Forums Home Forum Rules Achaea.com Lore Wiki Vote for Achaea! IronRealms.com
Home› Everything Achaea› The Golden Dais of Creation

Village Contracts

245

Comments

  • KyrraKyrra Australia
    Kyrra’s Travel Service!
    (D.M.A.): Cooper says, "Kyrra is either the most innocent person in the world, or the girl who uses the most innuendo seemingly unintentionally but really on purpose."

  • LennLenn
    Straw man much? He literally excluded Manara and that's your example. o.o

    I only see knee jerk reactions to someone wanting to nerf their toys.

    For example, if you know Moghedu hires assassins after anyone to hunts there, you're arguing people will keep hunting there despite being no match against the assassin. Won't they do it because the benefits outweigh the cost? Therefore, who should I feel sympathy for? o.o
  • KayeilKayeil Washington State
    Lenn said:
    Mostly I like this for the immersion elements @Kiet mentioned, as someone with a meagre 10 denizen kill count, I can't comment on the details much as they won't affect me...
    Why does it bother you so much that it bothers the people it does affect? It isn't taking away "toys." It is literally changing an entire facet of Achaea and a certain play style enjoyed by non-coms and PVEers who may not necessarily care one bit about PVP or who are taking a break from PVP by PVEing. Every little thing does not need PVP in it. As has been stated multiple times already, cities, Orders, and high clans can ally to denizen villages. Work on that system if you want more denizen interaction.
    What doesn't kill you gives you exp.

  • LennLenn
    Because I play a pacifist, and I would prefer to roleplay not associating with murderers, except the system has no immersion or roleplay at all, so that's literally everyone. :)
  • KeorinKeorin
    Sobriquet said:

    This wouldn't encourage conflict at all, it would stop people bashing. 
    Did bashing fall apart when the guardians of Moghedu were active? People regularly hunt areas where they're at risk of being killed, how would this be any different? I simply don't understand how a single death is supposed to be a huge deterrent for people hunting an area, especially if the experience turned out the same or better.

    Serious question, how many areas would something like this effect? I've been looking through a few recommended hunting lists, and it seems like there's only a few areas that are meaningful spots, sentient, and not allied to a city or something. If marks were limited to only adventurer races, how many would it be then? I get that Mog is good hunting, but it's not the be all and end all of it.
  • MinifieMinifie
    Keorin said:
    Sobriquet said:

    This wouldn't encourage conflict at all, it would stop people bashing. 
    Did bashing fall apart when the guardians of Moghedu were active? People regularly hunt areas where they're at risk of being killed, how would this be any different? I simply don't understand how a single death is supposed to be a huge deterrent for people hunting an area, especially if the experience turned out the same or better.

    Serious question, how many areas would something like this effect? I've been looking through a few recommended hunting lists, and it seems like there's only a few areas that are meaningful spots, sentient, and not allied to a city or something. If marks were limited to only adventurer races, how many would it be then? I get that Mog is good hunting, but it's not the be all and end all of it.
    It's not about the death, if you want NPCs to feel more alive have them do their dirty work for us attacking them. Marks do not generate conflict, they are a by-product of it. 
  • SobriquetSobriquet
    Keorin said:
    Sobriquet said:

    This wouldn't encourage conflict at all, it would stop people bashing. 
    Did bashing fall apart when the guardians of Moghedu were active? People regularly hunt areas where they're at risk of being killed, how would this be any different? I simply don't understand how a single death is supposed to be a huge deterrent for people hunting an area, especially if the experience turned out the same or better.

    Serious question, how many areas would something like this effect? I've been looking through a few recommended hunting lists, and it seems like there's only a few areas that are meaningful spots, sentient, and not allied to a city or something. If marks were limited to only adventurer races, how many would it be then? I get that Mog is good hunting, but it's not the be all and end all of it.
    The GoM weren't really a threat as there were pretty reliant on just random Mog sweeps and deathsights. People do hunt areas where they are at risk of being killed, but until the UW re-opens that's narrowed down to just one area. (Although Mhaldor do a pretty good job on Enverren and Blackrock)

    This is entirely different. You are talking about the Best fighters out there getting contracts on people who are just hunting (A pretty significant way of generating XP and Gold for 100% of the playerbase, some of who don't fight). I don't see that as a balanced response to their actions. I'm all for more impact on the game, as proved hopefully by me being part of the remove veils voice and starting a one-man war with Mhaldor I can't win and there should 100% be consequences to your actions, but they should always be a balanced factor to them

    Robbed a shop? Killed a Regent? Raided a City? Fine, let them get their kill. It's hard to justify the NPC are the same as Characters suggestion when we all have 1000's and 1000's of NPC kills as part of our daily routine and -requirement- in order to actually gain levels, gold and to advance in the game.

    Feelings villages do a good job of this as they make the place aggressive towards you when you go back. I agree that Marks could do with more action, but don't see this is the way to do it.

    (Party): Mezghar says, "Stop."
  • XadenXaden
    GoM is a terrible example. They tried a 'hire for hunting' policy and the person who instigated that policy got shrubbed.
         He is a coward who has to bring two friends as backup to jump people hunting.

  • KeorinKeorin
    If all that matters is repercussions being balanced, then simply raise the experience/gold gain to account for the single extra death of danger? Why is it a meaningful deterrent if the rewards are functionally the same?

    Not to mention, it's pretty trivial to avoid most or all sentients while hunting, even now. There's only a few seriously popular villages as is, why would a few extra zones to replace them not entirely solve the problem?

    Right now, a huge portion of the playerbase treats denizens as fundamentally different from an in-world perspective, despite the only canonical difference being that adventurers got bopped on the head when they were young. This is pure and simply bad roleplay, and feelings villages or denizen assassins would do nothing to address this because they just reinforce that the only way a player should interact with denizens is with a bashing macro.
  • MinifieMinifie
    Keorin said:
    If all that matters is repercussions being balanced, then simply raise the experience/gold gain to account for the single extra death of danger? Why is it a meaningful deterrent if the rewards are functionally the same?

    Not to mention, it's pretty trivial to avoid most or all sentients while hunting, even now. There's only a few seriously popular villages as is, why would a few extra zones to replace them not entirely solve the problem?

    Right now, a huge portion of the playerbase treats denizens as fundamentally different from an in-world perspective, despite the only canonical difference being that adventurers got bopped on the head when they were young. This is pure and simply bad roleplay, and feelings villages or denizen assassins would do nothing to address this because they just reinforce that the only way a player should interact with denizens is with a bashing macro.
    It's still not about the death. I have no idea why that's being ignored and made the focal point. It's that it does absolutely nothing, 0, zip zup zoop to increase conflict. The mark is still a middle man, you don't go fight the mark for it, you would kill the village. It seems such a simple thing flies over so many heads though!
  • PenwizePenwize
    It flies over heads because it doesn't make sense.  How, exactly, does an RP-backed reason for a mark to engage a target not constitute conflict?  It's the bloody definition of conflict!
  • KeorinKeorin
    For basically everyone, the issue seems to be the death (or at least the being attacked). If it's not, then what's the disadvantage? Even if you're right, and having to deal with other players hunting you is somehow not conflict.

    Even if marks aren't 'good' conflict, surely they're more conflict then nothing, or then turning on your bashing trigger for one more mob that came after you. But I completely agree that a system that allowed people with rp reason to defend a village to take on the bounties instead of a mark would be a more conflict-rich alternative.
  • MinifieMinifie
    edited January 2018
    Penwize said:
    It flies over heads because it doesn't make sense.  How, exactly, does an RP-backed reason for a mark to engage a target not constitute conflict?  It's the bloody definition of conflict!
    It still generates 0 conflict at all, it creates 1 contract that gets carried out and nothing more, unless a single fight is considered "conflict". Your idea just isn't that good, how many MMOs have failed at shoving PvE and PvP together? Annwyn exists, allied villages exist. Marks exist as a by product of conflict, not as a source of it, or did you forget how marks/contracts work?
  • PenwizePenwize
    Minifie said:

    unless a single fight is considered "conflict".
    Yes.  It is.  It is not a large conflict, but it is quite literally a conflict.

    That, and I imagine little rivalries will pop up out of this, as certain people make the informed decision to hunt certain places that generate contracts, and certain marks regularly pick up those contracts.  I'm thinking the kind of rivalry I had with Dontarion, back when he was a prolific thief and I always wound up picking up the contracts to kill him, except I'd probably wind up being the person generating the contracts instead of the mark taking them.
  • MinifieMinifie
    Penwize said:
    Minifie said:

    unless a single fight is considered "conflict".
    Yes.  It is.  It is not a large conflict, but it is quite literally a conflict.

    That, and I imagine little rivalries will pop up out of this, as certain people make the informed decision to hunt certain places that generate contracts, and certain marks regularly pick up those contracts.  I'm thinking the kind of rivalry I had with Dontarion, back when he was a prolific thief and I always wound up picking up the contracts to kill him, except I'd probably wind up being the person generating the contracts instead of the mark taking them.
    You can already set yourself up to be contracted quite a bit, and as per how it works the mark is a middle man, I'm not going to fight the mark for it, I'll punish whoever hired if I believe it's what should be done. The options exist to create conflict with marks already, and people have the option in many ways to create conflict. If you want to have conflict from hunting join mark/dauntless. The options already exist really, being able to enjoy a bit of bashing as an unwind is awesome, being attacked by the village itself for bashing it heavily is even better, but having them hire prof/aust/atalkez would be pointless, other than forcing people who may never want to be into PvP into it, and shoving others who may just bash as some enjoyable RnR time (no I don't auto anything, so bashing is something I engage in to just let my brain unwind from it's own incessant anxiety). 

    Generating conflict is everywhere in achaea, and you can make it happen with the drop of a hat, but forcing it into others just because you want more isn't going to work out well. At all.
  • PenwizePenwize
    There's nothing forcing people to choose to bash places that generate contracts.  Choose to bash in any of the dozens of other places that don't.  It's roughly the same as places that are allied to player cities, except it doesn't require a city alliance, which is good for certain places that don't make sense allying with cities, but might still hire marks.
  • MinifieMinifie
    No, but having non comms just upright lose bashing areas because of it isn't ideal either. We'd be better off getting UW back and another annwyn. These places generate conflict a hell of a lot better while bashing, and for the most part, if both parties are fine, you can continue the conflict again outside of those areas.
  • ReysonReyson
    I really like the idea of a ginormous mob rampaging through an area murdering adventurers when enough people bash a spot in a row, though :( 

    That, and/or the area's scary mob coming to get you when you're not paying attention (after all, you gank them when they're not ready for it, ostensibly!) 

    Quisalis/Ivory areas should absolutely generate pvp contracts, as well as org-allied territories. 
  • TaryiusTaryius
    Here to vouch for org-allied and quisalis/ivory contracts. I think an addition like that would add a lot for immersion, conflict generation and fun. As it stands it feels kinda lame hunting whatever denizen farmers live in the village allied to Targ/Eleusis/Ashtan/Hashan.

    If they were add a similar functionality to largely sentient villages like Moghedu and Arcadia, I feel they would have to work in another non-sentient area to alleviate the loss in hunting spots for those too scared to take a single death.

    Hundred percent in favor of this for org-allied territories. Thousand percent, actually. 
  • PenwizePenwize
    Taryius said:

    If they were add a similar functionality to largely sentient villages like Moghedu and Arcadia, I feel they would have to work in another non-sentient area to alleviate the loss in hunting spots for those too scared to take a single death.

    Honestly, I think it might be a good idea to work in some more non-village areas to hunt anyway.  Yggdrasil sort of added a few, but from what I can tell none of them are actually worth the trip up there.  It'd be nice to see more places you don't have to do weird RP gymnastics to justify committing genocide in.
  • MinifieMinifie
    I can get on board with ivory/quis and allied villages. 
  • AtalkezAtalkez
    Moose juice :lol:




    Penwize has cowardly forfeited the challenge to mortal combat issued by Atalkez.
  • MinifieMinifie
    Atalkez said:
    Moose juice :lol:
    Where else does juice come from?
  • AtalkezAtalkez
    I think the concerns about non coms and midbies being smashed is pretty valid. So I’d like to suggest a tiered system to alleviate it.

    Taking Istarion for example:
    100 kills - regular outrider pops on you randomly
    250 kills - a Kings Guard
    500 kills - the King with a massive DPS boost to where solo isn’t probably going to work
    1000 kills (and the others failed) - a mark contract

    If any of them succeed then your counter/feelings are reset against the village. Though, this in particular would allow it to be gamed to never hit the contract level.

    Arcadia
    random Arcadian > Palace guard > Stormshaper/Chenubis > mark

    Quisalis
    Hunter > Bilar > Gil > mark

    I miss the days when Yudhi would randomly attack cities.




    Penwize has cowardly forfeited the challenge to mortal combat issued by Atalkez.
Sign In or Register to comment.