The State of PVP

[ila]

gone

[Delia]

I am sure all the options are always available if you are willing to work for them, negotiate and compromise. Same applies to everyone. Very few things are truly locked unless one decides they are. I really do not know what else to say.

[ila]

gone

[Zehren]

Doesn't seem to be anything new in this thread that hasn't been discussed numerous times over the last decade already.

[Laewyloth]

My $0.02:

Let's separate the game into 3 'types' of power-dictated conflicts:

• Political / RP power: This power is the power to directly change or impact the game storyline, lore, and associated mechanics. This power is related to ownership of a guild or a kingdom.
• PVP mechanical: This power is the power to 'literally' kill a player through PK. It can influence or be limited by other power types, but it is the one this thread seems to be most focused on.
• Populace power: This power is the power to react, empower, or proactively 'do things' based on sheer number of active players.

As someone's who's only played Geas for a year, this is how the landscape 'looks' right now (and seems to echo the past decade, if the forums are any indicator):

• Political / RP Power: Taniels + Elvandar win. Hands down. Very specifically, it is accepted lore that the Church (an occuptional guild) has the utmost power and 'ownership' over Elvandar - and Elvandar is the de-facto 'bastion' against the Evil guilds and kingdom. Getting on the 'wrong side' of the Church -or- Elvandar results in: limited access to mounts, no custom gear, potential war with every other guild 'beholden' to the Church or Elvandar (i.e. the Crusaders, the Rangers, potential the Shaolin). Arborea + Asralites is a close second, but not -necessarily- the same (as an enterprising individual -could- try to remove all mention of being beholden to Asralites from Arborea's laws)
• PVP mechanical: The Order + Asador win. While highly mysterious, it is clear that a combination of "What it takes to even -be- a part of that guild and survive in Asador" plus the benefits make the characters incredibly strong and able to inflict PVP harm. Extending this to 'baddies' in general, the effect of getting on the wrong side of them is that you can, and probably will, end up being killed and or looted.
• Populace power: See #1 above. If every player 'in the sphere' of Tanielites + Crusaders + Rangers + Shaolin were to 'war' somebody, they could absolutely kill a single player, remove their ability to 'hide' in an inn, etc. I'm not saying this would be fair, just that it is possible

Now, with that said, when you are pretending to be a wizard or a dungeon-master (if you were playing a TBT game) you have to account for these three axes, and try to make sure that -dominating a single axis- does not mean dominating the -other two axes-. I.e. Someone should -not- be able to do all of the below:

• Disable large swathes of the game due to political power until 'someone capitulates'
• Kill the leaders, offending characters, or 'pawns' repeatedly, until 'someone capitulates'
• Rally massive hordes of players to hunt down and grief leaders/offending characters, until 'someone capitulates'.

And the opposite of that should also be true. I.e. One should be able to affect 'change' without political power, by rallying massive hordes of players -or- by killing a leader over and over. Or one should be able to affect 'change' by cutting off resources, skills, etc. to someone or by bringing large numbers of players to bear, in lieu of killing them.

Right now, I feel like the major problem is that -political power- is, unfortunately, far more powerful than the other two axes in game. This is because: 1/Player death, while horribly inconvenient, really just serves to infuriate people - it doesn't change behavior, and 2/Population power is largely mitigated by OOC relationships. I am -not- accusing anyone of this, just that, as an example: If I really wanted to, I could spin up 4 or 5 AWS EC2 instances, create 5 new players, join a guild, and take control of it / vote for my friend to remain in power. There is just no way to -police- IC interactions, when OOC alignment or discussion about IC interactions is encouraged.

So, to tie this allll back in to what this thread seems about:

• Baddies will not, and should not, have as much political power OR populace power as Goodies. This means they -must- have more PVP power than Goodies. Unless the setting of Geas materially changes (i.e. it becomes easier and equally advantageous to be evil vs being good)
• The Taniel Church risks being dominant across -two- axes, because it is in 'de facto control' of Elvandar and at least two other guilds by proxy. However, it is still not -quite- as mechanically (PVP) strong as the Baddies. To fix this, maybe remove the ability for any Church to be 'in control' of a kingdom except by way of having a member of it run for 'leadership' positions in the same capacity as any other player (affiliated with a guild or otherwise).
• Arborea and Asralites get the same treatment as above. But are seen as slightly more 'mechanically viable' because of everyone's innate fear of fire and burning gear. Coupled with the fact that if you get outlawed from Arborea, you lose access to 2/3 layman guilds and all but 1 crafting guilds. So with that said, Arborea needs to be even -more- 'separate' from the power that a single guild can potentially have.
• The baddies should be more accessible, and in turn IF that happens, their 'mechanical' power needs to similarly be toned downwards to account for their rise in populace power. But note, that still means that they exert next to '0' political power. Because if you get...outlawed from Asador, that really doesn't matter, now does it?

Long post, long, winding post. But genuine in that I think everyone really kind'a feels like they want 'their side' to be the best in all three areas, and that isn't fair. So rather than do that, maybe make all three areas just as impactful, and include ways to affect change.

[ila]

gone

[Laewyloth]

I didn't include the 'neutrals' in my post because I genuinely don't know where you fit in.

On one hand, the neutral players shouldn't ever 'be' at war with Good or Evil, and that's why there isn't a base of Political -OR- populace power for 'em. On the other hand, neutral -should- be able to align themselves with one side or the other, as situations dictate.

The problem with that though is: if you ally with Evil, then 'currently' you rely on mechanical power. If you ally with Good, then you rely on political / population power.

So this wasn't a post to address Ila-issues. Just...the general weirdness that is this thread: "Make good guilds more powerful" "No, because evil guilds -need- to be more powerful." "Also it's not fair Good guilds can just outlaw people from kingdoms and cut them off from X, Y, Z".

[Ioca]

State of PvP, after a brief hunt:

<OOC>: Crusader asks you to meet him in the discussion room of the OOC area. Type "ooc" to get there.
*** OOC-transport ***
Crusader mentions in Common: you arent fun to play with
Crusader walks out game.

This isn't a dig at that player at all. We made up! But the state of PvP is that guild leaders and judges who aren't even -really- playing their characters are logging on, declaring and/or continuing and/or inciting wars and problems with the characters that they hate, and then the members of those guilds and cities suffer for it.

Ceinna, Brand, Yngwe, Aya, play your characters. Resolve things. Stop being cowards in an ooc sense because you fear retribution. Let things get finished, please. Your excessive, unending meddling and attempting to make the game unfun for players results in them warring every guild - and now even your alts aren't being safe, so what fun do you think you're causing here?

I'm with Ila - I don't even want to PvP, but I'm not going to metagame things and ignore being declared an enemy by a leader that logged on for five minutes to do her friend's bidding. And Yngwe set the precedent that Elvandar's outlaw list is a clone of the crusade's enemy list, so yay, more forced warring.

[Arsicas]

So... what will fix things? I would say that just attacking every member of X guild because they made you an enemy and you don't know why is probably bad for everybody. But so is not knowing why you were made an enemy and not getting any response from the person who made you an enemy.

I think another problem is there's no willingness to compromise on either side. If both sides' actions have made the other side not willing to come to a concession, then we're just kinda stuck. So how would you see things playing out to come to a reasonable conclusion without people just rage quitting?

[Ioca]

So... what will fix things? I would say that just attacking every member of X guild because they made you an enemy and you don't know why is probably bad for everybody. But so is not knowing why you were made an enemy and not getting any response from the person who made you an enemy.

It's in their hands. They declared and started the problems. My character is peaceful and continues to want peace - but again, I'm going to roleplay the wars they declared and actually fight them. There doesn't _need_ to be any intention there because, again, I'm just going along with the cards I was dealt. But as a hope, I'd really like the guild-members that die and who don't want to fight my character to voice that to their leader. Hopefully a leader would listen and accept that my character does want peace.

I think another problem is there's no willingness to compromise on either side. If both sides' actions have made the other side not willing to come to a concession, then we're just kinda stuck. So how would you see things playing out to come to a reasonable conclusion without people just rage quitting?

Compromise about what?!? In the case of Brand and Ceinna, they started this whole mess because they of Ceinna's jealousy and that I didn't agree with their plans for Elvandar's laws -in an OOC conversation-. In Yngwe's case, he's breaking the game's rules. In Aya's case, she won't even roleplay with me or explain why I'm an enemy now. I tried.

If I said what I'm hoping for OOCly about a couple of those players, I'd probably be breaking a rule. I clearly just want things back to normal OOC, where I could roleplay being a good-hearted but slightly misguided elf in the markets with Ila included inbetween killing stuff and "playing the game." In character, my character _wants peace_ and has voiced that she wants it from the very beginning. She never wanted _any_ of this. I told Ceinna and Brand to leave me out of their bad RP but they never, ever let up.

In short, I'd be okay with some people rage quitting. They're blocking me from having fun.

[ila]

gone

[isengoo]

i want everyone to just have a good time

[Delmon]

Code: Select all

Right now, I feel like the major problem is that -political power- is, unfortunately, far more powerful than the other two axes in game.

As a player, I understand the inconveniences of losing city access and the limitations of access to some of the guilds, but if your goal as a player is to always have access to a city, then your character construct should be framed around that. You can't have a Sathonys cleric in Elvandar. You know that going in. That's an extreme example but it applies to everything in the game. Conversely I can't be a goodie and be expected to have Asador freedom. But if you push the envelope, you are likely going to be fined, banned, outlawed etc. In simply in pushing the envelope, there's risk. If you don't like that risk, the char construct should not be created as such. If you are ok with it, then you have to be ok with the consequences.

That being said, to get out of the consequences, I have found giving in to whatever punishment is necessary is the way to get back access. It takes some humility as a player and char. I recommend going to the leaders of each guild and cities and offering to take whatever consequences are necessary to get to the level of freedom that is fun for you as a player. The guild leaders and city leaders in turn should challenge themselves to be active and come up with a creative IC punishment that make the punisher (and maybe even the punished(?)) satisfied with the consequence. And lastly the receiving end should accept it and work through it to get out of the hole.

[Arsicas]

My character is peaceful and continues to want peace

Seems like there’s better ways of showing this than attacking people?

Compromise about what?!? In the case of Brand and Ceinna, they started this whole mess because they of Ceinna's jealousy and that I didn't agree with their plans for Elvandar's laws -in an OOC conversation-. In Yngwe's case, he's breaking the game's rules. In Aya's case, she won't even roleplay with me or explain why I'm an enemy now. I tried.

Don’t know what exactly happened between Aisahi and Brand/Ceinna beyond what I’ve heard, so I can’t really speak on who started what in that case. But it definitely seems to be at the point where both sides will not even speak with each other. If Aisahi wants nothing but to kill them and they see her as evil and won’t budge on the matter, then we’re at an impasse.

I disagree that Yngwe is breaking the game rules. I don’t feel like he’s blatantly disregarding the law but that he’s interpreting it according to his character and his experiences.

And I have no clue what happened with Aya/the Crusade, although Ars will probably try to get to the root of the matter.

In short, I'd be okay with some people rage quitting. They're blocking me from having fun.

Okay, but... we’re all playing this game together. I think the only way to really deal with this issue is to work it out OOC. I don’t think anyone *wants* to block other people from having fun. But I understand that people got upset on both sides. And I think that has to be dealt with before the IC stuff can be dealt with because at this point it seems like the OOC anger is fueling IC actions, and there isn’t really a way to just avoid dealing with each other and still play the game.

[Ioca]

My character is peaceful and continues to want peace

Seems like there’s better ways of showing this than attacking people?

I wrote a thread on this, but I consider it metagaming to ignore it if someone declares a war on you. "Being peaceful" to me is that my character only attacks people that slight her, and it's kinda like a slight if someone declares a secret war on you for no reason!

Also, I consider it kind of bad RP if people aren't actively hunting me. Their leader told them "Aisa is the evil we're after." If they didn't want that, then they should maybe replace their leader for making bad choices.

[Zehren]

2 cents

Arborean political power is legally split in three at the moment, with one of those centres being not-asralites, one of them being asralites, and one of them being neutral (could be asralites, could be non-asralite center (speaking of guilds), could be neither).

Taniel clergy has been at odds with rangers before. And at odds with crusaders before. And at odds with shaos before. The state of populace dominance is exaggerated.

Prying Taniel clergy away from Elvandar politics is boring. Forostar deities and cults play big roles in the setting.

[Ioca]

Prying Taniel clergy away from Elvandar politics is boring.

I'm not being combative! I just wanted to chime in and say I respectfully disagree and had the most fun with politics when the clergy was inactive and there was no risk of randomly being condemned.

Wish I'd known there was a risk of that, too. I'd have just totally ignored the priests and not even acknowledged their existence to begin with.

[roxvod]

Praise Lilith, what a chaotic topic!

[Lauriert]

To the whole "tank vs light" issue, there's a simple reason why light fighters seem to dominate pvp. You can just target the hands and feet, which can't be armored as well. That's why the concept of armor in pvp falls apart. So the two possible solutions is make hand/feet armor better, or to make those body parts significantly harder to hit because they're smaller targets.