Conflict and mass PvP.

An area to facilitate free-form feedback on systems (in-game or out) related to Arelith.

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Active DMs, Contributors

Babylon System is the Vampire
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2019 10:14 am

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by Babylon System is the Vampire » Fri Aug 19, 2022 12:08 am

Xerah wrote:
Thu Aug 18, 2022 7:30 pm
I love the capturable islands idea a lot even if it's not the thing I that I'm really into spending my time with. It's actually gives something tangible that people can fight over and win. Obviously, there would be a lot more to the idea so that one group doesn't fill up with optimal pvpers and take over everything forever, but it's a fun framework of an idea.

I'd like to see it be multiple islands rather than just one though.

100% agree with this.

As for pvp in dungeons, I'm totally cool with it. Yeah, I suppose it would suck if an epic level character came and killed my level 12 in a dungeon meant for me, but I've never had that happen and even if I did I would chalk it up to my community service for the day. If someone is sad enough to beat up on characters half their level just for the sake of it they probably needed the win more then I needed the 3 minutes or so of my life they wasted.

User avatar
Edens_Fall
Arelith Supporter
Arelith Supporter
Posts: 1065
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2019 7:45 am
Location: North America

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by Edens_Fall » Fri Aug 19, 2022 12:28 am

Mattamue wrote:
Thu Aug 18, 2022 9:04 pm
WanderingPoet wrote:
Thu Aug 18, 2022 8:37 pm
Making it separate from mainland arelith makes them no longer obligatory to deal with.
Agreed on this, but Syb or Sencliff sort of already fill this role.
Not really. Not everyone had a chance to control these two areas. Sencliff is locked behind the ink and Sibayad is controlled by the Merchant League who hates conflict which disturbs trade.

User avatar
Mattamue
Arelith Silver Supporter
Arelith Silver Supporter
Posts: 468
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2018 1:45 am

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by Mattamue » Fri Aug 19, 2022 12:38 am

Edens_Fall wrote:
Fri Aug 19, 2022 12:28 am
Sencliff is locked behind the ink and Sibayad is controlled by the Merchant League who hates conflict which disturbs trade.
Are those DM rulings?

Who is the audience for this post?


Arienette
Arelith Platinum Supporter
Arelith Platinum Supporter
Posts: 352
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2019 12:56 pm

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by Arienette » Fri Aug 19, 2022 12:41 am

This already exists, sort of.

RDI, lowerdark dungeons, Avernus, etc.

These are areas that have endgame rewards, are not writ areas, are only trafficked by epic characters, etc. I would say MOST PvP I have been in has been as a result of running into “the other side” in these areas.

I always approach these areas with the assumption I could run into enemies in these places and act accordingly. I would not say people go to these places specifically to PvP but I’ve definitely heard Drow say something along the lines of “let’s go hunt for treasure on RDI. Maybe we will get lucky and kill some elves and take a slave or two.” I’ve also seen “kobolds have been spotted in *insert epic surface dungeon* a lot lately. Let’s see if we can find a runic materials and maybe clear out some kobolds.”

And so on.

User avatar
Morgy
Arelith Platinum Supporter
Arelith Platinum Supporter
Posts: 720
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2019 3:08 pm

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by Morgy » Fri Aug 19, 2022 12:56 am

I just see the idea of pvp zones almost too.. gamey. I don’t think we ought to be encouraging non-arena competitive combat anymore than it is already at present - and I quite enjoy a bit of pvp. I’m worried it’d end up more like a WoW battleground. Contestable zones are already sort of a thing with popular high level dungeons as pointed out.

Richrd
Posts: 141
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2020 3:03 pm

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by Richrd » Fri Aug 19, 2022 1:03 am

Tesla420 wrote:
Thu Aug 18, 2022 4:06 pm
This thread was created as a direct response to a thread in general.

It is my opinion that a lot of people on the server really desire a safe place where they can go and create conflict with the expectation that they are not ruining someone else's OOC day or killing lower level unprepared players.

In another thread, people touched on the idea of a possible island where max level characters can go with the expectation that they will run into conflict in one form or another.
That island exists already.

Arelith.


But the mean joke aside, I agree with the sentiment that this would further turn Arelith into an MMO and less and less of a real roleplay experience.

PvP is meant to happen organically. If the community on Arelith has devolved so much that there's now a need for a dedicated PvP arena then here's my suggestion.
Just go to the test server. Done.

xf1313
Posts: 389
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2019 9:39 am
Location: China

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by xf1313 » Fri Aug 19, 2022 2:00 am

Yvesza wrote:
Thu Aug 18, 2022 8:31 pm
I really dislike the notion of people complaining about "writ workers" being killed as is if it's inconsiderate or morally bankrupt to attack them. It's a lot of OOC bleed to find it somehow more reprehensible to attack working adventurers who are going out of their way to fight things for money versus picking a fight with someone that isn't currently "on the clock" as it were.
Happened to me and I was pretty mad. Because I played weak character, waited days if not weeks to finally get someone to help. Then got killed and had to log off... Then repeat the days of waiting hope to clear that writ LOL. It was not fun on my side, and for a split second I wanted to make all my future toons pvp meta, always move with OOC friends so if someone try that again they will feel the pain.

Most players are nice thou
Wild-elf Druid Laurifin Goldenleaf
Drow shadowlord Lomin Nightshade

User avatar
TroubledWaters
Posts: 153
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 7:10 pm

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by TroubledWaters » Fri Aug 19, 2022 4:25 am

Tesla420 wrote:
Thu Aug 18, 2022 4:06 pm
It is my opinion that a lot of people on the server really desire a safe place where they can go and create conflict with the expectation that they are not ruining someone else's OOC day or killing lower level unprepared players.
Conflict that only takes place in a zone separate from the rest of the setting isn't really conflict. It's just a fight that happened somewhere else that matters for nothing, adds no story value, and could just happen on the PGCC.

Why bother?

User avatar
Hazard
Posts: 1866
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:27 am

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by Hazard » Fri Aug 19, 2022 6:16 am

I've never seen the 'attacking writ-workers' as OOC bleed personally. I'm not going to stop mentioning a thing that happens IC, ICly, just because some people would like to assume I mean something that I don't. To me, bringing up the fact writ-workers are regularly being targeted makes perfect IC sense to answer the question "Why should the settlement care about this?" .. Well, the settlement sent those people out there, to do that work for the isle or whatever the reason is they do it. It's a lot like saying the trade route is being blocked by a group of bandits, or the enemy is targeting our farmlands.

If you don't want people to mention writ-workers, then why is there writ-workers? Someone is paying them to do real things that are IC. It's not just an OOC leveling system to go through the motions of until you're 30 and geared.

And mentioning that an enemy only attacks weaker inexperienced targets. There's nothing wrong with that. Levels don't exist in-character, but power obviously does. If your enemy can only defeat the weakest and least experienced adventurers around, and just runs away when anyone that can match them shows up, then that is a real IC thing to point out.

Example: Bobby the Serial killer is perfectly content to wait around an area where people go to fight against the goblin threat for his next target. He is not perfectly content to go do the same outside the dragon's lair... and should one of those dragon slayers decide to come visit the goblins, Bobby will run away.

I feel like the mentions of OOC bleed, might actually be ... OOC bleed :P

godhand-
Arelith Gold Supporter
Arelith Gold Supporter
Posts: 244
Joined: Sat May 14, 2016 1:38 am
Location: Sydney Australia

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by godhand- » Fri Aug 19, 2022 6:29 am

Hazard wrote:
Fri Aug 19, 2022 6:16 am
I've never seen the 'attacking writ-workers' as OOC bleed personally. I'm not going to stop mentioning a thing that happens IC, ICly, just because some people would like to assume I mean something that I don't. To me, bringing up the fact writ-workers are regularly being targeted makes perfect IC sense to answer the question "Why should the settlement care about this?" .. Well, the settlement sent those people out there, to do that work for the isle or whatever the reason is they do it. It's a lot like saying the trade route is being blocked by a group of bandits, or the enemy is targeting our farmlands.
Mayhaps the writs gold value should be paid out from the settlements bank account. Tell ya what, that'd give the people running the settlements a real reason to care about it.

In my view, it is easy as a resident/ruler/guard of a settlement to treat the responsibilities of ruling and defending the settlement and its people as seperate from the npc "registry agents" who handles tasks for adventurers.
(Said in another way..... The NPC registry agents operate individual to the settlement and thus not my problem)

I know some in this thread said it makes sense that they should protect their settlements writ space - but i don't think the average player considers that when doing guard patrols etc. Me, myself, I just don't connect those dots.
If i'm playing a cordor guard, and someone says "theres bandits at the bullywugs!"
"Well, thats outside my juristiction why should i care?"

I think this is further reinforced when multiple settlements/registry agents give out the same writs. If you want writs to be protected by a settlement they should only be handed out by said settlement.
Cortex wrote: Addendum, the immediate above post by godhand is wrong in about every aspect, as were most of his other posts.

User avatar
Aren
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 687
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 10:27 pm
Location: GMT+1

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by Aren » Fri Aug 19, 2022 6:56 am

I, personally, would love to see some mechanical benefit to fight over. Ressources / settlement benefits, access to certain parts of the server etc.
Ideally there would be a significant cost to laying siege, such that it couldn’t be done every other week.
The faction that holds the captured resources / town / city, would need to pay for guards and upkeep.
This would give players something tangible to fight / do politics / roleplay over.

".. the other number that isn't 18." - Jack Oat
".. but- someone is still pumping the brakes sometimes, right? ...right?" - Batcountry


User avatar
Hazard
Posts: 1866
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:27 am

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by Hazard » Fri Aug 19, 2022 7:11 am

godhand- wrote:
Fri Aug 19, 2022 6:29 am
Hazard wrote:
Fri Aug 19, 2022 6:16 am
I've never seen the 'attacking writ-workers' as OOC bleed personally. I'm not going to stop mentioning a thing that happens IC, ICly, just because some people would like to assume I mean something that I don't. To me, bringing up the fact writ-workers are regularly being targeted makes perfect IC sense to answer the question "Why should the settlement care about this?" .. Well, the settlement sent those people out there, to do that work for the isle or whatever the reason is they do it. It's a lot like saying the trade route is being blocked by a group of bandits, or the enemy is targeting our farmlands.
Mayhaps the writs gold value should be paid out from the settlements bank account. Tell ya what, that'd give the people running the settlements a real reason to care about it.

In my view, it is easy as a resident/ruler/guard of a settlement to treat the responsibilities of ruling and defending the settlement and its people as seperate from the npc "registry agents" who handles tasks for adventurers.
(Said in another way..... The NPC registry agents operate individual to the settlement and thus not my problem)

I know some in this thread said it makes sense that they should protect their settlements writ space - but i don't think the average player considers that when doing guard patrols etc. Me, myself, I just don't connect those dots.
If i'm playing a cordor guard, and someone says "theres bandits at the bullywugs!"
"Well, thats outside my juristiction why should i care?"

I think this is further reinforced when multiple settlements/registry agents give out the same writs. If you want writs to be protected by a settlement they should only be handed out by said settlement.
Most times I've seen people mention 'writ-workers' being attacked in any RP that results in guards stepping in, it has been writs actually inside the jurisdiction, like Cordor Sewers, Cordors Mines, or the Bramble.

Beyond that, I'd agree. Not a guards job and weird to mention, because it's just adventurers doing adventures at that point.

User avatar
Hazard
Posts: 1866
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2018 8:27 am

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by Hazard » Fri Aug 19, 2022 7:12 am

Aren wrote:
Fri Aug 19, 2022 6:56 am
I, personally, would love to see some mechanical benefit to fight over. Ressources / settlement benefits, access to certain parts of the server etc.
Ideally there would be a significant cost to laying siege, such that it couldn’t be done every other week.
The faction that holds the captured resources / town / city, would need to pay for guards and upkeep.
This would give players something tangible to fight / do politics / roleplay over.
I'd like this too. Actual pvp objectives that can be won/lost, and have benefits would do a lot to dispel the toxicity of the current pvp culture, which I think comes from a place of frustration because no one can accomplish anything.

Kinda like the old settlement war system we used to have, but like.. Yknow. Better and good :P

Tesla420
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2021 2:00 am

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by Tesla420 » Fri Aug 19, 2022 9:05 am

In my personal opinion the natural progression of a faction involved in a city is.

Start a nobody.

Grow followers.

Take a position of power.

Take a place in government.

Run government.

Recruit for an army.

Form an army.

????

Just feels like the end of the story. The best part. The climax. Where you take your victory over your city and you go head to head against another powerful PC who also formed a faction is completely missing? Am I the only way that feels that way? I just wish I could affect the in game world in a more meaningful way.
Gregor Blackbreath, Elindros Ama'Alar

perseid
Posts: 333
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2021 7:01 am

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by perseid » Fri Aug 19, 2022 9:31 am

Hazard wrote:
Fri Aug 19, 2022 7:11 am
godhand- wrote:
Fri Aug 19, 2022 6:29 am
Hazard wrote:
Fri Aug 19, 2022 6:16 am
I've never seen the 'attacking writ-workers' as OOC bleed personally. I'm not going to stop mentioning a thing that happens IC, ICly, just because some people would like to assume I mean something that I don't. To me, bringing up the fact writ-workers are regularly being targeted makes perfect IC sense to answer the question "Why should the settlement care about this?" .. Well, the settlement sent those people out there, to do that work for the isle or whatever the reason is they do it. It's a lot like saying the trade route is being blocked by a group of bandits, or the enemy is targeting our farmlands.
Mayhaps the writs gold value should be paid out from the settlements bank account. Tell ya what, that'd give the people running the settlements a real reason to care about it.

In my view, it is easy as a resident/ruler/guard of a settlement to treat the responsibilities of ruling and defending the settlement and its people as seperate from the npc "registry agents" who handles tasks for adventurers.
(Said in another way..... The NPC registry agents operate individual to the settlement and thus not my problem)

I know some in this thread said it makes sense that they should protect their settlements writ space - but i don't think the average player considers that when doing guard patrols etc. Me, myself, I just don't connect those dots.
If i'm playing a cordor guard, and someone says "theres bandits at the bullywugs!"
"Well, thats outside my juristiction why should i care?"

I think this is further reinforced when multiple settlements/registry agents give out the same writs. If you want writs to be protected by a settlement they should only be handed out by said settlement.
Most times I've seen people mention 'writ-workers' being attacked in any RP that results in guards stepping in, it has been writs actually inside the jurisdiction, like Cordor Sewers, Cordors Mines, or the Bramble.

Beyond that, I'd agree. Not a guards job and weird to mention, because it's just adventurers doing adventures at that point.
From an IC perspective I don't think there's enough lore to make a call one way or the other as far as the role the Trackless Sea adventuring company plays on the island (or if there is I haven't encountered it). But in theory the explanation isn't that complicated at all. The writ workers are performing a service that usually involves culling one thing or another. A city would have an interest in protecting their writ workers because otherwise they need to send much more capable and specialized people, like the guard, to handle those tasks. You send the level 30 to protect the level 10 workers ability to operate 'as normal' because you'd rather be able to leave the work the level 10s are doing to the level 10s. You can fluff that up with lots of things like the 30 being more 'experienced' or whatever but the economics of why you'd want to be able to use cheaper workers to address a problem are pretty straightforward and most writs deal with killing things that if left unchecked would become problems for the settlements in whose territory they occupy. At least that's how it always made sense to me given that quite often adventuring companies provide adventurers to both individuals and cities.

riffraff
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2022 4:15 pm

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by riffraff » Fri Aug 19, 2022 10:50 am

I assume every time I step outside of a settlement, there's a chance I might get attacked by another player. PVP is fully enabled, there's no reason not to assume it. IC there's no reason not to assume that the island constantly talked about as being very dangerous is indeed, very dangerous outside of city walls (and sometimes inside them!) Granted, this is probably helped by playing a rather paranoid character, but the OOC informed the IC (and vice versa).

If someone is camping low level writ areas just to beat up we <30s, then it seems a clear violation of the Be Nice rule, doesn't it? There's a difference to being attacked on the road and being murdered doing a dungeon (though there can still potentially be decent RP behind it).

Maybe it's the times I play, but so far I've personally encountered exactly one PVP scenario. It was with someone clearly more powerful than me (judging by gear), an "underdarker" who was hunting along the road. I assumed I was going to get horribly murdered, both IC and OOC. But my character managed to talk him out of it (predominantly because he agreed my character wouldn't be a challenge for him). It was tense and fun. If PVP got moved away or suddenly there was a need to baby lower levels, I wouldn't have had that fun little RP experience.

I'm not saying people should PVP whoever and wherever without thought - of course they should be thoughtful. If they're killing people minding their own business in the crossfire of their vendetta with whoever... Well, I'm pretty sure that's one of the examples on the wiki of what not to do.

The fixation on specifically protecting "writworkers" or lower levels seems a bit much? Guards could patrol the roads, yes (and arguably should if areas are in their jurisdiction), but that should be to protect anyone. IC the assumption should surely be that anyone is potentially in need of aid from attackers, not just the weaklings. OOC I'm sure even when I hit level 30 I will still be absolutely terrible in PVP and still very much in need of rescuing by a big, strong guard. Or, heck, might encounter a group and be outnumbered.

Please don't judge me by my level. IC judge me by my clear desire not to be caught in a sudden confrontation regardless of my assumed occupation. OOC judge me by my horrible lack of skill and my likely terribly sub-optimal build.
cold chuckle

Good Character
Posts: 898
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:37 pm

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by Good Character » Fri Aug 19, 2022 1:10 pm

Aren wrote:
Fri Aug 19, 2022 6:56 am
I, personally, would love to see some mechanical benefit to fight over. Ressources / settlement benefits, access to certain parts of the server etc.
Ideally there would be a significant cost to laying siege, such that it couldn’t be done every other week.
The faction that holds the captured resources / town / city, would need to pay for guards and upkeep.
This would give players something tangible to fight / do politics / roleplay over.
I am also in this boat. I have twos gripe, and both are primarily a concern about OOC availability. One is just about the potential system that's needed.

1. Reigns will fall with ease if players opt out of farming while others will feel ceaseless because they have players who can constantly play and farm.

2. If we want to allow fluid, consistent raids, then we need some sort of 'plug' (for a lack of a better word). Guards are certainly a good start, but it's easy to manipulate/cheese AI. The issue is that the fun of politics, deception, and everything relative is it's all for naught if players who have more time to earn money (and in turn supplies) and raid constantly till the settlement burns out its mechanical resources.

3. Faction system will need some overhauling. It will need to allow players assigned to a faction to hostile an entire other faction all at once, and not permit players to be in two factions that are hostile to one another to prevent mechanical abuse.

If we could address those issues, I think we could really enjoy conflicts like that. Some potential fixes:

1. Continue to allow players to farm for resources on their own time, but they won't have a significant impact. Instead, have nodes available that can be monitored and ambushed. For an example, a coal mine could act as a node; X times per week that node opens up allowing individuals, likely ones authorized mechanically by the settlement, from the settlement to escort the coal to the settlement - delivering it provides a large yield to your resource count. We could use the courier mechanic to do this, so those who die carrying them will drop their packages.

The node itself is never capturable - it solely belongs to whoever owns the settlement. Enemies will solely aim to starve the settlement of resources. This will allow fights to happen outside of the settlement and away from most people, so those who do want to be involved are usually the only ones involved. Lastly, really do encourage the use of those backpack banners/standards that got added.

Other potential node locations: Granaries, quarries, lumbermills, alchemical laboratories, factories.

2. Return the mechanic of lassoing monsters/humanoids. Permit each settlement an X amount of spaces to house these monster/humanoids based on how much investment they've made with resources. If an alarm is engaged by a settlement leader, these creatures will spawn and attack hostile forces outside the settlement's walls. However, enemy forces can sabotage the sustenance these creatures receive, so when they are spawned they'll either have low HP, reduced stats, or even have them turn on their masters. This will encourage stablemasters to mind the creatures and encourage guard patrols.

Potential problem: How can we justify that these creatures know who to attack?


Personal opinion of mine: Dump the land-grants. Turn them into these capturable settlements. They're so underutilized currently because they're owned by settlements themselves. Darrowdeep is the only one that has somewhat saw some activity.
Last edited by Good Character on Fri Aug 19, 2022 1:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Edens_Fall
Arelith Supporter
Arelith Supporter
Posts: 1065
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2019 7:45 am
Location: North America

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by Edens_Fall » Fri Aug 19, 2022 1:12 pm

Mattamue wrote:
Fri Aug 19, 2022 12:38 am
Edens_Fall wrote:
Fri Aug 19, 2022 12:28 am
Sencliff is locked behind the ink and Sibayad is controlled by the Merchant League who hates conflict which disturbs trade.
Are those DM rulings?
Sibayad is for sure, thus why the old "open to interruption" law boards were replaced recently with clear "no UD allowed ones" as a direct result of factions fighting for control of the city. Also a prior plotline to take control of the town was stopped by Staff when it got traction and Merchant League control reaffirmed. Yes, the new rules allow for player groups to set up in town, but any pvp conflict would be crushed as is the case within any surface settlement.

Sencliff is a bit more tricky. In theory an outside force could take the island, but why would they bother? Every shop, home, and ship is locked behind having pirate ink. There's no point to Cordor invading the place. Also, unless you use an award for the PC to take the ink, monster races are frowned upon to live there and suffer the same ink restriction that cordor would.

So both suffer the same issue as any suffer settlement. Sure you can siege Brog for an hour or two but you'll never take it, hold it, be allowed to keep it, change it, or do anything with it.

User avatar
Edens_Fall
Arelith Supporter
Arelith Supporter
Posts: 1065
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2019 7:45 am
Location: North America

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by Edens_Fall » Fri Aug 19, 2022 1:21 pm

Hazard wrote:
Fri Aug 19, 2022 7:12 am
Aren wrote:
Fri Aug 19, 2022 6:56 am
I, personally, would love to see some mechanical benefit to fight over. Ressources / settlement benefits, access to certain parts of the server etc.
Ideally there would be a significant cost to laying siege, such that it couldn’t be done every other week.
The faction that holds the captured resources / town / city, would need to pay for guards and upkeep.
This would give players something tangible to fight / do politics / roleplay over.
I'd like this too. Actual pvp objectives that can be won/lost, and have benefits would do a lot to dispel the toxicity of the current pvp culture, which I think comes from a place of frustration because no one can accomplish anything.

Kinda like the old settlement war system we used to have, but like.. Yknow. Better and good :P
Totally 100% agree with you both. This is not a matter of restricting PvP to certain areas, but providing a real "thing" that players can struggle towards to effect a "real" change.

If players want to continue to PvP in writ areas or raid the UD, great! But for those that want to feel like thier efforts have value other then OOC complaints, misunderstandings, and conflict with no real goal or end (unless both sides agree to one OOC), then having something to fight over and control would be fantastic.

User avatar
Edens_Fall
Arelith Supporter
Arelith Supporter
Posts: 1065
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2019 7:45 am
Location: North America

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by Edens_Fall » Fri Aug 19, 2022 1:23 pm

Tesla420 wrote:
Fri Aug 19, 2022 9:05 am
In my personal opinion the natural progression of a faction involved in a city is.

Start a nobody.

Grow followers.

Take a position of power.

Take a place in government.

Run government.

Recruit for an army.

Form an army.

????

Just feels like the end of the story. The best part. The climax. Where you take your victory over your city and you go head to head against another powerful PC who also formed a faction is completely missing? Am I the only way that feels that way? I just wish I could affect the in game world in a more meaningful way.
Your not the only one. It's why we have so many moments in the past where the staff has had to step in and force the servers political neutrality when settlements break out into war.

User avatar
Royal Blood
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2018 12:12 am

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by Royal Blood » Fri Aug 19, 2022 2:08 pm

There's been conversations about this in the past. I think having an avenue to release pvp steam is a good idea however I think it may dangerously cheapen PC perspective of death.

I think players need to stop leaning into PVP to be the only conflict resolution.

Also, players need to accept other resolutions because if you don't then you get pvped because it's one of the only consequences players can force another player to accept.

I've seen, numerous times recently, people referring to their own death IC while talking. Its getting a bit silly imo. Also, the number of times people jump to death threats, also a bit silly. Killing your problems away on Arelith doesn't work without a supporting back story. Cheap flexing by ganking characters doesn't move the needle anywhere it just creates annoyance and angst.

I do like settlement wars. I think they had an immense amount of IC drama. Unfortunately, I've not seen one occur without one group taking it too far and getting banned because it became personal. So maybe we're destined to always be stuck in neutral without good conflict resolution which I think is partially the fault of not having enough conflict tools but also players disregard for climate and setting
I am not on a team.
I do not win, I do not lose.
I tell a story, and when I'm lucky,
Play a part in the story you tell too.

Babylon System is the Vampire
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2019 10:14 am

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by Babylon System is the Vampire » Fri Aug 19, 2022 2:37 pm

TroubledWaters wrote:
Fri Aug 19, 2022 4:25 am
Tesla420 wrote:
Thu Aug 18, 2022 4:06 pm
It is my opinion that a lot of people on the server really desire a safe place where they can go and create conflict with the expectation that they are not ruining someone else's OOC day or killing lower level unprepared players.
Conflict that only takes place in a zone separate from the rest of the setting isn't really conflict. It's just a fight that happened somewhere else that matters for nothing, adds no story value, and could just happen on the PGCC.

Why bother?
While I don't think the idea presented would lead to the level of irrelevant pvp conflict that you described, I can see where you are coming from. Here's the thing though, 90% of the conflict that happens on Arelith could essentially be described in the same way. Would it be better if conflict and player actions actually shaped the world around us? Absolutely, but that's not really part of the design philosophy. When things shift, like adding a new city or a complete overhaul of an existing settlement, it seemingly happens overnight. I know from experience how much work goes into these sorts of changes of course, and it's definitely not an overnight thing, but from a player perspective since we are not part of these changes in any way its might as well be. Add to that the reality that every settlement is controlled by npcs these days, which isn't necessarily a bad thing if done right but they need to be part of the story instead of just placeholder refs for when players get wonky, and yeah.. most things don't matter beyond however long it took for it to happen.

So, to answer your question "why bother?", it would be to give the players someplace where they have control over the narrative. Would something like this get silly at times? Absolutely. Would it get old fast? More than likely. But the flip side to that is that it's at least an attempt to give the players who want to fight over things something to fight over.

Eyeliner
Posts: 479
Joined: Wed May 12, 2021 12:27 am

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by Eyeliner » Fri Aug 19, 2022 8:24 pm

The biggest problem with settlement wars is there's no way the attacker will ever be able to truly conquer the defender. Anundor can beat down Westcliff's forces a hundred times but it can never occupy Westcliff. Everything is always reset the next day, maybe a few characters incorporate the events in their own personal stories or maybe they don't.

If handled right, territory that can be occupied could be something. It would have to be handled right of course and not be a WOW battleground but something that has actual lasting implications you feel elsewhere on the island, but it could be a great thing especially if it's handled as well as the sailing system.

I could see for exmple areas where the controlling faction decides whether the land is flourishing or rotting or a town that could be happy or oppressed and different NPCs might show up or resources emerge from either, and now you have a reason to go fight over the place too. It's kind of gamey but attacking the same town over and over and reseting each time is gamey too and this would at least have lingering effects.

User avatar
The GrumpyCat
Dungeon Master
Dungeon Master
Posts: 6565
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2015 5:47 pm

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by The GrumpyCat » Fri Aug 19, 2022 10:31 pm

Everything is always reset the next day, maybe a few characters incorporate the events in their own personal stories or maybe they don't.
Would it be better if conflict and player actions actually shaped the world around us? Absolutely, but that's not really part of the design philosophy
Also, players need to accept other resolutions because if you don't then you get pvped because it's one of the only consequences players can force another player to accept.
So both suffer the same issue as any suffer settlement. Sure you can siege Brog for an hour or two but you'll never take it, hold it, be allowed to keep it, change it, or do anything with it.

There's choice here between Consequence and Freedom.

Freedom is like Skyrim. It's a great game, but because you can literally do /anything/, because there are so few choices in the game that actually have any narrative consequence, it also sometimes feels a bit... light? A bit pointless even.

Counterbalence that with say, Dragon Age, (I'm specifically thinking the first here) where the chocies you have, give tremendous narrative impact - but at the same time you're very much lead down one path then another, there's little real freedom.

(Then you have Witcher III which is a balence of both, but I digress :P )

In Arelith, for better or for worse* we seem to lean towards Freedom, there's not much that anyone can really do to you, that has any real Conseuqence. There's a little, but not huge amount and mostly it's fairly well policed. This is good but can lead to frustration, as we see in some of the quotes above.

A more heavily consequence filled server would, in a way, empower players a lot more yes, but it'd also lead to some issues. Leaving aside questions of dev time/involvement/ect, the biggest problems would be having to work on the presumption that the majority of people would a) not cheat b) be graceful in victory c) be graceful in loss.

Let me bring up an idea here mostly by way of example. This is a bit of a wierd idea, and not one we'd implement I'm sure, but I'm using it to show my point.

Lets say we made it so that, when two settlments went to war, (Say, Cordor and Brog) if a PC from Cordor killed a PC from Brog (or vica versa) then they were put into the fugue for one RL hour, and their property was automatically released. If the leader of either settlment is killed, then the settlment leadership goes to the victor (the other settlment leader)

Some issues coming up
1) We'd depend on people indeed logging in if this happened,
2) We'd depend on everyone playing fair ooc. No discord meetups for raids, no wierd cheats, and there'd be a lot of incentive for such.
3) We'd depend on those who lost their property ect being basically 'OK' with this. Knowing what they're getting into and being fine with loosing so much.
4) We'd depend on the more powerful force being graceful in picking its battles. For example, if we gave more weight to PvP, it could make certain concepts entirely unplayable, dependent on the dominant faction of t he time,. That might make perfect sense In Character, but would really suck OOC, in a vareity of ways.
5) And of course this could be used to legitimtly grief/be nasty to people. Remember the heavier and more impactful you make the consequences, the more incentive there is to cheat, and to get very angry upon a loss.

My experience as a DM and admin has shown me, unfortunatly, that people are all too willing to get worked up over the tiniest of things, and to get very salty, and very nasty over even small mechanical losses.

I recall a poster who claimed, when the new Slight Of Hand skill was introduced, that they would keep all of their gold in faction accounts, just to avoid the chance of loosing a few hundred to a pickpocket. Never mind that such would be tremendously inconvenient, and prevent them from owning property, that smidgen amount of gold in a very small chance mattered!

None of this is to say I'm entirely against the opening posters idea, or of implementing a more weighty war system (IMO if we do, it should be High Consequence but also relivitly quick to resolve) Or that, indeed, I'm against adding more Consequences to Arelith. To an extent, 'Haters gonna hate.'

But... this is stuff to keep in mind.


* Really want to stress here, though it may sound like I'm very much against adding more Consequence to Arelith... I'm in fact not! I personally wouldn't mind a better War system of some sort. I just think its something that needs to be carefully considered.
This too shall pass.

(I now have a DM Discord (I hope) It's DM GrumpyCat#7185 but please keep in mind I'm very busy IRL so I can't promise how quick I'll get back to you.)

Babylon System is the Vampire
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2019 10:14 am

Re: Conflict and mass PvP.

Post by Babylon System is the Vampire » Sat Aug 20, 2022 12:03 am

Just my own personal opinion here, but i think you are looking at it the wrong way Grumpy. Let me give you an alternative example.

A group of bannites takes control of the Cordorian government despite the flurry of "screw you bannites!" they will with no doubt have to face. They've won a few elections and got the government humming in such a way that even Joey the Tormtard secretly wants them to win despite lobbying against them. Now any proper bannite in this position is not going to stand for being the errand boy for the king, he's going to want absolute control either for himself or for the church. Normally the story would fade into the abyss of boredom from here for all those involved, both within the faction and without, because Arelith is never going to let them try and kill the king. But I say let them.

Make it hard of course, and only do this for groups that have put in the work and not folks who just leveled to 30 and said "Ok can I go kill an important npc now?", but let them go for it and have a plan for if they succeed at the ready. An example for that would be something like joey the tormtard and his gang have to find a relative of the king or something to put the throne back in order, and then they have to "defeat" the bannites to restore the king's cousin or whatever. I put defeat in quotes because while pvp should be part of it, it shouldn't be the only thing. Planning and effort, similar to what the bannites put into it even if we are talking about a month instead of the several the bannites put in, should be the most important bit.

Now assuming this flows in a way that somewhat resembles what I laid out, you wind up with legends both within the bannites and in joey's group that will be talked about for years, and a story that had an actual arch. Hell, even if the bannites die trying to kill the king they have an arch. And I think that's what people are ultimately hunting for here, a proper story arch. I used a very extreme example on purpose this time because I wanted to display that even at its most extreme its very doable for the team here. I mean, isn't that why people become dms, to help players tell amazing stories?

This is what I meant when I said that if you are going to have npc leaders they need to be part of the narrative. Effecting their agendas and plans is the real prize here, because as long as folks are respawning from pvp -and I'm not suggesting that changes- pvp conflict is never going to carry the same weight as assassinating one of the guldorand council or thwarting the thayan wizard who runs the arcane tower and her evil plans. Ect ect ect.

Post Reply