Well, yeah, it couldn't always be done just cause they can get to it by themselves. But even then, your collegium professors could occasionally announce little warnings over the collegium aether about it at the very least. Anyway, just cause a quest sends a person into a dangerous place doesn't mean that their teachers can't make sure they know it's dangerous is all I'm saying. And the other people are the teachers, not the mobs.

Er, no. Because I think the consensus seems to be there isn't anything to be doing without causing grief to other players. And the answer is other players need to toughen up a bit and just accept their losses or the admin need to add other systems to address the problem.

There isn't much of an answer apparently. To the combat piece of it anyway. If people want combat they need to raid to spark some and if people raid they're making the game unpleasant because people feel they have to defend and people don't want to have to do anything. It doesn't seem to matter where the raids take place. Whether it's a plane, whether it's a weakening, whether it's attacking someone on your own on prime. I have heard people complain because people hunted Shallach and that "forced" them to respond.

And really on that level its frustrating to both players and the admins. And it also goes back to just taking out forums for awhile and see what happens! Not all players are represented by what is said on forums. But both other players and admins take it to be so. There are 3 or 4 Magnagoran players that consistently complain about raiding. Does that mean that all of Magnagora is on the brink of quitting because of the raids? Probably not. But it's taken to mean that. All too often we see that the direction the administration goes in and the problems that get focused on and the attitude players have about the game are shaped by the forums as opposed to actual game play. It's commonly accepted that if you want something changed you come to rant on the forums. I don't know. I just think the whole perspective is very skewed in comparison to what really is going on.

So you (and other people that are making this odd argument about the nature of the planes) are saying that those people who want combat should get their jollies by killing anyone who dares come up to these planes? I mean, I understand that mechanics wise they can in fact do that but I guarantee if people started doing that as the norm there would be a huge outcry.

And isn't that the problem? That the areas set up for people to engage in this free-pk cannot truly be used as such because apparently dying repeatedly (because you choose to enter these areas) is a bad thing? If I decided to take the admin at their word and treat the planes as an anything goes combat zone I could set my watch by how long it would take for a ranting post to pop up.

So, that's fine. I'm all for no holds barred slaughter fests on the outer planes. If people do not want to die, they can just not enter the planes. We can make sure younger people are warned that by entering these planes it's quite possible they WILL die and that's just that. Don't enter if you don't want to die. And if we want to make it so they don't have to pray, well, that's why my obelisk idea is for! So you give nations something to do (keep obelisks up to help keep the constant deaths from amounting to much loss) and you give combatants something to do (kill anyone who enters these planes) Is that pretty much what we're advocating here? Works for me.

Where did I say that I think that people should pick off anyone who enters the Planes? Frankly, I think anyone who just goes around killing folks for no reason (as opposed to killing someone who's raided or insulted or betrayed or whatever which are things one should expect a reprisal for) are dorks. However, the area is meant to be dangerous. People pointed out that no one percieves it as dangerous. So, I was just pointing out that orgs can educate people that it is indeed dangerous.

Does that mean that they should be encouraged to never go? No, of course not. That's silly. Driving a car is extremely dangerous and you can die doing it - but people do it every day. Skydiving is dangerous and you can die doing it - but people do it. However they know it's dangerous so they're careful. They obey certain rules and watch out for trouble. THAT is what teaching people about the potential danger of the Planes is meant to do. Encourage them to watch out for trouble and obey certain rules. Trouble = potential enemy on the Plane with you. Rules = increased chance of death when you enter and even more increased if you wander into the wrong part of a Plane.

I thought not.



Well, I do agree about the general level of toughening up and such. Personally, I wouldn't mind if the entirety of Lusternia was free-PK, but I realize that would be an immensely unpopular idea.

But having said that, I think you've put your finger on the chief issue:

The only available means of interacting by force with another organization that does -not- involve some level of mutual agreement is raiding in some form or another. Adding more areas to do this is not going to change the situation at all. You are -still- stuck in a pattern of raiding, just in different areas with different consequences, and as Volroc pointed out, the "meaningfulness" of this wears thin.

The first response in the thread suggested you looking for some RP outlets for Celest, which I think is a great idea. I also suggested contacting Mag's leadership OOCly and brainstorming some ideas that would be fun for both of you. Of course, by definition, I also think this is a great idea.

I also started a thread in Ideas that hopefully people will contribute to that will be a repository for ideas that may or may not spur your own thinking.

I think it's great you're actually looking for answers to this issue, and my strong bias is that the answer lay with the players and their creativity and cooperation (and maturity, which we can't control, but we hope is either there or can be cultivated). I really don't think a single ounce of meaning can be added to conflict by changing game mechanics, although it's possible that game mechanics might be added to facilitate a player initiative. And this is largely because "meaning" is something that players determine - it's not something that can be engineered into a game.

Up until recently, it wasn't illegal for Celestians to trade with enemies. I think as it stands now, it's just illegal to trade with Magnagorans. Not sure, though. I hate keeping track of laws after...years of not thinking about them... I remember it was a topic that was discussed!

We can beg for game mechanics all we want, but I think, like many people in this thread, that player control is the key. For example, the problem of newbies being killed in Faethorn. The solution shouldn't be that a new area is formed so newbies can hunt in peace. The solution should be that any player worth his or her title should know not to pick on newbies, no matter where they are (unless they are being rude and belligerent, of course). Yes, by strict RP standards some should be slaughtering everyone from another nation, newbie or not, but we were all newbies once.

We don't need more complicated coding. The simple, easiest solution is to THINK before you act. What is your reason for attacking? If you can't get past "I'm bored, kill kill kill" or "BECAUSE ZOMG THEY IS TAINTED DIE DIE DIE", then you shouldn't bother. Rich RP, not base RP is what will keep the game going. And RP needs to trump mechanics sometimes.

I saw a few days ago a shout announcing that New Celest had conquered Nil and was holding it for their own. As a player, my first thought was "Yeah, good luck holding onto that, there's no coding behind it". But then I got to thinking, why should there be? Why couldn't one org "conquer" another area and hold it as their own? Some OOC stuff would go into this obviously-- players would have to get unenemied from the plane and all that, but it could be done for the story.

Nothing we do will have an immediate effect, whether it's RP or coding. Why not take the time and effort to build a truly unique and awesome RP experience, instead of trying to code in quick fixes that will inevitably break down without the richness of the RP that drew many of us to this game?

Exactly.

We can look into novices being required to renounce innocence to do the hunting part of the Collegium. I agree that's pretty sketchy.

We just need some big off-prime area that isn't Avenger protected. Ethereal forests don't count because that's raiding, not just engaging in casual PK which is what this area would be for. Faethorn sort of does, but there's not really any reason to fight there. Fighting on elemental and cosmic is raiding also. And astral is pretty much just a bashing zone, there's no reason to be there apart from bashing and wildnodes. If there was some plane where PK could take place in peace - on which, above all, there was a REASON to be and a REASON to fight there, unlike on the current outer planes - then that could work. I still think the Undervault should have been open PK for this reason and it could have functioned as this area, but c'est la vie.

Prime, unfortunately. Also, the Catacombs did function this way for a while, but it died down when people realized it was a "bashing area" and should be used "for bashing" (see: Astral).

You just want to sell more maps!

(which are excellent, btw - I own one)

Well, the Catacombs had their own share of problems (mainly that it is FREAKING IMPOSSIBLE TO GET TO MOST OF THEM :/)

Here's the thing. On the one hand people are saying "We already have these free-pk areas and combatants can go there to kill people". Then on the other hand they're saying "But no one should be killed in these free-pk areas unless they meet this long list of requirements and they're not killed too much and they definitely never should have to pray because anyone who doesn't stick to those standards is a jerk and a moron and their OOC morality is questionable"

So we're right back to square one. I enjoy PK. I enjoy my character "vanquishing" her enemies. How am I supposed to get this PK when I want it? By attacking something that will inspire people to come drive me off. These people are then "forced" into participating in conflict that they do not want to participate in. Add up enough people looking for some conflict and you have the situation of "too much raiding" and people not using "common sense" and people being morons and scum and having no sense of fair play or decency, etc. etc. etc.

So what is the solution to THAT? Not "we need a free-pk area" or we need non-organizational conflict or anything else. On reflection we have plenty of conflict mechanisms (though granted, all are attached to organizational conflict). The problem is people only like conflict on their terms! What is the solution to people participating in conflict that they do not enjoy and do not want to participate in? What is the solution to other people not being able to participate in conflict without it destroying someone else's gaming experience? If someone can answer that in a clear fashion, that'd be great.

In terms of OOCly worked RP deals. Eh, to be perfectly honest I don't really think that kind of thing works. Are any players going to OOCly agree to any sort of thing that puts them at some sort of distinct disadvantage? Or means they "lose" at something? Or is not favorable to their rather static view of what their org is?

If someone has some feasible ideas for a RP scenario that would solve all these problems and would actually be agreeable to the majority of the players involved, I'd love to hear it.

Actually it is already the case that you don't have to renounce innocence to do the Glom collegium hunting quest!

Hooray for good fixes, even if unannounced.

That's good, but it's not the case with Mag's collegium quests - one of them require you to kill spectres... which most newbies just can't do alone

It works wonderfully elsewhere. Done it many, many times. I can't say if it would happen here or not. Nobody seems to have really tried it.

It's not unique to Lusternia, either. I remember being involved in the Cyrene Has No Conflict discussions and suggesting, "How about we get in touch with Mhaldor's leadership and work out some fights under terms we'd both enjoy." And it was like I'd suggested we dress up as cereal box characters and deliver the Gettysburgh Address in Japanese.

"You want to contact WHO and do WHAT? We can't work with those people."

And yet, other games seem to have managed this very thing, and to great effectiveness. Even to the point of coming up with their own PK rules (no re-entering battles for a certain time period if you die, etc.) The only obstacle is whether or not players are willing to give as well as take to accomplish what everyone claims to want. This is either an insurmountable obstacle or no obstacle at all.

But part of creating a mutually enjoyable experience is there has to be give and take. If we come up with something makes your org "lose," we should also come up with something that allows you to "win," either as part of it or as something for the future.

Well, sure, why not? It's not like if they agree to be the 'loser' in one event they have to be the 'loser' in all events. Surely everyone is mature enough to understand that not everyone can win every time. So, an org agrees OOCly to take a hit to allow an interesting story to happen. Next story, they get to 'win' something to make up for it maybe or another story takes place where it turns out the 'loss' they suffered before wasn't as big a loss as they thought because it opened the door for some benefit or 'win' or something.

'Change player mindset' is easier said than done. We have these problems -because- of the lack (to various degrees) of intelligence, communication, maturity and other factors that are necessary to police ourselves. Mechanical changes, on the other hand, are rather clearly defined. Sure, they're artificial and I prefer leaving policing up to the players. But if we didn't have Avechna (game mechanic!), for example, we'd almost certainly have a lot more rampant griefing than we do now.

If you're initiating conflict, you're willing. If you're not initiating the conflict, then you're obviously trying to get something else done and surpriseBATTLE! probably gets old. I know it does me, and when it was Magnagora that was the top org in the game, playing a Celest character was torturous. I'm absolutely certain we lost a lot of great people because of the constant forced conflict.

So the solution? In this case, I think it's a combination of mindset and mechanics, but mostly mechanics. Engineer conflicts so most or everyone involved are willing rather than drafted participants.