The Massive Conflict Thread

[Reiloth]

I still like my idea of a massive demon invasion. 

Given how demons exist in Armageddon, that would be pretty wicked 

+1 for mass extra-dimensional demon army. Githyanki return!

[Akaramu]

Also, it's never a Fale party until someone dies.

I thought it was never a Fale party until something was lit on fire.

I thought it was never a Fale party until a templar died.

[Armaddict]

In order for PC-PC conflict to be worth anyone's time there needs to be a change in how players kill one another.

As it stands we punish players that take risks. And the winners in any conflict will always be the players with the lowest play standards.

There are people who already find it worth their time.  We don't punish people who take risks.  Risks are risks because there's something to lose, and sometimes you do indeed lose (and I do too).  The lowest play standards do not determine winners unless the other side isn't planning on another player being willing to kill them.  Start being suspicious of other PC's the way the game world is set up to be; other people want you -dead- and out of their way.

Basically your entire post is wrong.  There's a lot of back slapping about how good the roleplay is when people play it through and let their character lose and how awesome they are...but then we have posts like this that essentially complain that no one else is doing that for them.  A prepared, cautious individual is much harder to kill than you ever give it credit for.

[LauraMars]

Also, it's never a Fale party until someone dies.

I thought it was never a Fale party until something was lit on fire.

I thought it was never a Fale party until a templar died.

templars don't die, silly

what do you think this is, 2007?

[Jingo]

In order for PC-PC conflict to be worth anyone's time there needs to be a change in how players kill one another.

As it stands we punish players that take risks. And the winners in any conflict will always be the players with the lowest play standards.

There are people who already find it worth their time.  We don't punish people who take risks.  Risks are risks because there's something to lose, and sometimes you do indeed lose (and I do too).  The lowest play standards do not determine winners unless the other side isn't planning on another player being willing to kill them.  Start being suspicious of other PC's the way the game world is set up to be; other people want you -dead- and out of their way.

Basically your entire post is wrong.  There's a lot of back slapping about how good the roleplay is when people play it through and let their character lose and how awesome they are...but then we have posts like this that essentially complain that no one else is doing that for them.  A prepared, cautious individual is much harder to kill than you ever give it credit for.

Fine allow me to redfine. Risks arn't risks when you can accurately predict the outcome every goddamn time. And then getting called a scrub for even trying. It isn't a risk, it's an expectation. THAT is a problem.

And secondly. I don't have a goddamn problem with losing. I love adversity, I like working for hard-fought victories and I enjoy injecting tension into the game. I play the souls series religiously for christ's sake.

I'm just sick of being punished for playing the way I want to play. So here I sit, staring at the mantis head, wondering to myself yet again if I should just fuck trying and build a twink that avoids interaction with other players just so it doesn't happen a twenty-ninth time.

And yes, low play standards does determine who wins. I wouldn't pull the garbage that I've been subject to.

[SuchDragonWow]

Why do all discussions on the GDB become so disheartening?  It's like we take the pulpit on a conversation and change course to gripe about our feelings on X player or Y viewpoint.  Ah well. 

I liked Badskeelz suggestion of flattening out combat.  Lower caps, eliminate the grind, thrust yourself into danger and play a character, not a doppelgänger created to drive your self esteem.

[Reiloth]

Why do all discussions on the GDB become so disheartening?  It's like we take the pulpit on a conversation and change course to gripe about our feelings on X player or Y viewpoint.  Ah well. 

I liked Badskeelz suggestion of flattening out combat.  Lower caps, eliminate the grind, thrust yourself into danger and play a character, not a doppelgänger created to drive your self esteem.

+1, and part of my idea in the other thread. I'm wondering if PCs in general can be more capable with skills to start, and have much further to go to be 'legendary legit ninja' if they want to. It's part of why I would like to see combat between two non-trained people be brutal and short, and between a non-trained person and a trained person even brutally shorter. If it's paired with 'You can make a new PC and not spend 10 days getting them borderline competent, they come out of the box pretty alright', I dunno. It'd be a whole different game for sure.

I just don't buy the mystique of 'ArmageddonMUD is too legit' with these fundamental systems, like fail to get better, and massive amounts of time to get passingly good with a PC, and/or gaming the system to take advantage of fail timers.

Part of why i'm trying to figure out a solution to skills by increasing them is -- I'm tired of thinking about them. When I hit my stride as a 'Jman' at most skills, i'm comfortable and don't give a flying fuck about skills. The Novice/Apprentice grind is my least favorite, I could give a shit about the endgame 'master' level stuff. It may be just me (I doubt it) but when I hit that stride, I feel like I can actually do things my character wants to do, and still fail at things they want to do. Before that, I pretty much set my expectations so low that it doesn't even feel like i'm playing a PC. Want to sneak? Good luck, asshole! How about peek? Better luck, asshole!

Couple this with 'Skill Alerts' to Staff when you are 'Twinking' them, and it feels like the cards are stacked against you. I could care less about skills if they actually worked some of the time (to start). Starting off at 10 or 20 for skills that go to 90 just seems...Silly, when it's a skill your 'class' is supposed to be marginally talented in. Especially compared to Subguilds that start with higher minimums to skills than guilds they are tangentially related to.

Anyways, i'm woefully off topic, here. I like your support of the idea of flattening out combat. I would also recommend flattening out craft branches -- So you branch lockpick crafting when you branch pick, and so on.

[Riev]

I always considered your Guild as your potential. What you were born for, in this fated world we play in. You are BORN to be a ranger, an outdoorsy person, to understand plants and what have you. The terrible part is, you never got to realize it because you became an aide, instead. A subguild, rather conversely, is what you've spend your life "up until now" doing. Which is why I sort of dislike that subguilds have branches anyway. Its not a perfect system of thought, but it helps explain the non-coded side of guild/subguild.

On the topic of flattening out combat, I actually feel like lately its gotten LESS brutal. I see more damage being done per hit in combat, but that combat itself is slower.

[Reiloth]

I always considered your Guild as your potential. What you were born for, in this fated world we play in. You are BORN to be a ranger, an outdoorsy person, to understand plants and what have you. The terrible part is, you never got to realize it because you became an aide, instead. A subguild, rather conversely, is what you've spend your life "up until now" doing. Which is why I sort of dislike that subguilds have branches anyway. Its not a perfect system of thought, but it helps explain the non-coded side of guild/subguild.

On the topic of flattening out combat, I actually feel like lately its gotten LESS brutal. I see more damage being done per hit in combat, but that combat itself is slower.

See -- The tricky part is having a background. We then should (pretty much always) be making PCs who did nothing significant before coming off the vNPC stage. The age-old simple fix to me is:

Younger PC -> Better Physical Traits, Lower Wisdom
Older PC -> Higher starting skills, Lower Physical Traits, Higher Wisdom

Make 30 the median, and scale it in both directions. Sort of how it's done now with age and stats, but add a 'skills' graph that scales according to age. Does not apply to weapons skills.

[BadSkeelz]

I think you would need to keep the "skill gap" between starting and established characters relatively narrow to increase risky behavior. If you push back the "end goal" people will just continue to chase it. You need to narrow the range entirely.

[Akaramu]

templars don't die, silly

what do you think this is, 2007?

Hey, I saw a templar die in 2013... or was it 2014? All the party guests were dressed up as spiders, though. It was kind of creepy. 

(sorry about the derail. Move along now, nothing to see here.)

[BadSkeelz]

I think Allanak needs to launch a combat RPT to finally do something about that twinked out sinkhole whose been camping the north road. Fucker doesn't even RP.

[Riev]

I think Allanak needs to launch a combat RPT to finally do something about that twinked out sinkhole whose been camping the north road. Fucker doesn't even RP.

Imagine the road that was created back when the game existed ACTUALLY BEING USABLE AGAIN. Instead of us just coming up with Least Objectionable Alternative route through the sands.

[Delirium]

Parts of it would be pretty easy, just incorporate the ivory-salt road. Other parts... not so easy.

I like it. Let's do this.

[nauta]

I think Allanak needs to launch a combat RPT to finally do something about that twinked out sinkhole whose been camping the north road. Fucker doesn't even RP.

Imagine the road that was created back when the game existed ACTUALLY BEING USABLE AGAIN. Instead of us just coming up with Least Objectionable Alternative route through the sands.

Heheh, it still is in game, or was last year.  It's accessible via a strange spot -- which I didn't realize until months later (I bugged it) that it wasn't supposed to be there.

[Patuk]

There's a Highlord who's sure
All that glitters is black
And He's buying a stairway to Allanak

[Harmless]

Why do all discussions on the GDB become so disheartening?  It's like we take the pulpit on a conversation and change course to gripe about our feelings on X player or Y viewpoint.  Ah well. 

I liked Badskeelz suggestion of flattening out combat.  Lower caps, eliminate the grind, thrust yourself into danger and play a character, not a doppelgänger created to drive your self esteem.

I like this suggestion too, but I think that the flattening out of combat should only apply to roles that are guaranteed to face a lot of adversity. If you're going to play as a "good guy," i.e. build a character up from scratch as an Allanaki born commoner with the potential to join almost any House, the Arm, the Byn, and have easy access to training and resources and allies, then do NOT give them any combat boosts. If on the other hand you roll up a raider concept, maybe as a part of a specific raiding clan that identifies you as a raider to others and therefore makes you a target, less access to training or allies, then give those characters a combat boost so they don't have to grind and can stir up shit from the get go.

[Armaddict]

Predictably, I'm sure, I'm outright against flattening skill trees and making the game less skill oriented under the pretense that people will no longer be attached to their characters and take risks just because of skill grinds.  I think that's a big fallacy, and in the meantime is tweaking with fundamentals of the MUD for the sake of a player mentality rather than a game approach.  If you want conflict, it's easily found.  If it's a hard, bigger-than-you conflict, it will be a long-term goal and conflict that you work to overcome and manipulate situations to try and gain ground.  Sometimes you succeed, and sometimes you don't, and sometimes when you don't, you die.  That's well and good, and I don't see any reason to change that.

Fine allow me to redfine. Risks arn't risks when you can accurately predict the outcome every goddamn time. And then getting called a scrub for even trying. It isn't a risk, it's an expectation. THAT is a problem.

And secondly. I don't have a goddamn problem with losing. I love adversity, I like working for hard-fought victories and I enjoy injecting tension into the game. I play the souls series religiously for christ's sake.

I'm just sick of being punished for playing the way I want to play. So here I sit, staring at the mantis head, wondering to myself yet again if I should just fuck trying and build a twink that avoids interaction with other players just so it doesn't happen a twenty-ninth time.

And yes, low play standards does determine who wins. I wouldn't pull the garbage that I've been subject to.

Oh it's you again.  Saying that same thing in yet another thread.  Let me just follow you around to reiterate that I find your descriptions of how you got screwed generally hyperbolic and sounding more like you just didn't want to die than something terrible actually happening.  I think you should either post or PM me these terrible shitty things that happened so that I can rate them, because when you keep saying how shitty the other players in the game are for having skills and killing you, I just kind of imagine you doing something where you're making enemies and not really counting on enemies actually being dangerous.

Perhaps you could prove me wrong.  But I've been killed many many times in this game, including during the 'twink-era', which now comes nowhere near to, and I really haven't seen things that you seem to hint at happening.  Either that, or your standard is just too high.   I know you'll take it as an insult, even though I don't mean it as one, nor do I think it should be taken as one, but your description of things is far more reminiscent of mush-type interaction, to me.

It should be noted that my last death, I got utterly curb stomped out of nowhere in a way that I didn't expect at all, and I got exactly one non-flowery emote...and it made me chuckle and 'holy shit' by the mental picture.  For someone who claims to enjoy death, you sure complain about how it happens a lot.  For someone who claims we all solo-twink just to kill you and don't rp, you sure don't seem to get very involved in what a lot of other characters are capable of or willing to do beforehand.  Just because you didn't like it does not make it a low standard of play.

[Delirium]

Jingo, I died in a really shitty way, once. I mean really, really really shitty, after about two years of incredible development and once-in-a-lifetime stories that I'll never, ever be able to recreate. It actually took me about two MORE years to really sorta get over it.

I still get a little angry when I think about it. But eventually, you move on, and you start having fun again.

The best way to do that is to just ... actually... move on. Stop re-hashing it. Be like Elsa and let that shit go.

[Dunetrade55]

I think the point is, Armaddict, some of us are quite shitty and could stand to reflect on how, and what can be done to change it, so as to confer much more lively conflict on the game. I, myself, have engaged in some shitty PKs, but mostly because locked room kills are the only viable assassination method for Guild Merchant. Do I like conflict? Yes. Do I have trouble finding it? No. Apparently some do though, and I think that's what this thread is about.

When you play Guild Merchant, no matter how high your offense/defense may be, you will know you are at the disadvantage. If you attempt to be reasonable with anyone, they will know too just how weak you are, and rub it in your face, thus, your only logical defense is to kill everyone involved before it gets out of hand. You can't insult or toy with anyone, ever, because they will immediately begin working to destroy anyone or anything that means anything to you at all... suddenly, a casual slight goes huge... and why? Because you know that if ANYTHING attacks you, you are pretty much done. You can try reasoning, but everyone will always know that you're the weakest link, and probably the most profitable one as well.

... the sad thing is, when you play Guild Merchant, you are likely the HINGE of numerous plots, so when you encounter a problem, you have to OOCly weigh their goals against your own, and usually it comes out, the other side is lacking, they must be destroyed for X,Y, and Z to take place...

[Armaddict]

Do I like conflict? Yes. Do I have trouble finding it? No. Apparently some do though, and I think that's what this thread is about.

I know what the thread is about, man.  I just came in because we suddenly took a jump to proposing pretty large changes based off of the idea that we need more conflict.  As you said, it's not really that hard to find small-scale conflict unless you're purposely avoiding it, which people sometimes do, and sometimes people don't (though I think people tend to feel screwed when the conflict finds them anyway, which happens sometimes).  And as I said earlier, it makes sense for Large Scale Conflict to be really hard to pull off under our current platform, because it puts staff into the position of having to referee everything and try not to show favoritism.  A lot of the times, that can mean 'deny everything equally'.  Large Scale Conflict that doesn't momentously wreck the static sandbox has to be carefully managed, which is why it was largely predestined prior to the player-run-plot change...players could influence things, and things could be turned, but the story as a whole was largely regulated to make sure no one swung it out of bounds and wrecked the equilibrium that keeps the game accessible to everyone for all time.

I don't think we need to go down to tweaking and adjusting all the skill levels and percentages of not just all the classes, but all the beasts, all the bonuses, all the numerics of the game, in order to tell people 'Hey.  If you want conflict in the game, you can go out and find it, or create some.'  That is using it as a scapegoat for what is a player-made decision.  At least on the small-scale front.  I think we just have people insisting on sitting in the back row until they're absolutely ready, but complaining about the view, and being unwilling to move up because they may lose that seat they have.

On a sidenote...I am not against there being more plots, more conflicts, more storylines, etc.

But I don't think talking about how non-aggression and less skills is even remotely necessary to that task, nor do I think the game is set up in a such a way to prevent conflict as it stands.  I think we, the players, are pretty responsible for conflict and lack of conflict, not the game.

[Jingo]

Oh it's you again.

Hi.

Either that, or your standard is just too high.

My standards are high. Largely because I take a contractarianist view of the game. The game doesn't just require us to play realistically within the IC realm. It also requires us to play in a way that respects the player on the other end. I believe the game is better when you do.

I believe, we've hashed it out before. That rule that isn't a rule. It can be broken at any time. Call it player trust, call it respecting the enjoyment of others, call it an agreement not to kill-other-players-right-away. Rule 4 says this rule doesn't exist. But in my view, the game isn't worth playing without it. I can't play the way I would like to, if at least some players didn't at least try to extend a level of trust back at me.

And again, without that rule, why wouldn't I just take the path of least resistance?   Why don't I just bend my standards and play a skill-maxer that doesn't even interact with other players till the 20 day mark? Why wouldn't I just pre-empt every conflict to be with a locked-room kill or a arrow pin cushion? Or I could just play in a way that completely ignores the themes of armageddon, as a happy-go-lucky, friends-with-everyone (but not elves!) selectively-murderous cypher. I feel this is the result of a game without that rule. Players become conditioned to adopt these play styles because it's how you succeed when the rule isn't present.

I try to abide by that rule. And I'd like to believe that's why I'm a high karma player. When I'm trying to inject a bit of chaos, tension or negativity in the world, I'm trying to invite players to realize the themes of the game and avoid the cliche's mentioned above. And yes, especially to encourage ****CONFLICT**** But especially these days attempting to extend that trust to other players seems to be a formula for getting marginalized and killed at the first opportunity.  Not to mention playing that way is fucking boring.

For someone who claims we all solo-twink just to kill you and don't rp, you sure don't seem to get very involved in what a lot of other characters are capable of or willing to do beforehand.  Just because you didn't like it does not make it a low standard of play.

To be clear, I'm not angry about players abusing code just to kill my characters. (that's happened but it's also a subjective matter) "Low standard of play." was just an impromptu term I used for players more interested in pulling the rug out from under you even after you've tried to extend that trust to them.

Yes, I stand by my assertion that the player that abuses the trust of another player will win the conflict 9 times out of 10. It's the notion of "playing to win" that I hammer at without fairly or unfairly.

It should be noted that my last death, I got utterly curb stomped out of nowhere in a way that I didn't expect at all, and I got exactly one non-flowery emote...and it made me chuckle and 'holy shit' by the mental picture.

Yeah, I've been killed out of the blue and haven't been angry about it. Mostly because it wasn't such a visible pattern that I recognize now. If I didn't have the shit year of play that I just had, my view might be different. But now it just feels endemic to the game and disappointingly predictable.

The best way to do that is to just ... actually... move on. Stop re-hashing it. Be like Elsa and let that shit go.

Yeah, this is on me. Without making excuses, I get into a headspace when I think about this game. I should be trying to absolve it instead of putting angst on anyone else.

That's enough typing. I got too much work to do.

[Molten Heart]

.

[Reiloth]

I think Allanak needs to launch a combat RPT to finally do something about that twinked out sinkhole whose been camping the north road. Fucker doesn't even RP.

Imagine the road that was created back when the game existed ACTUALLY BEING USABLE AGAIN. Instead of us just coming up with Least Objectionable Alternative route through the sands.

What if roads weren't just flavor and they had major advantages so they weren't so easily ignored... That'd be weird.

Like, if you could only drive Argosies on roads, or they stood a good chance of getting stuck every few rooms of wilderness?

#annoythekadians2017

[ghanima]

what it takes to kill our noble? Lots. Some very strong PC's who can distract/kill his bodyguard as well as the noble himself. The money to hire those people willing to do that. Some way of catching your noble off-guard and not in a safe place, which for a noble includes most of the city. Contacts to make sure his death doesn't cost you your head.

This is not only a pessimistic view, it's completely untrue. It is in fact so incredibly easy to kill off a noble or high ranking merchant type that I'm surprised it doesn't a) happen all the time, resulting in b) complaints that npc guards are ineffective at their job. Stealing from the above is also easy pickings if you know what you're doing. If few players are willing to try this sort of thing, it's not for lack of capability on their part.

Most of the conflict I see centers around petty feuds between two players that everyone treats as an out and out war between two clans. But Mr. Kadius having a spat with Mrs. Salarr does not equate to Kadius and Salarr being on bad terms. It just means those two merchants are. It's understandable that this happens because we're often craving large scale conflict like this. I really have to believe that if you clearly communicate with your clan staff and explain that your objective is something more akin to a war between clans (even a small one) rather than just between two people, staff will give you a helping hand without immediately loading up some senior npc to make you vanish.