Announce post #3176: Aegis and PK

Teani

As a response to you, @Saltz: 
If you take my comment out of context of recent discussions regarding the Aegis, it might make more sense.

According to your post, people should Issue if they don't like being hunted, which would likely only happen if they have been involved in something in the first place. Simply because it's the easiest thing to do, right?

What I'm saying is that you should never use ISSUE as a first step. According to HELP ISSUES, you should try other things first, like communication. So if someone is being a unicorn, tell them so and ask them to stop/back off/whatever. IGNORE them if necessary. If they don't stop, then you Issue.

Please don't advocate for quick issues without trying other things first. When in doubt, ISSUE ME can be used to ask for advice if things feel unclear, from what I understand. 

Piecht

The difference there, in my opinion is that one scenario (the defiler dusting a shrine) instigated conflict and should have consequence for their action. The person who set up the aegis is the defender and thus reacted to something belonging to him or her being attacked. The instigators in both situations opted into entering conflict.

The same reasoning and that is hard coded is the bounty system in cities. Commit an offensive action against a city, you will have a bounty put on your head for someone to come after you. I feel like this is the standard that the admins set as a result, instigate conflict, and you are open for retribution. Of course bounties and the like are clearly outlined in this case but I'm hesitant on having every single

I find it concerning that more enumerated rules (despite admin insistence) is being put in place with every little organic action that plays out due to conflict, where the only real consequence of death is a five (or less?) minute wait and some exp loss. To the point they will dedicate a single help file on an ability. More so that if we continue to demand that hard rules come in place we'll eventually be put in a situation where Bob tries to attack you and before he can you have to do AGREE TO CONFLICT.

Slight exaggeration I know but it's already kind of frustrating to be interested in combat in Aetolia where the only real options to battle it out are in controlled environments ala Sect, Orrery, and Ylem, etc. I understand it's an effort to curb griefing but of all the issues I've heard about none of them really came any close to what I'd perceive to griefing. Just a call to arms to issue from one death or the threat of dying.

Haven

Saltz said:

The thing is, I never argued that actions shouldn't have consequences nor that all PK should happen with preceding OOC negotations, but somehow through some subjective hyperbole it's perceived as I did and here we are.

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.

I get what you're saying but I don't agree with it. Why should Aegis be treated any differently from shrines, traps, rites, wormholes or any other skill that could potentially give an enemy team advantage? Should Orders not be able to retaliate against someone dusting their shrines even if it is in a contested zone? Should shrines be restricted to non-major areas and cities only? Should we start dismantling all the wormhole networks in the game? Should we start attacking people on sight for laying down a trap or rite for the 'potential threat'? Even if said things haven't affected us? While, yes, a player can do any of those things, they'd be subject to retaliation without question but because "reasons" Aegis is exempt from this standard. Why is Aegis suddenly a special case?

Both sides have access to Aegis. Both sides can choose to utilize the strategy and make their own choke points. Burned yourself out from fighting? Take a break and come back later! It's not going anywhere. Don't want to be involved? Then don't participate! These minigames aren't mandatory.

Ultimately it boils down to a group of players that don't want to have to deal with Aegis during a contention nor do they want to deal with being retaliated against for choosing to involving themselves in taking away someone's advantage.

Church

Y'all way too caught up in this