I personally don't think you should be able to retaliate from someone defending their city - this is an instance you are instigating conflict and the city defenders are protecting their interests. The onus should be on the aggressor to suck it up and take their lumps, speaking as a former prolific city troller. City defence is a great way to draw people into pk, that ceases to be the case if some competent pker is just going to curbstomp you when you go to bash later because they didn't like how things turned out. To draw a comparrison, this is like me going and jumping someone then because they hit back I go jump them again when they get back to life. It is possible I'm misunderstanding the stance on this, but those are my thoughts on it.
Just my two cents on this. Jules and I were discussing Pk rules. I remembered this thread and it was my feeling that this line of thinking should have applied to our non-comms helping to defend shrines. I know many will disagree. I felt like admin flip-flopped on that specific issue, but I thought it was interesting to point out.
Yeah, we definitely discussed the intent and spirit of Septus' post in particular.
With that in mind, I feel like, at the very least, since Sects have evolved into something well beyond "super elite PK/RP bastions" (and if you're going to tie huge mechanical buffs to them, which we definitely have, they pretty much NEEDED to evolve), the rules surrounding them should evolve too. In short, defending a shrine (especially a shrine from your own sect) should look a lot more like being a raid defender than being a champ/capturing a mono. The rules should be crystal clear and people should always know where they stand/what they're getting into (like they do with raids). We do have sort of a weird hybrid right now... because sects do have a bounty system (which protects/limits retribution on aggressors), and is also definitely associated with an "org defense" type set of guidelines.
EDIT: I feel like I understand why those issues went the way they did (and how I suspected they might go), but I think that Sects are different now, and the rules probably should be too.
EDIT2: My biggest beef with the PK rules in general, is that the BEST way to become a PK rules guru is actually to get issued a bunch of times. If you don't get issued a bunch (I certainly don't), it takes a lot longer (and talking to people who HAVE been issued a bunch) to get a real handle on how things work.
Not all systems should benefit from the Vegas clause. I think the amount we exert that clause, as is, is truly too much for the game and a big reason as to why there is no activity. Everything like that is very, very disconnected from the actual game.
Stakes are made by consequences, and you are effectively asking for less consequences to exist on an individual level.
Edit: also, you are really kind of inflating the sort of trouble necessary to write a proper issue and get it to pass as opposes to blow up in your face. The rules are the way they are partially to discourage appealing to a referee constantly.
<div>Message #2062 Sent By: (imperian) Received On: 1/20/2018/2:59</div><div>"Antioch has filed a bounty against you. Reason: Raiding Antioch and stealing Bina, being a right</div><div>****, and not belonging anywhere near Antioch till he grows up."</div>
Edit: also, you are really kind of inflating the sort of trouble necessary to write a proper issue and get it to pass as opposes to blow up in your face. The rules are the way they are partially to discourage appealing to a referee constantly.
I actually think the opposite happens. I think people totally misunderstand the rules (because the rules are pretty murky, even when they don't need to be), and think they're covered when they're not. Then, they get involved with stuff without appreciating the consequences (and also not understanding that they are in fact, not "covered"), and THEN, make it even worse by issuing (and obviously losing).
EDIT: one of the worst things, especially for a non-com/new person who isn't very confident about dabbling in PK, is the feeling of stepping into an abyss, with zero expectation management.
If you're defending shrines of a sect you're not apart of, you should expect- and honestly, deserve- to be killed later. Literally every other game follows this line of reasoning and logic. It's not your shrine, you have no business defending it.
Sects being "allies" shouldn't really have any bearing on that. In fact, 'defending an ally' would follow the exact thing Jeremy posted about with 'allies' being open to retribution later, if they're not of the same org.
Here's something I think is pretty damn relevant in these sorts of contexts, that my sister posted a couple years ago on Achaea forums:
Zyv... your quote is talking about defiling. Being the aggressor. There are ALWAYS consequences for being an aggressor. Even when not strictly covered by the rules, being the aggressor is definitely viewed differently, and is also just frankly not part of the discussion in this case. You're really pretty far off base in terms of the current discussion. That said, the aggressors actually probably have more protections than our own defenders right now - because weirdly, they're protected by a bounty system (which is an "org system" mechanic through and through, and which actually exists to protect aggressors from being hunted down multiple times for say, a single raid).
All of that said, these were our guys, from our own sect, defending their own shrines. And the fact that we begged them to come help us at all speaks for itself. It's absolutely an act of desperation, and definitely means the enemy would have got even fewer fights without those people joining us.
Really, though, whatever way admin wants to go with the actual rules is what it is. But even if they decide to leave sect warfare as is, sect warfare is definitely a pretty clearcut combat system, and with those, there's usually no good reason that the rules can't be clear (whatever those rules are). A lot of the PK rules actually are clear - because people who have been through the issue process a good number of times understand them very well. They're just poorly encapsulated in the PK Rules that the average player reads.
If you're defending shrines of a sect you're not apart of, you should expect- and honestly, deserve- to be killed later.
This isn't what we were talking about. I think we all understand that anyone outside of an org that chooses to help is opening themselves to retaliation, thus the reason Unspeakable got very quiet after the war.
We were talking about those within the sect, who would be normally be considered non-comms. You might wish to argue that if they defend they aren't non-comms but it's a universally understood label within the game to make about people who don't know how to fight and never seek it out. People understand what I'm talking about. That would be the occasional unskilled person that helps defend during a raid or a newbie who gets drug to an obelisk battle with the whole city like Antioch use to do.
Except it's not only addressing that? Notice the part where it mentions defenders, as well? Not just people who go out to defile. And I never said the ones helping you weren't members of the sect, I said it's something that should be expected if you aren't, since it was mentioned earlier.
If you involve yourself in combat, however frequently, you are no longer a "non-com". Just because you're not a good one, doesn't mean you're not one, at that point. People really need to stop using that field to hide behind, when they're knowingly helping people who are "combatants" by the definition they use. Shrines are an opt-in PK mechanic, if you choose to assist in it, you are no longer anti-pk regardless of what you say, and thus should expect to know what the "pk rules" are.
Also not sure how this is off-topic, when it's rather openly addressing PK rules. Don't falsely flag, please.
I actually think one of the simplest solutions might be to apply the bounty system in a few more instances. Bounties for defending AND attacking obelisks (I've actually always felt it would be ideal to bounty attackers and defenders when it comes to those). And, I'd actually be willing to consider bounties for defending OR defiling shrines. I could live with that (and more importantly, I bet our non-coms could too). Leave cities as an instance where only aggressors can ever be bountied.
People might be a tiny bit unhappy in some circumstances - but I think hopefully not overly so, and if it somehow turned out awful, we should always keep in mind that things can and sometimes should be changed again. Most importantly, it makes the consequences super clear. And just giving people some really solid expectation management is really huge, I think.
EDIT: it really is kind of nuts that obelisk defenders can't be hunted down, but shrine defenders can, actually. Those two things definitely need to be on the same page (both bounties, or both complete non-offenses).
If you involve yourself in combat, however frequently, you are no longer a "non-com". Just because you're not a good one, doesn't mean you're not one, at that point. People really need to stop using that field to hide behind, when they're knowingly helping people who are "combatants" by the definition they use. Shrines are an opt-in PK mechanic, if you choose to assist in it, you are no longer anti-pk regardless of what you say, and thus should expect to know what the "pk rules" are.
Bolded emphasis mine.
This is the truth of it. A 'non-comm' is somebody that abstains from it all. You can't say you don't eat vegetables, but then eat the carrots and celery on the side with your chicken wings. Those are still vegetables. You still ate them. That counts. You're now a vegetable eater. That's that.
There should be consequences for participating in some conflict systems. Let's not beat around the bush: the complaint in question that began this debate is that I won a pair of issues lodged against me by Morgaze and Jebadiah. They helped defend Flame shrines. I killed them after the fact. Instead of attempting an in character resolution, issues were lodged. My defense was that they took action against the efforts of my sect by attempting to deter us from defiling or attempting to reverse that defile. It was an entirely practical response; we've always let logic like this dictate 'right' and 'wrong'.
In this case, they declared their intent go against something my character was pursuing IC. That intent was declared by joining up with other Flame defenders. They were caught outside of a city and died once (something with absolutely no consequence except the time necessary to come back from Charon, mind you...) for this, then I let them be.
Why are we minimizing and curtailing any attempt whatsoever to make this game feel alive by the continued, slow creep of requests for rules revisions? You've already taken away the sting from death; asking for these rules questions to be 'cleared up' is just a veiled attempt to continue to pull the thin white sheet over the cold carcass of this game's conflict system, whether your realize it or not. In the end, the only thing either of these players lost were:
1. About ~2m of their time. This has value, but the loss is so tiny that I question why anybody gets upset over losing/dying in this game. 2. Whatever assumptions they may or may not have had that they could take me in a fight. This has no actual value in possession.
You two are acting a lot like dying has some sort of penalty. It doesn't. You're also acting like we have any people in this game that would endlessly pursue a non-comm; the truth is that we do, but they happen to be on your side of the playing field, not mine or Demonic's.
<div>Message #2062 Sent By: (imperian) Received On: 1/20/2018/2:59</div><div>"Antioch has filed a bounty against you. Reason: Raiding Antioch and stealing Bina, being a right</div><div>****, and not belonging anywhere near Antioch till he grows up."</div>
EDIT: it really is kind of nuts that obelisk defenders can't be hunted down, but shrine defenders can, actually. Those two things definitely need to be on the same page (both bounties, or both complete non-offenses).
YOU CAN: (are allowed to) Hunt down people who defend shrines that don't belong to their sect. Just like you can go kill people who defend cities they have no business defending.
YOU CAN'T: (you shouldn't / not allowed to) Hunt down people for defending shrines belonging to their own sect. Just like you can't kill someone from say... Antioch, for killing you while you were in Antioch trying to kill someone there.
If there's people hunting down people who're defending their own sect's shrines, then that is a problem. They should not be doing that; you don't get retribution for people killing you while you're trying to attack their sect's shrine... Those are two different situations, "shrine defenders" shouldn't be applied as a blanket term. There's [1] defending YOUR SECT'S shrines (perfectly ok) --- and [2] defending OTHER SECT'S shrines ('not ok' but not against the rules; you can be killed for it tho).
To give an example: You go and defile a Conquest shrine. PersonA (Conquest) and PersonB (Hunt) come to kill you, you shouldn't be going off to attack PersonA later, it was their shrine. You can, however, go after PersonB since they shouldn't have been there in the first place.
On the other end of the same example. Hypothetically, you kill both of them when they come. The result should be the same. And yes, I'm aware there are some who seem to think otherwise, but it should be. PersonA can come after you for defiling shrines (and not because they died defending). PersonB has no ground to stand on, since they died in a fight they shouldn't have been at to begin with.
-- To reiterate: if people are deviating from the above, that in itself is a problem, and should probably be looked at.
I think the reason why the PK rules are so nebulous and open to interpretation is that they have to be.
PVPers are the kinds of people who will find any gap in the rules they can, be it loopholes, 'its not explicitly stated' defences, bending the rules to the point of breaking (sometimes feels like the 'its my RP' defence feels like this but that's not my place to say yea or nay on). You start trying to outline clear-cut rules on these kinds of people they're going to just start finding inventive ways to skirt the rules, which is probably why issuing exists but because the PK rules are so vague, when someone who is used to crystal clear can/cannot types of rules get involved with the conflict systems in place they feel horribly wronged.
During that whole shrine war, I was waiting for some sort of retribution on me outside of the shrine war. In the vein of the usual bounty followed by sabre-rattling tells that I recognize for what they are: words on my screen meant to goad me into crossing a line by people who had their noses understandably out of joint. This isn't snark, this is just fact. Tensions/emotions run high during these things and the blood-mist descends and we all start insulting one another because... well because.
That retribution never came. I don't know why and I didn't ask why as it wasn't exactly important. I was waiting for it (still am, actually). My point is this, I stepped into that conflict expecting:
a) Someone to get extremely upset at me. b) To be recurringly bountied each time I was seen in Demon's Pass for daring to participate in a shrine war I had no stake in as I am not a member of Hollow, and I am willing to explain my reasoning for doing so privately because I am not keen on sharing it on the forums, there's enough rationalization going around right now that things are getting extremely muddy to the point of looking like tomato soup. c) That I might get issued for some reason (first time for everything) d) That I was going to die, and maybe get lucky and kill someone. e) I might actually have fun. (:o)
D and E were the only things that happened, E to a lesser extent towards the end when issues and talks of issues were being thrown around like confetti at a wedding. Then it ended abruptly, and the victory cry went up on the forums and worked like rubbing fresh lemons in salted wounds about a game where conflict seems to be getting strangled at every turn while simultaneously more conflict is being demanded. It's maddening and that is why people are leaving. Not because they can't curb stomp whom they (dis)like. No.
They are leaving because the life is getting sucked out of the game by people who probably mean well and want clarity in a feature of that is optional and NEEDS to be vague to deal with smug faces like @Sarrius who will gleefully pick apart your rules because they can.
I GET the want and desire for clarity, but it isn't something that's possible. I've never seen any other text-based game try to get a cut and dried rules system in place for their PVP. You can't account for the billion-million-thousand possible combinations of events that lead to each conflict. You can't. You can certainly try but it'd be like trying to stop an avalanche with a tennis net. There's going to be holes and it's just not the right court for it.
But that's just my thoughts on it, what do i know. I'm a combative non-com with delusions of grandeur.
There should be one rule only: "Don't be an ****." The ambiguity should make every reasonable player take pause and carefully consider their actions, and in so doing reveal the unreasonable ones quite easily.
currently tentatively active (may vanish for periods of time)
Hunt down people for defending shrines belonging to their own sect. Just like you can't kill someone from say... Antioch, for killing you while you were in Antioch trying to kill someone there.
If there's people hunting down people who're defending their own sect's shrines, then that is a problem. They should not be doing that; you don't get retribution for people killing you while you're trying to attack their sect's shrine... Those are two different situations, "shrine defenders" shouldn't be applied as a blanket term. There's [1] defending YOUR SECT'S shrines (perfectly ok) --- and [2] defending OTHER SECT'S shrines ('not ok' but not against the rules; you can be killed for it tho).
Well, we just agreed, I think. This is exactly what happened. Sect members were hunted down after the fact for defending their own sect's shrines (where they also died bravely). That said - the ruling is "it's legal". So now we know that that is the current rule for shrine wars, but I think you can understand why people were surprised. And it is more of a rule than a "specific situation" because it deals with something that is always going to be a part of a shrine system.
Also, for the record, "allies" actually can't help with an obelisk fight - it's circle only. But obelisks are honestly way lower stakes than shrine wars (and technically, owned by exactly no one) - and yet, you can't ever hunt someone down for "defending" the obelisk they stole fair and square from your circle the other day..
As for bringing more clarity in general, I absolutely think it's both possible and desirable in many, if not most areas. In fact, let's start with the above example. There is absolutely a rule there, because we just found out what it was. The problems are that that rule definitely wasn't known to most people, and it's pretty inconsistent with what most people would expect comparing it to other similar systems - so it would have been difficult for most people to guess before the fact.
I was able to guess the right answer once I heard about the issues, but only because I now have a pretty good background in this stuff now and figured "this really will be one of those exceptions, because for one, Sarrius obviously felt he could get away with it, and for two, now that I think about it Sects used to be VERY exclusive in most IREs, and were very much incredibly hard core PK orgs". The rules on a lot of things are actually pretty clear - most people just have no idea what they are, and the system as a whole feels inconsistent, so you really do have to know the EXACT rule (but you don't). And that's the problem.
The place where things really have to be more fluid are the sorts of things that Theo brought up earlier in this thread (way back when). To be honest, the biggest threat to that sort of PK is people figuring out that they can and should keep their mouths shut if they don't actually want to be PK-ed. Even here, you can (and should) make it clear to people how to generally be thinking about that stuff, so they can make decisions they can live with (and not issue over). Death really isn't that bad, it's true. People who aren't already immersed in PK just have a lot better chance of seeing that truth if they get to go in with their eyes open.
I am kind of surprised no one jumped on my bounty idea I carelessly tossed out there with no discussion of reasonable limits (it probably wouldn't need them in most cases, but in theory, it could actually be totally out of control as is).
Also, Dimitri, you're lucky, I guess Flame already had its hands incredibly full, and your team was bigger and stronger than ours. If anyone ever hunted me down when I was AM, they found they had to deal with Septus... and possibly more. Hunting you down a time or two just couldn't really be a priority under the circumstances.
This **** got abused way harder than what is currently in place IRE-wide. Sarrius would have a field day.
Holy text walls, Batman... Tell me there was an achievement for actually reading that whole thing cause I got to Champion and Agent hiring and my eyes started to glaze over and that was with skimming.
I had a newbie a few years ago and stopped playing because I was being jumped every time I bashed, because I participated in shardfalls, back when they were new. There is something to be said for the Vegas clause. The lack of restraint drove me away. I don't care if there is no xp loss, if I'm new to a game and I'm being jumped every few hours for something my city tells me to do, I will start to dislike the game.
I had a newbie a few years ago and stopped playing because I was being jumped every time I bashed, because I participated in shardfalls, back when they were new. There is something to be said for the Vegas clause. The lack of restraint drove me away. I don't care if there is no xp loss, if I'm new to a game and I'm being jumped every few hours for something my city tells me to do, I will start to dislike the game.
I can sympathize with this... which is why some systems having the Vegas clause is fine. I think that systems meant to help people dip their toes in to PK, i.e shardfalls, are a fine example of that.
Champion should not be the only PK system with 'consequences', because the rewards of the system are honestly inconsequential. Other PK systems should come with the 'risk' of being jumped for participating. This stimulates more conflict that happens in between the rigid, uncontrollable 'blips' of 'hey you guys can PK now'. The issue with a blanket Vegas clause on all PK systems is that it robs us of any possibility for organic combat outside of those 'blips', because every circle generally stays in its own lane, doesn't pick fights with each other, and there's no RP that happens between circles that might give us organic reasons for PK. That isn't OK! Asking for shrine wars to join the list of Vegas clause scenarios is closing the door further on one of the final avenues towards that RP-driven PK.
To hammer my point further: there's no reason whatsoever to raid cities/councils, and raiding is the only PK objective that we have total control over the initiation of. The system is not properly polished and the rewards are unattractive.. and those are not the only two issues. You might claim obelisks are in this category too, but you can protect an obelisk with an outpost, unless I'm mistaken. This means you can block off certain hours of prime time for your enemy.
<div>Message #2062 Sent By: (imperian) Received On: 1/20/2018/2:59</div><div>"Antioch has filed a bounty against you. Reason: Raiding Antioch and stealing Bina, being a right</div><div>****, and not belonging anywhere near Antioch till he grows up."</div>
None, but doing so opens you up to retribution outside of the system, if we're gonna get Issue Lawyer-ish..
<div>Message #2062 Sent By: (imperian) Received On: 1/20/2018/2:59</div><div>"Antioch has filed a bounty against you. Reason: Raiding Antioch and stealing Bina, being a right</div><div>****, and not belonging anywhere near Antioch till he grows up."</div>
Comments
Just my two cents on this. Jules and I were discussing Pk rules. I remembered this thread and it was my feeling that this line of thinking should have applied to our non-comms helping to defend shrines. I know many will disagree. I felt like admin flip-flopped on that specific issue, but I thought it was interesting to point out.
With that in mind, I feel like, at the very least, since Sects have evolved into something well beyond "super elite PK/RP bastions" (and if you're going to tie huge mechanical buffs to them, which we definitely have, they pretty much NEEDED to evolve), the rules surrounding them should evolve too. In short, defending a shrine (especially a shrine from your own sect) should look a lot more like being a raid defender than being a champ/capturing a mono. The rules should be crystal clear and people should always know where they stand/what they're getting into (like they do with raids). We do have sort of a weird hybrid right now... because sects do have a bounty system (which protects/limits retribution on aggressors), and is also definitely associated with an "org defense" type set of guidelines.
EDIT: I feel like I understand why those issues went the way they did (and how I suspected they might go), but I think that Sects are different now, and the rules probably should be too.
EDIT2: My biggest beef with the PK rules in general, is that the BEST way to become a PK rules guru is actually to get issued a bunch of times. If you don't get issued a bunch (I certainly don't), it takes a lot longer (and talking to people who HAVE been issued a bunch) to get a real handle on how things work.
Stakes are made by consequences, and you are effectively asking for less consequences to exist on an individual level.
Edit: also, you are really kind of inflating the sort of trouble necessary to write a proper issue and get it to pass as opposes to blow up in your face. The rules are the way they are partially to discourage appealing to a referee constantly.
EDIT: one of the worst things, especially for a non-com/new person who isn't very confident about dabbling in PK, is the feeling of stepping into an abyss, with zero expectation management.
Sects being "allies" shouldn't really have any bearing on that. In fact, 'defending an ally' would follow the exact thing Jeremy posted about with 'allies' being open to retribution later, if they're not of the same org.
Here's something I think is pretty damn relevant in these sorts of contexts, that my sister posted a couple years ago on Achaea forums:
All of that said, these were our guys, from our own sect, defending their own shrines. And the fact that we begged them to come help us at all speaks for itself. It's absolutely an act of desperation, and definitely means the enemy would have got even fewer fights without those people joining us.
Really, though, whatever way admin wants to go with the actual rules is what it is. But even if they decide to leave sect warfare as is, sect warfare is definitely a pretty clearcut combat system, and with those, there's usually no good reason that the rules can't be clear (whatever those rules are). A lot of the PK rules actually are clear - because people who have been through the issue process a good number of times understand them very well. They're just poorly encapsulated in the PK Rules that the average player reads.
We were talking about those within the sect, who would be normally be considered non-comms. You might wish to argue that if they defend they aren't non-comms but it's a universally understood label within the game to make about people who don't know how to fight and never seek it out. People understand what I'm talking about. That would be the occasional unskilled person that helps defend during a raid or a newbie who gets drug to an obelisk battle with the whole city like Antioch use to do.
If you involve yourself in combat, however frequently, you are no longer a "non-com". Just because you're not a good one, doesn't mean you're not one, at that point. People really need to stop using that field to hide behind, when they're knowingly helping people who are "combatants" by the definition they use. Shrines are an opt-in PK mechanic, if you choose to assist in it, you are no longer anti-pk regardless of what you say, and thus should expect to know what the "pk rules" are.
Also not sure how this is off-topic, when it's rather openly addressing PK rules. Don't falsely flag, please.
People might be a tiny bit unhappy in some circumstances - but I think hopefully not overly so, and if it somehow turned out awful, we should always keep in mind that things can and sometimes should be changed again. Most importantly, it makes the consequences super clear. And just giving people some really solid expectation management is really huge, I think.
EDIT: it really is kind of nuts that obelisk defenders can't be hunted down, but shrine defenders can, actually. Those two things definitely need to be on the same page (both bounties, or both complete non-offenses).
This is the truth of it. A 'non-comm' is somebody that abstains from it all. You can't say you don't eat vegetables, but then eat the carrots and celery on the side with your chicken wings. Those are still vegetables. You still ate them. That counts. You're now a vegetable eater. That's that.
There should be consequences for participating in some conflict systems. Let's not beat around the bush: the complaint in question that began this debate is that I won a pair of issues lodged against me by Morgaze and Jebadiah. They helped defend Flame shrines. I killed them after the fact. Instead of attempting an in character resolution, issues were lodged. My defense was that they took action against the efforts of my sect by attempting to deter us from defiling or attempting to reverse that defile. It was an entirely practical response; we've always let logic like this dictate 'right' and 'wrong'.
In this case, they declared their intent go against something my character was pursuing IC. That intent was declared by joining up with other Flame defenders. They were caught outside of a city and died once (something with absolutely no consequence except the time necessary to come back from Charon, mind you...) for this, then I let them be.
Why are we minimizing and curtailing any attempt whatsoever to make this game feel alive by the continued, slow creep of requests for rules revisions? You've already taken away the sting from death; asking for these rules questions to be 'cleared up' is just a veiled attempt to continue to pull the thin white sheet over the cold carcass of this game's conflict system, whether your realize it or not. In the end, the only thing either of these players lost were:
1. About ~2m of their time. This has value, but the loss is so tiny that I question why anybody gets upset over losing/dying in this game.
2. Whatever assumptions they may or may not have had that they could take me in a fight. This has no actual value in possession.
You two are acting a lot like dying has some sort of penalty. It doesn't. You're also acting like we have any people in this game that would endlessly pursue a non-comm; the truth is that we do, but they happen to be on your side of the playing field, not mine or Demonic's.
YOU CAN: (are allowed to)
Hunt down people who defend shrines that don't belong to their sect.
Just like you can go kill people who defend cities they have no business defending.
YOU CAN'T: (you shouldn't / not allowed to)
Hunt down people for defending shrines belonging to their own sect.
Just like you can't kill someone from say... Antioch, for killing you while you were in Antioch trying to kill someone there.
If there's people hunting down people who're defending their own sect's shrines, then that is a problem. They should not be doing that; you don't get retribution for people killing you while you're trying to attack their sect's shrine... Those are two different situations, "shrine defenders" shouldn't be applied as a blanket term. There's [1] defending YOUR SECT'S shrines (perfectly ok) --- and [2] defending OTHER SECT'S shrines ('not ok' but not against the rules; you can be killed for it tho).
To give an example:
You go and defile a Conquest shrine.
PersonA (Conquest) and PersonB (Hunt) come to kill you, you shouldn't be going off to attack PersonA later, it was their shrine. You can, however, go after PersonB since they shouldn't have been there in the first place.
On the other end of the same example. Hypothetically, you kill both of them when they come. The result should be the same. And yes, I'm aware there are some who seem to think otherwise, but it should be. PersonA can come after you for defiling shrines (and not because they died defending). PersonB has no ground to stand on, since they died in a fight they shouldn't have been at to begin with.
--
To reiterate: if people are deviating from the above, that in itself is a problem, and should probably be looked at.
I think the reason why the PK rules are so nebulous and open to interpretation is that they have to be.
PVPers are the kinds of people who will find any gap in the rules they can, be it loopholes, 'its not explicitly stated' defences, bending the rules to the point of breaking (sometimes feels like the 'its my RP' defence feels like this but that's not my place to say yea or nay on). You start trying to outline clear-cut rules on these kinds of people they're going to just start finding inventive ways to skirt the rules, which is probably why issuing exists but because the PK rules are so vague, when someone who is used to crystal clear can/cannot types of rules get involved with the conflict systems in place they feel horribly wronged.
During that whole shrine war, I was waiting for some sort of retribution on me outside of the shrine war. In the vein of the usual bounty followed by sabre-rattling tells that I recognize for what they are: words on my screen meant to goad me into crossing a line by people who had their noses understandably out of joint. This isn't snark, this is just fact. Tensions/emotions run high during these things and the blood-mist descends and we all start insulting one another because... well because.
That retribution never came. I don't know why and I didn't ask why as it wasn't exactly important. I was waiting for it (still am, actually). My point is this, I stepped into that conflict expecting:
a) Someone to get extremely upset at me.
b) To be recurringly bountied each time I was seen in Demon's Pass for daring to participate in a shrine war I had no stake in as I am not a member of Hollow, and I am willing to explain my reasoning for doing so privately because I am not keen on sharing it on the forums, there's enough rationalization going around right now that things are getting extremely muddy to the point of looking like tomato soup.
c) That I might get issued for some reason (first time for everything)
d) That I was going to die, and maybe get lucky and kill someone.
e) I might actually have fun. (:o)
D and E were the only things that happened, E to a lesser extent towards the end when issues and talks of issues were being thrown around like confetti at a wedding. Then it ended abruptly, and the victory cry went up on the forums and worked like rubbing fresh lemons in salted wounds about a game where conflict seems to be getting strangled at every turn while simultaneously more conflict is being demanded. It's maddening and that is why people are leaving. Not because they can't curb stomp whom they (dis)like. No.
They are leaving because the life is getting sucked out of the game by people who probably mean well and want clarity in a feature of that is optional and NEEDS to be vague to deal with smug faces like @Sarrius who will gleefully pick apart your rules because they can.
I GET the want and desire for clarity, but it isn't something that's possible. I've never seen any other text-based game try to get a cut and dried rules system in place for their PVP. You can't account for the billion-million-thousand possible combinations of events that lead to each conflict. You can't. You can certainly try but it'd be like trying to stop an avalanche with a tennis net. There's going to be holes and it's just not the right court for it.
But that's just my thoughts on it, what do i know. I'm a combative non-com with delusions of grandeur.
This **** got abused way harder than what is currently in place IRE-wide. Sarrius would have a field day.
(may vanish for periods of time)
Also, for the record, "allies" actually can't help with an obelisk fight - it's circle only. But obelisks are honestly way lower stakes than shrine wars (and technically, owned by exactly no one) - and yet, you can't ever hunt someone down for "defending" the obelisk they stole fair and square from your circle the other day..
As for bringing more clarity in general, I absolutely think it's both possible and desirable in many, if not most areas. In fact, let's start with the above example. There is absolutely a rule there, because we just found out what it was. The problems are that that rule definitely wasn't known to most people, and it's pretty inconsistent with what most people would expect comparing it to other similar systems - so it would have been difficult for most people to guess before the fact.
I was able to guess the right answer once I heard about the issues, but only because I now have a pretty good background in this stuff now and figured "this really will be one of those exceptions, because for one, Sarrius obviously felt he could get away with it, and for two, now that I think about it Sects used to be VERY exclusive in most IREs, and were very much incredibly hard core PK orgs". The rules on a lot of things are actually pretty clear - most people just have no idea what they are, and the system as a whole feels inconsistent, so you really do have to know the EXACT rule (but you don't). And that's the problem.
The place where things really have to be more fluid are the sorts of things that Theo brought up earlier in this thread (way back when). To be honest, the biggest threat to that sort of PK is people figuring out that they can and should keep their mouths shut if they don't actually want to be PK-ed. Even here, you can (and should) make it clear to people how to generally be thinking about that stuff, so they can make decisions they can live with (and not issue over). Death really isn't that bad, it's true. People who aren't already immersed in PK just have a lot better chance of seeing that truth if they get to go in with their eyes open.
I am kind of surprised no one jumped on my bounty idea I carelessly tossed out there with no discussion of reasonable limits (it probably wouldn't need them in most cases, but in theory, it could actually be totally out of control as is).
Also, Dimitri, you're lucky, I guess
Champion should not be the only PK system with 'consequences', because the rewards of the system are honestly inconsequential. Other PK systems should come with the 'risk' of being jumped for participating. This stimulates more conflict that happens in between the rigid, uncontrollable 'blips' of 'hey you guys can PK now'. The issue with a blanket Vegas clause on all PK systems is that it robs us of any possibility for organic combat outside of those 'blips', because every circle generally stays in its own lane, doesn't pick fights with each other, and there's no RP that happens between circles that might give us organic reasons for PK. That isn't OK! Asking for shrine wars to join the list of Vegas clause scenarios is closing the door further on one of the final avenues towards that RP-driven PK.
To hammer my point further: there's no reason whatsoever to raid cities/councils, and raiding is the only PK objective that we have total control over the initiation of. The system is not properly polished and the rewards are unattractive.. and those are not the only two issues. You might claim obelisks are in this category too, but you can protect an obelisk with an outpost, unless I'm mistaken. This means you can block off certain hours of prime time for your enemy.