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
Don't act like you guys wouldn't do that too. You guys did that stuff to Slyphe's order for just about the same level of inconsequential nonsense.
Tell me how I'm doing!
So why was Sryaen involved when he's not in the Congregation or Order of Omei? I just checked.
Okay, fair enough.
You should not be allowed to set yourself up in an advantageous way for a conflict that has STRICT lines of beginning and ending. You do not have the right to feel affronted when the opposing team in this event tries to nullify the already sleazy advantage you are trying to take. YOU SHOULDN’T GET TO CLAIM CAUSE OVER SOMETHING YOU STARTED.
Additionally, that's -fine-. I already literally said if the problem was Scidve, then that's more than fine. I argued earlier that these rules basically make it to where any aegis, regardless of intent or whether it is hostile at all, is now subject to being attacked by a group because of how broad Rule #2 is and how easy it is to justify under it and the only response is: "Well, if you don't go fight that entire group then and there, you just have to deal with it when they all go back to their city once the deed is done."
Is the main purpose of dropping a shrine at the middle of observatory gaining advantage during a conflict event that doesn't revolve around Gods? Clearly. Is it wrong to want that advantage? No. Is it wrong to want to nullify that advantage? Also no. So if a tether wanted to destroy it and the opposite side wanted to defend it that's fine. But after that attempt, enemying those people to the order, claiming causes for defilement? I guess you could do those, because it makes sense in a RP world. But you'd look poor sports, because everyone knows the act is about getting rid of the permanent fortification in a conflict zone and that's not about defying the God. If anything, the people who put their Divines shrines there got Them involved in it.
Also, @Rasani, broadly, across the game? No, it's not an aggressive action. But if you're placing it in Orrery, it absolutely is an aggressive action. It's levying a mechanical advantage over a contest spot. That's inherently aggressive.
"A shrine has two purposes:
- To accept offerings
- To be used aggressively against hostiles.
Shrines in Orrery aren't there for the first purpose, they are 100% there for the second purpose."edit: I also think this illustrates why prophylactics such as closing Orrery off to such advantages to begin with or in some way making them impossible is a much better solution than trying to make stangely draconian PK rules to address it--one is more broad and addresses the actual problem (levying unfair advantages and weird PK drama stemming from controlled PVP scenarios) while the other just unfairly punishes one narrow case. Closing Orrery off and/or having it pop those entrenched bonuses when it opens will stop all iterances of this sort of problem, wheras these Aegis PK rules are just...well, probably going to cause more problems.
They are all similar concepts really.
Also I don't think there are ways for us to remove rites, are there?
* Comparing aegises to traps, rites, etc.
I think there are a couple of big differences that set aegises apart. Traps only hit once. Rites only last a set amount of time. Aegises can, essentially, last forever. The only way to remove them is for some people to spend a extremely long time dampening it, during which they basically can't do anything. A single command by an enemy would be able to stop the attempt completely. They are also just a lot more powerful in general.
I think the fairer comparison for the other things mentioned is actually glyphs. Aegises are intentionally a lot more powerful because they are a necessary defence mechanism for cities. I honestly think we should just remove them from in other parts of the game tbh.
* Conflict
So I've seen this argument many times. "More PK rules means less conflict." No, it doesn't. It means less finding flimsy excuses for PKing people who have no interest in playing your game, yes, but if that's what you're actually concerned about then just say it and we can argue the merits of that. However, there is not and will never be anything stopping you and your other conflict/PK hungry friends from agreeing to just PKing each other within whatever rules you set for yourselves.
@Tetchta @Elene about open world PK, yeah. You are right. We could get all that clarified and that'd be nice, or alternatively we could just try to be a bit more empathetic to the others while playing the same game and do less of things that make less sense. As to this rule change's specifity? Aegis issues (literal ISSUES) have been around for over 4-5 (? not sure) months now, and there still seems to be one coming after another I don't think the administration is in the wrong for making a specific rule about it. That's probably a lot of paid staff time and attention that could be spent on improving the game instead. I'm not really logging in to play for a few months now due to RL stuff, but I see that some mirrors are getting released and folks are very excited. That's just grand. Let's have more of this and less of that please.
But anyway, it's clear that the admins have some bottom lines, whether they say them out loud or not. They only make these things clear because people keep pushing the boundaries until the only option is to make it clear what those bottom lines are. Honestly, I don't see how most of this isn't just common sense. We'd actually get a lot less of these rulings if we just stopped pretending we are always in the right just because it doesn't explicitly state that they're wrong.