It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Contracts should definitely show who hired. Doesn't need to show what they hired for, or who accepted the contract, but it should show who hired. Anyone 'worth' hiring on is going to keep logs of their interactions with people who hired on them, therefore can easily show whether or not the contract is justified.
It would also alleviate forcing admin to look into logs for you, to find out both who hired on you, and then be forced to look for the given timeframe you were hired for, as well as the reasons for it. You can simply provide the name, as well as a log of the interaction you assume they hired for, and the admin can cross reference with their own.
It would also still allow the usual 'response' from the person you're issuing, to give their own side (if you still choose to issue yourself in this case, then don't be surprised if it gets dismissed). Whereas with anonymity you have to issue yourself (which is why it gets dismissed).
Disappearing from Achaea for now. See you, space cowboy.
smileyface#8048 if you wanna chat.
You need to know who hired as well as which mark it is, for reasons I won't repeat ad nauseam. The anonymity thing is cool - I love the idea behind it - it just doesn't work.
Add hirer/reason to CONTRACTS just like bounties- instead of Hashan/Making fun of Tlala's name, it shows Eryl/Cyberbullying me on forums. At the very least, that solves a few problems without requiring too much tampering with what seems to be the 'design' of Mark.
Getting a notification that a contract has been filed against you that includes the name of the hirer and the short reason would work fine. It can be left ambiguous as to whether someone's picked it up or not, if Marks feel it really is too difficult to sneak up on someone with notification. The Mark that picked it up ought to remain anonymous, really, given that they're just an instrument and the cause/conflict is between yourself and the person who hired on you and ought not involve the specific Mark at all.
ETA: I go hire an assassin for Jim. The syntax is already CONTRACT ASSASSIN FOR JIM AT X GOLD <REASON>.
Jim sees 'Reyson has put out a contract on your life, for <REASON>.'
Since you get a message copy of these contracts, you'd have a timestamp to issue with, if you've got a problem with why you're being hired on. Marks don't have to worry about sorting out cause, or being complained to about illegal hires, the admins have the reasons right up front, and the target knows why they're being attacked. Seems like a solid win, all-round.
Could be Mark-ambiguous, too, doesn't need to say Ivory or Quisalis in the message you get.
I agree with person hiring and reason being listed. I think listing the Mark or faction who claimed it as going a bit far, I still think that part can work as a clandestine feature.
I haven't seen an argument as to why anonymity of the mark doesn't work.
And, quite frankly, doing anything to encourage more use of the issue system for problems that should be solved IC is hilarious. A lot of folks here are immediately saying they need to jump on the issue train if someone ever illegally hires on them. That's nonsense. If you end up in an endless loop of pk because someone won't stop hiring on you, that's one thing, and in that case it's fairly easy to identify who hired on you. If you can't identify who hired on you, you most likely have not even tried to deal with the problem IC yet, and therefore you most certainly should not be immediately trying to issue someone.
@Amranu the only recourse if you can't convince someone IC to negate the contract is to issue. This was in various issue responses that I've received, as 'killing for an illegal contract' is seen as circular.
I could be wrong, and if I am, I'd like to be corrected (by an admin, not a player).
@Amranu I explained several reasons why mark anonymity doesnt work, despite the fact that we all agree that it's a cool idea. It boils down the the fact that because of mark anonymity, all attacks by any mark can potentially be legal or illegal, you really have no idea until you die (unless you die to someone else, or an NPC, then you still don't know). This is made worse by the fact that you don't know how many contracts you have on you.
And since we can't have circular PK this basically means every time a mark attacks you (assuming you're not a mark/infamous yourself), you should be issuing them, then they would have to reply that they have a contract. Of course you can ask them (sometimes) but there is zero obligation for them to answer or answer honestly, assuming neither of you are Ignoring the other.
Player gets attacked by 3 marks while bashing, then dies to the thing he was bashing.
That could literally be 3 different contracts or 3 illegal attacks, or any combination. Player has no idea. If they are a combination of legal and illegal contracts, you don't know which mark has which. Should you issue the marks? You're not allowed to retaliate against them (as that's circular), and can't hire back for the same reason. If they were illegal attacks you could hire but ARE they illegal attacks? You have no idea. They COULD be legitimate so you are forced to issue as attacking or hiring on them IF they have contracts would be a violation of PK / hiring rules.
Example works just fine with 1 mark, just making it super clear what the issue is. There's just WAY too much riding on the honor system for something with zero transparency.
I still think Mark anonymity up until first attack is ideal. Mark gets surprise attack but the contract is revealed from that point moving forward, instantly showing that it's a legal attack and ideally, who paid for it. There really is no problem with this compared to the current iteration as in principal after the first attack you SHOULD know they have a contract on you - this just prevents them from lying about it (either saying they don't or they do).
Like, what's to stop 3 marks from ganking up on one guy, illegally, as long as one of them has a contract and gets the kill (common tactic with scripted locks) The other two can simply say "I have a contract" and you have no way to validate that other than issuing.
@Kog - maybe not the best time for cracking jokes about cyberbullying.
I like the anonymity. I've been chased down often enough, and generally most marks pay attention to why they're attacking someone: other marks, infamy, bounty, contracts. And many have totally been fine with me asking about why if I'm not obviously infamous. Even filing contracts I talk to the person first and probably could feed more marks (looking at you, triggered tsunami person).
To counter Shecks, specifically in the above example: I don't think those three marks care if you don't know which can legally kill you. Eventually it'd be open air anyway and your response to just go right to issuing for it would take out any chance to rp or figure it out IC. Thtat and I die a lot, so meh on a few more. Think I'd have to run from Mizik more than marks if death was a worry anyway.
tldr: Maybe I'm the minority, but having been chased/killed by a lot of marks/bounty hunters, most are pretty chill with you asking and think it should be more the first response. Reasons they're on you is different.
If you can't identify who hired on you, you most likely have not even tried to deal with the problem IC yet, and therefore you most certainly should not be immediately trying to issue someone.
- but... you don't know who it is you are supposed to be trying IC resolutions.
*hires Mark on my favorite Tahquil for no reason just to make a point because Im a jerkface*
When issued, will say "I said 'hi' and she didnt reply, thus I was offended. As has been established by Argwin on forums, "being offended" is legit reason to hire"
Everyone should hire on Caelan. He can't issue us all.
Damn you for mocking my slow typing!
I've had people hire on me before for hitting my totem even though I was like Oh sorry, didn't know you were enemied.
Had people hire on me for raids.
Had a Mhaldorian hire on me for defending a shrine once.
Had a guy hire on me for defending New Hope (which is targ defendable rp thing).
People are Griefy/Piety. No clue who hires half the time.
@Caladbolg Like I've had to tell many people, Targossas cannot defend New Hope.
MUTUAL is the keyword here. They are well within their rights to hire on you.
Targossas is not mutually allied. The only non-org denizens you're allowed to defend, is Jaru.
Context is also important here. You're allowed to hire on raiders in a number of instances (namely if they don't have an actual reason for attacking you). Same goes for totems, if they're hitting your totems and they're not being personally stood by you... Chances are they're an illegal totem anyway.
Sounds like an oversight to me that should probably be fixed
Or maybe New Hope doesn't want to be defended by Targossas.
Much like Eleusis tried to get mutual allying with Istarion (and the Tsol'aa) and were shut down. Ditto for KongolDrak and Iskadarr/Siroccian Dwarves.
I don't understand. You don't know who hired on you but it sounds like in each case they had a reason. Working as intended in that case. If someone is abusing the mark system against you, by hiring more than once, you know who they are and can issue.
There's an alarming number of people in this thread that misunderstand the purpose and scope of PK issues.
@Amranu yeah nothing there seems to be NOT hirable
It's pretty hard to find an example of something that isn't ok to hire for.
Cooper, I think some of that comes down to people not understanding their actions are hirable in the first place, then the only course of action is to either accept what you feel is a dubious hire and drop it, or issue for clarification otherwise it goes into cyclical PK we are actively told to avoid.
We had a monk come into Hashan, radiance illusion the entire city at the same time, then issued those who hired on him for it. I warned them in advance, they were adamant and lost the issues
Hi @Sobriquet I have not "lost" any such issues. Thanks.
(Court Coliseum): <redacted> says, "Oh hey I won the issue Shecks had against me."
(Court Coliseum): <redacted> says, "That's good."
(Court Coliseum): Agramon says, "What did he issue you for?"
(Court Coliseum): <redacted> says, "Hiring on him for illusioning radiance before I was dauntless."
I mean, you lie about pretty much anything and everything with zero ability at any reading comprehension or fundamental understanding of close to everything in Achaea. I spent 10 minutes warning you about what you were doing but you are more adamant than an 80's New Romantic popstar.
@Sobriquet He tried to point out me being 'obtuse' yesterday on Discord, because I mentioned being surprised at Rend doing 30% limb damage. He said it wasn't a surprise considering he's posted the rend formula...
...Completely ignoring the fact we were talking about Dragon, not SnB. It's pretty amazing how someone can see "rend doing 30%, not 25%" and immediately think Knight.
Lol. Sometimes your blatant dishonesty is astounding, @Shecks.
@Eryl is it really, tho?
I hadn't seen the ruling until now. Evidently you can hire for any illusion now, even if it's not aggressive or an attack, as long as the person feels it's worthy of hiring. If you illusion a penguin in a room full of people and those people are offended by penguins (or if Sobriquet finds you 3 days later and requests for them to be offended by penguins) then you can be legally hired in by everyone in the room.
This is completely new precedent as it's never been this way in the history of the game (as someone who's had a multitude of similar issues dismissed as frivolous in the past).
Sad day I guess, a whole route of roleplay and non-violent conflict initiation has been eliminated from the game. But fine, I'm Dauntless now, being your stupid frivolous contracts.
As has been pointed out by literally everyone, starting mind radiance is an attack. You shouldn't still be asserting otherwise when even the admin have told you this now.
This isn't a new rule, this is in fact one of the only documented rules, as has already been pointed out to you. One glance at HELP ILLUSIONS, combined with the understanding that starting mind radiance is an attack, should be enough to understand that.
I mean, dude, you illusioned Radiance.. which is an attack, so i just refer you back to my previous point about reading comprehension and Achaea fundamentals.
Edit. Suggested reading as I don't want this to seem like dogpilng on you, is HELP ILLUSIONS.