Population Imbalances

Regat

One of the topics brought up in the recent post is population balance. When a raiding party has 15 vs 5 defenders, often this demoralizes the defenders and makes them not want to defend. So I'm going to ask a series of questions which are actually serious, and I'd like anyone who wishes to respond to my post with your personal answers. Please don't respond to other people's replies, I'd like to see this treated as a sort of multi-question post.
-----------
How do you consider someone's "worth" or value in battle, and do you feel like this way of valuing someone as a combatant (or not) can be standardised into a number that anyone can agree on?
----------'
How do you feel an org should handle their interest in raiding if their choice of raidee  (which is a word now) has less people online at that time? 
-------
If a defending party has people leave and/or give up, do you feel the raiding party should lessen their numbers in the same regard? 
-------
Should gods/divine be able to "lock" their orgs for an event? For instance, this weekend might have locked Serenwilde and Glomdoring, keeping any other parties out of attached realms/planes during the event. We know Lusternia has this sort of mechanic on domoths, whereas an opposing domoth can't be attended by an org who holds a particular domoth.
---------
Do you feel that a raiding party should mechanically be required to see how many defenders are in an org before they raid it?

Coraline

I'm in no way a combatant nor do I participate in pk events, but my assumption was that when someone raids another org, the intention of that is more about getting some PvP out of the combatants of the defending org than killing their mobs/griefing. In that case I would assume it would be better that they raid when there are an equal number of pk-ers from the defending org online (since that is the motive).

I like the idea of being able to "lock" orgs for events though.

Nyana

Regat said:
How do you consider someone's "worth" or value in battle, and do you feel like this way of valuing someone as a combatant (or not) can be standardised into a number that anyone can agree on?

Not really. People's value in combat can shift rapidly, and even depending on what class they're playing currently. We know who the "best" and "worst" combatants are, but for most everyone else, opinions will likely vary.

How do you feel an org should handle their interest in raiding if their choice of raidee  (which is a word now) has less people online at that time? 

Supposedly, the goal of raiding is to generate conflict and pk. If there's no one around for either, I would question what the actual goal is. Generally, though, I don't think raiding has been excessive lately.

If a defending party has people leave and/or give up, do you feel the raiding party should lessen their numbers in the same regard? 

Not necessarily, but this goes back to what the point is of raiding. If there's no fight, then it's just bashing.

Should gods/divine be able to "lock" their orgs for an event? For instance, this weekend might have locked Serenwilde and Glomdoring, keeping any other parties out of attached realms/planes during the event. We know Lusternia has this sort of mechanic on domoths, whereas an opposing domoth can't be attended by an org who holds a particular domoth.

Absolutely, but only within their realm. I think divine should be able to remove/keep out anyone they want, and if enemies are "required" to be allowed in to the realm for event reasons, have there be some rp mechanic that allows them to sneak in. Otherwise, have the events in public areas on prime where pk is less likely to get out of hand.

Do you feel that a raiding party should mechanically be required to see how many defenders are in an org before they raid it?

No, that's silly. People should do what is possible, and will always choose to start conflict when they think they can win. But I don't have a problem with raiding, per se, only with some mechanics of it.

Pysynne

Coraline said:

I'm in no way a combatant nor do I participate in pk events, but my assumption was that when someone raids another org, the intention of that is more about getting some PvP out of the combatants of the defending org than killing their mobs/griefing. In that case I would assume it would be better that they raid when there are an equal number of pk-ers from the defending org online (since that is the motive).

I like the idea of being able to "lock" orgs for events though.

If only this was true. Twice now I have gone to PVP with prominent Gloms while they "raided" Maylea's god realm. Both times they spammed timeslip and ran from mob to mob until they were all dead and then left. This is not an isolated incident, and certainly not limited to just one side, we all know those types of people, but anyone telling you they "raid" to look for PVP and all they do is run away from the PVP is blowing smoke up your rump roast.

Nyana

Pysynne said:

Coraline said:

I'm in no way a combatant nor do I participate in pk events, but my assumption was that when someone raids another org, the intention of that is more about getting some PvP out of the combatants of the defending org than killing their mobs/griefing. In that case I would assume it would be better that they raid when there are an equal number of pk-ers from the defending org online (since that is the motive).

I like the idea of being able to "lock" orgs for events though.

If only this was true. Twice now I have gone to PVP with prominent Gloms while they "raided" Maylea's god realm. Both times they spammed timeslip and ran from mob to mob until they were all dead and then left. This is not an isolated incident, and certainly not limited to just one side, we all know those types of people, but anyone telling you they "raid" to look for PVP and all they do is run away from the PVP is blowing smoke up your rump roast.

Yeah, when I say 'raiding is about pk', it's mostly tongue-in-cheek cause it almost never is. But since people from opposing orgs are unable to talk to each other to generate conflict outside of timequakes/revolts/domoths/wildnodes, there's just no other way to spontaneously generate conflict or pk in lusternia. Some quests, I guess, if you like stalking questers.

Nocht

With the disclaimer that I cannot bring this about or make any statements on the feasibility of it at all - how do people feel about the idea of a lockout/cooldown on certain areas during (or immediately after) these types of events? PvP people, do you feel like it would make the game worse for you?

Xenthos

If there was a "Maylea has closed off this area for PvP" or whatever after an event is over (to officially state that it is over), I can't see real objections to that?  Note that I am saying this as someone who does not consider himself a PvP person, but it seems like a good way to try and get people out of the event mindset and redirect them somewhere else.

Regat

Right,  I'd go for that. If Maylea had wanted to close off her area for pk, but still allow people to come in for rp/sneering back and forth/whatever, I'm game. I don't feel like it would lessen the pk in the game for me, and it would increase the chances of some rp happening.

So long as Maylea doesn't use it as an excuse to start zapping people, that is.

Regat

I'm also a fan of the possibility of buying peace-stasis gems for manses, making it possible to have a peaced place for enemies to meet.

Nocht

What if it extended to the prime org and associated planes as well? In this event's case, the prime and ethereal planes?

Obviously the discussion shouldn't just center on this idea! I'm just curious because during all the murdering yesterday I was thinking of the idea of some sort of cooldown as well.

Gurashi

Nocht said:

What if it extended to the prime org and associated planes as well? In this event's case, the prime and ethereal planes?

Obviously the discussion shouldn't just center on this idea! I'm just curious because during all the murdering yesterday I was thinking of the idea of some sort of cooldown as well.

I love the idea of a cooldown/lock-out, where an area is peaced following an event! Make us talk to each other! 

Enya

I'd personally love the idea of some kind of lock-out period on PvP in specific territories... across the board. Some kind of hard cooldown on raiding and escalation so that you can't just camp and if you assemble a huge group there's limits to just steamrolling over everything.

Then you could have Godmin be able to push a button and insta-proc a raid cooldown for a little while during an event.

Nyana

Nocht said:

What if it extended to the prime org and associated planes as well? In this event's case, the prime and ethereal planes?

Obviously the discussion shouldn't just center on this idea! I'm just curious because during all the murdering yesterday I was thinking of the idea of some sort of cooldown as well.

I don't like the idea of extending it myself. It limits the ability for other semi-related conflict to happen. Thematically/rpwise how does a single god control an entire neutral plane? I know it's more about the mechanics of an event, but in which case - peace/event lock a room(s). I could see like, if Nocht and Maylea convinced Maeve to declare faethorn peaced or something, but yes, I  do have rp-related issues with the idea even if it makes events "easier." No offense, it seems a bit lazy when other workarounds should be tried first.

Regat

Maybe extend Avechna's sight, whereas he now sees specific areas and realms for small periods of time. Gods can use essence to draw His attention. Orgs can use power to do the same, but it's a high cost that ramps up with use.

Enya

Nyana said:

Nocht said:

What if it extended to the prime org and associated planes as well? In this event's case, the prime and ethereal planes?

Obviously the discussion shouldn't just center on this idea! I'm just curious because during all the murdering yesterday I was thinking of the idea of some sort of cooldown as well.

I don't like the idea of extending it myself. It limits the ability for other semi-related conflict to happen. Thematically/rpwise how does a single god control an entire neutral plane? I know it's more about the mechanics of an event, but in which case - peace/event lock a room(s). I could see like, if Nocht and Maylea convinced Maeve to declare faethorn peaced or something, but yes, I  do have rp-related issues with the idea even if it makes events "easier." No offense, it seems a bit lazy when other workarounds should be tried first.

See, this isn't a problem if it ties into a larger solution about raiding. If Serenwilde always needs to perform a special ritual to breach the defenses of Celest and raid their territories, and that ritual has some elements that can't be repeated too often (a cooldown), it wouldn't be difficult to justify a god being able to trigger the cooldown. By say... interfering with the ritual, or spending some of their essence/attention to temporarily strengthen the defenses, or any manner of other thing. Hell, calling on the power of Eroee.

Xenthos

I don't want to see it in org hands.  If orgs are going to be involved, it needs to be a proactive action to start (per Enyalida's raid mechanics thoughts) vs. pushing a button to end.

Putting control in God's hands is a different matter to me.  Especially with a set of criteria for when it is okay to push it.

Aramel

Ultimately, I don't think it's feasible to code around a culture problem. We as a community need to get better at spotting/calling out toxic behavior. Lusternia's pretty decent at this in some aspects - we have selfishness as a defence, but most people don't even bother putting it up because I literally can't think of the last time I heard of anyone stealing things.

I think it's up to players and administrators to promote good behavior and punish bad behavior, but the obvious problem is that admin can't be around 24/7 (and may not always be able to distinguish toxic behavior vs RP), and the ability of players to punish bad behavior is limited when the people or organizations behaving badly are overwhelmingly dominant (as in the 15v5 example given above.) This isn't going to change until toxic people are held accountable by everyone, even those who benefit mechanically from the toxicity.

Nelras

I would worry that people would abuse a guaranteed peaceful area. One of the things that I have been picking up from reading the various threads is that someone decided to kill a mob and then hide in a godrealm. This has never not drawn a raid if the other side has enough people, let's be honest. The problem here is a) that it happened during an event, leading to it being used as a reason (valid or otherwise, can we not get into that again) and b) that it wasn't even one of their org's godrealms, making the cause seem disconnected from the effect. From what I can see, the change here is that they would be able to do that without consequences falling upon the person who has gone out of their way to invite them. Furthermore, preventing PvP would be pretty much the same as a hanging up a massive sign saying, "Come and kill our mobs (or just troll us), we can't retaliate."

While I like the idea of events as a time to talk rather than kill, it could be abused and it does feel like it could be frustrating for situations when the natural IC response would be a raid. If we could find a way to work around those things, then I would be more in favour of it.

Afollia

So I'm not the most PK / Raid oriented person.

I though I'd throw this out here. Raiding can be a very ''spur'' of the moment thing or can be planned out.
Why not setup something where an org that wants to involve in PK Raiding can set a time & date for the raid?
This would let people setup Org vs Org matches where people can gather and have time to organise & plan.

Example:

Celest wants to raid Demonlords or Nil
Celest Sets 23rd of september 2019 @ 7pm EST.

Magnagora city leaders see the message,
Magnagora + serenwilde + Hallifax organise

Team vs Team on Nil occurs at the date
Counter raids on Celestia agaisnt Supernals & Angels

Both sides have an attendance list for people that commit to being there for defense.
Celest can tell if Mags wants to PK and Mags can tell who's comming too?

It might sound silly, but if the aim is to foster PK events while giving people a chance to compete properly. Maybe giving a callout so folks can setup ''PK Matches'' would be a good idea?

Win vs Lose could be slaying supermobs - with benefits for the winning org?


Edit: As someone who's rarely awake these days, I - absolutly - loved the time callout for the Nocht vs Maylea event.
Edit2: Added details.

Nelras

@Afollia that would only result in a contest of which org can find the most people at a time when the other orgs don't have people. Rather than encouraging fair fights that are interesting for all involved, this would accomplish the exact opposite. Furthermore, it would give benefits to the org that can accomplish this repetitively, leading to more people joining that org and a further imbalance.

Afollia

Which part?

Nelras

The part about having set times for PvP, not to mention having the attackers setting the time.

Afollia

Nelras said:

The part about having set times for PvP, not to mention having the attackers setting the time.

Oh,

The idea behind that would be to callout when they attack? If people can't show up to defend.....Like nobody responds to attend it. Then it's canceled and they dont raid.

Instead of random raids like it is now.

Nelras

Then that would be a case of, "OK, we don't have enough people to match what they are bringing, everyone log off so the raid doesn't happen."
The attackers are not going to declare a raid at a time that won't let them win. The defenders are going to know that and so their best option would be to get every raid cancelled.

Afollia

Some people like to PK though and play for that. I'm not one of those, but I can understand the sentiment.
If the raids are always canceled, then that just means there isn't any interest for it.

Wouldnt that be a good thing? Some folks like to RP and would feel like being bullied otherwise.
Others might swap sides instead to try to increase the other team's population so that they can have the matches.

Just throwing it out there.

Nelras

No, it would not be a good thing. Raids always being cancelled would not mean that there is no interest in pvp, it would mean that there is no interest in losing in pvp. That is what turning up to a scheduled raid would be - signing up to lose so that the other team can enjoy winning at your expense.

Coraline

Based off of Afollia's idea, would it be better if raids were more org vs org and not alliance vs alliance and if one org can "challenge" the other org to a raid and the other has an option to accept or ignore it, and it can be timed and in the end it can be a success or failure with some power reward for both orgs? (With the winning org getting larger power)

Ignore if it's a terrible idea.

Nelras

That almost sounds more like an order war, a currently (almost) unused form of pvp event that only ever happens when people forget just what that syntax does exactly.  These are, from what I remember (someone correct me if I am wrong) based around scoring points for killing members of the opposing order and order mobs. They tend to result in massive amounts of batphoning the moment it is locked in, followed by the losing side spending the rest of the time unable to do anything while they listen to order mobs dying.

It might be worthwhile looking at the idea, however we would have to find some way to avoid the situation I just described. A timer is all well and good, but only when the event is contested until the timer becomes a factor. Furthermore, all that org vs org rather than alliance vs alliance would accomplish is lots of alting, while the people who don't have alts sit around getting bored.

Esoneyuna

Nocht said:

With the disclaimer that I cannot bring this about or make any statements on the feasibility of it at all - how do people feel about the idea of a lockout/cooldown on certain areas during (or immediately after) these types of events? PvP people, do you feel like it would make the game worse for you?

I'm for it, though it would be nice if it had an IC flavour to it not just yeah no pvp guys. More like 'A calming aura covers the area removing your will to fight' for Maymay, or a 'The oppressive will of Fain drains your will to fight", yes I know I suck at creative writing, just something less in the face then no pvp go away.

As to player orgs having this ability, I would rather not have it in player hands.

Enya

Aramel said:

Ultimately, I don't think it's feasible to code around a culture problem. We as a community need to get better at spotting/calling out toxic behavior. Lusternia's pretty decent at this in some aspects - we have selfishness as a defence, but most people don't even bother putting it up because I literally can't think of the last time I heard of anyone stealing things.

I think it's up to players and administrators to promote good behavior and punish bad behavior, but the obvious problem is that admin can't be around 24/7 (and may not always be able to distinguish toxic behavior vs RP), and the ability of players to punish bad behavior is limited when the people or organizations behaving badly are overwhelmingly dominant (as in the 15v5 example given above.) This isn't going to change until toxic people are held accountable by everyone, even those who benefit mechanically from the toxicity.

See, I entirely disagree with the premise contained in this post that you can't code around cultural problems. 

First off, you absolutely can. There are loads of examples of it, in fact! Dreamweaving once was a powerful tool of griefing, between possess, no way to catch/retaliate against dreambodies, cross plane dreamweaving, and so on. If you got a possess on someone you could pour out all their vials, mess around with channels/helps/news, and strip all their stuff. That all went away. See also totems, and smob vulns, and so on. The reason you don't hear of anyone stealing is administrative action, period. The game was designed such that you could not and anytime a loophole was found it was closed. 

Second is this embedded idea that the game's systems and the behavior of players are separate entities, that they don't feed into each other. The reason that shitty culture gains a foothold and perpetuates itself is that the game both allows and rewards it.

You touch on this in the second half of your post, in that admins can't be around all the time to punish bad behavior. That shouldn't be the first recourse though, for a variety of reasons. One is that godmins just aren't given the tools to reasonably address these problems (just as player org leadership isn't). The mechanics just don't support it, you're looking at punishing people for doing what the mechanics provide incentives to do.

Even if this reaches the right people and everyone agrees to a set of ad hoc rules, the systems of the game WILL erode that understanding over time, no matter everyone's best intentions. You must change the underlying systems or things will always be temporary bandaids.

Minkahmet

Coraline said:

Based off of Afollia's idea, would it be better if raids were more org vs org and not alliance vs alliance and if one org can "challenge" the other org to a raid and the other has an option to accept or ignore it, and it can be timed and in the end it can be a success or failure with some power reward for both orgs? (With the winning org getting larger power)

Ignore if it's a terrible idea.

I'd be all for that idea if the individual orgs could support it, but sadly not these days anymore.  Though, I do like the benefit of the winning org getting the larget power, while the losing org got the obvious lesser amount(s))