Arelith

I have given this some thought lately.

I enjoy the speed of the leveling. It allows me to reach level 30 very fast, and be on the same level as everyone else and then I can just 'join the story' as an equal or have a 'fighting chance' against whatever conflict happens, when I choose to play a new character. Whatever comes, it feels fair in that way.

And I can comfortably play a few hours a day and still keep up at a reasonable pace and not have to feel like I have to turbo grind to achieve it. I have played a Guldorand award character, starting at level 16 (Honestly this reward should be available everywhere, not just Guldorand. Looking at you, Andunor, but that's besides the point.)

I did the daily writs and spent the rest of the time roleplaying on that character, I actually had to remember to go out get Adventure Experience. And I think I got to 30 within a week or two. Truly, it was fast and satisfying.

There are other points to consider. I like this as I tend to play long term characters. When I say long term I mean I play them for years, I want them to change over time and to meet new characers and develop realtionships with them and see how they are affected by their experiences. A broad kind of story. I enjoy having them build up their respective reputations over time with their actions, achieve some measure of recognition that inevitably comes when you play consistently, and see it play off with others. I enjoy building this up whether that is factions, events, places- or contributing to those, ideally also to share it with as many other characters as possible.

This amount of time also gives the character something to care about IC, things they don't want to lose, characters they care about, situations that move them, and me as a player OOCly. I think it gives players time to be invested in the characters and the stories they write; you look forward to continue it and not in any rushed sort of way, in the things they've built and the character relationships they've kept. It's a kind of living, breathing world when that happens.

But I also know that this is not the only way to play the game.

And this is something that has dawned on me lately. There are individuals whose idea of fun is to make new characters, level them up as fast (or faster) and enter conflict. These characters usually have little in the way of standing weaknesses or things they care about setting-wise. They came from nowhere and have nothing pratical to lose. If they are defeated nothing is lost. They can just respawn, and 300xp is the full extent of the character's loss. Whatever defeat they may suffer is not really momentous or significant: They have done nothing of note, on their own. No people to safeguard. No place to be vigilant about. They are not defined by what they are but by what they fight.

They will not build something up and care about something like presence, or reputation. There are no actual spontaneous made character relationships to be kept, to be restrained about. Story to be invested in. Though there is obviously some degree of RP, the fun is in playing and winning. They will not stay around playing that character for long enough for any defeat to matter, in any case. They will fight someone or a faction that has done a consistent presence, because they seek meaningful conflict and fighting a ghost has no consequence and winning is no victory. Fixture destruction. Quartertheft. Because defeating something or someone that matters, matters.

And in the end this is replaced with nothing, which is the problem. Once there is nothing to fight, they dissolve and disappear, absent of interest leaving a void in it's wake- That is not filled again because those consistent players that created content are now gone. Entering a slow but steady decline, into the same cycle again. Nothing is built with staying power to where it matters again.

I have seen this happen I would say four times in my entire time playing Arelith. It's certainly not Mad Max out there (Though at some point it was.) and it's not something that happens all the time, but the times I've seen it, it has been catastrophic for the community in every single instance.

The fact that it happens is a strong disconnect in styles and expectations. I hear stories about Arelith of Old, both the good and the bad about it. But this theme remains consistent. There were no such characters when the leveling was slow (barring a true neet or someone who no-lifed it through) and whatever interest in playing a character looking forward to the PvP there was would die, as when you've been playing the same character consistently for many months before you enter any sort of conflict and you are either already invested and with many things to lose (Save if you play with the same OOC group of people all the time, but this gets stale quickly so the turnover is 2~3 month's ish for this).

Even if they could still hit the respawn button, there was still an obvious sense of consequence about it.

Or you'd realise it wasn't worth it putting yourself through it just for that and just drop it.

I think this and the very fast character turnover have both been the most jarring, displeasing things I have dealt with in this game so far. (Or the consequences that come from it). And I get the feeling it wasn't always like this.

This leads me to the following conclusions:

1- As much as I enjoy being able to level at a reasonable pace (And I've been fervently supporting it) it is ultimately detrimental.

2- If it is to remain as it is, then there need to be something reasonable to prevent those kinds of cycles from continuing. Such as making being level 30, and able to PVP, less relevant to roleplay itself aside from the personal storylines and shared narratives of conflict. Currently almost all and any politics whether surface or UD are decided by who can killbash the other better, when push comes to shove. The 'or else'. And the dread of OOCly trying to avoid endless killbash wars while at the same time acknowledging IC actions should have IC consequences and conflict should be had.

With all of this in mind I believe the DMs should take on some more active role in the managing of the cities. And the way they can do that and not lose their minds (or their time) about it is by (passively) reviewing IC information submitted by current elected officials of any city.

Right here on the forums, those who take on leadership or guard roles for the cities put them up in a private one.

As well as being in contact with them OOCly (provided in that same report) to help differentiate what characters are saying to what it actually happens (These two are very different things almost in every scenario) to make sure things are being kept fair.

Does this take away from player agency and freedoms? In theory, sure. In practice, not at all since all it would do is keep DMs rather appraised of what is currently going on without having to actually be there like the eye of Sauron inside the actual game with their limited time, or put things together from a variety of reports once things have gone to hell.

From this point on, this would also help provide consequences even for short turnover characters, if laws are actually enforced. The current pariah/exile system seems a bit too zero sum for my tastes. I've proposed a different idea in another thread, that was in regards to Andunor.

Proposed solution:
A set of actual laws with tangible, feared consequences for a place like Andunor. Something to navigate around, bribe about, or do something with. Might Makes Right works well. For a spat. Until it's been me and my goons for a year, or more. This is also I would apply to other Surface Settlements to prevent certain things from happening again, but focusing on the UD for now.

Character breaking said laws? They receive a magical mark from the Hubmaster. Mysterious in origin. The more marks you acquire, eventually when you die within the city of Andunor your soul is taken, preventing resurrection. The only way of getting rid of the mark is working to enforce the laws of the city yourself, working for the city's benefit and making the city richer.

This also ensures it's repeated behaviour and not a one-off time thing that has a mountain crashing down on some unfortunate soul. It also gives a RP reason and an OOC reason for the character wanting to cooperate and do better that won't make them look like a wuss, which is what many care about IC and OOC as well.

Things like these that would also generate RP rather than entirely remove a given character from an area.

Another idea: Cordor Guards are given a special kind of shackle. This can provide some good fun in subdualing a criminal, instead of killing them for say, breaking the law and walking away, because that's the most you can get away with without a DM watching.

Captured criminals with these are marked (flagged) OOCly with a token. In essence, someone is shackled and after this RP a report is left on it on the boards. DMs review if, if they deem the case appropriate it is approved. Green-lighted, the current Justiciar or Guards ICly informs the character of it's punishment. Banishment, fine, service (putting him to work for the city), etc. A registry of criminals can be kept.

Which leads into another fun idea. A Bounty Hunter guild.

Bounties are put up for wanted criminals, which must be brought back alive for payment. Any character can join this guild, but ideally it should be sponsored by lawful governments. For this you get one of those shackles. You find the criminal, subdual them (or they come willingly) you apply the shackles (it OOCly flags them) and/or then you can RP bringing them back to town. Character is paid, justice is served. Didn't really end up in any character's death. You get a notification when you get paid and the money is transferred.

The suggested solutions would all be denied for the same reason many other good suggestions have been rejected and trashed. "Requires DM attention." Arelith has too many players for it's own good with the current amount of DM staff.

That said I would still give this a +1, great suggestions all in all which would improve the server.

As much as it kills me, I can't put together a thorough and well-written response to this post at the moment, so in the meantime I just want to chime in and encourage people to not respond to this post with the typical knee-jerk, quippy reactions. There's more to consider here than simply what's being said, and I think that there's more being said here than even the OP realizes. It's a conversation that deserves its due diligence.

There's a lot said of value here, but I'd like to zoom in on this to begin with, since it reaches a larger point (emphasis mine):

Watchful Glare wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 5:43 pm
As well as being in contact with them OOCly (provided in that same report) to help differentiate what characters are saying to what it actually happens (These two are very different things almost in every scenario) to make sure things are being kept fair.

I've been in the (unenviable) position to have OOC contact with both parties of some pretty bitter conflicts, and I'll hear venting from both sides about their perspective of the conflict. Almost always, the sides have radically different perspectives of what's really going on, IC and OOC, because no player has access to complete truth in any given moment any more than a character does. Everyone feels they're acting appropriately considering their understanding of the situation, their character's motivations, etc. and overwhelmingly, they're not wrong! Objective truth is just a very squirrelly thing, arguably a nonexistent thing, and this is the reason that relationship counselors will never be out of a job.

Now, is it true that sometimes people are being pushed by an OOC motivation to cause as much conflict and gain as many PvP kills as possible? Sure. But it's a minority of cases. Frankly, even when people have an OOC motivation to be the winningest character on the server, they usually aren't aware that that's what they're doing; self-awareness is rarer than one might think.

Amateur Hour wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 6:50 pm I've been in the (unenviable) position to have OOC contact with both parties of some pretty bitter conflicts, and I'll hear venting from both sides about their perspective of the conflict. Almost always, the sides have radically different perspectives of what's really going on, IC and OOC, because no player has access to complete truth in any given moment any more than a character does. Everyone feels they're acting appropriately considering their understanding of the situation, their character's motivations, etc. and overwhelmingly, they're not wrong! Objective truth is just a very squirrelly thing, arguably a nonexistent thing, and this is the reason that relationship counselors will never be out of a job.

Now, is it true that sometimes people are being pushed by an OOC motivation to cause as much conflict and gain as many PvP kills as possible? Sure. But it's a minority of cases. Frankly, even when people have an OOC motivation to be the winningest character on the server, they usually aren't aware that that's what they're doing; self-awareness is rarer than one might think.

As someone that regularly hears both sides, my experience is pretty much summed up in the above post - both sides invariably have a wildly different perspective (and often both come to me complaining of DM bias towards the other side).

As for players levelling quickly in order to PvP, this too often feels justified. There are longstanding factions (especially one particular settlement) that operates under a perpetual siege mentality, and often have committed players who remain loyal character, after character.

In such cases it is the players themselves that feel threatened, and in order to 'fight the good fight' make character after character to defend their corner of the server, and with it their legacy and influence.

Furthermore, new players, keen to make inroads with said (partially OOC) factions, quickly become aware that the best way to gain respect and influence is not to create a story or hold events, but to quickly level up the most powerful build in a role currently required by the faction and man the front lines.

This is not an issue I'm in anyway unaware of, and I definitely find it troubling. Why? Because often nobody involved is actually having any actual fun. Sure, they are invested, but the game itself is one of bitter OOC conflict, longstanding grudges, Discord conspiracies and ugly rumour mongering.

This is one area where I simply do not know of a solution, other than to frequently raise awareness, and to appeal to people's better nature.

Sadly investment and objectivity may have an inverse ratio.

Amateur Hour wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 6:50 pm There's a lot said of value here, but I'd like to zoom in on this to begin with, since it reaches a larger point (emphasis mine):

Watchful Glare wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 5:43 pm
As well as being in contact with them OOCly (provided in that same report) to help differentiate what characters are saying to what it actually happens (These two are very different things almost in every scenario) to make sure things are being kept fair.

I've been in the (unenviable) position to have OOC contact with both parties of some pretty bitter conflicts, and I'll hear venting from both sides about their perspective of the conflict. Almost always, the sides have radically different perspectives of what's really going on, IC and OOC, because no player has access to complete truth in any given moment any more than a character does. Everyone feels they're acting appropriately considering their understanding of the situation, their character's motivations, etc. and overwhelmingly, they're not wrong! Objective truth is just a very squirrelly thing, arguably a nonexistent thing, and this is the reason that relationship counselors will never be out of a job.

Now, is it true that sometimes people are being pushed by an OOC motivation to cause as much conflict and gain as many PvP kills as possible? Sure. But it's a minority of cases. Frankly, even when people have an OOC motivation to be the winningest character on the server, they usually aren't aware that that's what they're doing; self-awareness is rarer than one might think.

Completely in agreement with this.

Irongron wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 7:59 pm

Amateur Hour wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 6:50 pm I've been in the (unenviable) position to have OOC contact with both parties of some pretty bitter conflicts, and I'll hear venting from both sides about their perspective of the conflict. Almost always, the sides have radically different perspectives of what's really going on, IC and OOC, because no player has access to complete truth in any given moment any more than a character does. Everyone feels they're acting appropriately considering their understanding of the situation, their character's motivations, etc. and overwhelmingly, they're not wrong! Objective truth is just a very squirrelly thing, arguably a nonexistent thing, and this is the reason that relationship counselors will never be out of a job.

Now, is it true that sometimes people are being pushed by an OOC motivation to cause as much conflict and gain as many PvP kills as possible? Sure. But it's a minority of cases. Frankly, even when people have an OOC motivation to be the winningest character on the server, they usually aren't aware that that's what they're doing; self-awareness is rarer than one might think.

As someone that regularly hears both sides, my experience is pretty much summed up in the above post - both sides invariably have a wildly different perspective (and often both come to me complaining of DM bias towards the other side).

As for players levelling quickly in order to PvP, this too often feels justified. There are longstanding factions (especially one particular settlement) that operates under a perpetual siege mentality, and often have committed players who remain loyal character, after character.

In such cases it is the players themselves that feel threatened, and in order to 'fight the good fight' make character after character to defend their corner of the server, and with it their legacy and influence.

Furthermore, new players, keen to make inroads with said (partially OOC) factions, quickly become aware that the best way to gain respect and influence is not to create a story or hold events, but to quickly level up the most powerful build in a role currently required by the faction and man the front lines.

This is not an issue I'm in anyway unaware of, and I definitely find it troubling. Why? Because often nobody involved is actually having any actual fun. Sure, they are invested, but the game itself is one of bitter OOC conflict, longstanding grudges, Discord conspiracies and ugly rumour mongering.

This is one area where I simply do not know of a solution, other than to frequently raise awareness, and to appeal to people's better nature.

Sadly investment and objectivity may have an inverse ratio.

Same as above. I agree.

That is why my proposal in itself is not to do with reports and player punishment on an OOC level, such as banning, applying penalties, or giving a talking to. There's already something for that, reports. Same as always.

What I aim to propose is a way to keep DMs aware of the comings and goings IC to know where the story is at, and where (established) laws can be applied in a less severe way with the aim of providing not only additional RP but also a sense of consequence beyond the ultimate killbash, or mechanically preventing a character from entering a settlement. Something more tangible. Making it less of a might makes right where settlements, laws, and elected officials are concerned.

This would not be, say, a mark of despair as I've described it, an exile, or something similar. The goal is not to gatekeep people from the settlements, nor prevent them from actually doing crime in them but to allow more tasteful conflict without being so hands off. Because being hands off defaults to might makes right, where it can seem that player characters exist in a vacuum where there is only them.

The goal in mind is to both prevent eternal factions from curbstomping new powers the moment they appear through killbash, making it less of a zero-sum game. Nor to have the scenario about the revolving door of characters invested in PvP who ultimately disappear whenever the fight dies down, and build nothing to replace what was taken down.

I think the leveling is very fast, not that I'm complaining, it is nice just being to do my daily writs after work and then get to 30 in under 2 weeks.

But one thing I did notice which saddened me a little considering the size of the player base is that I rarely had any random PC encounters in dungeons. A good few years ago I'd always bump into random people and potentially form IC friendships or make foes. Some of these encounters even turned into ooc friendships.

I do feel this might be down to the fast paced leveling.

I mainly play on the surface though so this may be different down in the UD.

I think the biggest issue is conflict is like playing cops and robbers without any enforced win condition. Past morale there isn't a strong reason to bow out early.

There are ways to add mechanical conditions past a slap on the wrist but you would probably then have as much angst from that as you do currently (this includes what I am about to say).

If it was me I would have any PC gain a mark at level 30 that only ticks down when killed by a unique CDKey. So if you die 10 times with 10 different people striking the Killing Blow your character is archived for 2 RL months. DMs would probably have to crack down on people exploiting the system but I suspect it would even out after a few disciplanary actions and the fact that it isn't perma killing a PC.

Ideally people would be willing to give ground more often and even for a gank squad their PCs are at risk if they happen to die from retribution.

I think some of the proposed solutions here to the problem -- which is real, and definitely a problem, that I can agree with -- are a little over the top. I'd probably avoid interacting with settlements that had restrictions like either of those entirely. A lot of what is described involving the bounty-hunter guild can be done without mechanics attached to it, and it creates a situation in which someone may be forced to do a kind of roleplay with people they don't necessarily get along with for a long time.

What if my character's a troublemaker? What if I'd like to do things that are impolite? Do I need to accept some heady OOC onus to be enforced ICly because I want to RP my character a certain way? One that could take IRL weeks or months to work off? With roleplayers that I might not necessarily enjoy playing with, or who might not treat me fairly OOCly through their characters because they have that leverage over me and are incapable of being objective because of an unspoken frustration? How would I know if they were intentionally trying to be unfair to me, or if t was just IC? And at a certain point, if I thoroughly do not enjoy the RP being generated, what would be the difference? I'm all about the actions have consequences style of RP that's common on Arelith, but it only works if the majority of those consequences are IC.

What're you supposed to do if you don't want to deal with that as a player? Roll your character and try again somewhere else. If every settlement in the server had rules like this, I'd likely be forced to stick to Sibiyad or...

...stop making characters that get into conflict in the first place.

As someone who's played in guard factions and tried to make reversing pariahs and exiles as painless as possible for the players of the characters I've been involved with, I can tell you that that alone is a frustrating process if you don't enjoy going through it. Imagine if there were more tiers of punishment that would force you to do that frustrating thing sooner and more often because your character happens to be contentious one.

The point I'm getting at is, while I agree that fast leveling has lead to a lot of throw-away characters and a server culture that extols PVP-centric builds and marginalizes the narratives of anyone outside those circles who wants to do anything even slightly contentious, I'm not entirely sure that adding more mechanical systems that might be abused by the playerbase whether intentionally or otherwise, is a solution that fixes more problems than it creates.

Many issues are addressed that is so well written, I cannot possibly give any meaningful input. It is more often the players that’s behind it than anything else. Actually many situations can improve if people gets into habit of discussing conflict rp plans before actually start it.

Thou there is something relevant I found: it gets interesting when conflict is initiated but meant to be lost.

To explain that, when I plan to cause a bit of trouble, I want that event to involve people and I want to face consequences. Have a fighting chance...well, no, why should I? if everyone is having this idea in mind no wonder people want to rush to lv 30. Slower lv would not help, new characters simply gets crushed by other higher lv ones. It is more important that low lv characters are encouraged to do things.

In theory, a lv 5 rogue can set up a trap on top of stairs, let a bulky WM slip and break his neck. This is something I really hope to see instead of buff-hit-kill kind of pvp. Conflict for fun, not for kill.

—————
I encountered my share of unpleasant pvp and all start with “do what I say or kill”. This is something I feel most uncomfortable about. Very often than not, on their side they feel justified for their actions, one way it makes sense to make hot headed characters and the other way it ruins other people’s feelings.

Would slow leveling solve that? I think not. Enforce -subdual mode may be a better solution, while rping the characters matter, mindfulness of other pc also matter. Personally I do not mind contributing to others’ story, being a small number in their body counts, if they as me in tell...

You are touching on a lot of important issues, and I really hope this conversation continues for a good bit and actually finds at least a game plan going forward on how to make these things better.

But I will say that imprisoned rp rarely works out the way it feels like it should play out. It's often very boring for the captured. My old server had a penal army, where the imprisoned would wear something similar to a slave collar here. The guard faction could use a device to instantly kill you (think suicide squad), and that had its moments, but even that I think fell short.

The big thing that arelith has though, that we didn't, is multiple settlements. If you were outcast from my old server's city, the game got really hard to keep interesting. Unfortunately most of areliths multiple surface settings are very homogenous. What I mean by that is, if you do something that would get you a pariah status in Cordor, chances are the other settlements aren't going to like it either. I know some guldorand leaders have been very flexible about this, and I appreciate the effort, but one it really doesn't make too much sense above beggars gate given who the npcs are, and two it could change on any given election.

If I had a magic wand that allowed me to make arelith whatever I wanted, the first thing I would do is make cordor a seedy port city with absolutely no pc leadership (a neutral starting point that focuses on low levels mostly), I would emphasize the difference between upper guldorand and lower guldorand more and make that the city for most high levels, and then I would make a third territory/city for bane. Not only would this give the most heinous of surface criminals a place to go once they become public enemy number 1, it would also make bane a real thing instead of folks who pop their head up from time to time screaming about tyranny until the paladins get their smite on. I would also find a way to shift the dwarves over to the krags, not because brog is bad or anything. I actually think its the most thematic city on the server now that myon is more or less just an elven short cut to their guldorand holdings. But I do think the more you have people in one general area, the better the conflict will be and the better the chances to make new friends are.

As for what you are talking about with pvp, I still stand by an old suggestion I had to make it so in areas where there is enough of a npc presence to matter require a dm for pvp. I think it would solve so many issues, including ones you might not see at first like solo leveling. If you push pvp out into the wilds, all of a sudden the wilds become the dangerous place. I know this one wasn't popular for fear of people causing trouble then running back to hide in their safe zone, but honestly that seems a lot easier to police then say deciding whether or not someone who broke no rules but still went overboard on pvp deserves to be banned.

Anyhow, I will be watching this conversation closely, because as I said in my opener I think it touches on a lot of the issues that i have with arelith currently.

Babylon System is the Vampire wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 1:31 am
If I had a magic wand that allowed me to make arelith whatever I wanted, the first thing I would do is make cordor a seedy port city with absolutely no pc leadership (a neutral starting point that focuses on low levels mostly), I would emphasize the difference between upper guldorand and lower guldorand more and make that the city for most high levels, and then I would make a third territory/city for bane.

As for what you are talking about with pvp, I still stand by an old suggestion I had to make it so in areas where there is enough of a npc presence to matter require a dm for pvp. I think it would solve so many issues, including ones you might not see at first like solo leveling.

Thumbs up to these two suggestions, I really like the idea of making cordor a starter’s town. Good turn over rate, high lv are welcome to visit. But no more lv 30 guard vs lv 6 criminals. And when I played evil on surface it really scream to me a evil hideout should be something. Pretend to be good for so long and I realised I have technically done no evil.....that is mad. Well, plus some surface monsters and a wild people village.

As a potential conflict brews in the Underdark I too find myself in the position where I hear 'from both sides' about the dubious practices of the 'other' side. I've been pondering on making a post about this, decided to wait until things get into full swing, but this seems a good time.

This is very painful, because I know all these players, have talked to them for years in some cases, and I know that ultimately everyone is doing their best and trying to have a good time. Yet there are what appears to be irreconcilable differences between them.

I feel like the child, sometimes, between two parents going through the first stages of divorce.

I've said, time and again, in all the megathreads about the enormous sh*tshows that the UD can produce, that we are given abolutely no tools for conflict resolution except to circle grind each others factions until one or the other is exhausted, or hope that we end up fighting players that have the creative wherewithal to turn victory/defeat into something that other players can appreciate and feel gave them and their character vindication or a fair acknowledgement in defeat.

The assassin's guild and its no-context anonymity is the only tool we've ever been given, and it's exactly the same thing as what we already have. Kill, bash, maybe someone is happy by the end of it if we're lucky or if they didn't shelve for a month because some faceless NPC guild has an extortionate rate to prevent an no-narrative demise that can't be incorporated into a wider story.

We need, need, need tools for this. We need ways to make punishments fit the crime. We're stuck in this endless cycle of slow-boiling animosity because the only way for most players to stop a burglar is to dismember their corpse and slander them to hundreds of players until they are dismembered again and again and again - crime finally solved, that was fun wasn't it?

No wonder there's all this animosity.

Irongron wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 7:59 pm There are longstanding factions (especially one particular settlement) that operates under a perpetual siege mentality, and often have committed players who remain loyal character, after character.

We blew up Light Keep for this. Come on, Irongron, let's blow up this other settlement too. It's just toxic, clique-y behaviour, and I can't believe this is a repeating pattern after Light Keep, Wharftown, etc.

As to the original discussion, I hear it. It's valid. But I think the whole "get to 30 then participate in conflict" is so fundamentally flawed it makes me weep. There's no reason for this. This is a result of the faster levelling experience. (LKers would take recruits on the old Dark Spires circle grind way back. gotta get better at smiting Banites, after all).

Back then, though, it was still such an investment it would peter out. Today, it's so absurdly early.

Really, I would just blame all forms of in-game leadership if they're continuing to perpetuate this kind of culture. If you're not standing up against it as a faction leader, then you're okay with it happening.

We can create as many obtuse mechanical systems that somehow bind consequence and creates strange incentives for more meaningful conflict, but what we actually need, is for every 30'er and 40'er to make their own Liberated Territories-like character and really shake it up.

Until good roleplayers absolutely berate their allies for their shitty behaviour in approaching PvP (and I'd consider the grind to 30 then toggle hostile pretty poor form), you're frankly not going to solve a lot of problems.

Call out the discord coordinators. Call out leaders IG for getting recruits killed. Report all kinds of "do this or i kill u" roleplay. Engage in PvP at level 3.

Make a highwayman. A thief. A paladin who doesn't know fear. An amateur pirate. A low-level necromancer who plots far above his mechanical weight.

Do something different. If you are a part of the culture that grinds to 30 to feel relevant, you're not making the server any better.

We need tools. I disagree wholly and completely with putting the onus of resolution onto the community.

That's how we got here in the first place.

We're too big now. In the past, before EE and when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, Arelith was small and things were easier to handle among us. That's over. It's not coming back.

Just like with the property and shop changes, which I was viciously against at the time, I can see the wisdom now in IG's choice in alleviating the responsibilty from the players because it was never going to get better.

This is the same. It's only going to get worse as we get bigger.

Skibbles wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 2:46 am We need tools. I disagree wholly and completely with putting the onus of resolution onto the community.

That's how we got here in the first place.

We're too big now. In the past, before EE and when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, Arelith was small and things were easier to handle among us. That's over. It's not coming back.

Just like with the property and shop changes, which I was viciously against at the time, I can see the wisdom now in IG's choice in alleviating the responsibilty from the players because it was never going to get better.

This is the same. It's only going to get worse as we get bigger.

Every mechanical system we've created related to PvP has created worse problems, and more toxic behaviour. You're not going to change things by creating guard-friendly shackles (we had those once).

Look at the behaviour created from the assassination/settlement leader system. Around bankrupting stockpiles around wartime. Of PCs just not logging in when at war.

You can't systems-design your way out of conflict. Killing the Rewards system would actually probably do more for improving conflict-culture, as this cycle the OP suggests couldn't exist as blatantly as it does. You'd arguable turn Arelith into a fixed-level server, like a more traditional MMO, where the majority of the server is geared towards level 30 being more a norm.

Seven Sons of Sin wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 2:55 am

Skibbles wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 2:46 am We need tools. I disagree wholly and completely with putting the onus of resolution onto the community.

That's how we got here in the first place.

We're too big now. In the past, before EE and when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, Arelith was small and things were easier to handle among us. That's over. It's not coming back.

Just like with the property and shop changes, which I was viciously against at the time, I can see the wisdom now in IG's choice in alleviating the responsibilty from the players because it was never going to get better.

This is the same. It's only going to get worse as we get bigger.

Every mechanical system we've created related to PvP has created worse problems, and more toxic behaviour. You're not going to change things by creating guard-friendly shackles (we had those once).

Look at the behaviour created from the assassination/settlement leader system. Around bankrupting stockpiles around wartime. Of PCs just not logging in when at war.

You can't systems-design your way out of conflict. Killing the Rewards system would actually probably do more for improving conflict-culture, as this cycle the OP suggests couldn't exist as blatantly as it does. You'd arguable turn Arelith into a fixed-level server, like a more traditional MMO, where the majority of the server is geared towards level 30 being more a norm.

Level 30 is the norm, has been for a long time, and until that changes I'm going to be suggesting methods to work around this fact.

Since I've already highlighted the assassin's guild as a trash narrative for most characters, since its the same thing we already have, I'm not going to elaborate further on that.

Obviously players are going to abuse any system in place. Just like people will still murder when it's illegal to kill people.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't be making systems that players can use or draw inspiration from in order to resolve their differences in meaningful ways besides murder, murder, murder.

While the point about fast lvl progression enabling players who are in it just to mess with others on their 0-stake characters is valid, fast lvling also appears to help maintaining a healthy server population, so I'd say it's still a net positive.
PvP is a fairly low stakes game anyway.

I've been mostly concerned about the rapid character turnover - toons (be it friend or adversary) being gone before one even had the opportunity to RP with them properly. Though I remain optimistic about the award cooldowns having addressing that now.

While you're always going to have conflict and exploitation of the existing systems, I do think the way it is designed can modify the behavior though it's a case of choosing the least bad choice.

For example I've played on an RP server for 3+ years a long time ago that had you drop everything you had equipped upon death (I'm not recommending this for Arelith). The respect for combat was much higher as the consequences were dire. Fights still happened but the back-to-back rematches were rare even if both kept to subdual so no one lost their stuff because at any point that could be changed at the click of a button. A major consequence of that was you had 10% of the playerbase that knew how to PvP semi-competently calling many the shots.

That's not to say having players act in a way that builds to a certain server culture doesn't have a positive effect, but for as many going in the "desired" direction you're going to have those going some other way (and some doing the exact opposite). I think the most beneficial thing is having both a mechanical system AND a core portion of the playerbase pushing for a certain server culture together.

Watchful Glare wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 5:43 pm And in the end this is replaced with nothing, which is the problem. Once there is nothing to fight, they dissolve and disappear, absent of interest leaving a void in it's wake- That is not filled again because those consistent players that created content are now gone. Entering a slow but steady decline, into the same cycle again. Nothing is built with staying power to where it matters again.

I know that I seem to be popping in to deliver my two cents pretty often of late but I'll throw my four halfpennies into the hat once again. And this time, I'll give the DM team some credit - I'm willing to bet that a lot of times, especially with the more merciless repeat curb-stompings, someone took it overboard and caught a ban, after which the friend group disperses to do something else seeing as their little cadre of murderhobos don't want to play a man down, and their interest was more in their collective success as opposed to the individual conquest. So, that might have something to do with the sudden vanishing of antagonists.


On another hand, let me also present you with a second word of note: The so-called "turtle's defense". I'm not going to name names but if you've been about Andunor in the last six months or so you'll know what I'm talking about. Let's say that a faction enters into an area, gains some power, and decides for some reason to pick a fight with a long-since-established group. Now, that group knows that they've been had: they're playing old characters with builds that were prime maybe 3 or 4 years ago but don't really compare to the Nodachi Spellswords and Fey/Undying Warlocks of the world. But, the faction coffers overfloweth, so they all decide "Hey, let's roll a few new characters and all start up on Skal for a few weeks! It's not like we'll break the bank if we're not gold farming on our mains".

So, the character goes out of their quarter, touches their store, maybe restocks it a little, goes back inside, crafts something, and logs out. The group all rollicks about on characters they fully intend to abandon once the pressure relieves itself. Meanwhile, a faction that is looking for any amount of contact - any amount of roleplay, be it violent or non - is utterly stonewalled. Lacking anything else, the antagonism either moves or dissolves, the turtle returns from its shell, victory over the powerless oppressor is declared, anonymous messages are added to the board, and the cycle begins all over again.

How does this factor into your observations? Frankly I'm inclined to lean into what Irongron's said - A lot of what goes into IC factions is OOC motivations, friends playing with friends, people going "Hey what do you need" and tailormaking something to fit that mold, an unwillingness to lose even at the expense of one's own screentime, etc.

Proposed solution:
Character breaking said laws? They receive a magical mark from the Hubmaster. Mysterious in origin. The more marks you acquire, eventually when you die within the city of Andunor your soul is taken, preventing resurrection. The only way of getting rid of the mark is working to enforce the laws of the city yourself, working for the city's benefit and making the city richer.

Now I'm not going to say this is a bad idea. It's not a horrible one. But, has a few flaws.

1. The rich don't get poorer. Those established groups will be able to get away with murder, and we all know that the rumor mill screams DM favoritism any time someone wins for too long.

2. Living in the Land Down Under now has a mechanical advantage of playing in the time zone (DMs asleep killbash hobbits) and server (for some reason the DMs don't go downstairs) where the DMs aren't online to slap your wrist and give you your Mark of Depression. Again, it comes down to what DMs get kicked down into the cellar and are forced to eye-of-sauron the Hub to see if anyone's breaking laws - which, again, feeds into....

3: No one wants to be DM Partypooper. Why would you be the DM who snitches on players and constantly gets shit on for that when you can be an event or ambient DM and read descriptions that have the word 'Voluptuous' repeated forty times all day? Why would you want to dredge the backrooms to make sure no one's huffing skooma in the condemned quarter in the upper hub when you could invisibly watch pantsless elves confess their love for each other and then go AFK for an hour as their discord status changes to "Busy"? Why would you voluntarily choose to take all that garbage when you can be, you know, telling interesting stories for once like you thought you'd be doing when you signed up to be a DM, now that the mile of paperwork and relevels and namechanges and bitching and moaning and whining has been sorted? You wouldn't. You'd get assigned the short stick because no one wants to be that DM. And that DM would likely stop logging on after a while, because I've worked a call center before, and while some masochistic personalities can handle the barrage it's not something people do for free, or at least for long.

This leads to...

4. Whenever someone does get their Mark of Depression, because they will inevitably be handed out infrequently, the cry of "DM bias" will flare up yet again, sending more shit the DMs' collective way.

It's not a bad plan. But the implementation's gonna suck Snuggybear.

Purplemyst wrote: Mon Jul 25, 2022 9:11 pm I think the leveling is very fast, not that I'm complaining, it is nice just being to do my daily writs after work and then get to 30 in under 2 weeks.

But one thing I did notice which saddened me a little considering the size of the player base is that I rarely had any random PC encounters in dungeons. A good few years ago I'd always bump into random people and potentially form IC friendships or make foes. Some of these encounters even turned into ooc friendships.

I do feel this might be down to the fast paced leveling.

I mainly play on the surface though so this may be different down in the UD.

UD it happens more because there's less space to be. The surface is massive. And by massive I mean massive massive. The DM team has done a very good job of making spacious, mazelike areas and wide, sprawling plains, that, sadly, give you enough armspan to hold a spear at the pommel, one in each hand, and spin like a hellicopter without ever bumping into another player. Here Down Underdark, however, the grind routes are well-established, the portal hubs are heavily trafficked, and the writs aren't nearly plentiful enough to prevent people from circlegrinding stingers just a few more times to hit lv8 before you log off. Thus, people find people, because the UD keeps us packed in like basketball players flying Spirit Airlines.

Skibbles wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 2:14 am We need, need, need tools for this. We need ways to make punishments fit the crime. We're stuck in this endless cycle of slow-boiling animosity because the only way for most players to stop a burglar is to dismember their corpse and slander them to hundreds of players until they are dismembered again and again and again - crime finally solved, that was fun wasn't it?

No wonder there's all this animosity.

Also, everything this man said. The whole thing. There is no real path between:
1. "Ignore bob"
and:
2. "Kill bob, tell everyone bob is a necromancer, get him banned from cordor, get cordor to tell guldorand and myon and brog and bendir to ban him as well, get bob to join the banites and then eventually log off because he can't leave the bane castle because he's level 4 and minmir ettins hurt".

You can get the city guard to.... Tell him to stop? And if he doesn't, they... choose option 2. You could take matters into your own hands and.... take option 2. You could call the paladins, who'd arrive en masse and... choose option 2. Uninteractive. Boring. Not good for story writing material. And when Bob's buddies all get pissed, well, I've heard someone writes a thread about when that happens in Andunor at least once a year.

Make an option 3.

Skibbles wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 2:14 am As a potential conflict brews in the Underdark I too find myself in the position where I hear 'from both sides' about the dubious practices of the 'other' side. I've been pondering on making a post about this, decided to wait until things get into full swing, but this seems a good time.

This is very painful, because I know all these players, have talked to them for years in some cases, and I know that ultimately everyone is doing their best and trying to have a good time. Yet there are what appears to be irreconcilable differences between them.

I feel like the child, sometimes, between two parents going through the first stages of divorce.

I've said, time and again, in all the megathreads about the enormous sh*tshows that the UD can produce, that we are given abolutely no tools for conflict resolution except to circle grind each others factions until one or the other is exhausted, or hope that we end up fighting players that have the creative wherewithal to turn victory/defeat into something that other players can appreciate and feel gave them and their character vindication or a fair acknowledgement in defeat.

The assassin's guild and its no-context anonymity is the only tool we've ever been given, and it's exactly the same thing as what we already have. Kill, bash, maybe someone is happy by the end of it if we're lucky or if they didn't shelve for a month because some faceless NPC guild has an extortionate rate to prevent an no-narrative demise that can't be incorporated into a wider story.

We need, need, need tools for this. We need ways to make punishments fit the crime. We're stuck in this endless cycle of slow-boiling animosity because the only way for most players to stop a burglar is to dismember their corpse and slander them to hundreds of players until they are dismembered again and again and again - crime finally solved, that was fun wasn't it?

No wonder there's all this animosity.

Skibbles wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 2:46 am We need tools. I disagree wholly and completely with putting the onus of resolution onto the community.

That's how we got here in the first place.

We're too big now. In the past, before EE and when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, Arelith was small and things were easier to handle among us. That's over. It's not coming back.

Just like with the property and shop changes, which I was viciously against at the time, I can see the wisdom now in IG's choice in alleviating the responsibilty from the players because it was never going to get better.

This is the same. It's only going to get worse as we get bigger.

Skibs if I could have anyone from the community be an admin, it would be you.

As usual I agree with everything you've said, in the first, and in the following one specially. That is exactly what I am getting at.

AskRyze wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 5:53 am Stuff

You cheeky bastard, you have no idea how much your post made me laugh. But you're right.

To your post I'll reply that the 'turtle defense' is to my perspective a natural conclusion to the killbash cycle. If there's no compromise possible, if you've already lost, made concessions for peace and it keeps going, what else are you going to do? You're answering yourself at the end with the tale of Bob. There's nothing to do but shelf and return at a time where people might be more reasonable, if you don't want to roll.

It may be somewhat easy for me to say because I like to play characters with high stealth, high disguise, hard to unscry that can just beep boop get free out of jail card and play wherever they want and no one knows, they are one username change away from being essentially a new character (Which is also almost a necessity if you play an antagonist- because of the abeforementioned, again), but I've seen so many characters of so many different factions (and unaffiliated) be trampled under that wheel that I know it's a very big issue. It's not fun. It's not healthy.

Creates a lot of animosity, makes people jaded. Skibbles has put it very well.

To your points 1, 2, 3, 4. In the hub it would be different than Cordor, Guldorand, on any other place really because there is no elected officials that play consistently every day to keep a record of relevant things and goings-ons. The hub is the wild west until the peacekeeper remembers he can talk. That's the only settlement where there's no 'insider', no elected officials. Also, similarily, nothing ever goes on in the Andunor districts that is of any relevance. 99% of it happens in the hub.

The districts are a ghost town except when you see someone running full tilt to check the shops for something before they run back to the hub, or when they are going to their respective houses.

Trying to think of something for it. Maybe an actual NPC faction given some legitimacy that functions alongside he peacekeepers and takes an oath, joinable by players like any other guard faction.

AskRyze wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 5:53 am The so-called "turtle's defense". I'm not going to name names but if you've been about Andunor in the last six months or so you'll know what I'm talking about. Let's say that a faction enters into an area, gains some power, and decides for some reason to pick a fight with a long-since-established group. Now, that group knows that they've been had: they're playing old characters with builds that were prime maybe 3 or 4 years ago but don't really compare to the Nodachi Spellswords and Fey/Undying Warlocks of the world. But, the faction coffers overfloweth, so they all decide "Hey, let's roll a few new characters and all start up on Skal for a few weeks! It's not like we'll break the bank if we're not gold farming on our mains".

So, the character goes out of their quarter, touches their store, maybe restocks it a little, goes back inside, crafts something, and logs out. The group all rollicks about on characters they fully intend to abandon once the pressure relieves itself. Meanwhile, a faction that is looking for any amount of contact - any amount of roleplay, be it violent or non - is utterly stonewalled. Lacking anything else, the antagonism either moves or dissolves, the turtle returns from its shell, victory over the powerless oppressor is declared, anonymous messages are added to the board, and the cycle begins all over again.

How does this factor into your observations? Frankly I'm inclined to lean into what Irongron's said - A lot of what goes into IC factions is OOC motivations, friends playing with friends, people going "Hey what do you need" and tailormaking something to fit that mold, an unwillingness to lose even at the expense of one's own screentime, etc.

This perfectly sums up my biggest issue with the server culture, and I think finding a way to solve (or at least diminish) this kind of behaviour would go a very, very long way in improving Arelith.

As for 'no compromise possible' mentioned (I'm bad at quoting and I cbf). In my experience there is usually a compromise offered and it is rejected, over and over, which then leads to the killbash cycle which then leads to the 'turtle defense'. Players are just unwilling to accept/admit defeat, at any cost, and it definitely builds animosity over time when conflict can't be brought to a resolution. Personally, I have always offered an out. There is always a way to avoid PvP and beyond that there is always a way to end conflict from my characters after 1 PvP, but in my experience people are just unwilling to do that. It never ends. Barely anyone ever chooses the out, least of all entire factions.

They have no incentive to. There is no punishment for behaving that way, and there is no reward for not behaving that way.
On the contrary, it is usually these undefeatable longstanding factions that refuse to give others a win, and that refuse to ever accept defeat that end up the most powerful and successful, and the most rewarded for their efforts.

Imagine scenarios where someone rejects all offers and outs and leaves you with no option but to ...
1. PvP them
2. Ignore them

So you PvP them and they keep rejecting more offers/outs and so you PvP them and so on, until eventually you either ignore them and they just keep coming at you, or they turtle up and wait for players/groups to move on before returning.

How do you even police this? No rules are being broken as far as I can tell. It's not particularly 'mean' (be nice rule). It's just kind of, lame?

If no one ever accepts defeat, no one can ever get a real win in. If no one can ever get a real win in, the 'MUST WIN' mentality just intensifies from a lack of satisfaction and resolution.


EDIT: And to be clear, by 'accept defeat' no, I do not mean delete their characters/stop playing or anything of the sort. It's as simple as just roleplaying acknowledgement of defeat. Accepting it. Stop coming back for more. Acknowledge that someone defeated you, and that someone else won. Let it be over, and move on to other RP.

And the same is true of the victor with the defeated. If they accept this, then let it be.

The above scenario Hazards mentioned... Some times the ‘out’ offered from one side is undesired by the other side. Unless it has been discussed and agreed beforehand, it may feels like one fraction is forcing the other side to do whatever they want because they are a bunch of meta pvp builds. It is not all the case, but very likely exploited.

I ‘ll just make up something like: a group of players made a new fraction, all going meta pvp build and hit 30 with good gears. Then they pick on another fraction: we’ll have your house , give it or die/ your face sickens us and your fraction is a joke, dissolve or we kill you. The ‘out’ is offered I guess? But what are the chances that it is going to be actually accepted?

(That is a bit of elaboration from my own encounters when a so called ‘out’ is offered to me, mind that, I never participated in fraction conflicts so I have no idea if above reflected actual events)

I’d rather let mass scale pvp events by booking only, with applications for supervision and consent from everyone involved including the possible outcomes should they win or lose.

xf1313 wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 11:23 am it may feels like one fraction is forcing the other side to do whatever they want because they are a bunch of meta pvp builds. It is not all the case, but very likely exploited.

I kind of get the spirit of your post, and some of it is a problem, but having a good build or understanding of the game doesn't equal exploiting. Not even close.

I've played this game since the day it came out. Sometimes I forget an update or don't have a full grasp on new classes or niche feats, but I know most of this game and many the mechanics like the back of my hand. Many people do. I am not special here.

Am I cheating because of this? No. Am I master pvper? I have no idea. Will I beat the pants off a brand new player still getting their feet wet? I'd say I have an advantage of at least some kind, but I'm not exploiting.

xf1313 wrote: Tue Jul 26, 2022 11:23 am The above scenario Hazards mentioned... Some times the ‘out’ offered from one side is undesired by the other side. Unless it has been discussed and agreed beforehand, it may feels like one fraction is forcing the other side to do whatever they want because they are a bunch of meta pvp builds. It is not all the case, but very likely exploited.

I ‘ll just make up something like: a group of players made a new fraction, all going meta pvp build and hit 30 with good gears. Then they pick on another fraction: we’ll have your house , give it or die/ your face sickens us and your fraction is a joke, dissolve or we kill you. The ‘out’ is offered I guess? But what are the chances that it is going to be actually accepted?

(That is a bit of elaboration from my own encounters when a so called ‘out’ is offered to me, mind that, I never participated in fraction conflicts so I have no idea if above reflected actual events)

I’d rather let mass scale pvp events by booking only, with applications for supervision and consent from everyone involved including the possible outcomes should they win or lose.

I wouldn't consider that a real 'out' offered, but an ultimatum after many rejected outs.

A real out is more like I described, just ... admit defeat and leave it be. Just to 'get over it'. That would, for me at least, be more than enough. I never want anyone to delete their character or stop playing it. I just want people to accept when something is over so we can all move on to OTHER stories.

Edit: But also, if someone does demand a faction disbanded as the first option. That's fine. You 'can' still play together disbanded and just move on and make a new faction and not continue the same conflict you just conceded. That would be a cool thing and I'd recommend players like that for RPR. (If I ever fricken saw it happen in person).