It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Players are viewing denizens as just existing in a "zone" so to speak like this is an MMORPG.
In Mysia, we pick up voyages, talk to people about killing a kraken, they pay out exorbitant amounts of gold for completing these tasks on the seas. We do numerous quests for gold, interacting with the population and even have honors quest lines, which exist to demonstrate their connection with other zones historically, up to and including perhaps embarassing yourself with three other friends for the amusement of a denizen there. (IM TRYING TO NOT SPOILER OR GIVE OUT INFORMATION)
We share a port with them, theres trade associated with harbors, these arent just exclamation points over their heads saying collect 15 bear asses for a reward. It needs to be viewed as interaction with a community.
In Dun Valley, it is a militaristic barony, overseen by a denizen who ....is frequently laid to rest for his inherent iron fist. We as players are recognized for his culling, and in part earn said recognition for doing so. There is also large game to hunt, curious happenings to unfold, quests and other things which again, are from a player standpoint an interaction with a community.
If people are so staunch about RP and consequences for actions which....I have seen numerous threads about.
Why is it so contradictory when those actions effect PVE, and that consequence effects all aspects of the game. You want the cake, you must eat some too.
@Thaisen In response to your comment about them being viewed as bashing fodder for 20 years.
That is unfortunate, but it looks like the direction is to change that perspective, and change can be difficult, I understand that wholly.
Better to start adjusting to that change now, however, than argue it's existence.
This game has evolved alot over its....MANY YEARS.
We as a playerbase should evolve too.
"Players are viewing denizens as just existing in a "zone" so to speak like this is an MMORPG."
Achaea is an MMORPG. It says so right on the home page. "A Text RPG MMO Game".
"Why is it so contradictory when those actions go against PVE, and that consequence effects all aspects of the game."
Because there are players that either do not wish to engage in PvP, or in my case, cannot engage in PvP, and this change impacts the game for us. It may be minor now because it "only affects a handful of denizens", but what about down the road? Will it instead mean that any denizen with any tie to an organization, like the mhuns with GoM, will have rights to hire on players?
We have made multiple suggestions to align the consequences of these actions to PvE consequences, but constantly we are told "It's no big deal, either ignore the mobs or just learn PVP" and to be honest, that's more disheartening than the change is. It feels dismissive of the impediments to gameplay we face, it feels dismissive of any personal effects that we otherwise try to work around to enjoy the game, and it feels dismissive of me as a player.
All the suggestions I've made in the thread so far have been simply to protect players that do not want to or cannot dive into PvP. I have not made any statement or stance along the lines of "get rid of PvP", because I don't want to ruin anyone's PvP fun, all I'm asking is that people be considerate of those of us that cannot engage in that playstyle and work with us to come up with a solution that works for everyone so that Achaea can become a better game for everyone.
RPG MMO, is different than MMORPG.
I wont sit here and argue semantics on that, but it is a thing, its like comparing World of Warcraft to Final Fantasy 14
World of Warcraft is an MMORPG - Bear Asses for Gold and Bashing Fodder
Final Fantasy is an RPG MMO - Story Driven, Roleplayed..there are some aspects, but its far better written, has a better story, and frankly a better game (Sue me for my opinion)
This is a big generalization to the point being made, but its got merit at its core.
I think part of the problem is that Achaea at least appears to be a place where players can play how they want. Some people only log on to make designs and sell what they make. There's an entire House devoted to artistic endeavors. Some people like to run around and kill other players, and some people just want to go hunting. There's a perception that Achaea can be whatever kind of game we want it to be.
Personally I'd be content to spend days on end hunting denizens. Sometimes it's the routine of it, and sometimes it's the challenge. And some days I just like watching my numbers climb ever so slowly higher.
However, this change challenges that perception. Now people who only want to hunt denizens have to be more careful, or they'll be pulled into a part of the game they'd rather ignore. Regardless of why they want to ignore it, it's become harder to ignore pvp.
Whether or not this makes RP sense, or mechanical sense, or whatever, it still affects that ability to play Achaea the way you want.
Personally I'm ok with this change, just like I'm ok having a bounty put on me after a raid. However, I understand the players who would rather be strict pve players, and I can see why they're upset about these changes.
Slippery slope arguments are dull. That's not how the system currently works. You do not have to PvP, and it is not costing you anything to avoid the system.
Let's not talk about building a dam, the river isn't flooded yet.
There's a Dam?
I'm fine with things changing and evolving...just saying that a single line in an announce isn't gonna just make it magically happen. There is a TON of potential here having denizens fight back, adjusting rewards/punishments to encourage or discourage hunting certain denizens, the world actually changing around you depending on how frequently denizens in different areas are killed/not killed. I think it is pretty clear that gold/xp motivate people, but I think we have to find other methods of motivation to actually bring denizens up to par with adventurers if that is the end-goal.
I think it is great that you like questing and that gives you a feeling that the world is a little more "alive" but I kind of have a feeling you are in the minority there. And even the people who do like questing it almost turns into bashing at some point where you just go through the motions to get the reward at the end.
I think things like if there was some back and forth with rival denizen groups (orc/dwarves...ursu/taryen) depending on how adventurers interacted it could bring some interesting back and forth. Or if major settlements started taking stances against cities if their citizens hunted there too much. (I go and genocide Mohgedu a bunch and all of a sudden the Mhun start reacting differently to everyone in Cyrene, maybe individuals could still do enough "good deeds" to get off their shitlist too?). There have been a lot of good ideas in this thread even, but it's gonna take some work to change what has been built up over the last few RL decades.
@Gurklukke I won't argue semantics with you either, and I do agree that FFXIV is the superior game between WoW and FFXIV. That said, I find it disheartening that the rest of my post was seemingly ignored to focus on that, and it kind of adds to that feeling of dismissal I mentioned.
@Amranu Named mobs, can't kill them without getting a contract placed on your head. Lost gold, lost experience. It may not be a large cost to you, but it is a lost cost.
I do not disagree with you in that @Thaisen I think there is ALOT that can be improved upon in this process, and I suppose direction.
Like I was telling @Namino yesterday in discord, I think there is alot of potential here, I have seen stuff about NPC denizens, I have seen alot of ideas thrown around that have alot of merit.
I believe however, and it seems to have been made in Makarios posts here as well, is perhaps we should approach this differently, lets work together and compile some ideas along the same vein of this produced change. We the players and the administration/volunteers are all trying to drive forward the game in some way, I think we can definitely improve upon this, without outright denouncing it.
@Synthus Sorry trying to keep up, the threads update faster than I can type at work right now. I read some of your reasons previously for not engaging in PvP, and I get that, I truly do, there are times where PK gives me terrible panic and I just cant do it, I totally understand. There was a player in another MUD I played who was epileptic and pvp would give her seizures because of the scrolling text and stuff going by, and we as a community actively avoided engaging her in conflict. I think the warning system helps with that, but I also think that there are things to improve with the current system to work with your concerns as a player, im not an administrator so I mean....who am I...
Like I said to someone yesterday, its been what... 48 hours.... lets give them a moment to work out some kinks and present ideas.
@Gurklukke The problem is, every idea that has been presented by those who cannot (not do not feel like, mind you) take part in PvP has been shot down by those who enjoy it as "well, there's a warning in place", which is true enough in the case of PvE now involving PvP, but everyone seems to have ignored the fact that non-coms are now also open season during raids for powering tanks. This was brought up fairly early on and nearly everyone has just.. overlooked it because of the PvE suggestions to keep it as PvE. This is not a means to avoid interacting with other players, many of those who go out hunting still interact with others on a regular basis, including going out as a group, as was suggest previously by @Shecks as a means to avoid marks.
There have only been a few people who have outright denounced the change, and most of the people who are actively speaking about it are not them, they are the ones suggesting ways to make it so that everyone can still enjoy the game and not feel like the only option left to them is to leave. I personally really don't want to, I have been playing Achaea for nearly a decade, there's a reason for that. So rather than being dismissive about wanting to make changes that make things more fun for everyone rather than a select set of players, maybe find a way to, as you said, work together?
And now I'm going to be silent again until I get the shaking to stop...
@Gurklukke I'm sorry if I came off as snippy. It just feels like unless you support the PvP aspect of this 100%, you're being brushed aside. I am also grateful for the considerations you showed that player. Thank you.
I support denizens hitting back, evolving, and growing. I support a lot of the approaches that Thaisen does and the potential I think you do. I support your view that these denizens should not just feel like a connected part of this world but should be a connected part of this world. The only caveat is that I think this change specifically, since it changes a paradigm of the game, should have been run by players -before- it was ever pushed live, and this gamut of responses should have been run beforehand.
Like I said, it just feels like whenever anyone brings up that it should be a PvE consequence instead of a PvP one and they get brushed aside or told "it's not that big a deal" it feels like we're being told "Nope, PvP is the only answer to this, fuck your PvE recommendations." Personally that makes it feel like I don't really matter both as a player to the game and as a person on the other side of the monitor.
I really hate to beat around the ol bush here, but. Taking from another IRE game that I hear a lot about. The "influencing" style of bashing or whatever.
We could totally have influencing sentient denizens as a form of bashing that takes time, can be critted, etc. The denizen wouldn't die after the fact, but would be swayed. Call it Interactions instead of hunting. You get EXP, and potentially a paltry amount of gold (or some other item/resource that could be traded and/or used in place of gold). Would it be less experience than hunting? Probably, the idea is that you aren't killing people, and that it leaves the path open behind you for other people to attempt to Interact.
Basically. All I'm saying is: Give people a pacifist option or one to still gain exp/money but isn't, y'know. Wanton murder/slaughter.
That and expand hunting areas past like level 70 to include more wildlife etc. That way I can claim I'm Eleusian and ur hurting Nature and then pk you for it.
This argument will literally never end. PK haters will always say this is dumb, PK partakers will always say this is smart. Let's find solutions, not just "I don't like this because X".
The membership is already such a good deal that there is no way we can reduce the cost.
No one is (or reasonably should be) thinking this change is going to change the direction of the game overnight, or in a week, or in a month. Obviously such adjustments will take time, especially when trying to deviate from the normal patterns set decades before. That doesn't mean that making small changes at a time to try to subtly change that direction is a bad thing. With as much as this is probably changing on the back end (I can only imagine) it's probably better and more preferable for them to introduce small and subtle changes like this and evaluate how they affect the environment before continuing, rather than throwing out some large and impactful update that attempts to drastically change things in a more hard lined fashion, which I'm sure people would have even bigger issues with.
There is nothing I've heard or experienced about this update that suddenly makes it to where Marks are out there going on killing sprees to the point where people are feeling griefed. If anything, the only real tricky part I can see is that a lot of these denizens are also the only ones that drop talisman pieces. So it's definitely creating a bit of pause where people need to consider if it's worth the risk, and considering what the change is aimed to do, I don't think that's a bad thing. You have to kill them multiple times, while actively getting warned that doing so may result in a contract, so it seems like a very easy thing to avoid if you want to and very player friendly.
Over reacting on day 1 when there is little information about the new system available is okay.
Over reacting days later when information has addressed almost every concern is not.
Synthus - in general players can bash 99.99% of what you could before without any new consequences. You get a bright red warning when you attack a denizen that would put a contract out. You can then choose to not kill that denizen if you want.
This is a small change that isn't going to affect many people, and those that are affected have a very easy solution available.
This change enriches the world and makes it feel more real while having not having a real downside.
Thank you Makarios, Nicola, Ictinus, Rhianna, and any other admin/God role that was involved. This is a great addition.
@Synthus it is not every named mob, it is only very, very specific ones. I don't believe there's more than one in any given area that can hire, though it's possible I'm wrong.
For instance, Duke Semiro hires but the Duchess does not, nor does any other named mob in Sirocco.
Dunno if it was addressed or not, but um...
@Assai non-coms are not open season in raids. That change only means IF non-soldiers choose to participate in a defense, their deaths charge tanks. It doesn't make them open pk for raiders if they do NOT join the defense. Nothing's changed in terms of who you can or can't attack during raids. It's entirely opt-in by joining the army, or joining a individual defenses.
Non soldiers and city allies will now contribute to tank charging progress when slain during a sanction.
Nothing in there says anything about them needing to be a part of the raid defence. All that says to me is that when someone with "tsunami" or whatever the ability is called sweeps up defenders and non-coms alike and I end up getting killed because I happened to be standing in a room some distance from the fighting and the raiders didn't bother to sort out defender from non-com before attacking everyone, I help charge the tank.
I'll be perfectly clear on this. I don't defend even myself when this happens. My system may try to heal me, by I do not do anything because I am too busy trying to continue simply breathing. I can occasionally manage to get out of the room before dying, but that's not often that it happens and I'm still left in a state of panic for a good while after, to the point that I either log out or hide somewhere.
The only time it was addressed was @Synthus's idea for a pacification collar very early on in this thread, since then its been overlooked as far as I can see anyway.
I believe it was clarified here in the forums or something, but non-comms will help charge the tank, but standard pk rules still apply as to killing them in the first place. The attackers are still supposed to leave anyone alone that isn't actively defending.
I am probably going to be very unpopular for saying this, but some of the responses in these threads where people's conditions are being thrown about as pivot points ("I cannot PvP or I will become ill") make me feel held hostage a little bit.
Of course I have absolutely no desire to see anyone who plays Achaea end up sick or suffer for wanting to play it, and I am 100% certain that everybody reading this post feels the same way about it. But when things like this come to light, what else can it signal other than the notion that forcing these people in any way to engage beyond the limited realms they have available might possibly cause them, on the other end of the screen, to end up with actual bodily harm? I certainly don't want that at all!
The notion turns the act of playing the game into a constant source of new concern. Having read these testimonies, how can I now in good conscience attempt to engage with the Mark system knowing that if someone misses the initial warning that I could be potentially jumping someone who might end up hurt (or worse) in real life at all? How can I pivot towards engaging cities with substantial populations of people not directly engaged in combat and be confident there aren't similarly affected people that might suffer for it?
The fundamental underpinning of playing Achaea was (or at least, I thought was the case) that the general idea of engaging in a world highly prone to conflict (and with an array of classes with skills with which the vast, overwhelming majority of can only be used on players) was that players would inevitably clash and anyone continuing to engage with the game would be okay with that happening.
Now I am not so sure anymore, and the choice I am left with involves acquiescing to calls to dial back or limit changes that I don't fundamentally agree with from a narrative and gameplay perspective because of course I don't want to endorse or support anything that could see people physically hurt while trying to play with something they enjoy.
@Eurice The fact that facing that situation has caused you to stop and question means you're reacting the right way.
However, the truth is that if you follow HELP PK the odds of you causing someone else to have such a negative reaction is incredibly small, with the exception that you yourself pointed out, taking up a contract for a denizen and possibly attacking someone who missed the warning. Thankfully from what I've heard if you look at the contracts on the board you'll be able to tell if it's a denizen or adventurer contract, so even then it's preventable.
If you're following HELP PK you won't attack someone during a raid who's not actively defending their city. You won't attack someone who's trying to enter or leave their city because you're on their defendable trying to lure out combatants. You won't jump someone because they're hunting the same area as you are and you don't like that. (All three of these examples are things that have happened to me btw)
I don't want to come across as callous, but really the idea that someone would be physically harmed by someone killing their immortal character due to choices of killing members of what is billed as a living world in what is clearly and has clearly been a roleplay-centric, conflict-forward, PK-friendly text MMO is not on the population of the game to worry about. It's not a huge deal to play a different, less conflict-driven game if this one has a chance of being physically harmful. If your character is a peaceful homebody, what's so wrong about not committing genocide on denizen villages? If your character is a bloodthirsty serial killer who picks their teeth with the bones of Dun Valley orc children, perhaps it isn't so wrong for people to seek retribution and censorship of your actions via the Marks.
Conflict doesn't always have to be combat though.
When raiding a city, don't engage the people not engaging you. They may not be engaging you to protect themselves.
I did read the rest of your post but these two points were the most egregious.
Edit: pk with the people who want to pk and both sides will have fun and those issues/ooc fuck you tells will also go away.
I find concern too in particular with Synthus situation, since creating real life health problems for people over a game we enjoy can limit the game quite a bit for some, because I as Eurice don't play to just cause physical or psychological damage to other people. That being said I will describe this with a metaphor that can sume how I see this problem. This kind of arguement is like trying to leave pot (adrelinaline) and still hanging with your smoker friends (Achaea as a whole) you will still be exposed to the risk of relapsing into smoking again, or just breathing the smoke, while the true solution is just to stop hanging with them. I'm sorry to say this and I know this will be very unpopular, but being the one in charge of taking care of your health, if playing this game is still giving you anginal pain then you should for the sake of your heart just find other enjoyable activities in which you can have a better control over this. This is the equivalent of diabetics eliminating candies and sugar out of their diets, or the hypertensive reducing salt and having to do exercise to avoid long term complications. The solution can't be putting a burden to other people, who have no fault over it and may have caused you harm due to our ignorance of the situation. Hate me over this if you want, but if it's a real life situation it should have a higher priority than a virtual realm which should have no impact over your daily life.
@Goethe Please please please keep in mind what was recently posted in the Announce newsboard. The intent of Achaea is to provide a place where the PLAYER can feel safe, while the CHARACTER does not. There is zero reason why someone who has an adverse reaction to the high adrenaline activity of pvp shouldn't still be able to enjoy Achaea. Their PLAYER has every right to enjoy themselves and limiting their CHARACTER'S unsafe activities to hunting.
Absolutely, @Argwin, my argument is that hunting sentient creatures should not be a safe activity for their character in a living world. Which this change is meant to reinforce. There are and have been players who level up solely from pacifist activities in Achaea, and there are other games from IRE that emphasize that even more.
The denizens themselves make it plenty unsafe, depending on where and how you hunt.
I dont mind when I die in Achaea. Gives me a chance to grab a coffee, stretch my legs. I get frustrated if I'm jumped while doing something sure, but it is in fact a fantasy world. Its not just my daily bashing or renown I come back to achaea for. Its that random adventure, the unexpected situation you find your character in. The people you interact with, you had to have your first interaction with somehow.
I hear people acting like dying, even in your city to raiders is traumatizing. Why? Your character died. You dont even always lose exp. The characters are in fact fake and will be alive again in a few minutes. The sky really isn't falling... I like change, these seem good.