Enemy Status

Haydyn

Tza said:

Well almost. If you clicky the who page + character while logged out on the website, guild and city still shows. It doesn't if you log in though.

(Hint @Razmael).

Seems to be fixed now. 

Azrael

I have a question - how many games can we think of where your character can go behind enemy lines without being automatically attached by the opposing factions guards?

World of Warcraft - create an Alliance character and Horde cities will automatically attack you when you get try to enter, even happens on their RP servers. Take just about any game on the PS3 or XBox360...Dishonored/the Call of Duty franchise/the Final Fantasy franchise/Elder Scrolls franchise. In many RP related games you're free to wonder the world go into any city that you choose to, but as soon as you join certain factions other factions will begin to attack you automatically on sight.

Is Aetolia really that much different than other RP games? Visually, yes, no doubt about it, but the concept remains the same.

Now, I know folks are going to disagree with me, but instead of simply clicking "disagree" I'd like to hear what you disagree about, I do quite enjoy reading everyones opinions and from time to time folks can actually change my mind if their logic makes sense.

Moirean

Actually, I was very surprised by the automatic attacking when I started playing IRE games and found it a bit off-putting. In other MUDs I've played, enemy status is something that develops over time, based on your actions, either from a coded measure of hostility over time (to cite WoW, think about how Booty Bay guards only start hitting you after you kill a number of their faction), or because other players deemed you a threat. However, that enemy status also meant that things like protection after rezzing (outdated concept for Aetolia now) would be stripped when entering that city. 

Granted, other MUDs I've played didn't have as unforgiving a guard presence as we do here and relied instead on active defenses such as personal totems that players maintained. For pure PVE MUDs, the guards were much more realistic, and patrolled around (versus one in EVERY room) and only tossed you in jail if you were flagrant about your crimes or ran into a pack of them and couldn't escape in time. From what I remember of Assassin's Creed, it seems like they handled it the same.

So, other games handle it differently, but they also have different setups than we have. Personally I'd prefer fewer guards and better raiding conditions (someone mentioned being able to fight your way to a central room, in another thread), and have enemy status do things related to active city defenses, like some ylem power you can activate at your pylon to pulse damage or affs on org enemies.

Kinda got tangenty there.

Teani

Oh, just thought of something that would be cool. Maybe it's just me, but I'll share anyway. <.<

What if instead of attacking to kill, the guards attack to knock you out?
This would only apply on enemies entering the city without attacking a guard, or perhaps apply on newbies only. First guard calls out warning, few seconds wait, then does a knockout attack. Then, while they're unconscious, the guards drag them off to a prison cell somewhere. Call is made by guard to the city, saying "So and so has been taken to the cell for interrogation."

Newbie wakes up again with the message:

"You feel groggy from a hit to the head and realize you're inside a prison cell. When asking, you are informed that your presence in the city is unwanted. For further information you can ask the city officials."

From here one could try to escape (and then the guards will really try to kill) or leave (same options as after the death sequence).

Might be possible to spin something from it or simply toss away as garbage. Just a thought!

Angwe

Azrael said:

Now, I know folks are going to disagree with me, but instead of simply clicking "disagree" I'd like to hear what you disagree about, I do quite enjoy reading everyones opinions and from time to time folks can actually change my mind if their logic makes sense.

Aetolia isn't like other games, has a completely different setup. The reason I play Aetolia is because there's a higher RP standard and interpersonal drama and conflict are storyline driven (you could say it's the other way around. It's a self-perpetuating cycle I think, hence why this game has managed to stay fresh for a decade).

Moirean said:

...Personally I'd prefer fewer guards and better raiding conditions (someone mentioned being able to fight your way to a central room, in another thread), and have enemy status do things related to active city defenses, like some ylem power you can activate at your pylon to pulse damage or affs on org enemies.

I would love to see some sort of objective-based raiding scenarios. Achaea's room destruction feature is an example, though it does lack any permanent or significant impact on a faction. Last night, one of the old heads on Dion mentioned that there used to be a reward for fighting your way to an enemy city's war room and capturing it? Maybe it's time to revisit that and some other (low-stress) aspects of the old war system /hopeful braying

Erzsebet

Azrael said:

As to the Aetolia website being OOC...I use the website IC'ly quite often because I can't log into the game from work, because my office keeps the ports blocked that Aetolia operates on and so I read news, I read org logs, I reply IC'ly to messages that Az receives, if people aren't meant to use the website as partially IC then they should remove said features from the website. Heck, I know plenty of people who have multiple alts and while they're logged into Character#1 in the game they're on the website replying to messages while logged into Character#2...some of which have actually posted to this thread about how META using the website is. In my opinion, that's called being a hypocrite....just sayin'

Using the website for messaging is IC, because it sends messages IN GAME. If it sent them to your forum PM box or something, it'd be OOC. But it's IC, because you log into your character on the website or toolbar or whatever, and if you send a message, it sends one to that character IN game. Doing so is not meta, because it's sending messages ICly.

Sending messages as a character you are not logged into in-game is also not meta, for the same reasons, IMO. There's literally no differences in whether a sent message is IC or not, regardless of if one is logged into a character on the website and a different one in the actual game.

As for whether or not it's a breach of HELP SECONDS--it's definitely not. HELP MULTIPLAYING...I don't think it is, and I'll freely admit that I do it all the time when I'm alting, but if an ADMIN type could toss us a ruling on that, I'd appreciate it. I honestly don't think it's breaking any of the existing rules, but if it is, I'll certainly stop doing so.

Teani

Erzsebet said:

As for whether or not it's a breach of HELP SECONDS--it's definitely not. HELP MULTIPLAYING...I don't think it is, and I'll freely admit that I do it all the time when I'm alting, but if an ADMIN type could toss us a ruling on that, I'd appreciate it. I honestly don't think it's breaking any of the existing rules, but if it is, I'll certainly stop doing so.

As long as you only use information your character knows, and not something that you have found out elsewhere, it should be fine. However, if you have been logged out from the alt for a week and send a message asking what's going on with something that has happened since then, I'd say you're in trouble. (I doubt you're away from one of your main characters for that long, however. :P)

Hadoryu

Azrael said:

I have a question - how many games can we think of where your character can go behind enemy lines without being automatically attached by the opposing factions guards?

World of Warcraft - create an Alliance character and Horde cities will automatically attack you when you get try to enter, even happens on their RP servers. Take just about any game on the PS3 or XBox360...Dishonored/the Call of Duty franchise/the Final Fantasy franchise/Elder Scrolls franchise. In many RP related games you're free to wonder the world go into any city that you choose to, but as soon as you join certain factions other factions will begin to attack you automatically on sight.

Is Aetolia really that much different than other RP games? Visually, yes, no doubt about it, but the concept remains the same.

Now, I know folks are going to disagree with me, but instead of simply clicking "disagree" I'd like to hear what you disagree about, I do quite enjoy reading everyones opinions and from time to time folks can actually change my mind if their logic makes sense.

In games where player interaction is limited to the point of a sword, sure, that makes sense.

In a game where animosity and the relationship with your enemy is something that is grounds for RP rather than instant deathmatch, that makes a whole less lot of sense.

Aetolia isn't WoW or LoL or DAoC. It doesn't have the strength of those games' combat mechanics. Aetolia's strength is narrative and storytelling. So by limiting your chances for narrative and storytelling, you're limiting the quality of your experience.

Illikaal

My two cents: HOW many newbies do you see come to Aetolia, and one of the first things they ask is: "Why did the City of Bloodloch just enemy me?"

How many more must we torment!?

Haven

I think it builds on the established role that Bloodloch is home to the aggressive big bad villains of the game. If you want to interact with them on the same level as say... those of Spinesreach then you have to work harder to do so. Where's the harm in that?

As for the newbies? I think if anything Bloodloch should either go out of their way to explain their role to the newbies they enemy and or at the very least highlight in their HELP file their enemy everyone policy. (Perhaps even ask that it be colored red for those newbs that skim and don't really soak in the information they read.)

Mastema

When I was security aide I 'ALWAYS' told the person this is why I am doing it, and if you have any concerns, raise them now our enter at your own risk.  In most cases they got it and thanked me for being honest with them. In fact I see no harm in it, as it only took me 10 secs to send, "You have no treaty with Bloodloch currently and until you do, please for your own safety stay out, or the guards will likely take turns molesting your dead body on their assigned evening breaks".

Erzsebet

Teani said:

Erzsebet said:

As for whether or not it's a breach of HELP SECONDS--it's definitely not. HELP MULTIPLAYING...I don't think it is, and I'll freely admit that I do it all the time when I'm alting, but if an ADMIN type could toss us a ruling on that, I'd appreciate it. I honestly don't think it's breaking any of the existing rules, but if it is, I'll certainly stop doing so.

As long as you only use information your character knows, and not something that you have found out elsewhere, it should be fine. However, if you have been logged out from the alt for a week and send a message asking what's going on with something that has happened since then, I'd say you're in trouble. (I doubt you're away from one of your main characters for that long, however. :P)

Generally it's just responses to other people's messages, or 'forgot to send such and such message about that thing when I was online'. Shrug.

Moirean

True newbies aren't gonna know what a treaty or Undeath means, just saying.

Veritas

I feel like posing a question, and I'll admit I skipped over a lot of the content of this thread but one point does stand out that I'd like to hear thoughts on.

On the subject of branding newbies enemies to a city the moment they roll from creation, is there any substantial reasoning for us to allow you to do this? Let us pretend for a moment that no one ever makes 'troll alts'. Let us consider that every single newbie is just that, new to the game and not an alt. How then would you defend, as an organization, branding a new player an enemy when their only crime is being undead, or lack thereof?

As a note, Enorian and Bloodloch do this equally so any arguments really need to look at the fact that both of these cities condone the stance of instantaneous enemy statuses regardless of new player or not.

Edit: Also understand that yes we did remove the automatic guard attacking for players allied of Bloodloch and undead for Enorian, and yes we did allow both orgs to have to resort to tracking this themselves and doing the branding themselves. So while technically neither organization is at fault, is this truly helping or hurting the game environment any for new players?

Seir

I'm going to state that it is hurting the environment. I made an explanation a few responses back but I'll post it again:

If you truly put yourself in the shoes of a novice who really has very little understanding of what is going on or perhaps we're getting a roleplayer from another MUD elsewhere who isn't particularly interested in combat (of which there are a few. I've pulled a few people from Armageddon MUD to Aetolia).

Then, suddenly and for a reason you can't really comprehend or understand, you're suddenly given an enemy status to an organization. Most newbies will immediately assume that they did something wrong and re-roll only for it to happen again. Or, in the case of people coming elsewhere, they'll immediately be turned off by the fact that they've been branded an enemy for nothing save their affiliations. It doesn't foster a good environment for newbies and can damage the image that the newbie has of Aetolia. There have been actual, numerous instances of this happening in the past so it's not speculation at all.

Phoenecia

From a player standpoint, I really don't agree with enemying newbies straight off the isle for simply for their choice of org, and I don't really see the point in it. For true newbies, it's extremely off-putting and probably makes other players in the game look like heartless jerks. I've lost count of how many times I've had a newbie ask me 'Why did Bloodloch enemy me? Did I do something wrong?', and I struggle to come up with an answer that doesn't boil down to just 'You're not undead or in one of their guilds. It's just what they do'. This probably the same, if not worse, in the case of Enorian enemying all undead/necromancers/guilded Syssin, which is a significant chunk of the playerbase. Altogether, it just makes the orgs doing the enemying look like hostile jerks, and leaves bad feelings all around.

The problem is that most of the justification for these enemy policies is IC. From an IC standpoint, it makes sense for Enorian and Bloodloch to enemy who they've been enemying. And if you, as a player, try to loosen the policy even just a little bit ICly, you'll have people ICly crying for you to be replaced because you're 'not standing up for the city's ideals'. And this has happened recently.

The only way I can see getting around this problem is by making it an admin mandate that you can't enemy people simply for being members of certain orgs because otherwise people will still keep doing it under IC justifications. This also adds on another problem of IC justifications possibly being taken too far. For example, if Enorian weren't allowed to enemy undead/necromancers/Syssin anymore, I can bet there would be people just itching to kill any and all of them that wandered into the city just because they're members of those orgs, which is also a huge problem.

Veritas

Let us say that you could not brand someone an enemy until after level 21. Does this help the situation out any for a newer player, while still upholding those IC justifications?

Xavin

It does help out the situation for any newer player, yes. At least I think it would.

However, it does open a door for abuse.

Damonicus

A lot of the problem is they do not know why. All they get is the message you have been branded an enemy of X. Perhaps if a message is automatically sent to the player saying why. Like if Ezalor brands Newbiex an enemy for Enemy guild. Newbiex would receive the message You have been branded an enemy of Bloodloch for: Enemy guild. Now perhaps if the Security put a bit more effort into their enemy statuses, that would at least stop the, "Why was I branded?"

Seir

I'd worry about abuse, yes.

Phoenecia

I think that might help a little bit. It still kind of leaves a bad taste in my mouth to enemy people just based in org affiliations even though there's IC justification for it because it just seems dirtbaggy to me. But at the very least, not enemying until after level 21 might prevent city logs from being clogged with newbies fresh off the isle being enemied.

Veritas

Xavin said:

It does help out the situation for any newer player, yes. At least I think it would.

However, it does open a door for abuse.

 Abuse in what sense?

Damonicus said:

A lot of the problem is they do not know why. All they get is the message you have been branded an enemy of X. Perhaps if a message is automatically sent to the player saying why. Like if Ezalor brands Newbiex an enemy for Enemy guild. Newbiex would receive the message You have been branded an enemy of Bloodloch for: Enemy guild. Now perhaps if the Security put a bit more effort into their enemy statuses, that would at least stop the, "Why was I branded?"

Appending the reasoning to the message is doable. I'll admit I wasn't aware our enemy messages were so ancient still, that's surely something we can put in regardless of stance taken on aforementioned branding targets.

Seir

Abuse in the sense of trolls taking advantage of the fact that they can't be enemied to do stuff like randomly use instakill abilities like Judgement like we had in the past.

Abuse in the sense of obnoxious troll novices that refuse to leave when you tell them to.

Abuse in that the novice can be used to be sent a portal for an enemy raid group.

Ilyon

Why not simply restore the auto-enemy status? I never really understood why that was taken out.

Areka

Abuse in troll noobs, or noobs who go killing things or attacking people, which happens from time to time.

I think reasons should definitely be visible/accessible. Is the information on ENEMYSTATUS visible by the person holding the branding? That might help in general if it isn't (BRANDINGS to print out the various enemystatus information and fines, be it NPC or PC, dates, etc).

Ex:
>BRANDINGS

You are branded an enemy to the following:

Enemy Status for the City of Enorian.
Length: 25 Severin 380 MA
Enemied by: BigOleDoorknob
Date Enemied: 23 Arios 320 MA
Fine: 2500
Offense: Flatulence
Last Edited: 15th Arios, 348 MA by Quanshee

Enemy Status for Moghedu
Date Enemied: 1 Ios 312 MA
Fine: 10000

Etc.
 
The brandings from the get-go do send a negative air though. It's an immediate "you aren't welcome." despite RP justifications, and the follow-up RP and interactions are frequently neglected, or poopoo'd away depending upon the one doing the enemying or inquired with. .

Ezalor

Oh wow, I always assumed the reason they were enemied was given to the person who was enemied. Yeah, that'd help a lot in clearing up confusion.

Phoenecia

Also, regarding the abuse thing: just have it be a written rule that you can't enemy people until after level 21 UNLESS they've actually done something to warrant it. It doesn't need to be hardcoded, I think.

Arbre

Having been on both sides of the enemying, I think that it should probably be gotten rid of.  Trollalts will always be a problem, one way or another, so don't keep it based on that.  Just ban people from enemying without valid cause, don't make a level 21 or over filter.

Veritas

Seir said:

Abuse in the sense of trolls taking advantage of the fact that they can't be enemied to do stuff like randomly use instakill abilities like Judgement like we had in the past.

Abuse in the sense of obnoxious troll novices that refuse to leave when you tell them to.

Abuse in that the novice can be used to be sent a portal for an enemy raid group.

Well, as far as troll instakill alts, they DO have to register first so they can reject grace to do said instakilling. Meaning they open themselves up to a violent retribution. Also we tend to ban those pretty quick as soon as we are alerted to their presence.

As for unable to make a troll leave who hasn't rejected Grace, what if you could also ORDER <guard> KILL <person>? Naturally abusing this would get you into serious trouble and it's not like it wouldn't be logged so I don't think it would be much of a problem outside of a random occurrence from an unsavory person with a vendetta.

Using a novice as a means to raid from is interesting as well, what if casting/embedding a portal at someone was flagged as a hostile action, requiring that person to not have grace?

Seir

Veritas said:

Seir said:

Abuse in the sense of trolls taking advantage of the fact that they can't be enemied to do stuff like randomly use instakill abilities like Judgement like we had in the past.

Abuse in the sense of obnoxious troll novices that refuse to leave when you tell them to.

Abuse in that the novice can be used to be sent a portal for an enemy raid group.

Well, as far as troll instakill alts, they DO have to register first so they can reject grace to do said instakilling. Meaning they open themselves up to a violent retribution. Also we tend to ban those pretty quick as soon as we are alerted to their presence.

As for unable to make a troll leave who hasn't rejected Grace, what if you could also ORDER <guard> KILL <person>? Naturally abusing this would get you into serious trouble and it's not like it wouldn't be logged so I don't think it would be much of a problem outside of a random occurrence from an unsavory person with a vendetta.

Using a novice as a means to raid from is interesting as well, what if casting/embedding a portal at someone was flagged as a hostile action, requiring that person to not have grace?

Believe they'd both work, yeah.