Is it wrong that I want to kill all of you?

[Majikal]

Come to think of it, I should have posted my signature as my only reply to this thread.

It was a legit paste from my client.  I kill harder than j00

[Clearsighted]

Come to think of it, I should have posted my signature as my only reply to this thread.

It was a legit paste from my client.   I kill harder than j00

Your signature is my favorite thing on this forum.

But for other people, they enjoy the game when it's more like a Die Hard movie. Action action action death and destruction all the time with awesome explosions wherein their characters are beaten down to a bloody pulp ... ... Armageddon can do that for them too no problem except for one minor snag. These kinds of players still want to come out on top when it's all said and done. Or at the very least they want their death to be a glorious epic ballad the likes of which the bards will sing about for ages to come.

Players who want this experience can get it really well in a table top game where the storyteller has complete control over the world, the players are not fighting against each other generally speaking, and they are the focal point around which the world is revolving. In that setting you can have countless close calls and "got by on the skin of your teeth" moments.

Armageddon isn't good at delivering that kind of experience. It can do the action, death, and destruction no problem, but like the universe ... it is entirely indifferent towards anyone's individual PC. If you get into the thick of the shit ... you are very likely to die. Quickly. And without ceremony. No matter what your class is, no matter how many days played you are. How well you trained your skills. Or what kind of sweet elite gear you have.

So when people complain that Armageddon doesn't have enough death and conflict while at the same time, complaining out the other side of their mouth that any conflict that gets started is quickly squashed with an uber vengeance ... I suspect that they're the above type of player, and that's what's rooted at the core of their disappointment with both ends of the spectrum Armageddon provides.

I get what you're saying, but IMO, it's mostly horseshit. Armageddon delivers that kind of conflict just fine. It used to anyways. Lots of games do/did. It simply requires competition and a couple antagonistic clans.

Give people something meaningful to compete over and they will happily fight over it and enjoy the conflict. Without any of the condescending need, as you articulated, to be the hero or have their ego stroked. Legitimate conflict is interesting. Conflict for the sake of conflict is less so - but that's all Arm has right now.

Take away all antagonistic clans, and all real sources of legitimate competition for territory or resources, and all you get is PCs vs NPCs, and PCs whose 'elaborate plots and dramas' that you seem so fond of, mostly come down to mudsex-related lovers quarrels, or the odd rivalry born more out of boredom than anything else.

Me? I'd rather have something as simple as fighting over the rights to a watering hole, or who gets to tax a tiny village, or the right to control the spice smuggling through the 'rinth. The Allanaki noble houses would all be much more interesting if they weren't so highly compartmentalized and had interests outside Allanak that they could expand or contest for, and it was inside the city where they were forced to play 'mostly' nice.

Instead, all you get is a bunch've mudsex and gossipy bitching, which might lead to some highly choreographed assassination in someone's apartment, or death via templar, at most.

People have to work hard in this game to come up with reasons not to follow the natural human instinct of cooperating and getting along to get along. Sadly, even though I think staff has done a great job in many respects, and are always doing better (leaving me with hope for the future), staff has not done a good job of giving player clans a compelling reason to compete with each other.

Moreover, I suspect that giving clans a compelling reason to compete with each other is not something they even care about or want to do, so it's less a poor job of it, and more just not on their agenda to begin with. How did it come to be this way, given how intensely conflicty that Arm started out as? I'm not sure.

There are no real PvP politics, as there is nothing much to gain, and nothing much to lose. Politics, such as it is, is directed towards NPCs. Or more commonly, reacting to the ruthless competition between rival NPCs while maintaining a safe distance. I think staff handles PC vs NPC and NPC vs NPC conflict quite well.

People will say 'be the change'. Well, guess what? I don't need my ego stroked. So even though I'd like conflict, I tend to feel bad about drumming up a completely arbitrary reason for destroying someone. Whereas if I have a legitimate reason (protecting my territory, or such) it's perfectly fun. And anyways, the people who advocate this 'be the change' harshness have an interesting habit of preying exclusively on the weak/newbish, rather than those who would actually be a challenge. So fuck those guys too.

[Revenant]

And anyways, the people who advocate this 'be the change' harshness have an interesting habit of preying exclusively on the weak/newbish, rather than those who would actually be a challenge. So fuck those guys too.

While I'd like to point out that accusing people of having particular habits due to their opinion on a subject isn't a great way to make a point, I did enjoy your post, and I happen to agree with some of it and find it a bit unsporting to spot the guy in chargen gear and kill them, or find exclusively weaker opponents to crush the life out of. I mean, I don't understand the satisfaction in that, it's not very challenging, provided you con them into a comprimising situation (something I enjoy doing, then -not- killing them because why bother? I already know I could have if I wanted) or otherwise following them around, hidden, waiting for an opportunity (not always easy, some people spend all their time, purposefully, in public or clan areas, near soldiers, daylight hours, because yes, you COULD easily be stabbed if you're not careful), but then, why not just jump out and say (miming a stabbing motion with ~knife) Bam! You're dead!, then run off cackling as they appear frightened and confused?

I mean, it'll be good practice for when the shit really DOES hit the fan (eventually, it will), and nobody who doesn't really have it coming doesn't have to die.

[Zerero]

I get what you're saying, but IMO, it's mostly horseshit. Armageddon delivers that kind of conflict just fine. It used to anyways. Lots of games do/did. It simply requires competition and a couple antagonistic clans.

Give people something meaningful to compete over and they will happily fight over it and enjoy the conflict. Without any of the condescending need, as you articulated, to be the hero or have their ego stroked. Legitimate conflict is interesting. Conflict for the sake of conflict is less so - but that's all Arm has right now.

...

Me? I'd rather have something as simple as fighting over the rights to a watering hole, or who gets to tax a tiny village, or the right to control the spice smuggling through the 'rinth. The Allanaki noble houses would all be much more interesting if they weren't so highly compartmentalized and had interests outside Allanak that they could expand or contest for, and it was inside the city where they were forced to play 'mostly' nice.

...

Moreover, I suspect that giving clans a compelling reason to compete with each other is not something they even care about or want to do, so it's less a poor job of it, and more just not on their agenda to begin with. How did it come to be this way, given how intensely conflicty that Arm started out as? I'm not sure.

There are no real PvP politics, as there is nothing much to gain, and nothing much to lose. Politics, such as it is, is directed towards NPCs. Or more commonly, reacting to the ruthless competition between rival NPCs while maintaining a safe distance. I think staff handles PC vs NPC and NPC vs NPC conflict quite well.

People will say 'be the change'. Well, guess what? I don't need my ego stroked. So even though I'd like conflict, I tend to feel bad about drumming up a completely arbitrary reason for destroying someone. Whereas if I have a legitimate reason (protecting my territory, or such) it's perfectly fun. And anyways, the people who advocate this 'be the change' harshness have an interesting habit of preying exclusively on the weak/newbish, rather than those who would actually be a challenge. So fuck those guys too.

All of this. Thanks for typing it out for me.

[Desertman]

I think one of the reasons you will never/really have never seen a lot of plots that include large powers fighting over something is that there are some critical factors that have to fall into place for that to happen on the OOC front.

A) You have to have two clans with enough players in them to make a potential conflict interesting.
B) The leaders of both of those clans have to be players that staff can trust to, "Go along with the story.".
C) Those two clans have to be two clans that would actually go into a conflict with each other to begin with.

Getting all three of those things to line up perfectly so that a, "Conflict Plot", could be written up and started would be pretty hard to begin with.

You can't just app in a leader for it either, because the leader has to be someone that is actually going to lead and attract players. How many special app leaders have we all seen who really weren't interesting and nobody really wanted to play with and who finally just vanished because of it? More than I can count.

Now let's assume you have managed to get A, B, and C all lined up.

Now you have to deal with the next phase.

D) We can't have two major powers in a conflict with each other without having a pre-determined end to the conflict. These aren't tiny player on player issues that involve one or two PC's. These conflicts involve major powers/Houses/clans....the outcome can't be left up to players because it would affect too much of the game all at once.

E) So we have pre-determined the outcome of this conflict (which is pretty much the rule of thumb for every major conflict in Armageddon). Now....will the players, most importantly the leaders of these clans, go along with exactly how we want them to run this show so it pans out exactly how we have planned?

It would be a nightmare to run in my opinion, assuming you could even get A, B, and C all lined up. At the end of the day, with most major conflicts, it isn't even very interesting in my opinion. I have been in several, and usually I just feel like I'm watching it happen because I know the outcome is predetermined anyways. What the players do in the middle is just....filler...at best.

A lot of the times major conflicts leave me saying, "Yeah, I could have got the same experience from this being a history page entry.". They usually aren't fun for me personally. I want to play the game...not watch someone else play the game where I just happen to be semi-involved in the peripheral.

Basically what I am saying is that you really DO need to be the change if you want to create more harshness and more conflict. Huge wide scale conflict....you aren't going to be able to do anything but be part of someone else's predetermined prewritten story anyways. I think the true essence of "enjoyable" conflict is very much on the player to player level and doesn't need staff involvement at all. That is the sort of conflict we need and in my opinion we have a lot of that already.

Give me three or four guys who hate each other for whatever reason and want to kill each other over a war any day. One is fun and interesting to be part of. The other is mostly just watching a story someone else has written for you to enjoy. It can be nice, but I already own a lot of books. The former I can get going myself pretty much any time I want. The latter takes a huge amount of work by staff for what in my opinion is very little payoff usually (for me personally).

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I'd like no PC on PC death to be accidental. I'd like you to have to type 'kill PC' again, to kill them. Mercy on doesn't do this, by the way. It simply withholds a blow that would take the remaining HP from your victim, but often times that means that the victim is still up and fighting.

This change might create a lot more long termed conflict. I for one would leave anybody I didn't consider a threat alive, and it would make mugging easier to conduct without killing the victim. Mind you, I don't want to eliminate PKs. I want a fool proof way to not kill someone, but rather,  incapacitate them.

Also, my clan has a reason for conflict, now that I think of it. Excellleeeent. Mwahaha.

[Desertman]

I'd like no PC on PC death to be accidental. I'd like you to have to type 'kill PC' again, to kill them. Mercy on doesn't do this, by the way. It simply withholds a blow that would take the remaining HP from your victim, but often times that means that the victim is still up and fighting.

This change might create a lot more long termed conflict. I for one would leave anybody I didn't consider a threat alive, and it would make mugging easier to conduct without killing the victim. Mind you, I don't want to eliminate PKs. I want a fool proof way to not kill someone, but rather,  incapacitate them.

Also, my clan has a reason for conflict, now that I think of it. Excellleeeent. Mwahaha.

Yup, a more hardcoded failsafe against finishing someone would be pretty sweet. I would really like this. Mercy is nice, and works sometimes, but not all of the time. Maybe that makes Mercy more realistic, but, I think we could suspend a little realism to have a failsafe that makes SURE I won't kill them...unless I really want to.

I would leave so many folks alive and have so many more interesting scenes with them when they came to, tied up, in my dungeon, with me holding my scissors. 

[Narf]

A) You have to have two clans with enough players in them to make a potential conflict interesting.
B) The leaders of both of those clans have to be players that staff can trust to, "Go along with the story.".
C) Those two clans have to be two clans that would actually go into a conflict with each other to begin with.

I think the easiest way to do this is for staff to troll through character reports to see what player plots people are trying to get started and then simply arrange for them to be mutually exclusive.

For instance:

Player from powerful group A wants to do something that requires staff to build something or animate an NPC or what have you
Staff responds "You need exclusive posession of the wangdoodle and we'll approve this"

Player from powerful group B wants to do this other thing that also requires staff involvement
Staff responds "You need exclusive posession of the wangdoodle and we'll approve this"

This is how LARPs I've played in have been creating player conflict for decades. It doesn't always work out, mind you. Sometimes one group is totally outclassed due to factors beyond staff control, sometimes one of the players ends up timid or just doesn't show up due to OOC reasons. But the real reason this sort of setup works is the very minimal amount of investment you waste when it fails. Which means you can just keep doing it everytime players end up trying to do potentially opposing things.

Side note: This actually can get really interesting when the "wangdoodle" is a person (NPC or PC)

[Kismetic]

I would leave so many folks alive and have so many more interesting scenes with them when they came to, tied up, in my dungeon, with me holding my scissors. 

Dungeon RP ...  One of my true favorites.  You really have to prove you want to live to get out of the Dungeon.

[Desertman]

I would leave so many folks alive and have so many more interesting scenes with them when they came to, tied up, in my dungeon, with me holding my scissors.  

Dungeon RP ...  One of my true favorites.  You really have to prove you want to live to get out of the Dungeon.

say (throwing a small clay jar of bimbal salve down to the zaftig woman) It puts the lotion on it's skin or else it gets the hose again!

emote strokes his stuffed gortok pup gently, peering down into the hole.

[BadSkeelz]

If Buffalo Bill had a ranger buddy to help his Merchant/Con Artist there would be no need for a dungeon. Just need a sufficiently high skin skill and you can skip the lotion.

[Desertman]

If Buffalo Bill had a ranger buddy to help his Merchant/Con Artist there would be no need for a dungeon. Just need a sufficiently high skin skill and you can skip the lotion.

We can do this together with our next characters.

They call me Gizhat Gill.

[Kismetic]

I think I have a concept for a nilazi, now.

[musashi]

I get what you're saying, but IMO, it's mostly horseshit.

My comments were in reference to players who complain about the lack of conflict, which seems to apply to you ... but when conflict happens, complain about the how unsatisfying the resolution of the conflict was. Like the folks who are upset about a five man war band rolling out to track down a lone bandit who robbed one of their friends, or the folks who are dissatisfied with the nature of massive battles, and so on. This second one does not seem to apply to you.

If I understand you correctly you don't mind the brutal and fast paced way that Armageddon deals out death, and you can come out of a plot satisfied even when your character was collateral damage in the greater story arc.

You seem more concerned with what you see as a general lack of PvP conflict in the game.

That's not really what I was talking about though. It doesn't seem like you fall into the player group I was referencing. I think we're talking about different topics.

[Clearsighted]

I think one of the reasons you will never/really have never seen a lot of plots that include large powers fighting over something is that there are some critical factors that have to fall into place for that to happen on the OOC front.

A) You have to have two clans with enough players in them to make a potential conflict interesting.
B) The leaders of both of those clans have to be players that staff can trust to, "Go along with the story.".
C) Those two clans have to be two clans that would actually go into a conflict with each other to begin with.

While it may not be perfectly easy, it's not that difficult either. It only seems difficult because in Armageddon's current state, all clans have been culled down to a highly compartmentalized remainder with precious little overlap, or with extreme power imbalances. I'll give three examples:

1) Not much more needs to be said about Allanak/GMHs.  It would be impossible for a Tor or Borsail noble to try and rival Oash with magicker servants. Even if a player did, they'd probably be tarred and feathered for it. (It doesn't help that there isn't even a question of anyone intruding on Tor's influence with the militia or Borsail's mul slaves, which are supposed to balance out Oash's magicker assets, as Tor/Borsail's strengths are entirely virtual). The only thing that might really throw a wrench into the South's geopolitical stasis is the actions of an independent power like Red Storm - but it's completely NPC.

2) To get away from Allanak, we can look at the tablelands. There are desert elves, gith and tribal humans. The gith are entirely NPC, so we can remove them from this example. Honestly, they're a rather weak NPC presence at that. They often seem moribund while the PC tribes run amok. Which just goes to show that it's not always the NPCs in charge. In some places the NPC factions need to be more prevalent, just as in some places, they need to be less prevalent.

That leaves the desert elves and the tribal humans. The major political powerhouse among the desert elves is the Blackwing. They built the Blackwing Outpost, which is in a massively important and strategic location, with a virtual monopoly on trade in the pah. Unlike the Sand Lord, they used to be PCs, but now they're entirely NPC. To the best of my knowledge, that is never going to change for a variety of reasons. That removes from the pah political scene a major source of potential interest and conflict. Blackwing's nearly complete lack of engagement over the last 10+ RL years has often made for weird scenarios.

Other antagonistic Desert Elf factions, like the Dune Stalkers or Red Fangs have been removed. That leaves only the Sun Runners who are untouchably powerful, and the Soh. Armageddon seems to excel at creating geopolitical realities where conflict is unthinkable, which is somewhat odd thematically. The Sun Runners are a good example. Without the Gith or the Blackwing to worry about, they have no competition, except with smaller, weaker and non-magickal tribes like the Soh or Arabetti humans.

3) Let's look at Tuluk. Well. Tuluk had mindbending templars, which it turns out, was incredibly effective at suppressing conflict!

So there's that.

On the other hand, you could very easily create a logical source of IC conflict, by taking two tribes that are roughly parallel with each other.

This makes sense, because in evolutionary term, that is how tribes tend to develop. If a tribe is too strong, they will have dominated/absorbed other tribes. If a tribe is too weak, they would have been absorbed. Therefore, unless you are deliberately setting a tribe towards the end of its existence (creating a classic Armageddon power imbalance), they are likely to have a certain rough parity. Success or failure then, primarily comes down to, as it has in our RL history, to whichever side has the most excellent leadership and ingenuity. That makes for fun conflict in a game too. It's always for the best when things hinge on a player's ingenuity, and not some virtual fait accompli.

Then put an oasis between those two tribes, or a lucrative caravan route. Both tribes will want to control those resources. The ascendant tribe would be able to exact tribute from the unluckier tribe. Eventually, the great leaders of the first tribe would die out, and over time, the resentful tribe will get a good leader of its own someday and try to reverse the situation. That makes for good conflict and good RP.

And sure. They could both decide to cooperate and split everything. If they're willing to accept less. And if accepting less has some consequences. And if they never have any disagreements whatsoever about watering rights, hunting rights, or caravan raiding/taxation. Even in that scenario, there'll be conflict in the leaders who brought about the peace trying to maintain it, and those disrupting it. (At the very least, outside forces either upstream or downstream will want to disrupt their harmony, which creates yet another vector for conflict).

I always thought that the Allanak/Tuluk wars missed a huge opportunity by waging it in the Red Desert of all places. It would have been far more interesting if it were waged in the Pah, along the obvious trade routes/ancient roads which connects them and is FAR more accessible than the Red Desert route (which is far harsher and farther away), and then the desert elf/human tribes would have been brought into the war as satellites/forced to choose sides or dare to resist both, as often happens.

tldr; It's not easy to create interesting and sustainable conflict. But it's not that hard either. I think the current way that clans are run actually demands more work from staff.

[Clearsighted]

I get what you're saying, but IMO, it's mostly horseshit.

My comments were in reference to players who complain about the lack of conflict, which seems to apply to you ... but when conflict happens, complain about the how unsatisfying the resolution of the conflict was. Like the folks who are upset about a five man war band rolling out to track down a lone bandit who robbed one of their friends, or the folks who are dissatisfied with the nature of massive battles, and so on. This second one does not seem to apply to you.

If I understand you correctly you don't mind the brutal and fast paced way that Armageddon deals out death, and you can come out of a plot satisfied even when your character was collateral damage in the greater story arc.

You seem more concerned with what you see as a general lack of PvP conflict in the game.

That's not really what I was talking about though. It doesn't seem like you fall into the player group I was referencing.

I'm glad you clarified that. Although, I sympathize with anyone that's been one-shotted by a unit of half-giants as well! Individual PCs don't really have a place (nor should they) in those scrums, and I'd frag anyone who demanded I charge into it. The code simply doesn't allow for massive, epic army vs army battles to play out very fairly for the average joe. The kind of conflict I want to see more of is patrol vs patrol, scout vs scout, and less army vs army.

[musashi]

Within the realm of what it seems you were talking about, a lack of PvP conflict in the game ... Well, I can see your point in a way.

Each Allanaki noble house for example, has a particular specialty they do, so it seems unlikely that they would be fighting over market dominance. The GMH's are much the same.

I'm sure if both Kurac and Salarr were trying to corner the weapons market it would be an easy catalyst for ongoing perpetual conflict between the two till a victor emerged, but whether for better or worse, the game world is set up wherein the powers that be are in a loose collusion with one another to maintain their respective monopolies, crony capitalist style. So that source of conflict doesn't fit the game world.

There might be more room for that between tribes though. They seem in a much better position setting wise to need to compete over scarce resources.

[Delirium]

Clearsighted's whole point is that the way the power structure is set up stifles open PC vs PC conflict rather than encourages it. You're mostly reinforcing that point. I think I'm not alone in saying that I'd love to see that change.

[musashi]

I'd agree that the power structure in game as is set up stifles open PC vs PC conflict over control of the means of production and resources yes.

The game's setting is such that all of that is already monopolized by the powers that be.

[BadSkeelz]

The best ground for conflict is insurgent organizations pushing against the powers that be. Takes a lot of staff work and balance is kind of wonky, since the "powers that be" (i.e. coded clans) tend to be codedly weaker versus a bunch of indies in hats. But conflict can be found if you look for it.

[musashi]

The best ground for conflict is insurgent organizations pushing against the powers that be. Takes a lot of staff work and balance is kind of wonky, since the "powers that be" (i.e. coded clans) tend to be codedly weaker versus a bunch of indies in hats. But conflict can be found if you look for it.

Just from my observation over the years, the big problem with that type of conflict is that the players with characters in the insurgent organizations make the mistake of assuming that they are just competing with the other player characters who are in the "powers that be" clans, and they over look the virtual power that the larger clan holds in the world. Then, when they do something that requires staff to make the virtual world react, they feel very discriminated against by the force with which they were shut down.

Or to put it more visually:

Code Select Expand

|      /-\                          |
|~~~~~/   \~~~~~~~~~~~~/-\~~~~~~~~~~|
|    /-----\          /   \         |
|                    /     \        |
|                   /       \       |
|                  /         \      |
|                 /           \     |
|                /             \    |
|               /               \   |
|              /-----------------\  |
|-----------------------------------|

Indie groups start to act as if the competition is only between the visible part of the two ice burgs, so from their perspective they're doing great.

I don't even blame them in all cases. We can't see what's below the water in the virtual world clearly.

[Mordiggian]

I get what you're saying, but IMO, it's mostly horseshit. Armageddon delivers that kind of conflict just fine. It used to anyways. Lots of games do/did. It simply requires competition and a couple antagonistic clans.

Give people something meaningful to compete over and they will happily fight over it and enjoy the conflict. Without any of the condescending need, as you articulated, to be the hero or have their ego stroked. Legitimate conflict is interesting. Conflict for the sake of conflict is less so - but that's all Arm has right now.

This entire post contains some glaring inaccuracies that are presented as fact despite not matching up with the reality of the situation. I'm going to try to address what I can.

Take away all antagonistic clans, and all real sources of legitimate competition for territory or resources, and all you get is PCs vs NPCs, and PCs whose 'elaborate plots and dramas' that you seem so fond of, mostly come down to mudsex-related lovers quarrels, or the odd rivalry born more out of boredom than anything else.

We have antagonistic clans, or clans that are perfectly suited for PC antagonists open at present. Frequently, the same people who decry a lack of options for PC antagonists do not ever utilize the existing options for PC antagonists. This is remarkably similar to situations like players who greatly lament the limitations on PC slave roles, only for very, very few people to apply for these roles when they were opened. We recently had two city-stats at war, and I assure you it was not as a result of an odd rivalry or mudsex quarrel.

Me? I'd rather have something as simple as fighting over the rights to a watering hole, or who gets to tax a tiny village, or the right to control the spice smuggling through the 'rinth. The Allanaki noble houses would all be much more interesting if they weren't so highly compartmentalized and had interests outside Allanak that they could expand or contest for, and it was inside the city where they were forced to play 'mostly' nice.

The scenarios you present are all, for the most part, things PCs can attempt in-game. More often than not, success depends on the player. Your PC and his friends can certainly declare a claim to a watering hole and try to charge people who try to use it, or try to edge out spice smuggling competition, or whatever else. You also state that noble houses are compartmentalized, and evidently, not very interesting. If they're not interesting to you, that's perfectly fine, but please don't assume that means there is no conflict, or that they are not interesting to other people, or even what the extent of their interests are. In Tuluk, the nobles (PC and NPC alike) were consistently at each other's throats. Houses outright slaughtered each other! You can dismiss these conflicts as "mudsex and gossipy bitching" but you would be incorrect.

Moreover, I suspect that giving clans a compelling reason to compete with each other is not something they even care about or want to do, so it's less a poor job of it, and more just not on their agenda to begin with.

This is incorrect.

There are no real PvP politics, as there is nothing much to gain, and nothing much to lose. Politics, such as it is, is directed towards NPCs. Or more commonly, reacting to the ruthless competition between rival NPCs while maintaining a safe distance. I think staff handles PC vs NPC and NPC vs NPC conflict quite well.

People will say 'be the change'. Well, guess what? I don't need my ego stroked. So even though I'd like conflict, I tend to feel bad about drumming up a completely arbitrary reason for destroying someone. Whereas if I have a legitimate reason (protecting my territory, or such) it's perfectly fun. And anyways, the people who advocate this 'be the change' harshness have an interesting habit of preying exclusively on the weak/newbish, rather than those who would actually be a challenge. So fuck those guys too.

Let's avoid making baseless assumptions about what the people who advocate "be the change" do or do not do in game. I also think all of the players involved in political conflict with each other at present are pretty confident there are things to gain or lose. We frequently enable players to play in 'conflict' roles and the third rule of the game reminds us that PCs are free to be assholes. More often than not, PCs do not actually want to be assholes.

[Clearsighted]

I wasn't referring to city-state wars, Mord. That qualifies as PC vs NPC or NPC vs NPC. Which I said staff was doing a good job at.

Anyways, that was quite a while ago, and since then, one of those city-states and all of their hostile clans were uh, closed down.

I didn't say noble houses weren't interesting to me. I said they were so overly specialized as to make for very little potential for meaningfully overlapping. I think Borsail, Tor and Oash are all fascinating and very interesting. I just wish they were allowed more room for competition.

What are these 'antagonistic' clans that are open for application? The Soh? The 'rinthi guild? Some might suggest those barely count. In any case, I don't think anyone would deny that there are less available now, than there used to be.

I'm glad to learn that staff is trying to give clans a compelling reason to compete with each other. Personally, I haven't seen it since the last city-state war. But that was mostly tangential to the PC vs NPC/NPC vs NPC conflict that I said staff was great at.

Honestly, I think calling my post riddled with glaring inaccuracies is overly defensive at best. Because I didn't see any inaccuracies pointed out, beyond a couple of items that seem to have fallen prey to either assumptions of your own or misinterpretations.

Please don't take every incident of mild criticism (at best) as some kind of damning indictment of the job that staff is doing. Staff is doing a great job. Do I want to see more meaningful player vs player conflict? Yes. Do we have an evident disagreement if you think the current conflict is perfectly meaningful? Yes. Does it need to be treated like I'm shitting on the whole game or making baseless assumptions? No.

Maybe the case is different for a few select players involved in very subtle and secret machinations, but what I wrote was the truth for 95% of the playerbase.

The scenarios you present are all, for the most part, things PCs can attempt in-game. More often than not, success depends on the player. Your PC and his friends can certainly declare a claim to a watering hole and try to charge people who try to use it, or try to edge out spice smuggling competition, or whatever else.

This misses the point of my post.

There is no 'real' PC-dominated spice smuggling in this game. There is no profitable route to control. All spice smuggling (of the kind that doesn't arrive in someone's argosy) is virtually between NPCs. You could pretend to be a smuggler. But that wouldn't be what I was referring to. I meant having an actual reason to try and control something, instead of just arbitrarily or for pretend. There is no triangle of deceit, conflict and ruthless competition between PC militia and opposing 'rinthi gangs, and shady Kuraci dealers. It's all virtual, or is a passing affectation at best.

And what watering hole would you suggest that a clan (And I'm referring to clans in this whole post, not random groups of indie PCs) try and charge people to use? The single real 'watering hole' in the game, in terms of being an oasis along a major trade route, which everyone knows about...and who attempting to control it would bring  those few hapless PCs into suicidal conflict with several mega-powerful NPC-dominated factions?

What I was suggesting was something more realistic and modest, that a couple of player-dominated clans/tribes could realistically tussle over without cutting the strings of a half dozen Damoclean swords hanging overhead.

This isn't about what a few random dudes can 'claim' which no one pays attention to. It's about having real, sustainable areas of competition between clans, and more than just pretend/virtual reasons to carry out said conflict.

[Revenant]

*ahem* there might or might not be unaffiliated PC smugglers... I hate to sound like a jackass, but it's likely best found out IC.

[Clearsighted]

*ahem* there might or might not be unaffiliated PC smugglers... I hate to sound like a jackass, but it's likely best found out IC.

It's fine that there are a few unaffiliated people pretending and RPing around it. But there isn't any real geopolitical/conflicty situation around it, that compels competing interests/clans to get involved.

It's neat that people are doing their best to simulate the virtual situation. But there's nothing particularly compelling, ICly, to either demand it or make it stop.

Ideally, given how centrally important and thematic spice smuggling/restriction is in Allanak (to the point of being a capital offense), there should be various suppliers competing to supply the product, like shady Kuraci agents whose sole focus is dealing with 'rinth smugglers and gangs. There should be at least two gangs in the 'rinth, humans and elves, who have reason to compete over who has a lock on the spice supply, with the bulk of the product received by whoever can best guarantee a profit from it. These gangs should have intermediaries in the rest of Allanak who then buy the spice from them, and deal with various aides and such. Militia should have an incentive to investigate this, and otherwise stop it or be bribed. Finally, spice should be something that people are compelled to want to buy and use in large quantities. This could be very easily done, and suggestions have been made in the past (such as having spice addiction give mild mindbender side-effects).

The creative, interesting solution to these problems is to come up with conceits or coded quirks that encourage it. The boring/uninterested solution is to go the 'just pretend route'.

Everything I just described was chock full of Player vs Player conflict and interaction.

So no, I didn't take what you said to be jackassery, but it does completely miss the point.