Why are you name dropping me in support of your position?
I have gone through periods of "stalking" areas to try to prevent quests from being done. It is not a fun or enjoyable use of time. Telling people that they must patrol an area for hours a day in case someone pops in for 30 minutes at some point is a disproportionate allocation of time.
Quest rankings may be too easy, sure, but you are trying to flip it around into being too hard once more and I cannot see that stretching players even thinner in a game is going to produce a good outcome. "Go sit in an area" is time that you are not RPing with people who walk by you at the nexus, hunting with them, etc.
If you want to impose punishments and consequences on actions, then you should also have to put in the leg work of actually catching the act that merits the aforementioned punishments and consequences. ie sit there and keep watch, if you want to catch someone in the act; otherwise, you're not entitled punishing anyone doing the quest.
Not entitled to? If I decided to make up a story about Magnagorans killing fae, as a completely random example, why does there need to be any evidence for someone to be "entitled" to punish them, IC, if they happen to believe my story?
Because a vast majority of us are not Glom irl.
Not saying it's a role I'd play, or would recommend to others, only that the claim that one isn't entitled to behave badly/foolishly in a roleplaying game doesn't quite make sense.
Also, I regret that I have but one agree to give to that, @Xenthos. There's nothing magical or interesting about stalking an area, and it's worse than punishing people for doing quests because you are actively preventing them from doing quests.
"Chairwoman," Princess Setisoki states, holding up a hand in a gesture for her to stop and returning the cup. "That would be quite inappropriate. One of the males will serve me."
Besides, if you're going to name drop someone who actively stalks quests, that would be Tridemon. Not a bad thing, it is how he wants to spend his time. But I honestly think this whole topic could be its own thread at this point.
I'm not namedropping people who stalk quests; I'm listing names of people who have done particularly controversial quests, in order to point out that this was already possible pre-quest rankings. Your agreement or support isn't necessary, @Xenthos. I'm not looking for your validation, I'm pointing out that it was factually possible to police quests before Big Brother Quest Rankings became a thing.
You want to keep your easy spy drone and slap down people who do quests. That's over the top, but then again, I'm not surprised that your kind of people are pushing back against changing something that heavily benefits you.
Goodness. For the record, I can't remember punishing anyone, in Glomdoring or Hallifax, for doing a quest. Given my admitted preference for controversial quests, it is far more likely that I am arguing in favor of making it easier for other people to catch me at it.
But... sure. Spin that however you like.
"Chairwoman," Princess Setisoki states, holding up a hand in a gesture for her to stop and returning the cup. "That would be quite inappropriate. One of the males will serve me."
haha, even easier than QUEST RANKINGS? Might as well make it so that denizens shout out whenever someone starts doing quests, then.
You're conveniently ignoring every suggestion on this thread that doesn't result in steering the argument in the direction you want(where nothing actually gets discussed). The arguments that I agreed with would make for far more effort in finding questers than using QUEST RANKINGS or any other means currently available.
But you didn't want that change, preferring instead for camping areas- which no one wanted or wants to do. So, with the population shift, no one would do this. Following all the suggestions that you presumably agree with: Getting rid of QUEST RANKINGS, forcing people to camp areas - no one would ever be caught doing quests. Following the suggestions I agreed with, people would be caught, if some effort was made that didn't involve pointless waiting or use of a single command.
And yet, you ALSO implied that the only reason I agreed with Xenthos is that I want to punish people for doing quests. (Or that I hate change?) Despite having shown no interest in doing so, and despite wanting to make it harder(and more interesting) than it is currently.
But I'm not really expecting consistency from you at this point, just trying to summarize for everyone else.
"Chairwoman," Princess Setisoki states, holding up a hand in a gesture for her to stop and returning the cup. "That would be quite inappropriate. One of the males will serve me."
Besides, if you're going to name drop someone who actively stalks quests, that would be Tridemon. Not a bad thing, it is how he wants to spend his time. But I honestly think this whole topic could be its own thread at this point.
Hey, remember when this idiot I'm quoting said it could be its own thread? I highly recommend anybody that wishes to discuss it make a thread and then have polite conversation that isn't just bitterness. Disagreement is fine and to be expected, just play nice.
Besides, if you're going to name drop someone who actively stalks quests, that would be Tridemon. Not a bad thing, it is how he wants to spend his time. But I honestly think this whole topic could be its own thread at this point.
Hey, remember when this idiot I'm quoting said it could be its own thread? I highly recommend anybody that wishes to discuss it make a thread and then have polite conversation that isn't just bitterness. Disagreement is fine and to be expected, just play nice.
Didn't you retire?
Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
haha, even easier than QUEST RANKINGS? Might as well make it so that denizens shout out whenever someone starts doing quests, then.
You're conveniently ignoring every suggestion on this thread that doesn't result in steering the argument in the direction you want(where nothing actually gets discussed). The arguments that I agreed with would make for far more effort in finding questers than using QUEST RANKINGS or any other means currently available.
But you didn't want that change, preferring instead for camping areas- which no one wanted or wants to do. So, with the population shift, no one would do this. Following all the suggestions that you presumably agree with: Getting rid of QUEST RANKINGS, forcing people to camp areas - no one would ever be caught doing quests. Following the suggestions I agreed with, people would be caught, if some effort was made that didn't involve pointless waiting or use of a single command.
And yet, you ALSO implied that the only reason I agreed with Xenthos is that I want to punish people for doing quests. (Or that I hate change?) Despite having shown no interest in doing so, and despite wanting to make it harder(and more interesting) than it is currently.
But I'm not really expecting consistency from you at this point, just trying to summarize for everyone else.
Why else would you want to discover who did what quest, if not to formulate some sort of consequence for that person?
Granted, in other IREs, people are rewarded by their cities for completing certain quests. But that's not Lusternia's style: outside of the Epic Quest lines (and related quests), cities either don't care about quests, or outright punish/prohibit them. Eaf. Mirror Army. Slag'hora (sp?). TBC. The list goes on.
And on top of punishments, doing quests themselves are already a challenge. If it isn't broken mechanics, it's people disrupting the process either accidentally (by bashing necessary mobs) or deliberately.
The rewards aren't all that great, either. Even with dailycredits, which are limited to just 20 per day.
So you have finnicky quests and org punishment to deal with, all for not-really-that-great rewards. That's why QUEST RANKINGS should be scrapped (not replaced). It just tilts the equation too far in favour of the punishers.
Of course, finnicky quests could be fixed, but I highly doubt it's something that can really be done. Or rewards could be upped big time. Otherwise, there's really 0 reason to do any of the "controversial" quests.
Why else would you want to discover who did what quest, if not to formulate some sort of consequence for that person?
You did a bad thing, you risked consequences, face them.
Granted, in other IREs, people are rewarded by their cities for completing certain quests. But that's not Lusternia's style: outside of the Epic Quest lines (and related quests), cities either don't care about quests, or outright punish/prohibit them. Eaf. Mirror Army. Slag'hora (sp?). TBC. The list goes on.
I know the Listeners, at least, have a significant number of quests they reward members for performing.
And on top of punishments, doing quests themselves are already a challenge. If it isn't broken mechanics, it's people disrupting the process either accidentally (by bashing necessary mobs) or deliberately.
You suggested people should actively monitor quests to catch people, so can't really complain about people disrupting your quest.
Of course, finnicky quests could be fixed, but I highly doubt it's something that can really be done. Or rewards could be upped big time. Otherwise, there's really 0 reason to do any of the "controversial" quests.
For you there is 0 reason, for others they just deal with consequences.
You did a bad thing, you risked consequences, face them.
I know the Listeners, at least, have a significant number of quests they reward members for performing.
You suggested people should actively monitor quests to catch people, so can't really complain about people disrupting your quest.
For you there is 0 reason, for others they just deal with consequences.
If people did have to camp out quests to police them, then sure. Disrupting quests should be a valid recourse.
But no. Because QUEST RANKINGS and whatever you're proposing would exist. So not only is it easy to stop quests, it's also laughably easy to know who's done them. As I already said, it's overly tuned in favour of punishers versus the doers.
If you want to keep quests to be easily disruptable and discoverable, then you have to up the rewards. Otherwise, you might as well delete them entirely because there is 0 reason to do them.
If people did have to camp out quests to police them, then sure. Disrupting quests should be a valid recourse.
But no. Because QUEST RANKINGS and whatever you're proposing would exist. So not only is it easy to stop quests, it's also laughably easy to know who's done them. As I already said, it's overly tuned in favour of punishers versus the doers.
If you want to keep quests to be easily disruptable and discoverable, then you have to up the rewards. Otherwise, you might as well delete them entirely because there is 0 reason to do them.
As has been thoroughly pointed out by this point, camping is an entirely unengaging and unfun mechanic. I also fully expect if you actually got what you're demanding the moment you encountered someone camping you'd be back here complaining that that is stopping you from doing your quest.
Increased rewards have already been suggested.
The level of fear your posts express about punishment seems to indicate the quests you want to do are offensive to your own org because the moment the "punishers" are outside your org, they're pretty significantly limited in what they can do short of enemying and hunting you.
Again, if you don't want to deal with the consequences of offending large swathes of the population of the basin, why are you so dead set on doing so.
If people did have to camp out quests to police them, then sure. Disrupting quests should be a valid recourse.
But no. Because QUEST RANKINGS and whatever you're proposing would exist. So not only is it easy to stop quests, it's also laughably easy to know who's done them. As I already said, it's overly tuned in favour of punishers versus the doers.
If you want to keep quests to be easily disruptable and discoverable, then you have to up the rewards. Otherwise, you might as well delete them entirely because there is 0 reason to do them.
As has been thoroughly pointed out by this point, camping is an entirely unengaging and unfun mechanic. I also fully expect if you actually got what you're demanding the moment you encountered someone camping you'd be back here complaining that that is stopping you from doing your quest.
Increased rewards have already been suggested.
The level of fear your posts express about punishment seems to indicate the quests you want to do are offensive to your own org because the moment the "punishers" are outside your org, they're pretty significantly limited in what they can do short of enemying and hunting you.
Again, if you don't want to deal with the consequences of offending large swathes of the population of the basin, why are you so dead set on doing so.
Here's the thing. If a quest carries so much baggage that the consequences of doing it far outweighs the reward, then it should be deleted because it's never going to be done, anyway. It's unnecessary bloatware for Lusternia.
So, increase the rewards. Make the consequences just a tiny bit worth what you get in return. Or you could also decrease either the negative impact or the consequence of activating that negative impact (like the TBC).
Is it seconds abuse to log into one character for an event (revolts for example) to help one win then log into another character in your alliance to help another org?
Is it seconds abuse to log into one character for an event (revolts for example) to help one win then log into another character in your alliance to help another org?
I don't think that would strictly count as seconds abuse based on the criteria in HELP SECONDS, but I'd say that's still uncomfortably brushing the line of metagaming at least.
Tonight amidst the mountaintops And endless starless night Singing how the wind was lost Before an earthly flight
Seems kind of pointless, really. Go debate those target enemies out, go focus positive on that ally colossus - no log hopping necessary. Unless they're just fishing for more dailycredits on other characters? Which are bound credits, so no transferring to the other character or anything.
I'd be more uncomfortable with someone logging out of an alt in one alliance to instantly go play for the other side. Seems more fair and impartial to either play it out as whoever you are when the event starts, or to just go sit it out entirely.
So new!envoys are organized primarily by state (consider/pending/whatever) and secondarily by creation date. Buuuut that creation date is formatted month/year/day instead of y/m/d. I feel like that's gonna spawn Obnoxious Trouble next time we reach January. Or maybe it won't, I dunno what the backend looks like.
Stalling stage 1 of a domoth out because you don't have the numbers needed to control it is poor form, nobody enjoys watching people running the clock
No it isn't poor form. If your numbers were that good then your side should have not let it happen in the first place (which was pretty much entirely their choice due to how the mechanics work). We can't have it both ways, either we're just going to make everything a numbers game or strategy, skill, preparation and some knowledge sometimes gets the upper hand.
Comments
Also, I regret that I have but one agree to give to that, @Xenthos. There's nothing magical or interesting about stalking an area, and it's worse than punishing people for doing quests because you are actively preventing them from doing quests.
Also big thanks @Gabe for bringing yet more plays to Gaudiguch
Recruiting @Coraline next
You want to keep your easy spy drone and slap down people who do quests. That's over the top, but then again, I'm not surprised that your kind of people are pushing back against changing something that heavily benefits you.
Accountability is necessary.
But... sure. Spin that however you like.
Accountability is necessary.
Accountability is necessary.
But you didn't want that change, preferring instead for camping areas- which no one wanted or wants to do. So, with the population shift, no one would do this. Following all the suggestions that you presumably agree with: Getting rid of QUEST RANKINGS, forcing people to camp areas - no one would ever be caught doing quests. Following the suggestions I agreed with, people would be caught, if some effort was made that didn't involve pointless waiting or use of a single command.
And yet, you ALSO implied that the only reason I agreed with Xenthos is that I want to punish people for doing quests. (Or that I hate change?) Despite having shown no interest in doing so, and despite wanting to make it harder(and more interesting) than it is currently.
But I'm not really expecting consistency from you at this point, just trying to summarize for everyone else.
Granted, in other IREs, people are rewarded by their cities for completing certain quests. But that's not Lusternia's style: outside of the Epic Quest lines (and related quests), cities either don't care about quests, or outright punish/prohibit them. Eaf. Mirror Army. Slag'hora (sp?). TBC. The list goes on.
And on top of punishments, doing quests themselves are already a challenge. If it isn't broken mechanics, it's people disrupting the process either accidentally (by bashing necessary mobs) or deliberately.
The rewards aren't all that great, either. Even with dailycredits, which are limited to just 20 per day.
So you have finnicky quests and org punishment to deal with, all for not-really-that-great rewards. That's why QUEST RANKINGS should be scrapped (not replaced). It just tilts the equation too far in favour of the punishers.
Of course, finnicky quests could be fixed, but I highly doubt it's something that can really be done. Or rewards could be upped big time. Otherwise, there's really 0 reason to do any of the "controversial" quests.
Accountability is necessary.
If people did have to camp out quests to police them, then sure. Disrupting quests should be a valid recourse.
But no. Because QUEST RANKINGS and whatever you're proposing would exist. So not only is it easy to stop quests, it's also laughably easy to know who's done them. As I already said, it's overly tuned in favour of punishers versus the doers.
If you want to keep quests to be easily disruptable and discoverable, then you have to up the rewards. Otherwise, you might as well delete them entirely because there is 0 reason to do them.
Accountability is necessary.
I also fully expect if you actually got what you're demanding the moment you encountered someone camping you'd be back here complaining that that is stopping you from doing your quest.
Increased rewards have already been suggested.
The level of fear your posts express about punishment seems to indicate the quests you want to do are offensive to your own org because the moment the "punishers" are outside your org, they're pretty significantly limited in what they can do short of enemying and hunting you.
Again, if you don't want to deal with the consequences of offending large swathes of the population of the basin, why are you so dead set on doing so.
So, increase the rewards. Make the consequences just a tiny bit worth what you get in return. Or you could also decrease either the negative impact or the consequence of activating that negative impact (like the TBC).
Accountability is necessary.
Tonight amidst the mountaintops
And endless starless night
Singing how the wind was lost
Before an earthly flight
I'd be more uncomfortable with someone logging out of an alt in one alliance to instantly go play for the other side. Seems more fair and impartial to either play it out as whoever you are when the event starts, or to just go sit it out entirely.
"Family have departed and told me to go win my text fight."
No it isn't poor form. If your numbers were that good then your side should have not let it happen in the first place (which was pretty much entirely their choice due to how the mechanics work). We can't have it both ways, either we're just going to make everything a numbers game or strategy, skill, preparation and some knowledge sometimes gets the upper hand.