Critique: Game mechanics allow for dirty charter exploit

[MightySheep]

Why are we talking about evict ko in a situation where somebody ported into the middle of a random village like as though the method is even relevant?

I can aggro your character and close a fence gate and you are trapped forever. I could take my time shooting you with arrows if I wanted to especially if you have rage. I could call as many people as I want you're totally at my mercy. I could surround you with alts and logs because u can't pick things up or aggro them so you get stuck in place. I'm just spitballing here but wtf is this alternative scenario you're envisioning if evict ko is removed?

I agree it's a strangely unintuitive mechanic and I wouldn't care if it got removed because the alternatives honestly sound more fun.

This whole thread is trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist lol its like asking how do we solve the issue of getting beaten up when we walk into strangers houses? The question itself is ridiculous.

[FaithfulToadd]

To be clear, I am not asking to remove knockout as a consequence to ignoring someone who casts Evict! Nowhere in my post did I ask for that, actually. Rather, I am asking for the opportunity to hearth home before aggro begins, so that Aggro plus Evict does not result in an unavoidable K.O. with zero counterplay for trapped visitors. Charterstones should be a means for strangers to trust one another, enabling trade and markets to flourish; they should not just be newbie trap / underhanded free lunch for PKers.

By all means, keep Eviction K.O. It's a good feature that allows a weaker player to kick out a stronger (read: sweatier) bully. But please don't instantly K.O.

Your trespasser should have had ample warning and opportunity to leave, if they used a charter stone to arrive at your otherwise open-to-the-public destination. It's only fair.

Why are we talking about evict ko in a situation where somebody ported into the middle of a random village like as though the method is even relevant?

...wtf is this alternative scenario you're envisioning if evict ko is removed? I agree it's a strangely unintuitive mechanic and I wouldn't care if it got removed because the alternatives honestly sound more fun.

This whole thread is trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist lol its like asking how do we solve the issue of getting beaten up when we walk into strangers houses? The question itself is ridiculous.

The method, visitation by Charterstone, provides important context for the discussion. No one has argued for wandering into someone's gate to grant invulnerability. The Charterstone is the crux of the issue - if Charterstones were removed altogether, there would be no discussion. But we don't want that.

Suppose Player A travels to Player B's charterstone, labeled 'Public Water.' It doesn't look like a trap, since Player B is not visibly at the Charter Stone. Player A confirms the teleport. When Player A moves to the well, they discover Player B lying in wait. Player B aggroes them and casts Evict. Player A is a competent fighter, with better agility and armor than their opponent, Player B. Player B would fall in a fair fight, but because Player B can cast Evict while in a combat relation, Player A will be knocked out where they otherwise wouldn't have. Player B 'wins' the combat despite having no right to, and empties Player A's inventory onto the ground before Player A hearths home.

This situation can be solved by either preventing or delaying aggro to visitors. My solution allows 2 minutes for Player B to hearth home, after discovering that Player A is a conniving, scheming plotter, and an abuser of the public trust.

[MightySheep]

Why does it matter if its gate or charter the fact is its basic common sense you don't go into the middle of someone's home unless you trust them. Way moreso with charter than through a gate.

I can already imagine ppl porting to their own charter to get this 2 minute invulnerability to bash siege machines for free etc lol.

It's not instant ko evict timer is 30 seconds during which you can port unless you get aggrod then end of timer its ko

[FaithfulToadd]

Why does it matter if its gate or charter the fact is its basic common sense you don't go into the middle of someone's home unless you trust them. Way moreso with charter than through a gate.

It just seems to me that Charterstones are for trade, primarily. Why have them if I, as a sprucecap, can't trust the person I'm trading due to a mechanic I've never had the opportunity to study?

I can already imagine ppl porting to their own charter to get this 2 minute invulnerability to bash siege machines for free etc lol.

That is a fair criticism. Perhaps siege machines cannot be interacted with while under the effect of Lawspeaker's Grace? Perhaps Lawspeaker's Grace does not apply to realms where the thingpeace is broken? Or what is your solution? Talk to me.

It's not instant ko evict timer is 30 seconds during which you can port unless you get aggrod then end of timer its ko

Those - 'Unless you get aggroed' - are the magic words. Admittedly, I have never been evicted, so I wouldn't know precisely how it works. But surely evict is not intended to be used during combat, since, theoretically, the person you're evicting should not be able to aggro you while under Visitor Debuff?

[MightySheep]

Why does it matter if its gate or charter the fact is its basic common sense you don't go into the middle of someone's home unless you trust them. Way moreso with charter than through a gate.

It just seems to me that Charterstones are for trade, primarily. Why have them if I, as a sprucecap, can't trust the person I'm trading due to a mechanic I've never had the opportunity to study?

Charterstone is a teleportation device, nothing more. There's no trade that doesn't require trust and there never has been. Not really sure why you're talking about studying mechanics again like as though evict even makes any difference to the level of danger, its like you ignored everything I wrote previously.

I can already imagine ppl porting to their own charter to get this 2 minute invulnerability to bash siege machines for free etc lol.

That is a fair criticism. Perhaps siege machines cannot be interacted with while under the effect of Lawspeaker's Grace? Perhaps Lawspeaker's Grace does not apply to realms where the thingpeace is broken? Or what is your solution? Talk to me.

For me to offer a solution I would first need to think there is a problem. Which I don't. This is a non issue. I wouldn't be opposed to them messing with the mechanics for no reason though since most of the time this type of random changes has some funny unforeseen abusable side effects.

[FaithfulToadd]

Not really sure why you're talking about studying mechanics again like as though evict even makes any difference to the level of danger, its like you ignored everything I wrote previously.

Not at all - I'm genuinely sorry you feel that way. I assure you I am reading and keeping tabs on this thread.

I do take issue with the level of danger, but for the sake of argument, let's say I didn't. The level of danger isn't the worst of it; the problem is the lack of consistency in game mechanics, which you have agreed are 'strangely unintuitive'.

The problem I have with Eviction, as it currently stands, is that it is entirely inconsistent with the existing principles of conflict resolution. As I have said, allowing players to use Evict while in combat causes the scenario that OP is complaining about: an unearned, free K.O. with no counterplay by the victim. Sure, you might claim that you could easily K.O., or even kill, your opponent without abusing this quirky interaction, using any of the other methods you spoke of. If that's true, then why keep the jank? Why keep these weird edge-cases, where your victim is denied the opportunity to hearth home after visiting a public charter? Make the PKers achieve their knockouts legitimately, by fighting for them, using any of the methods you've described.

This is a non issue.

Perhaps you are right, and it will make little difference in the end. But OP doesn't seem to feel that way, and I rather agree with them. Why not change things and give them some peace of mind?

[FaithfulToadd]

I can aggro your character and close a fence gate and you are trapped forever. I could take my time shooting you with arrows if I wanted to especially if you have rage. I could call as many people as I want you're totally at my mercy. I could surround you with alts and logs because u can't pick things up or aggro them so you get stuck in place. I'm just spitballing here but wtf is this alternative scenario you're envisioning if evict ko is removed?

I agree it's a strangely unintuitive mechanic and I wouldn't care if it got removed because the alternatives honestly sound more fun.

After further contemplation, the torture methods you've outlined here look more and more like cases of abuse. I actually think my suggestion fixes these issues, too, in that it allows honest customers of a market to hearth home before any of this nonsense begins. It's a bit odd, isn't it, that a combat relation can go on indefinitely? Does it make for fun and interesting gameplay that I, a griefer, can use a combat relation to keep someone in a holding pattern for arbitrary lengths of time?

Perhaps in addition to the Lawspeaker's Grace suggestion, a hearthling should be able to voluntarily K.O. themselves after 2 hours stuck in a 'holding pattern' like these. Surely you don't mean to advocate for these weird stalemate conditions as proper and legitimate means of conflict resolution?

[loleznub]

Ah yes, let's set the precedent of pushing dogshit patches for things that spruce caps like OP consider 'exploits' when it's literally actually not an exploit.


The real question is why are you going inside someone else's village if you don't trust them to not KO and loot you? It's literally as easy as not typing in the charter (because btw, the charter will disappear once it's been turned off from the list of visited ones) and if you do type on the charter and see the location is now wildly different, still teleporting to it???


The worst part of this thread is that there's many more just like it - sprucecaps who don't understand even 1% of the mechanica involved constantly creating awful threads which either detracts from jorbs development time, or reduces their willingness to even read through these C&I threads, reducing the chances of something actually worthwhile being implemented

[FaithfulToadd]

Ah yes, let's set the precedent of pushing dogshit patches for things that spruce caps like OP consider 'exploits' when it's literally actually not an exploit.

Show me where the developers wrote, 'It is intended that you, as the host of a public gathering, can kill, torture, and abuse those assembled there by locking them into a combat relation, forever, with zero opportunity for counterplay by the defending party. Not only is it intended, that is the chief reason why we introduced Charterstones in the first place.' Please.

I'll do you one better: Allow me to prove that, since its inception, the Charterstone in 'Haven 2.0' has always been a fast travel solution with markets and trade explicitly in mind, albeit an experimental one.

Added Charter Stones. You can build one Charter Stone per village. A Charter Stone can be given a (unique) name, much the same as a Hearth Secret. From a Charter Stone you can travel to any other Charter Stone you know the name of. You can spawn new characters by Charter Stones by giving the Charter Stone name to the skull pole in the character creation room. You cannot use Charter Stones for travel if you are Outlawed.

This, obviously, is complete madness, but it seemed like it could be an interesting madness to try out, if nothing else as a counterpoint experiment to the "roads only"-regime. We, along with many of you, have been disappointed with how roads have actually turned out to work in terms of allowing for player interaction. When we implemented roads we did so primarily in order to remove some of the exploity and locality-negating effects we felt that Crossroads had -- and because we thought it could be cleaner -- and not per se to create ridiculous hurdles for trade and simple hanging out. I'd like to stress that we -- at least presently -- don't really think of this as a permanent end solution to fast travel, as much as, indeed, an experiment, but it should at least prove a fun one to watch!

[loleznub]

Go read the excerpt on why permadeath mate. Simply put, it's a necessary evil so you can prevent grieving on your property.

Also while you're at it, please also direct me to where the developers wrote 'As a host of a public gathering, in any form, whether it be meeting person or for trade, I should be unable to defend my property or seek revenge through intrigue and guile, by inviting people unto my property'. Please.