Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sect(shrine)-wars - clearing out the greyzones.

ElrithElrith Member Posts: 47 ✭✭

Before I start, I would like to make it absolutely clear that I am fully aware that people will take this as "toxic" or something else than what I really try to bring up for discussion. But I have a honest intention to discuss and bring sect-wars into something less silly as a good thing for everyone who wish to enjoy the conflicts. An attempt to figure out how to turn sect-wars into something more reasonable and less "griefy". 

Anyhow!

Sectwars:
This is the most toxic and griefy conflict mechanism that exists in Imperian at this point. Shrines being removed and a system without any bounds or conditions often turns into a pile of really angry players that gets frustrated and blame each other for being awful. I look at sectwars like how old raids worked, there was no way to really "win" beyond making the other side completely give up and push back important gameplay so far that some players rather just quit. Before anyone starts to throw out "But last shrinewar" this and "last shrinewar" that, it is irrelevant nowadays, what I look at now is how people work around the timers on shrines and between that stand around and do.. nothing or PVE for faith and therefore push the entire status back again.

Needed changes:
Sectwars needs conditions. It needs win / lose conditions. Furthermore it needs to be very clear on the PK side. Why? Because PK still is the major reason to toxic behaviour.

You talk but what do you suggest?!

A sect should be able to commence war against another sect. This shouldn't be taken lightly, this shouldn't also be something that you can do on and off just because you are upset at one point. IF you as the leader of a sect start a war against another sect you should first off all know that you have your sect with you. 

Basically this: 

SECT COMMENCE WAR <ENEMY SECT> 
Upon doing this, you are notifying the other sect (leader?) that you as a leader have started a sect war against X. First step down, now people know who.

Secondly I'd remove the grey-zone of PK by making people in that sect actively take a stance (read above about how you before you start a sect war should be sure someone else is with you on it) do they want to participate or not? More or less a command that puts you on the "fighter" list.

SECT WAR <ENEMY SECT> JOIN

When you join that war you are open PK. No more discussions about "I am only defiling once" or "I am only defending once". No, if you start a war against someone you are OPEN PK during that time. This is for two things. 1) There would be no issues and reasons to complain on EITHER side about when or when you are not allowed to be killed.  2) People who feel that they cannot or do not want to join that have a option to be left out for this conflict alone. 

This would be connected to the DEFILE/SANCTIFY/DESECRATE commands. You cannot use either unless you are on the list of fighters during the conflict. Once again, remove the grey-zones. 

Sect desecration
--------------
I have 2 ideas for this and I am not sure which would work better.

Currently you can have a group sit around and use DESECRATE and if nobody is hunting or building faith on the other side eventually the attacked sect turns into a cult (we think... nobody knows because its both so awfully boring to do this and there is no way to tell how much damage it does). I don't even want to push another sect into a cult, I want to have another war in the upcoming months. 

1) Turn desecration into something else. Heck, I even take 30 min of desecration of a shrine -> add 1 point to the sect doing it. With 10 points of whatnot you win the war.
2) The more griefy suggestion would be that you cannot build faith while people desecrate your altar. This is to clear out the grey-zone of people who "only PVE" to negate the entire idea behind desecrate. 

I would however love to see DESECRATE of an altar to be connected to the actual "win".


We currently see an alliance in this shrinewar shouldn't that be allowed?

This is nothing I want to limit with the rules I am after. For this reason perhaps another sect command should be added to join a conflict.

SECT WAR JOIN <ALLIED SECT> (i.e).

And then they would also put themselves up on that "fighting" list in order to be able to DEFILE / SANCTIFY / DESECRATE against the sect that you currently are in war with. 

But wait? Can't you already do all of this but without the risk of being attacked outside the bounty / defile / sanctify / desecrate situation?

Yes! You can. Which is a great part of the reason to why it needs to be adjusted. Conflict without players dodging "in and out" of it and creating grey-zones is one of the most frustrating situations there is. I haven't talked with anyone so far who thinks that the removal / adding shrines back and forth and the need to bash up the faith in between the timers on shrine is a fun thing. Losing shrines that takes serious work to rebuild shouldn't be taken lightly. Nor should the only way to win such a conflict be to stomp another sect into a cult. Who'd even want that? And this leads us to...


SECT YIELD <ATTACKING SECT> <CONDITION??>

I am unsure if there should be conditions to this like above or what else could be added to it but it should be something that's a formal "Ok stop we are done".  I can think of numberous of things added to this. Unable to build new shrines for 1 IG year? Unable to start war against another sect for X? Unable to defile shrines for X? Et cetera et cetera and of course the most important thing, the bragging rights to the winning sect. 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When you read this please ignore the current war between hunger + leechwood / flame. I am not complaining about how it turns out I am just lifting things we discussed between us in magick and mostly my own ideas.

I cannot say I have worked out every single detail or thought about every single scenario, this is a first attempt to raise the discussion. I would love if people would help me bring it up and point out flaws and bad reasoning with construtive reasoning. Also I would love to hear if Admins think about this and if there are any plans for changing it.

Thanks for your time!


Anarys
«13

Comments

  • ElrithElrith Member Posts: 47 ✭✭

    PART 2


    I continued thinking about further parts that I might have missed and realized that of course I did!


    Won't this allow people to simply use this whenever they want to attack another sect?

    Yes. However, this is exactly how it works at this point. There are no starts / stops beyond whenever a sect says so. With a change to the system you could add that a sect who recently lost a war cannot be attacked against during the duration of X (could and most likely should tie this to the same timer as that losing sect cannot build shrines or what else could be added). 

    This change would actually be a protection against constant attacking yet demand that if you DO attack you also take the consequences of it.


    I want to participate but this change would not allow me?

    This is probably one of the biggest grey-zones that I want to see an adjustment of. There will always be people who wants to stay out of combat, regardless of how little death means in the game. The suggestion I want to see is that you can still bring faith during wars with pve but you cannot provide faith to your sect as long as someone desecrated (depending on change on that) and or X amount of time after it. This is to prevent the status que. If desecration however is changed into instead being a 15-30 min action that gives "points" towards winning the war then there is no reason to limit PvE help. Not to mention being able to provide relics and whatnot, however you cannot defile / sanctify or desecrate yourself.

    Neither should you be allowed to become a fighter at a war (see previous post about it) and leave and rejoin it again during the same conflict. However, I do think it would be reasonable to allow people to step down as a fighter during the sect war if they feel they only want to participate with PvE help. 

    Please help building a good bank of suggestions and views on the matter :)

  • ElrithElrith Member Posts: 47 ✭✭
    PART 3


    Shrines
    ------

    One of the major concerns with sectwars are how the shrines actually works. Shrine upkeep and construction costs a ton and the removal and adding of new shrines is one of the bigger grinding issues of the conflict. 

    New ideas on how shrines could instead work.

    1. Remove all shrines (yes I know that's radical!). Instead allow sects to have 1-X amount of shrines / area (depending on how many you need before max buffs in that area, perhaps only 1 is needed?). 
    2. Make shrines go inactive upon losing a shrinewar. Shrines will remain inactive for a resonable amount of time in which they grant no bonus. 
    3. Remove all relics / comms of a shrine that goes inactive, why? Because they are already removed when destroyed and it would make sense from most perspectives
    4. Re-activate shrines. To re-activate a shrine after a war you need to pay the same amount of comms that it costs to build a new shrine. This is also to keep the comms important and be a gold  / commsink. Remember that instead of 20+ shrines to rebuild it would be 1-3? in one area.
    5. If you defile a shrine down to 0% they go inactive as above, regardless of war.

    Idols / Commodities
    ------------------

    1. Make idols work as a protection of your shrines in terms of war. Lower the cost for these and make any attack upon your shrines in the area impossible before the idol goes inactive. Same thing here, make the idol cost something in order to re-activate after a loss.
    2. Commodities could work in the same way as now. Perhaps with less shrines per sect make cost higher and this still allows PvE people to aide during shrinewars.






  • SwaleSwale Member Posts: 312 ✭✭✭
    edited November 2018
    First the RoE side that the OP mostly addresses.  You could do something like, actual sect members, and probably members from same circle sects, can participate in the war as they please, and have sort of "normal consequences" as we've known them, but if someone from another circle joins in, they do have to declare themselves, and their sect has to formally join the war effort before they can, and this would make them fully open PK at all times until the end of the war, or until they stepped down as a fighter.  The downside there, is that there could be times when two quite smallish sects join up, and they'd be subject to the same RoEs, unfortunately.  That said, this is already sooort of how IRE treats "aiding a totally different org that you are not naturally some sort of kin with".

    The current system allows a small, but active sect, to compete, but honestly at a cost I was more than done with the last shrine war.  The problem is, I think systems like shrines try to compensate for a very large org taking on a small, but very viable one (truly irrelevant sects actually tend to get left alone), but that just might not be a solvable problem.  So maybe the system has to stop trying, and the small sect loses - but we also have no more shrine wars as we've known them, and I can live with that.  I like a lot of the things we discussed, which are some nice tweaks on things that have been discussed in the past.  A sect like Flame is probably not going to have much of a chance in those wars, but the alternative is... what we have now.  No thanks.  

    That said, I do think one thing you could consider, especially due to the historical nature of sects/Orders in IRE as elite fighting organizations, is to have at least some key fights be "Champions of the Sect" fights.  2 v. 2, 3 v. 3, possibly a few 4 v. 4.  You could also specifically make some of those fights "unbalanced" to a small degree, like a 2 v. 3, 3 v. 4.  Small group fights tend to be some of the best that can be had in these games, and they're (still) not specifically provided for anywhere in the game beyond the arena.  They would not be mechanically controlled.  Mechanically, it would be like defending any shrine window, but you would absolutely be expected to send "X of your best".  If you feel "yeah, we definitely can't take that team", you don't HAVE to show, just like any other window.  


    EDIT:  Note that having access to defile/sanc/desecrate isn't really meaningful within many "alliance" contexts, including the current war - and if they do, it's usually an act of war, which tends to mean a formal fight against two sects (so there is that).  It's more about who shows up at a window.  
    Post edited by Swale on
  • EochaidEochaid Member Posts: 105 ✭✭
    Sect wars are boring and encourage people to do it when no enemies are around to fight back. 

    Even when enemies are there to fight. Fighting is a bad option when you can just protect and drop them with hit and run.

    Something more like shardfalls or caravans would make it immensely better. Short term goal, actual combat is useful.
    Jalaras
  • ElrithElrith Member Posts: 47 ✭✭
    @Eochaid: More or less. However, the major complains I get and hear about is when players jump in and out of the conflict as they please when it favors them, people will argue over bounties and claim they only did this or that as well and it will continue to stay a greyzone. Also that people who do PvE during that war can cause status que vs desecrate and still not be killed for bashing yet actively aiding their sect in the war, that's not a good mechanism imo.

    I don't think it has to go particular far in terms of PK-grief if there are ways to win and that win will cause a debuff on the losing team. If you don't like being hunted and dying then you could yield. But you could yield before people want to stomp you into a cult and the next time around you'd think twice about starting a new war.
     
  • EochaidEochaid Member Posts: 105 ✭✭
    Pk rules wise should be easy to sort out.

    Just make it a half an hour window after any defile/sanct. 

    Makes it more like shardfalls. You go in you fight for a bit and then you don't have to worry about silly made up stuff a few days later. No one has to stress about anything odd, its just simple then.
    JalarasAsmundAnarys
  • ElrithElrith Member Posts: 47 ✭✭
    edited November 2018
    That is basically what people take it for already? That there is some kind of 30 min window of "safe". The entire limitation around shrine-timers make the "war" awfully dull. 

    IF you do start war against someone else you should be prepared to be attacked and killed for it. Given option to choose how you want to participate would even further make that clear to the involved parties and allowing people to pick their poison. 

    It shouldn't be a quick 30 min war that only favors the ones with currently most people online, it has to have conditions to be possible to win with even for a smaller sect spread over the days hours. Those can be sorted out through testing but it would be better than what it is at this point where a sect will just look at the other sect and say "Ok, we are going to make you a cult, because you won't quit and we cannot win." 

    Edit: I don't think people will go all out banans with changing this. Much like I don't think people go all out banans on hunting none pvp champions. You could, but eh. But people want the benefit of champion status and they want the benefit of the shrines, I don't see it as unresonable that they also have to do something for it, especially since imperian moved so long from deaths being actual a problem to not meaning much at all beyond your "stats".
    Swale
  • EochaidEochaid Member Posts: 105 ✭✭
    Isn't that part of the issue that it just goes on forever?

    Making it a clearly defined window solves a lot of the original issues. Make it a window, make people fight or lose in that window and bang its done. No screwing around with 24 hr long endurance grinds based on doing stuff when people are offline or not.
  • SwaleSwale Member Posts: 312 ✭✭✭
    edited November 2018
    We have lots of short term goal combat opportunities that are pretty much "show up, do fight, done", and shardfalls are particularly forgiving in that you can't be hunted later at all. There are also things like raiding, that are "short", but definitely require a strong raid leader with a good team. Raids are definitely not shardfalls. 

    You do also want to cater to system builders, and to gameplay that tends to reward planning, diligence, attention to detail. There was a discussion quite awhile back, and that was one thing everyone mostly agreed on, was that the game doesn't need more simple, short term fight opportunities. Not because those aren't great, but because we have them covered pretty well (shardfalls, monoliths, caravans, obelisks, raiding). They are probably my favorite type of combat scenario, personally, so I am certainly not saying I dislike them. But they are a combat scenario that can be susceptible to mobbing (partly because you can't be hunted afterwards).  Even that is totally fine to happen sometimes (say, you want to totally dominate a few shardfalls, and you can, and you frankly need those shards), but you want some variety in the systems.  That said, if there were changes, they would definitely move towards something that is -closer- to these systems, because the current one is just too tedious.  But I hope the goal wouldn't be to actually be "shrinefalls 2.0".
    ElrithAlvetta
  • SwaleSwale Member Posts: 312 ✭✭✭
    Elrith said:

    Edit: I don't think people will go all out banans with changing this. Much like I don't think people go all out banans on hunting none pvp champions. You could, but eh. But people want the benefit of champion status and they want the benefit of the shrines, I don't see it as unresonable that they also have to do something for it, especially since imperian moved so long from deaths being actual a problem to not meaning much at all beyond your "stats".
    I do.  That's sort of the point, depending.  I don't think it should be possible to outright hound people to death for defending their own sect, or even for going on the offensive in support of their own sect.  But, while as I mentioned, there are definitely potential cases where say, a cross circle alliance is totally legitimate, all in all, IRE allows you to punish people for doing that much, much more harshly.  And the point of that is actually to be able to realistically pressure them to stop helping.  
  • TydenTyden Member Posts: 110 ✭✭✭
    edited November 2018
    Open pk is a bad suggestion. Like most of the rest of what has been talked about though. 


    Sometimes people just want to log in and hunt or relax. Pk isn't everything 
    Elrith
  • KalynthariKalynthari Member Posts: 278 ✭✭✭
    edited November 2018
    If you wanna hunt people down days after they defile, then bounty them for defiling? That's literally what bounties are for. I can assure you that hunting them down days afterwards is only gonna make them do it even more, not less. And when you have even less of a chance at defending.
    Killing anyone that's in the sect, when only a handful of them participate in offensive stuff, is a sure fire way to lessen participation even more in PK. Not sure you'd be particularly open to the idea of random level 70 people from Kins being hunted down for a raid that Pellerin and Galt did, for example.
    RokasBronachAsmundAnarys
  • SwaleSwale Member Posts: 312 ✭✭✭
    edited November 2018
    Wanted to expound a little bit on what a "Champions of the Sect" could look like.  

    Many, if not most windows would be the same as ever, where you just muster whatever team you have and try to dominate the window.  But -some- windows would be special, and would provide this unique opportunity for an "elite" team fight.  Can't use people outside your circle, but can use people outside the sect.  And you're not always going to have a super optimal team, because if your best people can't be there for the next window, you either don't go and other team sancs or defiles, or you send the best you can find.  

    It would possibly bring back some very big names at times, and a sect like Flame could easily find itself deciding whether to go fight say, Septus and Dyun, but (for example) Alvetta and I definitely aren't going to fight 9 people.  So at least -sometimes- we'd have a different decision to make (or anyone in that situation, and it is a semi-typical shrine war situation).  Demonic has a pretty solid roster of people who aren't just part of a random noob crowd either.      

    You'd get an announcement over SECTTELL after a given sanc/defile window closes.  The message would also be recorded in your sect log. 

    Champions of the Sect WINDOW; SHRINE OWNER: Flame; LOCATION: <room number>; WINDOW OPENS: <time>; TEAM COMPOSITION: Hollow: 3, Flame: 3

    Champions of the Sect WINDOW; SHRINE OWNER: Hollow; LOCATION: <room number>; WINDOW OPENS: <time>; TEAM COMPOSITION: Hollow: 4, Flame: 4

    Champions of the Sect WINDOW; SHRINE OWNER: Hollow; LOCATION: <room number>; WINDOW OPENS: <time>; TEAM COMPOSITION: Hollow: 2, Flame: 2

    Champions of the Sect WINDOW; SHRINE OWNER: Flame; LOCATION: <room number>; WINDOW OPENS: <time>; TEAM COMPOSITION: Hollow: 2, Flame: 3

    Champions of the Sect WINDOW; SHRINE OWNER: Flame; LOCATION: <room number>; WINDOW OPENS: <time>; TEAM COMPOSITION: Hollow: 4, Flame: 3

    Like I said, it mostly wouldn't be "mechanical", so hopefully minimal coding, but I also wouldn't call it an honor system.  It's more like a red light at an intersection.  Do you stop? 

    I toyed with the idea of occasionally throwing in the ability to ban a single player from each side, but it probably needs to be kept extremely simple to even be considered.  It would also possibly have been nice to give people more time to assemble their "all star" teams (downside would be someone assembling an actual ToA ready team), but that would require big changes to the clocks on shrines, and while some very big changes need to happen to shrines more generally, again, wanted to keep as something I'd hope admin could put in very easily if they so chose.  
  • ElrithElrith Member Posts: 47 ✭✭
    edited November 2018
    If you wanna hunt people down days after they defile, then bounty them for defiling? That's literally what bounties are for. I can assure you that hunting them down days afterwards is only gonna make them do it even more, not less. And when you have even less of a chance at defending.
    Killing anyone that's in the sect, when only a handful of them participate in offensive stuff, is a sure fire way to lessen participation even more in PK. Not sure you'd be particularly open to the idea of random level 70 people from Kins being hunted down for a raid that Pellerin and Galt did, for example.
    + @Tyden

    This is -exactly- the reason for the following idea:

    SECT WAR <ENEMY SECT> JOIN
    When you join that war you are open PK. No more discussions about "I am only defiling once" or "I am only defending once". No, if you start a war against someone you are OPEN PK during that time. This is for two things. 1) There would be no issues and reasons to complain on EITHER side about when or when you are not allowed to be killed.  2) People who feel that they cannot or do not want to join that have a option to be left out for this conflict alone. 

    You don't have to join the fighting group of the sect in the war, you can choose to be the pve person and you wouldn't have open PK, you could even join PvP at start and back off if you realize you don't want to be in on it. But then you shouldn't either be allowed to remove shrines and do the actual attacks on the other sect just when you have the numbers. 

    Secondly, the time on the war could be anything from 5 min (if they yield) or several days if two bigger sects go at each other. Pk certainly ain't everything and yet every single conflict-mechanism in the game is about PK, this is no different. Like Swale mentioned earlier post, how can you push someone into stop defiling in a bigger team? A single death is not enough for people to care. Especially when the single death on destroying a shrine is way less than a single death for raiding a city that you didn't even get an objective from i.e. 

    It is all fine and good while you are winning and or don't need to be on the other side of the mechanism. Without trying to insult anyone we all know how "fun" it was last time when Flame almost completely destroyed the sect (they could. But didn't) that now started a war against them. I don't want to see that, I rather they are able to lick their wounds get back and try another day, the amount of effort in building up a sect / shrines / you name it is massive, being killed some times during a war (especially if you even start it yourself) is nothing compared to that, imo. 


    EDIT:

    @Swale The only issue I have with that is that you limit people and you limit smaller groups from being able to take on bigger groups. I don't want to see people say "meh we don't have Septus online we just yield" instead of going 4 vs 1 and actually try, I think that's better for the game and get everyone involved. Otherwise we push the "elite troops only" thinking way to much if you ask me, at least the option to try fight the "bigwhales" is there I mean.


  • MereisMereis Member Posts: 229 ✭✭✭

    Shrine "incidents" are limited, this is true: the sanctify/defile windows make it so. But, if you want to win a sect war, you can't just sanc/def only when you have the numbers to do so. Level 4 shrines with Aegis relics (or even just Level 4s) almost ensure that if you do this, you will lose. That is to say, in the larger scheme, a complicated system like this one would be unnecessary, and produce no new results other than ensuring the griefiest players win.

    There's a reason why Achaea has generally stayed away from Open PK as a widespread mechanic. They make do (and do well) with limited engagements (similar to our shardfalls, caravans, and shrines) as the battlefield for larger wars. City raids and area dominance of shrines are where people fight, even if the cities of those people are at an ideological war. Outside those incidents, citizens are not made Open PK (even players who are mechanically city soldiers).*

    * It must be said that Achaea cities do have a War mechanic, but this is so very rarely used (I think there have been 3 official ones declared, in all its time) because even the players recognize that Open PK opens up a lot of avenues for abuse.
    currently tentatively active
    (may vanish for periods of time)
  • ElrithElrith Member Posts: 47 ✭✭
    I'd argue that this is by any means a complicated system. And I would really like to hear how this is "ensuring the griefiest players to win" compared to how it looks at this point. 

    Questions: You think that it is more griefy to slay someone (who choose to be open PK during conflict) several times than to desecrate another sect down into a cult i.e?  You think it is more griefy to kill someone several times than having twice the numbers showing up on the windows to stomp any opposition?

    If anything, this current system that we have is a griefy system that allows people to dictate the rules after their current numbers online, saying "I have nothing to do with it" as soon as they don't, that's what I call a griefy system.

    What Achaea has is completely open PK zone instead with the UW & similar to our champion system. I still don't see how being open PK during a conflict is such a horrible thing compared to what it currently look like?
  • BronachBronach BronachMember Posts: 25
    I'm assuming the purpose of this thread is to encourage more participation in Sect Wars. Most of the discussion so far has been upon game mechanics. It is a very effective argument for one personality of player; for another population, completely irrelevant. The draw for me to participate in a Sect is NOT because of PK, but because of the RP, social, and bashing bonuses, as well as a connection to world events. I don't come with pre-honed knowledge, chomping at the bit for an "excuse" to PK. Although, more recently, depending on my initial experiences, I may be enouraged to put my toe into the water.

    As in RL, not every single conflict-mechanism in the game is about PK, there need to be multiple win pathways. Otherwise, honestly, I'm better off playing a game with graphics. Shard wars can be won by out-harvesting other teams. Sect wars can be won by out-sacrificing other teams. Org wars can be won by out-recruiting other teams. If you want more combatants, make combat more socially appealing, be more engaging, train more combat novices. BE INCLUSIVE, NOT EXCLUSIVE. Cutting off non-PK options for noncoms to meaningfully contribute without providing solid hooks (and YOUR PERSONAL TIME as a trained combatant) will shut the PK community out of an opportunity to recruit a non-PKer as they hit the 80th level of experience.

    For a certain class of player that you may have a chance of attracting (an RP-PK hybrid) depending on how you approach the situation, it's not coding that will fix this. It's people. Encourage me to care about your cause, and I'll learn to fight properly to assist you. Or I'll do it poorly, but at least I'll participate. If not, I'll simply look elsewhere.
  • KalynthariKalynthari Member Posts: 278 ✭✭✭
    edited November 2018
    Elrith said:
    Questions: You think that it is more griefy to slay someone (who choose to be open PK during conflict) several times than to desecrate another sect down into a cult i.e?  You think it is more griefy to kill someone several times than having twice the numbers showing up on the windows to stomp any opposition?

    Neither is more griefy than the other; both of them lead to harassing the person/people into inaction. You're just moving the goal posts to get it to happen. Going to reiterate the point of what I made the last time we spoke: Just because something is opt-in, doesn't mean you can't grief the person participating.
    Question for you: Why is it so black & white to you? The game is about interaction, sometimes that means swallowing your pride and realising when you've lost. You don't have to drop down to a cult, or have all of your shrines destroyed.
  • ElrithElrith Member Posts: 47 ✭✭
    edited November 2018
    Black and white? I don't think it is black and white to say that you want some kind of rules to apply to both sides when there is a sectwar? If there was a way to "Yield" I could just equally use that as an acceptance to defeat. But you forget that right now I don't have to accept any defeat or win at all, I can continue to stomp you regardless of how much you attempt to yield. As I mentioned, if you bother to read my previous posts, is to open up how the system could change into something else, if the "OPEN PK during actual war for those who wants" is a really big hinder then by all means I am open for that.

    Why do you think someone starts a sect war against another sect? To gut those players down completely hitting the most resource / time taking mechanism in the game. If you claim it is not, then I won't believe you. Raiding and all other events in the game doesn't affect anything as much as having shrines removed and feel the constant need to bring back faith to stay alive as a sect. 

    @Bronach
    You have a fair point of course. Getting people involved is a major thing for every single aspect of the game, not just this. As my first post mentioned, you'd be free to pick if you want to join in on PK or PvE. Whatever you participate or not is up to you much like how you can choose to go to shardfalls or raids. But I am talking exclusively about "sect-wars" not how your stay in a sect is in general.

    EDIT: Oh, hitting/destroying beacons is somewhat equal I'd say in terms of time / resource and it affects an entire city.
    Bronach
  • KalynthariKalynthari Member Posts: 278 ✭✭✭
    It is black and white, because it's all or nothing to you. That is the definition of black and white conflict. You literally just implied as much. And yes, I did read your post, why do you think I asked that question?

  • ElrithElrith Member Posts: 47 ✭✭
    edited November 2018
    It is black and white, because it's all or nothing to you. That is the definition of black and white conflict. You literally just implied as much. And yes, I did read your post, why do you think I asked that question?

    Ok, so what do you make of this current system then? Do you think sect wars and shrines work well in this form? 
    To me, it is a very black and white system with how shrines work at this point, either you grief the other side into quit attacking you or you give up and hope the other side is kind enough to let you give up, what else can you do? 

    I have yet to hear about a reason to why you start a war at all at this point beyond the fact that you want to really stomp other players? 

    EDIT: Would be wonderful to hear more thoughts from people who participate and or won't participate in the current war. What is fun , what is not, is the current system working well or is it not?
  • NarujNaruj Member, Beta Testers Posts: 159 ✭✭✭
    edited November 2018
    I will start this off by saying that the current shrine system is sort of 'my type of thing'. Saying this up front lets you know that I am somewhat biased, and to take that into consideration when you read my post.
    Not every conflict mechanic should have the same degree of involvement or investment. We have shardfalls and even city raids now for quick sandbox conflicts without a lot of carry over. They have pre-defined end times built in and you can be involved only as much as you want to. Outposts and shrines are the 'something more'. They require investment, tactics, planning, and attention.
    The problem with shrines honestly is that they're not important. There are so many rooms in the areas that people want to control that attacking a shrine has no purpose other than griefing someone out of a toy. If you want to make shrines significant, you have to make them limited somehow. Reducing the investment to rebuilding them, but increasing the time between attacks and limiting their numbers to something like 12 per area could do a lot toward making shrine warfare feel meaningful.
    In retrospect, I would probably have added something similar to power nodes in areas, randomly assigning a small subset of rooms in each area as suitable locations for shrines. Much like power nodes, people would be able to keep track of them and fight over them. If you wanted control over a bashing area, you'd have to kick someone else out of it.
    You grabbed my hand and we fell into it
    Like a daydream.. or a fever
  • KalynthariKalynthari Member Posts: 278 ✭✭✭
    edited November 2018
    Elrith said:
    Ok, so what do you make of this current system then? Do you think sect wars and shrines work well in this form? 
    To me, it is a very black and white system with how shrines work at this point, either you grief the other side into quit attacking you or you give up and hope the other side is kind enough to let you give up, what else can you do? 

    I have yet to hear about a reason to why you start a war at all at this point beyond the fact that you want to really stomp other players? 

    EDIT: Would be wonderful to hear more thoughts from people who participate and or won't participate in the current war. What is fun , what is not, is the current system working well or is it not?
    Or you can interact with the other side, and come to an agreement with how to end it? That's generally how you solve wars. You can always take it up with Keyrix if you genuinely believe Hollow is going overboard and the players aren't listening. That is part of his role; it's what Khandava did and it worked. Not every form of conflict has to be "grief or be griefed" - Your proposal doesn't really tackle much, it just shifts where the grief happens in this scenario. It's akin to the army/war system in Achaea.
    To answer the question, though. No, war systems don't really work in IRE because of the playerbase for the most part. If they actually showed any measure of restraint or maturity, then they'd work perfectly. That's not the case, though. Also why I, personally, don't really bother to participate in them. People don't like losing here, probably to a greater degree than I've honestly seen in any other online game, and quite often to the point where they actively try and get other people to quit the game. (see: Above comment)
    JalarasAnarys
  • NarujNaruj Member, Beta Testers Posts: 159 ✭✭✭
    I could be wrong, but my understanding is that wars in Achaea don't happen because they have to be mutual. If both cities don't opt into the war, it doesn't happen.
    You grabbed my hand and we fell into it
    Like a daydream.. or a fever
  • KalynthariKalynthari Member Posts: 278 ✭✭✭
    Naruj said:
    I could be wrong, but my understanding is that wars in Achaea don't happen because they have to be mutual. If both cities don't opt into the war, it doesn't happen.
    Correct. And why do you think they don't get mutually declared? The answer to that, is in what I've stated.
  • NarujNaruj Member, Beta Testers Posts: 159 ✭✭✭
    Yeah, and there's already an opt-in 100% pk system with Champions.
    You grabbed my hand and we fell into it
    Like a daydream.. or a fever
  • KalynthariKalynthari Member Posts: 278 ✭✭✭
    Naruj said:
    Yeah, and there's already an opt-in 100% pk system with Champions.
    Correct. Meaning we don't need to tack on another one.
  • SwaleSwale Member Posts: 312 ✭✭✭
    edited November 2018
    I am not ashamed to say that we are like a children's petting zoo compared to Achaea... Not sure why it's being brought up as a sort of gentler equivalent. And there is is always a tension in these games that can be characterized as:

     "Do we allow the absolute top tier to TOTALLY rule the roost, and actively punish nearly all 'mobbing' outside of certain situations (like raid defense), or do we allow -some- mobbing because we recognize it is sometimes the only recourse for most players".  

    This also ends up addressing all of us who are, to one degree or another, theoretically somewhere in the middle - and even whether a middle can exist at all outside of an arena.  Achaea has always pretty enthusiastically come down in support of the interests of the elite tier.  Even their bashing supports that kind of player (very meager bashing, some of the best bashing is in free PK areas), as does their XP loss.  That helps create a strong chilling effect on 'mobbing' - but I'd argue also has a chilling effect on mid and even upper mid-tier small group fighters.  I don't think it's easy to balance well, even if you were very conscious of it, and wanted to.  But it is, for example, exactly why IRE has always allowed you to pretty mercilessly hunt say, a Targossian who would defend Cyrene in raids (this seems to hold true IRE-wide, it's standard).  You can also hunt Order members who provide corpses for defiling (so pretty tough stance on the PvE guys).      

    Elrith's suggestions on RoEs attempt to address some of this - I just don't know how they'd play out here in Imperian, and actually see (potential) downsides for a small force.
  • ElrithElrith Member Posts: 47 ✭✭
    edited November 2018
    I am unsure how Achaea has anything to do with Imperian... I mean, it must be a really good system they have if nobody uses it...

    Anyhow!

    People don't like losing? Do you seriously think that people should be pushed into losing because the system is badly built? Why should people like to lose? Do you still not see that the reason to why these conflicts end up bad and pushing things that -you- consider are "griefing" is because there are no ways to win beyond it?

    Why should I as a player accept that a sect can start war against my organisation whenever they want and then that I have to accept their surrender when it didn't turn out the way they wanted? Because Hunger would just step down the moment Flame said "ok you win, leave us alone" based on so many things, not to mention the last shrinewar......right... :neutral: I have a hard time taking such reasoning seriously.
  • KalynthariKalynthari Member Posts: 278 ✭✭✭
    Elrith said:
    I am unsure how Achaea has anything to do with Imperian... I mean, it must be a really good system they have if nobody uses it...
    It's called drawing a comparison.
    Anyhow!

    People don't like losing? Do you seriously think that people should be pushed into losing because the system is badly built? Why should people like to lose?
    Nobody said they should 'like to lose' - You should know when you've lost, calm your ego, and admit you've lost. Not vehemently deny losing despite it being very obvious you've lost, then continue to pursue the conflict while complaining the system sucks.
    Do you still not see that the reason to why these conflicts end up bad and pushing things that -you- consider are "griefing" is because there are no ways to win beyond it?
    You do realise this game is an RP game, right? You don't need tangible rewards for every single piece of conflict that happens. If you do, then the problem lies with you, not the game.

    Why should I as a player accept that a sect can start war against my organisation whenever they want and then that I have to accept their surrender when it didn't turn out the way they wanted?
    Because that's how war works? I dunno if you know this or not, but instigators of wars quite often lose. You can see that in a lot of real-world examples. Wars are generally over when surrender terms are given, and they oblige those terms. Not just "u win we lose sry sry". Seems as if you only play this game to PK, and nothing else, in which case of course you're not going to see what's wrong.


Sign In or Register to comment.