The Massive Conflict Thread

[Dunetrade55]

The point of the thread, I thought, was to highlight why there feels like a stagnation with conflict. I have just explained why. It's unsustainable, and the characters you actually see engaging in conflict with these monolithic monstrosities are limited in number...

... as well as time spent twinking up so they can maybe give the rest of you more than three rounds of coded combat, making social connections so they can give you more in the way of social conflict than calling you a stupid meany-head, and gathering arms and armor for the inevitable slaughter-fest that awaits them. If you want to see more of it, try drawing it out a little more and you might. Otherwise, you get what you get.

It seems to me that most of the people complaining about a LACK of conflict are more victims of their own success. I am constantly engaging in conflict. I have presented what I believe will reinvigorate conflict for those of you who feel it is lackingi. That is all.

[Miradus]

The only nemesis I've ever really had in Arm has been the Unexpected Carru, who refuses to ever roleplay.

But in other games when I've found someone fun to be a nemesis I've always drawn it out over a long period of time with no clear end. Because ... fun.

[Dunetrade55]

The only nemesis I've ever really had in Arm has been the Unexpected Carru, who refuses to ever roleplay.

But in other games when I've found someone fun to be a nemesis I've always drawn it out over a long period of time with no clear end. Because ... fun.

I roleplayed with a scrab once. That was fun. Sent kudos in to staff shortly after being eaten alive. I would have been upset but I couldn't stop laughing.

[LauraMars]

I had the most amazing nemesis a while back. So good. I still sigh about that crazy enemy chemistry.

It ended too soon, Nemesis. So many duels unfought. So many insults unslung. So many regrets. A+++ would despise again.

[John]

Wouldn't upward player mobility, and the potential conflict and resolution ahead, be worthy of the sacrifices? Can we not count on our fellow players to want to make sexy, bejewelled dresses, which they'd be otherwise unable to do without managing some status in house X? Don't we want to see them out there FIGHTING over the chance to do it for you, and better than the other person? The question is, what do we want? All-powerful monopolies render a lot of potential plots and pursuits dead before the door even opens. It's time to pick up the priorities and give them a really painful amount of inspection.

If someone worked hard enough and clever enough, they'd be able to impinge on Kadius's monopoly. This happen enough times, Kadius would become but a shell of what it once was.

That's about right, except Armageddon's Wal-mart starts by murdering your family as you watch, then boards you up inside and burns your house down... THEN they make that super-awesome thing and totally tell everyone it was their idea to begin with.

You're not asking for more conflict. You're asking for the risk of taking certain conflict to be lowered. I think the risk/reward ratio is pretty much exactly where it should be right now for trying to take on a GMH.

... as well as time spent twinking up so they can maybe give the rest of you more than three rounds of coded combat

If you're really as jaded as your posts indicate you are, maybe taking a break from playing the game would allow you to come back and enjoy actually playing it. I also suggest that avoiding jcarter's forum will likely help with not becoming so jaded, but I'm sure you'll take anyone's advice on that issue the day that Allanak gets blown out of the ground.

Suffice it to say: your opinion is simply that of an extremely jaded player. There are plenty of people who do not share your opinion and are able to enjoy the game. Your opinion is not fact and you'd do well to not post as if it were.

[Jingo]

That's about right, except Armageddon's Wal-mart starts by murdering your family as you watch, then boards you up inside and burns your house down... THEN they make that super-awesome thing and totally tell everyone it was their idea to begin with.

You're not asking for more conflict. You're asking for the risk of taking certain conflict to be lowered. I think the risk/reward ratio is pretty much exactly where it should be right now for trying to take on a GMH.

The TLDR of my and I think Dune's position is that the risk/reward of any conflict with any other player is so out of whack that nobody would rationally engage in that conflict. So in effect we're punishing players who engage in that conflict while having to consider that players who don't engage in that conflict get to keep their characters and will be rewarded with more power for their continued survival.

The rational approach under this system is to engage in as little conflict as possible while gathering power and to meet characters who are willing to start conflict with instant death.

So yadda yadda, feedback loop that discourages conflict and creates extreme responses to any attempt at said conflict.

Responses to conflict may or may not vary with GMH houses based entirely on the actual players inside the GMH scene.

... as well as time spent twinking up so they can maybe give the rest of you more than three rounds of coded combat

If you're really as jaded as your posts indicate you are, maybe taking a break from playing the game would allow you to come back and enjoy actually playing it. I also suggest that avoiding jcarter's forum will likely help with not becoming so jaded, but I'm sure you'll take anyone's advice on that issue the day that Allanak gets blown out of the ground.

Suffice it to say: your opinion is simply that of an extremely jaded player. There are plenty of people who do not share your opinion and are able to enjoy the game. Your opinion is not fact and you'd do well to not post as if it were.

Assertions are normally presented as fact. That's just debate language we're using here. And we are are a bit short of facts because we can't really pull data from the game. So instead we try to reinforce our positions with the strength of our arguments (and hopefully not with the strength of our invective).

Now I consider writing off a problem as just plain pessimism to be a bad argument.

That's probably good advice about that other forum though.

[Raptor_Dan]

Jingo, you are the type of player I would regret engaging in conflict with. Perhaps there is a no-zero-sum solution that can be achieved with players, even when experience tells you they'll avoid risk at any cost and execute your char upon signs of conflict, but it requires  either trust on both parties side in order to break that feedback loop, or the willingness to hold yourself to a higher standard. If you don't trust the other players to help break that feedback loop, you become an obstacle in and of yourself towards good conflict roleplay.

When you say 'nobody would rationally engage in that conflict', I find myself wondering whether you mean no player, or no character. I find myself disappointed when I consider the prospect of a char willing to engage in, say, a war against a GMH, and their player deciding risk/reward is too small. I would gladly engage in a war with a GMH, even knowing that my char wouldn't 'win', and single-handedly destroy the merchant house, because in the process I would be creating a plot for both myself, and the merchant house members, and hopefully for the people either of us hire or recruit to help battle each other.

And if I failed, if at first attempt I was slaughtered mercilessly and given no chance for escape or good roleplay, yes, I would stop trusting. I would stop trusting the char that did that to me, but just the char.

[nauta]

The TLDR of my and I think Dune's position is that the risk/reward of any conflict with any other player is so out of whack that nobody would rationally engage in that conflict.

Not all characters are rational, in the sense that they would be motivated by Vulcan-level rational calculation: emotion, honor, and pride are traditional motivators in history, and so too I think on a desert planet like Zalanthas.  Indeed, a 'rational' character of the sort suggested here would strike me as rather un-Zalanthan, and a very boring character to play.

So in effect we're punishing players who engage in that conflict while having to consider that players who don't engage in that conflict get to keep their characters and will be rewarded with more power for their continued survival.

I think there's a lot wrong with this paragraph.  First, I, as a player am not the one engaged in conflict: rather it is my character.  This is why I (the player) get a lot of reward out of putting my character in conflict situations: even if that character dies, the story was worth it.  E converso, I, as a player, do not get rewarded with more "power" (huh?) much less gratification from playing a long-lived character who avoids conflict.  Like I said, I would find playing such a character dull and boring.

I've already mentioned elsewhere how I find your pessimistic view concerning the degree to which Armageddon players abandon role play and OOC consideration for a good story in order to 'win' highly dubious and your repeated siren's call towards it bad for the community as they paint a very wrong picture of the state of the game to newer players.

[Miradus]

I have yet to prove or disprove the pessimistic view myself. I remain hopeful but also wary. It's not outside of a character's nature to act as if any potential conflict ISN'T going to blow up in their face.

Sort of like a mom who calls the police to speak to her drunken adult son but then the police arrive and shoot the belligerent drunk. You never know which conflict is going to escalate, or how quickly.

I understand at a storytelling level that massive conflict is desired. But from an individual character's perspective, all conflict is big. Whether it's an impeding war or a kryl on the road.

[Fathi]

Sort of like a mom who calls the police to speak to her drunken adult son but then the police arrive and shoot the belligerent drunk. You never know which conflict is going to escalate, or how quickly.

Never before have I seen a simile that so aptly sums up my Armageddon experience.

[Jingo]

The TLDR of my and I think Dune's position is that the risk/reward of any conflict with any other player is so out of whack that nobody would rationally engage in that conflict.

Not all characters are rational, in the sense that they would be motivated by Vulcan-level rational calculation: emotion, honor, and pride are traditional motivators in history, and so too I think on a desert planet like Zalanthas.  Indeed, a 'rational' character of the sort suggested here would strike me as rather un-Zalanthan, and a very boring character to play.

No I'm thinking more at a play level. I'm not talking about character rationalization, I'm talking about player rationalization.

It's smarter just avoid conflict in general, regardless of IC circumstances. Even if it makes complete IC sense, for your character, supported with game documentation. If you want to survive, it's just better to play an agreeable character.

And I am in perfect agreement that it's better for the game that we involve ourselves in conflict. But then we routinely punish players who do try to generate something, even just to add a bit of tension to a scene.

So in effect we're punishing players who engage in that conflict while having to consider that players who don't engage in that conflict get to keep their characters and will be rewarded with more power for their continued survival.

I think there's a lot wrong with this paragraph.  First, I, as a player am not the one engaged in conflict: rather it is my character.  This is why I (the player) get a lot of reward out of putting my character in conflict situations: even if that character dies, the story was worth it.  E converso, I, as a player, do not get rewarded with more "power" (huh?) much less gratification from playing a long-lived character who avoids conflict.  Like I said, I would find playing such a character dull and boring.

I've already mentioned elsewhere how I find your pessimistic view concerning the degree to which Armageddon players abandon role play and OOC consideration for a good story in order to 'win' highly dubious and your repeated siren's call towards it bad for the community as they paint a very wrong picture of the state of the game to newer players.

You the player make the choice to engage in conflict with your character. You are still making OOC decisions when you're making IC decisions. It's a convenient fiction to suggest that IC decisions are based entirely within the textual reality of the game. Every time you make an "IC" decision, you are still turning all the same cogs at the back of your brain and employing all the biases you carry with you.

And as far as my little social model goes, I'm not saying it's a good thing. I'm saying that it carries a heavy influence on players. Whether we know it or not, we are conditioned to play in certain ways as a result of the game environment.

Yes, characters with longevity do get more power. They get skills, they get contacts, they get better support from their house etc. This isn't rocket science.

Yes, some players see more reward in engaging in conflict and trying to play the game in a way that brings it's themes to life. I'm one of them. But if my characters get killed for even trying, predictably and repeatably by the same characters that have lived for three-plus years then I start to wonder what the point is.

So I would very much like some sort of changes to be made that encourage conflict.

Edit: And please don't try to tell me my ideas are bad for the game. I think it's far more damaging if we can't investigate a problem to come up with good solutions.

[Jingo]

Jingo, you are the type of player I would regret engaging in conflict with. Perhaps there is a no-zero-sum solution that can be achieved with players, even when experience tells you they'll avoid risk at any cost and execute your char upon signs of conflict, but it requires  either trust on both parties side in order to break that feedback loop, or the willingness to hold yourself to a higher standard. If you don't trust the other players to help break that feedback loop, you become an obstacle in and of yourself towards good conflict roleplay.

I agree. You are actually putting this better than I can. Thank you.

When you say 'nobody would rationally engage in that conflict', I find myself wondering whether you mean no player, or no character. I find myself disappointed when I consider the prospect of a char willing to engage in, say, a war against a GMH, and their player deciding risk/reward is too small. I would gladly engage in a war with a GMH, even knowing that my char wouldn't 'win', and single-handedly destroy the merchant house, because in the process I would be creating a plot for both myself, and the merchant house members, and hopefully for the people either of us hire or recruit to help battle each other.

I'm talking about the player level. And I mean rationally, given the context of the system I outlined above. I'm not using "rational" in the sense of right thinking. I'm using "rational" as taking the best choice out of the lot. Engaging in conflict might be rewarding, but it won't grant you power if it kills you. In the long-run, characters that don't engage in conflict will have more power.

And if I failed, if at first attempt I was slaughtered mercilessly and given no chance for escape or good roleplay, yes, I would stop trusting. I would stop trusting the char that did that to me, but just the char.

Mhmm-hmmm. That's a good place to start. But I've played long enough to know that this is the norm and not just a few bad apples spoiling my play.

[Raptor_Dan]

Your definition of 'best choice out of the lot' is the part of the opinion I disagree with. If, veterans like you, who have been playing so long, continue to take the least conflict/most power path that you've outlined as the 'best choice', then I feel like I'm forced to ask:

What do you propose you do about that?

Or, if I may rephrase the situation, and ask a different question: In the 'Prisoner's Dilemma' scenario, have you fully committed to always betray the other prisoner?

[Jingo]

Your definition of 'best choice out of the lot' is the part of the opinion I disagree with. If, veterans like you, who have been playing so long, continue to take the least conflict/most power path that you've outlined as the 'best choice', then I feel like I'm forced to ask:

What do you propose you do about that?

You seem to be misunderstanding me still. The rational choice is the one that nets you the most external gain. Not the choice that's "right" or makes you feel the best.

I propose we reward players who engage in conflict and punish players that are too quick to kill conflict.

[Raptor_Dan]

Okay, there is definitely a communication error, and I think I see where it is. I threw in a little blurb up there, added on as an afterthought, before I realized you posted. I must have missed the 'new post' warning because I was eating. Regardless, let's continue this...

I have been rewarded for engaging in conflict, and I have seen others that are punished for killing conflict too quickly (in such a way that it inhibits roleplay).

I didn't get more contacts, better gear, more coins, more skills, a longer life, neat mounts, magickal powers, combat echoes, access to new areas, old lore, artifacts, titles, or anything like that.

I got kudos. It was very rewarding.

What kind of rewards do you think we should give PLAYERS?

[Jingo]

I have a few ideas.

Karma and kudos are nice for validation. But are lacking as an external reward.

I think staff should be more willing to support players on the fringe when a powerful player whips up a witch-hunt against them.

Players could be rewarded with further support, rare items, rare opportunities and the means or motivations to further disrupt the game's status quo via more conflict.

[Lizzie]

Killing another PC doesn't equal killing roleplay. It means killing that PC, as part of roleplay, and potentially creating NEW conflict/roleplay scenarios as a result of that character's death. Yes, your character is dead. But your next character is not, and is now ready for you to app it and get it approved. See - dead PC = new opportunity for you.

In addition, if your character was in a clan, there'll be some RP revolving around "Where's Amos?" or "Hey boss I just saw Amos's corpse" or "Arena time, Amos, and you're the guest of honor!"

Also, if your character was involved in plots, there is now a new twist to that plot, because your character is now dead/missing.

There is actually MORE opportunity for roleplay and new and/or escalated conflict as a result of your character's death, than there is as a result of someone storing a character.

I would ALWAYS prefer my character die, than live so long I can't stand playing her anymore and storing her.

[Jingo]

Killing another PC doesn't equal killing roleplay. It means killing that PC, as part of roleplay, and potentially creating NEW conflict/roleplay scenarios as a result of that character's death. Yes, your character is dead. But your next character is not, and is now ready for you to app it and get it approved. See - dead PC = new opportunity for you.

In addition, if your character was in a clan, there'll be some RP revolving around "Where's Amos?" or "Hey boss I just saw Amos's corpse" or "Arena time, Amos, and you're the guest of honor!"

Also, if your character was involved in plots, there is now a new twist to that plot, because your character is now dead/missing.

There is actually MORE opportunity for roleplay and new and/or escalated conflict as a result of your character's death, than there is as a result of someone storing a character.

I would ALWAYS prefer my character die, than live so long I can't stand playing her anymore and storing her.

Nobody here has said "killing kills roleplay." But that's a pretty meaningless assertion anyways.

[Lutagar]

I wish we had some kind of command that'd make you attack people if they tried to leave the room.

I know I'm not the only one who's a little reluctant to trust people after falling victim to the "x looks at you" then "x walks north" times infinity meme.

[Feco]

Guard works well, particularly in choke points.  As it should.

[Miradus]

A "room" in the wilderness is approximately a league of space, in most conditions.

Often I'll emote riding in the distance and waving or signalling somehow before I ride closer to someone I don't know, even if I'm in the same room.

The opposite would also be true. If you wished to demonstrate your aggressiveness, you could ride straight at them, after coming into the same room.

You can't force roleplay on someone, even in this type of mud environment. If they aren't going to play with you then they aren't going to play with you. If you have code methods to force them to interact you should use them, otherwise you're relying on the goodwill and interest of the other player to respond to YOUR roleplay.

Some of this is "my roleplay sucks and someone won't hold still and let me inflict it upon them."

If you look interesting, I'm going to stop and participate.

[Lutagar]

You can't force roleplay on someone, even in this type of mud environment. If they aren't going to play with you then they aren't going to play with you. If you have code methods to force them to interact you should use them, otherwise you're relying on the goodwill and interest of the other player to respond to YOUR roleplay.

Sure, just don't be surprised when the goodwill isn't offered a second time and next interaction with the rude little raider who is trying to force their horrible RP upon you comes in the form of a OHK peraine laced arrow from three rooms away.

[Miradus]

Yeah, that's my point.

There's other issues there, but that's sort of what leads to the dissatisfaction with the roleplay.

Personally, unless I'm going up against someone who I know is going to be fun to roleplay with, I'm going to drop back to code.

This is really all speculation based on my experience in other games. I've literally never had any of these interactions in-game here on Arm. The only time I ever met a raider it went well and with some decent roleplay.

[Lutagar]

Then I'm not really sure why you're disagreeing with me to begin with?

A command that engages combat at an attempt to leave the room doesn't force you to RP or hold you captive. If someone's truly so terrible that you can't fathom the idea entertaining their meager attempts of interaction with an emote you can just kill x or flee after combat's initiated. It just means you're not going to be able to hand wave coded consequences if the big meanie makes the mistake of trying of make something other than "kill keyword" the first thing they type.

[nauta]

Generally, I find using a command emote with the direction command sets the scene better and encourages people to stick around for the scene, e.g.:

Code Select Expand


e (riding down the dune, sword glinting in the sun)

I also mentioned earlier that I have seen very few spam flee situations, by far the minority, and most of these I suspect are newbies.

The bandit will also want one or two emotes cued up too.

If they do opt out of the scene, ultimately my thought has been: so what?  Clearly, they didn't want to play with you today, and I don't really want to play with someone who goes straight to code anyway.