Trust me, I only PM Estarra when I do dumb like type in the wrong number (I love dyslexia) and lose auction artifacts like a retard. Then she suddenly appears smacking me in the head and calling me her "lil pratt"

This does not equate to something she should be PM'd about, she can read threads just fine

PM eventru instead with all your worthless crap.

PS I hate you

I wanna be thwapped by Estarra.

I have notifications turned off, so I'll never know. Feel free!

And I love you too, Murphy. I fully embrace Raziela's teachings.

LOVE AND HUGS FOR EVERYONE!!

You're quite right, this is a valid concern and this is why there are two distinct flaws with the way Avenger is set up, only one of which Shuyin addressed. For simplicity's sake:

1. That newbie Geb is bashing gorgogs. I go crunch him for the fun of it. Avenger doesn't give a . There is essentially no PK protection when it matters, because I can simply wait for him to go bash gorgogs again and then crunch him (again). Most areas are offplane or enemy you so you're ed.
2. In order to get revenge for his random crunching, Geb goes to do the tainted broadcast centre quest to piss me off. I go to stop him, but what's this? I got enemied to the area as part of the quest recently and he didn't? So to stop HIM from doing a quest to harm ME, I have to declare and get suspect on him? No thanks! Conversely he can attack me with impunity.

How you address both of these at once bothers me - my guess is that you would have to do something like enemy for killing quest mobs only (or add "sort of enemies" for bashing and "real enemies" for quest mobs/the village leaders) and then set quests up such that if a quest alters the status quo, you get enemied for initiating it, not for stopping it/bashing there. It would still be annoying when Magnagora comes down to pwn all the kephera when we're trying to use the nurses for a quest, but that could be adjusted by making the nurses quest mobs, or whatever. Even if you were to fail to do that the situation would actually be a lot better than it is now because there would be PK protection on prime and you could stop quests without getting pwnt. The frustrating scenarios would be a minority instead of a majority of cases.

EDIT: Also, Enthralled is half right - defending people who declare should simply not declare you on other people, no need for an extra level of "supercareful." The scenario where Shuyin decides to punk Geb and then gets confused when Dysolis comes to defend Geb...and then I defend Shuyin, thinking he's under attack, and the end result of that is that I get status when I didn't do anything wrong, -sucks-. I should have to declare Dysolis so I know what I'm getting myself into.

I like this idea.

I sort of suggested a version of it here : http://forums.lusternia.com/index.php?showtopic=15239. 'Tribal Warden'

I'd also suggest a removable honors line for the "Guardian" so they can be identified. And maybe a sign in the area that says 'Sojiro, Catarin, Daevos, Murphy are guardians beware!' or something.

I'd also restrict it to one guardian area per person.

The issue I have with this idea is that it will limit bashing areas, and I'm not sure we have enough krokani/nagameth/gorgog areas. With UV, Muud and Xion maybe we do.

I would also up the experience gain from NPCs that can have a Guardian as enticement.

And I'd make some areas (like Gorgogs) un Guardianable.

This idea is silly. Avenger not protecting enemies of certain areas is fine. If someone is hunting ur'dead, which are protected by the Ur'guard, they should deserve to risk being hunted. Same with merian. I will be damned if I hunt merian and am not hunt able to be hunted down and slain by Celest due to the fact someone didn't get to influence marinus with 'guardian status.'

If people don't want to be hunted, don't hunt where you can gain enemy status. I can think of many prime places to hunt that you don't get enemy status for. Gorgogs/Merians/Tosha/arthart/urguard/etc should be for the brave!

So few of the -good- ones are like that though.

Gorgogs, merians, muud, aetherbubbles, tosha, ur'dead, illithoids, kephera, astral, shallamurine, arthar'rt and duum -all- enemy (EDIT: or are off-plane, making it moot). Practically the only place which doesn't is undervault tunnels. It is not silly to expect that a majority of decent bashing areas would let you bash them without being free PK. If this is not the case, the only other reasonable thing to do is to change enemy status so that they aren't free PK.

Thoros I think you misunderstand. I'm supporting Sojiro's proposal IN ADDITION to the current Avenger system and whatever fixes you guys want to make on it.

Lets say I decide to become the Guardian of the ur'dead for whatever reason. I could then PK anyone enemied to the Ur'dead in that area in addition to whatever the ur'guard decides to do.

Let me ask in advance for no flaming of this post if it turns out I have a poor understanding of this issue (which I probably do).

It seems to me that enemy territory was added for two reasons: so people could "defend" certain areas from people who are always bashing it out, and for some flavor in interactions with many mob areas. The question is, do many of the places that can become enemy territory really NEED to be? I'm sure some Magnagorans might argue that Shallach should remain enemy territory, and some Celestians might argue in favor of the merians, but the list of places you can become enemied to is much larger, if I'm not remembering incorrectly. Perhaps the answer just might be to remove many of the enemy territories that don't have a strong roleplay incentive for defending the mobs of?

Consequently, posting the exact and descriptive method of loopholes so that workers like Morgfyre can try to sort it out also allows people who read these forums to use the same loopholes that bypass/abuse Avenger.

I'm not sure if this has been brought up or not. I think it's really silly how if we have a bully and they attack a denizen loyal to our orgs (thus they auto-declare everyone in the org online at that moment) and we attack them in our territory (even with them being enemies), we end up losing our bully status on them.

QFT!

I have a really odd feeling on this, I guess. Am I the only person that thinks that the second you actually ATTACK another player you should be vulnerable and not giving status? I've always thought the Avenger was for protecting people from repeated ganking. The second you punch/slice/cast on/at someone, you are saying that you do want to participate in PvP and as such you shouldn't get status if you get killed for meddling.

Should there be a time when you simply have to stand around and watch people die because they don't know the precise workings of defend/declare? I don't know that you're going to find a consistent mechanics loophole, only the loophole that inexperienced players cause by declaring when they shouldn't; not a loophole at all.

I'm only aware of two actual "bug" type happenings. One of which is losing status for reactive defenses like mindfield, the other is defending/declaring on enemy territory. Not sure exactly how to reproduce that one as it's very nebulous, but it ends up giving status to people who used defend, which is supposed to be impossible under the current system.

Desitrus, that's something of a valid point but just in case anyone thinks so (you were talking about an odd feeling but I'm not sure why) I don't feel it's contradictory with the main concerns I mentioned. The only two problems I can see with changing that is that you might have scenarios wherein someone attacks you and your fae whack them, thereby counting as "fighting back", and scenarios where I jump you, you try to fight back thinking it's a fair fight, and then my cronies Thoros and Kaervas jump in to kill you without suspect.

I guess you could argue that the latter isn't a real problem and the first is solvable though.

Can that be exploited right now though? Fae hitting you if you hit the Wiccan? The fighting back part is the ticket though, really. You take your death to whoever declares you if you want Avenger protection. If you attack, you are signifying that you are willingly engaging in PvP and all that accompanies it. Just like a flagging system.

I am pretty sure that can be exploited right now, yeah. At least, I know a couple times when Alban's demesne decided to give him vengeance on someone and remove bully on someone else without his asking. Either way, what you're saying makes sense.

I think the current system should require you to defend a player who is currently engaged in PvP before you can salt a circle around them or reflect them (or any other related actions). By taking those actions you are stepping into a fight and the other party(or parties) should be able to attack you without needing to declare you.

If someone is not currently engaged in PvP you should be free to reflect/shield them.

I agree with Shiri's response to this. All the "best" hunting places (as decided by collective opinion) either enemy or are off-prime. What good hunting places remain on-prime, that don't enemy? You have UV tunnels (which are not nearly as fast as astral or illithoid/kephera), maybe Shallach (but you get the krokani/aslaran supply problem there too)...then what else? You might be able to name one or two more, but they all have their limitations.

There seems to be a fundamental conflict the admin is avoiding with hunting areas: whether places should exist just "for bashing", or whether areas need to exist for RP, bashing being secondary. A good example of the first is UV tunnels; for the second is Tosha. I personally think that what would solve a lot of this griping would be to release a couple of bashing areas that are solely for bashing (ie doesn't give enemy status, decently rewarding at high levels). It might or might not contribute to the RP of Lusternia as a whole, so that might make the admin hesitate; but it would give people who just want to bash mindlessly the peace of mind to do so.

No you don't its not the loving hand of Jethro Gibbs slapping you on the back of the head, its the hand of a God who doesn't know her own strength so half the time it ends up in decapitation.



While I agree 99% with what you said. I think there is another instance too.

If I were to be attacked by Desitrus for example, and he killed me, I would gain suspect on him. Now if he were to attack me again, I would try to defend myself by attacking back enough to get away, as most normal non sissified players would. But losing status on him for defending myself (for example, casting web on him to give me time to run), to me is a bit silly and unneeded.

Thats the only thing that makes me think that attacking back shouldn't remove it. Now if you attacked back first, yes it should be removed.