Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 6.2K All Categories
- 3.1K Everything Achaea
- 1.5K North of Thera
- 26 Archives of the Terraformer
- 257 The Matsuhama Arena
- 885 The Golden Dais of Creation
- 299 The Scarlattan Theatre
- 149 The Blank Canvas
- 2K Getting Help
- 412 General Questions
- 258 Quick Class Questions
- 1.3K Tech Support
- 313 Client Help
- 486 Curing Systems and Scripts
- 841 Off-Topic
- 255 The Wander Inn
- 586 The Universal Membrane
- 298 Class Discussions
- 298 Individual Class Sections
- 20 Alchemist
- 9 Apostate
- 30 Blademaster
- 9 Depthswalker
- 14 Druid
- 4 Infernal
- 20 Jester
- 19 Magi
- 34 Monk
- 11 Occultist
- 8 Paladin
- 7 Priest
- 29 Runewarden
- 18 Sentinel
- 26 Serpent
- 20 Shaman
- 9 Sylvan
PK Updates: Announce #5364
I've copied over the latest announce post detailing updates to PK rules and systems. Feel free to discuss!
- Players may now seek retribution on land for conflict that takes place at sea. The oceans are no longer a safe haven to attack anyone and everyone without repercussions.
- Soldiers of army rank 3 or above may now be attacked in pursuit of a sanction while within their home city, and no longer require other PK-reasoning to initiate combat with.
- Soldiers below army rank 3 will still require appropriate RP reasoning to attack prior to a sanction taking effect.
- Non soldiers and city allies will now contribute to tank charging progress when slain during a sanction.
- Army rank and ally status now show on HONOURS to allow raiders to distinguish these.
- Relics will now have a chance to reset from your inventory if you are standing in a room with allied guards.
- The maximum number of contracts that can be filed at once has been increased from 5 to 10.
We also wish to better convey the fact that Achaea's denizen population are real inhabitants of the world and not simply 'bashing fodder'. As such:
- Over the coming days, certain high profile denizens will gain the ability to file contracts against players via the Quisalis or Ivory Marks.
- These contracts may be filed for a number of reasons and are completed in the same way as all other contracts.
Lastly, HELP PK has undergone a much needed facelift to be somewhat more comprehensive and consistent with modern standards. Filing an issue is almost never the correct response to a PK related scenario and that is the stance we will be continuing to take going forward. I'd encourage everyone to thoroughly review HELP PK and let us know if you have questions or feedback.
Comments
Zsarachnor, the Vampire Lord (male Vampire).
His age is hidden by the sands of time.
He is an extremely credible character.
He is near-permanent Infamous.
He is a member of the Quisalis Mark.
He is a Vampire Lord in Azdun.
He is a member of the Vampire class.
His motto: 'Humans make the best juice boxes.'
See HONOURS DEEDS ZSARACHNOR to view his 61 special honours.
Honestly IM TOTALLY DOWN for like Ophal, Zsarachnor, and other big ass bois coming to collect a bounty.
That would be badass.
Think ocean pvp might need some clarification on corner cases. Otherwise 10/10, do like.
Going to really need a bunch of clarifications for ocean stuff:
Do only the captains get rights?
On whom (the opposing captain, the entire enemy crew, only crew who fires)?
Does assault constitute it or do they need to sink?
Does it work retroactively?
Really not a fan of having the sea stuff bleed over to the land and having to count cause.
As with other PK scenarios, we aren't really interested in litigating every possible specific hypothetical (or any of them), but if you're on a ship and the captain fires on someone, you are considered part of the attackers, and vice versa. Otherwise, all standard PK guidelines apply: an attack is worthy of retribution, it does not have to be a full sinking.
@Ictinus Ok so everyone on the ship that was fired on has cause on everyone on the ship that fired?
So lets say I have a ship with 4 aboard and fire on a ship that has 5 aboard. That generates 4*5=20 sets of cause?
Let's not really get into specifics here, just everyone kill everyone else a handful of times and call it a day. When do we just go to Open PK?
@Greys - if you're still counting cause then you're part of the reason pk sucks. There is no 'cause' anymore, and people who still try to count up how many kills they're 'owed' need to stop.
Read HELP PK. If I can understand it as someone who only ever ends up on the running away because I offended someone end of things, the the combatants sure can too.
(If I'm overreacting, I'm sorry, but I joined this game well after cause counting was removed and I'm still dealing with people counting cause. It gets frustrating.)
@Argwin I pretty much don't count cause, never seek retaliation. I am worried about this change as it seems to add additional ways to punish people who seek combat on the ocean, something I struggle to get people to do in general. Most likely, Greys would probably act as normal (he refuses to waste money hiring on people and sucks at land combat too much to hunt down people). But concerned the pirates (who are often the aggressors) are going to be hit with dozens of contracts. I much preferred it being its own separate sphere.
There is no "cause".
If you are a ship with 4 people on board and you as the captain engage another crew of 5 people and sink them, presumably those five people are each allowed to exact vengeance (aka: kill you) once on land for the act of sinking them.
OR
If you end up pursuing this at sea instead and get sunk by the same group of people 30 minutes later, the conflict is finished as everyone involved has has their full fill of retribution. Make sense? That's how I'm interpreting all this anyway.
That's fair. Again, sorry I painted you into a corner based on your post (for those unfamiliar, I don't think I've interacted with Greys IG on any character). I'm in much the same situation as you are, except I will gladly spend gold to hire on someone. Then I'll stew in frustration as it takes rl months for someone to accept the contract, then another three weeks for it to either complete or expire.
As for the seafaring change, I was ok without it, but I'm cautiously optimistic for it too. I love sailing, but can't fight any better on the sea than I can on land, so between how long it can take sometimes and the chances of running into Crixos, Minkai, or any other number of people who like to sink ships, I don't sail much. If this means I can sail more often, I'll probably be all for it, even if I do end up getting hired on during a kraken hunt or two.
@Argwin Dinna fret! I could see how it could be seen that way and hence clarified.
I guess the other question is if the ocean is still considered a treacherous plane for the purposes of being able to attack people? Normally places like that do not carry the right to retaliate over.
@Eurice - the way I've heard it described (again, I came in after cause went away) was that the bigger problem with cause was more like (1) you sunk me in a ship, so I get one death, then (2) you jumped me during a raid when I wasn't involved, so that's another death, and then (3) when I attacked someone else you defended them, so that's another death, leading to someone holding onto a belief that they could kill you three times.
RP Justification is more like (1) you sunk my ship, and then jumped me during a raid, and then defended someone against me, so I have a reason to want to kill you. Once I do, all of those reasons are resolved.
The biggest difference I've heard is the 'stacking' of 'owed' deaths.
Someone, anyone, please correct me if I'm wrong.
I originally issued myself on this but it looks like other people are also questioning this so I'm posting this here.
Would a ship casting off to defend another ship also be open to this new rule? For instance I shot first on Greys, and Elyra cast off to save me from my bad decisions, and then Killian cast off to help Greys. It's a given that Greys can now hunt me down if he wanted to. Can I hunt down Killian, and can she hire on me if I do so? And what if instead of Killian, a citymate of Greys had cast off to defend him? (Does this mean the "safe" option to defend a citymate from piracy is to board their ship from shore?)
@Minkai - First post!!! Welcome!
And, that's a really complex and scary question! I'm really curious now too.
I'd only really think stacking things like that falls in line with the spirit of the rules is if each instance is an entirely separate conflict unrelated to the others.
The answer is yes
I do like that there is going to be more clarity on Army Ranks in honours, but is there any chance for a command to do <CITY> ARMY RANKS or something to that extent? You could just have the new syntax print everyone online in a city by their Army Rank or even just print AR3+. Having to honours everyone one by one seems a bit clunky.
Edit: Also just for clarity I'm going to assume (as with most cases on land) that death is an end to conflict at sea? By that I mean I am assuming if someone attacks me at sea and I sink them and they die in the process that conflict is over and I probably shouldn't hunt them down on land. That is fair to say?
Perhaps the seas during kraken event should just be treated as Annwyn is. Or like it was before in other words. And any other time this is in full effect.
I mean I generally (try to) subscribe to the : don't be a dick, conflict is fun with stakes involved, your opponent's player is a person too.
But yeah, often conflicts snowball especially at sea (can you imagine how many contracts a kraken hunt would have), plus sometimes can be hard to identify who initiated the conflicts.
Also, hi @Minkai ! To answer your question, I'd sink you so that conflict would have been resolved. ;)
The answer is whatever option incurs the most amount of PK in the end. Just calculated up all the scenarios and pick the one that results in the most deaths.
Eurice - nope, the stacking was the problem with cause counting. Basically the way I understand it is if I offend Mezghar a whole bunch, and then he kills me, I'm ok so long as I don't offend him again after I kill him. Back when the Hashan / Eleusis conflict was at its height and I was shouting all kinds of mean things about Mezghar, he chased me down for it, but since then he's kept it at not-so-subtle threats and frowns, which is as it should be. (Though technically I could have justification against him for the threats, but Argwin's not like that)
Again - anyone who was around for cause counting, feel free to tell me I'm completely wrong.
@Minkai
Jumping into a fight to defend someone else is already outlined under section 12 of HELP PK. Anyone who does this is subject to retaliation (on sea or land), and cannot then pursue their own retribution as outlined in announce #5056: "If you involve yourself in someone else's conflict and are later hired on or killed for it, the conflict is OVER. You CANNOT hire or seek retribution for this. Issues about it will be summarily dismissed."
This is essentially the same way that land combat works and while sea is somewhat different insofar as no initial reasoning is required, there are by design almost no circumstances where you can attack someone and not be subject to retaliation ( treacherous planes, certain PK events, etc).
The only exceptions to this are defending your own org territory as a member of that org, which is outlined in HELP PK under section 13. Obviously, the oceans are no org's territory and so there are no 'defence rights'.
- Non soldiers and city allies will now contribute to tank charging progress when slain during a sanction.
- Army rank and ally status now show on HONOURS to allow raiders to distinguish these.
@Ictinus I'm hoping you might be able to elaborate and shed some light on this, because this reads to me that essentially any non-combatant in a city is now free game for charging a tank? That seems like it's going to exacerbate the issue of non-combatants getting pulled into raids against their wishes. It already happens a lot in order for enemies to gain a sanction - which is already a super scummy practice - but now it seems like you're giving even more potential to grief people that don't actively engage in that aspect of the game.
Yes, these players can hire for this, but as has been established several times over in several other threads, death means very little to players actively engaged in PvP, and disproportionately more to players who try to avoid PvP.
- Over the coming days, certain high profile denizens will gain the ability to file contracts against players via the Quisalis or Ivory Marks.
- These contracts may be filed for a number of reasons and are completed in the same way as all other contracts.
Will a list of these denizens and the reasons for contracts be released, or will it be up to players to find which ones hire and which don't? I can't really say I am fond of the prospect of mixing PvP PK consequences with PvE mechanics.
--- Will a list of these denizens and the reasons for contracts be released, or will it be up to players to find which ones hire and which don't? I can't really say I am fond of the prospect of mixing PvP PK consequences with PvE mechanics. --- (how the fuck do I quote?)
A list shouldn't be given out, and it makes sense for this change to happen. The only problem I see is the mindset that murdering sentient denizens in a roleplaying game bears no consequences. You should instead try to realise that this is a living, breathing world, and murdering someone's dad/brother/mother will have consequences. Bashing should not be a safe, mindless action, and you absolutely deserve to be punished for killing the wrong thing. This change is a much needed and welcome thing in the grand scope of Achaea, making it the dangerous and fearful world it ought to be.
I can only assume current rules regarding engaging non-soldiers during raids will remain in place.
This just alleviates the previously frustrating mechanic of the city defending with a large number of non-soldiers or city allies and causing tanks to charge much much more slowly. It should help speed up raids in many cities, which I personally believe will make them more enjoyable for those involved.
Raiders will still need a reason to attack non-soldiers during a raid, as they always have, but non-soldiers can no longer participate in raid defence in a way that offers no recourse to the attackers (by forcing them to face additional numbers while gaining nothing towards their raid progress if they succeed).
The overwhelming majority of non-soldier player kills during raids take place on those actively participating in a defence party; inappropriate kills outside of this are extremely rare and are not something we approve of. The change outlined here simply means that going forward, non-soldiers who do engage in defence (as they are certainly welcome to do) will not be able to deny the enemy raid party tank charge, and also hopefully dissuades against mass-resignations from the army in order to be able to defend without contributing to the enemy win if you lose.
Regarding denizen contracts: this is something that people will need to find out in game.
Aegoth said:
A list shouldn't be given out, and it makes sense for this change to happen. The only problem I see is the mindset that murdering sentient denizens in a roleplaying game bears no consequences. You should instead try to realise that this is a living, breathing world, and murdering someone's dad/brother/mother will have consequences. Bashing should not be a safe, mindless action, and you absolutely deserve to be punished for killing the wrong thing. This change is a much needed and welcome thing in the grand scope of Achaea, making it the dangerous and fearful world it ought to be.
Okay, then make them denizen marks or champions that hunt you down, scaled based on the level you are at - not players. There, actions have consequences and players don't have to worry about getting ganked for engaging in PvE.
I have this bridge I want to sell you.
I mean if you think this will make the world 'dangerous and fearful' then you must be wanting to buy bridges too right?
Either people won't care (in which case failure making it feel dangerous and fearful) or people WILL care and in that case they won't do anything cause they fear the consequences (in which case what was the point? Make people not do activities in the game?)
How many people do we have with the thief marker again? They all deemed it not worth the effort and quit doing theft that generated infamy (so theft gone, which is what we wanted right?)
If you want denizens to hire, then it must be denizens that accept the contract, and they can't have 'magical infiltration' powers that means they get into places where they shouldn't be able to get in (because players can't get in there)
And you're just chasing the non-coms who are in the army with AR3+ out of their home city now. No reason to be there if you're gonna get attacked. Not everyone who's in the army is there because they enjoy PK
Actually yea, I might have to buy that bridge to cross over the river of tears that you're starting to make.
If you're AR3+, you're not a non-com. Get the fuck out of here
Ictinus said:
inappropriate kills outside of this are extremely rare and are not something we approve of.
Just to confirm, because this happened to me when I first started playing, continues happening to other players I speak with, and has been a point of concern with a few I've spoken with since the announcement - what is the proper recourse for non-combatants that are inappropriately targeted by city enemies in order to establish sanction or charge a tank? Should the targeted player file an issue against the offender?