in my opinion. Of course, cities must also not be too stifling.
The Carnifex are a large outlier though. Built over a long period as guild > city, they change hurts them because for so long they existed in two places and made it work well. Moving them to one or the other city unfortunately leaves a hole in the other city. Spinesreach will now lack a 'front line warrior' guild, and while Bloodloch might seem like it suits the Carnifex theme best, Spinesreach isn't a bad match, and in my opinion needs an org like the Carnifex to be a complete city.