Forest Conflict

15681011

Comments

  • Hey, I don't have a dog in this race, and I haven't even read the whole thread carefully... But it would be really cool if any changes to extermination and/or the nature gods' treatment of nature wasn't a behind-the-scenes thing. Like, Eleusis should get an event in which Nature triumphs over Mhaldor (or whomever) in some significant way, and thenceforth Extermination is weakened, or altered, or whatever. \m/
  • Aerek said:
    Any ideology that trumpets the ideology, itself, as "higher" than the gods who preside over it is a recipe for disaster. It means the ideology effectively cannot be controlled or changed any longer.


    You're kind of assuming the answer by putting the gods highest.

    Achaea intentionally includes divided loyalties, for example: city, house, order.  Not everyone is supposed to pick a god and put them first (not even people in some orders). Not everyone is supposed to put their city first (or their house).  In the case of the particular group of forestals you're singling out, those who don't have faithful/blind obedience to Gaia as their highest goal, the loyalty isn't too different from those who pledge themselves to a city.

    A monolithic inflexible dogma adopted by a group is a problem if it leads to stagnation.

    The first part of that has never really been a problem with forestals- there's no one single leader or vision.  There's no particular definition of what protecting/helping nature means.  As far as political unity, it was never difficult for most folks to get herbs/concoctions even during a ban or impossible for even dedicated forest enemies to obtain them even before the alternatives were made available recently.

    Back on topic, I think you'll find that forestals are quite willing to reorient given the opportunity: the idea of helping Nature  comes with somewhat less emotional baggage than Shallam had in defending "Good" and there's much less uniformity in term of favored deities, other values, etc.

     

  • Oi. Rangor. We don't WANT to.
    image
  • Sure you do! You want to protect Nature! 

    Only it sucks because the game's rigged against us. :(
    image
  • MishgulMishgul Trondheim, Norway
    Eleusis used to be so badass. Then axestun nerf.

    -

    One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is the belief that one's work is terribly important

    As drawn by Shayde
    hic locus est ubi mors gaudet succurrere vitae
  • MishgulMishgul Trondheim, Norway
    I am in

    -

    One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is the belief that one's work is terribly important

    As drawn by Shayde
    hic locus est ubi mors gaudet succurrere vitae
  • MishgulMishgul Trondheim, Norway
    You can't change people being jerks no matter what you do with mechanics.

    -

    One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is the belief that one's work is terribly important

    As drawn by Shayde
    hic locus est ubi mors gaudet succurrere vitae
  • MishgulMishgul Trondheim, Norway

    *reiterates for the 90th time.

    Just add a limitation to the mechanic, and/or recruit more asian Eleusians to combat the 90 asian Mhaldorks

    -

    One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is the belief that one's work is terribly important

    As drawn by Shayde
    hic locus est ubi mors gaudet succurrere vitae
  • Mishgul said:

    *reiterates for the 90th time.

    Just add a limitation to the mechanic, and/or recruit more asian Eleusians to combat the 90 asian Mhaldorks

    That's the problem.

    Mhaldor: Take ALL the Asians!

    (bar a few here)
    "Faded away like the stars in the morning,
     Losing their light in the glorious sun,
     Thus would we pass from this earth and its toiling,
     Only remembered for what we have done."

  • Mishgul said:
    You can't change people being jerks no matter what you do with mechanics.


    True, but if you discover that you accidentally implemented a "grief" command then sometimes nerfing it helps.

    (see Wysteria's and other posts- when a mechanic allows you to cause lots of aggravation for very little effort, it might be unbalanced)

  • Aerek said:
    Any ideology that trumpets the ideology, itself, as "higher" than the gods who preside over it is a recipe for disaster. It means the ideology effectively cannot be controlled or changed any longer.... If the nature gods are doing it, they need to stop, and re-assert themselves as the embodiment of Nature, and the players need to shut up and go with it.
    So, the whole issue of what the role of the gods can be (which I initially brought up) is kind of aside the point of this thread, and I hate to continue the tangent, but I've seen things that were being advocated for in the forums happen too many times not to be worried, so I'm going to respond:

    It's not true that nature gods can't control or change the ideology. If a nature god says something is true, that's a powerful reason for any forestal to take it to be true, because they obviously are in a position to know better than we do. Alternately, forestals have always taken the word of, say, dryads, that if they say something is wrong something's wrong. You don't need forestals to think that Gaia is the embodiment of Nature, that serving Nature means unquestioning obedience to Gaia, or to have Eleusis reconstituted as a theocracy, in order to have the gods able to change Eleusis's direction.

    It's just that gods might have to put slightly more work into it than just making a pronouncement with no explanation, and what the god says has to be at least potentially consistent with the forestal ideology, and something people reasonably feel they can embrace without going against their principles. They can't be telling us to throw everything we thought before in the trash, and embrace a position that looks like betraying Nature or ceasing to defend Nature. But they shouldn't be doing that anyhow, so that isn't really a problematic limitation.

    Working within the current belief system will work out a heck of a lot better than if we tried to turn Eleusis into something like Shallam, where whatever the gods say goes without question even if it seems to the people to go against their principles. Doing that would be so divisive, so opposed to what's always been taught, that it would wreck the faction for years. And it's just not needed.
  • MishgulMishgul Trondheim, Norway
    Froh said:
    Mishgul said:
    You can't change people being jerks no matter what you do with mechanics.


    True, but if you discover that you accidentally implemented a "grief" command then sometimes nerfing it helps.

    (see Wysteria's and other posts- when a mechanic allows you to cause lots of aggravation for very little effort, it might be unbalanced)

    Yes but no mechanic stops old griefer Carmain (as oppose to new afk 99% of the time Carmain) from sitting at your defendable, live or die, for 10 hours because he enjoys the attention and the "thrill of the hunt," which is where any mechanic redesign falls short in the end.

    -

    One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is the belief that one's work is terribly important

    As drawn by Shayde
    hic locus est ubi mors gaudet succurrere vitae
  • Mishgul said:
    Froh said:
    Mishgul said:
    You can't change people being jerks no matter what you do with mechanics.


    True, but if you discover that you accidentally implemented a "grief" command then sometimes nerfing it helps.

    (see Wysteria's and other posts- when a mechanic allows you to cause lots of aggravation for very little effort, it might be unbalanced)

    Yes but no mechanic stops old griefer Carmain (as oppose to new afk 99% of the time Carmain) from sitting at your defendable, live or die, for 10 hours because he enjoys the attention and the "thrill of the hunt," which is where any mechanic redesign falls short in the end.

    Oh, yes, there are definitely at least three different types of potential problems in an area like this:

    A mechanic that amounts to "spend a penny to earn a nickel and cost someone else a dime" (extermination)

    Someone playing in the spirit of an acceptable mechanic but in a way that's not fun long term for the group (the evolving PK rules, Mark status, pure PK areas, etc.)

    A dedicated griefer

    I'm not claiming that you can solve the second or third through mechanics alone.

    I am claiming that the first is definitely something to look at from a game mechanics point of view.

     

  • MishgulMishgul Trondheim, Norway
    Extermination rarely gives back essence. Very few people exterminate for essence if at all. I think it is a silly notion that someone started that makes people believe people exterminate for essence. I just vivisect ayoxele, it gives back 50 times as much essence as extermination could ever hope to do on a really good day.

    There are three reasons why Mhaldor exterminates.

    a) Initiate Conflict.

    b) Redirect Conflict.

    c) Tiamat hates you for enemying him for holocausting 50000 times 10 years ago.

    a and b can be reasonable and people involved will be reasonable, c is a different situation which can be addressed by simply adding a simple limitation. Current extermination mechanics don't have to be griefy, but they are because of how spammable it is.

    I feel like I've repeated this 200 times now but, just add a simple limitation to stop people exterminating more than x times in x period. It will still be unfair to certain people, Mhaldorians who want to be involved as well as Eleusians who don't want to be involved who play at the wrong times, but that isn't an issue with exterminate, that's an issue with the mindsets and goals of both cities, something that current Mhaldor is happy with and -thriving- on, whereas Eleusis isn't.

    If it wasn't exterminate it would just be Wysteria tending to city raid damage in the dead of night (which takes 15 minutes of sitting alone in a room doing nothing to fix iirc) because Mhaldor does not have the firepower to sustain a city raid when meeting equal numbers at all, or people just camping your city in awkward locations because they are bored and want to fight. 

    People -want- the conflict, and if extermination didn't exist the focus would be somewhere else, and your time would still be consumed by that. I refuse to believe situations a and b lead to massive time consuming clean up operations, and I am fine with situation c being nerfed to hell.

    -

    One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is the belief that one's work is terribly important

    As drawn by Shayde
    hic locus est ubi mors gaudet succurrere vitae
  • Mishgul said:
    Extermination rarely gives back essence. Very few people exterminate for essence if at all. I think it is a silly notion that someone started that makes people believe people exterminate for essence. I just vivisect ayoxele, it gives back 50 times as much essence as extermination could ever hope to do on a really good day.

    There are three reasons why Mhaldor exterminates.

    a) Initiate Conflict.

    b) Redirect Conflict.

    c) Tiamat hates you for enemying him for holocausting 50000 times 10 years ago.

    a and b can be reasonable and people involved will be reasonable, c is a different situation which can be addressed by simply adding a simple limitation. Current extermination mechanics don't have to be griefy, but they are because of how spammable it is.

    ...
     
    I feel like I've repeated this 200 times now but, just add a simple limitation to stop people exterminating more than x times in x period.
    People -want- the conflict, and if extermination didn't exist the focus would be somewhere else, and your time would still be consumed by that. I refuse to believe situations a and b lead to massive time consuming clean up operations, and I am fine with situation c being nerfed to hell.


    Works for me.

    You could also scale it up: petty vandalism gets naturally healed but if several exterminators begin a process that takes half a RL day or more to get going and then if not stopped trashes a significant chunk of the forest in question.

    Making it both significant and occasional would make the defenders feel like they're doing something meaningful and not just having their beepers constantly go off  to pick up the broken glass and trash every time the kids from Mhaldor throw a rowdy kegger in the woods.

    It would probably be nicer for the defenders if the limit were on how often the forest can get attacked, not on how often a particular person can attack it.

     

  • MishgulMishgul Trondheim, Norway
    That's what i meant. Mhaldor as a whole

    -

    One of the symptoms of an approaching nervous breakdown is the belief that one's work is terribly important

    As drawn by Shayde
    hic locus est ubi mors gaudet succurrere vitae
  • edited March 2013
    Mishgul said:
    Eleusis is the only city that requires all of it's citizens to drop everything it does and fight.
    Eleusis seriously doesn't require all of its citizens to fight. :-/ The Sentinels do, Artemis's order does, the Eleusian combat clan does, but Eleusis doesn't, and plenty of Eleusian Sylvans don't. There's a social encouragement to do it, especially when all your citymates are dying and need help. And there's a roleplay sense of obligation in that it's very difficult to consistently assert that you're "putting nature above all else" if you don't defend against exterminations when an extermination is happening. So it's no surprise people feel obligated. But there's not much Eleusis can do about either of those things, is there?, unless you think we should abandon the idea that forestals are dedicated to nature above all else. Combat is not required, there's no law requiring that people defend, and no one is punished for not defending, and no one who isn't in the Rangers or some other organization that does actually require that you defend will be called out by Eleusis's leaders for not defending.

    If Eleusis loses its vastly imbalanced defensive obligations, and replaces that with a more offensive focus, that will actually make much more space for non-combatants to be non-combatants without feeling obligated to fight. Defense, for obvious reasons, feels much more obligatory than participation in offensive actions. So, to Solteria, I don't think the offensive goals will actually make things worse for the non-combatants who would prefer not to fight.
  • @Solteria: Barring extenuating circumstances, the only people to whom I say, "No, you need to be here, right now, doing this" are the Eleusian Rangers. I would love to see rituals and things in the downtime, but those never occur. (The one time I tried to do a ritual, the Druids kicked me out for it.)

    In Achaea, being part of an aligned org is largely about conflict. You don't have to fight to be involved in conflict, but nevertheless, there has to be some kind of struggle -- some great and driving ideal that's at least worth fighting over, which stirs your character to act. It's what makes for a good story. Or as Blujixapug put it,

    Pardinen said:
    Um, maybe I just don't get it, but why do they need to fight? Can't they just be like loggers and plant two new trees for every one they cut down? Or is Neo-Shallam too (insert word/'s here that I can't think of right now) to do that sort of "good-deed" kind of thing?
    Because fighting is interesting. Star Wars would have been boring if the Jedi and Sith weren't trying to destroy each other via spaceships, treachery, and laser swords, and it instead was three movies of Luke going down to Toshi Station to pick up some power converters, then embarking on his career as a moisture farmer.

  • Nim said:
    Delphinus said:
    In Achaea, being part of an aligned org is largely about conflict. You don't have to fight to be involved in conflict, but nevertheless, there has to be some kind of struggle -- some great and driving ideal that's at least worth fighting over, which stirs your character to act. It's what makes for a good story. Or as Blujixapug put it,

    Pardinen said:
    Um, maybe I just don't get it, but why do they need to fight? Can't they just be like loggers and plant two new trees for every one they cut down? Or is Neo-Shallam too (insert word/'s here that I can't think of right now) to do that sort of "good-deed" kind of thing?
    Because fighting is interesting. Star Wars would have been boring if the Jedi and Sith weren't trying to destroy each other via spaceships, treachery, and laser swords, and it instead was three movies of Luke going down to Toshi Station to pick up some power converters, then embarking on his career as a moisture farmer.

    This is probably almost off-topic, but I think it's something important to keep in mind when you're discussing an open roleplaying atmosphere, like an Achaean city.

    While conflict drives stories, the presumption that roleplaying must be conflict-driven is related to the presumption that roleplaying is like writing a story. For some people it can be, but there are other reasons to roleplay (escapism is one, as well as acting as people or in scenarios that are unlikely or outright imaginary) which don't require conflict in such an direct form, or even conflict at all.

    Finally, even where there is conflict, it doesn't need to be martial. Inter- and intrapersonal conflict can take many forms, and given the vast amount of games and other media focused around war or fighting, non-militaristic conflict can sometimes be a breath of fresh air.

    Pvp can be fun sometimes, but my favorite forms of conflict so far have been Nim and @Verrucht getting steamed at each other over semi-political stuff, or Nim leaving the Mojushai and being mad at @Iocun. Also, Nim and Iocun arguing about things is pretty amazing in general. Maybe it's because violence is so insignificant in Achaea that arguments can be more significant. (losing your life just means waiting for the Gods to give it back; losing a friend can be so much more devastating!)

    The statement that conflict doesn't need to be martial seems to be pretty much equivalent to @Delphinus' statement that you don't have to fight to be involved in conflict.
    As for the point about roleplay being (not necessarily) conflict-driven, that's true, but the conflict between the major factions is a large part of what makes the setting a compelling one in which to play, whatever form your roleplay takes. Sure, some people may be happiest playing a moisture farmer on Tattooine, but they wouldn't know about Tattooine as a setting in which to play if it weren't for the compelling story of the rise and fall of the Galactic Empire and all that jazz.
  • Ah. I took his statement as being "you don't need to fight to be involved in a war," as many other people've said in this thread, as opposed to "conflict doesn't have to be violent."

    Also, I personally disagree that factional conflict in Achaea makes the setting compelling; I think, in its current form, it weakens the setting more than anything, particularly thanks to the lack of resolution. That's my own personal opinion though, and I hardly know how many people agree with it.

    Anyway, I just wanted to hammer in the point that not everyone roleplays for the sake of conflict - not that conflict is bad or shouldn't exist at all (although I personally think forced conflict is usually worse than no conflict, and that it should come about as naturally as possible), but it sounds like some people feel that Eleusis is generally over-emphasizing that aspect of roleplay, and maybe it could use more peaceful roleplaying and stuff. :)

Sign In or Register to comment.