I don't think it's 'nobody batting an eye', it's just that there is a way to voice out concerns, and Qistrel/Nikka's has quickly turned into an attack against Yarith.
What's more silly is that it wasn't even Nikka's post, really; it just served as the acceletant to the forum war between Maligorn and Karlach (and allies of both) that is blowing up everywhere and hitting everyone.
On one hand, Yarith got a kill on Prime. He can no longer do anything to that person for an RL month.
On the other, it was on Nikka, who's really not involved in the Baelfyre thing (outside of being on the same org?).
Ultimately, the question is whether Lusternia wants to stiffle combat and danger and lose people who like that, or whether the game wants to lessen safety and peace and lose people who like that.
Speaking as a player who has recently frequented PK madness in Achaea, it's one death, @Qistrel, and he can't do anything for a month. Log out, cool off, and come back swinging!
I think I've had about enough of the "grown softer" argument, enough that I'm going to try to dispute it now. Edit: This took a while to write, but the direction of the thread actually moved toward discussing people having fun or not due to a mechanic, and I think this is relevant to that discussion.
The argument of "the game has grown softer", or in other variations "Lusternia is soft", in general is based off the premise of an alternate environment, be it past-Lusternia or another IRE game, where the act(s) being complained about are tolerated or even celebrated because people are more resilient. It is also an argument that implies such acts have some sort of a positive effect on the game - the nature of this is tied to the idea of "growth by conflict". I say this because the word "soft" is the antonym of the word "hard", which implies toughness and strength as well as, obviously, resilience.
It also has an implication similar to that of "bitter medicine" - that something good for you is not always something that tastes good, as a metaphor in this case, of creating discomfort. It harkens to the arguments of being forced out of your zone of comfort as being beneficial and positive.
To a certain extent, this is true. There definitely are cases where an act which causes distress is ultimately positive, partly because IRE MUDs (and MMOs in general) are conflict games. Competition, combat, PVP are all the most obvious cases of this: they are designed as, and acknowledged by the game community as, an activity that is a goal in itself (for some people, at least). The adrenaline of a fight is sometimes what a person wants, and not just the victory that might possibly await at the end of it.
There have also been anecdotal testimonials of certain activities which force a player out of their comfort zone helping to provide growth as a player and participant of the community - not to mention testimonials that attest to the player's growth as a person in their real-life world. We won't go so far into that for the purposes of this argument, but will instead focus on the growth of the player in the context of the game - for example, a non-combatant being killed during a raid and tasting combat, leading to him learning the basics, and thereby the fun, of said combat, etc.
There might also be other ways of expressing this concept or philosophy of conflict creating fun and being a point (not just a part, but an actual goal) of the game that we play.
Such acts which force someone out of their comfort zone obviously causes discomfort (duh), but have an ultimately positive effect on the person, on the game, on the community as a whole. When tolerance for such acts decrease, it also signals a similar decrease in the potential positive effects of such an activity. When the response to an discomforting act is to "cry" and "whine" and try to get it changed, for example, via the forums or making an envoy report to remove tree-chopping, then the fear is that this "softness", this intolerance, will be a loss, as the mechanic's potential positive effects are also removed alongside the discomfort it causes.
Now that we've surveyed some common examples of activities that might support the argument of Lusternia having grown softer, or is soft compared to other games, I'd like to propose an argument otherwise.
The one big problem with the above argument is the broad generalization of all activities which cause discomfort as leading to a positive result for the player or the game. This broad brush allows, then the similarly broad statement that an increased intolerance for acts that cause discomfort or conflict is a sign of Lusternia have either grown softer, or is soft as compared to other (possibly better) games. The problem with this is, of course, the same problem with all generalisations. Not all acts of conflict is the same.
The natural rebuttal to that, of course, is to then point to such acts of conflict that have remained the same throughout the history of the game, or that are the same as another game's. An increased intolerance, or an increased amount of complaints, or an increase in the volume (as in loudness) of aforementioned complaints, therefore points to "softness", especially if the act is the same as what has been experienced before, or which another game is experiencing with a less amount of complaints. That appears to be a reasonable way to resolve the weakness of generalisation without actually going into specifics, right? As long as it's an activity that has happened before in the past, and there's an increase in the volume and type of complaints about it, it points to the fact that Lusternia has grown softer - and therefore, weakens the arguments of such complaints.
Yet this rebuttal also ignores the main metric that measures the (positive OR negative) impact of any act, be it controversial (conflict in this case) or not: and that metric is time. For example, an act that is "obviously" a positive act, like offering trade services for free to a newbie, would be something we should encourage, right? The answer is actually more complicated than that: if over time, such an act would depress the economy, and perhaps exacerbate the problem of mudflation (a term some of us might be familiar with, especially in regards to another controversial topic) then it would actually be something that is negative - and this effect can only be observed through the passage of time.
Of course, to digress a little, it's valid to argue as well, that the comfort afforded a newbie who is shown such kindness outweighs the problems associated with depressing prices through providing free trades to newbies, and therefore the act is still an overall positive. (As an aside, by the way, this would be the position I would personally take, but let's put that aside for now.) Basically, deciding whether an act is net positive or not is a complex decision, and not something we should use a single metric to claim one way or another.
And this is the crux of the matter. Evaluating the positivity (or toxicity) of any activity, whether it creates conflict or not, is a complex one. Using only one metric to the exclusion of all else is likely to create an unbalanced picture. Naturally, this argument applies in both ways - just arguing that a mechanic is negative because of one singular metric (by the level of frustration it causes) is likely a weaker argument than one that takes a more wholesome view. (My personal position, however, is that frustration which has the potential of ruining a person's gameplay is more than enough reason alone to justify change. But again, like the digression on showing kindness to newbies, let's set this aside.)
Therefore, I argue that the assertion of Lusternia being "softer" now than it was before, or softer compared to other games, is an invalid one - or at least, a very lop-sided assertion. This is because it disregards the effects of certain activities on the community over time, and compares the reaction to an activity by taking a snapshot of it and cutting it out from the chronological space it occupies. An act that, in the past, was seen as positive over time, could have been proven to actually be negative over time. This disjunction would then have been the impetus for an increase in complaints and "whining" about said activity. However, asserting that Lusternia has now grown "softer" is basically ignoring that, and simply pointing to the difference in the level of reaction to an activity (from a more stoic tolerance in the past, to the existence of vocal denouncements today) as a sign of softness, and therefore, weakness in validity of such complaints.
I argue, therefore, that whether or not an act was more tolerated in the past is not an accurate measure of whether it is actually a positive or negative act - and should not be the basis of whether we, as a community, should condone or condemn it. An act should be evaluated in the context of the time it is performed - for example, just because tree-chopping was more acceptable 8 years ago really doesn't mean that Lusternia has grown softer now that we have louder complaints about it today. It could well be that the benefits of such a conflict mechanism simply fizzled to no longer justify the frustration it causes - Lusternia's "softness" or "hardness" has not changed.
(Another digression here: I would obviously argue that tree-chopping is as unacceptable in the past as it is now - with the only difference being that time has shown even more clearly today how unacceptable it is, and therefore, causing a bigger and bigger reaction against it every time it is performed. But that's another argument.)
To continually compare Lusternia to the good old days of years past is a bad habit everyone has, including me. Sometimes, it is harmless fun - an example would be Shuyin and his occasional posts that almost always references times when Lusternia was more "thick skinned" etc. However, when applied repeatedly to defend acts that are under scrutiny for creating negativity, it can dampen and blunt the effectiveness of self-policing that ensures the social aspect of the game is healthy. It can trick reasonable people into repeating acts they otherwise could have been convinced to tone down or even stop entirely. It can jeopardize the existence of RP and mechanics that support realism and immersion, because repeated abuses defended by such talk of "softness" has made the unbalance increasingly impossible to stomach.
Telling someone to suck it up works if the positive effects are in sight, and within reach, and can be experienced (for example, the feeling of empowerment when a non-comm wins his first 1v1 fight). However, when what a player sees looming ahead is nothing but hours of chore, repeated frustrations proven by the passage of time, which is being brushed aside by people telling them they've grown "soft", then the result will be people logging out, and possibly never logging back in.
I think it's time to start thinking more carefully about when it is actually applicable, and when it is not - and I would argue that bringing it up when discussing conflict mechanisms is rarely helpful to the discussion.
My question to you would be this: even if we disregard the negatives and the positives of the purportedly tougher lifestyle Lusternia used to have, is it really just "anecdotal" that many of the game's most prominent combatants come from that era? I'm talking Shuyin, Viynain, Narsrim, Munsia(?), Thoros, Nydekion, Inagin, Celina(ugh, does she even go here anymore) so on and so forth. Was their killingness a function of the myriad opportunities for PK? Is there a certain level of PK opportunity and population that we should be striving for, and how can we achieve it? How much negativity can we take on to try and recreate the situation that the above cited lived in and broke through? Is that even possible to create PK messiahs nowadays?
I'm drawn to cite the days of Draylor, and especially Caerlyr here (it's a bold move, Cotton). While Caerlyr most certainly was toxic to Glomdoring, I feel like it made victories and EtherSeren raids all the sweeter by sticking it in his face, and I feel like at some point the constant prodding into Glomdoring revitalized it a little bit, in a weird and twisted way. (This was at a time that I played my BT a lot). What do you think of that?
Saz is attacked off prime and says he's going to quit, writing a whole forums post about it: half the game jumps up and begs him not to quit.
Nikkakorra gets attacked while doing tattoos for someone on prime and says she's going to quit in Tweets: nobody bats an eye, and Ciaran urges her to quit, Instead turning it around as an attack on Yarith.
Stay classy.
Edit: Nikka does need to harden up a bit. What yarith did was rude as hell, but if that's all it takes to run you off....yeah.
This is a comically outrageous misrepresentation of my post. Then you follow up by contradicting yourself. Your hate boner is showing Shaddus!
My question to you would be this: even if we disregard the negatives and the positives of the purportedly tougher lifestyle Lusternia used to have, is it really just "anecdotal" that many of the game's most prominent combatants come from that era? I'm talking Shuyin, Viynain, Narsrim, Munsia(?), Thoros, Nydekion, Inagin, Celina(ugh, does she even go here anymore) so on and so forth. Was their killingness a function of the myriad opportunities for PK? Is there a certain level of PK opportunity and population that we should be striving for, and how can we achieve it? How much negativity can we take on to try and recreate the situation that the above cited lived in and broke through? Is that even possible to create PK messiahs nowadays?
I'm drawn to cite the days of Draylor, and especially Caerlyr here (it's a bold move, Cotton). While Caerlyr most certainly was toxic to Glomdoring, I feel like it made victories and EtherSeren raids all the sweeter by sticking it in his face, and I feel like at some point the constant prodding into Glomdoring revitalized it a little bit, in a weird and twisted way. (This was at a time that I played my BT a lot). What do you think of that?
You can probally just chalk a lot of that up to experience though really. There's combinations of skills and tactics you wont sort of see without a good long play time, add in that old adage about how long it takes to practice a skill to master it. Sure I mean if you've played another IRE game a lot of the skills are transferable but there's still a lot of new stuff for everyone to learn so give it enough time and you'll have people as good as the more experienced folks.
It's not 'all it took'. This was the final straw after a hard month of being hit by vines constantly, having to hide off plane at some points cause I couldn't stop it, extending an olive branch by helping Hallifax avoid vines even though someone from Mag probably caused that incident in the first place. I made a heartfelt post pleading for people to stop ruining my enjoyment of hanging out in prime Magnagora, and saying that I was very close to leaving. And then for someone to come in and specifically do exactly what I had asked not to be done...that was just horrible.
If you think I'm looking for attention for myself, or trying to do personal attacks, or that I'm weak because 'one incident' made me cry, then I don't even know what to say. Maybe I'm just bad at writing posts. I apologise for thinking Yarith was behind the vines, but the fact that it was someone else just makes it more obvious that this is a widespread problem, not one or two people who have been named here.
I'm not threatening to quit. I already have. You won't be seeing Nikka anymore, because there's no more fun to be had with her. I just keep looking in here in the hopes that little me losing my cool might have been able to change things. Probably a vain hope.
My question to you would be this: even if we disregard the negatives and the positives of the purportedly tougher lifestyle Lusternia used to have, is it really just "anecdotal" that many of the game's most prominent combatants come from that era? I'm talking Shuyin, Viynain, Narsrim, Munsia(?), Thoros, Nydekion, Inagin, Celina(ugh, does she even go here anymore) so on and so forth. Was their killingness a function of the myriad opportunities for PK? Is there a certain level of PK opportunity and population that we should be striving for, and how can we achieve it? How much negativity can we take on to try and recreate the situation that the above cited lived in and broke through? Is that even possible to create PK messiahs nowadays?
I'm drawn to cite the days of Draylor, and especially Caerlyr here (it's a bold move, Cotton). While Caerlyr most certainly was toxic to Glomdoring, I feel like it made victories and EtherSeren raids all the sweeter by sticking it in his face, and I feel like at some point the constant prodding into Glomdoring revitalized it a little bit, in a weird and twisted way. (This was at a time that I played my BT a lot). What do you think of that?
I used "anecdotal" because that is the nature of such testimonials - they can't be statistically replicated. That doesn't neccesarily mean it is unreliable, though. The people whose names you quoted are examples of people who grew through conflict - some of them certainly do claim so (therefore, anecdotal) and I think it's perfectly fine to take their claims at face value. The validity provided by their presence is, therefore, an example of the possible positives of certain activities - but on the other hand, I, or anyone else for that matter, would be hard-pressed to provide guarantee that their experiences will be replicated today.
If anything, the fact that we're grappling with this despite the fact that we have players from that "era" as examples (pardon the romanticised language) could be an argument to show to how some activities may simply no longer have the same positive effects they had in the past. The same activities that "grew" the past batch of resilient combatants are causing distress that encouragement and the "living example" of those oldies cannot assuage. Perhaps this is "softness" - or perhaps the frustration created is simply more unbearable today than in the past.
At the very least, both possibilities should be considered in full. Brushing off the second possibility - that circumstances have changed to no longer justify tolerating such activities - by just saying "Lusternia has grown soft, we had worse back in the day" is something that can backfire on the best of intentions (which is to preserve the validity of acts that are believed to have a positive impact.)
On the specific example of Caerlyr - my personal dislike of the player is probably inappropriate for this forums, so I'll keep it short: I have a problem with his character (edited to clarify: "character" as in human personality) - his grasp, and execution, of griefing was simply too shallow to have been either positive or negative, but I'm glad that he no longer plays this game as a member of the community. At least, if he's active as an alt, then at least he is not playing with his past persona. Either way, good riddance is all I can say.
Sigh. That feel when someone not only tries to shame an individual, but the entire org he's in. Just because our chastisement/discouraging of Yarith's more griefy tendencies doesn't reach it to the forums doesn't mean it doesn't happen. In the end, it's up to him whether he'll stop or not. At least as an A+ griefer he didn't get raised as a VA, coughUrazialcough
It's hilarious to me that Urazial still comes up when he's barely played in many years. He kind of shakes his head every time I tell him it's happened again.
speaking as a non-com getting jumped while within city limits while doing non=com things is terrble esp if you hve no current outstanding priors with griefer and thier org . good job guy.
N: "Your side did it too!" S:"Well that was so long ago." N: "I was there when they were doing it." S: "Be the bigger person!"
I've ducked in and out of lusternia over the past 8 years, and the burden of being the better person has usually fallen to the same side. heh.
Some of your "bigger people" are citing Urazial from like 7 years ago. IJS.
You're right. They should cite you, instead.
In an effort to be less lol, let's also cite the likes of Vitas, or Munsia, for that matter.
There's a tendency to gloss over misdemeanors by players on 'your side', and paint it as 'just playing the game'. But the moment it's done to you, it's a crime against humanity and oh my god stop!!!
In conclusion: stop acting like you're on a high, high horse.
Sorry, I've already collected the "bitter forums alts who don't like me," badge a long time ago. I'm not really in the market for another one right now.
Edit to respond to the edit: The "no U" game is as old as Lusternia. The irony, of course, being that you're telling people to not be on a high horse while claiming "one side" apparently is the one on the high horse. It's kind of silly.
I'm not against griefing. I just wish people would be a little more discerning about who they're griefing, and a little more honest with themselves and the people around them about why they're doing it.
I also think that people do need to toughen up a bit. There's gonna be conflict, and while we all wish people would live and play by the rules we try to keep ourselves to, it's just not going to happen. Don't let asshats ruin your day.
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.
N: "Your side did it too!" S:"Well that was so long ago." N: "I was there when they were doing it." S: "Be the bigger person!"
I've ducked in and out of lusternia over the past 8 years, and the burden of being the better person has usually fallen to the same side. heh.
Some of your "bigger people" are citing Urazial from like 7 years ago. IJS.
You're right. They should cite you, instead.
In an effort to be less lol, let's also cite the likes of Vitas, or Munsia, for that matter.
There's a tendency to gloss over misdemeanors by players on 'your side', and paint it as 'just playing the game'. But the moment it's done to you, it's a crime against humanity and oh my god stop!!!
In conclusion: stop acting like you're on a high, high horse.
Or we could cite Morbo, or Davos, or Rika, or Inagin, or Forren, or any number of other random people from either side. What's your point?
It's also amusing that you mentioned Vitas. I'd post his kill list, but he's sort of retired. He rarely ever attacked people who weren't Glom enemies, and 90% of the people he decapped were afk on Prime. At least his actions taught people not to be inattentive on Prime, whereas Yarith attacking Nikkakorra really isn't going to teach Baelfyre not to attack Prime Celest.
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.
I just get mad when I get stupid behaviour from people my character doesn't know and bug them about it in-game and find petty ways to get back at them like banning them in my shops (where they've bought stuff) or other little things like that.
I'm juvenile like that. But sometimes it has fun consequences IC, like becoming friends with Karlach while leading a city he's been annoying, or repeatedly swatting at people who can't hit me back for fear of Avenger.
Somewhat tangential, but I think if we had server-side curing, we'd see a lot more faces in PK. Every other IRE has it and it's helped a lot to get people easily into combat.
I could have gotten away if, you know, they hadn't specifically targeted me while I was tattooing which requires me to disable most of my triggers to stop me breaking the tattoo.
You know, after I specifically asked people to stop griefing me in prime Mag and said I would leave if it kept up.
I could have gotten away if, you know, they hadn't specifically targeted me while I was tattooing which requires me to disable most of my triggers to stop me breaking the tattoo.
You know, after I specifically asked people to stop griefing me in prime Mag and said I would leave if it kept up.
Don't know why my reaction has surprised anyone.
I'm sorry you feel you have to leave Lusternia after this one negative experience. For what it's worth, having read the thread, the impetus of the attack seems to have been an impersonal one; it wasn't out of hopes to get you to leave, or out of a desire to punish Nikkakora the character. I know that doesn't stop you from feeling attacked, but I hope the distinction helps at least a little in terms of processing. Speaking for myself I didn't know Nikkakora had made a threat about leaving, as I'm unfamiliar with your character. It's possible Yarith was also unaware of your frustration. That doesn't necessarily excuse his actions, but it suggests that your choice to leave Lusternia was likely an unintended consequence of his behavior. I don't think anyone actually wants you to leave. I certainly don't.
Having said that, if that one incident is enough to make you consider leaving, it might not be a bad idea to step away from Lusternia for awhile. Again, I don't say this as someone who wants you to leave, but as someone who has made that move personally, and greatly benefited from distance. If you're not in the headspace to deal with players doing things you don't like, playing Lusternia is much more difficult and much less fun. Something that has preserved my sanity is realizing more often than not, the attacks aren't personal by design.
I hope that you give Lusternia a try again, even if it's later on. And I hope that experience goes better for you. For now, I'm not sure that Tweets is the place to recover from an unpleasant in-game experience. The argument here seems to have gone beyond your Tweet somehow.
"Oh yeah, you're a naughty mayor, aren't you? Misfile that Form MA631-D. Comptroller Shevat's got a nice gemstone disc for you, but yer gonna have to beg for it."
Just saying I hate the term "off-peak". Lusternia has two peak times. North American and those guys over there. The only true "off-peak" is when something happens in between either of those two times.
It's not 'all it took'. This was the final straw after a hard month of being hit by vines constantly, having to hide off plane at some points cause I couldn't stop it, extending an olive branch by helping Hallifax avoid vines even though someone from Mag probably caused that incident in the first place. I made a heartfelt post pleading for people to stop ruining my enjoyment of hanging out in prime Magnagora, and saying that I was very close to leaving. And then for someone to come in and specifically do exactly what I had asked not to be done...that was just horrible.
It's like people don't even read my posts.
3
SylandraJoin Queue for Mafia GamesThe Last Mafia Game
Fine. I'm sorry you chose to leave Lusternia after these cumulative experiences. My point stands. It took more than one incident to make me need a break from Lusternia, too.
"Oh yeah, you're a naughty mayor, aren't you? Misfile that Form MA631-D. Comptroller Shevat's got a nice gemstone disc for you, but yer gonna have to beg for it."
Hey remember when Avurekhos, Enadonella (lol at how she's actually piling on here too) and a few others were griefing Serenwilde for hours at a time every day? Rideta actually made a post telling people to back off on them because there are good RP reasons for what they were doing. Why did nobody give her grief for condoning what was essentially an action that someone said was driving them from the game?
I don't condone any of the griefing that Yarith does. I'm friends with Yarith, but I still call him a griefer. I tell him not to grief. If he goes ahead and does it then there is nothing I can do about it. There is nothing anyone in Hallifax can do it about. Just because we're not kicking him out to please Karlach or anyone else who wants to pile on Hallifax at any opportunity doesn't mean we condone it at an OOC level. Give Yarith all the shit you want but get off your high horse if you want to paint an entire organisation with the same brush because none of you are any better.
Maligorn does a whole "I don't get why we're associated with someone who we often associate with" melodrama when other people make a connection between Yarith's actions and Hallifax. I point out that there's a distinct lack of any public disavowing of what Yarith does coming from those who spend the most time with them.
Now apparently that means I want you to boot him out? Nah, I gave that as an example of what other people have done in the past, not some demand that it's what you should do.
I'm pointing out that, until this was noted on here, the distinct lack of any public disassociation has been telling, and that's why people assume you condone it. Especially when on the public surface of things you continue to raid together, s##tpost together and when people get into forum wars with you, moan about it on Discord together in a circle jerk.
People have had to do the same for other griefers before, hell Maligorn's bringing up someone who hasn't been relevant in seven years in some weird attempt to prove a point, suggesting that we need to apologise for someone who isn't even part of Glomdoring now.
If you don't like public perception of your (in)action in this regard, you should have probably done something to change it sooner instead of sitting here trying to make yourself out as some kind of victim in this whole debacle.
The divine voice
of Avechna, the Avenger reverberates powerfully, "Congratulations,
Morkarion, you are the Bringer of Death indeed."
You see Estarra the Eternal shout, "Morkarion is no more! Mourn the mortal! But welcome True Ascendant Karlach, of the Realm of Death!
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.
I have found an interest in raiding prime New Celest recently, but I don't think I would define it as griefing, if we have the same definition in mind. I enjoy killing the npc denizens, and they seem to enjoy the fight. I'm also RPing him as having just discovered a joy in making art from corpses. I also of course find great excitement in fighting other combatants, which is why I come back again and again, constantly trying for a different outcome. If anyone feels griefed by my slaying of npc denizens and persistence, then perhaps it is true, I am griefing your convenience, your obligation to defend.
I have no problem with you wanting to raid prime Celest. Or with killing NPCs (although I doubt it'll do much to draw defenders - we're generally not awake when you do it) or with making art from corpses. My objection is 100% only down to the putting up paintings of corpses inside New Celest. Due to a quirk of the mechanics, it falls down to 1-3 people to take those down every time you do it, and it takes a minute or so per painting. If you could RP Baelfyre as exploring a new (less OOC annoying) medium for his artistic expression (cooking? clothing? bone jewellery?) and sticking to putting the paintings up in Mangagora or the manses of friends, that would be much less griefy.
Comments
What's more silly is that it wasn't even Nikka's post, really; it just served as the acceletant to the forum war between Maligorn and Karlach (and allies of both) that is blowing up everywhere and hitting everyone.
On one hand, Yarith got a kill on Prime. He can no longer do anything to that person for an RL month.
On the other, it was on Nikka, who's really not involved in the Baelfyre thing (outside of being on the same org?).
Ultimately, the question is whether Lusternia wants to stiffle combat and danger and lose people who like that, or whether the game wants to lessen safety and peace and lose people who like that.
Speaking as a player who has recently frequented PK madness in Achaea, it's one death, @Qistrel, and he can't do anything for a month. Log out, cool off, and come back swinging!
Accountability is necessary.
It also has an implication similar to that of "bitter medicine" - that something good for you is not always something that tastes good, as a metaphor in this case, of creating discomfort. It harkens to the arguments of being forced out of your zone of comfort as being beneficial and positive.
To a certain extent, this is true. There definitely are cases where an act which causes distress is ultimately positive, partly because IRE MUDs (and MMOs in general) are conflict games. Competition, combat, PVP are all the most obvious cases of this: they are designed as, and acknowledged by the game community as, an activity that is a goal in itself (for some people, at least). The adrenaline of a fight is sometimes what a person wants, and not just the victory that might possibly await at the end of it.
There have also been anecdotal testimonials of certain activities which force a player out of their comfort zone helping to provide growth as a player and participant of the community - not to mention testimonials that attest to the player's growth as a person in their real-life world. We won't go so far into that for the purposes of this argument, but will instead focus on the growth of the player in the context of the game - for example, a non-combatant being killed during a raid and tasting combat, leading to him learning the basics, and thereby the fun, of said combat, etc.
There might also be other ways of expressing this concept or philosophy of conflict creating fun and being a point (not just a part, but an actual goal) of the game that we play.
Such acts which force someone out of their comfort zone obviously causes discomfort (duh), but have an ultimately positive effect on the person, on the game, on the community as a whole. When tolerance for such acts decrease, it also signals a similar decrease in the potential positive effects of such an activity. When the response to an discomforting act is to "cry" and "whine" and try to get it changed, for example, via the forums or making an envoy report to remove tree-chopping, then the fear is that this "softness", this intolerance, will be a loss, as the mechanic's potential positive effects are also removed alongside the discomfort it causes.
Now that we've surveyed some common examples of activities that might support the argument of Lusternia having grown softer, or is soft compared to other games, I'd like to propose an argument otherwise.
The one big problem with the above argument is the broad generalization of all activities which cause discomfort as leading to a positive result for the player or the game. This broad brush allows, then the similarly broad statement that an increased intolerance for acts that cause discomfort or conflict is a sign of Lusternia have either grown softer, or is soft as compared to other (possibly better) games. The problem with this is, of course, the same problem with all generalisations. Not all acts of conflict is the same.
The natural rebuttal to that, of course, is to then point to such acts of conflict that have remained the same throughout the history of the game, or that are the same as another game's. An increased intolerance, or an increased amount of complaints, or an increase in the volume (as in loudness) of aforementioned complaints, therefore points to "softness", especially if the act is the same as what has been experienced before, or which another game is experiencing with a less amount of complaints. That appears to be a reasonable way to resolve the weakness of generalisation without actually going into specifics, right? As long as it's an activity that has happened before in the past, and there's an increase in the volume and type of complaints about it, it points to the fact that Lusternia has grown softer - and therefore, weakens the arguments of such complaints.
Yet this rebuttal also ignores the main metric that measures the (positive OR negative) impact of any act, be it controversial (conflict in this case) or not: and that metric is time. For example, an act that is "obviously" a positive act, like offering trade services for free to a newbie, would be something we should encourage, right? The answer is actually more complicated than that: if over time, such an act would depress the economy, and perhaps exacerbate the problem of mudflation (a term some of us might be familiar with, especially in regards to another controversial topic) then it would actually be something that is negative - and this effect can only be observed through the passage of time.
Of course, to digress a little, it's valid to argue as well, that the comfort afforded a newbie who is shown such kindness outweighs the problems associated with depressing prices through providing free trades to newbies, and therefore the act is still an overall positive. (As an aside, by the way, this would be the position I would personally take, but let's put that aside for now.) Basically, deciding whether an act is net positive or not is a complex decision, and not something we should use a single metric to claim one way or another.
And this is the crux of the matter. Evaluating the positivity (or toxicity) of any activity, whether it creates conflict or not, is a complex one. Using only one metric to the exclusion of all else is likely to create an unbalanced picture. Naturally, this argument applies in both ways - just arguing that a mechanic is negative because of one singular metric (by the level of frustration it causes) is likely a weaker argument than one that takes a more wholesome view. (My personal position, however, is that frustration which has the potential of ruining a person's gameplay is more than enough reason alone to justify change. But again, like the digression on showing kindness to newbies, let's set this aside.)
Therefore, I argue that the assertion of Lusternia being "softer" now than it was before, or softer compared to other games, is an invalid one - or at least, a very lop-sided assertion. This is because it disregards the effects of certain activities on the community over time, and compares the reaction to an activity by taking a snapshot of it and cutting it out from the chronological space it occupies. An act that, in the past, was seen as positive over time, could have been proven to actually be negative over time. This disjunction would then have been the impetus for an increase in complaints and "whining" about said activity. However, asserting that Lusternia has now grown "softer" is basically ignoring that, and simply pointing to the difference in the level of reaction to an activity (from a more stoic tolerance in the past, to the existence of vocal denouncements today) as a sign of softness, and therefore, weakness in validity of such complaints.
I argue, therefore, that whether or not an act was more tolerated in the past is not an accurate measure of whether it is actually a positive or negative act - and should not be the basis of whether we, as a community, should condone or condemn it. An act should be evaluated in the context of the time it is performed - for example, just because tree-chopping was more acceptable 8 years ago really doesn't mean that Lusternia has grown softer now that we have louder complaints about it today. It could well be that the benefits of such a conflict mechanism simply fizzled to no longer justify the frustration it causes - Lusternia's "softness" or "hardness" has not changed.
(Another digression here: I would obviously argue that tree-chopping is as unacceptable in the past as it is now - with the only difference being that time has shown even more clearly today how unacceptable it is, and therefore, causing a bigger and bigger reaction against it every time it is performed. But that's another argument.)
To continually compare Lusternia to the good old days of years past is a bad habit everyone has, including me. Sometimes, it is harmless fun - an example would be Shuyin and his occasional posts that almost always references times when Lusternia was more "thick skinned" etc. However, when applied repeatedly to defend acts that are under scrutiny for creating negativity, it can dampen and blunt the effectiveness of self-policing that ensures the social aspect of the game is healthy. It can trick reasonable people into repeating acts they otherwise could have been convinced to tone down or even stop entirely. It can jeopardize the existence of RP and mechanics that support realism and immersion, because repeated abuses defended by such talk of "softness" has made the unbalance increasingly impossible to stomach.
Telling someone to suck it up works if the positive effects are in sight, and within reach, and can be experienced (for example, the feeling of empowerment when a non-comm wins his first 1v1 fight). However, when what a player sees looming ahead is nothing but hours of chore, repeated frustrations proven by the passage of time, which is being brushed aside by people telling them they've grown "soft", then the result will be people logging out, and possibly never logging back in.
I think it's time to start thinking more carefully about when it is actually applicable, and when it is not - and I would argue that bringing it up when discussing conflict mechanisms is rarely helpful to the discussion.
My question to you would be this: even if we disregard the negatives and the positives of the purportedly tougher lifestyle Lusternia used to have, is it really just "anecdotal" that many of the game's most prominent combatants come from that era? I'm talking Shuyin, Viynain, Narsrim, Munsia(?), Thoros, Nydekion, Inagin, Celina(ugh, does she even go here anymore) so on and so forth. Was their killingness a function of the myriad opportunities for PK? Is there a certain level of PK opportunity and population that we should be striving for, and how can we achieve it? How much negativity can we take on to try and recreate the situation that the above cited lived in and broke through? Is that even possible to create PK messiahs nowadays?
I'm drawn to cite the days of Draylor, and especially Caerlyr here (it's a bold move, Cotton). While Caerlyr most certainly was toxic to Glomdoring, I feel like it made victories and EtherSeren raids all the sweeter by sticking it in his face, and I feel like at some point the constant prodding into Glomdoring revitalized it a little bit, in a weird and twisted way. (This was at a time that I played my BT a lot). What do you think of that?
This is a comically outrageous misrepresentation of my post. Then you follow up by contradicting yourself. Your hate boner is showing Shaddus!
You can probally just chalk a lot of that up to experience though really. There's combinations of skills and tactics you wont sort of see without a good long play time, add in that old adage about how long it takes to practice a skill to master it. Sure I mean if you've played another IRE game a lot of the skills are transferable but there's still a lot of new stuff for everyone to learn so give it enough time and you'll have people as good as the more experienced folks.
If you think I'm looking for attention for myself, or trying to do personal attacks, or that I'm weak because 'one incident' made me cry, then I don't even know what to say. Maybe I'm just bad at writing posts. I apologise for thinking Yarith was behind the vines, but the fact that it was someone else just makes it more obvious that this is a widespread problem, not one or two people who have been named here.
I'm not threatening to quit. I already have. You won't be seeing Nikka anymore, because there's no more fun to be had with her. I just keep looking in here in the hopes that little me losing my cool might have been able to change things. Probably a vain hope.
If anything, the fact that we're grappling with this despite the fact that we have players from that "era" as examples (pardon the romanticised language) could be an argument to show to how some activities may simply no longer have the same positive effects they had in the past. The same activities that "grew" the past batch of resilient combatants are causing distress that encouragement and the "living example" of those oldies cannot assuage. Perhaps this is "softness" - or perhaps the frustration created is simply more unbearable today than in the past.
At the very least, both possibilities should be considered in full. Brushing off the second possibility - that circumstances have changed to no longer justify tolerating such activities - by just saying "Lusternia has grown soft, we had worse back in the day" is something that can backfire on the best of intentions (which is to preserve the validity of acts that are believed to have a positive impact.)
On the specific example of Caerlyr - my personal dislike of the player is probably inappropriate for this forums, so I'll keep it short: I have a problem with his character (edited to clarify: "character" as in human personality) - his grasp, and execution, of griefing was simply too shallow to have been either positive or negative, but I'm glad that he no longer plays this game as a member of the community. At least, if he's active as an alt, then at least he is not playing with his past persona. Either way, good riddance is all I can say.
In an effort to be less lol, let's also cite the likes of Vitas, or Munsia, for that matter.
There's a tendency to gloss over misdemeanors by players on 'your side', and paint it as 'just playing the game'. But the moment it's done to you, it's a crime against humanity and oh my god stop!!!
In conclusion: stop acting like you're on a high, high horse.
Accountability is necessary.
Edit to respond to the edit: The "no U" game is as old as Lusternia. The irony, of course, being that you're telling people to not be on a high horse while claiming "one side" apparently is the one on the high horse. It's kind of silly.
Accountability is necessary.
I'm not against griefing. I just wish people would be a little more discerning about who they're griefing, and a little more honest with themselves and the people around them about why they're doing it.
I also think that people do need to toughen up a bit. There's gonna be conflict, and while we all wish people would live and play by the rules we try to keep ourselves to, it's just not going to happen. Don't let asshats ruin your day.
It's also amusing that you mentioned Vitas. I'd post his kill list, but he's sort of retired. He rarely ever attacked people who weren't Glom enemies, and 90% of the people he decapped were afk on Prime. At least his actions taught people not to be inattentive on Prime, whereas Yarith attacking Nikkakorra really isn't going to teach Baelfyre not to attack Prime Celest.
I'm juvenile like that. But sometimes it has fun consequences IC, like becoming friends with Karlach while leading a city he's been annoying, or repeatedly swatting at people who can't hit me back for fear of Avenger.
You know, after I specifically asked people to stop griefing me in prime Mag and said I would leave if it kept up.
Don't know why my reaction has surprised anyone.
Having said that, if that one incident is enough to make you consider leaving, it might not be a bad idea to step away from Lusternia for awhile. Again, I don't say this as someone who wants you to leave, but as someone who has made that move personally, and greatly benefited from distance. If you're not in the headspace to deal with players doing things you don't like, playing Lusternia is much more difficult and much less fun. Something that has preserved my sanity is realizing more often than not, the attacks aren't personal by design.
I hope that you give Lusternia a try again, even if it's later on. And I hope that experience goes better for you. For now, I'm not sure that Tweets is the place to recover from an unpleasant in-game experience. The argument here seems to have gone beyond your Tweet somehow.
It's like people don't even read my posts.
I don't condone any of the griefing that Yarith does. I'm friends with Yarith, but I still call him a griefer. I tell him not to grief. If he goes ahead and does it then there is nothing I can do about it. There is nothing anyone in Hallifax can do it about. Just because we're not kicking him out to please Karlach or anyone else who wants to pile on Hallifax at any opportunity doesn't mean we condone it at an OOC level. Give Yarith all the shit you want but get off your high horse if you want to paint an entire organisation with the same brush because none of you are any better.
Maligorn does a whole "I don't get why we're associated with someone who we often associate with" melodrama when other people make a connection between Yarith's actions and Hallifax. I point out that there's a distinct lack of any public disavowing of what Yarith does coming from those who spend the most time with them.
Now apparently that means I want you to boot him out? Nah, I gave that as an example of what other people have done in the past, not some demand that it's what you should do.
I'm pointing out that, until this was noted on here, the distinct lack of any public disassociation has been telling, and that's why people assume you condone it. Especially when on the public surface of things you continue to raid together, s##tpost together and when people get into forum wars with you, moan about it on Discord together in a circle jerk.
People have had to do the same for other griefers before, hell Maligorn's bringing up someone who hasn't been relevant in seven years in some weird attempt to prove a point, suggesting that we need to apologise for someone who isn't even part of Glomdoring now.
If you don't like public perception of your (in)action in this regard, you should have probably done something to change it sooner instead of sitting here trying to make yourself out as some kind of victim in this whole debacle.
The divine voice of Avechna, the Avenger reverberates powerfully, "Congratulations, Morkarion, you are the Bringer of Death indeed."
You see Estarra the Eternal shout, "Morkarion is no more! Mourn the mortal! But welcome True Ascendant Karlach, of the Realm of Death!
The divine voice of Avechna, the Avenger reverberates powerfully, "Congratulations, Morkarion, you are the Bringer of Death indeed."
You see Estarra the Eternal shout, "Morkarion is no more! Mourn the mortal! But welcome True Ascendant Karlach, of the Realm of Death!