Tweets V: Tweet and Tower

Ssaliss · April 2013

Because they don't want to be enemied without doing anything? Because they don't want the headache of getting unenemied when politics change? Because people treat enemies differently from non-enemies, whether it was earned or not? I'm sure there are other reasons as well.

Cyndarin · April 2013

Well it's an RP game and "because I don't like it," is not reason enough for other characters to change their behavior. People don't like being enemied for whatever reason. Well I don't like mudsex and hamster furrikin. Tough titties, it still exists.

Kialkarkea · April 2013

Rivius said:

Yeah, I personally don't get why people care about being enemied to orgs they're up against if they have no intention of moving any time soon.

It's one thing to get enemied to an organization because you were acting against it. Raiding them, attacking their aetherships, stealing their essence, ****-talking them on the newsboards, sure, that I buy. It's earned. It's a whole 'nother kind of frustration when you haven't done anything. Ignoring the fact that you're now a valid target for ganking and have to pay to get the status removes, it's unpleasant when you're getting put on the public enemy list for nothing more than association.

Urfion · April 2013

An idea: Add a formal 'At War' status that can be applied to other orgs with a majority vote from the council. This automatically applies a 'Citizen of an enemy nation' (or similar) status to all non-enemy members of that org that do not have Grace of Innocence, and acts exactly like enemy status except for the following:

1) When 'At War' status is lifted, all 'Citizen of an enemy nation' statuses are also lifted, though true Enemy statues are not.
2) An obvious warning is given when a 'Citizen of an enemy nation' enters enemy org territory, but loyal mobs and statues/totems don't aggro for 30 seconds. This resets once outside of enemy org territory.
3) Perhaps add a syntax for a citizen (of sufficient rank) of an org to grant temporary (1 day, perhaps) amnesty to allow a 'Citizen of an enemy nation' to enter your territory on a temporary basis.

This separates the 'enemy combatants' to be jumped on other planes from mere citizens not welcome in your territory, and eliminates the problem of being unenemied when alliances shift, unless you were actively causing trouble.

Edit in response to Celina, below: Ganking people with no reason other than 'they aren't of my org' is deeply unpleasant behavior that should be discouraged. Attacking enemies or combatants (who are usually enemied anyway) is acceptable, as is attacking characters who your character has a grievance against. I won't go so far as to say that it's a violation of griefing rules, but it makes the game less fun for players who wish to avoid conflict, at least with a given org. Just because the rules and mechanics support something doesn't mean that the behavior shouldn't be discouraged. After all, it's still possible to steal from an org, but nearly everyone agrees that you shouldn't. Remember that conflict is not the only mechanic in Lusternia.

Cyndarin · April 2013

The "because I get ganked," is the biggest perpetuated myth argument around. The people that gank you for being enemied are the same people who gank you just for being in the org. It's a fake argument to prove an irrational point. I say this because I am one of those people. I associate with those people. You will be ganked because you are from an org, not because you are from an org AND an enemy.

Silvanus · April 2013

Or cause you are on an elemental plane, stealing the essence I want.

Cyndarin · April 2013

There are mechanical ways to stay virtually entirely removed from conflict if you choose to do so.

Maellio · April 2013

Celina said:

Asking OOC administrators to police IG actions based on RP and character/org beliefs based on third party criteria on what is acceptable or not is a terrible idea on so many levels. Org leadership polices enemy statuses. Not the Oneiroi or whatever.

I have an idea. How about people stop collectively feeling entitled to not be an enemy of any given org just because they feel they shouldn't be or don't like the reasoning. If it's that important to you to not be enemied to Glom or Mag, join the org. That way you can't be enemied unless you do something to get kicked out. Let's just all agree that this is a conflict game, and that each org has a goal and that goal eventually includes the elimination of every other org. So basically every org wants you dead sooner or later. Pretty much everyone is everyone else's enemy until an org decides to trust you to whatever degree they want and not murder you for now.

My only wish is that people would be blunt with their enemy statuses. "Member of Hallifax, Hallifax tries to steal our domoths, 1+1=2." Though I suspect people would still complain that a enemy line in a text game ruined their day and is so unfair.

edit: "Because I feel like I should be able to do what I want, unhindered by in game politics and character RP," is not a legit reason to argue against being enemied. Which is the overwhelming number of complaints.

While I agree enemyings should be an entirely IC affair ( and shouldn't involve entitled OOC arguments ), actually wanting to remain unenemied and to be enemied for at least logical reasons are rather legit desires. When I was enemied to Glom under similar circumstances I had plenty more reason than wanting to move in to get unenemied, not being harassed while visiting Mael's family being a rather legit one of them.

And, frankly, I reject your notion of this being a conflict game and all Orgs having a kill'em all stance as being rather over-generalized. Conflict is a major part of the game and setting but its not the be all purpose. Glom and Mag really seem the only two thematically that want to 'destroy' the world ( and Glom certainly didn't always ), Halli wants to Assimilate the Basin, but that's at heart ( or at propaganda depending ) an 'everyone' in their place thing. Celest ( likely ) wants a new Empire, Gaudi wants everyone to be 'free', and Seren seems like it wants to play the long game and wait out the eventual fall of civilization. These are not all mutually exclusive goals.

Urfion · April 2013

Celina said:

There are mechanical ways to stay virtually entirely removed from conflict if you choose to do so.

What are those? Hanging out in your own org territory on prime? I wouldn't call that much of a game experience. Avenger means that any given person can't gank you that often, but that doesn't make getting ganked for no real reason other than 'I wanted to kill somebody' any less unpleasant.

Cyndarin · April 2013

@Maellio- Sorry, you're just wrong about that one. The goals of each org are actually mutually exclusive from the others. There's just no wiggle room. No org has congruous aims with another org, and the mere existance of other plans that aren't theirs is reason enough for each org to eventually want to discard/destroy/assimilate/convert every other org for their purpose. They might not be diametric opposites, like Mag vs Celest, but end game scenarios that include all of the basin adhering to one purpose or belief means they can't co-exist forever.Hallifax wants the Basin to be assimialted into a collective where each person has a place? Well Seren likes nature so screw you, Glom wants to wyrd the world, your plans don't benefit the Light so Celest isn't interested, Gaudi is all about flexibility and freedom and whim so that's not going to work, and Mag wants to spread the taint. So...no. The eventual, theorhetical end game for every org is for their goal to be made manifest. The presence of other goals interferes with that....and we're off topic.

@Urfion: Staying on prime out of enemy territory is exactly what I'm referring to. I'm not sure what point you are making, to be honest. I guess it's an...anecdotal implication about being hunted frequently on prime to support your preivous point? That doesn't really happen. Even when it did years ago, the game's population didn't suffer so it seems history really disproves any claim that ganking, prime or not, motivated by enemy status or not, does not have some widespread detrimental affect on the population.

Shuyin · April 2013

I do kind of agree with a formalized war system that's been proposed over and over in various threads/subforums over the years. It doesn't have to do anything mechanically aside from say 'we don't like those guys'. But I wouldn't object to the extra stuff on Urfion's proposal.

Just to sort out this enemy status bit.

Plus we can have something to point people to when they ask who's our friends and enemies.

Rivius · April 2013

You can also buy a cloaking gem, spectacles and have aethersight on. You essentially become unjumpable. A lot of people get by without those though. That's not to say I agree or condone harassing people all the time either.

I agree with Celina's statement that people don't jump you because you're an enemy. They come up with whatever reason they need and being an enemy or not usually doesn't make a difference as long as you're from a warring org. I can tell you with 100% certainty that if certain Hallis just walked around faethorn or astral, they'd get jumped by Glomdoring or more likely Gaudiguch just for being there. And it should be expected because you're at war.

That's what war is. Lots of fighting and violence. If you want to avoid it you'll just need to actively do it. You can't wave a white flag and pretend people will never ever target you ever. And in a sense you should feel proud of getting enemied to an org that's fighting against the ideals of your own or harming them in some way. This is something Kolm told me when I first started playing and got enemied to places for strange reasons - wear it like a badge, soldier.

Don't get me wrong. I don't like the idea of people targeting others constantly and preventing them from enjoying aspects of the game without having to get jumped all the time (which occasionally cropped up in the past), but you're going to get jumped one day and not being an enemy won't save you from that.

Urfion · April 2013

Celina said:

@Urfion: Staying on prime out of enemy territory is exactly what I'm referring to. I'm not sure what point you are making, to be honest. I guess it's an...anecdotal implication about being hunted frequently on prime to support your preivous point? That doesn't really happen. Even when it did years ago, the game's population didn't suffer so it seems history really disproves any claim that ganking, prime or not, motivated by enemy status or not, does not have some widespread detrimental affect on the population.

You presume too much. My argument is that ganking non-enemies is unpleasant behavior to be discouraged; it's frustrating for the person being killed and honestly, how fun can it possibly be to kill an noncombatant (since combatants are likely to be enemied anyway)? I've done my fair share of joining up with ganking parties on my main; ganking combatants and enemies is fine. If you are a combatant, you should either know how to escape ganks, or be willing to suffer an occasional death. Just because unpleasant behavior doesn't force players to quit the game doesn't mean that it isn't unpleasant behavior that pollutes the game's atmosphere.

Edit: None of this applies if there is personal animosity between the characters, of course.

Cyndarin · April 2013

Urfion said:

Celina said:

@Urfion: Staying on prime out of enemy territory is exactly what I'm referring to. I'm not sure what point you are making, to be honest. I guess it's an...anecdotal implication about being hunted frequently on prime to support your preivous point? That doesn't really happen. Even when it did years ago, the game's population didn't suffer so it seems history really disproves any claim that ganking, prime or not, motivated by enemy status or not, does not have some widespread detrimental affect on the population.

You presume too much. My argument is that ganking non-enemies is unpleasant behavior to be discouraged; it's frustrating for the person being killed and honestly, how fun can it possibly be to kill an noncombatant (since combatants are likely to be enemied anyway)? I've done my fair share of joining up with ganking parties on my main; ganking combatants and enemies is fine. If you are a combatant, you should either know how to escape ganks, or be willing to suffer an occasional death. Just because unpleasant behavior doesn't force players to quit the game doesn't mean that it isn't unpleasant behavior that pollutes the game's atmosphere.

Edit: None of this applies if there is personal animosity between the characters, of course.

I guess I am. I still don't know where this point is coming from or attempting to go.

Silvanus · April 2013

I don't really see that many cases where someone goes out of their way to declare and gank someone.

I, personally myself, usually average around 10 suspects on my suspect list at a time. I'm not going to waste my limited amount of ganks during a month on a noncom, I need the ability to be able to declare to prevent certain quests from being done.

And there is only a limited amount of ganks can be done. After you get 15 suspects, every new suspect you gain after 15 will also gain Vengeance. Not only that, everytime I kill anyone (off prime, prime, in defense of my territory), I will lose 1% of karma for every suspect I have.

And there's a lot of things that you can be doing that deserves ganking, regardless of your combat ability or not. Don't do the Cay quest or the Carai Caroo quest that has an actual impact on conflict quests. Don't raise the Spire every day to raise your Vernal curios count, as that has a negative impact on organizations. Questing does and will have a negative impact on people, moreso then 'one death every 30 days.'

Synkarin · April 2013

Urfion said:

Celina said:

There are mechanical ways to stay virtually entirely removed from conflict if you choose to do so.

What are those? Hanging out in your own org territory on prime? I wouldn't call that much of a game experience. Avenger means that any given person can't gank you that often, but that doesn't make getting ganked for no real reason other than 'I wanted to kill somebody' any less unpleasant.

If someone's going to gank you on prime, it's going to be more than just 'you were an enemy' and probably a bit more behind it

and @Maellio, Glom doesn't want to 'destroy' the world, just take it over, for the glory of the Wyrd. It's kind of like Halli's assimilation bit, just more violent

Cyndarin · April 2013

I thought I ganked a lot. I don't have any suspects. Yoooou griefer.

Urfion · April 2013

Silvanus said:

I don't really see that many cases where someone goes out of their way to declare and gank someone.

I, personally myself, usually average around 10 suspects on my suspect list at a time. I'm not going to waste my limited amount of ganks during a month on a noncom, I need the ability to be able to declare to prevent certain quests from being done.

And there is only a limited amount of ganks can be done. After you get 15 suspects, every new suspect you gain after 15 will also gain Vengeance. Not only that, everytime I kill anyone (off prime, prime, in defense of my territory), I will lose 1% of karma for every suspect I have.

And there's a lot of things that you can be doing that deserves ganking, regardless of your combat ability or not. Don't do the Cay quest or the Carai Caroo quest that has an actual impact on conflict quests. Don't raise the Spire every day to raise your Vernal curios count, as that has a negative impact on organizations. Questing does and will have a negative impact on people, moreso then 'one death every 30 days.'

I'd argue that doing harmful quests should get you enemy status anyway, and I'm fine with ganking enemies.

Basically:
1) Celina argued that complaining about enemy statues is stupid, since she (and others) are willing to gank you regardless of your status.
2) I claim that ganking people without reason is unpleasant behavior, and should be discouraged. Ganking enemies (including those who do hostile quests) and combatants is fine, as is attacking characters with whom you share personal animosity, for whatever reason.

Ancillary to this is my opinion that giving out impersonal enemy statuses ('Member of Hallifax", ect.) devalues the RP of enemy statuses (and devalues them as a guide to who it is appropriate to gank). That's why I gave a suggestion for 'citizen of an enemy nation' status, as a sort of low-level enemy status.

Edit: I'm not arguing that Prime ganking without reason happens too often. That doesn't make it any less unpleasant when it does happen, nor does it mean it shouldn't be discouraged.

Cyndarin · April 2013

It is discouraged. Mechanically. I'm so lost as to why it's even a topic being brought up either way.

Cyndarin · April 2013

Also not Really what I said.

Ragniliff · April 2013

Get with the program, people, the only reason anyone does anything these days is Curios.

If you think Glomdoring is free with the enemy button, then rest assured it is only so we can laugh when you try to give boars to the yellow overseer in Acknor.

Nothing Matters But Curios. Glory Be To Curios.

Shaddus · April 2013

Ragniliff said:

Get with the program, people, the only reason anyone does anything these days is Curios.

If you think Glomdoring is free with the enemy button, then rest assured it is only so we can laugh when you try to give boars to the yellow overseer in Acknor.

Nothing Matters But Curios. Glory Be To Curios.

The overseer in Acknor takes... boars?

Shuyin · April 2013

You'd think Ragniliff is kidding, but she really isn't. When people say the world revolves around conflict, they actually mean curios.

Cyndarin · April 2013

It's sadly and painfully true

Shaddus · April 2013

If only raiding gave you curios.

Shuyin · April 2013

If it did, I'd say that's worth sucking down 2 million essence per death!

Cyndarin · April 2013

.......can we add that?

Urfion · April 2013

Actually, that's not a terrible idea. If you remove (or lessen) most of the negative effects associated losing an smob raid, and make smob corpses able to be turned in for a few curio pieces, you would remove one of the most frustrating parts of being raided while also giving more reason to raid. It wouldn't fix small raids, but would hopefully encourage larger ones.

Xenthos · April 2013

Shaddus said:

Ragniliff said:

Get with the program, people, the only reason anyone does anything these days is Curios.

If you think Glomdoring is free with the enemy button, then rest assured it is only so we can laugh when you try to give boars to the yellow overseer in Acknor.

Nothing Matters But Curios. Glory Be To Curios.

The overseer in Acknor takes... boars?

Waystation curios require not being enemied to Acknor. Because boars and orcs are essential components of curio collecting.

Everiine · April 2013

Urfion said:

Actually, that's not a terrible idea. If you remove (or lessen) most of the negative effects associated losing an smob raid, and make smob corpses able to be turned in for a few curio pieces, you would remove one of the most frustrating parts of being raided while also giving more reason to raid. It wouldn't fix small raids, but would hopefully encourage larger ones.

We're already turning this from a conflict-based, lore-deep RP-game into a mindless collection game, let's not encourage it.

Tweets V: Tweet and Tower

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion