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
Comments
In my experience, a good chunk of the time I've gotten prismed to has been when people want to start some skirmishing in the subs, and honestly, that risk alone tends to make player housing feel more risky then most other places in the game. I don't think that player housing should be completely secure, but I think a private home should be a measure safer then going completely afk on a guardstack.
Locking someone and forcing mushroom is an actual attack, which you need a valid reason for, and that's the only way I can really think of getting into a house that isn't being a soul (which we've all agreed is a bad mechanic, and one ought to be able to guard against with an upgrade for the entrance.
I really don't get it. You can already literally prevent people from prisming into your house, so what's the issue?
I feel like if I can't interrupt your roleplay by starting a radiance on you, I probably shouldn't be able to interrupt it by prisming in and inviting a raid group.
Actual question.
The fine balance that I want to achieve here is to make the aggressor share the burden. If you want to be a pest, then you should face the consequences of it and they should be harsh enough that you should have a really good reason for wanting to go through with it.
What I am not advocating for and what will not be accepted is to make houses risk free unless you pay for it. It's true that quality intruder interaction is few and far between, and those championing it should not pretend that this isn't the case. But to shut down all potential for it by default would be a pity, and a clumsy fix.
However, as said earlier, it is unfair to put the responsibility for avoiding that interaction solely on the part of the homeowner, who always plays a passive role in this interaction. They can't choose when, where and how it takes place, like an intruder can. Intruders are under no obligation to make the interaction interesting for the victim besides the goodness of their hearts (and we know how reliable that is), so what we need is a deterrent that will weed out the lulzers from those who really do go in intending to start a meaningful interaction.
Ideally, I strongly favour something that isn't hardcoded; I want to put the responsibility on the player, to force the instigator to make an active choice. Is it really worth prisming to someone if you know you'll be hunted by Marks afterwards, for example? Especially if it's just to be a nuisance. Hiring is the only thing I can think of that meets this criteria and feeds Marks. Perhaps other ideas should think along these lines: a player centric deterrent rather than something hardcoded. That still leaves the door open (pun intended) for those who have something meaningful to say and do, and hopefully whittles down those who do not.
Stories by Jurixe and Stories by Jurixe 2
Interested in joining a Discord about Achaean RP? Want to comment on RP topics or have RP questions? Check the Achaean RP Resource out here: https://discord.gg/Vbb9Zfs
It's obtuse to expect IC repercussions to make a thing disappear entirely. They're there to make it actually dangerous for the perpetrator and to deter johnny angrynoob from doing it.
The issue is people think IC repercussions should just be reskinned OOC repercussions--effective outlawing and banning, just under a flag that allows them to claim it's roleplay.
Like Jurixe said, protections put in place should be available if you want to work to get them. Housing shouldn't be made safe by pk law, it should be made safe by investment.
At this very moment, unless there's a monk involved who's attacking you (forcing undeaf to force is an attack, as it strips a defence) or something similarly gimmicky that skirts the line between acceptable and not, there is a 100% reliable way of making it impossible for someone to prism to you in the middle of your scenes. If you think housing's too expensive, then fine, that's a conversation that can be had. But don't make it about pk law, because the move away from pk lawyering has by and large been a good thing, and the admins have made it pretty clear they don't want to hardcode consequence into Achaean interaction (just because you don't like it, for the record, doesn't make it an invalid form of interaction).
ETA: I will say that OoS plots might need a little bit stronger defences than in-subs ones, given that you can't lay City charges against them/they can linger in an area all they want and aren't defended by a City's worth of security people. Not sure what the solution is there, but it's worth thinking about, to be sure.
It's the 'prism in and hit ^graball$' that really fucks with a player.
Little anecdote: Going back to when I first came back to playing, I managed to convince the chancellor of Targ to rent me a shop. In preparation for this I began to make and horde minerals and inks. I got to about 600K worth of product (5gp minerals then - so can double that nowadays).
Error 1 : Stored all of this stuff in my house.
Error 2 : I went mindless in that room.
Three people decided to prism in and took everything.
Now, all my own fault of course, it could absolutely have been prevented.
However, in this situation I lost literally everything I'd done that week - 60 hours or so of effort. And the thieves stood to lose: .1% XP from a mark hit.
-----------------------
It's the complete lack of balance in these scenarios that needs to be addressed.
So you want security to just be what... Free?
They aren't storerooms. You aren't supposed to be leaving 600k of non-decaying, easily stolen items in them. The admin are always telling us that making things non-decay takes up server space, they made minerals and herbs non-decay as a benefit to us and people abuse it by leaving dozens of items on the ground instead of picking them up and storing them in the nice, data unintensive rift.
If you were talking about sweet stuff you got from a fair that you made non-decay or something you would have my sympathy, but this sort of crap is what ruins stuff for the rest of us.
The problem is that PK is only a meaningful deterrent for people who actively don't like PK. People who steal/prism into houses in enemy cities either like or accept it. If someone finds dueling fun, or is mark/dauntless already, then how is a mark/infamy/whatever supposed to be a consequence in the first place?
Is everyone in this thread complaining about them not being safe enough to use trying to 'display' a massive pile of herbs and gold? I thought they had some legitimate points but if that is the case then I am against any changes unless minerals and herbs get a decay time again. Say an hour out of rift would be good.
Rifts aren't limitless. Houses also aren't the only places that can be stolen from in the described way. If this is your argument, then you're right that you haven't been reading/following the thread very well.
I agree houses shouldn't be used as defacto storerooms. But being able to display a nice vase or a family heirloom should be facilitated.
That said, I don't mind more risk on behalf of the perpetrators. What about prism giving more infamy, and then a big chunk more infamy when they go through, unless it's to a citymate or mutual ally? Then the perp has to decide between being a nuisance, and having a target for all the Dunns and Proficy's and Atalkez's of the world. It won't stop it, but it'll deter it. Also homeOWNERS have absolutely every right to hire on the perp. Then there's a mark and every dauntless or infamous dude can go after the now-infamous nuisance. I already check to see what's inside the room to see if there's even a chance for loot. No containers, nothing on the floor and I won't bother. Being a nuisance just for the sake of being a nuisance isn't appealing, to me, at least.
Also I'm in favour of containers being more secure for display purposes. I'm not sure how I feel about 100% safe storage for commodities, herbs and inks, things that can be replaced. But I do think some protection for those rare and cherished items you want to display should exist.
I don't get to play a lot right now, so the hour or two when I can play I try to maximise by checking in on my proteges, advance some planning with peers, etc. But when a pest wants to come and bother us, even in the privacy of a house, all that is lost. I have to put it off for another day, and there's only a small chance that I can get the necessary people together again.
PK is not enough of a deterrent for pests, but it's a monumental inconvenience for their victims. Saying "well you should have done X and you wouldn't have been assaulted" is terrible, like saying you should have worn unflattering clothes if you did't want to be harassed. It reinforces the idea that the victims are at fault if something bad happens to them.
Edit: this is to @Accipiter
For the record, in real life, you can't literally make it impossible to be sexually assaulted, whereas in Achaea, you can literally make it impossible to be prismed to. So get anti-prism in the room you're planning to roleplay, and tada! You won't be bothered again!
And again, the no-prism thing? It only stops so much, and furthermore, it still places all of the burden on the potential victims.
Can we stop on the prism shit already? To keep this in a DECENT place:
*lockable containers in furnishing for owners
*display ability for people to display stuff safely without paying for non decay and resetting
*OoS houses having access to greater security
These things seem to be commonly agreed as good changes, can we focus on potentially more things to help housing?