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
Talking About Tethers
Disclaimer: This thread is NOT intended to be used to purely discuss the ongoing event. I will mention the ongoing event below in connection with several other events, but this is simply to make a point as to it being a continued symptom of a perceived problem, not to start a conflict over current events. If you don't have anything constructive and are intending to sling mud or hostility over current events, please don't derail the thread. Thank you!
As the title says, lets talk about tethers. I've been thinking about this a lot lately, trying to pinpoint my single greatest frustration with Aetolia, and I think tethers about sums it up. I'm going to try and explain why and how I believe this stunts game story as well as game mechanics, and offer a few examples of each.
Lets start with roleplay and the game story. One of the things I find the least compelling is that for every event, essentially, there is a "good" or an "evil" option, by necessity. With the game being split 50/50 the way it is, there's only a tiny amount of wiggle room for nuance here. Even if the organizations in question may slightly disagree, it forces that split regardless because of how the game is set up. Tethers, for all intents and purposes, basically subsume organizational identity, in my eyes. When it's 50% of the game against 50% of the game, there's not really an option or a desire to explore differences in org view and org direction, you need to sign along the dotted line to either fight for "good" or fight for "evil." If you don't support one or the other not only are you stepping outside the established norm that tethers have created, you're weakening whichever tether you're a part of, and breaking these long established ties and expectations.
I think this further weakens the narrative we're trying to tell, and makes the world overall less interesting. I'll try to pick on everyone equally here. I've gone out and asked Enorian and Duiran folks both why they help eachother, pointing out that Enorian is, for all claims of defending life and innocents and such, a blight upon the natural land. Shouldn't this be abhorrent to Duiran, being a fundamental violation of what they hold dear, regardless of what Enorian believes? Shouldn't Enorian, by contrast, be somewhat iffy about the more savage tendencies of the natural cycle and how it impacts innocents every day?
I've done something similar with Bloodloch and Spinesreach. This is another good example of two factions that IMO should NOT be friends. Bloodloch is the type of government Spinesreach essentially exists in opposition to. In any normal circumstance, I'd say Spinesreach is exactly the type of city Bloodloch would be eager to subjugate for their stance on freedom. That's what the empire wants, after all.
In each and every case regardless of the org, the answer is relatively similar. It boils down to this: we have to make do because the other side is aligned. That's really boring! I can't speak for everybody, but to me that is supremely not entertaining. It's essentially sweeping all these very neat, potentially interesting stories, all of these rp motivations and disagreements that could be explored, under the rug because well, the game's split. You're expected to fight the other half so why would you push these org differences when the tether difference is so prevalent? There's no guarantee the other side will, and it leaves everyone in this stalemate where lots of roleplay potential goes unexplored and the story ends up being very linear. I often hear again and again that this is the "RP game," but how can it really be that when org identity is so diluted to account for the necessity of splitting exactly half and half? How can it be when RP reasons are routinely shunted aside because it HAS to be two sides and not separate factions?
Alright, now lets break into the pk discussion. I expect this is where things may get somewhat hostile, so I'm going to try and be fair here and hope this can be a constructive conversation.
I think the half vs half aspect of the game really kills the pk scene. Now, I know not all fights are purely about numbers. It's about attitudes, it's about coordination, it's about a whole host of factors. But by splitting the game in half, it essentially limits diversity in such a way that it ends up being eminently clear which side has the weight of numbers at any given time. Instead of it being say, four warring factions each with a variable number, it's two lump sums. I've heard in the past shadow was the larger, and would stomp all over spirit. I can say currently spirit is the larger, often reaching anywhere from 15 to 20 people against shadow groups of 10 or less.
This isn't intending to point fingers or shame anyone for how they play. If I had that many people, I'd bring them all to an objective too! I think we all would, if push came to shove. But that's not really healthy for the game environment, IMO. The game is always going to be heavy on one side or the other, and that's a lot harder to compensate for when there's only two factions, period. The two faction system essentially seems to rely on people self regulating and moving to the other side if one side is too heavy, but I don't think it's fair, or realistic, to have people try to self-regulate in that way. Folks want to play with their friends or don't want to play with x or y, it's a game, that makes sense. But when all the weight congregates, it's a lot more telling in a two sided conflict than it would be in say, a four-sided conflict. I enjoy winning as much as the next person, and as stated above I would definitely bring all my people, but that doesn't mean that's fun or engaging in the current climate.
Certain pk mechanics also go so far as to enhance this issue I think. Numbers are the big tell in the current conflict and other such open world events, but there are also mechanics that force the issue and punish based on tether rather than on the org level. I'm talking about things like Twins, where you literally can't compete unless you have enough people from both orgs in your tether, or hunting grounds, where one person can enter from each org, but it essentially becomes a 2v2 scenario based on the tether divide. Whichever tether is larger can essentially ensure control over the hunting grounds items using this mechanic, because it's based on tether, not org.
It's also worth noting here that there's really no way to seek out or define the size of pk battles. Before someone says battlefields, yes these do exist, but I think it's clear they're intended for very specific scenarios. They're not here to be a complete substitute for open world pk. But you really can't start open world pk without it devolving into tether-based pk. Foci? Tether oriented. Shrines? All gods are tethered, and regardless of defile aura changes, defending the shrines of a god that is on your tether in the moment is still fair game. It's never just order vs order, defiling becomes tether pk as well. Story conflict? Tether vs tether. Raids, such as during the last war when Bloodloch raided Enorian/Duiran, or when spirit raided Bloodloch, it became a tether wide conflict in all instances. Even just a month or so ago when Sheryni raided Enorian with just the two of us, half the group that showed up was Duiran people. Spinesreach shows up to defend Bloodloch, and Bloodloch shows up to defend Spinesreach in this same vein. You can't ever tailor your group and say you know, we only have a few, Enorian only has a few, lets go fight Enorian, or lets go fight Spinesreach, because you're getting the whole tether no matter what.
I'd also like to say that on a broader scale, I think tethers just instill this sort of tribal atmosphere to the game that isn't healthy whatsoever. There is such a pervasive mentality of "them or us" based on the fact that the game is just split straight down the middle. It creates so much hostility and vitriol, and it's not diluted at all because there's only two sides. Us or them. I think this can be seen a lot in how quick people are to think the worst of the other side, and to assume that any and all pk is unjust without really investigating or considering. Further, it just makes the game a less pleasant experience for everyone playing it.
In short, I think tethers are one of the biggest issues Aetolia has, with story potential and with pk balance both being limited by the half and half split. It would be a much more interesting game on all sides if the story and the fights all had more sides. Do you agree? Disagree? Discuss!
As the title says, lets talk about tethers. I've been thinking about this a lot lately, trying to pinpoint my single greatest frustration with Aetolia, and I think tethers about sums it up. I'm going to try and explain why and how I believe this stunts game story as well as game mechanics, and offer a few examples of each.
Lets start with roleplay and the game story. One of the things I find the least compelling is that for every event, essentially, there is a "good" or an "evil" option, by necessity. With the game being split 50/50 the way it is, there's only a tiny amount of wiggle room for nuance here. Even if the organizations in question may slightly disagree, it forces that split regardless because of how the game is set up. Tethers, for all intents and purposes, basically subsume organizational identity, in my eyes. When it's 50% of the game against 50% of the game, there's not really an option or a desire to explore differences in org view and org direction, you need to sign along the dotted line to either fight for "good" or fight for "evil." If you don't support one or the other not only are you stepping outside the established norm that tethers have created, you're weakening whichever tether you're a part of, and breaking these long established ties and expectations.
I think this further weakens the narrative we're trying to tell, and makes the world overall less interesting. I'll try to pick on everyone equally here. I've gone out and asked Enorian and Duiran folks both why they help eachother, pointing out that Enorian is, for all claims of defending life and innocents and such, a blight upon the natural land. Shouldn't this be abhorrent to Duiran, being a fundamental violation of what they hold dear, regardless of what Enorian believes? Shouldn't Enorian, by contrast, be somewhat iffy about the more savage tendencies of the natural cycle and how it impacts innocents every day?
I've done something similar with Bloodloch and Spinesreach. This is another good example of two factions that IMO should NOT be friends. Bloodloch is the type of government Spinesreach essentially exists in opposition to. In any normal circumstance, I'd say Spinesreach is exactly the type of city Bloodloch would be eager to subjugate for their stance on freedom. That's what the empire wants, after all.
In each and every case regardless of the org, the answer is relatively similar. It boils down to this: we have to make do because the other side is aligned. That's really boring! I can't speak for everybody, but to me that is supremely not entertaining. It's essentially sweeping all these very neat, potentially interesting stories, all of these rp motivations and disagreements that could be explored, under the rug because well, the game's split. You're expected to fight the other half so why would you push these org differences when the tether difference is so prevalent? There's no guarantee the other side will, and it leaves everyone in this stalemate where lots of roleplay potential goes unexplored and the story ends up being very linear. I often hear again and again that this is the "RP game," but how can it really be that when org identity is so diluted to account for the necessity of splitting exactly half and half? How can it be when RP reasons are routinely shunted aside because it HAS to be two sides and not separate factions?
Alright, now lets break into the pk discussion. I expect this is where things may get somewhat hostile, so I'm going to try and be fair here and hope this can be a constructive conversation.
I think the half vs half aspect of the game really kills the pk scene. Now, I know not all fights are purely about numbers. It's about attitudes, it's about coordination, it's about a whole host of factors. But by splitting the game in half, it essentially limits diversity in such a way that it ends up being eminently clear which side has the weight of numbers at any given time. Instead of it being say, four warring factions each with a variable number, it's two lump sums. I've heard in the past shadow was the larger, and would stomp all over spirit. I can say currently spirit is the larger, often reaching anywhere from 15 to 20 people against shadow groups of 10 or less.
This isn't intending to point fingers or shame anyone for how they play. If I had that many people, I'd bring them all to an objective too! I think we all would, if push came to shove. But that's not really healthy for the game environment, IMO. The game is always going to be heavy on one side or the other, and that's a lot harder to compensate for when there's only two factions, period. The two faction system essentially seems to rely on people self regulating and moving to the other side if one side is too heavy, but I don't think it's fair, or realistic, to have people try to self-regulate in that way. Folks want to play with their friends or don't want to play with x or y, it's a game, that makes sense. But when all the weight congregates, it's a lot more telling in a two sided conflict than it would be in say, a four-sided conflict. I enjoy winning as much as the next person, and as stated above I would definitely bring all my people, but that doesn't mean that's fun or engaging in the current climate.
Certain pk mechanics also go so far as to enhance this issue I think. Numbers are the big tell in the current conflict and other such open world events, but there are also mechanics that force the issue and punish based on tether rather than on the org level. I'm talking about things like Twins, where you literally can't compete unless you have enough people from both orgs in your tether, or hunting grounds, where one person can enter from each org, but it essentially becomes a 2v2 scenario based on the tether divide. Whichever tether is larger can essentially ensure control over the hunting grounds items using this mechanic, because it's based on tether, not org.
It's also worth noting here that there's really no way to seek out or define the size of pk battles. Before someone says battlefields, yes these do exist, but I think it's clear they're intended for very specific scenarios. They're not here to be a complete substitute for open world pk. But you really can't start open world pk without it devolving into tether-based pk. Foci? Tether oriented. Shrines? All gods are tethered, and regardless of defile aura changes, defending the shrines of a god that is on your tether in the moment is still fair game. It's never just order vs order, defiling becomes tether pk as well. Story conflict? Tether vs tether. Raids, such as during the last war when Bloodloch raided Enorian/Duiran, or when spirit raided Bloodloch, it became a tether wide conflict in all instances. Even just a month or so ago when Sheryni raided Enorian with just the two of us, half the group that showed up was Duiran people. Spinesreach shows up to defend Bloodloch, and Bloodloch shows up to defend Spinesreach in this same vein. You can't ever tailor your group and say you know, we only have a few, Enorian only has a few, lets go fight Enorian, or lets go fight Spinesreach, because you're getting the whole tether no matter what.
I'd also like to say that on a broader scale, I think tethers just instill this sort of tribal atmosphere to the game that isn't healthy whatsoever. There is such a pervasive mentality of "them or us" based on the fact that the game is just split straight down the middle. It creates so much hostility and vitriol, and it's not diluted at all because there's only two sides. Us or them. I think this can be seen a lot in how quick people are to think the worst of the other side, and to assume that any and all pk is unjust without really investigating or considering. Further, it just makes the game a less pleasant experience for everyone playing it.
In short, I think tethers are one of the biggest issues Aetolia has, with story potential and with pk balance both being limited by the half and half split. It would be a much more interesting game on all sides if the story and the fights all had more sides. Do you agree? Disagree? Discuss!
23
Comments
Anti-civilization has been tried in Duiran before and would be the only way I could think of to really fracture the positive relationship between that org and Enorian, and the majority of players didn't really care for it then, why would they now? Especially when the arguments tended towards...well, less than engaging.
Edit: I also think that some of the current issues stem from what seem to be cultural differences between the two tethers. From the outside at least it looks like Shadow tends to value the success of the individual over the value of the group, while Spirit tends to take the opposite approach. Maybe that's just how it looks from the outside though?
We have a very small community and the tethers already make up only half of this very small community. If we look at individual cities, most of the time not a single city has a population that I would say is healthy for it. Activity breeds activity in games and when a city is essentially lifeless it's going to have a very hard time trying to attract new people into joining the city. I've seen this across many games, and within IRE especially. It's just extremely hard to get an organisation to pick itself up on its own. The Spirit tether solves part of this problem by ensuring that even if our own individual city is a bit dead, we still have another city to rely on. When something as simple as a newer player needing guidance, we just have more people to rely on to be able to help them.
Now, if we look into PK, I really, really like group combat. Most of the multiplayer games I play are team-based because I not only want to compete, but I also want to feel like I have people I can back up, or who can back me up, when things happen. I don't think this is an unpopular opinion either - if we look across what the biggest multiplayer games around, almost all of them are team-based rather than individual. That's not to say I don't enjoy the odd 1v1 fight here and there, but I just don't get the same rush as when we get a good team fight going. There is also the class diversity aspect. There are some classes that provide a huge advantage in groups and without them you are really just crippling yourself. Splitting the population even more just makes this issue even greater.
When I joined this game Spirit was very much divided, and it had been for a large part of my time here. Enorian and Duiran barely saw eye to eye on many issues, and this extended beyond IC actions. However, over time, this has shifted a lot. We worked for these changes. We had to endure some very frustrating moments, to the point where I personally thought about just giving up. Fortunately, I didn't because for the most part we've overcome that and now I have a large network of people who I would consider very good friends - people who I know can help them out when they need, and hopefully know that I can help out when they need. We still have our cliques and some of us still very much dislike each other. IC, Enorian and Duiran still hold very distinct identities and we still do not agree on many things, but maybe because we are motivated OOC to ensure that this community succeeds, when we need to we find more common ground.
At this point I think I would go as far as say I think without the combined Spirit community of Enorian and Duiran - without those close bonds that we have worked so hard for - I really don't see myself playing this game. The best, and worst, but also most importantly unique, part of this game really is its community.
We'd have to really mess with certain class's lore.
As an example, Wardens use simulacra of ancestral forestal energy. We currently have a lot of Enorian Wardens - you're telling me that we'd have to RP being OK with people using our ancestors' memories in conflicts with Sentinels? Because the alternative of gatekeeping the entire mirror class is just as lame, if not moreso.
Building on that, mirrors are built along the tether divide. Barring oneiromancers, separating classes like that would necessitate that the two cities still remain close to at least an extent unless we want to go back to the days of not having access to certain classes unless you join their city. Changing from Tethers to a my city > everyone else's city system would necessitate a discussion of how to adapt the system going forward at the very least. If we dilute them, classes lose some flavor. If they become gatekept instead to keep the class's lore in check, that, honestly, might be even worse. But neither are great options.
At the same time, I do see why tethers can be frustrating when it comes to conflict. The fact is, though, even characters in Duiran I've met who aren't as big fans of Enorian as a whole (often Eaku, yes, hello) recognize that Undeath and Shadow are significantly worse blights on the world than a city which also hates both of those things. I know we're not using the current event as an example, but touching on it, the stated goal of Ivoln's followers going into this is "we want to find out how to force people into undeath". Frankly, it's more surprising to me from an outsider's perspective that Spinesreach would make fighting against this treason. Maybe that's a point in favor of tether balance consideration being bad for RP consideration, honestly?
edit: why is italicizing causing a linebreak T_T
If you care about it, you should help fix it. If you don't, well I guess keep blaming the game instead of yourselves for not taking action, and helping to mend the issues like Enorian and Duiran both took steps to. Fixing the problem isn't down to one city, and nobody said it was.
And maybe, just maybe, it would be a better idea to fix the problems in your back yard instead of pointing at people who have -done- that work a long while ago and shouting 'this is what's wrong with Aetolia'.
For reference, not counting newbies/neutrals/people I don't have cataloged in my namedb, there are 10 people from bloodloch, 20 people from spinesreach, 13 from duiran, and 16 from enorian online at the time of this posting. There may be times of the day where Spirit truly does outnumber Shadow. But usually the numbers are close, and there are definitely times where Spirit is outnumbered. If y'all can't work together, that really strikes me as a you problem.
I did not mention Spines specifically in my original post and this whole thing is moving into tribalism. We are purposefully taking my words in the most uncharitable way and it is derailing the thread. My point does not change, Tethers artificially tie a city success to another. So I am really missing how the observation is a 'shitty' attitude.
edit for clarification
If someone from Enorian was calling Duiran dead weight on the forums and getting backed up by other members of their city, I'd stop helping out of spite. That said, I don't think it has to go any further than that. It's just a very unkind thing to say, and, imo, undermines the point of the main post pretty severely.
That said, I don't think it changes or diminishes Kurak's point that something larger than players are equipped to handle or should have to handle is at play here and there is some level of blame to place at the feet of the tether system, whether you want to acknowledge that or not.
I think a lot of the frustration stems from how we all look at tethers and roleplay around it. I've played this game since 2003, and took a 10 years break around the time multiclass was released. In my opinion, I feel that it was because of the progression that is multiclass that there was a real need to divide the game into distinctly identifiable tethers.
Undeath is a pretty easy concept for Spirit to rally around. There have been very strong precedents for both Enorian and Duiran to rally around it and set aside their differences temporarily for the common goal. Though they might contend about the actions each city takes that pit them against each other at times (I'm reminded of the Gorshire thing), it ultimately doesn't matter because it's deemed less important in the face of larger concerns.
However, the same cannot be said for Shadow. What do we actually have to rally around that has a strong precedent to it? From past to present, there hasn't been a singular banding "goal" that unites both Bloodloch and Spinesreach to work together. All too well do I remember the days when Spinesreach did ally itself with Duiran to war against Bloodloch, after all. Since then, relationships hasn't been the best between both cities, especially as Spinesreach more fully established itself as a republic against the dictatorship that is Bloodloch's government style. Both our cities are only on the same tether because our means to our ends involve methods that dabble into the "shadowy" part of morality or do away with it altogether. I know it might be an overused phrase, but it has always felt that for us, "The ends justify the means."
Taking all these points into consideration, I certainly do see why both Bloodloch and Spinesreach would place a stronger emphasis on their individual identities than working together when world conflict forces a confrontation between Shadow vs Spirit. We look through the lenses of our ideology before joining hands.
While community is a unique part of this game, I don't particularly enjoy OOC sentiments that influence RP decisions. I've made plenty of friendships from the Shadow side too that makes me continue to play and want to play, but I won't bend my back over and force things if they don't fit.
I like the concept of the tethers. "Poke the reality cancer" vs "Don't poke the reality cancer" is my kind of jam. But I agree the execution has some issues.
Honestly, I don't really get what the tethers are fighting over. Spirit thinks Shadow is dangerous, which is fair enough, but the Shadow tether doesn't really have a reason to fight against Spirit aside from self-defense, and a lot of Shadow orgs don't really care about the Shadow all that much. The Sciomancers make it core to their roleplay, it's part of Syssin roleplay, but I'm not sure I'd consider it that important, Archivists barely use it, and as far as I can tell, Bloodloch places much more emphasis on Undeath than the Shadow.
From what I can tell, Spirit orgs have a much stronger attachment to their tether than the Shadow orgs do, which helps to smooth out the alliance between Duiran and Enorian. Their philosophies are fundamentally antithetical, but they both choose to prioritize the Shadow over their other conflicts.
It doesn't help that the greater Shadow vs Spirit tends to fade in the background, and is often undermined. There needs to be some constant reminder of what the Shadow is to help pull new players into the conflict. I think the only Shadow-related event I ever participated in was the Revenant release, and that was Spinesreach fighting against the Shadow.
Rather than split up Spinesreach and Bloodloch, I think it'd be easier to build up whatever their role within the Shadow tether is meant to be.
Yes, I wrote an essay. Sue me.
The Mechanics
I agree with the bolded. However, my experience is that splitting organizations up has no actual benefit besides making your orgs feel smaller to the players inside of them. In Imperian, we had (RIP Stavenn) two orgs per tether and three tethers, with the orgs inside those tethers occasionally getting into kerfuffles: Ithaqua and Antioch never had true peace/cooperation, for instance, and Kinsarmar/Celidon are/were in a cultural civil war for literal IRL years. What this really does is that it separates the PKers and the Others from one another. One group goes to one org and the other takes the remaining one. The people looking for conflict ask 'which city is big right now?' and pick that one, since larger orgs are less risk averse. I think the same thing would happen here, to the expense of the story and those orgs that would take the hit on membership.I don't think we would get the scenarios you are illustrating with more even fights or whatever. Organizations would be intimidated by the idea of running up against larger ones. By splitting us into four cities, I actually think we would just keep the same unfun issues but change who the big dog is and I'm just not interested in that. I don't think the solution to this is to split orgs and tethers up, but split players up. This deathessence mechanic has made that exceptionally clear to me.
Keroc floated the idea of making Twins as frequent as Lessers currently are, then sliding Lessers back to how frequent Twins currently are on the Discord and I've never been in love with the ylem conflict system more than when I was imagining that possibility. We would need to revisit how joining a Twin works (namely by getting rid of the 2+2 gating), but I think that would do so much for this problem that I agree exists. What I think Aetolia should try to do is lean on combat scenarios that favor small teams, so that the actual size of the tether doesn't matter that much. I think it's not quite correct to say this. Battlefields exist for us to use them as we see fit. I have issued a couple battlefields for 'right now' when it would make narrative sense. I tried more than once to get a 'spontaneous' battlefield running and I got nothing but people refusing to accept it due to some 'broad terms' or they didn't see it in the bashing spam and I didn't send a tell mentioning it. I feel as if we ascribe too much 'officiality' to a Battlefield just because it's an invested priv with the word 'roleplay' on the label. After my attempts and the Selunic melee, the system has seen absolutely no use aside from the Farsai Yvalamon Thing. Why can't it be used to supplement or re-direct world PK into more appropriate venues? I would like proof of this, and the best proof comes from genuinely trying instead of writing the system off before exploring its possibilities. Before dismissing something as a failure, I'd recommend trying to open a dialogue with folks to get what you are looking for or figure out how to start getting it. I talk to plenty of you, but nobody has ever mentioned that they wish they could do something battlefield related - and when I say 'plenty of you', I mean the entire community. The only reason battlefields aren't solving a lot of these woes is because we haven't been inventive enough to conceptualize how we can use them to achieve what we want. If an RP 'ambush' or military engagement between guilds is simply some emotes and a battlefield command away, we can make as many even fights as we'd like.
The Roleplay
These chunks, collectively, do not tell me that tethers need to go. It tells me that your tether needs course correction when it comes to lore that unites them.I could take or leave tethers. However, after everything that tethers 'gave' to me as a player and a character, I'm not super fond of having to give those things up. I as a player would be frustrated to have to make my character give up a lot of very strong working relationships and I would really dislike the strain on their friendships and personal alliances. It would not be fun for me as someone that would be handling the aftermath of that change, which would have implications for the orders of deities and their own org lore. We're looking in the wrong places and we're looking from too far a distance. We can solve the problems that these posts are outlining without dividing organizations. Just to link something here, since I think it points in the same direction: I have no disagreement here. However, I think it only illustrates that things have gone wrong in a completely different sense than you are saying.
Just based on initial reactions all around me, I feel as if this would bother Spirit far more than it would Shadow. From things I've heard from Shadow players that I talk to, Spinesreach and Bloodloch are playing two different games that only occasionally overlap. This is not the case for Spirit's two citizenship organizations and I feel that the aforementioned friendships and culture would inevitably drive those two organizations to strike a treaty no matter what lore you serve up... and then we would be back to Spirit - just this time with Shadow fractured into two chunks. That doesn't sound any more fun or interesting than the current state of things goes.
Spirit absolutely explores differences in org view on the regular: anybody in Enorian who deals with my character can attest to the fact that he is not like anyone in their city and often holds views that are repugnant to the org - especially on the topic of Enorian's 'forgiveness culture', mercy, or trying to convert/deter before resorting to violence. You can have unique characters and creeds united under one loose banner. Here's a snippet I plucked out that I want to talk about specifically: Absolutely - and they are. The closest we ever got in recent memory was during December's war, where my character was spitting insults at the entirety of Enorian's leadership for being cowards by his approximation. Before that, another instance involved my character killing a criminal he apprehended inside Enorian, instead of turning them over for imprisonment, trial, reform, etc. That caused internal issues in the city all the way until he quit and went back home. We're fine with the friction for a little while, as evidenced by the Omei and Damariel drama - I think it's an interesting thing to roleplay at, about, or around, so long as you give it a chance instead of subjecting it to repeated OOC commentary and 'unity rhetoric', which is absolutely a phenomenon inside of Spirit tether. We've built a very strong community that allows for the roleplay differences you are illustrating, but Spirit's lore connections overall give them a sense of 'big picture' that I do not see in Shadow's narrative. The characters of Duiran and Enorian are very different and that comes from their org creeds, which has managed to co-exist just fine despite that fact.
Additional Thoughts
Here's the part I do not have delicate words for, so forgive me:Organizations would have greater narrative freedom if they were broken away from tethers. That's just facts. Whirran is right. Duiran wouldn't be shackled by Enorian's civilized roleplay or notions about fairness and conversion, which would lead to a much more fulfilling interpretation of Dendara and the storytelling surrounding it. Enorian could start rapidly expanding into these natural places they're absolutely surrounded by without these pesky Duirani telling them to respect the land and obey the will of Dendara. They could go on conversion missions to enlighten savages. Spinesreach could... do whatever it is they do now, as it turns out, because that's exactly what's going on. Bloodloch could continue being an evil empire without having to appeal to Northern sentiments every time they want to do something particularly scary or violent that riles up both Spirit orgs.
Spirit players are invested in keeping tethers because they feel they've worked hard to achieve the kind of momentum they now have and they feel that it is founded on teamwork and co-operation - because it is. They're always going to be invested in preserving the status quo because the tether is built on the backs of a strong community - you're asking to break apart a team that has grown to really enjoy one another's company and support. Players are reacting very poorly to not being able to help their buddies out specifically because of this feel of camaraderie.
Shadow players seem to be more invested in changing or deleting the institution in question because of how their organizations have shaken out in terms of diversity of player type. Because everybody piled into Bloodloch and there's nobody there to begin fostering Spinesreach, Bloodloch is saddled with the unfortunate task of growing much bigger if it wants to take on Spirit by itself. This is the only way for them to maintain healthy conflict, because 50% of their orgs do not wish to buy in for any number of reasons we could speculate upon. I will note that, right about now, Shadow does have clear proof that their numbers do not match Spirit's when we are looking at this event's engagement levels.
It is no surprise to me that this is split down tether lines, because of course it is. I don't want to dismiss real conversation as 'tether tribalism', because I do believe that it is unfair to expect Bloodloch to fight 1v2 and a 1:2 ratio. The solution, however, is not to piss off the other 50% of the game. The solution is reviewing all of our conflict mechanisms as a top priority and making sure that neither tether ever runs into the obvious imbalance going on here ever again.
Thank you for reading.
It's simply that from my point of view as the leader of an allied city hoping to work more closely with each other, they seem content with the status quo of "we're doing just fine if we stay neutral and in our lane" aka the Switzerland of Aetolia. There's a strong mentality (from its Syssin-led days) of preferring to lean on political connections to make things happen than PK/physical might. However, I think anyone who isn't Spirean shouldn't have the right to dictate what they should or shouldn't do, though. What we can do, though, is foster a positive environment from both sides of the game that makes people want to put in effort, interact and branch out.
Edit: typo'd might into night.
"Great job, team. We'll get them next time!"
"So-and-so, you did a great job calling."
or
"You came in with that clutch defend, you really turned the tide of that fight!"
I think this is one of the reasons why people tend to stick around on the Spirit tether, and if people have differing experiences, I am truly sorry that this didn't work for you. I always try to be as approachable as possible (despite my char's RP dictating otherwise), because player leaders have more of a responsibility when it comes to setting the tone and atmosphere of their corner of the game. And when it comes to people abandoning an org or a tether, for whatever reason really, I try to find out why and what I could've done better for next time. Because if someone's gaming experience is negative to the point where they want to switch sides out of frustration, there's always something that can be improved upon.
I would love for cities to have their own narrative that sets them apart from others in a more drastic way. Inter-tether conflict can be fun, if done right. I think @Iesid is a fantastic example of someone who constantly pushes the envelope and lives ICly by the words of "We can be allies, but we don't need to be friends". He's incredibly frustrating to deal with ICly, as far as his views go. Sryaen is not a fan of the Seer, but he respects what he brings to the table and recognizes that he makes a better ally than an enemy. So I think that the idea that Duiran and Enorian are all buddy-buddy isn't 100% accurate. It's more like.. 75%/25%, that we, for the most part, accept our roles as mutual allies but there are some fundamental differences between us. I will, however, respond to the mention that Eno should take issue with Duiran's savagery, cruelty of nature belief - I think most of Enorian is rather okay with the fact that nature happens. It's unnecessary bloodshed that they take issue with. If Duiran was hunting down their enemies and flaying the flesh from their bodies while they were still alive, we might have more of an issue with that. In terms of Spinesreach's identity, I wish they would be more vocal about their role in the game. You'd be surprised how many people don't know that Spines is supposed to protect against the Shadow Plane and Ohlsana or w/e. Admittedly, this is a relatively new direction that previously I'd had no knowledge of back when Sryaen was Spirean (I hope?), so I was a bit taken aback when Saidenn shared this snippet with me. So if Enorian and Spinesreach's goals align of not having more Shadow spread uncontrolled , that'd be interesting to explore. But I think it would make people from both sides concerned that they were committing treason, and that is a mentality that I have really tried to squash, especially in my dealings with the Gray Accords (which I LOVED).
PK-wise, I would also LOVE to get away from these massive battles. I would advocate for more Twin Foci, add 2's and 3's arenas for Sect so that people learn to handle stuff in smaller, tight-knit groups rather than just a massive deathball. Foci Battles are a great start to try these mechanics out in, so it would be nice to have Tether Foci or something where the ley energy is locked to a certain tether and they can fight over it or not. XP loss is disabled with ylem aura anyways, so who really cares about dying? Or even give cities a reason to want the ylem to themselves rather than share. Major gateways give the option to open for both cities or just the one, so why not make the incentive better? A city who solo-opens the major for their city will get, I dunno, 4 ylem cores instead of 1. Or a different type of ylem core that is more potent, lasting a RL week instead of just 3 days.
Sorry, it's late and I would love to respond more to this but my brain has been slowly turning to mush during the 2 hours I've been writing and re-writing this post. Will check back in the morning when I'm more coherent.
Tell me how I'm doing!
I don't necessarily agree that doing away with tethers is the answer, but I also vehemently disagree that forcing Spinesreach and Bloodloch closer together is the answer either. Spinesreach is the place for characters who are morally grey and want to RP that, who think Spirit is a bunch of goody-two-shoes but don't want to be a Slayer of Orphans either, and there is a MASSIVE place for that in this game - look at Spines's population and you can see that immediately. There are LOTS of people that enjoy being scholars and spies and artists and other forms of non-combatant, RP-rich characters. Forcing them to march in closer step with Bloodloch would erase a LOT of the freedom and grey-area independence that makes Spines such a great place to play, because Bloodloch (bless 'em) are unequivocably evil and embrace that. That's fantastic RP too! But there are many, many people who enjoy being guards against Shadow encroachment and feeling like a sort of true neutral, and there would be no recourse, nowhere for them to go, if Spines was pushed to be totally fine with Loch and ended up just being Bloodloch 2.0.
Also, Spinesreach has plenty of numbers, but few fighters. I really don't see that changing - this is an RP city almost exclusively with its current makeup of characters, and it thrives for it! Pushing them into Bloodloch's battles doesn't really change anything, because the handful of fighters they could provide are already free to go fight, and usually do.
I don't want to erase the things that make Spinesreach fun and unique. But also, it's not fair to Bloodloch to have to always stand against Duiran and Eno shoulder to shoulder - especially with the fact that Spirit has a single combat system that synergizes wonderfully (that they've worked hard on! not shitting on it or downplaying the work! just pointing out that they can have nearly any noncom download Sunder and teach them a few commands and they have a ready-made semi-proficient fighter). Meanwhile, Shadow can barely call targets straight. That sort of combined RP and system imbalance has been very telling and discouraging of late.
I would love to constructively work out how we can make things fun and fair for everyone without ripping down people's RP and communities.
Edit: I want to add one thing- I play a Spirit char and a Shadow char with about equal investment, and I noticed very strongly that as soon as it became known that I had a Shadow char, the Spirit community started treating me with a measure of paranoia that has been honestly really hurtful. As if that made me sus as a person. Deny it or not, but there /is/ an OOC bias across tethers- especially spirit to shadow- and I truly think that, too, plays a part in the desire to find reasons to stand together as a tether against them IC. Please, don't take this as an attack. I love my Spirit friends to pieces. But I need to speak what I see, and I'm not the only one who has experienced that.