Cult/Sect Conflict
So, Sarrius has begun to initiate Sect/Cult conflict with the desecration on the Primal altar.
One thing first. It causes conflict. Cool. I'm not upset about it at all, and honestly don't think it'll be too much of a detriment for roleplay. Because to be honest, Osila just attached, so it should be some time before she goes all Sect status.
Anyway.
I'm talking with Sarrius and watching the numbers, and they seem fairly reasonable. 35-40 minutes, about 11 people(some with faithbane on), did 6% belief damage. At the beginning of this, I was worried about late-night desecration might make these sort of battles ridiculous, but it's not too bad.
That being said, I still feel the entire thing could become the new source of player-driven conflict, hopefully incorporating more roleplay with the diversity of entities, as obelisks and shardfalls have seem to become stagnant.. Any ideas or suggestions?
0
Comments
A. The admin will never allow an entity to die.
B. Considering the amount of grinding that goes into them, you'll never be able to do enough to convince the admin/players to allow their cult/sect to be destroyed.
C. While with Orders you could destroy influence via shrines, all sect/cults have is altar defilement which takes forever and is only mostly pointless, except when it's basically just a means to grief people, IE, when someone's trying to become a sect and waiting on the entity to have the event ready.
D. If sects/cults aren't on par, most of the time the fighting just won't happen. Conquest went to 'war' with Flame pretty early on and Khizan was just basically like, 'Nah, we're not doing it. You have fighters, we don't.'
Sure, there's the potential for some sort of roleplay, but considering the lack of risk/reward, it largely devolves to posturing.
‘Every sword’s a weight to carry. Men don’t see that when they pick ’em up. But they get heavier with time.”
If you want to drop a Sect/Cult belief, just altar summon and team them. It's faster and doesn't cost you any faith/belief which is a win win in my book. Unless somehow you die...which if you do, you deserve to lose belief if you die when team ganking a solo target.
Perhaps it would make more sense to speed up desecrating considerably, so that you guys don't waste all your time to inconvenience us, but to add in daily per-person cap to how much belief you can burn, a cap that lowers per-person past a certain number of desecrators to stop the smaller cult from simply being crushed beneath weight of numbers.
"On the battlefield I am a god. I love war. The steel, the smell, the corpses. I wish there were more. On the first day I drove the Northmen back alone at the ford. Alone! On the second I carried the bridge! Me! Yesterday I climbed the Heroes! I love war! I… I wish it wasn’t over."
My sect regularly bashes 3-6% per day while not pushing for belief. When we were pushing to unlock rituals, it was closer to 10%. Some of them are power bashers, but a lot of them aren't.
the claims are stated - it's the world I've created
Would this be better, somehow, if he were able to one-v-one challenge you and lock you in the area first?
"On the battlefield I am a god. I love war. The steel, the smell, the corpses. I wish there were more. On the first day I drove the Northmen back alone at the ford. Alone! On the second I carried the bridge! Me! Yesterday I climbed the Heroes! I love war! I… I wish it wasn’t over."
To be honest, he jumped you because you were bashing to replace faith we were desecrating. Are you going to sit there and let somebody push your boulder down the hill if you just worked so hard to push it UP that hill?
Azefel used as his reasoning 'returning the favour' for Gurn striking out at people who had directly attacked us. That's between him and Gurn. Gurn's actions do not give you the right to attack people who aren't Gurn and had nothing to do with those actions. Neither does the attempt made by Gurn, Ziat and Risca to defend against attacks on the altar.
This is blatantly fishing for reasons to kill anyone, and it's unacceptable.
Just Gurn/Risca/Ziat tracking to Conquest's altar to attack (and Gurn's running around attacking other people bashing earlier) that made me do this.
The reason I did this was because Wild Hunt has a justifiable reason to do it, and Conquest is their ally so they joined in. I did it because you guys acquired an entity and you are in all likelihood close to ascension. Why would I give my enemy circle another sect, when I have the opportunity to tell you 'no'? That makes no sense.
All of you are welcome to cease bashing until you hit 0%. You can just let the cult get pummeled. If we were fishing for reasons to gank you, we'd have not offered you a mechanically and sentimental surrender option - we are giving you a way out. It is not our fault that your cult leader won't agree to them, especially considering one of the terms is immaterial mechanically - we are asking for something personal from your entity surrendered to Hastati, and another surrendered to Isra. Isra personally hasn't told me what she wants, so who knows, but this is giving your cult the opportunity to form another point of contention with each of ours. Instead, you want to use the forums as a vehicle to complain about conflict in a game whose only other source of combat requires you wait for 2 - 3 hours, and then is often a short-lived 10 to 15 minutes.
Dying is immaterial, especially off an altar. Why not stop caring about the 0.02% you lose and actually enjoy a few fights?
EDIT: And if it truly upsets you so, might I suggest Lusternia? I am to understand their Avenger system is exactly the kind of security you are looking for - killing people for legitimate reasons there got me peaced and killed, after all!
I'll give you a hint - whining on the forums won't stop them.
I am sure Polland and France said the same thing.
- It must be noted that roleplay reasons must encompass actual actions by the individual being targeted. In practice, this means that if someone is insulting you repeatedly or attacking a member of your city, you have a good reason to be attacking them. If you declare war on their city and they happen to be a leader of said city, that is NOT a good reason for attacking them, as they have not pursued any individual acts warranting such an action. Be conservative in your application of this principle: The administration isn't stupid, and you will be punished for seeking to kill people for trite reasons.
Attacking someone solely because they were bashing to offer for essence was never permitted under the old system. Raising a shrine or defiling certainly was, but raising a shrine isn't a thing anymore. That leaves defiling.
This seems pretty cut-and-dry to me, and it's no surprise who is in the wrong.
the claims are stated - it's the world I've created
We could split hairs all day - technically, a 'roleplay reason' is present, and that reason is 'The Wild Hunt has declared war and has made demands'. People have gotten away with flimsier reasons, and the whole 'try to resolve it' thing supercedes that nonsense 99 out of 100 issues. Seraphyne, and presumably Ellen (considering Seraphyne copy and pasted Ellen's issue to Azefel, to me), made no shot at resolving it in character. No retaliation. No 'why?'. Nothing.
EDIT: And the bit I pasted specifically mentions war?
the claims are stated - it's the world I've created
Edit: It's also pretty baller that we are rolling in mercedez!