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
I'm also saying that just because there are more rules doesn't mean you can't have less of the PK you agree upon with other parties.
If the argument is that the advantage is too big or that the Orrery design is flawed then we should be focusing on those merits instead of delegitimizing valid player conduct. This ruling has completely skipped over the heart of the issue and instead further weaponized issuing and reliance of admin policing.
Give shadow some entrenchment breakers that can't be stopped by a some plants, a monolith, and a thicc boi elk.
I put down an Aegis, no matter what its effects, and that's an offensive act. This is especially true if it is placed in a contested/highly frequented area.
- if true, the only unfair part of this I see is that some effects are not offensive, as has been noted previously. It's sort of like saying that if someone hits you and then you enemy them so your howls hit them after, you were somehow the one to hit first. If the effects on the Aegis are non-offensive, putting it down should not be considered offensive either, unless, perhaps, if they are set up inside an opposing city as a way to spy or something.
If someone comes to disarm my Aegis, I am allowed to defend my property against that single person.
- makes sense, no matter if I win or lose. One fight to defend if I catch someone in the act. If I log in to find out someone just destroyed it, that would likely be alright too, but I can't wait for too long. (If they hide out to make that wait too long, well, start making a personal list of grievances, and for every time they repeat their act, add on a day to your waiting time and see if you can catch them outside of their hidey hole. Either they don't take down enough of them to up this time period, or they have to resort to living in constant fear of being jumped for their repeated offenses. This ought to be easy enough to explain to Admin.)
If I bring a/several friend(s) to defend it, the opponent has PK cause against my friend(s) for getting involved in a fight I started by placing my Aegis.
- makes sense too, since it wasn't really their fight. So long as they don't drag it out in absurdum and attack those people weeks and weeks after the fact, this is all good. (As for my friends hiding, see above notes.)
If the opponent brings a/several friend(s) to guard while disarming my Aegis, I don't get PK cause on the friend, because I started the fight and showed up to resolve it in a direct conflict (even if I don't stand a chance in a 1v2 fight)?
- I hope I got this one wrong, because it feels like it should be similar to the previous point. I go to defend against one aggressor in a direct conflict. They know I have a right to defend my property, and should be prepared for the consequences. Their friend(s) would be added muscle in a conflict that is supposedly only between that one person and me.
1a) People don't know how to stay out of conflict that doesn't involve them. This entire debacle was started because Benedicto called in everyone from Spirit side to defend him while he destroyed an Aegis that Nisavi put up during the Orrery. When Nisavi went to fight Benedicto, everyone piled onto Nisavi and killed him. Nisavi then decided to call everyone out to either a) fight him in honorable combat or b) get hunted for their participation.
All that seems pretty fair to me with the exception of Benedicto calling upon his team to defend him while he sat there and destroyed an aegis. I see a whole bunch of people coming to his aid to defend him (even on forums), but I see nothing from Benedicto himself admitting to being a part of the problem.
1b) This is literally the Uno-reverse card of when Benedicto put up a shrine in the middle of the Orrery for the strategic advantage of teleportation and passive damage to those fighting. When this was called out on forums and in-game, there was a huge defense for shrining the Orrery and how it was ok.... but when those people who destroyed the shrine afterward they were hunted by the Order for destroying the shrine. So, I can't help but feel there's a bit of the pot calling the kettle black, what's good for the goose is being good for gander, as well as a MASSIVE twist of double standards.
2) People whinging about Nisavi calling them out because "omg I can't beat Nisavi so I'm not going to fight." There's this wonderful thing called being an adult and owning up to your actions. If you decided to help defend Benedicto and you attacked Nisavi, he is absolutely allowed to beat your ass into the ground because you helped kill him. It doesn't matter if you can or cannot beat him in 1v1, accept your consequences.
I cannot count how many times I've fought people who I knew I couldn't beat because it was the honorable thing to do. I got my ass handed to me by Trikal, Draiman, Benedicto, Ashmer, and others that I can't really remember off the top of my head. I would even get called out by them to either a) fight them and the issue is dropped or b) get jumped by them and the issue gets dropped. Well, I want to play the game rather than be a bi.tch and hide in my haven or city.... so I'd take the duel, take my L, and move on with my life.
3) In a very rare occurrence, I have to agree with @Tetchta that the playerbase seems more averse to having conflict. Anything that can be organic conflict (such as aegis killing and hunting down of those who helped destroy the aegis), is essentially reaching a point of non-existence because players as a whole refuses to accept responsibility and consequence. They would rather sit in their own little bubble and do whatever it is that they wanna do, which is cool! We're all entitled to play how we want to play. However, the problem lies when you try to force everyone else to play how you play.
If you don't want to be involved in conflict, then sit your happy ass in a bar, drink your drinks and RP/craft your heart away. Otherwise, leave the conflict to those that want to be involved. In this VERY PARTICULAR situation.... that would have been Benedicto and Nisavi. No one else needed to get involved, but people chose to. People chose conflict and then bitched when it came back to bite them.
4) However, I also agree with @Haven that those who do want more conflict are the outliers and eventually those who want conflict will disappear. The playerbase has a very dominant culture and mentality that will eventually force those who want more PVP and organic conflict to walk away, because that is what is being set with all these rules, regulations, and bylaws tapped with the immediate knee-jerk reactions to just issue when conflict arises rather than RP it out of something.
I imagine that this post is going to be met with a whole lot of 'Disagrees', but hey... once again, read point #4.
Secondly, as literally the only person from Spirit that made a comment on the shrines specifically, I can't help but feel this is directed at me. So you are calling my opinions hypocrisy for an action that I didn't perform, nor I was even in the game at the time of because I disagreed with it on a principle basis? Yikes.
All fax. No printer.
I mean this in the most polite way possible that those two are fairly synonymous with each other, so if you're expressing support for shrines but against aegises, it comes off as very partisan. It's worth noting that if someone goes after shrines on the Observatory mountain, I am all about them being attacked for it. This is why I dusted the Slyphe shrines when they were up on the Observatory mountain, because I was willing to eat the aura and deal with the repercussions afterwards. While it has been awhile, those who were in Shadow web for the time could potentially recall me moaning about the prospect about getting enemied to Slyphe and having defilement aura for 24 hours, but again -- I was willing to accept that risk because it made logical sense that I could be attacked for it.
If you put a shrine to gain leverage at Orrery. You are the one asking for it to be dusted/removed. Same with aegis, same with rites, same with traps, glyphs or sand it doesn't matter. Their sentimental text-value to you might make sense IC, but in reality that is just an excuse for something you instigate.
For example, if my character was a spirit-Bamathis worshipper and the Chak shrine was a Bama shrine, I'd still want that shrine dusted. Because it's not about RP and it's not about the God that the shrine belongs to, it's just that the party i'm competing against actually benefits more from it.
About repercussions? If you are the sort of guy that enjoys being hunted, because that too can be fun at times. By all means, be hunted. If you are not, make it clear. Issuing is the easiest way to do it. (Which has happened for how many times now?) I got issued not even for PKing someone but for only making a threat of pking someone and they felt uncomfortable while playing the game. That was my cue to not with interact them in a similar way ever again. And I am being more careful with my tells, definitely.
Go defend your aegis, your shrine, your strategically important entrenchment when's it's under attack. Talk to to those players post-combat OOC that if they wish to partake in a grudge RP, revenge arc that might spiral into or begin as jumpscare PK. You think being order enemies/being hunted are punishment? I'm sure there are many characters in this game who wear the statuses and memories with pride. But don't just do it when it's clear that people aren't actually into it and especially when you give them a clear OOC reason to do what they did.
edit: And that's my last post here, have fun.
My response in this post is to the original version of Tetch's argument which was just this: "PK cause should be negotiated OOC." Post-edit, it's an entirely different argument with "Otherwise it's invalid." And that's definitely not what my suggestion is aiming to achieve, anyways.
You stretched it to that point and you are over-reacting to it, lol.
If you are stepping on grey zones where OOC motivations are taking priority negotiating what you do with other players has merit. It literally has 0 downsides to just talk to them. Instead of you know, getting issued over and over and over again for doing the same thing over and over and over again to the point that it has to be put in a help file. But you do you do, I guess.
To also be fair, I also had multiple issues filed for the same thing in the past and all were dismissed in my favor. People can say that they weren't all they want, but I wasn't punished for my actions despite the multiple issues that had been filed regarding Orrery and retaliating for people going after my aegis. I was not issued any warnings either. In all instances, I was told that I was allowed to do it within a reasonable time frame. I could not, for example, go after you two OOC weeks later for it. What ended up happening, and why I'm upset about it, is that the parties involved knew the decisions that had been historically reached -- and issued for it anyway, in the hopes that the Pools would change their mind this time. After four issues, they finally did it. What bothers me the most isn't that the Pools changed their mind, it's that people have decided that weaponizing issues is better than actually trying to find ANY sort of IC resolution. You know, that thing that HELP ISSUES literally says you're supposed to do before issuing someone over something.
The reality is that two parties will never consent to a "hunter/hunted" situation if one of them is generally recognized as a better fighter than the other. Case in point is the Hunting Grounds. I rarely ever get challenged by people in there, but someone who doesn't involve themselves in PK like Tekias who goes in there for milestones? People go in there all the time to go after him. It's a case of: "people feel uncomfortable punching above their weight class" but also ego. I've talked about this multiple times in the past where people are too afraid to let their characters fail, where they set themselves up with unrealistic images for their character like being a badass combatant and knight, but they're not known for that at all within the conflict mechanisms that exist within the game, and I'm sorry that mechanics trumps roleplay in this. We're not an RPI. However, when I heard from someone that will go unmentioned that two people were electing to not play the game because I was going to jump them, that tells me that their ego and self-perception of their character is more important than literally letting themselves be bored/take any consequences for their own actions.
If you can't handle conflict within a roleplaying game, then don't stir the pot. If you don't enjoy being hunted, don't do something that might end up with you being hunted, like assisting in destroying something. Don't act and then issue when the consequences of your actions turn out to be something you didn't like. That kind of "we're all winners" mentality shouldn't be part of this game. There has to be consequences for actions.
If you don't want to engage in a longer back-and-forth conflict after some kind of altercation, try to solve this by communicating on your own first (ooc tell or message saying "I get that you want to fight, but for me it was a one time kind of thing and I'd rather not continue"). If the other person persists, try one more time, to make sure they're not a unicorn (sometimes they are), and if that doesn't work, use the ISSUE command. The help file even says to try to sort things out on your own first, doesn't it?
If you got issued for an IC death threat, the person used the issue command a bit too readily, in my honest opinion. Communicate first. Issue when all other ways fail.
I'll try one final time to explain my point of view but I really don't have the forum stamina to keep going at this.
As far as I understand, the argument that's laid out is this. "They attacked Nisavi's aegis." = Action, "Them being called out for a duel or hunted over it." = Consequence.
This, I disagree with it. In my eyes, the action is the first offensive move. Which is dropping the aegis at that very spot, and consequence is it being contested. Action-reaction, and it's over. That's where that content you asked for ends, and a new one begins. You can't pretend your actions to that point do not exist and just claim cause because people reacted to you and you can't say* what they did, was just the instigation.
For example, if you attacked a shrine and people defended it against you. That's all the content you could ask for. You don't then get to hunt people because they stood up against you. That makes no sense, to me at least. Or even better yet, if Nisavi attacked a shrine, got defended then left. Then dropped an aegis at the shrine for the next time he attacks it. And if that aegis* got contested. Does he have a cause on the people that try to clear the aegis? That example is as identical as it could get to this Orrery incident.
So in my eyes, you've no cause whatsoever in that situation. But I'm not the administration, so I'll just say, you are in a spot subject to administrative approval for your action because it's addressed in an issue. The thing I firmly believe with the issues is, (This is more directed at @Teani.) sure sometimes the reason you get issued for feels off. Sometimes, people go through rough days in their lifes and project their grievances into the game. Not the first time it has happened nor the last time it'll ever happen. But still, they issue people because they are uncomfortable in the game. That alone calls for some introspection from the issued party, it's not about winning or losing the issue as some people seem to make it all about. It's about empathy.
So, yes. If I am in a spot in which I've no cause for PK and I've had past experiences with involved parties being upset with my actions and on top of that I'm also worried about missing out on good RP/PK opportunity. I'd reach out to them and talk it out OOC before doing anything. That's as sound as an advice could get, imo. And I stand by it, still.
If you read my posts this far and none of this still makes sense to you, at least thank you for putting the effort to come this far and we can agree to disagree.
edit: corrected some words.