Best Of

@Kalak What you're suggesting is that you are unable to do any of the things you're talking about and that is false. You are allowed to engage in PK outside of Ylem and Sect. The rules for PvP in Aetolia are so wildly loose that known abusers of the system are still playing and acting without fear of punishment. You can attack an org out of the blue and you must live with the choices. You attack, become enemied, retaliate, and unless they retaliate, you move on. Anything you do that goes against them is further aggression on your part and could warrant an issue.

You can't make up the rules to suit your personal situation or desires.

We keep reminding ourselves that this is a game but seem to forget that games have rules. The simple rules for PK are: it has to make sense. It does not make sense for anyone to engage in violence over and over again because they are considered an enemy (earned or otherwise) after already retaliating for the initial enemyship. Simply put, what constitutes a fulfilled debt? The answer is almost always -one- action. If they retaliate, it begins a cycle. If it doesn't you move on. Attempting to force a cycle will be a breach. That's how our rules are set.

This is where harassment comes into the picture. An org that does not want to deal with you, members of that org, will deal with you until they've fulfilled the debt and if the engagement was unpleasant enough, they will not instigate more.

The story ends there. If you want rich PK, you need to make it fun for the 'lazy players' and factor their ability into your encounters. Picking on someone you know can't fight will always result in a bad time. I know from experience as both the subject and aggressor.

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.

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.

A game has to give an avenue for all kinds of playing styles and player roles, and the game modes should not be detached from themselves. If your organization sees me as an enemy and then I am obliged to play the role of an enemy.

If you do not want me to play the role of an enemy, then we parley and resolve the situation. But as one player can be stubborn so can be ten players or a whole organization.

Here the problem is that people can make decisions for whole organizations, they are democratically elected. Does that absolve others from the responsibility? Why the retaliation should be done on the person instead of the organization? If the organization did not want the person as an enemy, someone else can revoke the situation since they have the capability. Otherwise I will have to assume the decision was supported by the organization-wide.

Is it too hard to hire a damn guard after making enemies? Instead of issuing? After giving ultimatums and whatnot to the enemy character.

If your character's RP is protector of weak and downtrodden, does it not make sense at least you should be able to protect them actually?

Sounds like some players are just lazy. Or irresponsible with their trigger finger on enemy command.

se·man·tics

səˈman(t)iks

noun

noun: semantics; noun: logical semantics; noun: lexical semantics
the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.

the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text.

plural noun: semantics
"such quibbling over semantics may seem petty stuff"


Overall, the game does not shape itself to fit the mold of a specific player, despite the arguments or soapboxes presented for friends or otherwise to discuss the various semantics behind rulings. We often have to consider the best course of actions for an overall playerbase. The engaged playerbase, the organized playerbase. Those who participate amidst the rich lore provided and encourage comraderie and encompassing and inclusive roleplay over the various outlets which exist.

The end of the day what you do with your character is ultimately a choice, a choice you make with the cognition of what may happen if you are a goody goody, harmless roleplayer, or someone who wants to bend the whims of the world as a tyrant. In the same caveat, there are results and perceptions by a larger percentage on both ends of the spectrum. The administration in my eyes is not designed to play to a specific caste of player, let alone make rulings that have dire consequences or potentials which would inherently harm the ...business.

So to argue the semantics as is being presented...is certainly not conducive to providing a result that is from what is being observed as self-serving and not really a communal effort or process from what the playerbase desires as a whole, let alone our administration.

Neither side is any better than the other side in either following or not following the rules consistently. Neither side is better than the other in any regard to this war. We've all been jerks in different capacities and situations - that is the way of the game, unfortunately. One side acts, the other side retaliates, one side acts harder, the other side goes harder, and it keeps going back and forth until both are just livid at each other. If we started a list, we'd see that, but all it would do is start arguments that serve no purpose but to re-frustrate tensions that are already strained.

In the end, I will still remain on my point that the suggestions will not help. Maybe the no-pk flag thing -if- people still get troops and can assign them to someone else, but I don't think enough to see any significant difference in participation/frustration.

Edit: I do think what Fezzix says would work. Friendly village safe, enemy village you get aura. That I could get behind.

None of the solutions above will help the situation. As others have already said, it'll just make it worse for those who are just trying to help be involved.

1. Very few are participating solely for RP reasons, and are trying to help out for their primary org's sake. No one in our two orgs will -not- want to be able to get troops for their efforts.

2. Most deal with what aura they do get right now, very few slipping around it. It's often hard to find someone who can bring you in, and you all have been countering those sneaking in options fine. I'm probably the only one right now with a steady, non-avoidable way to get in without getting aura that you can't stop. Wormholes can be canceled, rooms can be mono'd for songline/portal/del/etc, cube so people can't re-lightform/phase. It uses supplies, sure, but that's part of a 'war', even a proxy one. Using up our commodities.

3. The only real benefit of having aura in villages is that we could attack those that camp a board without having to worry about them not having aura from sitting there too long.

What we have now is not great, but it works for a proxy war. I'd rather not tip the scale and frustrate either side more than they already are.