It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Here is what people are afraid of - and it's also how a lot of hard core PK-ers actually ARE as people, whether they are this candid about it or not. This is the very tail end of a long ring conversation, and it's very relevant this second:If someone breaks the rules, then issue them. Otherwise this is just an implicit personal attack you keep rolling out that PVPers are apparently bad people or something and not helpful to the discussion at all.
Please keep in mind that THIS is how a lot of people think (not just PK-ers, actually, it's just that PK griefing is so much more obvious), and who they are as people, if you're considering allowing them to "make it hurt" to any meaningful degree. If they CAN make it horrible and miserable and griefy and unfun they absolutely WILL.
Not having a bonus is a consequence. A small consequence on a city scale is a consequence. Both of these things have been suggested in this system. If you don't like where those are at now, start actually naming consequence and reward changes to make the system fit what you have in mind rather than just saying "YEAH CONSEQUENCES". If your problem is no consequences in other areas in the game as it exists, then that's off the topic. At least Kyraic put a ballpark figure out there for what he thinks is a legitimate raid consequence.Meaningless consequences that don't affect individual players motivate no one, it's why no one gives a care to fight over obelisks as is. If you need suggestions for meaningful consequences, I suggest you read the past two pages or so.
I had a long response to this typed up then realized I was basically tilting at a strawman, so eh.
And when you start to see "rawr, consequences", what it usually means is plenty of shitty consequences for the side that isn't on top - although, some very anti-conflict people also tend to want pretty harsh consequences when it suits them, to be fair. When players say they want "consequences", what they almost always mean is that they want consequences for that OTHER guy, though, pretty much.
If you asked me where it exactly Imperian felt it lost its way in terms of conflict, it'd be hard to give a specific point, but there's definitely been an erosion of what is acceptable in terms of organizational conflict. Shrine conflicts last like an IRL day. It's probably been a few years since a guild had a go at another guild. Kinsarmar and Antioch's wars seem a distant memory. Because there's a high investment to go after a city now, it requires a lot of resources, manpower, and planning, and you get essentially nothing out of it. The same is true of shrine conflict in a lesser degree - and the established sects can easily just "tank" losing even a bunch of shrines. I'm pretty sure conquest could lose like 10 or 20 and not even be bothered. Obelisks are something that I've only ever heard of because no one has been willing to even consider doing them when I've been playing.consequence.This is exactly what Imperian is missing these days.
Thinking about this for a few days, I am pretty sure any kind of system like this is going to end up being a resounding flop.I think what some people don't seem to realize (or don't want to admit) is that for PVP to be viable there must be danger. There is no way to make a PVP system that is "safe". Nor are you going to have a viable system for PVP if they can just stick their head in the sand without consequence.
The problem here is basically that the PvP culture is basically destroyed. There's no feeling of danger. There's no way to be aggressive. There's no way to hit another city and make it hurt. The absolute best case scenario for a raiding system is that it ends up being another minigame that people might play sometimes and that absolutely will NOT change things here.