So #2 would seem to explain why Hilfarae is not enemy territory and why the merian/gorgogs got split up into separate local areas and then made into enemy territory.

I've been asking for Tainted Broadcasting Centre to have enemy territory for years now. In fact, I still have emails from support saying "We'll consider it." I'm hoping it was just forgotten about under the whole plate of things the admin worked on through that time. So I'd like to bring it up as a candidate now that we're back here.

I feel like it falls into enemy type #1. If need be, it could be essentially split into two halves and have two separate enemy territories.

I think we'd all like things to be a bit less pick and choose which territories receive enemy territory for seemingly arbitrary reasons. I am sure they only seem that way because we don't know why most of the time and sometimes there's just higher priority stuff on the admin's plate to do.

How would you split TBC into two areas where each respective side is wholly confined to that area? Last we looked, we deemed it not possible.

Why can't you make a third set of enemy area (as suggested above) which if enemied to either side makes it flagged as 'enemy territory'.

Why not assign a flag to the NPCs similar to Avenger that sets you flagged for PK if killing the NPCs in that area(or maybe just certain creatures that are significantly more important than others) that way you can avoid being ganked just for being around enemy territory(excluding off-plane). For example, i'm in Centaur enemy territory, but i'm just hunting rabbits for my stew?

Anyway, two cents!

Estarra, I understand (and adore) that we have more than just featureless bashing areas. But at the same time, we need places to bash. If you make killing sentient mobs a serious decision with serious repercussions, you must needs introduce more areas with non-sentients to bash.

The trouble IMO is that two kinds of enemying (to a player org, and to an NPC org) are treated identically, so whenever you balance things by adjusting for one (e.g., make exp loss higher for demigods in enemy territory, as a means of making raids more risky), it affects the other in ways that are not always beneficial (e.g., makes it so huge amounts of high-level bashing areas become too dangerous to hunt in). People keep calling for eliminating or changing enemying, but that is not necessary. All you really need to do, and it's probably quite easy to do in code, is decouple those two types of enemying for the purposes of experience loss. That is:

• Die in player organizational enemy territory (e.g., prime Magnagora): Megabad XP loss.
• Die in NPC organizational enemy territory (e.g., Castle Djarrakh): Much less XP loss.

But after making this change, you still have Avenger do as it does now. So there's no Avenger protection in NPC enemy areas, but you don't also get the second whammy of super-high XP loss.
So enemy territory for krokani still serves its intended purposes:

• People can defend NPCs that are important to them.
• NPCs react sensibly to someone who's been murdering them stopping by for tea.

No need to give up any of that. Just decouple it from the "disincentive to casual raids" XP megapenalty. That's all you have to do.

The only coding wrinkle in this is that there are a few enemy org areas that would have to be handled specially. When doing exp loss, you can check which kind of enemy territory by seeing if the org is an NPC area (e.g., Castle Djarrakh) or a city/commune/guild/order, but you might have to make a coded exception for a few orgs: Moonspirit, Nightspirit, Nil, Celestia, etc., so those are treated as "player org" experience losses.

I honestly think this would make all the arguments about "don't make bashing areas enemy" vanish in a puff of code, without losing any of the real reasons why you want bashing areas to enemy.

How would you split TBC into two areas where each respective side is wholly confined to that area? Last we looked, we deemed it not possible.

I don't want to split it into two areas. That was just one things people suggested the last time TBC was talked about on forums.

I personally would just make TBC one enemyable area.

Again, not possible as-is.

BTW, when I suggested repercussions from sentient denizens, I was thinking something like a chance that, if you attacked a denizen to whom you were enemied, there would be a chance of a couple of guards rushing in to protect said denizen (nothing too draconian). I can imagine some players liking that as it'd give more denizens to kill!

Again, not possible as-is.

Oh I see. I guess I missed why it was not possible.

If you don't mind explaining, I'd appreciate!

BTW, when I suggested repercussions from sentient denizens, I was thinking something like a chance that, if you attacked a denizen to whom you were enemied, there would be a chance of a couple of guards rushing in to protect said denizen (nothing too draconian). I can imagine some players liking that as it'd give more denizens to kill!

+1

ETA: I think this could even still work with the decoupling of org enemy and denizen enemy territories. My only concern would be forcing someone to kick a denizen they're enemied to in order to bring the zergling guard squad down. Don't know if that's even possible, it seems to me like the kind of thing which surely must have come up and been addressed in the past for one thing or another.

Forcing someone to attack a mob aggros the mob to the forcer.

I don't particularly care about TBC, but Hifarae is tied to the Glomdoring Epic Quest and it's a three-hour-minimum quest, whose mobs are bashable by any midbie, and, when bashed out, resets that three hours completely. I'd like for a way to at least be able to defend that and at least lessen the tedious work for the quest.