Forestals get most of the same notifications and defenses for infernos that take place in a forest that they do for exterminations.

However, infernos that take place in the grasslands do not send notification to Oakstone. So there's no way to find out that one happened until someone stumbles across the fire, at which point it may have already spread quite a lot.

Forest defenses, and free PK status for forest enemies, also don't operate in the grasslands, for obvious reasons, because they're not forest. But also, forest watch - one of the main ways forestals have to watch for people exterminating or infernoing to try to stop them - doesn't operate in the grasslands either, nor is there a version of grove eyes that works for grasslands rather than forests.

Furthermore, the skill naturalism works only on exterminations, not on infernos - meaning that while we can tell after the fact who was responsible for an extermination, there is no way of telling who was responsible for an inferno unless you catch them in the act. Catching them in the act can of course be rather tricky, given that we get no notification of infernos when they happen and the balance on the inferno skill is quite short - so you can really pop in and out to do it. Someone who was careful enough and really didn't want to get caught, and who wasn't already a known forest enemy, could go about infernoing a couple times a day with a very low chance of ever being caught at all. What are we going to do, farsee every druid and sentinel constantly all day long and track to them any time they enter the grasslands? I have other things I'd like to do with my time. And let's not even get started on if that person has a veil to hide behind.

The overall result of all these factors is to make the deck wildly, ridiculously stacked against forestal defenders. It's no fun whatsoever, and results in us having to patrol the grasslands constantly if we don't want to risk having a fire go undetected until it's so big it'll take hours to put out.

MY SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS

1) One way to fix this would be to just make inferno not work in the grasslands - or make it work in some less annoying way, like if it set the room on fire, but the fire wouldn't spread and would eventually just die out on its own. This would be the easiest way to fix it, I imagine.

2) Another way to fix it would be to give grasslands some of the protections the forests have. Namely, have inferno give Oakstone notifications in grasslands just like it does in the forests, and have the skill naturalism (or some comparable skill) work on infernoed areas so we can tell who did them if no one was there to catch the person in the act.

In addition, forest enemies are free PK in the forest. I think most forestals are going to attack known, recent infernoers on sight in the grasslands - they have to if they're going to prevent them from doing it again - but there's no official rule for it. I like there to be rules for things where they will help prevent lameness, and I suspect this is one such case. Anyone who has infernoed anything (grassland or forest) should be free PK in the grasslands or forests (though they'll presumably be enemied in the forest anyhow) for 7 RL days afterwards.

These changes would still make infernos in grasslands significantly harder to defend against than infernoes in forests, or exterminations, but it'd be much better.

What do people think?

[edited for clarity]

regarding pk cause, a greenie can attack a forest enemy acting suspiciously on/near a grassland under the provocation clause, and give no cause to the enemy.

These are the most ridiculously biased proposals I've seen on these boards in weeks. Absolute NO to forest defenses in grasslands, too.

Zomg, so OP and biased.
Please implement something along these lines, thanks.
Unless you just delete room damage all together, that would be nice too!

I was going to ask Des what the hell he was smoking, but instead realized my original post actually was slightly unclear. I don't want the actual forest defenses in (the wolves and vines) to operate in the grasslands; that would be ludicrous. Just Oakstone notification, and to have naturalism work. (Thanks Trici.)

And to Rukimoro: You're probably right in general, but it's hazy (if he infernoed last night is it still provocation to be in the grasslands tonight? What about several nights ago? What about 2 weeks ago?) and in general likely to give rise to lame behavior on one side and unnecessary issues on the other if it isn't clarified. Maybe in an ideal roleplay environment this wouldn't be necessary, but I suspect a straightforward rule would be best.

Well, wolves/thorns is what people generally mean by "Oakstone defenses" or "forest defenses". No to that, but I'm fine with broadcast notification/naturalism.

Indeed. I've changed the wording in my original post to be clearer.

Even better idea, just delete Inferno.

With that said, yes to allowing Naturalism to work for Infernos and yes to Oakstone notifications of infernos in the Grasslands.

Inferno needs deleting or changing as per my classlead.

Currently, infernos in any environment will not create any notification. This is one of the reasons why an infernoer with a veil, a single person, is able to cause so much trouble that an entire city is sent scattering across the world.

The OP is probably thinking of holocaust and extermination.

Inferno is great in that it -really- annoys two key people.

Also: Grassland fires are already tedious if you want to do any real damage.

Heh...

Disco Inferno...

You are quite mistaken if you think that what you do really annoys me, I rather enjoy killing Ainly and Sabiru and/or watching them run back to Mhaldor. But your comment brings to light exactly what is wrong with Inferno. Inferno is broken as it currently is, unless it's changed to actually be a meaningful part of Achaean combat, and not used solely for Ainly and Sabiru's "lulz", then the best solution is just to delete it.

I agree... Delete veils.

I'm inclined to bet that there are certain letters of the alphabet which really annoy you, let alone grassland infernos.

Forget deleting veils, just get my change to go through. It has to go through ACC I think was the response, and I'm not part of that

Bumping.

It doesn't sound like there's any real objection to my two main suggestions. Let naturalism work on infernoed rooms, and let infernoes give Oakstone notification just like exterminations do, wherever they happen. (Thanks Delphinus for pointing out that infernoes currently don't give notification even in the forest.) These aren't going to be totally adequate to the task of re-balancing nature conflict, but they're a step in the right direction.

What say, you, Pentharian?

--------------

Also, what do people think about my suggestion to have any known infernoer be free pk in grasslands (just like they're already free pk in the forest) for a set amount of time after being caught infernoing (say, 7 RL days)?

I know, I know, the rules are complicated enough as it is, but in this case it would just be bringing the grasslands more in line with how the forests are treated. Besides, it seems to me like the only people who are going to be benefited by the lack of a clear rule, in this particular case, are those who want to engage in lame behavior (tracking down non-combatants who try to defend the grasslands). I'm not personally aware of anyone having done that precise thing yet, honestly, but given the frequency with which people gloat about how they're going to hunt down non-combatant defenders in other situations where the rules are vague (okay and also sometimes when they're not), I'm sure it happens.

It should be open, not free.

This, please.

Forest enemies are free pk, not just open pk, in the forest, just like raiders are free pk and not just open pk in the enemy city. Recent infernoers (not all forest enemies, obviously) should have a similar status in any of the areas they are an active threat to that forest enemies have in the forests. It doesn't make much sense to me that those two terrain types get treated so differently when the risks to the land in question are the same.

If we actually formalized a policy of infernoers being open pk in the grasslands, that would actually be *worse* than the status quo, where there's no specific official policy. It would be sending the message that you're welcome to use setting the grasslands on fire as a PK farm for anyone who tries to defend.

Why is there a problem with deleting inferno? I've seen no actual opposition to that in the entire thread.

Because it gives one person a chance to be hated by a huge group of people forever.

I have a great idea about grassland infernos.

Eleusis could respond to Mhaldor's treaty offer in game to end them in a fun and entirely IC fashion instead of whining on the forums and waiting for Tecton to delete something/someone.

Just a thought.

Well..counter-point. Mhaldor can set the terms because they can inferno. What stops the abuse of this skill in the future as leverage for another treaty? One side shouldn't hold all the cards in a negotiation using a hard-coded skill from a class going against the natural RP...That's like having a priest in Ashtan threatening to take people to Nirvana unless Shallam agrees to give Ashtan something. Mhaldor has the bargaining power (agree or we keep using this skill), while Eleusis has relatively little to do back. What can they do, herb ban? You have your own forestals, you can buy from Ashtani or Hashani forestals for about the same, if not lower, prices. Raid? Mhaldor can raid later on when no one is really around from Eleusis and do the same thing. Inferno is the one-up in this situation, and using it against the very force the Forestal classes are meant to protect is broken/silly/stupid/pants-on-head retarded.

This is why you are not a political figure.

Go away.

Let me follow the new rules of the forum for a bit!

- you you mother-ing -sucker, everyone -ing hates you. You're stupid. Delete Mhaldor. Delete Veils. Delete Gorlasintan.



That better? Now then, bitterness aside, how about you quit being a - and explain? In a -debate- (which is a fancy word that means, "Conversation where two opposing ideas are discussed with each side posing points and counter points), you have to actually defend your idea. So, I explained my concept. Please explain yours.

That would mean that Gorlasintan would have to admit you have a point.
He is not equipped with the proper hardware to do that.
A classic error 204-105B

Boz does not have a point.

You are neither witty nor amusing.

Didn't you get shrubbed for voting for your main on an alt?

So far, I have started figuring out things.

Way of dealing with an idea/concept he doesn't like: Delete it.
Way of dealing with an idea against his own opinion: Insult the person.

Trici attempted to insult me before I spoke towards him/her. Your argument is invalid.

Her response was directed at your response to me, in which you followed pattern number 2 (idea against yours = insult the poster). Ergo, I am still correct.

I merely stated a truth.
You are unwilling to admit he has a point.
You still claim he has no point.
No insult there.
Unless you take me referring to you, in jest, as a computer program. If so, I sincerely apologize, I didn't realize that would hurt your feelings.

Her response was an attempted insult directed at myself. I had not spoken to her previously. The post she was 'responding' to was not an insult; it was an observation.

You are wrong.




This is essentially implying that I am mentally handicapped. Calling someone retarded is a grievous insult, and I hope you are banned for it.

You really think I was calling you a retard, Gorlasintan?

Once again you are ignoring the point of my argument. Trici's statement is invalid in this because you followed pattern number 2 perfectly when I posted my thoughts on the inferno situation. Instead of demonstrating a degree of intelligence, you skipped straight to insults paired with a dismissal of my idea. Your response came first, ergo invalidating any input Trici's statement may have had on it. Ergo, in your purest form, you follow my patterns.

Or, if you like, go back to turning on Harry Potter. (Am I doing it right?)

Human beings do not have a 'purest form'. They are not substances.

The chemical makeup does not, however the subconscious (where it is not primed by anything) does. Your actions were not influenced by anything from Trici, and so bringing up Trici does not work. You have stated no other arguments that explain your actions.

I never said my actions were influenced by her. I said that anything perceived as an insult from me to her (there were no insults) were in response to her initial failed attempt to call me retarded.

Psychology is bull-, and I find it offensive. I will report you if you attempt to continue with it.

Yes, Gorly. I'm in your brain, -ing things up as we speak.

It is strange. At times you seem reasonable and to comprehend the situation, and other times you go and post this.

If a(nother) hardcoded change goes through before simple and reasonable in-game negotiations, then you (awan, boz, lisbethae, skye, etc) would be pants-on-head retarded. Why is it so hard for you to play. the. game. in. the. game?

It is frustrating to find that you are all so completely unwilling to roleplay as soon as the conflict which you have initiated over 200 IC years turns around.

You used the word subconscious. This is a part of psychology, and I find it quite offensive.

Psychology isn't bull-.

That wasn't psychology.

Shh, I'm messing with him. Go ruin someone else's fun!