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

[valeria]

Like all plots, assassination plots of powerful PCs (and most long-lived PCs are powerful) take time, attention, and usually several try-fail cycles to pull off.  And then you don't broadcast when you do succeed, because most long-lived PCs have friends, and most people just assume that X or Y stored.*

_{*This is my experience, experiences may vary.}

[John]

PCs don't kill long-lived PCs. NPCs do.

This has not been my experience circa 2002-2006.

I don't really get the animosity towards player driven conflict. Murder. Betrayal.  Corruption. IMO 90% of the populace should be striving to include this as part of their characters' lives every single day. If I'm understanding people correctly dismissing that as Total Allanak Drama seems antithetical to the game. I don't know if this resistance is an artifact of Tuluk being closed, but I was always under the impression that Tuluk had these things as well.

Banding together to face a common threat shouldn't be SOP. If you hear about someone being threatened by danger X your first thought should be "how can I take advantage of this situation" not "Let us form the Light Brigade for the greater good and defeat this threat so that we may all live in harmony."

Apologies if I've misunderstood people's points.

[Alesan]

I don't play characters that are driven by conflict, I find it difficult to play conflict-driven characters.

I do however like to play characters that don't give a fuck about anyone but themselves. I see too many characters in-game who care about everyone, or at least care about most or a lot of people around them. If more characters were willing to stay out of other people's conflict, there'd be less white-knighting and all that.

Treat it as entertainment, treat it as a threat to you and play it that way. Whatever.

I don't have much more to add on the in-depth issue of Y U NOT MORE CONFLICT because it's not my niche. But I do think there's a whole lot of caring going on. Some of it could stop.

[BadSkeelz]

PCs don't kill long-lived PCs. NPCs do.

This has not been my experience circa 2002-2006.

Are you serious? That was ten years ago. Back then people would get banned for mucking up Staff plots (after their characters were just vindictively exploded). I don't even know if Karma was a thing then. By all reports it was a different game.

I don't really get the animosity towards player driven conflict. Murder. Betrayal.  Corruption. IMO 90% of the populace should be striving to include this as part of their characters' lives every single day.

Why? Murder and Betrayal are both insanely risky things that can easily get your character killed. Your PC should have good reason for embarking on them - like having no recourse to survive BUT by engaging in murder and betrayal - not because you have some sort of OOC dwarf focus to act out the tag line. If you want to play all your characters as the Scorpion in the Scorpion and the Frog fable, okay... but that's kind of an insane standpoint. Unless you're playing a serial killer, your PC probably has reasons for wanting to expend extra time and effort on killing people.

At least, that's how I play. Corruption's a lot more interesting to see play out since it typically doesn't devolve into a murderfest... unless someone gets all self-righteous up in the mix.

If I'm understanding people correctly dismissing that as Total Allanak Drama seems antithetical to the game. I don't know if this resistance is an artifact of Tuluk being closed, but I was always under the impression that Tuluk had these things as well.

It existed well before Tuluk's closure in Allanak. I wouldn't even say its antithetical to the game: most PCs are young and kind of stupid so it's not wholly out of character for them. It's just annoying to run into constantly, like sinkholes.

Banding together to face a common threat shouldn't be SOP. If you hear about someone being threatened by danger X your first thought should be "how can I take advantage of this situation" not "Let us form the Light Brigade for the greater good and defeat this threat so that we may all live in harmony."

Apologies if I've misunderstood people's points.

A raider on the flat's isn't a threat if you're not going out to the flats. So I agree: a Templar or militia leader or captain of a swarthy crew of swarthy mage-killing badasses doesn't need to rush out to investigate a raider. When I'm talking about threats, I'm talking about things that will come into your PC's life and Ruin It, whether you want them to or not. The Spider Infestation plotline from a couple years back was one example - normally antagonistic organizations in Allanak (nobles and Gemmed, militia and criminals) had to work together to try and pin down that threat and eliminate it cause it was killing indiscriminately. Was it all hugs and kisses? Hell no. There was a lot of distrust between these temporary partners and the alliances dissolved pretty quickly once the threat was passed. But no one tried to backstab each other in the middle of a fight because of some slight from months back.

Total Drama Allanak is conflict and drama for its own sake. The deepest meaning you'll find behind it is "my character was insulted!" which I personally don't think is a good enough reason. Your character probably cares more about keeping itself fed than keeping its dignity intact. That's my take on it.

[Desertman]

In the vast history of Armageddon threads, I don't think a single one has ever legitimately qualified more for this response:

BE THE CHANGE!!!

[John]

Are you serious? That was ten years ago.

I qualified my statement because I can't speak with 100% authority that it is still true.

By all reports it was a different game.

It wasn't anywhere near as awful as you seem to think it was.

Why?

Because those are the themes of the games. Post apocalyptic is the genre. Murder, betrayal and corruption are the themes.

Murder and Betrayal are both insanely risky things that can easily get your character killed. Your PC should have good reason for embarking on them - like having no recourse to survive BUT by engaging in murder and betrayal

Every raider presents an opportunity for those not being raided. GMH can benefit greatly by raiders. Betraying your bosses should come with great profits for you personally when your bosses' enemies seek to harm them.

It existed well before Tuluk's closure in Allanak. I wouldn't even say its antithetical to the game: most PCs are young and kind of stupid so it's not wholly out of character for them

Young people are the most ambitious. In Zalanthas people get powerful on the backs of those who were too weak to stop them. They didn't get ahead by preaching tolerance and cooperation

[quote author=BadSkeelz link=topic=49671.msg895686#msg895686 date=1436313608I'm talking about things that will come into your PC's life and Ruin It, whether you want them to or not. The Spider Infestation plotline from a couple years back was one example - normally antagonistic organizations in Allanak (nobles and Gemmed, militia and criminals) had to work together to try and pin down that threat and eliminate it cause it was killing indiscriminately. Was it all hugs and kisses? Hell no. There was a lot of distrust between these temporary partners and the alliances dissolved pretty quickly once the threat was passed. But no one tried to backstab each other in the middle of a fight because of some slight from months back.[/quote]Some of the greatest plots were only achieved because some players were willing to work with the antagonists.

Total Drama Allanak is conflict and drama for its own sake.

There should be drama because people should be playing their character in such a way that makes survival difficult. When your struggling you'll get a lot more murder, betrayal and corruption.

[John]

To expand on my earlier point: This thread exists because some miss the days where PvP was more prevalent. I'm not saying that PvE shouldn't exist. But it shouldn't be the main driver of conflict. Here are the problems with PvE in my view:

Player vs Weather: Weather sucks. It can be dangerous. And if you aren't careful it can strand you. But so long as you were properly prepared it isn't going to kill you. You can stick it out with the sufficient food and water and know you're going to be okay. If you need to log out you can ranger quit or quit OOC.

Weather is an important part of the game, but for the properly prepared player it will offer inconvenience and not true danger. The weather can enhance other dangers though.

Player vs Static Beasts and NPCs: Unless you have "gotcha" mobs where they look indistinguishable from harmless ones but are secretly murdering machines, there are no threat to anyone except the newbie traveller. Players will simply grind on the safe animals and once they see their skills reach point X they'll go face the slightly more dangerous ones. There should be less dangerous beasts close to the city for people to hunt and I applaud the inclusion of them. I feel that the balance is really good at the moment in terms of danger/safety in the immediate environs of Allanak. But it inevitably leads to people being able to tailor their own experience in terms of what threats they face. The biggest killer here (as it has always been) is player boredom/impatience.

Player vs Staff Plots: Staff are only logged in X amount of the time. Although there seems to be a lot more staff for off-peak players these days, they still only have so much time and energy to put into entertaining players rather than facilitating player-initiated activities. So if we rely solely on staff run plots for conflict and excitement then we will be limited in how much of this we actually get to enjoy. Imagine what turns and twists the Great Spider plot you cited would have been taken if some players had banded with the spiders rather than uniting against them (I was around for this plot and I personally suspect there were PCs who did exactly this).

Given these factors, PvP will always be where the greatest amount of player experienced conflict will come from. If people are bored, then it's likely they aren't getting enough murder, corruption and betrayal in their diet. Staff also had (have?) rules against creating plots with the sole purpose of killing specific PCs. Was this rule broken? Sure. But it was broken a lot less than you would think.

I understand the complaint against "conflict for conflicts' sake" and the dislike for creating characters whose sole purpose is conflict. And I agree. Down this road leads moustache twirling villains who don't add very much to the game. But I disagree that personal conflict inevitably devolves to "Total Allanak Drama" unless you're deconstructing it significantly. But if so, then you can argue that that Tuluk vs Allanak was always "Total Zalanthas Drama" where Muk Utep and Tektolnes were simply trying to prove who had the greatest penis.

Intra-Clan Conflict: Clans are great. Everyone's meant to get along, right? Wrong. This is Zalanthas. There is only so much resources to go around. There are only so many promotions that people can attain. Promotions that come with security, perks and benefits. Minions should be jockeying against each other to attain that limited promotion spot. THose who are at the top of the player ladder should be paranoid against their minions trying to take their spot (or their fellow House members from taking their spot for nobles and GMH merchants).

This doesn't have to always take the form of murder though. Setting someone up to succeed at something only to betray them (best done without it being revealed to the party) so you can then swoop in and pick up the pieces is one great way of having conflict without murder. Do this enough times and you can have them demoted or "failed upwards" where any real power is taken away from them so your character can gain it for themselves.

Why would you do that? Why not be content with what you've got and what you can get in riding their coat-tails? Playing a lazy character is perfectly fine. But you can still betray people. Hire people who do a lot of work and then steal all the credit. Give them just enough rewards to keep them happy and constantly hold a carrot out for them just outside of their reach. They might plot your death, but if you're stealing the credit you should be getting a fair amount of rewards. Those rewards can be used to get others to warn you should your minnion prove to actually act out their plans of revenge. If you're lazy, you can also be open to corruption. Betray people in return for more goodies. There'll always be new bosses. Strive to reach that optimal point where you're competent enough to not get rid of you while still being lazy enough that you're doing the bare minimum work required. If you can also be fun on an OOC level and entertain those you're screwing over outside of your clan-work related activities then you'll probably live a lot longer than you have any right to.

Inter-Clan Conflict: Unfortunately the established clans are pigeonholed enough that there is very little overlap between them. The nobles should be scheming against each other though which can allow you to try to play them off each other and be everyone's best friend while secretly betraying every single one. Or you can throw in your own with one clan and plot with them against another.

The Race to Minor Merchant Housedom: IMO this falls under the heading of Inter-Clan conflict, but I thought it warranted separating it. We now have the addition of the MMH process which can allow players to create clans that last beyond their character. This is a great addition to the game IMO and they should be a great source of conflict.

Minor Merchant Houses introduce more influence and players into the economy. No longer will nobles need to gain the support of Kadius, Salarr or Kurac. They can instead gain the support of MMH Malek, MMH Amos and MMH Talia. The more power players there are, the less influence the established players have. Coin is meaningless outside of the peons (and thanks to various money generating methods money isn't that impressive there either). Political influence is the true currency of the game and each MMH dilutes how much influence everyone else has.

Why We Shouldn't Get Along: Having a long lived character once made you a force to be reckoned with. People murdered you because you got in their way. You got in their way because doing so denied them power which increased your own power. I'm not talking coded power here. Some of the most fearsome and controversial characters were merchants.

Where's the achievement in having a long lived character, if they faced no true danger? Where's the sense of achievment in creating a MMH, if everyone helped you and no-one stopped you? If we want a chatroom where no-one ever faces true danger (remember, only inexperienced and impatient players are threatened by P v Weather and P v Mobs) there's no need for all of the coded features we have in the game.

So no. Characters shouldn't be engaging in conflict for the sake of conflict. They should be engaging in conflict because they're either greedy (they want more than they have), lazy (they don't want to work hard to keep what they have) or paranoid (someone else is plotting to harm me and I have to make prepare for when they do and/or pre-emptively strike). Characters should either want what other people have or want to protect what they have from those who wish to take it away or lessen it. If everyone is sitting in drum circles smoking spice and preaching peace, then no. You won't get much PvP conflict. But when did that become the Armageddon experience? I'd certainly like to think it hasn't.

Creating long lasting change should be challenging, not because you jumped through arbitrary hoops set up by staff, but because you faced true adversity and great challenges that were only overcome by great effort and a healthy dose of murder, corruption and betrayal. Relying on staff to the be the sole font of such adversity isn't very enjoyable for staff (we've already seen that sentiment expressed here by one staff member) and will ultimately not be very satisfying (either staff presented too much of a challenge in which case everyone complains that staff don't let anyone do anything. Or they only presented a token challenge which means no true adversity was faced).

Of course, the enjoyment of the game doesn't (typically) come from typing "backstab Amos." There might be a minor thrill in that but it is quickly forgotten. The greatest amount of fun comes in the planning of the murder of Amos and the involvement of a wide number of characters in Amos's death. Murdering someone can happen in any number of ways and that variety is what makes it enjoyable. It's great to see we get 5-10 PKs a week, but if those PKs are meaningless then how much fun and enjoyment is added to the game?

As for be the change: I am I might not be plotting someone's murder. I might not be plotting to betray someone. Heck I might not even be trying to corrupt people (alright. I probably am trying to corrupt someone). But if I'm not doing any of these things. Then I'm probably trying to protect myself from those who are plotting them against me. Even if that threat is only in my head. And if I'm doing it right, I'll hopefully inspire someone to plot against me.

[John]

Just to beat this dead horse some more into the ground, here is: John's Guide to Creating Sustainable Meaningful Conflict

I'm thinking people might be misunderstanding me when I say 90% of the playerbase should be striving towards murder, corruption and betrayal and the conflict that surrounds these themes. So here's my thoughts laid out on how achieving these conflict makes for a more enjoyable game. Borrowed shamelessly from Vanth's Guide to Noble PCs.

Step 1: Make friends

When you start out whatever you do, don't make waves. You have no clout, you don't (necessarily) know the lay of the land and you need to prove yourself. Murder, Corruption and Betrayal can come later. To start with you need to become useful to the powers that be.

If you don't wait and do murder and betray everybody you meet, you'll likely be doing it solo and it will become an isolating and boring role. You'll also inevitably be killed. While the only rule in Armageddon is that everyone dies, you want yours to be an achievement, not a minor footnote that goes unremarked.

So making friends, as counterproductive as it might sound, is the key to creating sustainable meaningful conflict. Don't listen to those who tell you that you need to hide and grind your skills up and then be a badass. Impatience will set in and you'll almost always do somethig stupid. Make friends who will be able to back you up in the event that someone wants revenge.

Don't make too many friends though. Who your friendly with will (ideally) shut out who you can be friends with and will (hopefully) cause you to inherit your friends' enemies.

Step 2: Get powerful allies

Everybody wants something. It might not be coin, in fact with how easy coin is to earn it will often not be coin. But they will want something. Whether it's information, items, someone dead, someone blocked from performing a task, a f-buddy, etc. Find out what that something is that a powerful person wants. And then give it to them.

The more powerful the person, the more difficult it might be to get them what they want. Even learning what it is they want can be difficult. But that's where your friends come into the picture. They can help you learn what it is the person wants. It might be through betrayal, it could be through corruption. It could (rarely) be through murder. Or it could simply be given to you. Whatever that thing is though, your friends will hopefully help you learn it. If you can't, then choose someone less powerful and learn what they want. Make them a friend or an ally and then use them to gain a more powerful ally.

Your friends can also help you get whatever it is that the powerful person wants. If you don't have the resources or skill to get it yourself, enlist the aid of others. This will possibly require you to do things for them in return, etc, etc until eventually you have that thing you wanted. You can then present that thing to the powerful figure. This will establish you as someone that is useful and worth having around. The more you do for this powerful figure, the more they will assist you when someone comes after you.

Step 3: Set Goals and Desires

By this stage your character will be an established figure in the game. They're known as someone who gets shit done. On an OOC level players will want to play with you because they know you'll find interesting things for them to do and that you'll make the game more enjoyable. On an IC level working with you comes with benefits (either tangible or intangible rewards). It is now time for you to decide what you want in life.

You might have had an initial idea when you wrote your character's background. Through play you might have seen things that you decided you want. Now is the time to definitively set those goals and desires of what you want. A good desire or goal will be one that helps put you at odds with other players.

Some examples include:
* Create a clan that lasts longer than your character.
* Gain a powerful position in an established clan.
* Have nice things.
* Gain the ability to slack off and not have to work very hard.

Step 4: Identify Potential Obstacles

These aren't people who WILL stop you, these are people who COULD try to to stop you. Let's face it, you can't always trust other players to live up to the themes of the game. Some players are new, others just have no interest in that aspect of the game. Others are simply so exhausted from their recent efforts that they don't have the energy to engage in a heavy amount of MCB. So you may need to initiate it or inspire them yourself. That's okay. Creating your own enemies will make it easier for you sustainable and meaningful conflict to be created in the future. Other players will also see how much fun there is in doing it and become inspired themselves.

There'll also be non-PC obstacles as well. Make sure you identify those as they'll be important to give your character something to do other than "GWRAR! More PKz!!!!!1111"

Step 5: Deal with the potential obstacles

It doesn't matter if they're true obstacles or not. If they aren't an obstacle, they could one day gain enough care-factor to become one. They could also be incentivised by your true enemies to become a problem. So be proactive and deal with them.

However you can't just murder them all at once. You'll quickly become too great of a cost to your allies to keep you around. They'll betray you and abandon you to distance simply because the cost/benefit analysis comes up short in your favour. So you need to be subtle and you need to be patient. This is where non-PC obstacles are important because you can attack at 3 or 4 obstacles and only have 1 or 2 of them be actual PCs.

How do you deal with PC obstacles? Here is where variety is truly the spice of life. Using a one-size fits all approach will get monotonous and boring for all involved. So while there's definitely murder, if they're in an established clan they'll simply be replaced by someone else. If the clan learns that you were responsible for the original murder you may become a target for the replacement clannie.

Instead you can:
* Make them a friend or an ally: Find out how to make yourself useful to them so they stop being an obstacle and instead become an ally. If they're powerful, this can be of great benefit to you. You can also always betray them later once they stop being useful.
* Discredit them: Plant false rumours about what they're doing. Assassinate people and make it look like the obstacle was the responsible party. Get them thrown out of their clan or make their allies turn on them.
* Distract them: Get them chasing off something else you don't care about while you enact your plans. By the time they finish chasing the distraction you should have maneuvered yourself into a position where they can no longer stop you. If not, plan successive distractions or use a different method.
* Blackmail them: Find out a dirty little secret they have and blackmail them. So long as you don't make your demands disproportionate to the blackmail you have they might not even plot to kill you.

Step 6: Achieve your goals

This is where you've successfully dealt with all potential obstacles and have now gained what you set out to achieve.

Step 7: Set new goals

Go back to Step 3 and set new goals. You can continue to cycle through Steps 3-6 indefinitely, creating plenty of conflict and enjoyment along the way. Regardless of what staff are doing, you'll be able to make things exciting and fun for the playerbase at large. Even if your only goal is "Hold on to what I have" that is still a goal that can create plenty of conflict. Because eventually someone will want what you have and start plotting against you.

----
This is what I mean by player conflict should be the main driver of the game and that everyone should strive for murder, betrayal and corruption every day. It doesn't need to be achieved every day, but your activities should have that end goal in mind.

Player conflict doesn't have to be "Total Allanak Drama" all the time. Nor do you need to create a character with the IC goal of "murderize, betray and corrupt all the poeplezzzz!" Creating three dimensional characters while keeping in mind the virtual world and the themes of the game should be all that's needed to create plenty of PvP.

You'll also notice that PK is not the main driver of this, which I realise is at odds with the initial post in this thread. Murder is definitely an important tool in the "Let's enjoy the game" toolbox. But it's only one of many and should be used as appropriate.

Of course, following this model you'll get plenty of co-operation. Co-operation is good and needed. But just as Vanth's Guide to Nobles mentions, thinking of someone as "always 100% an ally" reduces your power and makes you subserviant to them. There might be the rare individual with whom you think of in this manner. But they should be few and far between. Allies should always be on a "for now" basis.

So what's different between what we have now and using the above method? Not very much. I always assume that people who are being friendly are either in Step 1-2. New characters will definitely be in the Step 1-2 phase and so it will look exactly like what we currently have. But the longer lived characters should definitely be in the Step 3-6 phase. You might be all smiles and giggles in public and totally plotting against people in private. And that's great. But there comes a time when thought needs to turn into action.

To enable more conflict, as a playerbase when we find out "So-and-So just murdered Such and Such" we shouldn't automatically go "Lets team up against Such-and-Such." There should definitely be room for "Such-and-Such is someone who can get shit done. Could I use that to achieve my goals?"

Alright. I'd better do some actual work now.

[Tetra]

Tetra's solution:

Take a breather from the game and hope the assholes around have killed each other by the time you come back.

[Mordiggian]

In the vast history of Armageddon threads, I don't think a single one has ever legitimately qualified more for this response:

BE THE CHANGE!!!

[Case]

I hate conflict that's made to be conflicting and that's it, because boring. PK at random is the worst example of that I can think of. PK is one of those things where if it's not judicious then it's damaging both RP and future conflict and likely to get everybody to turn on you. I love great conflict and it's fun, and great conflict will buy you enough respect in a lot of cases, enough to avoid certain death no matter who you kill.

The first log I posted up is because my PC got stabbed in silks by a fellow Templar because she had mocked his attempt to get power over her, that upon finding out she already had said power and hid it, flipped his shit and stabbed her out onto the street before realising the PR problem he'd make if he continued to do so publicly.

My PC's response was to go home, brood, change from silks to armour, grab her weapon, walk back into the room and kill him. Then we got that lovely log! That was the culmination of all sorts of parallel plots involving numerous PCs, some acting two sided or looking to capitalise over the feud. I had fun at least!

If however, the pbase basically equates 'raiding' or PK with MCB, holy crap are players unimaginative and lazy. Raiding is not the pinnacle of conflict achievement. Victory and domination are. Take shit over, tear shit down and build new things, whether organisational, familial or architectural. Win so hard that you're left standing because it's not worth it to topple you or it'd only make things worse. Fuck yeah, seize the day.

[Armaddict]

Raiding is not the pinnacle of conflict achievement.

You're contributing to what has led to this discussion in the first place.  The promotion of everything having giant meaning, which is simply not the case.  Raiding is not the pinnacle of conflict achievement, but it -is- reminiscent of the danger of the in-game world.  The world is dangerous.  People are dangerous.  PK at random is also dangerous, and I don't expect you to live long.  But PK as a viable course of action is not dangerous, it's -real-.

[Case]

Raiding is not the pinnacle of conflict achievement.

expect you to live long

You're contributing to what has led to this discussion in the first place.  The promotion of everything having giant meaning, which is simply not the case.  Raiding is not the pinnacle of conflict achievement, but it -is- reminiscent of the danger of the in-game world.  The world is dangerous.  People are dangerous.  PK at random is also dangerous, and I don't expect you to live long.  But PK as a viable course of action is not dangerous, it's -real-.

[John]

Raiding can be meaningful. Here's a little secret: The last raiding group I was personally aware of was support (if not created) by an Allanaki nobleman. Plenty of meaning there while still having plenty of raiding. If you want to raid, make friends. Gain powerful allies. Don't get bored. Raid as much as you can. Don't PK every single person, but do PK when appropriate.

Why raid? Good question. Fighting dangerous beasts is dangerous, ICly takes a lot of work, often results in you having stuff you need to store until you can sell. Grebbing means working back breaking hours (until you skill up. However ICly there are plenty of Warriors whose cap on forage means they can never skill up) and is exhausting work. Raiding people for what they have can result in high returns which can let you spend a considerable amount of time sitting around, drinking ale and snorting spice. Of course it isn't the OOC road to easy riches that many take (I've certainly gone crafter/merchant. I prefer those types of roles over warriors to be honest). But it is on the OOC road to a hell of a lot of fun.

[awkward]

Raiding is not the pinnacle of conflict achievement.

You're contributing to what has led to this discussion in the first place.  The promotion of everything having giant meaning, which is simply not the case.  Raiding is not the pinnacle of conflict achievement, but it -is- reminiscent of the danger of the in-game world.  The world is dangerous.  People are dangerous.  PK at random is also dangerous, and I don't expect you to live long.  But PK as a viable course of action is not dangerous, it's -real-.

One of the most awesome PC deaths I had when I started playing a long time ago (I take a lot of breaks) was getting randomly PKed by a HG who only threw one emote and attacked. It was awesome because my PC's beloved a few leagues away saw it, ran in, and tried to save my PC. We both got emotes in and basically died for each other, which given their station was ridiculous, thoughtless, and emotion driven. It was interesting.

Probably because I am an idiot all of my raiders have been short lived. If someone raids and has fun with it and even succeeds with it to the frustration of others that is fine. It is like any other role. If you don't like raiders, hire the Byn.

[Clearsighted]

The only really successful raiders I've seen in the last ten years have been the Red Fangs and various gicker groups. No, it doesn't count as something else if a couple people are a ranger, warrior or assassin, and the rest are whirans or sorcs. You're a gicker group.

The Red Fangs succeeded because they had a clan infrastructure. You could app into the Red Fangs, and be slotted into the action. A lot of them would die, but the most badass would live, and then mentor new Fangs. It's unrealistic to expect a raiding group without clan support to manage that. Some is going to be flippant and say they can, but the reality is, there is a world of difference between recruiting people you can trust to have your back, and having people app into your clan and automatically have that pact, history and understanding. You're automatically all on the same page. That only happens outside a clan, with weeks and weeks of RP, or OOC coordination.

Gickers succeed because it's very easy to make a gicker dangerous. You don't have to invest half a RL year into your character. And gickers, when they cooperate, tend to become exponentially more deadly. There's been some very successful gicker outlaw groups. If these groups persist long enough, they will attract various mundane servants.

But what we don't see, is any highly successful non-clan and non-gicker raiders. It's something I've given a lot of thought to, to how to get around. I'm not going to get into it here, but it's hard to not reiterate these points. I think there's a lot of unrealistic talk in this thread about the PC raiding experience.

[AdamBlue]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrNLv76sCJQ

[Zoan]

I dunno about all of you but I clicked 'bring it on, bitch' before reading a single word in this thread.

[Inks]

More raiders pls. I'll be the change next pc or sommat.

[Armaddict]

But what we don't see, is any highly successful non-clan and non-gicker raiders. It's something I've given a lot of thought to, to how to get around. I'm not going to get into it here, but it's hard to not reiterate these points. I think there's a lot of unrealistic talk in this thread about the PC raiding experience.

What's your definition of 'highly successful'?  Because again, pretty sure you're wrong again, this time against characters of my own.  If think they should all reach bushman-levels of fame to be successful raiders, theeeennnn...I'd say your problem is your bar being set too high.

[Fergie]

But what we don't see, is any highly successful non-clan and non-gicker raiders. It's something I've given a lot of thought to, to how to get around. I'm not going to get into it here, but it's hard to not reiterate these points. I think there's a lot of unrealistic talk in this thread about the PC raiding experience.

What's your definition of 'highly successful'?  Because again, pretty sure you're wrong again, this time against characters of my own.  If think they should all reach bushman-levels of fame to be successful raiders, theeeennnn...I'd say your problem is your bar being set too high.

Quite the strawman there. I expect what most people regard as highly succesful, whether a raider or anything else, is to be able to carry out the intended role and persist long enough to have actually played the role, as opposed to raiding once and then dying of the consequences within a week which is what seems to be the norm. When I ask around, nobody can tell me about a succesful raider since "back in the day."

Meanwhile, I think there'd be much more conflict and raiding if it didn't take several RL months to become a skilled fighter. I don't see the benefit in that. It clearly holds the game back and makes people disinclined to do the things that should be happening in the game. Not just raiding but any form of risk-taking, making enemies, being the antagonist, or simply breaking the stifling banality of going through the motions day in day out.

[Narf]

But what we don't see, is any highly successful non-clan and non-gicker raiders. It's something I've given a lot of thought to, to how to get around. I'm not going to get into it here, but it's hard to not reiterate these points. I think there's a lot of unrealistic talk in this thread about the PC raiding experience.

What's your definition of 'highly successful'?  Because again, pretty sure you're wrong again, this time against characters of my own.  If think they should all reach bushman-levels of fame to be successful raiders, theeeennnn...I'd say your problem is your bar being set too high.

Quite the strawman there. I expect what most people regard as highly succesful, whether a raider or anything else, is to be able to carry out the intended role and persist long enough to have actually played the role, as opposed to raiding once and then dying of the consequences within a week which is what seems to be the norm. When I ask around, nobody can tell me about a succesful raider since "back in the day."

There was one in the last year that I'd classify as pretty successful. He lived for many months after he started raiding, and I suspect the player ultimately let the character get captured as opposed to just getting ganked by player cheese.

One raider doesn't really make for a dangerous environment though, but I wanted to point out that someone has done it recently so if anyone is reading this is interested in playing a raider, they'll know it can be done in the current environment even if it's maybe one of the most difficult roles in the game.

[Armaddict]

But what we don't see, is any highly successful non-clan and non-gicker raiders. It's something I've given a lot of thought to, to how to get around. I'm not going to get into it here, but it's hard to not reiterate these points. I think there's a lot of unrealistic talk in this thread about the PC raiding experience.

What's your definition of 'highly successful'?  Because again, pretty sure you're wrong again, this time against characters of my own.  If think they should all reach bushman-levels of fame to be successful raiders, theeeennnn...I'd say your problem is your bar being set too high.

Quite the strawman there. I expect what most people regard as highly succesful, whether a raider or anything else, is to be able to carry out the intended role and persist long enough to have actually played the role, as opposed to raiding once and then dying of the consequences within a week which is what seems to be the norm. When I ask around, nobody can tell me about a succesful raider since "back in the day."

Meanwhile, I think there'd be much more conflict and raiding if it didn't take several RL months to become a skilled fighter. I don't see the benefit in that. It clearly holds the game back and makes people disinclined to do the things that should be happening in the game. Not just raiding but any form of risk-taking, making enemies, being the antagonist, or simply breaking the stifling banality of going through the motions day in day out.

That is not a strawman.  I literally asked for clarification on his basis of making a claim, and advanced a suggestion of what the current claim seemed to say, and why that would not be a good claim.  However, with the rest of your post, if you feel like every person trying to play a raider should reach some legendary status, then I think you should re-examine the game you're playing.  Part of the 'issue' a lot of people have with Armageddon is that they want their characters...all of them...to have some deep, lasting impact on the game world, when it is actually specifically designed for us to be ants on an ant farm.  Making larger impacts is a rare occurrence that should bring some pride.  Famous, long-reaching characters happen, but it's an achievement, not a rule.

What you seem to be claiming is...like saying that if this were Diablo, everyone has made a hardcore character, but nothing should ever prevent each of those characters from reaching level <arbitrary high level, doesn't matter>.  People engaged in constant high-risk combat tend to die at some point, even when they've done well up until that point.

Meanwhile...

When I ask around, nobody can tell me about a succesful raider since "back in the day."

Which is blatantly ignoring the discussion about raiding that's been going on previously about why that is, and asserting that combat code needs a change, despite it being...pretty much the same, if not easier, as the 'back in the day' days.

[Hope]

Always up for more conflict, as long as its thought out and such.

So, bring it on 

[Tetra]

PCs don't kill long-lived PCs. NPCs do.

This has not been my experience circa 2002-2006.

I don't really get the animosity towards player driven conflict. Murder. Betrayal.  Corruption. IMO 90% of the populace should be striving to include this as part of their characters' lives every single day. If I'm understanding people correctly dismissing that as Total Allanak Drama seems antithetical to the game. I don't know if this resistance is an artifact of Tuluk being closed, but I was always under the impression that Tuluk had these things as well.

Banding together to face a common threat shouldn't be SOP. If you hear about someone being threatened by danger X your first thought should be "how can I take advantage of this situation" not "Let us form the Light Brigade for the greater good and defeat this threat so that we may all live in harmony."

Apologies if I've misunderstood people's points.

I don't know if I agree with purposefully dosing your play with MCB(maybe a little bit is fine).  I like it to happen as a natural byproduct of decisions in a plot, because you actually want to succeed in your goals enough to do so.  Not like "Okay, how can I corrupt someone today?"  It becomes very comic book and inauthentic.