Warzone Aura

Xenia

Over the course of this proxy war event there've been some shifts and changes to open PK zones in an attempt to maintain balance and allow a way for everyone to participate with enough breathing room to not be overwhelmed with PK. Currently the villages do not give aura but the areas outside do. As things continue I'm seeing more and more disputes over people being killed without aura and the lines are becoming increasingly blurred. I've been thinking on how this can be resolved because 'Follow these clear cut rules' doesn't really work. The rules, while defined, get lost as people gain negative experiences with one another and feel they have justifiable cause for stepping outside the PK-Aura. I'd love to see this reworked, below are two solutions I think could address the problem.

Villages give Aura, there is no safety anywhere within the warzones. Enter at your own risk.

Villages give aura but add the ability to become a 'pacifist' war supporter. While this option is selected, players won't receive war aura, will not be able to march troops, nor attack war related npc's, or engage in PvP with players who are within the war related areas (Liruma, Mitrine, Ophidian Empire, etc). This protects them from random ganks and makes them immune to accidental ganking. This is a one time opt in thing. At any time during the war, you have the option to reject your pacifist ways, and you will then gain aura just like everyone else, and be open to any attacks from enemy factions so long as you are within the war related areas. After rejecting your pacifist status, you are locked in for the rest of the war as a combatant. This shouldn't cause any problems with troop management now that you can pass off your troops to other people. Admin might need up how many divisions a person can have under their control, however.

I'm interested in hearing what people think of these solutions as well as any others they have in mind. Discuss!

Aishia

I think the problem is hanging out in non pk zones waiting to pk people more than anything. If you want to pk you should be waiting in the pk zones.

Toz

I have been chased from aura and killed at the gates of BL by people when I had aura from lessers. @Mjoll had it happen to her a lot of times, especially at the start of the war, with hostility aura. So obviously if you have aura and are not in an aura giving area, it's expected you still pk/be willing to fight- unless you're saying you were in the wrong for that, and I don't particularly think you were. It's simple. If you don't have aura, you don't get PK'd. The trouble is, now, the goalposts are being moved. I've been yelling at people non-stop "no aura = no pk", and apologizing any time I so much as attacked someone who didn't have aura. Flipside, @Zenobia got dug up at our mission board with no aura and pk'd, Iazamat/Kaldaka got killed with no aura at our mission board, @Borscin got killed again with no aura today after being forced to kick an Ophidian yesterday (while having no aura), and I was attacked 5 times and killed 3 with no aura in the course of like a RL hour because I was "camping the board", which I'll remind everyone is not against the rules, does not give cause, and provides no aura.

If we use aura as the sole indicator of war involvement, it is doing a poor job and I feel spirit players are doing an even worse job of adhering to the rules currently. When paired with the stated strategy by a vocal lifer minority of "don't give them pk and bait them into hitting you without aura so you can issue", the problem is pretty clearly not "don't pk people in the non pk flagged rooms".

Active participation in the war should flag you as an active participant, no matter what war-related task you are doing. War is, by nature, a PK scenario. Crafters don't have to go into Sect to get crafting materials, bashers don't get flagged as open pk, and RPers don't need to worry about me jumping them so they can emote, why should PKers have to deal with all of the above groups getting self-righteous about being PK'd for participating in a PK event? If you are unwilling to eat PK deaths, you should not participate in the war, period.

As a compromise however, I suggest the following changes:
- Move a mission board to the gathering room of each city, or create embassies for the factions, something that means you don't have to go into the Mit village/Rock Bottom to get missions
- Flag all villages involved as open pk, as well
- Harvesting roe/sweetgrass flags you as open pk so that you can't harvest/gather supplies without risk
- Turn-in box is in the village still
- Marching troops gives aura

Now anyone who is participating in the war is properly flagged as opting in to a PK event, and there is no such thing as board-camping or aura abuse, or killing people with no aura.

Yes, turn-in spot will be camped. This should be expected, as it's strategic to deny resupply to your enemy.
Yes, it means people might die outside of the Liruma (harvesting etc).
Yes, it means you can't just deliver/empress/portal/warp in your novices, they have to actually take a risk. War is dangerous.

The current aura setup is only causing frustrations, with one side tiptoeing around the line and following the rules as strictly as they can, and the other ignoring them wholeheartedly to make up reasons why it's okay, with both sides agreeing that aura is a clumsy way to handle things.

Xenia

Aishia said:

I think the problem is hanging out in non pk zones waiting to pk people more than anything. If you want to pk you should be waiting in the pk zones.

. The rules, while defined, get lost as people gain negative experiences with one another and feel they have justifiable cause for stepping outside the PK-Aura.

I could air out a laundry list of things that have happened, so could you and or others, blah blah blah and end it with 'Why don't you just follow the rules?!'. I'm suggesting we avoid all this by making it a true warzone with the option to be a pacifist and excluded from combat.

Aishia

I feel like it's supposed to be like you said, a proxy war. I think probably both sides are spending too much time trying to engage with each other at the back end of the war, when the intention was probably only to be while moving troops/bashing enemy units/completing hostile objectives in war zone areas.
There's supposed to be some leeway to do the nonhostile ones. It kinda sounds like you're proposing a MORE problematic and less inclusive version where like half the playerbase or more won't even want to log in or participate anymore. Should probably be pushing pk AWAY from the villages rather than just making it so no one can participate without getting dogpiled by 10 man gank squads from either side. Inb4 dogpile of partisan forum reactions.

Xenia

There's always this threat that "people" are going to stop logging in/playing/participating. Granted I am new compared to many of you but I've yet to see evidence of this in my time playing.

There's also never been active warfare since I've players. At what point is this player base going to evolve and move on from whatever happened > 5 years ago? Who's to say some players aren't going to get hooked and take a larger interest in PK and breathe a new set of life?

Just because you have no interest in helping a new generation of players learn to PK or usher them through the process, deal with the set backs and losses, doesn't mean that others don't or won't and will now have an excuse to do so.

Edit: This part was probably abuse flag worthy. My bad.

Aishia

Was something you mostly saw in previous iterations of war I suppose. Whole world got open pk some cities pushed militia involvement too much so everyone was open pk.

Tekias

Just gonna put this out there: The goal was clearly to be inclusive to all sorts: Com, Non-Com alike. There's missions that have absolutely nothing to do with combat or hunting at all. There's missions that thrive in it. Making it all PK (even with an exclusion option) seems a step back from what the intent is, rather than making it better.

Emir

The proposed 2nd solution still gave non combatants the ability to do missions, just not PK related ones, and the bashing ones are sort of a gray area that, for RP and mechanical purposes alike, pretty much fall into PK for this. Attacking a mob loyal to a faction, that is important to the faction for war related things, is not a pacifist type thing, and it should also be something that can be protected against.

I don't see how/where/why you or Aishia think this is a step back, and I think you guys confused some things all into one solution?

Kalak

Thematically I always found aura appear as outlandish because it is a separation indicator between PvP, PvE and non-combat activities. The war event has been a good step towards going away from detached avenues of conflict (Ylem, Sect etc.) to seamless ones and we might as well take the next step and turn warzone into a total hotzone.

There is always a risk that one person can stop playing actively, we should not put that worry into our equation. But in throughout my time within IRE I have yet to see people leaving in droves because they were killed 2-3 times while doing their routine ingame activities. Mostly people leave after burning out due to a kind of drama within organizations. The deaths of people instead create validation for protectors, mercenary guard, assassin, bounty hunter roles. I find it awkward in this game people can declare you an enemy to their entire faction and expect going about their business in peace.

Now back to the warzone issue at hand, non-coms giving crafts and fishroes can be considered RPwise a logistical operation and in war disrupting logistical operations is one of the keys to success. Killing a faction NPC, supplying factions with crucial items and denying enemies such supplies are part of the deal.

For example, when Kalak bought 250 wound dressings from Enorian at 1 gold per, he was promptly declared an enemy to Enorian. Which was a non-com purchase activity from the outset. But for war it was a minor logistical disruption worth 500 cloth commodity. So why should we not consider fishroes and sweetgrass in similar vein? If one party is adamant on farming them, they would be denying fishroes and sweetgrass to the other side. I am not saying they should be declared enemies for that act but they should be under a modicum of risk for harvesting for war and delivering to the hotzone.

Eowyn

None of the solutions above will help the situation. As others have already said, it'll just make it worse for those who are just trying to help be involved.

1. Very few are participating solely for RP reasons, and are trying to help out for their primary org's sake. No one in our two orgs will -not- want to be able to get troops for their efforts.

2. Most deal with what aura they do get right now, very few slipping around it. It's often hard to find someone who can bring you in, and you all have been countering those sneaking in options fine. I'm probably the only one right now with a steady, non-avoidable way to get in without getting aura that you can't stop. Wormholes can be canceled, rooms can be mono'd for songline/portal/del/etc, cube so people can't re-lightform/phase. It uses supplies, sure, but that's part of a 'war', even a proxy one. Using up our commodities.

3. The only real benefit of having aura in villages is that we could attack those that camp a board without having to worry about them not having aura from sitting there too long.

What we have now is not great, but it works for a proxy war. I'd rather not tip the scale and frustrate either side more than they already are.

Toz

Right now what we have does not work because we are catching flak for engaging as the rules are written constantly (aura = pk), and Spirit side is ignoring the rules as written except when it involves them.

You can give your troops to someone else to march and not yield your pacifist aura like in @Xenia's suggestion- a way for noncomms to help out in the war exists already, getting more directly involved SHOULD come with consequences and pk while involved in a war. You are basically a soldier at that time, you should be killable.

Just like when the Templars complained the Carnifex were raiding villages too much and refused to engage, or when Duiran launched a coordinated issue campaign against @Trikal because he was raiding while posting and shouting about how they would never stop fighting, or when a few Enorian players ganked a mewbie nonstop for bashing Tainhelm (when he wasn't there, just any time) and then issued when they got attacked back by people, etc. Etc? You are allowed to want to support your city. But at some point, if you want to RP a protector of the weak or a guardian of something, you have to actually pay the piper and PK. Shadow side has a TON of problems, not the least of which is my temper, but Spirit side has ALWAYS threatened to quit forever any time they get made to actually risk PK over beliefs.

Why do I have to walk the straight and narrow because I enjoy PK and want to participate directly in an event, whereas Jonny Noncomm can play "Not Touching You" with no aura one day, then gank with 7 when one of ours is afk at mission board?

It's a war. You should die if you actively and aggressively participate - nobody is saying you should be open pk globally, but you absolutely should be a valid war target while doing war things because it's...a war.

Fezzix

Friendly village should be safe, enemy village should flag as open pk just by walking in, not by attacking an NPC.

EDIT: Or put non-crittable mobs at the mission boards, I dunno

Eowyn

Neither side is any better than the other side in either following or not following the rules consistently. Neither side is better than the other in any regard to this war. We've all been jerks in different capacities and situations - that is the way of the game, unfortunately. One side acts, the other side retaliates, one side acts harder, the other side goes harder, and it keeps going back and forth until both are just livid at each other. If we started a list, we'd see that, but all it would do is start arguments that serve no purpose but to re-frustrate tensions that are already strained.

In the end, I will still remain on my point that the suggestions will not help. Maybe the no-pk flag thing -if- people still get troops and can assign them to someone else, but I don't think enough to see any significant difference in participation/frustration.

Edit: I do think what Fezzix says would work. Friendly village safe, enemy village you get aura. That I could get behind.

Toz

Our jerk status is camping the mission boards and killing people who have aura. That is a completely permitted kill, following the letter of the law. Anyone who killed a lifer with no aura has been reamed by us and our leadership any time it has been brought to our attention, and I'd wager that it hasn't happened period in a week or two.

Conversely, light side has killed more people lately with no aura - they are actively getting worse about it. Their leadership is doing it and encouraging it, you included. I'm not upset about that though, because I'd prefer it be that way. I am upset about the disparity and double standards that have continued throughout the war.

If we have to play with no aura no pk, and things don't change, I'm not sure what the next step is aside from issues- I've already been hunting down the people who jumped me without aura several times, but that doesn't seem to be discouraging the illegal activity.

To summarize, I'm guilty of being an ass, at worst. You are guilty of knowingly, willingly and repeatedly violating PK rules. I think the rules you violated are dumb, inflexible, and should be changed. If you disagree, please stop breaking them because I don't want to issue my friends.

Iazamat

Can someone actually explain how it's worse/won't help instead of repeating that ad nauseam?

Rhyot

I actually think that marking the entire area and both villages as open PK areas will help. This is supposed to be a war. You're supposed to run disruption missions, you're supposed to target high profile characters and eliminate them. You're supposed to break supply lines and you're supposed to stop your enemies from gathering. All of these are actual things that happen in wars. This should be no different.

Aetolia is a game that is meant to encompass all sorts of people. Lately, its been punishing people who want to do PK away by taking away any form of PK at all. Until the war, there's been very little Sect fighting and only group fights in the forms of lessers/majors. Most people don't even do the orrery anymore because of pathetic rewards or because the missions at the mission board REQUIRE things to be done with the orrery. Because of the war, we're seeing a lot more PK and it's a lot more fun. You're seeing a lot more Sect fights as well. You're also seeing a lot more 1v1 activity too! Something that's been on the decline for the past year!

More and more we see things pushed to the RP side of things and less the PK side of things (re: Three Widows War). Wanting protection status to help in the war is part of this problem.


The community as a whole needs to understand that war is meant to be a completely PK avenue. Yes, non-comms can help, but even they need to realize that their help can AND IS seen as support for the enemy, especially if you're running missions. You're ACTIVELY helping in the war, which by legal terms, makes you active combatant and active participant.

TLDR: @Xenia and @Toz are right. Make the villages open pk and let loose the dogs of war.

Oonagh

I actually spoke with @Toz for a bit the other night because of things I had inherently disagreed with.

There are some older players on the Spirit side, who advocate for things like ISSUES and insofar as have even spoke about issuing for anytime a Shadow side person attacks, and whilst its not the common practice nor do any of the current leaders condone this that I have seen, the fact there are people who still linger with that mentality is almost disheartening.

I come from Achaea, a city in Achaea where we were raided for fun, and merely on the point that we claimed neutrality. I would log in to being killed lots of times, I would get chased out of my City and was a relative non combatant. Thurisaz runes were NOT my friend...imagine touching mindseye and feeling a volcano erupt underneath you to death while meteors rained from above. Imagine people shouting get out of your city or die, then having a totem propped to kill you on the exit of your city "It's defendable, you can be attacked"

The conflict in Aetolia...

This is superior by far, it is organized, it has obvious consequences and choices. And -really- ...the risk of death is absolutely minimal here, when there is an endgame that is inherently easy to reach, I did so mostly fishing. With things like double, triple...nearly quadruple experience gain and globes. I dont understand all these hard feelings, for a fun and engaging conflict which our volunteers and admin worked a LONG time to create for everyone. If you get attacked, its because you are participating and engaging, at the end of the day its all just text, and we should just be out there trying to have fun. I dont try to take all of this too serious, in fact I make jokes about it recently in a voice call with @Akaryuterra because I was dying over and over to @Toz @Borscin and ...I think someone else, but it was like...I expected it, because I was going through a conflict area, I just wanted the mission information. I wasn't upset, I was more thinking this is kinda funny, but what did I really lose...nothing

Some people lose alot of pride over this, and while I can understand the reasons to get salty, I have made it fun marketing stuff.
We just need to work to try and just enjoy stuff, we dont -actually- lose anything when we get killed, in fact it is what it is, dont take it so critical. We can just do our stuff and get through it, dont yell at someone over auras and this, you're participating and so are they...everyone is.

IF ANYONE THINKS ANY OF THIS IS GRIEFING...
YOU HAVE NO IDEA.

Smile.
Have Fun.
Work hard and do the best you can for your city.
Show appreciation for the people who you see working.
Show appreciation for your enemies who are out doing the SAME thing you are.
Show appreciation for admins and volunteers who listen to feedback and try to balance to vast difference in opinions.

and most of all.

Be good people.

Sorry for a long post, I really am having fun lately even if I have been super busy and not around as much as I can, just remember were all players coming together for a future result thats going to be fun no matter what.

Also long story short...I agree with @Xenia and @Toz - I like the ideas. It's going to happen anyway....less drama if you just know it is what it is



:ribbit:

Xenia

Tekias said:

Just gonna put this out there: The goal was clearly to be inclusive to all sorts: Com, Non-Com alike. There's missions that have absolutely nothing to do with combat or hunting at all. There's missions that thrive in it. Making it all PK (even with an exclusion option) seems a step back from what the intent is, rather than making it better.

@Tekias you don't actively attack/defend the Ophidian empire which is fine but it also means you haven't been exposed to the sort of stuff people choosing to participate in combat have been. I'd like to offer some insight in hopes of shedding light on what I am attempting here and why I don't think it pushes non-coms out.

If anything it is more inclusive to the non-coms while also addressing an issue with player attitudes in regards to how the conflict should be engaged. It provides strict definition to really blurry lines. I think the only thing that this is excluding for non-coms is marching and elimination/extermination missions.

Marching:
Those who don't want to be engaged in PK probably transfer marching rights to other people, it's not that different than how it's being handled now.

Extermination/Elminiation:
This eliminates a breech in player attitudes which I'll expand on.

There have been instances where I've attacked non-coms who were trying to complete elimination/extermination mission s and received negative feed back OOC. I'm confused by this mentality for in these cases the deaths were 100% by the rules, the players had auras, yet I'm a monster for engaging them as anyone else. If anything, this mentality is incredibly jarring to my immersion and RP because it suggests I should hold back as a player if I know the other character's player doesn't engage in PK. This then escalates to without aura I get targeted because that's what I get for treating noncoms like anyone else participating in the event.

That said, I'm 100% fine with getting attacked without aura, I don't issue people about it because I think it's counter productive to my own experience of the game. However, I'm left feeling gimp because on one hand I want to retaliate but have this looming threat of being issued if these people lose their aura for standing in their village for x seconds before I can track them down or if I take a breather and then come back to get my revenge.

TLDR: I don't want to punish non-coms, I want to eliminate this meta-game that calls for using issues to control the conflict. I don't want to take the time to air out a laundry list of grievances to defend my stand point; It's tedious and boring and not in the spirit of how I like to play.