Arelith

I feel like I've made most of my thoughts and concerns pretty well understood at this point, but I hope you'll forgive me for repeating some notes one last time in response to your counterpoints:

Babylon System is the Vampire wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 12:33 pm

1) The overall goal is to give players a venue to pvp as often as possible

This idea doesn't accomplish the stated goal by virtue of the fact that it's designed as a PvE area with a tacit encouragement for group combat due to the fact that it's accessible by all players, Surface and UD alike. It's no different from any other dungeon in this sense, except that it's intended to be even more resource rich and apparently more difficult. How can you PvP as much as you want when timezones are a limiting factor for how many other players might be present at a given time? How is PvP actually inventivised when the true underlying objective for people going to the island, IC and OOC, will be to plunder its wealth?

while still maintaining a connection to the rest of the server.

Again I call back to the fact that this only means killing people on the island is no different from killing anyone anywhere else. People sent back to the mainland via Charon's ferry will carry their grudges with them - and, conversely, people will carry their IC biases and alliances just the same, refusing to attack certain people they may come across

It's also designed to make said pvp as fair as possible, by limiting team sizes to a set number so no one is ever outnumbered simply because one side had more of their friends on at that time or whatever.

This fails to take into account the fact that two different parties from the same faction or network of allies could theoretically just use two different entry points and coordinate with each other while they're on the island to kill anyone they come across who's less prepared or less connected. Two parties of five working together is no different from one party of ten. Not only that, but consider the crippling disadvantage any UD party might have if they were encountered in any surface segment during the daytime (assuming there are any surface segments to begin with, I suppose). The possibility would disincentivize any UD participation during daylight hours, which means the area is going to be free-farmed by surfacers during the day and only ever contested at night.

2) It was never meant to exile people who like to pvp to pvp island. This isn't a punishment, it's a gift, and assuming its done right a player who likes pvp can get into that once a week, 3 times a week, or even once per day.

This isn't a concern of mine because even if this was the intention, I don't imagine it could even successfully accomplish such a thing. Again, it's moreso that I don't see how this hypothetical demographic isn't served by the way the server is set up already. If "PvP Island" is functionally no different from RDI, why would someone who wants to PvP and get rich in the process not simply go to RDI and get the same experience. It's actually even more likely that they'll run into people to PvP in the non-PvP zone, because if the PvP zone is designed to be intentionally challenging, it's more efficient to simply avoid it if you're looking for loot. Players are always going to seek efficiency.

I think the general idea needs to stew a bit more in folks minds before they decide if its good or not, but at least you should have a sense of what I see as the idea's intention.

The intention, as stated by you, is "to give players a venue to pvp as often as possible [and as fairly as possible], while still maintaining a connection to the rest of the server." That concept, detached from the the proposal you presented alongside it, is one I can actually agree with. I think the server could really use something like that, and it could be very fun if it's done right! However, the reason why I believe it's a good idea seems entirely different from why you believe it's a good idea, which is what leads to our different interpretations for how to achieve this. You've cited its merits as being that it might "slow down pvp in other areas" and that it "gives folks who really just play the game for the pvp an outlet to do their thing." I see its merits in that it can serve a means of exposure to uncomfortable situations in a safe environment to build an understanding and appreciation for the one aspect of the server that is so broadly disliked by the playerbase. The intention is shared, but the underlying goals that inform the intention are different, and that shows in how you present the idea.

This is why the nuts and bolts are important to discuss and debate. Because intentions only really exist on one side of the equation. The consequences of an idea's implementation are equally important - arguably more important - than the intentions that inspired it. In understanding what you want to accomplish, we can see how and where we each fall into alignment, and contribute accordingly. You don't want PvP to be segregated to one area of the server, yet it seems likely through the proposed design that this is likely how the playerbase would to want to push such a concept. You want PvP to be fair and balanced, but rewarding the victors with rare resources will only serve to make them more and more powerful, which their opponents will find increasingly difficult to compete with. You want to make PvP easy to find, but by putting this arena in a large zone with multiple areas, you doom its participants to aimless meandering as they search for opponents that may not even exist due to time zones and other factors. You want PvP to be the objective, yet you have necessarily obfuscated it within a PvE shell that any participants would have to crack through. You want to improve the quality of PvP and roleplay on the server, yet you fail to account for how roleplay would affect the way people approach PvP within the arena. These are pretty damning failures that I'm not sure can be detached from the premise of "PvP Island." But that's not a condemnation of the intention - again, I think the general intention behind it is a good foundation to build from - it's just a matter of the fact that this iteration of the concept simply doesn't work with the server. It's an unambiguously bad idea. Still, if we're oriented towards the right goals, keeping true to the best intentions, bearing in mind the consequences of our ideas, better ideas can still be inspired by these kinds of conversations. I kinda wish this thread wasn't made to discuss the "PvP Island" idea and instead was more about its underlying intention, so the conversation could be more about how best to accomplish it.

Now that I've taken up all the oxygen of this thread, I'm just going to do everyone a favor and stop talking for a while. Babylon, I appreciate your grace and civility with me, and feel compelled to apologize one last time for the distinct lack of grace in how I opened things up. Hopefully somewhere in all this I've redeemed myself by accidentally saying something that positively contributes to the conversation.

"The Black riders come, to the Shire!" Said Gandalf.

"Send them to PvP island! This is a non PvP area!" Said Frodo, firing up a ticket.

---

Jokes aside, I think the idea of having "more dangerous" areas of the server could potentially be a good thing - but I'm not so sure making such a clear distinction as the "PvP Island" is going to really help to do more than splinter people on the issue of conflict. I do however like that there's some ideas here and generating some discussion. For me, I think currently, our issue as a community is to do with how we talk about conflict/immersion/RP/risk and consequence at present.

Terms like PvPers/RPers/PvEers - has reduced much of the discussion about Arelith into some kind of labelling system. The truth is, none of these terms ultimately represent groups of Arelith players in absolution, as much as people try to make them & they really don't help to do anything except entrench the idea that these kinds of one dimensional personalities are what exist.

Nobody i've met in my time here plays Arelith solely to PvP and nothing else but PvP (and if they do, it's not for long). There's simply no logical world in which someone would choose to do so, over games that offer action 24/7 all of the time, everytime - or even over the PGCC. Do lots of players enjoy PvP? Sure - but they also enjoy RP, or else they wouldn't be here - and the two are not mutually exclusive. It's also not a given that just because you enjoy PvP, you will be looking to engage in it at every possible given oppurtunity. It's also surprising how many players I've seen who waxed lyrical about themselves being RPers let PvP power go to their head the moment they were provided with the ability to do so, either by others building for them, mechanics being changed in their favour, or simply finding the collective around them to help them with their goals.

I think that what we need to do is be clearer in our messaging, of what Arelith is and what is expected - because sometimes I think it is the contradiction & shock of something happening abruptly that can upsets a lot of players. Walking out from Cordor into 5 Underdarkers on your way to your level 10 writs is something that's highly (usually) unexpected. Walking into them in some far reaches of the Isles - where lawlessness exists and there is no safety around, is going to explicit a much more expected response to danger from most players. Why? because they have prepared themselves, whether they realize it or not, for the idea that danger might be around the corner and taken a choice to enter into such areas willingly, without it being thrust upon them seemingly (out of the blue). It's for this reason, that I think having clearer understanding both IC and OOC of what areas of the server are the most and least risk averse, could potentially help with the conflict debate.

Bad things happen to good adventurers.

Now I don't believe personally, that any areas should be 100% safe all of the time - there should always be an element of risk somewhere, even if very unlikely. To represent this, we used to often champion the above tagline to emphasize this point & I think we have moved away from discussion of responsibility/consequence and player agency in recent times to dividing the community into these RP vs PvPer debates.

As we often see from the assassination system, the moment some consequence becomes involved, people do indeed change their behaviour, both OOC and IC. Characters who were willing to laugh at the idea of death, suddenly stop logging in as much, stay isolated in one area of the server, where they know they are safe and often go out of their way to remove all oppurtunity for such an outcome to ever occur. Depending on which side of the fence you sit on, often these choices, although wholly sensible IC (outside of the not logging in), can sometimes be seen as somewhat unsportmanlike, from the other side. That is not to say, it should be expected for characters to walk out with a sign on their head saying "please try for the assassination now" - it's more a point that, taking IC decisions and balancing that with being positive for the server, or presuming when players are exhibiting "I win/You lose" behaviour, can be a very difficult and subjective issue - and it changes at any given moment based on available information, your path of RP and also, who you are dealing with at that specific point in time.

Complaints about captives being taken to areas that are hard to access by their would be rescueers is likewise something that makes a lot of sense IC, but can be taken badly OOC. What I guess I'm saying is, calling players PvPers and throwing them into a corner, is just a way of closing down the more complicated discussion. Even those that champion themselves on being RP first - story driven players, can and often do, engage in a win/lose mentality depending on the given situation and making a blanket OOC choice to not engage in PvP ever, or frequently shut it down, is in fact as tied to PvP, as engaging in it is. It's a power play in the other direction and there is a very fine line between wanting to avoid conflict OOC because you don't enjoy it, or because the idea of being put into a 'losing' situation doesn't sit well with you - "If I don't fight, I can't lose". That's as destructive a position to take on one extreme as those outliers who become obsessed with winning at PvP at all costs.

The above is exactly why I don't like how often broad generalisations are being placed at the feet of certain demographics of players. It feels disingenuous and like there are often alterior motives - as rarely do any players inhabit these very extreme positions & being a good sport is wholly seperate from whatever your personal position on PvP and RP is.

Likewise many actions and decisions taken through RP can be seen in different lights and often hold the weight of expectation of other players onto them. Often something one player enjoys immensely, is not received well by another & frequently only one side of the story is ever heard in many of these exchanges. It's for this reason I've found that playing an antagonist can not only be difficult, but a really unrewarding experience at times. With every constructive reaction, there's an equal measure of immersion breaking green text responses from players who simply want you to just go away and stop ruining their playtime.

But it isn't just their playtime, or mine. It's everyones playtime.

It's for the above reason that I think, the server as a whole really needs to give each other a break. Good needs evil, but evil also desperately needs good. It needs to be allowed to provide a role that is more than just answering the phone when boredom hits & sometimes that may add a level of inconvenience for a time, to other players. There is no way to be impactful, without having the ability to actually cause impact in some way and people are going to make mistakes. We all do, let's give other people as much benefit of the doubt as we usually give ourselves.

As always Arigard, a well thought out post. My favorite line was this one:

Arigard wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 5:27 pm

I think that what we need to do is be clearer in our messaging, of what Arelith is and what is expected - because sometimes I think it is the contradiction & shock of something happening abruptly that can upsets a lot of players.

This is definitely an issue, because person to person, dm to dm, dev person to dev person, you can get a completely different perspective on what this server is supposed to be about. And when Irongron does post something about his opinions, it often seems so far from what arelith currently is that it makes one head spin. I don't put that all on him, though it is his server and he really should feel he can shape how it plays within reason, because I think often the people who see things completely differently hope he's just grumbling and after a bit of quiet things can pick right back up where they left off. Which is how, in my opinion, the bad continues to get worse every time it cycles in. And by bad, I mean excessive, relentless pvp that you can't help but get sucked into its vortex, not pvp in general.

I do disagree with you on a few things however.

Arigard wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 5:27 pm

Nobody i've met in my time here plays Arelith solely to PvP and nothing else but PvP (and if they do, it's not for long). There's simply no logical world in which someone would choose to do so, over games that offer action 24/7 all of the time, everytime - or even over the PGCC

This may just be a disagreement on the semantics, since really it comes down to how you define someone who is just here for the pvp. To me, someone who wouldn't play here if they didn't get into pvp at least two or three times a week is someone here for the pvp. Sure, there are some elements of rp to it, but if it was just rp for a week or so they would definitely be complaining that they are bored.

Example A:

"A player who likes playing warriors, or generals leading troops into battle. and getting into pvp is central to their concepts."

This is the player who this idea was for, and I think there is nothing wrong with wanting to play this way at all.

Example B, a less flattering example but certainly a possibility all the same:

"A player who likes dunking on people, but dunking on people is a lot harder when everyone is there to dunk on each other than it is when the vast majority of players don't even understand every nook and cranny of a very complex game"

This guy/gal benefits from this idea too assuming they could hold his own in an equally matched fight, but it wasn't them I had in mind when I was thinking about this.

Arigard wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 5:27 pm

As we often see from the assassination system, the moment some consequence becomes involved, people do indeed change their behaviour, both OOC and IC. Characters who were willing to laugh at the idea of death, suddenly stop logging in as much, stay isolated in one area of the server, where they know they are safe and often go out of their way to remove all oppurtunity for such an outcome to ever occur. Depending on which side of the fence you sit on, often these choices, although wholly sensible IC (outside of the not logging in), can sometimes be seen as somewhat unsportmanlike, from the other side. That is not to say, it should be expected for characters to walk out with a sign on their head saying "please try for the assassination now" - it's more a point that, taking IC decisions and balancing that with being positive for the server, or presuming when players are exhibiting "I win/You lose" behaviour, can be a very difficult and subjective issue - and it changes at any given moment based on available information, your path of RP and also, who you are dealing with at that specific point in time.

While I get this concern, and I will tackle the whole "players will start to think that anything but this area is now a free pvp zone" thing others have brought up too with this response, I just don't see it as hard to police.

-Started a fight, got people wanting to kill you, and now you don't log in so they complained? Dm's just check how often you have been logging in recently.

-Complained that you got pvp outside of pvp island? Point to the rules that clearly state that pvp can still happen outside of pvp island.

Compare that to digging through logs to try and figure out what happened in a pvp fight that someone complained about, and you can understand why I think, to use a phrase from 2017, this is a Nothing Burger and would be easy to control.

Arigard wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 5:27 pm

But it isn't just their playtime, or mine. It's everyones playtime.

I totally get where you are coming from with this, but I can't fully support it, and I will explain why. It ties back to the communication bit about the server that I highlighted above. If the server welcomes all play styles, assuming they follow the few rules the server has like staying in character and the pvp rules, is it very welcoming to force 1 style- that of the well rped drow that likes to terrorize surfacers- onto another- that of a player who just likes to log in on saturdays and maybe some sundays and venture into dungeons?

Now, before that gets any lash back, know that the server I come from and dm'd for (meaning played a role in this attitude) was very much our way or the highway. And honestly, that attitude made us a vastly superior story telling server, and our pvp rules were actually fairer while at the same time being much harsher. But it also eventually choked our playerbase to the point that we went from one of the premier low level rp servers to efus sad little cousin, despite all the designers on efu originally playing on our server. As a side note, efu is also very hard core our way or the highway, they just embraced that hardcore style more than we ever did and thus catered to that style of player better.

Now, this is just theory, but to me the big mistake was trying to force people to play one way or another. If one style truly is vastly superior to the other, then eventually the people with other styles will take interest and want some of that. However, if you force it on them, they will likely go away or be that screaming headache in your ear every time something bad happens to them. And eventually, the style of play you are trying to preserve will die out as the others who play like you move on to other things, because you didn't let the next generation grow into it.

Anyways, this is mostly way off topic to what's been dubbed as pvp Island, but your post was a rare breed as it got into the nuance of what makes arelith work (and at times fail spectacularly) and I wanted to, at the very least, let you know that I read and appreciated it thoroughly.