Anake's Elbow/Jeramun

Arditi

Antonius said:

The problem being a system intended to promote conflict that does completely the opposite. I thought that had already been covered.

You could try playing within the system as intended (and judging by the hotfixes to TELL JERAMUN HMM and the respawn timer, I don't think spawncamping him was intended). Nobody's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to go up and kill Jeramun.

Perhaps you'd have actual conflict within the conflict system if you weren't monopolizing the means to create conflict. Sort of a "Doctor, it hurts when I do this" thing, no?

Silas

No. There was no conflict generated by Mhaldor's raids. I'm not sure what you don't understand about that.

Arditi

And there's no conflict generated by Targossas spawncamping, but Mhaldor raiding when its player base is around is far lower on the autism spectrum.

Silas

That's your problem right there. Mhaldor had plenty of people around outside of Oceanic peak times that could have done a Hashan and tried to get themselves up to speed and turn themselves into a raiding force. Instead, you just whine and cry and rely on other people.

Arditi

So, let me get this straight:

A: Mhaldor's population is mostly Oceanic.
B: Targossas' isn't.
C: It's Mhaldor's fault for not raiding when Targossas is around, therefore, Targossas is just going to stop all of Mhaldor's raid power while continuing their own.
Any attempt to remove the autism advantage Targossas has is clearly just propping up an already broken system, because Targossas wouldn't be abusing it if it wasn't already broken. This is "My car ran out of gas, therefore, the car is broken and I'm not going to fuel it again" logic.

If you wanted to protest that the conflict system didn't do anything, you definitely chose the "We're not going to play unless we can't lose" option. Might as well have dug out the Game Genie at that point.

Bambizlo

Well, this quickly turned into a pissing contest. I have no interest in defending or attacking the opinions on what went on during the war (honestly, it's entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand) but I will say that the war was fun for the fights that it generated and continues to generate.

Essentially additional entrances via tunnels to Jeramun should be added to promote conflict. I've nothing against spawn-camping tbh, the only thing that I feel should get addressed is that with only 1 wilderness entrance into the area, it's incredibly easy to lock down via mindnet/passive room defenses. If you're interested in promoting conflict, Silas, I don't understand why you're essentially speak against a solution that would do just that at Jeramun instead of having it be the campy nonsense it is right now.

Silas

Any attempt to cry and whine about things being broken to fix something you can easily fix yourselves, especially when it involves propping up an already broken system with band-aid fixes, is propping up an already broken system, yes.

I'm glad you finally understood. Maybe now you'll spend the time you'd otherwise spend writing asinine posts on trying to solve your own problems.

ETA:

Bambizlo said:

Essentially additional entrances via tunnels to Jeramun should be added to promote conflict. I've nothing against spawn-camping tbh, the only thing that I feel should get addressed is that with only 1 wilderness entrance into the area, it's incredibly easy to lock down via mindnet/passive room defenses. If you're interested in promoting conflict, Silas, I don't understand why you're essentially speak against a solution that would do just that at Jeramun instead of having it be the campy nonsense it is right now.

The thing I don't agree with is that Jeramun should be focused on as a point of conflict. He shouldn't be. That only encourages camping his spawn, which is actually incredibly tedious for all involved. Jeramun is basically the leadership quest. The conflict should be focused on the system that sparks are supposed to facilitate (city destruction), which is fundamentally broken.

If people were camping Jeramun's spawn to dampen conflict, then we could look at changing Jeramun or the Vents of Hthrak. No conflict is really generated, which is the point I've been making, so the first thing to focus on is the broken system. The very fact that people think Jeramun should be a point of conflict in himself only speaks to how badly the current system has failed.

Arditi

I'm glad you finally admitted that Targossas only wants conflict on its terms. Please direct me to the appropriate form to request conflict, as well as the proponent agency to submit it to.

Adet

I'm not sure why you're throwing around the word "autism" like it's going out of fashion.

Silas

Arditi said:

I'm glad you finally admitted that Targossas only wants conflict on its terms. Please direct me to the appropriate form to request conflict, as well as the proponent agency to submit it to.

no u

Jovolo

We don't want Jeramun to be a point of conflict... but we can't help it if he gets camped and spawnkilled forcing us to instead move away from city destruction and focus on Jeramun as a role of conflict. That isn't Mhaldor's doing.

Bambizlo

Well, I'd far prefer a system of getting sparks that involved using the heade of high-priority enemy soldiers as fuel, but I have a feeling that's not going to happen.

So adding exits to Jeramun is the next best thing as it requires very little time from coders (if any) and would help to reduce the campiness of it all.

Arditi

Jovolo said:

We don't want Jeramun to be a point of conflict... but we can't help it if he gets camped and spawnkilled forcing us to instead move away from city destruction and focus on Jeramun as a role of conflict. That isn't Mhaldor's doing.

As stated by the Dawnlord himself, it is Mhaldor's doing because Mhaldor raids when its playerbase is on, and not when it isn't. The solution is apparently for Mhaldor to raid when it's convenient for the city it's raiding, thus leaving Jeramun completely out of the equation because he's probably dead anyhow because five dragons went up there and killed him as I typed this.

Silas

None of that fixes the fact that city destruction still isn't a point of conflict. If you have sparks and only raid when nobody is around, what conflict is generated? Fix the actual problem and make city destruction generate actual conflict and then we can examine whether the method by which the conflict is facilitated needs to be tweaked.

Though, given that I know how Jeramun and the Vents work, I still disagree that it needs to be tweaked. The single biggest reason that it was easy for us to camp Jeramun was how little effort was put in to stop us. Expecting things to be changed when you're not willing to put in the effort to change them yourselves is silly.

ETA: Man, Arditi's crying makes me want to camp Jeramun so you can't raid Hashan either.

Bambizlo

I already posted my suggestions for city conflict:

Bambizlo said:

I definitely agree with the presented problem and the concerns listed by Tirac concerning the proposed solution. Perhaps there's another choice, however. The main means to promote conflict, I feel, requires both sides to feel they have something significant to gain which lacks a bit in the current system and is exacerbated with the current war system (all soldiers have cause against each other but death and gain incur reduced xp loss). As such, I think a few changes could be made:

1. Remove the pvp-related xp loss from attacker deaths/gain for defender kills reduction between warring city soldiers when in defendable. The no-xp loss deaths for defenders in their own defendable would remain as it is currently.
   
2. Give a flat xp reward to defending city soldiers standing within their own defendable if the invading city withdraws before destroying a full 5 rooms. The reward scales upward if the offenders are extradited quickly. Additionally, the bonus is increased if the number of attacking city soldiers far exceeds the number of defending city soldiers, calculated at the beginning of the sanctioned raid.
   
3. Have the xp bonus for destroying a city room scale with the number of defending city soldiers present in the realms when when a sanctioned raid is initiated (this bonus would not change during the duration of the sanctioned raid once set).

This hopefully would allow for a higher risk - higher reward mechanic that encourages both sides to participate in the conflict (which is loads more fun for everyone involved). XP bonuses are calculated only at the beginning of a sanctioned raid for both sides to help combat people "laming" out and just quitting to stop/hinder the invading party from getting rewarded.

Though, upon further consideration - probably should make sure that any defensive gains rendered are negated if org allies and halved if not at war.

Jeramun still requires fixing irregardless of any changes to city destruction, however as it will still be a problem regardless of any changes to city destruction itself unless the method of gaining sparks is changed altogether to limit camping or at least allow for some reasonable counter-play.

Silas

There is a chance for reasonable counter-play.

Echald

I dunno about the dude with the sparks up north, but Arditi's obsession with autism seems autistic.

Bambizlo

Silas said:

There is a chance for reasonable counter-play.

Heh, now this is just delusional. You're talking about moving 20-25 rooms from the entrance to the point where Jeramun resides where any group that camps there will be able to see enemies approaching at 100% certainty with mindnet. In addition, every room along the way may potentially have runes/rites/harmonics/vibes, etc. No group is going to be able to walk through that reasonably without getting chewed apart unless the group originally camping is utterly incompetent. Therefore, as it currently stands, the only viable strategy to counter it would be for other interested parties to just camp the area harder with a person that has mindnet as chasing off someone sitting in the area with 100% detection before Jeramun spawns is futile at best - probably the most uninteresting form of conflict possible.

The bare minimum that should be changed would be to allow for a normal, walkable entrance into the local area to allow for the chance to get someone inside without giving off prior warning via mindnet. They'd still have to deal with runes/rites/harmonics/vibes, etc but at least it wouldn't be 20-25 rooms of it.

Silas

Again, that's an uninformed post. The reason we were able to camp Jeramun's spawn had nothing to do with rites, vibes, harmonics or runes. There was literally no resistance.

Bambizlo

You're missing the point. Irregardless of whether or not there was resistance does not diminish the fact that it is a flaw in the area and hence in how sparks are gathered which should be addressed regardless of what other changes occur to city destruction. In addition, it will remain a problem even if city destruction was changed to encourage more conflict.

Honestly, you seem stuck on the Targ/Mhaldor war for some unknown reason to the point where it feels like you're acting like you lost the war and are bitter about it. Essentially, happened during the war is pretty irrelevant to the issue being brought up about how campy Jeramun's location can be.

Silas

It's not irrelevant, though, since that's the war that most recently and most starkly highlighted what's wrong with the city destruction mechanic. That's what needs to be fixed. Changing Jeramun would legitimise and encourage camping his spawn.

I am of the opinion that, if city destruction was changed, nobody would need to camp Jeramun because the mechanic that Jeramun facilitates would be fun and engaging for all involved. Changing Jeramun now only props up a system that is fundamentally broken.

ETA: Use "irregardless" once more and I will cut you.

Bambizlo

As long as the same mechanic exists for gathering sparks exists, the problem presented by camping Jeramun will exist irregardless of whatever changes happen with city destruction. Because in the end, we're all playing to win and if there's a potential avenue to deny the opponent some resource, it'll be done.

Katzchen

@bambizlo it's 'regardless' damn it.

Bambizlo

@katzchen Psh, spoilsport.

Jovolo

How do you define conflict? A fight where you aren't going to lose for sure?

This is all kinda silly. You don't want to be raided when you can't possibly fight us out of the city to prevent room destructions, and we want to raid you when it's our best chance to actually destroy rooms. Why should you get the choice of when you should be raided? We don't say, hey, we're not prepared to be raided right now, so go away and come back later - and even if we did, you definitely wouldn't adhere to such a request (As proven during the war). 

Sure, place diminishing returns on raiding an empty city, that's part of redesigning the city destruction system, but I doubt that's something that is going to come any time soon. Until then, we should do everything we can to make this a reasonable system - that is, not completely eliminating the chance to participate in it on the offensive, which is what you do by placing someone up there with mindnet and getting everyone else to arrive as soon as someone from another city hits your mindnet. By allowing reasonable counterplay (No, getting there and camping it for hours and hours on end before you do is not reasonable counterplay) we can prevent that kind of silliness.

Sothantos

Jovolo said:

How do you define conflict? A fight where you aren't going to lose for sure?

I consider conflict to be a fight where the other team is actually present to oppose you (see, for the most part, Ashtan, who pretty much usually only comes to bone us when we're there to be boned). I don't consider any city entitled to rooms when there is no opposition, which is why I support the mandatory '5 soldiers from the opposing team present' fix to city destruction, and neither do I think that city destruction should be PvE focused, which it is currently. Raids should be based around killing your enemies, not sitting and killing rooms when your enemies aren't around.

Given that we've had multiple raids where we've been destroyed or traded kills, and there are sometimes tons of Mhaldorians on after about 6 pm PST, this 'we never have anyone except at 5 am PST' argument is somewhat tiring. In any case, if this were true, the fix would neatly stop you from being raided yourselves as well.

edit: Also, re: Jeramun, these points would be valid if this was how Jeramun camping was actually done. It's not. Most of this criticism is coming out of some serious misinformation on how he works, so you're basically arguing against a strawman here.

edit: Let me clarify. It's reasonable for Mhaldor to raid when they feel like it, at their peak hours, given how the mechanics currently work. However, these mechanics should be changed so that PK is focused, as the current system is pretty boring and does not encourage actual opposition between cities, since it benefits each side to attack when the other team isn't there. Hence, "You don't want to be raided when you can't possibly fight us out of the city to prevent room destructions, and we want to raid you when it's our best chance to actually destroy rooms." is correct, but this is a flaw of the system. This should not be the case. I should not be encouraged to lame-raid by the current setup, which is what it basically is -- encouragement. It's a system that rewards one-sided piling.

The point that Arditi makes is that we are shooting ourselves in the foot by removing the other side's ability to retaliate, which takes away the conflict we're looking for. This isn't true, because Mhaldor didn't raid once during a time where Targossas has had anyone around (which is fine for them, but it's also fine for us to stop it), so from our POV, it does not add additional conflict. There is no evidence to suggest that Mhaldor would have raided during times where we had people had we not camped Jeramun, so it's a moot argument.

Azor

Perhaps this thread could be moved to North of Thera? It was probably a mistake for me to put it in the Dais. 

And, you know, let's try not to get too het up, everyone. The scenarios being discussed--Targ always having to camp Jeramun, Mhaldor never getting sparks, Mhaldor always sanctioning on Targ when no one's there--from my perspective none of them are ideal, but on the other hand they aren't exactly catastrophes. For my taste I get to do plenty of group PvP, and I haven't been in a sanctioned raid all summer.

Mishgul

I don't understand why people think city destruction is supposed to be a point of conflict. I thought it was just a quick way of getting xp.

Sabiru

Man, Soth.. I had some responses to some of your points(?) written out, but I'm about 90% sure you're just trolling and I'd look like a tool if I took any of it seriously. Should probably use some emoticons or throw one of those 4chan faces down the bottom of your responses tho, or people are going to start thinking you actually believe these things.

Seftin

@tecton can you just make the first room that you entet into from wilderness a seperate area it would deffo stop the "Stop camping we can't get sparks" "But you only ever raid us when we have no one around!" argument. From my POV I'm bias to Mhaldor (obvs) and would argue some pointless crap that Silas would say "No u" to or Carmain would just rustle at, camping a denizen 24/7 to stop another side getting sparks is BS, so is raiding when no one is around to defend, however, I have also noted various people in Targossas who sit on their ship when we raid too, and no doubt some gemmed people too, I have also suggested a raid when people have been around but they have said no because we had maybe.. 4 actual combatants in the group, either way everyone ends up but-hurt.