What's new
By:
Loka Forums

Type /register while in-game to register for a forums account.

Attacking people marked as friendly

C

Commander_12

Active Member
Slicer
I know nobody cares about this anymore and I'll probably get roasted for this, but this is deeply annoying. Several times over the past few days, I've been killed by people I've marked as friendly. I know Loka has shifted away from Roleplaying and lore, but it meant something back in the day. You didn't attack people you marked as friendly. It was a sign of respect and that you were chill with everyone. I've made my lack of interest in PVP very clear and I'm not against people doing it; conquest can be fun, but this is deeply annoying. I'm ready for the cope comments and -1s. So, please for the love of God, if you're marked as friendly don't attack each other. I have no desire to get into long-drawn conquests and mark everyone as enemies. It just leads to negativity and a lot of toxicity. Also, I have crap gear on me, so what do you hope to gain from killing me?
 
You gotta adapt, it isn't like it used to be. Just beware of everyone, friendly or not, that's what I do at least. People kill eachother on here for nothing, you just gotta get used to it I guess
 
the only thing that really matter now a days is alliance and even they might attack you i would just say friendly maybe lowers chance of being ganked by like 3%% you kinda just gotta be prepared to be attacked by anyone its just a thing you gotta get used to
 
If turning off friendly fire was a thing on Loka, I would suggest the possibility of making specific alignments also follow this, which would put a lot more meaning behind them. However, we have discussed the concept of friendly fire many times now and its downsides always outweigh its positives. As a result, I'm not sure what else we could do beyond maybe some kind of honor system where killing friendly alignments lowered this score so it would be easier to tell if someone was to be trusted or not.
 
Magpieman said:
If turning off friendly fire was a thing on Loka, I would suggest the possibility of making specific alignments also follow this, which would put a lot more meaning behind them. However, we have discussed the concept of friendly fire many times now and its downsides always outweigh its positives. As a result, I'm not sure what else we could do beyond maybe some kind of honor system where killing friendly alignments lowered this score so it would be easier to tell if someone was to be trusted or not.
Click to expand...
An honor system would be a great addition imo, its hard to handle your alignments when you need to align entire alliances at once. some alliances have people I know and trust as well as people I dont know and would definitely want to be neutral incase they trip a radar around my town

as for @Commander_12 , i would personally recommend making use of territory radars, and keeping most people you dont know as a neutral/enemy. this will allow you to know when someone has entered the land around your town, very useful - and is a possibility because your town is not along a coast
 
olpx said:
the only thing that really matter now a days is alliance and even they might attack you i would just say friendly maybe lowers chance of being ganked by like 3%% you kinda just gotta be prepared to be attacked by anyone its just a thing you gotta get used to
Click to expand...

This is a truth. Even Alliances can't keep some of their own members team killing in Conquest fights. Honor systems are fun but perilously difficult to get right and often abused. (Dis)honor is easy enough (killing friendlies, etc); the question is how honorable actions that increase your reputation, or whatever, work. Would be cool though
 
Loka is currently the wild west (or should I say, the wild north) when it comes to who’s an ally or not. Best course of action is make good relationships with people, shouldn’t be that hard because Kalros is pretty tight knit.
 
Virfy (Alchemica) said:
An honor system would be a great addition imo, its hard to handle your alignments when you need to align entire alliances at once. some alliances have people I know and trust as well as people I dont know and would definitely want to be neutral incase they trip a radar around my town

as for @Commander_12 , i would personally recommend making use of territory radars, and keeping most people you dont know as a neutral/enemy. this will allow you to know when someone has entered the land around your town, very useful - and is a possibility because your town is not along a coast
Click to expand...
Loka: Red Dead Redemption 2
 
Ive been waiting for someone to mention this. Let me start off by saying, first and foremost - Say what you have to say, and if people don't like what you have to say on your personal opinion or give meaningless -1's that should be of 0 concern to you. Let your voice be heard and screw the haters.

Second, when people say "It isn't how it used to be" - It was not based just on roleplay. It was based on two facts:
  1. Powerful alliances at the time had a thing called standards
  2. Loka itself had more of a risk factor imposed on its players due to prior mechanics
The biggest thing that hurt Loka, in my opinion, was the removal of beachheads to control actual territories on foreign continents. Limiting conquest, created a funnel effect with unforeseen consequences. The choice to remove such a pivotal mechanic scarred the diplomatic system of Loka and has been a result in why Lokan diplomacy has plummeted. There can be 6 rivinas, 4 balaks, but nothing will change the risk factor of people being FORCED to work together to prevent an invasion onto their continent.

Back then, part of the reason why alliances had such high diplomatic standards is that the risk factor was high. If the capital of Ascalon didn't keep strategic diplomacy with other key powerful towns on Ascalon, it put the continent at risk. Why? Because if Kalros wanted to invade Ascalon, then the capital of Ascalon faces a war on two fronts, one from that enemy town on their home turf and the other from a foreign invading army. So why does this matter? It matters because it FORCED players to keep good diplomatic ties with other cities so that they can fight off foreign threats without having to worry about fighting a war on two fronts, foreign or domestic. In this case, small mini towns like yours that wish to be peaceful weren't seen as a hunting ground because there were bigger fish to fry in the eyes of the bloodthirsty warriors. This is exactly how the biggest war on the server started between Garama vs Kalros and Ascalon.

Then there is the duality of diplomacy, I will draw from a realistic event that has happened on Loka but makeup a scenario. So lets say a town wanted the capital of Kalros but they didn't have enough people to win the war. However lets say this town was friends with the capitol of Ascalon, and their alliance wanted to help you fight on Kalros to help you win cap because they want more influence. Now you have more cross-continental diplomacy. The best part about how it was, it was that it was in the fate of the player to decide what roads to take. They had the freedom to choose, there was more risk involved and most importantly, players had control over their own destiny of their mark on Loka.

Then you have multilateral diplomacy that players used to do without even knowing it was an actual thing. Continents and alliances used to have peace talks and ceasefires because maybe they were dealing with something on their own home continent? I mean there is so much to explore here but I will keep it short, somewhat.

These powerful alliances like Covenant, Iblis, Garaman Confederation, Asmund, and so forth all had one thing in common, diplomatic standards of how they would treat people because of the risk factor. It mattered due to conquest not being put on a leash. Lots of these alliances ruled for very long long periods of time, whereas now, an alliance cant even own a continent for a month because their members get bored once they own the continent plus owning ravina and balak this is what I mean by being put on a leash. It also opened the door for 'Capitol Sharing'.

Before, if you had this much power, alliances used to turn their eyes to other continents because they had lots of ambition, this allowed for them to want to leave a legacy which sparked good ol roleplay. This is because the players were in control. However .... part of the reason why people don't stick to these diplomatic titles anymore is that continents are practically locked internally on further conquest. The current beachhead mechanic doesn't do much, its really no different than being on Ravina or Balak besides the point it is on another continent *somewhat*. I saw this happen with Elysian Pact, members started getting war hungry because they already controlled the continent, and on top of that, they couldn't invade elsewhere and actually hold territories on other continents.

I could go on, and on. The bottom line is, this is what happens when you play with the fate of limiting conquest (I agreed with capping the number of territories you could own on a foreign continent, that made sense). It was fine before. That is my opinion and I will die on this hill. What is wrong with the diplomacy mechanic has nothing to do with roleplay either, it has entirely everything to do with the two facts I stated above. The diplomatic mechanic truthfully needs to be updated because it was used in a time when it meant something a lot more than it did now.

Your statement has a much deeper meaning and impact than you can imagine or even know, this 'friendly' , 'enemy' , 'neutral' , mechanic factor worked when risk was a major factor in the game. Its not about battling on 6 islands to get world cap, more needs to be put at stake here for this to mean something. People have begged for years for this mechanic to return but it hasn't, and it probably wont ever return like it used to be. Unless more risk is brought into Loka, this issue will continue to happen. A decline is roleplay, diplomacy, and other things didn't just happen out of thin air. There were events that took place that led to these unforeseen circumstances. There is nothing right now arguably that really FORCES players to have to engage in diplomacy. If they bring back continental invasions like they once were...things could change a lot.


Loka was a game of chess when in the realm of diplomacy. Now its a game of checkers when in regards to that mechanic.
 
Last edited:
Haldyir said:
Ive been waiting for someone to mention this. Let me start off by saying, first and foremost - Say what you have to say, and if people don't like what you have to say on your personal opinion or give meaningless -1's that should be of 0 concern to you. Let your voice be heard and screw the haters.

Second, when people say "It isn't how it used to be" - It was not based just on roleplay. It was based on two facts:
  1. Powerful alliances at the time had a thing called standards
  2. Loka itself had more of a risk factor imposed on its players due to prior mechanics
The biggest thing that hurt Loka, in my opinion, was the removal of beachheads to control actual territories on foreign continents. Limiting conquest, created a funnel effect with unforeseen consequences. The choice to remove such a pivotal mechanic scarred the diplomatic system of Loka and has been a result in why Lokan diplomacy has plummeted. There can be 6 rivinas, 4 balaks, but nothing will change the risk factor of people being FORCED to work together to prevent an invasion onto their continent.

Back then, part of the reason why alliances had such high diplomatic standards is that the risk factor was high. If the capital of Ascalon didn't keep strategic diplomacy with other key powerful towns on Ascalon, it put the continent at risk. Why? Because if Kalros wanted to invade Ascalon, then the capital of Ascalon faces a war on two fronts, one from that enemy town on their home turf and the other from a foreign invading army. So why does this matter? It matters because it FORCED players to keep good diplomatic ties with other cities so that they can fight off foreign threats without having to worry about fighting a war on two fronts, foreign or domestic. In this case, small mini towns like yours that wish to be peaceful weren't seen as a hunting ground because there were bigger fish to fry in the eyes of the bloodthirsty warriors. This is exactly how the biggest war on the server started between Garama vs Kalros and Ascalon.

Then there is the duality of diplomacy, I will draw from a realistic event that has happened on Loka but makeup a scenario. So lets say a town wanted the capital of Kalros but they didn't have enough people to win the war. However lets say this town was friends with the capitol of Ascalon, and their alliance wanted to help you fight on Kalros to help you win cap because they want more influence. Now you have more cross-continental diplomacy. The best part about how it was, it was that it was in the fate of the player to decide what roads to take. They had the freedom to choose, there was more risk involved and most importantly, players had control over their own destiny of their mark on Loka.

Then you have multilateral diplomacy that players used to do without even knowing it was an actual thing. Continents and alliances used to have peace talks and ceasefires because maybe they were dealing with something on their own home continent? I mean there is so much to explore here but I will keep it short, somewhat.

These powerful alliances like Covenant, Iblis, Garaman Confederation, Asmund, and so forth all had one thing in common, diplomatic standards of how they would treat people because of the risk factor. It mattered due to conquest not being put on a leash. Lots of these alliances ruled for very long long periods of time, whereas now, an alliance cant even own a continent for a month because their members get bored once they own the continent plus owning ravina and balak this is what I mean by being put on a leash. It also opened the door for 'Capitol Sharing'.

Before, if you had this much power, alliances used to turn their eyes to other continents because they had lots of ambition, this allowed for them to want to leave a legacy which sparked good ol roleplay. This is because the players were in control. However .... part of the reason why people don't stick to these diplomatic titles anymore is that continents are practically locked internally on further conquest. The current beachhead mechanic doesn't do much, its really no different than being on Ravina or Balak besides the point it is on another continent *somewhat*. I saw this happen with Elysian Pact, members started getting war hungry because they already controlled the continent, and on top of that, they couldn't invade elsewhere and actually hold territories on other continents.

I could go on, and on. The bottom line is, this is what happens when you play with the fate of limiting conquest (I agreed with capping the number of territories you could own on a foreign continent, that made sense). It was fine before. That is my opinion and I will die on this hill. What is wrong with the diplomacy mechanic has nothing to do with roleplay either, it has entirely everything to do with the two facts I stated above. The diplomatic mechanic truthfully needs to be updated because it was used in a time when it meant something a lot more than it did now.

Your statement has a much deeper meaning and impact than you can imagine or even know, this 'friendly' , 'enemy' , 'neutral' , mechanic factor worked when risk was a major factor in the game. Its not about battling on 6 islands to get world cap, more needs to be put at stake here for this to mean something. People have begged for years for this mechanic to return but it hasn't, and it probably wont ever return like it used to be. Unless more risk is brought into Loka, this issue will continue to happen. A decline is roleplay, diplomacy, and other things didn't just happen out of thin air. There were events that took place that led to these unforeseen circumstances. There is nothing right now arguably that really FORCES players to have to engage in diplomacy. If they bring back continental invasions like they once were...things could change a lot.


Loka was a game of chess when in the realm of diplomacy. Now its a game of checkers when in regards to that mechanic.
Click to expand...
I wish I had been around long enough to experience older eras of Loka, but just like many other new players who are mostly here for the pvp, I was invited as a result of recruitment wars. During my time on Loka my only real negative opinion on Loka was the fact that it is saturated so densely with pvpers, as opposed to those who truly care about the server and its history. From what I have seen, most players do not care about their relation alignments, they are just there to kill people. Whether it be in Conquest or in the wilderness, people that get bored of their towns in less time than it takes to blink, and those who swap on a dime every month just because they wanna pvp somewhere else. There are very few players that I have seen that are actually dedicated to their towns, and have no reason to abandon it, other than getting bored which is natural, but if you take a look at the modern Loka town, its just a big dug out box underground with maybe even a tunnel to the surface! Loka needs more dedicated gamers and nice looking towns.
 
Haldyir said:
Ive been waiting for someone to mention this. Let me start off by saying, first and foremost - Say what you have to say, and if people don't like what you have to say on your personal opinion or give meaningless -1's that should be of 0 concern to you. Let your voice be heard and screw the haters.

Second, when people say "It isn't how it used to be" - It was not based just on roleplay. It was based on two facts:
  1. Powerful alliances at the time had a thing called standards
  2. Loka itself had more of a risk factor imposed on its players due to prior mechanics
The biggest thing that hurt Loka, in my opinion, was the removal of beachheads to control actual territories on foreign continents. Limiting conquest, created a funnel effect with unforeseen consequences. The choice to remove such a pivotal mechanic scarred the diplomatic system of Loka and has been a result in why Lokan diplomacy has plummeted. There can be 6 rivinas, 4 balaks, but nothing will change the risk factor of people being FORCED to work together to prevent an invasion onto their continent.

Back then, part of the reason why alliances had such high diplomatic standards is that the risk factor was high. If the capital of Ascalon didn't keep strategic diplomacy with other key powerful towns on Ascalon, it put the continent at risk. Why? Because if Kalros wanted to invade Ascalon, then the capital of Ascalon faces a war on two fronts, one from that enemy town on their home turf and the other from a foreign invading army. So why does this matter? It matters because it FORCED players to keep good diplomatic ties with other cities so that they can fight off foreign threats without having to worry about fighting a war on two fronts, foreign or domestic. In this case, small mini towns like yours that wish to be peaceful weren't seen as a hunting ground because there were bigger fish to fry in the eyes of the bloodthirsty warriors. This is exactly how the biggest war on the server started between Garama vs Kalros and Ascalon.

Then there is the duality of diplomacy, I will draw from a realistic event that has happened on Loka but makeup a scenario. So lets say a town wanted the capital of Kalros but they didn't have enough people to win the war. However lets say this town was friends with the capitol of Ascalon, and their alliance wanted to help you fight on Kalros to help you win cap because they want more influence. Now you have more cross-continental diplomacy. The best part about how it was, it was that it was in the fate of the player to decide what roads to take. They had the freedom to choose, there was more risk involved and most importantly, players had control over their own destiny of their mark on Loka.

Then you have multilateral diplomacy that players used to do without even knowing it was an actual thing. Continents and alliances used to have peace talks and ceasefires because maybe they were dealing with something on their own home continent? I mean there is so much to explore here but I will keep it short, somewhat.

These powerful alliances like Covenant, Iblis, Garaman Confederation, Asmund, and so forth all had one thing in common, diplomatic standards of how they would treat people because of the risk factor. It mattered due to conquest not being put on a leash. Lots of these alliances ruled for very long long periods of time, whereas now, an alliance cant even own a continent for a month because their members get bored once they own the continent plus owning ravina and balak this is what I mean by being put on a leash. It also opened the door for 'Capitol Sharing'.

Before, if you had this much power, alliances used to turn their eyes to other continents because they had lots of ambition, this allowed for them to want to leave a legacy which sparked good ol roleplay. This is because the players were in control. However .... part of the reason why people don't stick to these diplomatic titles anymore is that continents are practically locked internally on further conquest. The current beachhead mechanic doesn't do much, its really no different than being on Ravina or Balak besides the point it is on another continent *somewhat*. I saw this happen with Elysian Pact, members started getting war hungry because they already controlled the continent, and on top of that, they couldn't invade elsewhere and actually hold territories on other continents.

I could go on, and on. The bottom line is, this is what happens when you play with the fate of limiting conquest (I agreed with capping the number of territories you could own on a foreign continent, that made sense). It was fine before. That is my opinion and I will die on this hill. What is wrong with the diplomacy mechanic has nothing to do with roleplay either, it has entirely everything to do with the two facts I stated above. The diplomatic mechanic truthfully needs to be updated because it was used in a time when it meant something a lot more than it did now.

Your statement has a much deeper meaning and impact than you can imagine or even know, this 'friendly' , 'enemy' , 'neutral' , mechanic factor worked when risk was a major factor in the game. Its not about battling on 6 islands to get world cap, more needs to be put at stake here for this to mean something. People have begged for years for this mechanic to return but it hasn't, and it probably wont ever return like it used to be. Unless more risk is brought into Loka, this issue will continue to happen. A decline is roleplay, diplomacy, and other things didn't just happen out of thin air. There were events that took place that led to these unforeseen circumstances. There is nothing right now arguably that really FORCES players to have to engage in diplomacy. If they bring back continental invasions like they once were...things could change a lot.


Loka was a game of chess when in the realm of diplomacy. Now its a game of checkers when in regards to that mechanic.
Click to expand...
people just dont care i love this old era you are talking about but its just pvpers who dont seem to care about diplomacy or anything like that
 
In the days of Cov etc, the Loka community was more diverse and from a more survival/factions/etc type background. The current community is largely kit/ffa pvpers who indeed are here to click, and nothing else.

Diplomacy is a matter of the players involved, not the features or changes that conquest had or didn't have back then. There is still diplomacy to this day. I'd caution conflating what you see in public chat as representative of the conversations the alliance leaders of the modern day have in their back channels.
 
Cryptite said:
In the days of Cov etc, the Loka community was more diverse and from a more survival/factions/etc type background. The current community is largely kit/ffa pvpers who indeed are here to click, and nothing else.

Diplomacy is a matter of the players involved, not the features or changes that conquest had or didn't have back then. There is still diplomacy to this day. I'd caution conflating what you see in public chat as representative of the conversations the alliance leaders of the modern day have in their back channels.
Click to expand...

The "players" involved are only as involved as the system designed for them allows. I was speaking from more of a catalyst perspective of why this issue in my eyes, has grown over the years. I am not saying the system is horrible, there just needs to be some modifications - what those are? I couldn't tell you. But what I could tell you is this shift was dramatically observed in the 'old era' as my friends across the isle like to say.

I can concur, you make a point, times have changed - just let some of the mechanics change with them too to fit this modern day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top