It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
@Accipiter I think you meant watch not deckhand as the specialization for determining who was on a ship. I think for most people, they will only concern themselves with the people who fired on then, instead of the level 40 person who was on the ship for a marque run. My plan will be business as usual.
Seems like a lot of this could be simply resolved with changes to XP loss.
You're kidding, aren't you? Might as well be playing farmville.
The biggest gripe seems to be relating to people getting PK'd and losing progress from hunting (i.e. XP loss), so not, being quite serious. I'm not sure how that seems to water down the experience any more than before these changes went into effect. Seems like a reasonable compromise. If you don't want life to be boring, join Mark, Dauntless, become Infamous.
You get multiple warnings when you kill a mob that will hire before they actually do. It's only very specific mobs. It's entirely opt-in, back to your regularly scheduled Achaea.
You'd think after ~24 years of watching players have knee-jerk reactions to almost every change ever that it might be a good idea to offer more information at release on topics you know players are going to have tons of questions about.
@Kresslack exp loss has already been effectively disabled. It's so small now that's is virtually negligible.
On the bright side if you win a fight vs the mark you gain exp, or if you're a Mark and get contracts, you gain exp (with both of these gains being so small they're virtually negligible, as well).
Just a thought :
The contracts should only be given as much gold or less than what could be feasible hunted in a single circuit of the area. Put a limiting factor on that faucet. Maybe make low level area contracts less appealing to take over higher end areas.
Tweaking the contract values is kind of a moot point, since everyone will soon know, village by village, who you can hit and who you can't hit (sounds like the Mafia). There will be no contracts, just untouchable villagers.
Serious Idea (to elaborate on my previous one):
Add a handful of NPCs worldwide (perhaps one per race or one per group of areas) who function as basically a Tavern for NPCs. If you kill a large amount of Atavians, the Atavians would basically go to the Atavian "bounty" NPC to put a hit on you. The message should include the name of the NPC who is holding the writ.
At this point, you get a message, and have 48 hours after which the hit will go out to either Assassins or Champions.
During this 48 hours, you have a short list of various ways the contract can be canceled. It could be random per interaction or it could just be one or two set ways to cancel the contract per NPC (e.g. Atavians don't take bribes, but will always accept corpses from opposing NPC faction as a quest and will drop your writ as a quest reward).
List of possible ways to cancel your writ:
Only way you get a Mark put on you is if you ignore the warning and take no action whatsoever.
I recognize that this would require quite a bit of coding and builder effort, but at the same time, I believe it totally resolves the "I hate all things PVP" crowd's issue, while keeping the current change in place as is, which a lot of us feel is a pretty awesome addition to the game.
As an additional idea, instead of hiring Marks, areas with city allies could put the hit up as a bounty in their allied city, instead of going to Marks. This would open up the system to more than just Marks. It makes perfect RP sense to do this, but more importantly it would far more often result in midbie-on-midbie bounties. The only downside is the "bounties don't drop until the person dies" effect which isn't true for Mark contracts, but that could be coded around for NPC bounties.
Additional idea: Add some way, at cost, to make yourself immune to this system for a fixed period of time. Maybe a singular NPC in Delos pub who you can pay off to give you a disguise that masks you from NPCs making them unable to recognize you and thus hire on you. I'm thinking like 100g per player level as a cost, for immunity for 1 Achaean year.
Far less fun than the above idea, but far easier to code. Needs to be tuned such that everyone doesn't just use it all the time. The idea of consequences for killing "people" is a great one, so it should not be a no-brainer to just toss a bit of gold to an NPC to ignore this.
Alternative to this:
Add a new talisman to the game that makes you immune to these contracts, or that can be used to cancel contracts, that drops only from NPCs. These should be rare such that a market for them evolves, such that bashing for them alone is not realistic but buying them on Market is a reasonable solution for people who want them.
Okay. I admit I didn't know that it was just one denizen in an area you can't hit any more. I had been optimistic and thought it was something more akin to "you have decimated this village 3 times in the last 24 hours so now the chief is putting a bounty on you" or "You're hated. You keep bashing the same place until you hit a certain point so now the chief puts a contract on you. This reset you back to hated, and if you keep bashing to a certain point the chief puts another contract on you.". My bad for assuming.
I still think NPC marks are a way to go, if not representatives from the village itself, generic Ivory or Quis mark NPC that can be scaled to the offenders level or degree of 'crime'.
@Tahquil - it's strange to me that being killed by a player Mark is horrible, but being killed in exactly the same fashion by an NPC mark is fine. The only element that I see here that is different in any way whatsoever is essentially the refusal to interact with players. Am I missing something?
Refusal to interact with specific players.
Because an NPC mark is a PvE encounter that is induced by engaging with PvE mechanics.
A player mark under normal circumstances (before this change) is a PvP encounter that is induced by engaging in PvP mechanics.
This crosses wires and forces PvE oriented players to engage with PvP or engage less with PvE. If you PK'd people too often and then got forced to kill a seamonster before you were allowed to continue PvPing, I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't be happy.
A lot of people currently advocating this change, in fact.
There is a chance that I could fend off the attacking NPC mark, making bashing a bit more thrilling.
There is a chance that I am going to get murked by some dude because marks are obviously going to have more experience than me.
I don’t know about y’all, but coming from the side that would be getting his shit pushed in, the first option sounds a lot more fun.
@Namino I think your point is well made, however the concept of a line separating PvP vs PvE is basically exactly what is being targeted here, as the line should really be between murdering sentient people, and non murdering sentient people, from an immersion / roleplay perspective. I completely understand and agree with you that this is a paradigm shift after 20 years of NOT doing this, but that doesn't necessarily make it wrong - I think the producer(s) could just take some steps to make that transition a bit more comfortable for people who are set in their ways.
10 RL years trying to understand combat.
Accepted his non-com status (not even army)
Helps novices bash, guidance, questions
So now to help novices, as a 106 level player, i either accept my death (which i honestly give zero fucks about) but possibly put my novices at risk, or I simply remove one of the few RP paths i enjoy in achaea from my day
Well that alongside the general fact that a simple mistake with membership credits has killed your 500$+ yearly revenue from one more player, and likely another gone as well.
and before anyone says its a relief not to have me interact with novices or be in the game, its not 2007. Get over it.
@Milabar - It's been mentioned a few times, but there are fairly few mobs that trigger contracts, and they all warn you when they do so. The warning line, as I've seen it, is highlighted in red and mentions a cowled figure watching you.
Honestly, don't think this will end up having a material effect on much of anything, to the degree that it's not clear what it's meant to do. It might actually even benefit noncoms, if it's applied liberally to required-for-quests denizens.
Oddly it hasn't been said, but it's worth mentioning that in the current state of Achaea, it's virtually impossible to kill someone who doesn't commit to staying to fight, assuming a very basic curing system and a couple hours worth of learning your escape/utility abilities. I think that is pretty relevant in the current discussion, as if you want to avoid PVP interaction, that's completely possible and quite easy even, even with a Contract on your head. As a person who's played marks for many years, I can promise you that you can avoid all PVP interaction quite easily if you really want to, even with a whole list of Contracts on you.
A single "deliver me" trigger completely negates this entire change, for Targossians for example.
ask for a bodyguard
hunt in groups
set up an ambush where Shecks and Atalkez pop in and lock the Mark who's coming after you (without you needing to attack). Then you just behead the mark, voiding the contract.
simply run, which has a 99% chance of working these days
bribe the mark to leave you alone
All of these interactions enrich the game by incentivizing you to talk to players and play with other plays instead of playing a single player farming simulator, which I think is the intent of this change.
Other ways you can completely negate this change that don't enrich the game are there too, such as:
using one of the 80 fast travel abilities / items that allow you to teleport to safety instantly
wait out your contract in safety
don't bash the things that warn you that they're going to hire
Just bash when the Mark isn't around
Ships. (f--- ships)
I'm a little worried about the IC aspects of it. Like, if Duke Semiro hires a Mark--what does that say about the role of the Mark organisations in the world? They were founded on Sapience; are they known (and trusted) on Meropis too? How did they gain that trust? If one of the chieftains on Earth Plane hires a Mark--are the Marks known across planes? If Blackrock hires a Mark--don't their beliefs say not to rely on anyone but Evil?
In some cases, the response could be something else. I would expect more powerful (or more prideful) societies to take matters into their own hands rather than rely on Marks to defend them. Some communities may be more open to alliances--Mysia might want to forge ties with POM, for example, so they'd take care of their defense that way. Others may have an enemy status that persists until it is revolved. There are lots of different ways the conflict could play out.
Lastly, I'm not sure why the emphasis on communities (e.g. You have fulfilled the contract on X on behalf of Mysia). A denizen like Hycanthus, for example, is notable enough to respond to simply being murdered out of the blue, but isn't in any particular village. Not powerful ones like Z though (or Yudhi, who explicitly welcomes duels). That said, it would be kind of funny if a group of 10 took out Z and then he came after them one by one.
@shecks it's not even about pve or pvp is my suggestion for npc marks. It's about the ability to scale and give pve ers a chance to fight back on a style they are knowledgeable in and not just Mizik/Eryl/whoever is mark these days steamroll over someone because the pissed of the goblin village.
No offense to those guys. But they are pretty much assured death.
Before someone says JuSt LeArN CoMbAt fuck you. That's all. Just, fuck you.
(BTW, if people wanna say my opinion is bias because I don't want to be hunted by marks : these changes make no difference to me because of the places I choose to hunt.)
Still my favorite Tahquil!
Shecks, I havent had time to login since the changes so take this w a grain of salt, but pretty much all of your options either put more people at risk (you and Atalkez can't be around all day), or force people specifically trying NOT to opt in to PvP for various reasons into PvP.
IDGAF about dying (but I enjoy trying to make it difficult if I can). I have started and restarted a "system" about 100x so if I want to log in and work on it so I CAN get into PvP more, I don't want someone dropping in and murderballing me (because they almost aleays do it when I have a shitty loop that rekx me.). I can totally see how that would turn off newer players. I generally enjoyed being able to come back after my years off and ease into everything. It also fits pretty well with my mostly-retired-from-fighting RP until I have time to get back into it, wgich may never happen at this point, but being dragged in while specifically only engaging in defense/some offense (retal) is a massive turnoff.
tl;dr: I understand the point of the changes and dont disagree 100% w them but I sympathize with those who do not want to engage in PvP for whatever reason.
I don't know why we're still discussing this change like it forces anyone into pvp. It doesn't, unless they go around ignoring bright red warnings multiple times telling them they're going to get hired on if they kill very specific mobs. If that happens, that is entirely on them.
I think these changes sound great. Like Amranu is saying, it's opt-in. Encouraging inter-city and Mark conflict is a good thing. Giving denizens more teeth to protect themselves in the world is a good thing. Not having to participate if you never want to touch PvP also seems super easy. I don't see where the actual rub is for people here even though I've read the disputing posts, the actions and consequences seem cut-and-dried and encouraging for both RP depth and PvP from where I'm standing.
@Amranu Because killing a mob that otherwise has no connection to the world is a PVE action and should not incur PvP consequences unless done specifically in a PvP manner - such as guard bashing or killing mobs that are loyal to player-joinable organizations. Going to Mysia, Sirocco, or Dun Fortress and killing the wrong named mob should not give free license to a Mark to come kill you. The only exception to this in my mind is with the Guardians of Moghedu, which if killing the Mhuns in Moghedu is consider a hirable action, then that means all other mobs in the game with even the faintest of connections to any organization are too. Hunting blackrock? Hirable by Mhaldor, Order of Sartan, Order of Phaestus, and members of the Kongol Drak because you're killing dwarves.
The other concern I have is that this is just one step down a road that otherwise may continue to shift the delineation between PvP and PvE toward being non-existent, and as I have previously mentioned, if that happens, I have to step away from the game for aspects that are sadly beyond my control.
I'm also of the opinion that if the administration wanted these mobs to be hunted less or not attacked at all, they should have given them the same invincibility/can't-be-hit flag they gave quest mobs in the starting zones instead. It would also mean quest givers are off the loot tables and always available for puppeting if need be.
@Goethe The rub is that a different style of gameplay is being leveraged against players that enjoy another style entirely. As was mentioned in a few earlier posts, it's like saying every dozen contracts you have to go seamonster hunting to be able to take on more contracts, or having to design a shirt that gets approved before you can out killing again. It might not be a 1-to-1 analogy since the mobs that are affected by this are a smaller scope, but the principle at the core of it ( PVP justification for a non-factional PVE action ) is the issue that several of us are taking exception to.
"Because killing a mob that otherwise has no connection to the world"
This introductory statement is the primary issue with the logic being presented....denizens are being viewed as bashing fodder, and not part of the living world.
This change, the BIG RED WARNINGS, the presented effect is to demonstrate that they DO have a connection to the world.
@Gurklukke What connection does the barony of Dun Valley have outside Dun Valley? What connection do the pirates of Mysia have outside of Mysia?
Other than a few footnotes in events where adventurers have been the driving points of those interactions, there have been no connections made to my knowledge. Those connections have never been established before, and they are only now being established with these warnings? I find that suspect.
If, however, I am misunderstanding your statement and that what you are saying is "they are part of the world" in the sense that they exist in the world, then that I don't dispute. I do, however, dispute that they would turn to the Quisalis Mark or Dauntless Correction: Ivory Mark, organizations that actively employ Adventurers/Players to engage in PvP, to see themselves avenged, both from an IC and OOC standpoint.
I would much rather, both IC'ly/OOC'ly, see relevant NPC/Denizen factions take that responsibility on. Hell, if it has to stay with the Quaslis/Ivory, have denizen assassin or denizen champions attack you for it, but not players.
@Shecks XP loss only feels negligible, from what I've heard and experienced, if you're 99+. At around 93 it gets a little less worse, before up until that point it's pretty horrible. If it were so negligible so as not to be a notice, despite it seemingly being one of the main gripes about these changes, then why not just disable it anyway?
But they don't really...maybe someday... They have been treated like bashing fodder because they have been presented as bashing fodder for 20 years. It's gonna take more than a mark coming after people every once in a while to change that.