Accessibility of Gathering Spaces Outside Cities

[Desertman]

I think the only thing the whole concept needs is for a staffer to say;

"If you put together a tent camp that lasts IC years successfully and pay the right people and do the right things, we will let you hire NPCs to make it more secure and make it less of a camp and more of a tent-town.".

But really, I think our current staff would already do that if anyone ever actually put in the required work successfully.

I just don't recall anyone ever pulling it off to date. But, I think if they did, staff would step up and help them.

The system is already there. This can already be done. I think people just want a staffer to say, "Hey, if you build it, your NPCs will come.".

I have done this, and I have been explicitly told no on NPCs.  Hence the whole 24/7 paranoia thing because of people raiding my camp when they knew I and other PCs in the camp were offline.

How many IC years did your camp exist persistently? How many PC's lived in your camp?

I'm just curious because I can't think of any actual player-built tent towns (meaning more than one or two PC's living there) in the last few years in game that lasted for IC years without it getting rolled/falling off the map.

(I'm not saying you didn't. I'm just curious because I would like the story really.)

[Ender]

I think the only thing the whole concept needs is for a staffer to say;

"If you put together a tent camp that lasts IC years successfully and pay the right people and do the right things, we will let you hire NPCs to make it more secure and make it less of a camp and more of a tent-town.".

But really, I think our current staff would already do that if anyone ever actually put in the required work successfully.

I just don't recall anyone ever pulling it off to date. But, I think if they did, staff would step up and help them.

The system is already there. This can already be done. I think people just want a staffer to say, "Hey, if you build it, your NPCs will come.".

I have done this, and I have been explicitly told no on NPCs.  Hence the whole 24/7 paranoia thing because of people raiding my camp when they knew I and other PCs in the camp were offline.

How many IC years did your camp exist persistently? How many PC's lived in your camp?

I'm just curious because I can't think of any actual player-built tent towns (meaning more than one or two PC's living there) in the last few years in game that lasted for IC years without it getting rolled/falling off the map.

(I'm not saying you didn't. I'm just curious because I would like the story really.)

About a dozen or so PCs at its height, and well over a year.

[BadSkeelz]

I have done this, and I have been explicitly told no on NPCs.  Hence the whole 24/7 paranoia thing because of people raiding my camp when they knew I and other PCs in the camp were offline.

I think it's pretty safe to say that Staff don't want us creating permanent little villages around the game world. We'd quickly see the world fill up with seemingly-abandoned camps otherwise.

You play ARK, Desertman. Surely you've seen how the world gets slowly built up without actually being lived in.

It's true that without NPCs your options for keeping your camp safe are limited. I can think of four off the top of my head:

1) Have enough people in your group that there's always a chance that one of them will be online, and that you have a bad enough rep that that one is enough. (I can say from my experience that this probably had something to do with why I never tried to raid your camp late at night or something... that, and offline raiding is pretty derp anyhow and not something I condone.)


2) Have such a bad rep that even if someone comes through and cleans you out at night, you could conceivably hunt them down. Staff might even facilitate identifying the perp, if you can argue that your camp has a VNPC presence and someone would have saw Ranger McTheiferson making six trips between camp and town to vendor everything.


3) Limit your possessions, logging out with what you need and treating anything as left in game as expendable. This is how I operate in apartments - furniture, trinkets, anything easily replaceable is left behind, gear and packs are kept on at log-out.


4) Move occasionally. It won't stop the random late-night griefer visit, but a moving target is harder to hit by anyone doing any sort of planning. No one wants to spend an hour riding out to attack your camp only to find you've moved to some unknown location and we gotta reschedule guys sorryface


None of them are perfect. At best, they're risk-reducing. And I think that's a better thing for the gameworld than the ability to create an unassailable position.

[Desertman]

I think the only thing the whole concept needs is for a staffer to say;

"If you put together a tent camp that lasts IC years successfully and pay the right people and do the right things, we will let you hire NPCs to make it more secure and make it less of a camp and more of a tent-town.".

But really, I think our current staff would already do that if anyone ever actually put in the required work successfully.

I just don't recall anyone ever pulling it off to date. But, I think if they did, staff would step up and help them.

The system is already there. This can already be done. I think people just want a staffer to say, "Hey, if you build it, your NPCs will come.".

I have done this, and I have been explicitly told no on NPCs.  Hence the whole 24/7 paranoia thing because of people raiding my camp when they knew I and other PCs in the camp were offline.

How many IC years did your camp exist persistently? How many PC's lived in your camp?

I'm just curious because I can't think of any actual player-built tent towns (meaning more than one or two PC's living there) in the last few years in game that lasted for IC years without it getting rolled/falling off the map.

(I'm not saying you didn't. I'm just curious because I would like the story really.)

About a dozen or so PCs at its height, and well over a year.

The current system for convincing an NPC to join you in the safety of a city is already three IC years minimum if everything goes perfectly.

I would imagine getting an NPC to join you out in the middle of a desert would be A) Much more expensive and B) Take much more time to establish your reputation so as to attract them.

But I think your real issue is staff flat told you that no matter what you did it would never happen? (Which does suck.)

Though, back to my original point...I think if staff stepped up and said, "Yeah, if you do this the right way and put in the time we will consider backing you with things like NPCs.", that would make most people happy.

If someone ran a tent camp in the desert for five IC years (minimum in my opinion) that did "well" and attracted players I would be disappointed personally if staff didn't throw them a bone.

[Nyr]

I think the only thing the whole concept needs is for a staffer to say;

"If you put together a tent camp that lasts IC years successfully and pay the right people and do the right things, we will let you hire NPCs to make it more secure and make it less of a camp and more of a tent-town.".

But really, I think our current staff would already do that if anyone ever actually put in the required work successfully.

I just don't recall anyone ever pulling it off to date. But, I think if they did, staff would step up and help them.

The system is already there. This can already be done. I think people just want a staffer to say, "Hey, if you build it, your NPCs will come.".

At least right now, staff will tell you to go through the MMH process to get this done.

Hey, if you build it (it being a rapport with your clan staff, an IC organization that can support such a thing--one that has hit trading co. or higher--and the resources to actually develop and maintain such a thing), your NPCs will come (because they can be moved over from your existing clan compound or hired through the same process you can do with a player-created clan).

This answer will not be acceptable for everyone, but it exists at least.

[Ender]

None of them are perfect. At best, they're risk-reducing. And I think that's a better thing for the gameworld than the ability to create an unassailable position.

A couple of killeable NPCs hardly make an unassailable position.  Demanding people to be online 24/7 is unreasonable.

[Delirium]

Desertman, he meant a year in real life time, which is 8 years in-game, and he was force-stored by staff.

I'm pretty sure it was more than a year, even, as I recall spying on it well before a year to the date he was force-stored.

So I don't think it's really fair to try and hold that situation up as "lol do better for longer, bro".

Edit: and before we get too sidetracked, let's remember the focus should be on solutions, not trying to get bogged down in details of past situations.

[Desertman]

Desertman, he meant a year in real life time, which is 8 years in-game, and he was force-stored by staff.

So I don't think it's really fair to try and hold that situation up as "lol do better for longer, bro".

Edit: and before we get too sidetracked, let's remember the focus should be on solutions, not trying to get bogged down in details of past situations.

I don't recall saying, "lol do better for longer, bro". I'm sure that's how you read it in your mind, but that isn't what was said.

With that being said, that does stink Ender. If this is the situation I'm thinking of though that happened years ago. Even years before the MMH system even existed which you could now potentially parlay into building such a camp.

The system didn't exist then, but it just might exist for you now.

[Nyr]

This is getting into territory that probably shouldn't be discussed on the GDB unless someone has a good IC story to share and put up as an original submission.  I'd be happy to look it over and approve it.  It has been long enough and there is quite a bit of cool IC story around the whole situation.

We didn't develop the MMH system until approximately November/December of last year, so whatever was done prior to that wouldn't really apply in terms of "putting in time/effort/etc".

[BadSkeelz]

Would a couple of NPCs really help at all? Think who's going to typically visit the camp:

Rangers, who can use archery to kill nearly any NPC in the game as long as they have a two-room Line of Sight and enough arrows.

Magickers of all stripes, who could blow up anything short of a magickal-NPC (and I don't really think those should be on the table for getting added to a player camp, whoever is running it).

Outdoorsy Warriors who may have enough skill to just beat down your (assuming mundane) guards.

Given Staff position and the nature of the game world, for me the unreasonable position is to want to achieve anything lasting in the desert at all. The best you can hope to achieve is a temporary camp that can be memorable and fun to play in, just not a permanent base. That's already achievable and I don't really think we need anything more.

[Delirium]

BRB, gonna go wipe out the Sun Runners. It should be easy, they live in the desert!

[Ender]

Would a couple of NPCs really help at all? Think who's going to typically visit the camp:

Rangers, who can use archery to kill nearly any NPC in the game as long as they have a two-room Line of Sight and enough arrows.

Magickers of all stripes, who could blow up anything short of a magickal-NPC (and I don't really think those should be on the table for getting added to a player camp, whoever is running it).

Outdoorsy Warriors who may have enough skill to just beat down your (assuming mundane) guards.

Given Staff position and the nature of the game world, for me the unreasonable position is to want to achieve anything lasting in the desert at all. The best you can hope to achieve is a temporary camp that can be memorable and fun to play in, just not a permanent base. That's already achievable and I don't really think we need anything more.

It creates at least some barrier to entry rather than just "lol, I know the PCs are offline."  How often are the NPCs in the Sun Runner camps killed and that camp looted?

[BadSkeelz]

BRB, gonna go wipe out the Sun Runners. It should be easy, they live in the desert!

I knew someone who could have done that (and should have done that) but they declined. Of course, magicker, so they don't really count.

You want to talk solutions, Delirium, so I'm presenting the easiest one: curb your expectations and play to what's achievable given the nature of the game world and the code base, not raging against the confines of the system.

It creates at least some barrier to entry rather than just "lol, I know the PCs are offline."  How often are the NPCs in the Sun Runner camps killed and that camp looted?

The biggest barrier to entry is knowing who lives in a camp and knowing you don't want to fuck with them, online or off.

[Desertman]

Already established tribal camps have dozens/hundreds of VNPCs present outside of the visible NPCs most of the time. Potential serious threats know this and act accordingly. I don't think it's comparable in any way.

[Delirium]

By your standards, guys, the Soh Lanah Kah shouldn't even exist. Everyone has to start somewhere. Some of them make it.

The only "barrier to entry" I see is entirely OOC.

[BadSkeelz]

Of course they shouldn't! They're elves.

[BadSkeelz]

Oh, you mean that kind of "shouldn't even exist." Right, never mind then.


Buuuuuuut....

The only "barrier to entry" I see is entirely OOC.

How is knowing IC that BadassMotherFucker has a camp out here and that you shouldn't go poking in random camps on the off-chance that it's THEIR camp and that they might even be around to personally object to your presence an OOC concept? It seems like common in-game sense to me.

[Delirium]

"Barrier to entry" as in, "barrier keeping a camp from becoming established", not as in "keeping powergaming jaggoffs out of your camp".

[BadSkeelz]

Ah, I see.

Well, let's flip it around. How is "Become a BadassMotherFucker so that people know not to mess with your things" an OOC concept? This is Zalanthas. It's a harsh, unforgiving world where nothing is free. No one is going to leave a weakling alone just because it's the nice thing to do. No, they're going to take his stuff and possibly eat him. If you want to go it alone, you have to prove yourself strong enough.

That's why people don't raid the Coded Tribal Camps. Those tribes are old, large, and dangerous. They've proven that they're strong.

Players can already prove they're strong enough not to fucked with regularly. Ever rogue mage with a known location has done it. Yes, it's going to inevitably happen, whether by random griefer or the powers of the game world aligning to destroy you. That's the nature of Zalanthas. Enjoy the ride while it lasts.

Addendum:

I think we have different definitions in mind as to what's an "established" camp. In my mind, an established camp is already achievable. It's not perfectly safe and it's not perfectly permanent, but it can and has been done.

[BadSkeelz]

I suppose it's worth noting that "a camp being established" is synonymous in my mind with "keeping powergaming jaggoffs out of your camp."

[Delirium]

At this point you are not doing much but derail the thread to focus on a very specific argument (and you are also avoiding actually responding to my point, which is: all established clans had to start somewhere.) Let's start focusing more on actual solutions to the issue rather than getting into back and forths over specific side tangents.

[Desertman]

The currently established clans for the most part didn't have to start somewhere. They were built into the lore of the game. They weren't player created. Holding them up to the same standards or comparing them in any way is really a pointless argument in my opinion on every front.

They exist because OOC'ly they were put there at the beginning of time and that's really all there is to it.

They "started" with hundreds/thousands of members. IC'ly did they? Of course not. But they weren't built IC'ly, and that is what we are talking about doing. Those tribes were built OOC'ly. It isn't relevant in any way on the IC building front.

[Delirium]

Yes, yes, it is relevant. It is absolutely relevant. If you are looking at the gameworld and deciding "what is realistic", you have to consider how things came to be.

PCs and (v)NPCs should NOT be held to different standards, from a storytelling standpoint.

How to make the coded reality match up to that is - or should be - the goal.

That is what this thread should be seeking to accomplish.

Allowing camps to establish themselves, create quit rooms, slowly build more permanent (or "moving camp") structures, and gain followers & NPCS would fill that gap.

Would it be difficult? Absolutely! Should it be impossible, like it is now? Absolutely not!

[BadSkeelz]

(and you are also avoiding actually responding to my point, which is: all established clans had to start somewhere.)

They did, but that's not something Staff allow, so why bother getting mad over it? Unless Staff change the rules to allow for self-sustaining tribes self-recruiting tribes (i.e. multi-generational family rolecalls) you're never going to establish a tribe. At least, not under the classic definition.

Personally I think there might be a loop-hole existent in the current player-created clan rules that would allow for self-perpetuating organizations and communities in the wild, so long as you wrote your docs right. But it wouldn't achieve the "established camps" that people want. Even though we can already make camps that are as permanent as any other structure, so long as they're in a save room, and safe enough so long as there's either someone online, your rep is bad enough to protect you, or you just don't care about losing some items.

[Desertman]

Yes, yes, it is relevant. It is absolutely relevant. If you are looking at the gameworld and deciding "what is realistic", you have to consider how things came to be.

PCs and (v)NPCs should NOT be held to different standards, from a storytelling standpoint.

How to make the coded reality match up to that is - or should be - the goal.

That is what this thread should be seeking to accomplish.

Allowing camps to establish themselves, create quit rooms, slowly build more permanent (or "moving camp") structures, and gain followers & NPCS would fill that gap.

Would it be difficult? Absolutely! Should it be impossible, like it is now? Absolutely not!

Salarr didn't have to follow the same steps as current players trying to create merchant houses in game.

The system didn't exist, so it isn't relevant.

The system for establishing a player created tent-camp didn't exist back when Blackwing was established so it isn't comparable or relevant.

If you wanted to grow a forest in game, you couldn't point to the Grey Forest and say, "They had to start somewhere so I should be able to grow a forest because other trees exist already!!!".

The Grey Forest exists because it was written into the game. The Soh exist because they were written into the game.

That's really the end of it.

Making a current system adhere to, "The current system has to also explain why OOC'ly created clans already exist.", doesn't go anywhere. That's a dead end.

I would rather a system be crafted around what is instead of trying to make it explain what has always been especially since what has always been was established OOC'ly with no IC considerations around players creating similar structures.