Another note, some folks will constantly try to make anything that touches on this topic a referendum on either their personal behavior or the behavior of others. In the end this just derails conversation, either by grinding it to a halt or because it will become "too personal" and the thread will be locked. Beware.
If anything, if it doesn't promote conflict from Mag, it would definitely do so from Celest. (My char tries to encourage his citizens to crusade against Nil at times, but not always.)
In other words, Celest would be able to grief Mag, and Mag wouldn't bother to fight back, because that would invite more griefing, which... defeats the entire purpose of a "conflict system". One sided conflicts are not a game, they are bullying. That's not a solution.
What? That's not griefing. That's more of an issue with Mag not willing or wanting to involve themselves in a conflict system. The players control if they want to engage in anything or not and that's a problematic mentality that Mag will have to fix. I mean, if YOU don't want to defend or stand up for what you believe in of an org, then sure, sit back and let someone else do the defending.
Just translating for the viewers at home, Mink. Making supermobs weaker makes it easier to kill them. Thus, making it easier to continue griefing orgs with fewer people. You know exactly what you're doing here.
[[[Maylea expressed her grief by killing them - after they successfully killed Feyr - because they thought Feyr/Lief.]]]
I killed Feyr on prime. I killed him because he declared me on prime and attacked me, and kept trying to deathprophesy me. I don't hold it against Maylea for killing me whether I had killed Feyr or not, because actions have consequences and life isn't always supposed to be fair.
That was well spoken truth about life isn't always suppose to be fair.
Um... ok. This isn't real life. Games are expected to be fair, especially games with some expectation that the players might pay money to enjoy playing them. It being "free to play" doesn't mean there isn't still that expectation.
Right exactly, it isn't real life. Games are NOT EXEMPT either. If that was the case, we wouldn't have all the balance issues, over-sensitive complaining, rp issues amongst other UNFAIR advantages and disadvantages that are clearly commented on in this forum or any other game forum because why? They're not always fair and you'll be wise to understand that expecting it is a fool's errand even if you are paying to play.
This makes no sense and is a complete non-sequitur to what I said that you commented on. Log off, take a deep breath, and try to find your point.
Here, I'll help: Are you saying:
-Games should not have rules? -Games should not be balanced? -Games should never be changed, even when people point out their flaws? -People should still pay for games they get no value out of and are not fair or balanced?
Griefing or not griefing is not a very useful way to think of things.
Because of the free escalation of conflict, whichever side is willing to push things all the way wins EVERY combat even minor ones that the other side finds fun, because they can always hold "participate in this and we'll push it to the end" over that side's head. This was the big problem with totems, and spreading fires - it was just too uneven and uncontrolled. NOT griefy, or "Evil" or "wrong" or whatever, but bad for the game absolutely.
No, not entirely accurate. You're envisioning a game where there are no combat balance issues and population is roughly equal on both sides at any given event. We don't play that game. This is not the same situation with totems, even if that was also unfair to one side. This is essentially saying that the ones who "try hardest" are the ones who win. That's nonsense. The ones with 15 people on their side will win over the ones with 5. It doesn't matter what either side does or what their mentality is. Also... this thread was never about letting anyone win a conflict event.
"Griefy" does not mean "evil" or "wrong." Evil is murdering children in real life. Torturing animals. Psychopaths are evil. Griefers are simply... griefy. Don't use hyperbolic language to describe behavior in A GAME and then imply that those who call it "griefing" can't tell the difference between this and real life.
That's not at all what I'm saying here, not at ALL.
First off, what you're saying about griefing is exactly what I was saying about it, but that's not how the word is generally used or read in game spaces. It generally IS intended as a moral condemnation: you are griefing, therefore you are a griefer, therefore you are a bad person. While yes it's good to call out people who are not acting in good faith, doing so isn't very useful in figuring out solutions to resolving the harmful behavior. You can moderate specific people all day and... end up doing that all day every day unless you figure out why they're doing it, or more importantly what in the game allows or rewards the griefy behavior. Because at the end of the day it's bad for the game, not because it's mean or makes people sad or whatever, but because it takes away from the desired gameplay. That's the premise of the thread, that these PK activities are encroaching on other types of gameplay.
Second, that's not what I was trying to say regarding endurance either. What I was getting at is this: The way the game is set up, you can pretty freely raid territories and the only practical end to occupation is when you get bored and find something else to do. This holds even with things like stacking death penalties, which only serve to encourage you to engineer situations where you won't die. Some people have a very high threshold of boredom for whatever reason, even if there isn't an active opposition they will remain in these engagements pretty much indefinitely as long as SOMEONE shows up or there's a mob left to bash. This is basically the ultimate deciding factor in Lusternian conflict right now, because it doesn't matter who wins any given engagement, the side who gets bored the least can escalate and escalate and escalate forever until the other side capitulates - usually long after that side has stuck with an unfun (to them) engagement for much longer than desirable. Its not that they "try harder" or whatever, but just that it's demonstrably true that whichever side can threaten the most grueling, longest, grindiest experience over time will do just that: grind the other side out of existence. That fact and general self-sorting has ended up that most prominent folks like that will group together on one side .
I'm saying that's BAD, agreeing with you. It's bad that the game allows escalating to that point, which is where I brought up totems. As I pointed out in the other thread, forests would be in a stupid bind because anything they did could be unfairly "revenged" by chopping down totems, and anything you did to try and redress that would be met with... MORE totem chopping. Anything you did with the goal of less totem chopping, less fighting, would result in more totem chopping until they were all gone. The same goes for PvP in general. You can raid, but only if you're prepared for unrelenting counter-raids until you lose, if you're facing a Glom alliance filled with folks who just... never seem to get bored of raiding. That starts to expand to more than just "fair" retaliation for raiding Glomdoring, but to pretty much any perceived slight, even a counterraid against original Glom aggression. The point isn't "who is to blame" but that the cycle only ever ends when the high-bore-tolerance people get bored, never before. So the other side always has more to lose in every engagement. When someone who wants maximum slugfest raids, the worst that happens to them is... more fighting yay! This creates a similar situation to totems, vines, and spreading fires and ultimately punishes everyone who wants to do anything else with their online time.
It's not a matter of those people necessarily being bad people, it's that the game just fails to account for different drives entirely, and in doing so creates incentives for people to behave badly.
Alright, @Enya. Although there is also a danger in assuming that all people who play a game are doing so in good faith, and with the interest of making it fun for both sides - they're not. I'm not going to put on a smile and pretend that they're aren't people who genuinely want to drive people away from playing altogether. I'm not that naive, and no one else should be, either. It also doesn't help to ignore the perspectives of the losing side - there's a reason they feel that way, and a lot of it is a lack of engagement outside of pk, both ic and oocly. Ignoring problems don't make them go away.
But, I agree. The mechanics for these conflicts are bad, and encourage bad behavior. Raiding, though, is not that terrible these days most of the time. The only issues with it I have are with the supermob mechanics, and the event-raid-fests that happened yesterday. Nocht gave some suggestions for how to fix/improve the later, and the former, the best way forward is to make them unkillable. Fixing the mechanic to make it less horrible for the losers would require a major overhaul for something of relatively low value.
But, I agree. The mechanics for these conflicts are bad, and encourage bad behavior. Raiding, though, is not that terrible these days most of the time. The only issues with it I have are with the supermob mechanics, and the event-raid-fests that happened yesterday. Nocht gave some suggestions for how to fix/improve the later, and the former, the best way forward is to make them unkillable. Fixing the mechanic to make it less horrible for the losers would require a major overhaul for something of relatively low value.
But if supermobs weren't there, they would go for something else. And then that would be changed, until eventually in the interests of "fairness" , all that would exist were one on one duels to first blood in order to prevent hurt feelings.
Why do you think there is an entitlement to fairness? Some days once alliance will have the numbers, other days another. Occasionally both will be equal and epic battles will occur. It happens.
Remember when they looked at stats and it turned out for timequakes numbers were about even?
Move from "must compete" to "c'est la guerre" in your mindset. Learn to love taking part. It's not whether you win or lose but how you play the game and all that!
I think that the idea of "Nothing's wrong, everything is fine the way it is, things don't have to be fair" is a perspective that is not borne out by the decrease in Lusternia's population over time.
(clan): Falmiis says, "Aramelise, verb, 1. adorn with many flowers."
Kistan said: But if supermobs weren't there, they would go for something else. And then that would be changed, until eventually in the interests of "fairness" , all that would exist were one on one duels to first blood in order to prevent hurt feelings.
That something else would not contain as inherently griefy tactics as supermobs currently have. That's the entire point, Kistan. That's the part that's broken, not "all raiding" or "all conflict"
Why do you think there is an entitlement to fairness? Some days once alliance will have the numbers, other days another. Occasionally both will be equal and epic battles will occur. It happens.
Games have an implicit entitlement to fairness for all players. In monopoly, everyone starts out with the same amount of fake money and plays by the same rules. This is why pk rules exist, why the Avenger exists, why we have arguments about class balance. If you don't think there's an entitlement to "fairness", then you may as well argue that everyone who plays in Mag should be limited to newbie kicks while everyone else gets any skill they want.
The numbers, spread out over days, are not even. But that is beside the point, and is a distraction that has nothing to do with this premise, nor what you commented on. Regardless of who wins conflicts, ALL people should be able to play the game and participate. That can't happen when parts of it are broken and driving people away due to the inherent unfairness of them.
Move from "must compete" to "c'est la guerre" in your mindset. Learn to love taking part. It's not whether you win or lose but how you play the game and all that!
This is an argument made by non-comms who don't have any investment in pk. It's fine for you to play the game that way, but no one else needs to take it seriously when they are motivated by different elements of the game.
Kistan said: But if supermobs weren't there, they would go for something else. And then that would be changed, until eventually in the interests of "fairness" , all that would exist were one on one duels to first blood in order to prevent hurt feelings.
That something else would not contain as inherently griefy tactics as supermobs currently have. That's the entire point, Kistan. That's the part that's broken, not "all raiding" or "all conflict"
Why do you think there is an entitlement to fairness? Some days once alliance will have the numbers, other days another. Occasionally both will be equal and epic battles will occur. It happens.
Games have an implicit entitlement to fairness for all players. In monopoly, everyone starts out with the same amount of fake money and plays by the same rules. This is why pk rules exist, why the Avenger exists, why we have arguments about class balance. If you don't think there's an entitlement to "fairness", then you may as well argue that everyone who plays in Mag should be limited to newbie kicks while everyone else gets any skill they want.
But there is no implicit fairness in IRE - it is pay to win (to an extent) . To use your monopoly example, in IRE not everyone starts with the same money. Imagine monopoly where Billy Rich Kid could buy additional money. Where Billy Rich Kid could move faster. That's where we are with IRE.
Artefacts, credits and the ability to buy them removes any inherent fairness. We are so far from all starting at the same place, it is ridiculous.
But you know what - c'est la guerre.
Plus you should be nicer to non-comms - we aren't the ones leaving the game!
[[[Maylea expressed her grief by killing them - after they successfully killed Feyr - because they thought Feyr/Lief.]]]
I killed Feyr on prime. I killed him because he declared me on prime and attacked me, and kept trying to deathprophesy me. I don't hold it against Maylea for killing me whether I had killed Feyr or not, because actions have consequences and life isn't always supposed to be fair.
That was well spoken truth about life isn't always suppose to be fair.
Um... ok. This isn't real life. Games are expected to be fair, especially games with some expectation that the players might pay money to enjoy playing them. It being "free to play" doesn't mean there isn't still that expectation.
Right exactly, it isn't real life. Games are NOT EXEMPT either. If that was the case, we wouldn't have all the balance issues, over-sensitive complaining, rp issues amongst other UNFAIR advantages and disadvantages that are clearly commented on in this forum or any other game forum because why? They're not always fair and you'll be wise to understand that expecting it is a fool's errand even if you are paying to play.
This makes no sense and is a complete non-sequitur to what I said that you commented on. Log off, take a deep breath, and try to find your point.
Here, I'll help: Are you saying:
-Games should not have rules? -Games should not be balanced? -Games should never be changed, even when people point out their flaws? -People should still pay for games they get no value out of and are not fair or balanced?
I'll help here as well in one simple repeat in a nutshell. "Do not expect games to be fair, you'll be a fool to expect fair play when there are not going to be 100% perfected fair play."
I'm not saying we shouldn't, but at the same time, I'm not naive to expect something that's not going to happen -ever-, I've been alive way too long to know this fact exist in any game as well as real life. So take it and twist it how you want to, but I think I had said enough and my piece about this topic. I'll keep reading other points of views at this time.
But there is no implicit fairness in IRE - it is pay to win (to an extent) . To use your monopoly example, in IRE not everyone starts with the same money. Imagine monopoly where Billy Rich Kid could buy additional money. Where Billy Rich Kid could move faster. That's where we are with IRE.
Artefacts, credits and the ability to buy them removes any inherent fairness. We are so far from all starting at the same place, it is ridiculous.
But you know what - c'est la guerre.
Plus you should be nicer to non-comms - we aren't the ones leaving the game!
That's not an implicit unfairness in IRE, that's an implicit unfairness in real life. IRE can adjust for that in any number of ways, but that has nothing to do with this thread.
I wasn't mean. I said it's an argument used by non-comms, which it is, and that it's fine to not be motivated by pk.
I'll help here as well in one simple repeat in a nutshell. "Do not expect games to be fair, you'll be a fool to expect fair play when there are not going to be 100% perfected fair play."
I'm not saying we shouldn't, but at the same time, I'm not naive to expect something that's not going to happen -ever-, I've been alive way too long to know this fact exist in any game as well as real life. So take it and twist it how you want to, but I think I had said enough and my piece about this topic. I'll keep reading other points of views at this time.
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." It is ridiculous to expect perfection. It is also ridiculous to argue against improvement.
And, good, you made it clear from the beginning you weren't interested in discussing it.
I think that the idea of "Nothing's wrong, everything is fine the way it is, things don't have to be fair" is a perspective that is not borne out by the decrease in Lusternia's population over time.
Let's roll with this. Let's imagine that Estarra has put you in charge for a day in Lusternia.
Hallifax has been on top for org credits most of the time. This is unfair to other orgs. What would you urge the coders to to in order to make this more fair?
Night users are required to gather and stockpile shadows for many of their skills. This costs them 3 power to gather a shadow, reduced to 1 power if they're Nightkissed (Trans Night, ten power, only able to be activated at night time and not during the Full Moon), and increased to 2 shadows if the construct is up (It always is, but putting this here for full transparency). Moon users don't have to micromanage any such resources, which you are fully aware of. What would you code to make this fair?
In the same vein, Crow users are required to micromanage carrion and their nests, while Stag users are not. What do you envision we can do to make this fair and balanced?
Night users are able to use Nightgaze (Psychic/Excoro) and Nightkiss (Cold/Asphyx) to hunt with. These are heavily resisted on Astral, whereas Moon users have Moonburst (Magical) and Moonfire (Fire/Divinus), some of the more used bashing elements and least resisted in the better hunting spots. Furthermore, Moon users require less specific buffs for their damage types. What would you code to make this balanced?
Hallifax tends to have all of their Wind Lords empowered by sands each year, as do their allies, due to some peoples' hard work and dedication. Isn't this unfair to orgs whose players can't always make the time to hunt sands and micromanage manifestations? What would you do to make this more fair and balanced so that people don't get frustrated and leave?
Her voice firm and commanding, Terentia, the Even Bladed says to you, "You have kept your oath to Me, Parhelion. You have sworn to maintain Justice in these troubled times."
Yet if a boon be granted me, unworthy as I am, let it be for a steady hand with a clear eye and a fury most inflaming.
Now, I can do the above post about any org, focusing on some other org and telling you about how Lusternia isn't fair.
..and I can apparently accidently post my comment while typing. But my point is that not all skillsets are going to be exactly the same, and not all things are going to be "balanced". Having a can-do attitude does make a difference, it's all about how badly you want to succeed or at least get better at what you're doing. Hallifax is absolutely on top when it comes to books, stage plays, rp, and the like. That doesn't win anomalies though, and it doesn't win battles/timequakes/raids.
Her voice firm and commanding, Terentia, the Even Bladed says to you, "You have kept your oath to Me, Parhelion. You have sworn to maintain Justice in these troubled times."
Yet if a boon be granted me, unworthy as I am, let it be for a steady hand with a clear eye and a fury most inflaming.
Well, Hallifax has been on top of the politics board for months now, but I'm pretty sure none of my allies are running to the forums screaming about how unfair or fair that is either quite simply. So totes on doing a good job there.
Having a can-do attitude does make a difference, it's all about how badly you want to succeed or at least get better at what you're doing.
Okay, I do have to ask here - are you saying that I, personally, don't show up to timequakes/rifts/want to succeed/lead in pvp?
Edit: I feel like saying "all you need to do is get good" ignores the fact that imbalances can and do exist, and should be rectified where possible. By the same logic - that nothing's ever wrong or needs to change - Orael's entire job shouldn't exist. Why have reports at all if skills don't matter and all people need to do is to try harder?
(clan): Falmiis says, "Aramelise, verb, 1. adorn with many flowers."
Now, I can do the above post about any org, focusing on some other org and telling you about how Lusternia isn't fair.
You don't know how to balance ANY of that, yet you're demanding that Aramel does when all she pointed out was that there's room for improvement? Whoever you're defending here, it's not "balance" or "common sense."
Hallifax has been on top for org credits most of the time. This is unfair to other orgs. What would you urge the coders to to in order to make this more fair?
Tell those orgs to write more. Do plays more. Replace inactive/missing librarians and culture ministers. The coders don't need to do *anything*. If you think it's unfair that Hallifax has more writers than other orgs, then do you also think it's unfair that Glomdoring has more PEOPLE than any other org? Tell them to leave Glom. You know, cause you care so much about "fairness."
Hallifax tends to have all of their Wind Lords empowered by sands each year,
I spend real-life hours staring at the ticks just to track those things, with help from maybe one or two other Hallifaxians. Real. Life. Hours. Sometimes, 16-24 per lusternian year. Literally anyone else in the game can do the same. You do it this time, for whichever org you want. Hell, I wrote a public post telling everyone exactly how I do it EVERY YEAR, encouraging anyone else to do the same.
as do their allies,
No, not always. Often I get bored with it, and the handful of credits and backpats are not worth the time it would take. Really, I question every year if it's worth it for Hallifax, but I do it because most of the time, it is possible to. No other reason than that.
Isn't this unfair to orgs whose players can't always make the time to hunt sands and micromanage manifestations?
Nope.
"Chairwoman," Princess Setisoki states, holding up a hand in a gesture for her to stop and returning the cup. "That would be quite inappropriate. One of the males will serve me."
Choros said: Let's roll with this. Let's imagine that Estarra has put you in charge for a day in Lusternia.
Hallifax has been on top for org credits most of the time. This is unfair to other orgs. What would you urge the coders to to in order to make this more fair?
Night users are required to gather and stockpile shadows for many of their skills. This costs them 3 power to gather a shadow, reduced to 1 power if they're Nightkissed (Trans Night, ten power, only able to be activated at night time and not during the Full Moon), and increased to 2 shadows if the construct is up (It always is, but putting this here for full transparency). Moon users don't have to micromanage any such resources, which you are fully aware of. What would you code to make this fair?
In the same vein, Crow users are required to micromanage carrion and their nests, while Stag users are not. What do you envision we can do to make this fair and balanced?
Night users are able to use Nightgaze (Psychic/Excoro) and Nightkiss (Cold/Asphyx) to hunt with. These are heavily resisted on Astral, whereas Moon users have Moonburst (Magical) and Moonfire (Fire/Divinus), some of the more used bashing elements and least resisted in the better hunting spots. Furthermore, Moon users require less specific buffs for their damage types. What would you code to make this balanced?
Hallifax tends to have all of their Wind Lords empowered by sands each year, as do their allies, due to some peoples' hard work and dedication. Isn't this unfair to orgs whose players can't always make the time to hunt sands and micromanage manifestations? What would you do to make this more fair and balanced so that people don't get frustrated and leave?
Make org credits a direct function of points instead of a competitive tier system.
Nothing, power is approximately infinite outside of active combat situations. That's like saying tarot is unbalanced with astrology because you need to keep cards stocked.
Make (most of) crow's shit not require carrion and balance it around that, this isn't an unpopular opinion. Keep it for regurgitate and darkrebirth, remove the decay in a nest.
Nothing, because if you're bashing with class skills you're irrelevant anyway. Go buy a whip, wand, or gnomeweapon.
Having elemental lords empowered is insignificant, see point two.
Whoa, ok. All I'm saying is that I do try, as do many others in Seren/Mag/Halli, to degrees that may be more or less visible depending on how much people in this conversation are there to see it. I think saying that people just need to try harder isn't productive, because there are many ways in which it is mechanically impossible for a positive attitude to actually result in victory (such as with a large population imbalance in a game where damage meta is king). Now, maybe the response to that is "don't care so much about losing", but... we're all human, and there's a finite amount of losing most people take before a game is no longer fun to them and they quit. And when that happens, we all lose.
(clan): Falmiis says, "Aramelise, verb, 1. adorn with many flowers."
If anything, if it doesn't promote conflict from Mag, it would definitely do so from Celest. (My char tries to encourage his citizens to crusade against Nil at times, but not always.)
In other words, Celest would be able to grief Mag, and Mag wouldn't bother to fight back, because that would invite more griefing, which... defeats the entire purpose of a "conflict system". One sided conflicts are not a game, they are bullying. That's not a solution.
What? That's not griefing. That's more of an issue with Mag not willing or wanting to involve themselves in a conflict system. The players control if they want to engage in anything or not and that's a problematic mentality that Mag will have to fix. I mean, if YOU don't want to defend or stand up for what you believe in of an org, then sure, sit back and let someone else do the defending.
Magnagora isn't willing to play 15v2, so we must reduce the strength of their smobs to punish them. We do combat smart, not suicide missions.
The cool night-time breeze shivers in the arid caress of the streets of the capital city, brushing the earthen taste of dust across your lips.
*
A blessed silence falls upon the city for the moment, most activity confined to the towers and the theatre due to the snowy weather.
*
Pinprick points of light twinkle in the deep black overhead, their brightness full of a cold, hungering malice.
I think we're approaching the point where we're going to start going in circles and people will get angrier so I closed it for now. I know I will keep a lot of these points in mind as I'm planning things, and I'm sure other admin will do the same.
Please don't take this as discouragement to continue posting discussions similar to this. Even if we have to close down a thread when things start getting heated, that doesn't change the fact that there's plenty of worthwhile ideas to ponder in here.
Comments
Here, I'll help: Are you saying:
-Games should not have rules?
-Games should not be balanced?
-Games should never be changed, even when people point out their flaws?
-People should still pay for games they get no value out of and are not fair or balanced?
"Griefy" does not mean "evil" or "wrong." Evil is murdering children in real life. Torturing animals. Psychopaths are evil. Griefers are simply... griefy. Don't use hyperbolic language to describe behavior in A GAME and then imply that those who call it "griefing" can't tell the difference between this and real life.
Second, that's not what I was trying to say regarding endurance either. What I was getting at is this: The way the game is set up, you can pretty freely raid territories and the only practical end to occupation is when you get bored and find something else to do. This holds even with things like stacking death penalties, which only serve to encourage you to engineer situations where you won't die. Some people have a very high threshold of boredom for whatever reason, even if there isn't an active opposition they will remain in these engagements pretty much indefinitely as long as SOMEONE shows up or there's a mob left to bash. This is basically the ultimate deciding factor in Lusternian conflict right now, because it doesn't matter who wins any given engagement, the side who gets bored the least can escalate and escalate and escalate forever until the other side capitulates - usually long after that side has stuck with an unfun (to them) engagement for much longer than desirable. Its not that they "try harder" or whatever, but just that it's demonstrably true that whichever side can threaten the most grueling, longest, grindiest experience over time will do just that: grind the other side out of existence. That fact and general self-sorting has ended up that most prominent folks like that will group together on one side .
I'm saying that's BAD, agreeing with you. It's bad that the game allows escalating to that point, which is where I brought up totems. As I pointed out in the other thread, forests would be in a stupid bind because anything they did could be unfairly "revenged" by chopping down totems, and anything you did to try and redress that would be met with... MORE totem chopping. Anything you did with the goal of less totem chopping, less fighting, would result in more totem chopping until they were all gone. The same goes for PvP in general. You can raid, but only if you're prepared for unrelenting counter-raids until you lose, if you're facing a Glom alliance filled with folks who just... never seem to get bored of raiding. That starts to expand to more than just "fair" retaliation for raiding Glomdoring, but to pretty much any perceived slight, even a counterraid against original Glom aggression. The point isn't "who is to blame" but that the cycle only ever ends when the high-bore-tolerance people get bored, never before. So the other side always has more to lose in every engagement. When someone who wants maximum slugfest raids, the worst that happens to them is... more fighting yay! This creates a similar situation to totems, vines, and spreading fires and ultimately punishes everyone who wants to do anything else with their online time.
It's not a matter of those people necessarily being bad people, it's that the game just fails to account for different drives entirely, and in doing so creates incentives for people to behave badly.
But, I agree. The mechanics for these conflicts are bad, and encourage bad behavior. Raiding, though, is not that terrible these days most of the time. The only issues with it I have are with the supermob mechanics, and the event-raid-fests that happened yesterday. Nocht gave some suggestions for how to fix/improve the later, and the former, the best way forward is to make them unkillable. Fixing the mechanic to make it less horrible for the losers would require a major overhaul for something of relatively low value.
But if supermobs weren't there, they would go for something else. And then that would be changed, until eventually in the interests of "fairness" , all that would exist were one on one duels to first blood in order to prevent hurt feelings.
Why do you think there is an entitlement to fairness? Some days once alliance will have the numbers, other days another. Occasionally both will be equal and epic battles will occur. It happens.
Remember when they looked at stats and it turned out for timequakes numbers were about even?
Move from "must compete" to "c'est la guerre" in your mindset. Learn to love taking part. It's not whether you win or lose but how you play the game and all that!
game is fine, glomdoring is good, all hail Estarra
edit/ Lmao, I found a gem. Glomdoring is toxic to the rest of the game, not to its own players.
Accountability is necessary.
But if supermobs weren't there, they would go for something else. And then that would be changed, until eventually in the interests of "fairness" , all that would exist were one on one duels to first blood in order to prevent hurt feelings.
Why do you think there is an entitlement to fairness? Some days once alliance will have the numbers, other days another. Occasionally both will be equal and epic battles will occur. It happens.
The numbers, spread out over days, are not even. But that is beside the point, and is a distraction that has nothing to do with this premise, nor what you commented on. Regardless of who wins conflicts, ALL people should be able to play the game and participate. That can't happen when parts of it are broken and driving people away due to the inherent unfairness of them.
This is an argument made by non-comms who don't have any investment in pk. It's fine for you to play the game that way, but no one else needs to take it seriously when they are motivated by different elements of the game.
But there is no implicit fairness in IRE - it is pay to win (to an extent) . To use your monopoly example, in IRE not everyone starts with the same money. Imagine monopoly where Billy Rich Kid could buy additional money. Where Billy Rich Kid could move faster. That's where we are with IRE.
Artefacts, credits and the ability to buy them removes any inherent fairness. We are so far from all starting at the same place, it is ridiculous.
But you know what - c'est la guerre.
Plus you should be nicer to non-comms - we aren't the ones leaving the game!
I'm not saying we shouldn't, but at the same time, I'm not naive to expect something that's not going to happen -ever-, I've been alive way too long to know this fact exist in any game as well as real life. So take it and twist it how you want to, but I think I had said enough and my piece about this topic. I'll keep reading other points of views at this time.
<a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.lusternia.com/banner/minkahmet.jpg">https://www.lusternia.com/banner/minkahmet.jpg</a>I wasn't mean. I said it's an argument used by non-comms, which it is, and that it's fine to not be motivated by pk.
And, good, you made it clear from the beginning you weren't interested in discussing it.
Hallifax has been on top for org credits most of the time. This is unfair to other orgs. What would you urge the coders to to in order to make this more fair?
Night users are required to gather and stockpile shadows for many of their skills. This costs them 3 power to gather a shadow, reduced to 1 power if they're Nightkissed (Trans Night, ten power, only able to be activated at night time and not during the Full Moon), and increased to 2 shadows if the construct is up (It always is, but putting this here for full transparency). Moon users don't have to micromanage any such resources, which you are fully aware of. What would you code to make this fair?
In the same vein, Crow users are required to micromanage carrion and their nests, while Stag users are not. What do you envision we can do to make this fair and balanced?
Night users are able to use Nightgaze (Psychic/Excoro) and Nightkiss (Cold/Asphyx) to hunt with. These are heavily resisted on Astral, whereas Moon users have Moonburst (Magical) and Moonfire (Fire/Divinus), some of the more used bashing elements and least resisted in the better hunting spots. Furthermore, Moon users require less specific buffs for their damage types. What would you code to make this balanced?
Hallifax tends to have all of their Wind Lords empowered by sands each year, as do their allies, due to some peoples' hard work and dedication. Isn't this unfair to orgs whose players can't always make the time to hunt sands and micromanage manifestations? What would you do to make this more fair and balanced so that people don't get frustrated and leave?
..and I can apparently accidently post my comment while typing. But my point is that not all skillsets are going to be exactly the same, and not all things are going to be "balanced". Having a can-do attitude does make a difference, it's all about how badly you want to succeed or at least get better at what you're doing. Hallifax is absolutely on top when it comes to books, stage plays, rp, and the like. That doesn't win anomalies though, and it doesn't win battles/timequakes/raids.
Edit: for skills, also read: smobs/mechanics/aff pools/whatever you like
<a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.lusternia.com/banner/minkahmet.jpg">https://www.lusternia.com/banner/minkahmet.jpg</a><a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.lusternia.com/banner/minkahmet.jpg">https://www.lusternia.com/banner/minkahmet.jpg</a>Edit: I feel like saying "all you need to do is get good" ignores the fact that imbalances can and do exist, and should be rectified where possible. By the same logic - that nothing's ever wrong or needs to change - Orael's entire job shouldn't exist. Why have reports at all if skills don't matter and all people need to do is to try harder?
I spend real-life hours staring at the ticks just to track those things, with help from maybe one or two other Hallifaxians. Real. Life. Hours. Sometimes, 16-24 per lusternian year. Literally anyone else in the game can do the same. You do it this time, for whichever org you want. Hell, I wrote a public post telling everyone exactly how I do it EVERY YEAR, encouraging anyone else to do the same.
No, not always. Often I get bored with it, and the handful of credits and backpats are not worth the time it would take. Really, I question every year if it's worth it for Hallifax, but I do it because most of the time, it is possible to. No other reason than that.
Nope.
theatre due to the snowy weather.
hungering malice.
Please don't take this as discouragement to continue posting discussions similar to this. Even if we have to close down a thread when things start getting heated, that doesn't change the fact that there's plenty of worthwhile ideas to ponder in here.