Fixing Player Housing

Torinn

In a multiplayer game you don't always get to opt in because people are unpredictable.  It's really that easy.  It sounds like you want multiplayer star dew valley (which would be awesome let's not kid ourselves) but Achaea is not that.

Aegoth

You have about as much "right" to say no as aggressors have a right to bust your shit in at their whim and fancy. There are no "rights" here. You can do your best to -avoid- conflict, before/during/after it starts, but to say that you have a "right" to that, and to assume you need to be consenting, is laughable at best

Mathilda

I'm frankly disgusted by how little value is given to consent in this game.

Accipiter

I don't think anyone really cares that they can't attack random guard sitter who doesn't interact outside of their city. Mostly because 90% of people won't know who they are to interact with them anyway. The problem is creating safe spaces means that people who want to be assholes can do it with impunity.

I personally also think people should get out into the world but then I am one of those people no one knows about so...

Atalkez

I know about you!

Rom

Mathilda said:

I'm frankly disgusted by how little value is given to consent in this game.

Is that not what makes Achaea interesting in the first place? It’s a little world with politics bad guys and monsters. It’s also not
as though anything has gotten WORSE in terms of consent, anyone who is playing now should already know what they signed up for.

Shimi

This is a game that people play for fun, that people invest real world money into, why should they not have the right to say “hey, right now I don’t want to deal with your aggressive bullshit?” I am not saying they don’t interact at all, in point of fact my post was quite the opposite of that. But I don’t think you should be -required- to deal with people being dicks 100% of the time, just because it’s what THEY want. You choose to involve yourself in combat, you know the consequences. You choose to be a dick to someone, you should know there are consequences. But if you are actively avoiding that for the day, haven’t been in raids lately, don’t start shit with anyone, and want to spend an hour uninterrupted hanging out with your text-family making story? Why shouldn’t you be able to have a private place, a HOME, to do so? You guys are making it come off that it really doesn’t matter, your right to be an asshole is more important than their right to have peace.

Atalkez

Well the issue is that if it’s an option then people will abuse it. So while someone like Kayeil may never pk and it work perfectly for her uses; someone else could abuse it the same as they do ships now to escape repercussions.

Has to be a happy medium found, or else we’re merely emulating ships on land.

Shimi

Atalkez said:

Well the issue is that if it’s an option then people will abuse it. So while someone like Kayeil may never pk and it work perfectly for her uses; someone else could abuse it the same as they do ships now to escape repercussions.

Has to be a happy medium found, or else we’re merely emulating ships on land.

And several people have suggested something like a conflict mitigation or tracker to keep you from simply hiding inside an impenetrable fortress. AND I did say I didn’t support it becoming 100% impenetrable too... but to say a game you play literally FOR FUN, is one where you have no rights, and that consent doesn’t matter really smacks of a disgusting set of selfishness and values in our community. Whether or not I am someone “known” in the community, and whether you guys find value or don’t in my opinion... to tell someone they don’t get to say no... wow way to be a predator.

edit: not directing the last bit at anyone in particular... but wow I am just shocked and saddened by the community in general right now.

Atalkez

I mean I agree about the consent, but at the same time, who gets to decide where the line goes?

I can run up on you right now and fondle/kiss/touch/hug you inappropriately without your consent - so is it really all that different?

I think being able to remove yourself is completely fine. I think being able to remove yourself completely at your own whim and leaving others 0 options to change that, is not fine.

Shimi

It doesn’t leave you with 0 options? And if someone runs up and fondle/kiss/whatever’s me without consent they will get threatened, and likely hired on if they choose to pursue FURTHER actions. I am not good at combat, I know this, I generally stay sidelined or out of it. Other people have other options.
if I remove myself from public areas, I am always available to talk to people. I have been on shrine raids and defense, if someone wants to take a bounty out on me I would respond to a tell asking me to come out and duel. Because I accept the consequences of my actions.
i understand there will always be people who abuse things, I even said that I don’t think houses should be 100% impenetrable. I actually support the fact this game has villains. But it’s still a game guys.

Rom

Am I missing something with this “consent” talk? Literally the only aggressive action people will ever take against you without you already involving yourself is theft, and I agree with Nazhik on the theft front. Nobody is going around Cyrene sniping people who have never even seen blood.

Torinn

I find it fun to never be safe, that there is always the possibility of conflict.  Is your version of fun better than my version of fun?  No, neither is better than the other.  Thus, "fun" cannot be used as a measurement.  Let's steer away from that gauge because it is highly subjective.  Any person that has fun one way there will be another that finds fun the opposite way.

Jurixe

I think it's important for both sides not to blow things out of proportion here. Neither 100% safety nor 100% danger is desirable for the game because of many factors, and recent changes by the admin point to this as well.

I think part of the disconnect as well - as has been said many times - is that there is almost no penalty on the side of the instigator. They choose when to initiate (at a time of their convenience). They choose, for the most part, when to stop. The other party generally gets no say in the matter and if they don't retaliate, then their interaction will keep getting disrupted. Yes, there are people like these. If they manage to break in, they're usually better at combat than the other party and attacking them either leads to death, or they earring away before you can do anything to them - and come back in just as easily.

Sure, Achaea shouldn't be 'safe' or whatever but I do think that spaces where people can concentrate on immersing themselves in certain scenarios without worrying about a timer 'ok can't stay in here too long or people will start prisming' is important. Disruption can have a big impact on the flow of a story and people's desire to continue to play it out.

You would be very angry if an interaction with you and your Divine was interrupted; I argue that genuine RP interactions between players are no less important, especially when more and more conversations are being taken OOC these days. Housing can contribute hugely to people's desire to roleplay as it's a custom setting of their choice. People should be encouraged to 'legitimately' roleplay in the game, and their interactions shouldn't be sacrificed simply for the sake of someone else's boredom being inflicted on others.

Now, the above only applies to people who are trying to start conflict without provocation. I have no sympathy for people who have been in raids, bounties or have a contract on them for whatever reason. I can understand the frustration of players who hunt people like these and continuing to be able to pose a threat to them is important. So in that sense, houses shouldn't be impenetrable, just as ships shouldn't be.

If we consider housing as a luxury instead of a basic necessity as in real life, then some of these problems are solved already. Non-prism is available and if a perma monolith upgrade is introduced, then that should solve the issue of disruption. Is it expensive? Yes, but to a certain extent that's okay. If you want a secure fortress you should have to pay for it, or embrace the risk. Even with these upgrades, housing is still in the same area so those who really want to come after these people can still do so - the cost will prevent this degree of impenetrability from being widespread as it is.

The other point goes onto the aggressors. Just like PK, you shouldn't be able to inflict your kind of conflict on someone just because you feel like it, and you should have to face consequences if you do so. Prisming into someone's home - regardless of whether or not you take anything or do anything to the occupant - should grant the victim the right to hire. It is an intrusion. It is conflict because you aren't supposed to be there, nor are you wanted. However, until clan housing is introduced, unfortunately this right should only fall to the housing owner - unless the intruder initiates an attack on non-owners in the house.

You shouldn't have the right to say 'oh I didn't -technically- do anything to you' but then go 'housing shouldn't be safe because we need to generate conflict'. It either is conflict, or it isn't, and in this case I'd very much say that it is. Making a successful prism hireable would make people think twice about breaking in, or at the very least it would give you a better opportunity at retaliation.

In regards to spying, I would suggest that the privacy upgrade be upgraded further to prevent again things like mind sapience. It's an expensive upgrade in general but it's not of much use and isn't worth the price if it doesn't prevent that, which is what people seem most worried about. Not much point in its existence in that sense.

Don't forget that the end goal here is that we want to make housing more viable to use. Simply throwing out accusations over the validity of how people like to enjoy the game isn't helpful to anyone. It's important that viewpoints be expressed constructively so that other people can try to understand, and even if they can't, at least we can agree to disagree without being inflammatory. If you don't have anything but disdain for other playstyles to contribute, then I would recommend either the Rants thread or simply to refrain altogether.

Tysandr

Torinn said:

 It sounds like you want multiplayer star dew valley (which would be awesome let's not kid ourselves) but Achaea is not that.

I would love to see this @Torinn.

Keorin

Jurixe said:

Making a successful prism hireable would make people think twice about breaking in, or at the very least it would give you a better opportunity at retaliation.

I'm not really sure that this is true. In my years playing this game, I've never seen hiring act as a meaningful deterrent to much of anything. At -best- it's a small bit of revenge, but one death of experience loss isn't really a repercussion to anyone who actively steals/breaks in.

I think if the goal is to make it more like how pk functions now, it would make far more sense to just treat prisming as initiating an attack, subjecting it to the current restrictions on initiating mechanical conflict. That would keep people from using a house to hide from existing conflict any more then they can now, but it would be a meaningful limit on one-sided, unprovoked interruption.

Reyson

There -is- a way to make a spot in a house 100% prism-proof, though. What am I missing here?

Jurixe

Reyson said:

There -is- a way to make a spot in a house 100% prism-proof, though. What am I missing here?

The point, I think, is an attempt to shift some of the responsibility onto the instigator rather than always having it be the recipient's responsibility to protect their playstyle.

Even if someone never pks at all, other players will still try to prism to them just because they're bored or think they might be a good theft target because sometimes when you'e waiting for people to respond, you end up being idle for a while and that shows on Who B.

My suggestions are based on the assumption that everyone agrees we should be able to safeguard items in houses, so I'm not taking theft into consideration. Without the element of house theft, I'm expecting that breaking into random houses will lose much of its appeal other than theft from players (which is already heavily limited) and to kill people.

I think adding hireability on top of that would be enough of a deterrent that people who do it either have a good reason to REALLY want that person dead, or don't mind death - but in the second situation the risk quite significantly outweighs the reward if you're doing it just because, especially if you can kill them in the house and still hire on them.

Other than that, I think that having to pay for complete security is a decent enough trade-off.

Reyson

You can hire on someone who breaks into your house, I've no problem with that (although you -should- be asking your MoS to file a bounty for trespassing if someone's breaking into houses that's not a citizen of that City. If the person breaking in -is- a citizen, then... I don't know, talk to the principal or something). 

Secure containers and options for display making it so that someone in your house doesn't mean you just got cleaned out, I've been on board with since the beginning of the thread!

I'm just not sure I have much empathy with someone who sits around long enough to get prism'd to- if you know you or your guests are going to be idle enough that a prism can go through, then probably get no-prism in the room you're going to be not-paying-attention in for long enough for that to happen, or else don't sit somewhere where someone prisming in is an issue? 

The issue of consent-to-interact is one, I think, the two sides are just going to have to agree to disagree on. 

Keorin

Prism takes what, twelve seconds to go through? I feel like everyone sometimes roleplays when they're not constantly looking at the screen, or sometimes has to get up for a moment and doesn't want to journal every time they have to. Should those people only be able to use houses as a site for roleplay after noprism's been bought? Because that's a pretty significant barrier to entry.

Prisming in on someone is incredibly one sided interaction, as it is now. You catch them unaware for a few seconds, you prism in, and you now ended whatever they were doing in order to rob them/start a fight. Unless that person can fight and win on the spot, their part in the "interaction" is to leave and call in their city. I think it ends and interrupts more interaction then it ever creates.

Minifie

Keorin said:

Prism takes what, twelve seconds to go through? I feel like everyone sometimes roleplays when they're not constantly looking at the screen, or sometimes has to get up for a moment and doesn't want to journal every time they have to. Should those people only be able to use houses as a site for roleplay after noprism's been bought? Because that's a pretty significant barrier to entry.

Prisming in on someone is incredibly one sided interaction, as it is now. You catch them unaware for a few seconds, you prism in, and you now ended whatever they were doing in order to rob them/start a fight. Unless that person can fight and win on the spot, their part in the "interaction" is to leave and call in their city. I think it ends and interrupts more interaction then it ever creates.

You can always embrace the interaction of enemies and have them crash, or  ignore them with disdain. Things such as party crashing, gate breaking and other things can liven up events, as long as it isn't prism in "lol pk" run away. Some of the best dramatic tension in books/tv shows/movies comes from people who aren't supposed to be in places being in places. Bad guys gotta be bad guys sometimes, and some of us like being villainous at times. 

Keorin

In theory, it can be interesting. In practice, it basically never is. You don't generally get good interaction by jumping in and forcing people to interact with you, at the expense of whatever they actually wanted to do. And you can't just blame the people you're jumping in on for not making it fun for themselves.

Accipiter

So, what about something like offensive actions against people in a house that you are not in the same infamy cost that stealing has? 

Reyson

Monoliths make prisms longer to go through, it's really really not that fast. If you're not looking at your screen enough to notice it come through and go, then I really just don't see how you're anything but afk. Make a big ass highlight for its beginning message, always stand on a monolith (it extends the time it takes it to go through), there's really no reason to get prismed to if you're at all looking at your screen once every ten seconds. 

If you want security that doesn't depend on you being attentive to defend yourself, pay for security, I'm not sure why that's somehow unreasonable. 

Kayeil

Minifie said:

Keorin said:

Prism takes what, twelve seconds to go through? I feel like everyone sometimes roleplays when they're not constantly looking at the screen, or sometimes has to get up for a moment and doesn't want to journal every time they have to. Should those people only be able to use houses as a site for roleplay after noprism's been bought? Because that's a pretty significant barrier to entry.

Prisming in on someone is incredibly one sided interaction, as it is now. You catch them unaware for a few seconds, you prism in, and you now ended whatever they were doing in order to rob them/start a fight. Unless that person can fight and win on the spot, their part in the "interaction" is to leave and call in their city. I think it ends and interrupts more interaction then it ever creates.

You can always embrace the interaction of enemies and have them crash, or  ignore them with disdain. Things such as party crashing, gate breaking and other things can liven up events, as long as it isn't prism in "lol pk" run away. Some of the best dramatic tension in books/tv shows/movies comes from people who aren't supposed to be in places being in places. Bad guys gotta be bad guys sometimes, and some of us like being villainous at times. 

I feel like it was Melodie or Skye and maybe even Shimi who explained why this is almost never the case and rarely turns out to be mutually interesting.

Keorin

Reyson said:

Monoliths make prisms longer to go through, it's really really not that fast.

It's exactly that fast. Twelve seconds with a monolith, six seconds without.

You really can't see how someone might not be watching the screen every ten seconds and still not be afk? Gods forbid someone doesn't want to journal and interrupt everything just to go to the bathroom.

Xaden

And as we get older the process of taking a simple piss seems to get longer and longer

Damnit Reyson, respect my bodies needs!

Reyson

Get a no prism room to afk in, then -_-

Minifie

got ganked in mhaldor today from being afk, it happens, even though I was Tviewing to help a friend. The world is more alive when even safely afking around a bunch of mhaldorians leave me deaded, but it gives me reasons to go detonate more tanks so I'm always keen. I understand wanting somewhere safe, and houses need a few fixes here and there (especially to safely display stuff), but I still think "safely afking" shouldn't be feasible. You QQ or journal, or you don't "safely" anything.

Mathilda

Except the issue isn't solely AFKing. It's about unwanted people inserting themselves into the conversations and interactions of others, with absolutely little to no repercussion. The same people are crying out "well you gotta include them!" No, I don't want to, because a vast majority of them don't want meaningful participation. They just want to be a pest.