When Hallifax dropped Drachau (sp?) whenever that was - last summer maybe? - we got a fairly unsubtle Divine Nudge to leave them be for a while. I wonder if other orgs are held to similar standards?
I know at least 3 orgs have had not-insignificant chunks of power lost from smobs hitting shields. I think either Mag or Glom was pushed into negative power at one point and the opposing org was asked to lay off not long before the post-raise immunity period was implemented. (IIRC that was a direct response to Celest frankly griefing Mag and KEEPING the DLs dead).
Lusternia's great flaw: Acsendancy. The mechanic is flawed by default.
The current concept is let's have 1-4 (sometimes more considering TA) players in every org be special. These special players are going to have advantages to all other players. These players (VA) have a duty to their orgs because their orgs raised them. Players can not achieve this alone (or even buy it... Did I suggest the ability to buy VA? This is probably a bad idea). Orgs with active ascendants have advantages.
Issue: In order to raise a VA the org must have power. In order to have power the org must do several different things. In most cases the winning org gets power. However, the org with more active ascendants has an advantage. This puts a burden on the VA. Players now look to their VA for answers and with expectations. VA becomes miserable. VA stops playing as much. Org stop gaining as much power to get a new VA. This is why I will always decline and never be interesed in VA.
What does this have to do with raiding? Shields and smobs. Orgs can hit another orgs power preventing them to raise VAs which help produce power. The sting of a shield going down is rough because of this. I did not know orgs can go negative until I read a previous post.
I understand it is more complex, but this is the boiled down issue. I think this may lead to people feeling they have to respond to raids; therefore, they have to PK when it is unwelcome even when a non-smob raid is not much of a power loss.
Solution: (These are all separate and may not work together) 1. 5000 credits to buy VA. (This could also cause the problem to become larger.) 2. Cap the amount of VAs per org (I don't like this). 3. Remove the power cost from VA and allow an org to raise and replace VAs. Once a RL year Orgs can swap VAs. Inactive VA should be able to be dropped with a delay of 1 rl month to replace them mid year. An org could have a cap of 2 VAs. 4. Do away with VA and only have TAs. 5. Allow Avatars to effectively be VAs.
Most of the solutions would need other power use avenues to keep power at least relative in the game.
I'd say "you lost me at "to buy VA", but honestly it happened in the first paragraph. The link between VA and the topic of this thread strikes me as tenuous.
When Hallifax dropped Drachau (sp?) whenever that was - last summer maybe? - we got a fairly unsubtle Divine Nudge to leave them be for a while. I wonder if other orgs are held to similar standards?
I remember that, you raided the fleshpoints again as soon as the cooldown immunity wore off. .
I'd say "you lost me at "to buy VA", but honestly it happened in the first paragraph. The link between VA and the topic of this thread strikes me as tenuous.
Just an idea. Sometimes, they are good, and maybe this one is bad.
VAs just... existing isn't even in my top 10, not even for my top 10 just about raiding or combat. I think that Aeldra does a pretty good job in the OP of outlining the issue for me: Raiders have no lose condition (defenders have no win).
There are problems with other PvP mechanics, but they END and are reasonably satisfying because the goals of each side are reasonably equitable and once that goal is achieved for one of the sides, the combat ends. There is a fundamental mismatch between these systems and raiding.
For instance, villages. The goal for each side in an village conflict is to capture the village. There are different styles of accomplishing this goal that are modified by the village being peaced or not, and different reasons players might want to pursue fighting in a village. However, at some point someone will capture the village and the combat ends. The end result of that combat is the result of the choices made and powers brought to bear during the combat, and that story arc is what really makes the combat satisfying.
What it means to defend is that your territory IC is that intruders are no longer present in sovereign [read:sacred] lands or some permutation of that idea. That's how the game gets you to the table, enemies are attacking your sacred spirits/useful vassals/source of power, your character has some reason to want to come to their defense. OOC, what a defensive victory means is I am no longer in a reactive posture, I have reacted to the raid and it's over. I either engaged with it win or lose, chose to ignore it, or logged out. Either way, the raid requires me to react. Once the raid is over I regain a proactive PvP posture if I so choose, I get my choices back.
Raiders want to eat up time, full stop. All of the penalties of raiding (for raider and defender) involve causing the opponent to lose time. Time in the form of essence lost, time in the form of Ladies/Daughters that need re-raising, time in the form of weakened essence generation (empowering aspects/lords is a time multiplier), time in the form of raising Smobs and shields, time spent defending the plane against all of the above.
The kicker here is that the very fact of accomplishing a defensive goal accomplishes the raider's goal for them too: There you are, spending time amusing raiders when they want to eat up your time. These two incentives aren't in direct conflict, like they are in structured conflict events: Defending is not a struggle to maintain the status quo, by showing up you've lost status quo. The ultimate conclusion of this conflict between raiders leaving and defenders getting their time back is for orgs to die, full stop.
We are not at that point and never will be, but it is the ultimate extension of the logic: I get you to eat up less of my, the player's time, by logging off and reclaiming my time. If that means you kill smobs that I need to spend a bunch of time to reraise, I reclaim my time again by... not. If that means that my skills eventually stop working, I stop playing or move my character. At some point I'm invested enough in my character and wanting to play the game (hopefully) that I stick around to do the raid even if in doing so, I stop really having achievable goals: I've engaged you which is what you want, so now it'll go on until you get bored anyways.
And so, raids drag on. Defensive players don't really have much choice in what their character's activity in that time, they also have no agency: participate in combat and do poorly, raid goes on. Participate in combat and do very well... raid... goes... on ad nauseum. The raiders are getting what they want, after all!
No amount of fiddling with how risky raids are, or what benefits there are will touch this basic problem. Manifestly. We KNOW this! All of those things have been tried and failed. Sure, if raiders had something else to spend a bunch of time on and pull other players into they might not raid as often or as incessantly, but the problem itself wouldn't go away. We'd just be kicking the can until they get bored again once those other mechanics become saturated or finished. Having those things is a great idea and I like a bunch of the stuff brainstormed here, but it just doesn't address the issue at hand. Those things should be done in addition to (and after) fixing this issue.
This is not an essential issue, you can have a system of non-neutral, attacker-initiated, non-scheduled combat ("raiding") that doesn't have the same busted goal/incentive structure. I think this is a good idea, it makes sense from a character AND player perspective that sometimes you are required to react to things that other players do: this isn't a chatroom rpg with no rules or mechanics, that's what mechanics MEAN, forcing other people participating to react to something your character does whether or not they want to. However, the ability to do so should be purposefully designed such that the goals align and there's meaningful struggle between the two parties.
If the Raider's org suffered a penalty for their deaths, there'd be a win condition for defenders.
But all that'd achieve is more opportune attacks when no one's around, which is again why I talked about all six orgs being on windows of opportunity, even if it's a case of all 6 rotating daily around a four hour window, with each day the order being reshuffled (possibly even planning the entire week at a time for advance notice) There's always somewhere to have a fight, whether you attack or defend, so the argument that there's no PK falls flat, as somewhere is always a target.
If people are merely wanting "the good fight" this guarantees an active theatre of war where everyone is aware of it. You log in, you're either on the offence or the defence, regardless of time of day. No more "off peak" raiding accusations, the game makes it clear where is vulnerable, and people can go hit it, or go defend and anticipate an attack (which has the added bonus of being able to put your eggs in one basket, because you know they can't just duck you and hit somewhere else)
It doesn't stop people visiting other areas, it just stops them being able to choose to kick mobs when it suits them due to a lack of opposition, but the argument I keep hearing here is about wanting fights. While it's not nice to say it, there's no point in being dishonest and acting like there isn't a severe lack of trust in other members of the playerbase, and there's a lot of feeling that people play in bad faith. We can sit here talking about adding other conflict systems, but in truth, it's not going to resolve the problem listed in the OP. We can talk about gentlemen's agreements, but most people don't trust "the other side" to hold to it, and those reasons are not unfound.
Having something that's mechanically organised, openly visible to all without ambiguity and designed by pure RNG for neutrality seems the best way forward. Especially if it's laid out so there's always an active place to raid or defend.
I thought about the concept of having either diametrically opposed orgs both active at the same time for 8 hour shifts, but in truth 8 hours is a heck of a long time, and alliance shifts may mean both sides lie on the same team, and then the option to either raid or defend would be wasted.
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!
Stop trying to impose vague concepts of what you think a raider is or isn't. It's all
getting a bit wishy washy without any real point other than trying to veil insults.
Restricting all pvp to
timed windows is a concept that wont work. It's been discussed as
flawed numerous times but to recap the main point restricting it to
windows is far far too restrictive for a gaming community that
stretches across the globe.
Punishing pvpers for
pvping is a bad idea. We had very high death penalties before and we
lowered them because they discouraged conflict. (This is a conflict
game, we don't want to restrict or limit conflict.)
Lets focus on positives. On new ideas for alternative conflict zones, puzzles or areas and stop writing essays trying to punish people for wanting to pvp.
With respect, some of us have been playing the game longer than you, and have a better handle on how "raiding" tends to pan out. I don't believe for a moment that people raid for fair fights. The moment someone brings superior numbers to a plane to raid, whether intentionally or not (I've totally joined in on raids without announcing myself just because I wanted to have some fun), it becomes an endless justification to retaliate in the same way. And that's when you get the classic boring nexus staredown.
People raid to win and get some easy kills more than they raid to improve themselves. Change my mind. (I know a few exceptions out there.)
The big, and really only, downside to timed windows I see is that not everyone would get to play with everyone. Like if player 1 and player 2 live on opposite sides of the world and like to pvp alongside each other, a timed window would restrict further the times that they would get to play. Some disadvantage is fine, however, if the advantages outweigh it. So then you have to ask if some people being unhappy is worth other people being unhappy. Whose happiness is more important, is what it comes down to.
People haven't explained why it wouldn't work. Just going "it won't work" with a dismissive wave of the hand.
I proposed a system where there's always an active theatre of war, and everyone knows where it is.
I proposed that it's visible long in advance, so people can plan accordingly.
And even if you just log in, you know it's a warzone somewhere.
(Which is why I don't get your last post Synl, there's always somewhere for the two of them to play together, because somewhere is vulnerable)
I know exactly what a raider is and isn't, because for the last six years I've seen people duck fights, raid at obscure hours to their own natural timezone to avoid defenders (when they were online and those defenders were too) and use the open season mechanics of "always defend" to pick and choose when to raid in bad faith, all while claiming they want "good fights"
Frankly I call BS on most (read most, not all) people claiming that's what they're in for, and their own playing history backs that up.
And enough with the "punishing pk for wanting to pk" argument. Having people who opt to raid, and cause damage to an enemy org, either mechanically or just the fact they're imposing themselves on others is a no real risk scenario. Having their org take punishment (not the player) should they be killed (y'know, in a fight, that thing people say they want) would give defenders a win condition.
If that's going to put people off raiding, then I further question the good fight argument, they're happy to be a grievance to someone else's org, but the minute that could backfire on their own it'd be too much? How would you propose defenders get a victory condition other than "maintain the status quo" then?
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!
People haven't explained why it wouldn't work. Just going "it won't work" with a dismissive wave of the hand.
Yes, I did explain on a general level why timed windows don't work, but you may have missed it. It was part of a long post!
In more specifics, Lusternia has tried timed windows in the form of Nexus Weakenings. Those things got themselves deleted pretty darn hard. And I definitely remember the complaints about people smashing stuff up during "off-hour weakenings when nobody was around" too.
How far ahead of time did players know about said windows?
Were all orgs equally affected in a rotation system that meant at any point someone was vulnerable, allowing for people to have a constant source of conflict?
The issue we currently have is anywhere, at any time of the attacker's discretion they can strike. Not to mention people who complain that the only time they get fights is on enemy territory.
The proposal is a system where there is always somewhere to raid, like now, the difference is that the role of attacker and defender is constantly flipped, and people know where the fights will take place, so they can defend allies who may otherwise not have someone around to call for help.
For example, say the 4 hour window shifts to Hallifax, who have no one around. But Seren and Mag do, they know Hallifax is vulnerable and can check in on it, knowing that if Glom/Gaudi/Celest want a fight, that's where they'll be.
How is that not an improvement over what we have now, where one side would attack, and with no one to call it out, two orgs sit twiddling their thumbs?
So far I've yet to see any proposals that encourage people to engage pvp during raiding, both on offence and defence ,from the people going "that wouldn't work" which is surprising because the current system isn't set up for getting good fights at all.
Instead we get people suggesting additional features that don't resolve the issue.
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!
Heck you could go one step further and make all deaths xp free on whichever area is vulnerable.
Only thing I'm not sure of is a victory condition for defenders, toying with the idea that enemy deaths drain a small amount of power from their nexus, similar to cosmic loyal deaths. No penalty to the attacker themselves, but gives defenders a bonus. Not entirely satisfied with that idea though, still toying with ideas.
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!
1. The timed window proposal is horrid for anyone who argues the 'obligation to defend' point. Personally I don't mind it, since I'm in the 'I'm going to do what I, the player, wants.'-camp. But for those who claim that they're going to put their characters wants before their own, nexus weakenings were horrible. Think about it: it's the obligation to defend, except now you have to do it for four hours because it's smack dab in the middle of your playtime today.
2. Win-con for defenders is a different proposal, and I'm down with 'If you die in enemy territory, your nexus loses some power.' Seems fairly sensible, no downside as far as I can tell.
If I remember correctly, you knew quite a while ahead of time the general window and 24/48 hours the exact timing. It was not a constant window, but that actually turned out to be a good thing. Why?
There was a small group of people (like me!) who had very flexible schedules. I ended up feeling like I needed to set my alarm for every single Glomdoring weakening so I would be there. You don't know when an enemy force might show up, and I was Glomdoring's main construct pilot, so... many, many times I would log on in the dead of the night to scope out what was going on. With a short window, if enemies did not show within the first 15 minutes I could just go log off and get back to bed.
On the other side, we were able to (ab)use that against enemy organizations all the time. We knew when the weakenings would happen, they had no idea which ones we would show up on whereas we would choose when we would show. We would also set alarms on specific nights and go a-raidin'. But the window was done after an hour or so and we would all pack up and go home.
The window favours the attackers because as a defender you need to be available for most of the window (until it is effectively closed by "not enough time left to accomplish anything"), whereas the attackers can narrow down their arrival to a specific point in time. The wider the window, the greater the disparity. A short window ends up leaving both sides "equal" (mostly just favouring whoever has the most flexible RL schedule).
But on the defender side, "This is when we can be raided" very easily turns into "This is when I have to be here" (or conversely, "This is when I should just QQ the game because we might be raided"). It just didn't work out very well in practice even then, and as the game has matured I can't see it doing a whole lot better now.
Also, it did not help that the conflict mechanic was so lopsided. Killing a construct wiped it from the game for 30 RL days and you could easily wipe an undefended construct in 1 attack (plus a fair bit of damage on another, sometimes even taking down two in a go if particularly efficient), making having 1 person around absolutely critical. Opting to skip basically bleeped up your whole org for a month.
Edit: The big reason for night raids is that that is when the weakenings were. If we wanted to participate, that is when we had to go. There were also plenty of on-hour windows with big fights too (or desperate defenses). But due to the nature of a "window" you are going to have plenty of windows occurring when defenders just aren't around, and people taking advantage because "This is our open window and we are supposed to attack right now".
I think we need to step away from power drain as a punishment. Power is so plentiful these days that it would take a very significant amount of power to actually dent nexuses right now. I don't know of a good solution, I just know that power drain isn't a good one - it'd have to be so incredibly large that people would actually care, and at that point there'd be an uproar.
I think we need to step away from power drain as a punishment. Power is so plentiful these days that it would take a very significant amount of power to actually dent nexuses right now. I don't know of a good solution, I just know that power drain isn't a good one - it'd have to be so incredibly large that people would actually care, and at that point there'd be an uproar.
But... any punishment, if you make it one where people care, is also one where people will care negatively. Like, that's just the way things are. I'm down for completely removing all essence loss everywhere, and even other kinds of losses, because I want people to do whatever it is they want at that moment in this sandbox world, not not do things because they might lose something. But I understand I'm in the minority. Anyways. Any punishment you attach for losing on attack is going to upset some people, that's just something that you have to accept. It's what I was saying earlier, you're going to upset some people for the sake of not upsetting others. This is where the business sense comes in: which of those people are actually making the game money, because they matter more (whether you like that or not, money pays for servers).
Killing a construct was also far more punishing than losing Astral/Ethereal creatures, so while it's understandable that system was deleted, it doesn't apply here where the current "weak state" is a 24 hour scenario, which is currently exploited into a "wait for them to log off"
If defenders are given a win condition, the obligation is lessened. Yes you're still going to have unfortunate windows, but the frequency compared to now, where most raids happen at a time of zero resistance.
Also the freqency at which any one org can be hit is lessened, the days of round the clock raiding would no longer exist, if anything put people off wanting to play, that was it.
Yes there's still the attacker's discretion, but at the same time defenders across both alliances can step in and see. The idea that people feel obliged to be online is reduced, currently the feeling is you can be hit any time of day.
If anything it reduces pressure on defenders from now, currently they're at the mercy of a 24/7 window, my proposal would reduce it to 1/6th. Yes you won't be around for all of them, but if the order changes every day people will be around for some, and if not their org then their allies, a mutually beneficial situation.
I mean what's the alternative, delete org territorial raiding entirely for a new neutral conflict opt in system? Because arguing to keep the status quo doesn't resolve the issues, and I'm still not seeing many solutions from people arguing against proposed changes that address them.
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!
I mean what's the alternative, delete org territorial raiding entirely for a new neutral conflict opt in system? Because arguing to keep the status quo doesn't resolve the issues, and I'm still not seeing many solutions from people arguing against proposed changes that address them.
I am going to focus on this because this is the most important part of your post by far. The question "What is the alternative?" is why the status quo still exists. In my first post in this thread I laid out some of the history involved here. The Admin team has been looking for an alternative for a very, very long time.
In those years I have offered many ideas, too! But they have all had flaws in some respect or another, and none of them have really had any administrative buy-in for that reason.
What is needed is a solution that can be an alternative that everyone can embrace enthusiastically. None of my ideas qualify. Thus far, I am not sure any ideas posed here really do either.
Keep in mind that you are not trying to convince us, the players, of a replacement / addition but the administrative team. They have combined experience even more in-depth than my own (they have seen all the issues and behind-the-scenes conversations too). We need something that they will fall in love with. It is a lot of coding time to invest in something if it the system to replace a flawed mechanic is also flawed in entirely different ways.
The thing is, even if a system isn't perfect, if it's better than what we have, there's value in changing it.
Even if that leads to a new system inspiring an even better idea, and so on and so forth. The problem with waiting till the perfect idea comes along is that sometimes you can wait forever, because nothing has changed, the inspiration for new ideas remains limited.
Plus our players are smart, any system will be gamed and nothing is flawless, at the risk of going full on Kevin Flynn here "the thing about perfection is that it's unknowable. It's impossible, but it's also right in front of us all the time."
We'll never create a perfect solution, but we can easily create one that's better than what we have.
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 thing is, even if a system isn't perfect, if it's better than what we have, there's value in changing it.
Even if that leads to a new system inspiring an even better idea, and so on and so forth. The problem with waiting till the perfect idea comes along is that sometimes you can wait forever, because nothing has changed, the inspiration for new ideas remains limited.
Plus our players are smart, any system will be gamed and nothing is flawless, at the risk of going full on Kevin Flynn here "the thing about perfection is that it's unknowable. It's impossible, but it's also right in front of us all the time."
We'll never create a perfect solution, but we can easily create one that's better than what we have.
There's a lot that's good about your post, but I honestly don't think it's fair to say that "we can easily create one that's better than what we have". The reason we don't have a better system honestly seems to me because it isn't easy, both because coding anything is a b****, and because you can please some of the people some of the time. I think that's why there's hesitation toward change - because putting a lot of time, resource, and emotion into something that is still going to result in anger, frustration, and forums tantrums isn't in anybody's interest.
I think my favorite part of this entire thread is how people keep saying "raiders raid because they want quality pvp."
No, raiders raid because there's someone they can f#*% with. It's human nature for people to want to have someone they're "superior" to. At no point ever in Lusternia has a raid happened, been successfully defended against, and the raiders say, "well, they beat us fair and square. Better luck next time".
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 raid for the same reason I join wargames; to play a major part of the game, have pvp and have fun. If that is something people cant understand then we're approaching this issue from two incompatable viewpoints.
To recap a few points based on the concept that pvp is fun and I want to be part of it:
Raiding and arenas are the only easy access pick up pvp in the game. Banning or nerfing that without a strong alternative has already been explained as a bad move as your nixing the only access to conflict combat that the majory of the player base can access.
Windows suck because its so so easy to miss. Even when you know its happening, real life events are more important. Unless the windows are very very frequent. Exceptionally frequent windows are something that could work but we're talking about windows that need to happen so that they will hit on everyones average play time so we'd need a window every hour or two. So well windows can work but they must be exceptionally frequent.
Killing loyal mobs when most/all defenders are offline and Kick and run raiding while annoying isnt really an issue. No matter what new system you bring in kick and run annoyances will always exist. Folks lose a fight, go defile one room of a shiky shrine. Losing a domoth go kick a daughter. Sure it happens and it can be midly annoying but its not really an issue because we have significant in game responses to this already. See the Saga of Xenthos and his crusade on the Shikari god realm raider.
Am I the only one who thinks raid-windows will only encourage even more kick and run shenanigans? Especially when the kicker knows that their org's window will be while they're offline anyways, and they can just hide in their untouchable org territory anytime someone shows up, with no possibility for immediate retribution of any kind.
I think the idea Karlach was putting forward is that you essentially have the planes rotate through so there's always one vulnerable, but only for a few hours at a time each. Like, Continuum+Air for 3 hours, then Ether Seren, then Celestia+Water, etc. and the mobs there are invulnerable outside of those windows. So each org has one or two windows a day where their stuff can get rekt, but they're still able to be hunted down in their own territory if they're being pests.
Comments
The current concept is let's have 1-4 (sometimes more considering TA) players in every org be special. These special players are going to have advantages to all other players. These players (VA) have a duty to their orgs because their orgs raised them. Players can not achieve this alone (or even buy it... Did I suggest the ability to buy VA? This is probably a bad idea). Orgs with active ascendants have advantages.
Issue: In order to raise a VA the org must have power. In order to have power the org must do several different things. In most cases the winning org gets power. However, the org with more active ascendants has an advantage. This puts a burden on the VA. Players now look to their VA for answers and with expectations. VA becomes miserable. VA stops playing as much. Org stop gaining as much power to get a new VA. This is why I will always decline and never be interesed in VA.
What does this have to do with raiding? Shields and smobs. Orgs can hit another orgs power preventing them to raise VAs which help produce power. The sting of a shield going down is rough because of this. I did not know orgs can go negative until I read a previous post.
I understand it is more complex, but this is the boiled down issue. I think this may lead to people feeling they have to respond to raids; therefore, they have to PK when it is unwelcome even when a non-smob raid is not much of a power loss.
Solution: (These are all separate and may not work together)
1. 5000 credits to buy VA. (This could also cause the problem to become larger.)
2. Cap the amount of VAs per org (I don't like this).
3. Remove the power cost from VA and allow an org to raise and replace VAs. Once a RL year Orgs can swap VAs. Inactive VA should be able to be dropped with a delay of 1 rl month to replace them mid year. An org could have a cap of 2 VAs.
4. Do away with VA and only have TAs.
5. Allow Avatars to effectively be VAs.
Most of the solutions would need other power use avenues to keep power at least relative in the game.
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!
There are problems with other PvP mechanics, but they END and are reasonably satisfying because the goals of each side are reasonably equitable and once that goal is achieved for one of the sides, the combat ends. There is a fundamental mismatch between these systems and raiding.
For instance, villages. The goal for each side in an village conflict is to capture the village. There are different styles of accomplishing this goal that are modified by the village being peaced or not, and different reasons players might want to pursue fighting in a village. However, at some point someone will capture the village and the combat ends. The end result of that combat is the result of the choices made and powers brought to bear during the combat, and that story arc is what really makes the combat satisfying.
What it means to defend is that your territory IC is that intruders are no longer present in sovereign [read:sacred] lands or some permutation of that idea. That's how the game gets you to the table, enemies are attacking your sacred spirits/useful vassals/source of power, your character has some reason to want to come to their defense. OOC, what a defensive victory means is I am no longer in a reactive posture, I have reacted to the raid and it's over. I either engaged with it win or lose, chose to ignore it, or logged out. Either way, the raid requires me to react. Once the raid is over I regain a proactive PvP posture if I so choose, I get my choices back.
Raiders want to eat up time, full stop. All of the penalties of raiding (for raider and defender) involve causing the opponent to lose time. Time in the form of essence lost, time in the form of Ladies/Daughters that need re-raising, time in the form of weakened essence generation (empowering aspects/lords is a time multiplier), time in the form of raising Smobs and shields, time spent defending the plane against all of the above.
The kicker here is that the very fact of accomplishing a defensive goal accomplishes the raider's goal for them too: There you are, spending time amusing raiders when they want to eat up your time. These two incentives aren't in direct conflict, like they are in structured conflict events: Defending is not a struggle to maintain the status quo, by showing up you've lost status quo. The ultimate conclusion of this conflict between raiders leaving and defenders getting their time back is for orgs to die, full stop.
We are not at that point and never will be, but it is the ultimate extension of the logic: I get you to eat up less of my, the player's time, by logging off and reclaiming my time. If that means you kill smobs that I need to spend a bunch of time to reraise, I reclaim my time again by... not. If that means that my skills eventually stop working, I stop playing or move my character. At some point I'm invested enough in my character and wanting to play the game (hopefully) that I stick around to do the raid even if in doing so, I stop really having achievable goals: I've engaged you which is what you want, so now it'll go on until you get bored anyways.
And so, raids drag on. Defensive players don't really have much choice in what their character's activity in that time, they also have no agency: participate in combat and do poorly, raid goes on. Participate in combat and do very well... raid... goes... on ad nauseum. The raiders are getting what they want, after all!
No amount of fiddling with how risky raids are, or what benefits there are will touch this basic problem. Manifestly. We KNOW this! All of those things have been tried and failed. Sure, if raiders had something else to spend a bunch of time on and pull other players into they might not raid as often or as incessantly, but the problem itself wouldn't go away. We'd just be kicking the can until they get bored again once those other mechanics become saturated or finished. Having those things is a great idea and I like a bunch of the stuff brainstormed here, but it just doesn't address the issue at hand. Those things should be done in addition to (and after) fixing this issue.
This is not an essential issue, you can have a system of non-neutral, attacker-initiated, non-scheduled combat ("raiding") that doesn't have the same busted goal/incentive structure. I think this is a good idea, it makes sense from a character AND player perspective that sometimes you are required to react to things that other players do: this isn't a chatroom rpg with no rules or mechanics, that's what mechanics MEAN, forcing other people participating to react to something your character does whether or not they want to. However, the ability to do so should be purposefully designed such that the goals align and there's meaningful struggle between the two parties.
TL;DR:
But all that'd achieve is more opportune attacks when no one's around, which is again why I talked about all six orgs being on windows of opportunity, even if it's a case of all 6 rotating daily around a four hour window, with each day the order being reshuffled (possibly even planning the entire week at a time for advance notice) There's always somewhere to have a fight, whether you attack or defend, so the argument that there's no PK falls flat, as somewhere is always a target.
If people are merely wanting "the good fight" this guarantees an active theatre of war where everyone is aware of it. You log in, you're either on the offence or the defence, regardless of time of day. No more "off peak" raiding accusations, the game makes it clear where is vulnerable, and people can go hit it, or go defend and anticipate an attack (which has the added bonus of being able to put your eggs in one basket, because you know they can't just duck you and hit somewhere else)
It doesn't stop people visiting other areas, it just stops them being able to choose to kick mobs when it suits them due to a lack of opposition, but the argument I keep hearing here is about wanting fights. While it's not nice to say it, there's no point in being dishonest and acting like there isn't a severe lack of trust in other members of the playerbase, and there's a lot of feeling that people play in bad faith. We can sit here talking about adding other conflict systems, but in truth, it's not going to resolve the problem listed in the OP. We can talk about gentlemen's agreements, but most people don't trust "the other side" to hold to it, and those reasons are not unfound.
Having something that's mechanically organised, openly visible to all without ambiguity and designed by pure RNG for neutrality seems the best way forward. Especially if it's laid out so there's always an active place to raid or defend.
I thought about the concept of having either diametrically opposed orgs both active at the same time for 8 hour shifts, but in truth 8 hours is a heck of a long time, and alliance shifts may mean both sides lie on the same team, and then the option to either raid or defend would be wasted.
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!
Stop trying to impose vague concepts of what you think a raider is or isn't. It's all getting a bit wishy washy without any real point other than trying to veil insults.
Restricting all pvp to timed windows is a concept that wont work. It's been discussed as flawed numerous times but to recap the main point restricting it to windows is far far too restrictive for a gaming community that stretches across the globe.
Punishing pvpers for pvping is a bad idea. We had very high death penalties before and we lowered them because they discouraged conflict. (This is a conflict game, we don't want to restrict or limit conflict.)
Lets focus on positives. On new ideas for alternative conflict zones, puzzles or areas and stop writing essays trying to punish people for wanting to pvp.
And we're always going to say 'me and mine'.
I proposed a system where there's always an active theatre of war, and everyone knows where it is.
I proposed that it's visible long in advance, so people can plan accordingly.
And even if you just log in, you know it's a warzone somewhere.
(Which is why I don't get your last post Synl, there's always somewhere for the two of them to play together, because somewhere is vulnerable)
I know exactly what a raider is and isn't, because for the last six years I've seen people duck fights, raid at obscure hours to their own natural timezone to avoid defenders (when they were online and those defenders were too) and use the open season mechanics of "always defend" to pick and choose when to raid in bad faith, all while claiming they want "good fights"
Frankly I call BS on most (read most, not all) people claiming that's what they're in for, and their own playing history backs that up.
And enough with the "punishing pk for wanting to pk" argument. Having people who opt to raid, and cause damage to an enemy org, either mechanically or just the fact they're imposing themselves on others is a no real risk scenario. Having their org take punishment (not the player) should they be killed (y'know, in a fight, that thing people say they want) would give defenders a win condition.
If that's going to put people off raiding, then I further question the good fight argument, they're happy to be a grievance to someone else's org, but the minute that could backfire on their own it'd be too much? How would you propose defenders get a victory condition other than "maintain the status quo" then?
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!
We already see this from people who could compete for a domoth, or wildnodes, but instead choose to go "raid" knowing the fighters are elsewhere.
Stop proposing Jesus features to avoid dealing with the issue in the OP.
No thinly veiled insults here, I'm not pointing fingers at individuals or orgs, because no org can sit here and assume a moral highground.
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!
Were all orgs equally affected in a rotation system that meant at any point someone was vulnerable, allowing for people to have a constant source of conflict?
The issue we currently have is anywhere, at any time of the attacker's discretion they can strike. Not to mention people who complain that the only time they get fights is on enemy territory.
The proposal is a system where there is always somewhere to raid, like now, the difference is that the role of attacker and defender is constantly flipped, and people know where the fights will take place, so they can defend allies who may otherwise not have someone around to call for help.
For example, say the 4 hour window shifts to Hallifax, who have no one around. But Seren and Mag do, they know Hallifax is vulnerable and can check in on it, knowing that if Glom/Gaudi/Celest want a fight, that's where they'll be.
How is that not an improvement over what we have now, where one side would attack, and with no one to call it out, two orgs sit twiddling their thumbs?
So far I've yet to see any proposals that encourage people to engage pvp during raiding, both on offence and defence ,from the people going "that wouldn't work" which is surprising because the current system isn't set up for getting good fights at all.
Instead we get people suggesting additional features that don't resolve the issue.
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!
Only thing I'm not sure of is a victory condition for defenders, toying with the idea that enemy deaths drain a small amount of power from their nexus, similar to cosmic loyal deaths. No penalty to the attacker themselves, but gives defenders a bonus. Not entirely satisfied with that idea though, still toying with ideas.
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!
2. Win-con for defenders is a different proposal, and I'm down with 'If you die in enemy territory, your nexus loses some power.' Seems fairly sensible, no downside as far as I can tell.
If defenders are given a win condition, the obligation is lessened. Yes you're still going to have unfortunate windows, but the frequency compared to now, where most raids happen at a time of zero resistance.
Also the freqency at which any one org can be hit is lessened, the days of round the clock raiding would no longer exist, if anything put people off wanting to play, that was it.
Yes there's still the attacker's discretion, but at the same time defenders across both alliances can step in and see. The idea that people feel obliged to be online is reduced, currently the feeling is you can be hit any time of day.
If anything it reduces pressure on defenders from now, currently they're at the mercy of a 24/7 window, my proposal would reduce it to 1/6th. Yes you won't be around for all of them, but if the order changes every day people will be around for some, and if not their org then their allies, a mutually beneficial situation.
I mean what's the alternative, delete org territorial raiding entirely for a new neutral conflict opt in system? Because arguing to keep the status quo doesn't resolve the issues, and I'm still not seeing many solutions from people arguing against proposed changes that address them.
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!
Even if that leads to a new system inspiring an even better idea, and so on and so forth. The problem with waiting till the perfect idea comes along is that sometimes you can wait forever, because nothing has changed, the inspiration for new ideas remains limited.
Plus our players are smart, any system will be gamed and nothing is flawless, at the risk of going full on Kevin Flynn here "the thing about perfection is that it's unknowable. It's impossible, but it's also right in front of us all the time."
We'll never create a perfect solution, but we can easily create one that's better than what we have.
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!
No, raiders raid because there's someone they can f#*% with. It's human nature for people to want to have someone they're "superior" to. At no point ever in Lusternia has a raid happened, been successfully defended against, and the raiders say, "well, they beat us fair and square. Better luck next time".