QFT, although apparently, the solution to all the whining is more game mechanics.

I think celest enforces its rules decently enough. I cant recall any blatant disregard for its laws up to now.. well except for a few who did get kicked out...

and so -- well, kick them out.. or if its really a concern, then make it a treaty with fines.. or whatever is needed..

And actually: there is not that too many people that raids.. hah! its not like its the entire city that will need to be monitored.. wish there was more fighters actually..

Now, the problem i see is--what if the other org violated it? what do we do then..

in which case -- isnt it that mag is saying they are constantly being raided and stuf, etc.. etc.. so it will be in thier best interest not to violate that.. because if they do.. then we raid them again.. and we will be back in the beginning..

however, thats getting too far ahead and thinking of things that might not come to be.. - and so isnt it at least worth a try?

Hey, it's easier for us not to have to implement anything!

(But just want to say we are open to new things if players have ideas. I do think it's telling that there isn't much enthusiasm for mechanics that encourage 1:1 combat.)

Well, don't get me wrong, I like new game mechanics.

I just think that players could be taking a lot more into their own hands than many people seem to want to do. They want you to do it for them. And you'll add your new areas and change this or that skillset, and all these complaints will still be here.

I don't think your argument really holds up. For example, Iraq is the birthplace of modern civilization, with many beautiful archaeological sites, ancient mosques, etc. It has a lot of important culture and history within the Fertile Crescent. That I might want or feel compelled to visit there does not change the fact that it is currently a battle-zone where I can expect to be shot at and die. That's just the reality of the situation.

Similarly, the Avenger does not protect the Planes - regardless of how they are perceived in "player culture," what bashing or quests exist there, etc. They are dangerous warzones, and you should probably expect that you might be attacked and even killed when you visit there.

Do you think people in Iraq wake up every morning and go "Wow, this is gonna be fun!"

I guess it's just a case of making it clear to everyone that they should expect to get jumped and die there then, if that's the official stance on it. I don't think it's necessarily more fun that way, but at least people won't go in expecting more than they have a right to.

Please keep in mind how many areas this shuts off to people who don't want to get nailed without any real recourse. Every aetherbubble, water, earth, faethorn, astral, not the spirit plane though.

Only if they transcended Planar.

I don't think people in Iraq live in a competitive video game where the worst that can happen is they "Pray for Salvation" and be reincarnated, nor do I think the argument can be extended to the Communes and Cities proper (who indeed are protected by many defenses and the Avenger).

Veo wins the thread.

Here's the thing.

People want conflict. People want to have a reason to get into conflict.

The playerbase as a whole whines when any conflict happens to THEM.

The mechanics are fine - we as a playerbase are pretty spoiled compared to other IREs.

Catarin said something earlier in the thread I think is interesting. There's no real way for organizations to mechanically implement their long-term "goals". To a certain extent this is understandable, how fair is it to Mag players to have their organization entirely destroyed? It's just the nature of the game, ultimately. At the same time, however, it's rather clear that New Celest will never reform their empire, Serenwilde will never fully cleanse nature, Glomdoring won't grow to cover the entire Basin, and Mag will never Taint the multiverse. (Now watch some event prove me wrong)

I would agree that this makes for a better game ultimately, but it also artificially "halts" the main narrative of the game. Sure we have events and stories, and many of them can change how the Basin works on a big scale. But it doesn't really answer the question that's supposed to be asked in viewing the end of the Taint Wars. "What next?"

Maybe the answer is a mechanical change. I would actually be interested to see some sort of system like Catarin suggested, some sort of ability to "subjugate" other nations if your nation is at the height of the power dynamic. There could be some sort of mechanical penalty to the org, but I'd say it couldn't be too drastic or it would just discourage the nation on the losing side further. Instead, the focus could be on interesting RP changes. I'd actually enjoy seeing a Magnagora under New Celest's control nominally. Maybe Celest is allowing them forms of freedom until they complete their subjugation (hence allowing them to keep guards, power, statues, etc). And then have denizens within Magnagora, loyal to Mag itself, that implied subjugation. Maybe merian researchers attempting to cleanse the Taint, something like that. It sounds totally cool in my mind. But I don't know how many people would enjoy it, or how hard it would be to create, or any of the mechanisms behind it.

But then that raises the question of whether the subjugation mechanic is just another cycle. Eventually one org will break the other's subjugation, it'll become dominant and subjugate one or more of the other nations. It really wouldn't change anything, it would just be another way to fight and "grief" each other.

So yeah, those are my fragmented and barely logical thoughts.

On the one hand it would be great if players just did not whine as much and did something to help their situation. But this is a game and most people don't play a game to admit they're defeated and sue for peace. And it still would not help the underlying situation or problem.

People are not just going up to the planes and waiting for people to kill (well, some are) they are doing things in order to try to guarantee a defensive response because that is the best way to get some combat. You attack something important to the org and then you get people to come up because they feel obliged (right or wrong) to defend these places.

So if people stop whining then the raids will continue and possibly increase as people figure "most be alright!" and join in when they were restraining themselves before. Or an IC solution could be worked out to reduce the number of attacks due to one org surrendering or whatever. In the first scenario you still have a group of players not having a lot of fun because combat is constantly being forced upon them. (Unless their is some RP where an org goes out of its way to declare their planes to be unnecssary to defend) Or in the other scenario, you still have a bunch of bored people.

In the end it all boils down to people being "forced" into combat when they do not want to fight. In terms of the problem of "too many" raids.

If we change the player culture to reflect that the planes are war zones, then this will change a great deal of in game roleplay and activities.

You don't take novices/lowbies to warzones to teach them about the Supernals or for low rank advancement tasks, for example, for the same reasons you don't take them to the Gorgogs to teach them basic hunting. Or no more than you take (Celest) novices to Old Celest to teach them history. Or no more than Mrs. McCullough takes her fourth grade class to Iraq to teach them about Mesopotamia.

I think recommending and pushing for this change would worsen the game overall.

This can be extended to the entire game.

Achaea has a lot of theft. Did they remove theft? Are people still playing Achaea?

You seem to be hung up in what you want things to be, and at times you almost seem defensive when people say thats not how they are. If most of the playerbase is saying that something is a certain way (such as the planes not being a free-pk zone), saying "Thats not true because thats not how we designed it" doesn't really work, because obviously not everything turns out as planned. Somebody (who is more creative and observant then me) needs to figure out what happened between design and now made the result something that is apparently not what is wanted.

Forren's probably right though, a lot of lusternia's players are spoiled.

Compared to the other IREs, we're in heaven in terms of player deaths/jumpings.

I don't think it'll ever happen but that's kind of interesting. One org achieves some show of dominance over another and then that other org is an occupied territory and the players who want it to not be have to do some other difficult thing to throw off the shackes of oppression. They could have secret hideouts and shout "Viva la Resistance!" frequently. They could have secret agents influencing the guards and other denizens on their behalf who would offer shelter and aide when they wanted to launch guerilla attacks on key points of the oppressor's occupation.

Yeah, that does sound cool, even if the actual effects were minimal.

Forren hit the nail on the head.

A major part of the playerbase, probably the majority, wants conflict.

A fairly minor part of the playerbase thinks being expected to drop everything and go defend is fun.

A slightly larger part of the playerbase thinks having conflict scheduled is fun. Most would rather take it or leave it at will.

But the majority wants conflict to participate in in some form.

The real problem is that meaningful conflict comes from other players and not from a game mechanic and players aren't going to want conflict in the same way at the same time. You could solve a ton of problems if there was a Krellanmob for me to fight when I want and ignore when I don't, but that's not how this thing works.