Looking for more active discussion? Join our Discord at https://discord.gg/x2s7fY6
Best Of
Re: Announce post #2869: Classleads July 2018 - part 4 (warhounds)
I've been curious about the motivation to these changes. It's way too early to say this isn't viable or won't work. But in looking at the bulk of this rework to the class in general definitely translates to relearn the puzzle of the class, figure out the mechanics and rework offenses. In taking into consideration killstats and seeing that Carnifex class has been leading, I begin to ask if this is a response to a larger issue of a population of players working out the mechanics and rather than a rework for mechanical balance it's a rework of balancing what the players have figured out in using the mechanics. It appears to me this is more a response to giving players who have been using the Carnifex class something new to puzzle out and be less of a force for a bit.i can't speak for keroc, but uh... carnifex class was silly strong. stronger than a lot of people realized (or would believe), as even the best carnifex users haven't fully optimized their offenses. i don't think this rework will hurt carnifex at all, though - in fact, as i was reading the changes this morning, i kept saying how good some of these things look.
@Keroc, would you be willing to shed more light on the motivation?
as far as motivation, i don't know that i'd read into it so much? killstats isn't necessarily a good metric of which class is strong - it's just as easily a reflection of what classes have the most play and/or raw damage output, and i think keroc's aware of that. i'd also keep in mind that there were a lot of reports on carnifex during this last round of classleads, and some were requesting changes to significant class mechanics (e.g. soul). rather than being some underhanded nerf targeted at players, it seems like it's the usual (if rather extensive) balancing that happens from time to time.
Vyxsis
1
Re: Can I murder all of you?
I'd love it if this thread didn't close. There's still a lot to be said and I think it would be beneficial if we just pushed through to the information.
My opinion on the conflict system issues in the game: The admin want one thing, (1v1v1v1 city battles), the players want another, (2v2). The issue is there is a polarizing divide between the factions, that of shadow and light, and any conflict that sees infighting will mean one of the two sides win. Players realize this right away and tend to unite out of necessity rather than desire (see:Ophidians). I still believe that removing Ashtan is the catalyst and that adding a new city along with a newly revamped class or some other major change to the game would bring in more players or allow more players to gravitate towards something less severe in ideology and focus on the grander conflicts.
Back to the concept of 'Killing whomever you want whenever'...
@Kalak Before you respond, just consider that your opinion is not a fact. You may believe it strongly and feel you have evidence to support it, but it is just an opinion and one that isn't shared by the majority of the community. At least, the community that responded to this post.
I've tried to convey this to you in another thread but I will try again here. The part you quoted me on was filled with examples to convey my point. They weren't meant to be taken as absolutes. Trying to argue around my examples is arguing in bad faith or I failed to convey the point.
If I understand your point, you're trying to argue that certain character archetypes are impossible because it is assumed that any form of playerkilling will result in outside game interference in the form of an issue and will stop the roleplay entirely. I will reassure you that this is simply not true. If you apply these archetypes to Aetolia and avoid trying to bring another version of them from another game world here you will have no issue with the Admin or the playerbase.
I will assume there will be an objection to this so let me try to explain first.
The world of Aetolia is not the world of Middle-Earth or Krynn or Skyrim. It is unique to itself, with its own history, practices, and definitions of these archetypes. As an example, let me try to illustrate a death cult: You form your death cult and go on a killing rampage (slaughtering denizens and villages) and when players come to stop you, you kill them too. Then you kill them for trying to stop you and repeat until you can't sustain this anymore and build your strength for the next push. Your cult would have to understand that the mirror exists, that death is temporary, and the idea that 'when I kill someone, they come back' is a thing. You would need some substance to really keep things goes because why are you bothering? People come back. The archetype doesn't exactly work in Aetolia because the rules are different.
Shallow roleplay will always be met with negativity and will leave you with nothing to defend yourself when your reasons are lacking when weighed against your actions.
If you like the idea of a cult, you will need to understand the purpose of a cult and weave an ideology that fits within Aetolia in order to sustain it. Let's say that your cult members are known to become enraged when they see shameless public displays of affection and are known to lash out. Let's say that is because they were formed around hate and any act of the opposite is an insult to their goals. Let's say that their goals are to spread misery and disdain wherever they are and as much as they can. Now, let us also remind ourselves that cults have to function in the real world too. So as a cult leader, you would make it so your followers know how to hide, how to blend in, and how to not become cut off from the supplies and support they'll need to accomplish their goals.
It's a complex and difficult roleplay, but it's definitely possible if you begin with the world you're in and model everything around it. Limiting aspects included.
Attempting to label archetypes and explain why they're not possible will not work in Aetolia. Archetypes are just guides for character roles, meant to instantly convey some understanding without detailed explanation. Aetolia has a lot of these they've created within the world, which I would argue is the real purpose of guilds. These are not actual rules for a playstyle. Trying to define your own is also possible, but you must work within the scope of what you're given.
The Ascendril guild -DID NOT EXIST- years and years ago. The Magi were forced to settle down after neutrality was removed from the game. A small faction sought to be good and was kicked out of the guild and spend real life years roleplaying as some underdog sect of light mages until the admin decided to give them a guild. (That's an extremely short and lacking detail story). The same thing happened with the DARU who tried to overrule the ideology of the Sentaari and were given the Daru guild and a new type of class.
My opinion on the conflict system issues in the game: The admin want one thing, (1v1v1v1 city battles), the players want another, (2v2). The issue is there is a polarizing divide between the factions, that of shadow and light, and any conflict that sees infighting will mean one of the two sides win. Players realize this right away and tend to unite out of necessity rather than desire (see:Ophidians). I still believe that removing Ashtan is the catalyst and that adding a new city along with a newly revamped class or some other major change to the game would bring in more players or allow more players to gravitate towards something less severe in ideology and focus on the grander conflicts.
Back to the concept of 'Killing whomever you want whenever'...
@Kalak Before you respond, just consider that your opinion is not a fact. You may believe it strongly and feel you have evidence to support it, but it is just an opinion and one that isn't shared by the majority of the community. At least, the community that responded to this post.
I've tried to convey this to you in another thread but I will try again here. The part you quoted me on was filled with examples to convey my point. They weren't meant to be taken as absolutes. Trying to argue around my examples is arguing in bad faith or I failed to convey the point.
If I understand your point, you're trying to argue that certain character archetypes are impossible because it is assumed that any form of playerkilling will result in outside game interference in the form of an issue and will stop the roleplay entirely. I will reassure you that this is simply not true. If you apply these archetypes to Aetolia and avoid trying to bring another version of them from another game world here you will have no issue with the Admin or the playerbase.
I will assume there will be an objection to this so let me try to explain first.
The world of Aetolia is not the world of Middle-Earth or Krynn or Skyrim. It is unique to itself, with its own history, practices, and definitions of these archetypes. As an example, let me try to illustrate a death cult: You form your death cult and go on a killing rampage (slaughtering denizens and villages) and when players come to stop you, you kill them too. Then you kill them for trying to stop you and repeat until you can't sustain this anymore and build your strength for the next push. Your cult would have to understand that the mirror exists, that death is temporary, and the idea that 'when I kill someone, they come back' is a thing. You would need some substance to really keep things goes because why are you bothering? People come back. The archetype doesn't exactly work in Aetolia because the rules are different.
Shallow roleplay will always be met with negativity and will leave you with nothing to defend yourself when your reasons are lacking when weighed against your actions.
If you like the idea of a cult, you will need to understand the purpose of a cult and weave an ideology that fits within Aetolia in order to sustain it. Let's say that your cult members are known to become enraged when they see shameless public displays of affection and are known to lash out. Let's say that is because they were formed around hate and any act of the opposite is an insult to their goals. Let's say that their goals are to spread misery and disdain wherever they are and as much as they can. Now, let us also remind ourselves that cults have to function in the real world too. So as a cult leader, you would make it so your followers know how to hide, how to blend in, and how to not become cut off from the supplies and support they'll need to accomplish their goals.
It's a complex and difficult roleplay, but it's definitely possible if you begin with the world you're in and model everything around it. Limiting aspects included.
Attempting to label archetypes and explain why they're not possible will not work in Aetolia. Archetypes are just guides for character roles, meant to instantly convey some understanding without detailed explanation. Aetolia has a lot of these they've created within the world, which I would argue is the real purpose of guilds. These are not actual rules for a playstyle. Trying to define your own is also possible, but you must work within the scope of what you're given.
The Ascendril guild -DID NOT EXIST- years and years ago. The Magi were forced to settle down after neutrality was removed from the game. A small faction sought to be good and was kicked out of the guild and spend real life years roleplaying as some underdog sect of light mages until the admin decided to give them a guild. (That's an extremely short and lacking detail story). The same thing happened with the DARU who tried to overrule the ideology of the Sentaari and were given the Daru guild and a new type of class.
Leana
3
Re: Can I murder all of you?
Firstly in most games like Aetolia there is a lore explanation about why people return back from dead. In the end it is...a game where people prefer to play a character continually. There are of course several other MUDs with permadeath features. Here final death is more like a choice in form of retirement RP.
The world of Aetolia is not the world of Middle-Earth or Krynn or Skyrim. It is unique to itself, with its own history, practices, and definitions of these archetypes. As an example, let me try to illustrate a death cult: You form your death cult and go on a killing rampage (slaughtering denizens and villages) and when players come to stop you, you kill them too. Then you kill them for trying to stop you and repeat until you can't sustain this anymore and build your strength for the next push. Your cult would have to understand that the mirror exists, that death is temporary, and the idea that 'when I kill someone, they come back' is a thing. You would need some substance to really keep things goes because why are you bothering? People come back. The archetype doesn't exactly work in Aetolia because the rules are different.
If people come back, why is the outrage for being sent to the mirror? Unless it is done excessively like 2-3 times repetitively, it should be of not much importance due to that logic. Basically losing a meager amount of XP once or twice a RL week will not make you as angry as getting your Titan blown up or your corporate assets being stolen in Eve Online. Furthermore that would encourage group activity outside as a form of protection and give real incentives to hire certain roles. I mean why all the non-com damsels of Enorian walk into the deepest recesses of evil places with no knight to protect them? That to me, appears as a weak form of gameplay...because they know no vampire will suck them dry, no enemy will ambush them and no bandit can cut their path. They are protected by the grace of rules and Admin.
There could be definitely a timer for people to be PKed in intervals so people can dish out PK measures along their RP measures without thinking about "Oh will I get issued for this?", "Oh, is it okay to do this?", "Oh will my immersion be broken by Admin?". Perhaps before we as a community should stop being salty about getting PKed and actually play our roles to fullest. Treat cities, hideouts etc. as relatively safe zones while treating everywhere else a potentially dangerous place.
Personally it would be a better course of action if admin allowed everything to be dealt ICly, whether it is PK or RP. You need protection? IC measure is to hire a bodyguard and pay him. You want to avoid any potential ambush? Be aware of your surroundings and do not AFK in the middle of nowhere. Your city lacks PvP players? Then be diplomatical and do not try to draw enemies. Or hire protectors with some of the wealth you are sitting on.
After all I never suggest repeated killing of people in short burst of time, I do not advocate killing of newbies either, rather I prefer if people actually played their roles and explored all IC options before resorting to Admin interference. That is simple as that.
Kalak
0
Re: Can I murder all of you?
Hey it makes so much sense as long as your friendly neighbourhood vampire does not chomp your neck, it is alright to do everything. I mean how can they be evil. That is the summary of good RP very widely accepted in your circles I suppose? But some explanations;
Of course, one can realize the game is meant to be a binary fight of Good vs Evil, or more specifically in our case Spirit vs Shadow. It is POSSIBLE to play third party, but not recommended and certainly not admin-supported. Stop making the game something it's not?
Enorian's shtick, more or less. They hunt more than vampires. Of course, 'hunt' in this case isn't as rabid and fanatical as you so clearly wish to see, which is just griefing the unicorns out of newbies and low-level (skill or exp) fighters.
Name me one class that doesn't have access to some form of magic. Go on. I'll wait.
...
...
...
...
Oh, sorry, waited so long I dozed off. Where was I? Right.
In short, you've been with us for 16 months now. Clearly, long enough to learn how the game works, what the status quo is, what is and isn't allowed by both social convention and hard code. So why do you keep attacking those who have IGNOREd you, those who haven't even touched the game in months, those who are trying to help you through RP avenues, and those who just want absolutely unicorn-all to do with you?
1. Umm, you realize the game looks binary because;
- Balance concerns for classes.
- Having no faith in playerbase to prevent a city from getting overwhelmed. Hence diplomacy is very limited among cities. 3 v 1, 1 v 2 v 1 kind of scenarios seemingly have no room right now.
- Lack of direct conflict reasons between Tether cities (BL vs SP or EN vs DU) which pushes cities behind their element always.
2. Witch-Hunter does not necessarily mean Magic-Hunter. But yeah as usual you are prone to read what you envisioned in your mind, rather then the text.
3. No one said griefing newbies or lowbies. But there is a sick "issue-people culture" in this game. If you cannot RP and PK, then issue...that is right.
4. Clearly times change and the new players join to the game. It is within their right to ask for more options provided rather then conservatively accepting things as they are. This holier-than-thou attitude of old players push the new players away from them and their organizations to begin with. Because something is not Admin supported, does not mean they cannot have room. I mean do we have to RP our characters shitting into a hole with the Admin support even? Looks like you would be advocate of such things.
Kalak
-1
Re: Can I murder all of you?
Why a vampire hunter should be a flat, one-dimensional character? It may appear as such against the vampire but the player might be having way too much dimensions from another perspective. Isn't it the very core of a matter? Perspectives.
Roleplaying a serial killer or vampire hunter might seem fun, but this game doesn't end and you can't keep up certain roleplays before you enter abuse and absurd territories. Try to avoid flat, one-dimensional characters and you won't have a problem with player-killing.
Currently the draconian PK rules and imbalanced tilt towards organizational and identity-based irresponsibility dismisses several roles:
- Bandit, rebel, brigand: You cannot play because PK rules will not allow you to be a menace to an organization along your RP stance.
- Mercenary guard, protector of weak: You cannot play because PK rules will stifle player-based dangers. Hence there will be no reason to hire a guard/mercenary character.
- Clans of Variety: Because apparently you cannot declare something and then retaliate on behalf of that. So the promise of death cults, noble houses and such is a lie. Hence cannot retaliate against other clans or organizations.
- Vampire Hunter: This is a game with vampires without vampire hunters. So go figure. You can be a RP vampire hunter, but you are strictly discouraged from actually hunting vampires.
- Witch-Hunter: You cannot play a witch-hunter and try to eradicate dubious practices because the moment you kill an actual evil practitioner...you might get an issue to deal with and that might be taken as a random killing.
Along the roles being unable to have a breathing room, one of the major problems with this game is that while small pockets of people (circles) can do all kinds of bureaucratical hell treatment, people antagonizing them cannot retaliate and are bound by myriad of rules.
It should be perfectly viable for a vampire to lock some maiden with his gaze and drain all the blood. PK or RP, that should not matter. It would naturally pave the way for Witch-Hunters/Mercenary Guards and etc. That is how you create a dark world where people work together to deal with imminent threats. When people take responsibility as groups and treat both RP and PK equally, things improve.
Currently Aetolia is bedecked with safety nets over safety nets and it leads to one-dimensional organizations and characters already. Their lore sheet is different yes, but they are all governed with same old ways and they can only posture their roles but cannot act upon them. Might as well allow vampires to sparkle under sun at this rate.
Kalak
-2
Re: Taking Responsibility For Actions
Because that's not how the game works. While leaders are elected democratically, the decisions they make usually aren't - for better or worse. It is often seen in poor taste to make an entire organization suffer for the actions of an individual, but circumstances do matter. You may still play the role of an enemy - harass through RP, make threats (empty or otherwise), vandalize buildings and spaces sacred to the organization, etc. You have options available to you, but as this is a game, you usually can't PK an entire organization for the actions of an individual. Find another way to play the role of antagonist.Do not be misled by my passionate words and assume that I am not aware that this is a game. I have just a distaste towards heavy admin intervention in what should be dealt ICly, PK or RP or whatever.
And remember, it's a game.
Edit: I think it's probably a good time to point out that organizations such as cities are also, from an RP perspective, more powerful than an individual. For good reason. Unless you can prove otherwise. Take that into account with your RP.
I do not advocate PKing entire organizations, and I generally prefer selective killing rather then senseless killing as part of RP and PK cycle of a conflict. It does not make sense to PK Minister of Cultural Affairs, but I shall definitely go ahead and kill (or try to kill) a Warden or Lord Protector to make a point. Or the head of knights or state. They are people in the decision-making process and will color the judgement of their citizens.
The basis of democracy means that you are giving your decision making responsibility to someone for the foreseeable future. Why it should be my responsibility to suffer for your org members' poor choice? It should be both mine and your org members responsibility to suffer for that.
Also I am aware of the many options, but just once in a while I want to employ PK...you know use the abilities and stuff I got by investing into this game? I do not like Sect or Ylem, so this is my avenue and as someone who intends to invest in this RP-K avenue I would like people to take responsibility in their decisions which affect their orgs.
And from a RP perspective a city is more powerful then an individual. In no side of my RP-PK cycle I denied that, but I also prove that cities are weak against guerilla warfare and extremely lazy to take necessary precautions both RP-wise and PK-wise.
Kalak
0
Re: Taking Responsibility For Actions
So. I was going to be nice, but really, let's stop beating around the bush. This thread is about you (surprise surprise) and the fact that SEVERAL orgs on BOTH sides of the game have enemied you and either outright refuse to interact with you, or have offered you outs, but you've refused to take them. Honestly, what are you expecting? You kick up a fuss, cause tons of drama, threaten orgs on a fairly regular basis, and then you hide in your wings room where no one can reach you and only dip out to harass people when they're afk or doing something else. Pretty sure those enemy statuses have been earned. And you complain about not taking responsibility or a lack of consequences? And you wonder why people won't entertain you?I am not sure you are very perceptive about where I am enemied and what kind of effort I put forward to getting unenemied. But I can say, enemying is far easy and that is not always warranted for.
And going to wings room is no different then someone retreating to city, house, haven etc. But let us not derail the thread, shall we?
I do not have any issue with people entertaining me or not. I have an issue with people using issue as first recourse instead of dealing with things ICly.
Do not play a lethal role or do anything lethal or cause anything which might put another at a disadvantage if you do not wish to get a disadvantage. That should be valid for whole orgs.
Otherwise we should change the name of enemy status to something else, because clearly we have different understanding of what an enemy is.
Kalak
0
Re: Taking Responsibility For Actions
Sorry but you are advocating that a circle of people has every right to keep people out of their avenues because they have been there first and they have the vote.
That is the most obnoxious thing I have heard today.
And it is an irresponsible approach. If orgs do not want to deal with their choices, they should not make choices. If they are not obligated to cater to individual, so the individual does not have an obligation to cater to them. Period.
That is the most obnoxious thing I have heard today.
And it is an irresponsible approach. If orgs do not want to deal with their choices, they should not make choices. If they are not obligated to cater to individual, so the individual does not have an obligation to cater to them. Period.
Kalak
0
Re: Taking Responsibility For Actions
I've said it before in another topic, and I'll say it again here because it totally applies and is relevant to the topic here: a lot of this game, both on an IC and OOC level, is about managing reputation. If you get enemied to an org, you can always ask to get unenemied, but if they choose not to lift it, that's entirely up to their discretion, and are fully within their rights to refuse.
When someone like you, @Kalak, does what you tend to do or tend to advocate for, you end up with rubbing people the wrong way, or become enough of a nuisance that people will not want to bother with you. Manage your play poorly and you'll likely find yourself with a lot of enemy statuses to a lot of places, and even fewer people willing to deal with you in getting it lifted.
Enemy statuses are quick and easy ways of dealing with people who've done something against an org or have proven themselves to be a threat or enough of an irritant that they'd just otherwise refuse to deal with them. You complain about enemy status being such an inconvenient imposition? It goes both ways. Entreating every problem person with RP interactions for resolution or whatever can be an inconvenient imposition or more of a headache than it's worth, and more often than not, it's pointless and a waste of time. When it comes to an individual vs an org, don't expect the org to cater to you. They have no obligation to.
You want those statuses removed? Expect to swallow your pride in some manner in order to get it done; you dug the hole you're in, so expect to dig yourself out. And if people refuse to deal with you whatsoever, well, tough shit; you might have to evaluate how you've been playing if you've pissed people off enough that they won't bother with you at all.
Edit: Also, I find the title of your topic to be rather ironic. You talk about 'taking responsibility for one's actions'. You place the blame on orgs and the people leading them, but neglect responsibility on the part of the person being enemied. Yeah. Petty enemy statuses for nothing at all or petty things suck, and they happen, but if you ask nicely and are, y'know, actually reasonable, people will be happy to remove them. In a lot of cases, an enemy status is given because you did something, so you as the player have to take responsibility for that. Don't want to take responsibility or don't want to go to the effort of getting it removed? Congratulations, enjoy being stuck with it.
When someone like you, @Kalak, does what you tend to do or tend to advocate for, you end up with rubbing people the wrong way, or become enough of a nuisance that people will not want to bother with you. Manage your play poorly and you'll likely find yourself with a lot of enemy statuses to a lot of places, and even fewer people willing to deal with you in getting it lifted.
Enemy statuses are quick and easy ways of dealing with people who've done something against an org or have proven themselves to be a threat or enough of an irritant that they'd just otherwise refuse to deal with them. You complain about enemy status being such an inconvenient imposition? It goes both ways. Entreating every problem person with RP interactions for resolution or whatever can be an inconvenient imposition or more of a headache than it's worth, and more often than not, it's pointless and a waste of time. When it comes to an individual vs an org, don't expect the org to cater to you. They have no obligation to.
You want those statuses removed? Expect to swallow your pride in some manner in order to get it done; you dug the hole you're in, so expect to dig yourself out. And if people refuse to deal with you whatsoever, well, tough shit; you might have to evaluate how you've been playing if you've pissed people off enough that they won't bother with you at all.
Edit: Also, I find the title of your topic to be rather ironic. You talk about 'taking responsibility for one's actions'. You place the blame on orgs and the people leading them, but neglect responsibility on the part of the person being enemied. Yeah. Petty enemy statuses for nothing at all or petty things suck, and they happen, but if you ask nicely and are, y'know, actually reasonable, people will be happy to remove them. In a lot of cases, an enemy status is given because you did something, so you as the player have to take responsibility for that. Don't want to take responsibility or don't want to go to the effort of getting it removed? Congratulations, enjoy being stuck with it.
Phoenecia
10
Re: Taking Responsibility For Actions
@Leana Sorry but enemying people and having a "Deal with it" attitude is very common in Aetolia. If orgs do not wish to deal, they can come to table and parley. Not demand something, threaten, act and then expect to walk around unscathed.
Enemying for flimsy or weak reasons is as good as PKing people for coughing your way. Why should I deal with the enemy status forced on myself while they do not even take responsibility of the status they declare? As I said, people can declare you enemy for less right now. RPing a reconciliation takes way more effort and time then PKing. Why should I have to deal with that long tiring process because I rubbed the someone wrong way? Knowing they can go ahead and re-enemy with their twitchy trigger finger at their whim?
People should take IC measures against PK-threats rather then jumping to the issues at the sooner opportunity.
Anyways, I shall concede for now, because I guess I have said everything I wanted to say.
Enemying for flimsy or weak reasons is as good as PKing people for coughing your way. Why should I deal with the enemy status forced on myself while they do not even take responsibility of the status they declare? As I said, people can declare you enemy for less right now. RPing a reconciliation takes way more effort and time then PKing. Why should I have to deal with that long tiring process because I rubbed the someone wrong way? Knowing they can go ahead and re-enemy with their twitchy trigger finger at their whim?
People should take IC measures against PK-threats rather then jumping to the issues at the sooner opportunity.
Anyways, I shall concede for now, because I guess I have said everything I wanted to say.
Kalak
0