Hey,
Players of the Arm game have, in my opinion, made tremendous strides in the past couple of years in terms of role-play quality. Seasoned players continue to mature in terms of their craft, and the newer crop of players seems very eager to learn.
A couple of high points in the role play I've seen include a greater willingness to shun or persecute spell-casters as well as more overt displays of xenophobia against characters who come from distant lands. Both of these improvements contribute to the game atmosphere, in my opinion.
That being said, I've noticed a concerning trend in the past few months or so that the game is not harsh enough. In my opinion, we as players have it too easy and spend far too much time griping over OOC disuptes or GDB conflicts rather than, say for example, struggling for survival.
We've gotten soft. A lack of OOG friendship and comrederie ascerbates this.
Signs of the change include increasing incidence of players defending the weak or discouraging the role-play of antisocial or malevolent characters.
I believe that this is a fixable problem and I for one intent to "be part of the change that I'd like to see," as some players advise. Additionally, I'm going to make a set of posts over the next few days to address some points I'd like to make.
Please debate, discuss or comment below if you'd like to agree or disagree below if you think that you have some useful input.
Thanks!!
gender roles on zalanthas, forced sex and related role-play, couple of posts about crime on zalanthas, political correctness on zalanthas
Quote from: ibusoe on October 05, 2009, 03:45:38 PM
gender roles on zalanthas, forced sex and related role-play, couple of posts about crime on zalanthas, political correctness on zalanthas
I really don't think you want to make a thread about that.
Quote from: Yam on October 05, 2009, 04:05:27 PM
Quote from: ibusoe on October 05, 2009, 03:45:38 PM
gender roles on zalanthas, forced sex and related role-play, couple of posts about crime on zalanthas, political correctness on zalanthas
I really don't think you want to make a thread about that.
I was thinking that and about the gender roles thing.
Ahh... Zalanthas. ;D
Brandon
I'd have to agree with your sentiment, ibusoe, with one little semantical difference. I wouldn't necessarily say not harsh enough - I think quite a few PCs deal with dangerous situations and problems - but I wholeheartedly agree that there is a distinct lack of conflict between PCs. I think the main reason for this is that PCs aren't often driven into competition with one another. Everyone seems to be able to achieve their personal objectives without having to fight anyone else for recognition, resources and other such things. I'll give a few examples. Why should a Tuluki noble be in conflict with another Tuluki noble? Most of the qynar and striasiri are held by vNPCs and can be easily obtained - nobles don't have to fight over them, or over anything else for that matter. Why should one GMH merchant be in competition with another? They both have monopolies on their respective goods and competition isn't really necessary. Why should one bard be in competition with another bard? There's so few bards that there's more than enough audience and patronage for everyone. Why should one thief be in conflict with another thief? There's enough unpicked pockets to go around and an abundance of spamcraft-filled apartment/warehouses.
In my opinion, there are three ways to fix this problem. The simplest would be a concerted effort on the part of players to create conflict - just decide that you want whatever your rivals want, and try to stop them from obtaining what they want. The second is my favorite - a larger playerbase would fix most of these problems. Third, staff could force characters into conflict with one another by artificially limiting resources, real and virtual. Reduce the number of huntable mobs, encourage two nobles to go after the same qynar, dangle a single promotion to Lieutenant in front of two Byn Sergeants. Also, though nobody wants to do this, close clans and re-organize the playerbase into a new arrangement that would promote more conflict and activity.
Quote from: ibusoe on October 05, 2009, 03:45:38 PM
gender roles on zalanthas, forced sex and related role-play, couple of posts about crime on zalanthas, political correctness on zalanthas
I'm not sure I understand what this has to do with things.
I don't know if there isn't enough conflict. I think there's enough going on behind the scenes, and low points in conflict can be used to rest and recover, so to speak. I could talk about what I see or don't see but other people might see or not see other things.
Quote from: ibusoeIn my opinion, we as players have it too easy and spend far too much time griping over OOC disuptes or GDB conflicts rather than, say for example, struggling for survival.
I know what you're talking about, I think. I really wish people would more willingly accept when something bad has happened to their character, and just roll with it. I also think that non-lethal conflict (when possible) tends to open up more possibilities for conflicts. Lethal conflict opens up possibilities for conflict with the victim's surviving friends. I think a conflict is a natural way to draw people into a plot, but it isn't the only way.
Quote from: ibusoe on October 05, 2009, 03:45:38 PM
gender roles on zalanthas, forced sex and related role-play, couple of posts about crime on zalanthas, political correctness on zalanthas
Not sure what this is for, but if these are the topics what you're planning to talk about... please, I think they've been discussed
ad nauseam. If they're just as random as they look and not there for any reason then cool. :)
I actually think that an overabundance of lethal conflict tends to diminish the "harshness" of the game.
-- Lethal conflict is a deterrent to entering into conflict. If you don't think you can "win," then you may not play at all.
-- Lethal conflict does not leave a victim who can experience the post-harshness effects. Only clannies/friends/relatives/lovers are left, and they may or may not know that the victim is even gone; and/or, their experience of "harsh" may extend only to being bummed out, if they don't know the identity of the perpetrator of the offense.
-- Lethal conflict overly enriches the victors. "Get all corpse" is a nice quick way to a lot of coin, whereas extracting a 50 sid bribe leaves the victor not that enriched. Thus, PCs who PK a lot can quickly get to a non-harsh lifestyle.
Etc.
Quote from: Gimfalisette on October 05, 2009, 04:47:08 PM
I actually think that an overabundance of lethal conflict tends to diminish the "harshness" of the game.
-- Lethal conflict is a deterrent to entering into conflict. If you don't think you can "win," then you may not play at all.
-- Lethal conflict does not leave a victim who can experience the post-harshness effects. Only clannies/friends/relatives/lovers are left, and they may or may not know that the victim is even gone; and/or, their experience of "harsh" may extend only to being bummed out, if they don't know the identity of the perpetrator of the offense.
-- Lethal conflict overly enriches the victors. "Get all corpse" is a nice quick way to a lot of coin, whereas extracting a 50 sid bribe leaves the victor not that enriched. Thus, PCs who PK a lot can quickly get to a non-harsh lifestyle.
Etc.
By golly, I think the old gal's on to something here.
I usually try to prolong conflict, too. I feel that insta-PKs are not in the best interest of the game. I'm not one to lock someone in an apartment and get them. I'd prefer to face them elsewhere, where there are choices presented. Makes for pulse-pounding excitement for me, too.
It seems to me that there's a lot of lethal conflict and very little prolonged conflict.
Prolonged conflict requires more patience, energy, attention, wisdom, strategy, and courage. Simply, it's harder.
Insert here a comment in which I pretend to be a more experienced player and give a depressing but informative anecdote about that one time I tried to prolong conflict and not kill the dumb fucker and they turned around and went revenge-kung-fu-hero on my ass and burned me out on sparing people again.
Quote from: Ocotillo on October 05, 2009, 06:04:42 PM
Insert here a comment in which I pretend to be a more experienced player and give a depressing but informative anecdote about that one time I tried to prolong conflict and not kill the dumb fucker and they turned around and went revenge-kung-fu-hero on my ass and burned me out on sparing people again.
Yeah, I'm not really sure what to do about that problem, though. I think staff could probably do more to promote the prolonged-conflict behavior they want to see. Leaving it up to the playerbase seems to eventually lead to all of us wallowing in ennui over the issue.
Quote from: Gimfalisette on October 05, 2009, 06:08:56 PM
Quote from: Ocotillo on October 05, 2009, 06:04:42 PM
Insert here a comment in which I pretend to be a more experienced player and give a depressing but informative anecdote about that one time I tried to prolong conflict and not kill the dumb fucker and they turned around and went revenge-kung-fu-hero on my ass and burned me out on sparing people again.
Yeah, I'm not really sure what to do about that problem, though. I think staff could probably do more to promote the prolonged-conflict behavior they want to see. Leaving it up to the playerbase seems to eventually lead to all of us wallowing in ennui over the issue.
There is plenty of conflict going on, I simply think that the tension isn't there though. With out going into IC events and such, I do think that the game is fine as is, just let it play out. If you think you need conflict, hold more of a grudge, if your in the south, kick a northie in the nuts, and if your up north kick a southerner in the nuts, if they are in luirs, kick the dun cloaked fella in the nuts and RUN...
If your out in the desert, don't spam flee upon every PC entering, there are not to many straight PKillers anymore without warrant that I know of I am sure there are still some, but most will opt to role play out scenes over just hack n slash. (this is getting better I did notice though)
Just my 2cents
Quote from: Ocotillo on October 05, 2009, 06:04:42 PM
Insert here a comment in which I pretend to be a more experienced player and give a depressing but informative anecdote about that one time I tried to prolong conflict and not kill the dumb fucker and they turned around and went revenge-kung-fu-hero on my ass and burned me out on sparing people again.
Yeah.
I think this is just a common perception and not the reality of the gameworld. I thought some of the examples used in the other thread were thoroughly ridiculous.
Though the thread was locked before I could post my thoughts.
Quote from: Jingo on October 05, 2009, 06:21:51 PM
Quote from: Ocotillo on October 05, 2009, 06:04:42 PM
Insert here a comment in which I pretend to be a more experienced player and give a depressing but informative anecdote about that one time I tried to prolong conflict and not kill the dumb fucker and they turned around and went revenge-kung-fu-hero on my ass and burned me out on sparing people again.
Yeah.
I think this is just a common perception and not the reality of the gameworld. I thought some of the examples used in the other thread were thoroughly ridiculous.
Though the thread was locked before I could post my thoughts.
It happens -alot- more than you think it does.
Quote from: Qzzrbl on October 05, 2009, 06:48:37 PM
Quote from: Jingo on October 05, 2009, 06:21:51 PM
Quote from: Ocotillo on October 05, 2009, 06:04:42 PM
Insert here a comment in which I pretend to be a more experienced player and give a depressing but informative anecdote about that one time I tried to prolong conflict and not kill the dumb fucker and they turned around and went revenge-kung-fu-hero on my ass and burned me out on sparing people again.
Yeah.
I think this is just a common perception and not the reality of the gameworld. I thought some of the examples used in the other thread were thoroughly ridiculous.
Though the thread was locked before I could post my thoughts.
It happens -alot- more than you think it does.
Economists would have something to say about this phenomena. It is rather unavoidable, barring extreme measures. I won't bore people though.
Quote from: MarshallDFX on October 05, 2009, 06:54:34 PM
Economists would have something to say about this phenomena. It is rather unavoidable, barring extreme measures. I won't bore people though.
Actually, please do.
Heh. As if people actually worry about boring people to death with long rants on the GDB. Go ahead, I agree with Gimf. Rant away.
It does. And you know what ... screw them. Let them. Because if this is an excuse you use to end other's plots quickly, then it is your responsibility to at the very least put as much into the gameworld, as you have removed by a thoughtless pkill. If you feel you're capable of it, go for it. But if you fail, then you deserve the torture of a ten thousand tregils biting onto your balls, one after one after one.
Quote from: Dar on October 05, 2009, 07:06:34 PM
It does. And you know what ... screw them. Let them. Because if this is an excuse you use to end other's plots quickly, then it is your responsibility to at the very least put as much into the gameworld, as you have removed by a thoughtless pkill. If you feel you're capable of it, go for it. But if you fail, then you deserve the torture of a ten thousand tregils biting onto your balls, one after one after one.
Word. Except let's not get this thread locked.
I think the game is plenty harsh if you choose to play in certain areas/clans/tribes.
I agree that it's possible to play a relatively long lived PC and not experience anything more harsh than an Arena match or a templar yelling at someone. However, I think that the amount of 'harshness' your PC gets into is entirely dependent on the type of role you're playing and how you play your character.
If your character rarely leaves the city, doesn't ever make any enemies, doesn't ever join a clan that has a built-in allies and enemies list, and doesn't happen to be played during a time of large-scale conflict ala Tuluki Riots, Copper War, or Gith Siege... then yes, I can imagine you would think the game isn't very harsh. But there's plenty of things you can do to initiate some harshness yourself. Or, if you think the tavern scene isn't harsh enough, you are always welcome to roll up a desert elf, a citizen of UnderTuluk, a rogue mage, or a 'rinthi.
If you think it's too easy to survive, try playing like a newbie would. Roll up a character who has no idea how to use half the skills on their skill list. Play a guild you've never played before. Play in a location you've never played before.
It's easy to think that survival is a piece of cake when you, the player, know all the tricks.
Quote from: MarshallDFX on October 05, 2009, 06:54:34 PM
Economists would have something to say about this phenomena. It is rather unavoidable, barring extreme measures. I won't bore people though.
No. Do it. I love hearing explanations of the tragedy of the commons.
Conflict is fine. I tend to have a lot of build up to the actual fight. Words, trying to do this or that to them. But if we get in actual coded conflict, then I am not going to let someone live, unless their buddies rush in and save them or similar. Letting someone live for fear I don't please someone's OOC definition of harshness isn't going to happen. I can't imagine anyone except someone in a higher position of power even -THINKING- about leaving someone who just tried to kill them alive. Just doesn't seem like the thing a normal person would do once the line is crossed.
Quote from: KankWhisperer on October 05, 2009, 08:02:40 PM
Conflict is fine. I tend to have a lot of build up to the actual fight. Words, trying to do this or that to them. But if we get in actual coded conflict, then I am not going to let someone live, unless their buddies rush in and save them or similar. Letting someone live for fear I don't please someone's OOC definition of harshness isn't going to happen. I can't imagine anyone except someone in a higher position of power even -THINKING- about leaving someone who just tried to kill them alive. Just doesn't seem like the thing a normal person would do once the line is crossed.
This is why I think attacking someone with MERCY ON should give different combat messages, something akin to slapping you in the face with the flat of the blade... That way people will have at least an inkling if the person is just trying to outright wound and kill them, or subdue them.
Because a lot of times I've attacked folks with a club user, I'll go till they pass out with mercy on, steal all their shit and leave them in a gutter.
Quote from: Fathi on October 05, 2009, 07:57:43 PM
I think the game is plenty harsh if you choose to play in certain areas/clans/tribes.
...
I've always felt as if social, city roles should be very dangerous - though they're not. If you're a skilled noble's aide, I think your employer's enemies should be trying to intimidate you/steal from you/ruin your life/drive you away from your noble. And rarely does that happen.
Quote from: jcljules on October 05, 2009, 08:30:40 PM
Quote from: Fathi on October 05, 2009, 07:57:43 PM
I think the game is plenty harsh if you choose to play in certain areas/clans/tribes.
...
I've always felt as if social, city roles should be very dangerous - though they're not. If you're a skilled noble's aide, I think your employer's enemies should be trying to intimidate you/steal from you/ruin your life/drive you away from your noble. And rarely does that happen.
I think the main reason why you don't see much of this is because everyone's afraid that someone's just going to spaz out and push the PK button over it. To be blunt, a lot of types of leader PCs have reputations--sometimes undeserved--of being too quick to kill. Or too quick to turn their anger on the tool rather than the tool's employer.
Politics in Armageddon can often become a stagnant thing because every PC in an area is beholden to somebody else and nobody wants to piss off the Lirathans/House Whatever/that blue robe that PKs shitloads of people/anyone that could kill their character.. Unfortunately, I've seen a lot of overreactions to nonlethal hassling, so I suppose that fear is at least somewhat grounded in reality.
I suspect social roles would be more dangerous and there would be more inherent conflict if there were more competition for such jobs. As it is, our playerbase being the size that it is, just about anyone who wants to can get a job as an aide, so the competitive element is removed. And once a PC has that job, they don't want to step on the toes of any other aides on the off-chance that the aide's noble overreacts and smashes down the shit-hammer with the full might of House Whatever.
People are real nice and I can't get away with murder >:( much less rape or kidnap.
Bad times.
I'm trying so hard! I can't even pretend to be mean or someone will beat me up.
I want to be mean!
Did someone say rape? :o
/derail
Quote from: Versu on October 05, 2009, 09:31:12 PM
I'm trying so hard! I can't even pretend to be mean or someone will beat me up.
In other words, other people are better at being mean?
Gather some power first, then get mean.
Quote from: Fathi on October 05, 2009, 08:49:40 PM
Quote from: jcljules on October 05, 2009, 08:30:40 PM
Quote from: Fathi on October 05, 2009, 07:57:43 PM
I think the game is plenty harsh if you choose to play in certain areas/clans/tribes.
...
I've always felt as if social, city roles should be very dangerous - though they're not. If you're a skilled noble's aide, I think your employer's enemies should be trying to intimidate you/steal from you/ruin your life/drive you away from your noble. And rarely does that happen.
I think the main reason why you don't see much of this is because everyone's afraid that someone's just going to spaz out and push the PK button over it. To be blunt, a lot of types of leader PCs have reputations--sometimes undeserved--of being too quick to kill. Or too quick to turn their anger on the tool rather than the tool's employer.
Politics in Armageddon can often become a stagnant thing because every PC in an area is beholden to somebody else and nobody wants to piss off the Lirathans/House Whatever/that blue robe that PKs shitloads of people/anyone that could kill their character.. Unfortunately, I've seen a lot of overreactions to nonlethal hassling, so I suppose that fear is at least somewhat grounded in reality.
I suspect social roles would be more dangerous and there would be more inherent conflict if there were more competition for such jobs. As it is, our playerbase being the size that it is, just about anyone who wants to can get a job as an aide, so the competitive element is removed. And once a PC has that job, they don't want to step on the toes of any other aides on the off-chance that the aide's noble overreacts and smashes down the shit-hammer with the full might of House Whatever.
This.
I swear, there are PCs out there I dont even bother to antagonize, because they manage to involve templars and nobles over the smallest, most casual arguments. If it was anyone else, I would engage them in a conversation and either learn to like them or you know ... create 'some' kind of content. But those people I just ... ignore. So they sit in silence on their side of the bar, and I on another.
wasn't rape why the "punishment other than death" got shut down? So let's by-pass on that.
One, make 'nak more bloody. Add the ability to subdue someone to the brawl-coded rooms (heck, make most of the city that way). Basically, nothing wrong with flat-out brute force used to lovingly correct one's lowers. Templars/ nobles/ and milita should have the ability to kick your arse because they simply don't like you -- and nobility/templarate flat out punish those commoners who offend them (more public whippings damnit)
Two, quit babying your subordinates!!! Let them fight their own battles and if they get in trouble in the street than they get in trouble at home! Stop making up excuses to punish those who looked at your cook funny or yelled "I hate you" at your stable-girl!!! YOU are the reason there is so little conflict -- you're the "unknown" backing up that filthy 'rinither who doesn't feel the need to step off the street when someone is walking there!
Look, people, things aren't going to be harsh until players decide they're PCs aren't so cheap they don't care if they have to make a new one vs. deal with consequences. And/or there isn't more blood shead and humiliation. AND ROLE-PLAYED OUT!!! Commoners out number important people 9/1 -- so it's not up to them to make sure your PC feels threatened.
EDIT: Forget.
I think people just want that old newbie feeling of your skin getting goose bumps the way it did the first time encountering a large desert monster or a scary templar.
Much of the "suspense" we have now in games seems to be to avoid walking on egg shells in fear of pissing off another PC (doesn't matter if they're some mutant, breed, rinither, gemmed) ... and that's not very harsh, just OOC taxing.
I think if people logged in, held their breath for a scene, then left knowing that the scene was completed they would find it exciting.
2sids is correct.
Many times I've wondered. If you were a noble, somebody great and powerful, better by blood etc etc etc. Why exactly would you notice if some dirty commoner insulted another dirty commoner...even if dirty commoner #2 did work for your house in some manner? One of hundreds or even thousands. Hell, I'd be more pissed off about that commoner bothering me with dirty commoner problems then anything.
Of course, if dirty commoner #2 is offering me say, 10k to look into the matter, well, maybe I won't be quite so pissed off.
And templars are even worse. Your above most of the nobles of your city, you are the highlords enforcers or the sun kings faithful. The antics of the commoners should mostly be if anything, a mild source of amusement.
And Do try to remember, much of your power actually comes FROM that small group of raiders outside the city. They are the ones that make the cities feel safer to commoners so they stay there to work for you and bribe you etc.
Too many times have I seen a templar collect up a bunch of soldiers and personally ride out chasing some mugger/raider into the wild because salt grebber wood chopper #625543 got mugged.
I mean come on now, would a templar really use his invaluable time and resources to avenge somebody that is not even worth a sip of tea to him? No.
Yes, I know riding out with the posse to chase the outlaw is fun, but 99% of the time, it is not very realistic.
/rant
But hey, think of it this way. Maybe outwardly, this PC seems to be stepping on eggshells and avoiding PC conflict when in fact he's the mastermind behind all those little sexcret plots on trying to get these few PCs killed/sold/maimed/etc. And then the reason you don't really get to see the outcome is because he died to a stupid carru in a pit, to the soldiers because he forgot to get rid of one tiny grain of spice in his pack, or a misdirected syntax and couldn't flee in time. Then everyone remembers him as Bob the Dude Who Doesn't Like To Piss People Off.
Agreeing totally with you, X-D.
One of my main rant about the topic of raiding is that if PC 1 lets PC 2 walk away alive, but his pride wounded and his gears completely stripped. PC 2 would then go and find a templar nearby and complain about how he got unjustly raided by a bunch of elves/mages/muls/undead mantis. Templar would then jump to the opportunity to go and hunt down the said raiders, mobilizing his entire unit to wreck vengeance over a little suffering a little commoner grebber had endured. Now that just doesn't make sense to me at all.
Granted, if let's say a GMH was raided, and because the GMH have been bribing the templarate constantly - it would seem more reasonable to to ride out and take down those raiders.
Now if you think about it this way, if templars and cities in general would instant leap to protect every single PC around, wouldn't that only encourage PC raiders to slay every survivor in each raiding missions? If I am playing Raider Badass, I sure as heck wouldn't want to have the entire Nakki/Tuluki army descending on me just because I raided lumberjacking Amos and then let him live right?
The raiding topic have been discussed over and over and over again, but according to my experience it does not have to involve in every single time = a PK. In fact, raids could always stimulate more plots and more story lines. Lumberjack Amos could be so humiliated by losing everything he worked so hard to a bunch of scary raiders, he could then start weaving out plots of trying to take down the raiders etc.
Point is though, please do not think just because you killed 3 known PC raiders that are actively performing raids, that you've managed to eliminate ALL existing raiders in the game world. Virtual populations and NPC population always counts.
Again I'm stressing this: Just because a certain clan houses X amount of PCs, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ENTIRE CLAN/TRIBE/HOUSE ONLY HAS THAT AMOUNT!
Totally agree with X-D.
Templars and Nobles should barely bat an eye at the common filth of either city, unless someone is rich enough to convince them otherwise. And the theory that raiders make the cities safer by keeping commoners inside the walls is awesome. I never thought of it that way, but it's true.
Quote from: X-D on October 05, 2009, 11:20:58 PM
I mean come on now, would a templar really use his invaluable time and resources to avenge somebody that is not even worth a sip of tea to him? No.
Yes, I know riding out with the posse to chase the outlaw is fun, but 99% of the time, it is not very realistic.
I'd like to see commoners hire the Byn for this purpose. It seems more realistic, since the law doesn't typically apply outside the city walls.
Although, in the case of extreme raids against the GMHs, etc... I could see the templarate getting involved, as such things would be bad for trade within the city.
Edit: And Rhyden knows what he's talking about.
As long as templars are basically bored and basically think they are supposed to be combat PCs, they will always go chasing after raiders and meddling in affairs that really should be far beneath them.
Some of you guys have a tendency, in character, to be way too helpful. ;) I'm plenty guilty of this myself, and when it becomes common it can really damage the atmosphere.
One good way to play a desperate, thrifty commoner is to help people only when you expect to get something fairly tangible out of it.
I don't see a problem with a templar taking out his squad to look for a "raider."
I don't think that templar would waste to much time looking and tracking a raider of woodsmen. Specially if those woodsmen aren't paying taxes.
Quote from: Gimfalisette on October 05, 2009, 11:56:35 PM
As long as templars are basically bored and basically think they are supposed to be combat PCs, they will always go chasing after raiders and meddling in affairs that really should be far beneath them.
Quote from: X-D on October 05, 2009, 11:20:58 PM
Yes, I know riding out with the posse to chase the outlaw is fun, but 99% of the time, it is not very realistic.
That's pretty much it right there. The templar is looking for fun for his minions and for himself. I don't think the solution is to say that the law affiliated PCs shouldn't be hunting raiders and criminals. That's the fun bit they signed up for.
Spawning scripted NPC incursions to keep militia/Legion amused could be one solution. If they are busy beating back riots from the Rinth or hordes of flaming, mutant raptors, the militia isn't going to be worried about a raider stealing someone's bag of salt.
I honestly suspect if appropriate arrangements were made, the templars would *not* go bounding after the raiders. I suspect, based on this and other threads, the raiders in question don't have the hutzpah to talk to the templars, because they are 'newblars' or whatever. Seems pretty clearly a self-sustaining trend, to me. I'm getting whiffs of hypocrisy over here.
Quote from: Kryos on October 06, 2009, 12:39:15 AM
I honestly suspect if appropriate arrangements were made, the templars would *not* go bounding after the raiders.
There's that too. Especially in Tuluk, being shady without at least some sanction from the authorities is usually suicide.
Eh, I've had "agreements" with templars, before.
First time I failed raiding someone they just happened to like, I got tossed in the Arena, without any sort of prior warning like, "Oh, hey, don't raid -these- guys."
Thanks.
Anonymity > bribes any day of the week. The only time you need bribes is when anonymity is broken.
I think the game is plenty harsh. There's enough players out there with real guts, and creativity. There's enough characters out there who are "making things happen" while making many mistakes and developing their flaws. There's enough chaos and unpredictability to satisfy even the most masochistic minds.
Quote from: My 2 Sidstemplar
Quote from: X-Dtemplars
Quote from: Metemplarate
Quote from: Gimfalisettetemplars
Yeah, sometimes Templars are right-up assholes. Sometimes they're kind of mediochre and just disappear. Sometimes Templars make -harsh- mistakes. Just look a little ways back at some recent Allanaki history. If you look a little further, you would find out that Templars have been stirring up shit and mixing the stewpot closer to the beginning of Armageddon.
Little bit late, but here goes
Quote from: Gimfalisette on October 05, 2009, 06:58:12 PM
Quote from: MarshallDFX on October 05, 2009, 06:54:34 PM
Economists would have something to say about this phenomena. It is rather unavoidable, barring extreme measures. I won't bore people though.
Actually, please do.
Alright. This was in response to:
Quote from: Qzzrbl on October 05, 2009, 06:48:37 PM
Quote from: Jingo on October 05, 2009, 06:21:51 PM
Quote from: Ocotillo on October 05, 2009, 06:04:42 PM
Insert here a comment in which I pretend to be a more experienced player and give a depressing but informative anecdote about that one time I tried to prolong conflict and not kill the dumb fucker and they turned around and went revenge-kung-fu-hero on my ass and burned me out on sparing people again.
Yeah.
I think this is just a common perception and not the reality of the gameworld. I thought some of the examples used in the other thread were thoroughly ridiculous.
Though the thread was locked before I could post my thoughts.
It happens -alot- more than you think it does.
Not tragedy of the commons, as Ocotillo suggested, but a prisoner's dilemma. I'll be concise and short. An economist would suggest that PKing scenes (may apply to other scenes, but I'll stick with PKing as its the obvious example) will have little emoting, or are "unsatisfying". That is, there will be no "trust" shown to the other players to roleplay anything out.
The reason is because of the incentives people face in doing one of these scenes. I'm going to make a not-entirely-unreasonable assumption that we are all rational, utility maximizing individuals. That is, we want, and our characters want to live and flourish IG.
Now, imagine a player in the desert (PKee), and another arrives (PKer). Both players in the room are faced with simultaneous decisions.
Let's consider the "payoffs" for each potential action. I've assigned numbers to "payoffs" just for ease. Units of utility. There are two decisions that can be made. One can either "Roleplay", meaning show trust in the other and not just jump into coded action, or do the alternate action (run, pk)
Payoffs below are in the form: (Payoff to PK'er, Payoff to PK'ee)
(http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/4830/20131756.jpg)
If both players choose to roleplay, they both get relatively high payoffs. They both have fun, and the outcome is undetermined (8,8).
If the PK'ee chooses to roleplay, and the PK'er chooses to jump on that chance, then the PK'er gets all the benefit and the PK'ee is left feeling sour.
If the PK'er chooses to roleplay, and the other just spam flees, then the PK'ee gets to survive (yay), and the PK'er is left feeling sour.
If both the PK'er and the PK'ee resort to coded actions immediately, it's not very fun, but they're not left feeling "sour" for having tried to RP and been duped.
Given these payoffs, the dominant strategy is always {PK, Run}. That is, if the other tries to roleplay, there is always an incentive to not roleplay, and take advantage of the situation to your benefit. Especially as you know the other person is likely to do the same.
All in all: Nash Equilibrium: NE~{PK, Run}. No other equilibrium is stable (due to incentives to pk/run), and therefore overall all desert encounters will be code first, roleplay later.
faulty assumptions are faulty
That's like using Mendel's 4 space pea plant charts to explain the entirety of genetics.
Quote from: Synthesis on October 06, 2009, 02:15:45 AM
faulty assumptions are faulty
Quote from: KankWhisperer on October 06, 2009, 02:17:04 AM
That's like using Mendel's 4 space pea plant charts to explain the entirety of genetics.
NO! Interest rates are fixed! We are all self-interested utility maximizing consumers! Markets are perfectly competitive! Purchasing-price-parity holds always!
LALALA I'm not listening!
Yes, I succumbed to the Ricardian vice. The point was only to illustrate a Nash perspective, and of course in the real game there is plenty of variability and other factors which we don't need to list. Although, I don't think the moral of my story is really that false.
Quote from: X-D on October 05, 2009, 11:20:58 PM
Many times I've wondered. If you were a noble, somebody great and powerful, better by blood etc etc etc. Why exactly would you notice if some dirty commoner insulted another dirty commoner...even if dirty commoner #2 did work for your house in some manner? One of hundreds or even thousands. Hell, I'd be more pissed off about that commoner bothering me with dirty commoner problems then anything.
Of course, if dirty commoner #2 is offering me say, 10k to look into the matter, well, maybe I won't be quite so pissed off.
And templars are even worse. Your above most of the nobles of your city, you are the highlords enforcers or the sun kings faithful. The antics of the commoners should mostly be if anything, a mild source of amusement.
Too many times have I seen a templar collect up a bunch of soldiers and personally ride out chasing some mugger/raider into the wild because salt grebber wood chopper #625543 got mugged.
I mean come on now, would a templar really use his invaluable time and resources to avenge somebody that is not even worth a sip of tea to him? No.
Yes, I know riding out with the posse to chase the outlaw is fun, but 99% of the time, it is not very realistic.
/rant
This message recieves Maj's seal of approval.
How much tiny stuff finds itself at the mercy of the bored templar/noble player. I know the roll is a bit dull at times, but damn.. I've seen some massive templars moves made for the sake of one tiny speck on the radar. I would like to see small problems fly under the radar more often than they spawn city-wide manhunts.
/derail
QuoteEh, I've had "agreements" with templars, before.
First time I failed raiding someone they just happened to like, I got tossed in the Arena, without any sort of prior warning like, "Oh, hey, don't raid -these- guys."
Thanks.
Anonymity > bribes any day of the week. The only time you need bribes is when anonymity is broken.
This is true.
Also, I've had many...many..manymanymanyMANY times better luck in bribing crime bosses then templars. Funny that a guild leader is actually more honest then your average templar at least on the point of staying bribed and not wanting to kill the goose.
I agree with X-D totally. I feel like ... unless the raiding was on a scale so massive that bulk resources for the city-state were being crippled ... I wouldn't care at all, if I were playing a member of the templarate. Going after "a raider" who robbed "a grebber", or chasing "a desert elf" out the city gates half away across the known world ... meh. Gruntwork for a militia private at best. A tad bit funny when newplars do it.
I'm tarded and should be quiet... Blech..
I would be inclined to agree, but ...
I think a lot of it is also just OOC expectations meet IC expectations and they conflict heavily.
OOC Expectation: You're playing some super uber class with magick rawrness or psionic juju or crazy warrior bruce lee mega-smack down ...
IC Expectation: You're not really ever supposed to use any of that in public unless there's a global war happening.
You really shouldn't assume that templars are hunting your ass down simply for shits and giggles.
The ripple effects of a single successful raider or group of raiders can be such that it becomes -extremely- lucrative for a templar to attempt to personally apprehend said individuals.
For example, if you're a successful ranger raider who's maxed archery and uses poisons to great advantage, not only are you having an economic impact on your victims, you're imposing a great deal of difficulty on all the merchant house hunters who have to reduce their hunting excursions due to the risk involved with going out alone...now they have to go out in groups of three or more, to be safe. Since it's exceptionally difficult to get 3+ people in a single clan all together for enough time for a hunt, they rarely go out. The crafters start getting antsy because they can't make shit anymore and they're losing their fat bonus paysacks. The hunters are getting antsy because they'd really like to go out and skill up. The Agents are getting antsy because all this is making them look incompetent.
Now multiply this by three open GMH's. Add in all the miscellaneous difficulties you're imposing on all the indie merchants and traders out there. That's a -lot- of economic opportunity cost you're imposing by being such a high risk. -That's- why people want you dead, and pay templars to make it happen. That's why it's worth it for templars to go and fuck you up. Because they have the badass magick, skills, and soldiers to pulverize you into a pink mist with essentially zero risk to themselves, and even if the templar's been paid, he's still got all sorts of favors to cash in for being a team player. Hell, I had a militia sergeant who was paid 10,000 'sid by a single merchant house to make sure a certain troublemaker never made it to the dungeons. If a damn sergeant can pull that kind of coin, imagine the deals that are going down to get templars involved.
The sniper motto "kill 1, terrorize 1,000" works both ways: you start making a ruckus, and that ruckus is amplified 1000x by the fear instilled in everyone who could potentially be a victim; alternatively, if a templar makes an example of 1, it's amplified 1000x by the fear instilled in every potential raider who now knows how long the Arm of the Dragon really is.
Which in turn means that if you are playing the raider you have to kill your marks.
Which puts you back to
QuoteAnonymity > bribes any day of the week.
Which of course gets everybody complaining that people are too willing to kill instead of using other options.
And round and round we go.
There has to be a point where you can stop that circle...and really, I see that point at the templar/noble level.
The GMH should have to handle shit outside the city themselves. Or hire the byn. Or even find and hire a rival raiding group to deal with the problem. Or even pay protection fees to larger raiding groups to leave their hunters alone.
I tell you, if templars had to pay npc soldiers 10 coins each for each room outside the walls they went they would laugh at people complaining that some raiders stole a pack and a mount.
Everyone write three detailed descriptions of imaginary raiders.
Everyone junk a valuable item and a bunch of sids.
Everyone run into the city complaining about the bad bad <insert your raider descs> and how they robbed you and punched you in the face. Add some tdesc action.
Everyone keep doing it until Templars get tired of chasing your imaginary vnpcs and never listen to a grebber again.
Problem solved.
Quote from: Synthesis on October 06, 2009, 03:14:51 AM
You really shouldn't assume that templars are hunting your ass down simply for shits and giggles.
The ripple effects of a single successful raider or group of raiders can be such that it becomes -extremely- lucrative for a templar to attempt to personally apprehend said individuals.
Quote from: X-D on October 05, 2009, 11:20:58 PM
And Do try to remember, much of your power actually comes FROM that small group of raiders outside the city. They are the ones that make the cities feel safer to commoners so they stay there to work for you and bribe you etc.
So to strike the balance between the two, I'm thinking the templar would most likely ignore the occasional lowlife getting raided and all, until the raiders grows bolder, and start to threaten more people, or people who are richer, and hence, more important.
Then the templar goes out to hunt them with his minionz.
Think GTA. The more people you shoot, the more law enforcers come after you. The more law enforcers you kill, the more
better law enforcers come after you, until you get the army. And in the world of Zalanthas, templars are probably at the top of that list.
Unless you start killing templars too. Then you'll get Muk Utep or Teknolses. The Big Boss. Dun dun dun...
I once played a leadership role where I was told by staff that I was having people PKed too often.
Three characters in seven months, I believe.
Having otherwise only PKed twice (once as a noob and once because it was ICly necessary for my survival), I was saddened a bit.
About raiding, and chasing after raiders -
The blanket statement "templars shouldn't chase after raiders" does not work. I think people realize that, but there's plenty of reasons why a templar would chase after a raider. Especially if:
- the raider has sacked a GMH caravan intended for your city.
- the raider has attacked someone important, and the important person or group goes to the templarate about it.
- the raider is also a rogue magicker near the city.
- the raider hasn't paid off the templar, and the templar is just looking for some extra funds.
- the raider is gaining a lot of infamy, and cutting down the raider will make you look good.
There is a vicious circle possible when it comes to crime and punishment. If players of criminals and players of law enforcement aren't willing to deal with each other on basic issues in a way that leaves them both better off, then there won't be crime.
The majority of city-based raiders are apprehended in the Gaj.
Quote from: FantasyWriter on October 23, 2008, 12:04:17 PM
I love raiding and I love being raided.
One of the biggest piece of advice is not to--pardon the language--piss in your own back yard.
Using Allanak as an example:
- If you are going to be raiding Nakis around Allanak, it would be a good idea for you to assume
that you might be wanted in Allanak, and not go there with in the reach of the guards.
Pretend that you are codely wanted. (if you would be IC)
- If you get to be a fairly popular raider, drop an email to the AoD IMMs. If you are lucky, they
might even have you perma-crimed in Allanak, and get the PC Templars and militia looking for
you. (RP, Plot, and Conflict: OH MY!)
- Tuluk, Luir's and Red Storm, most likely won't care that you are raiding Naki's as long as you
aren't messing with any of the GMHs (they can have a lot of pull power). You might even
eventually me made a hero in Tuluk if you cause enough trouble for The Black.
Other advice for the raider:
- Choose your targets carefully. (No soldiers, bynners, GMHs, etc.)
- Try to know who you are raiding. (before you start your career, Hang out in the Gaj and get
to know people: traders, grebbers, hunters, etc.) - Listen in the other cities' bars for talk of trade trips coming from Allanak.
- Stalk people.
To kill or not to kill:
WWYPCD. What would your PC do?
- If he is in it for the coin. Killing future repeat victims: not good for business.
- If he is in it for the prestige. Kill some, leave most alive. (bonus points for having a calling card)
- If he is in it to survive. Most likely would not kill unless he had to.
- If he is just a plain monster. THERE MUST BE BLOOD!!!
Advice for the raided:
WWYPCD. What would your PC do?
- Taking off across the desert, trying to get away from a raider IRL and IC would most likely
mean death. (even though it is codely easy) - Is what the raider asking for worth risking our life? If not, give it up and enjoy the RP.
- Remember that most players (and PC raiders<see above>)don't like to PK (kill their victims)
when they don't have to, So if you give it up, you will probably live. - Don't be a hero... docs say they are VERY rare. 100 coins is not worth dieing to your PC.
None of this advice is affected by the recent code change.
As far as mobs go - I think it's "harsh" enough.
As far as player mentality goes - I think it depends on the circumstances.
Templars *seem* to be over-eager to wield their power against nobodies, and kill unimportant PCs as a result of pettiness. "I want your ball, you don't want me to have it, so I will destroy it and you can't have it anyway aaaaahhhh lozar."
Nobles that I've encountered seem to do most of the world with regards to trying to keep their people alive, trying to give them more -constructive- things to do than -destructive- things to do, and my hats off to those nobles for it. A little destruction goes a long way.
The rest of my opinion unfortunately is a result of things too recent to go into. But suffice it to say I agree with whoever said that getting a reputation for killing your minions, doesn't mean you actually are killing your minions. And sometimes..you really SHOULD kill your minions, but aren't allowed to.
One of the reasons, why nobles are so eager to stand up for their underlings, is to make the underlings like the service under that particular Noble. Afterall, if they're like entirely unhappy ... they'll drift off, and then the Noble is one underling short.
Buuut ... yeah, it's overdone. Nobles responsibility as a sponsored role is to improve the game. Not just their particular house.
Thanks for your responses guys. I can tell that a lot of players agree that we are doing better than we were a year ago, but we're still having the wrong sorts of conflicts and the wrong quality of conflicts. I'll draw your attention to a few of the posts that I liked best.
Quote from: jcljules on October 05, 2009, 04:10:30 PM
In my opinion, there are three ways to fix this problem. The simplest would be a concerted effort on the part of players to create conflict - just decide that you want whatever your rivals want, and try to stop them from obtaining what they want. The second is my favorite - a larger playerbase would fix most of these problems. Third, staff could force characters into conflict with one another by artificially limiting resources, real and virtual. Reduce the number of huntable mobs, encourage two nobles to go after the same qynar, dangle a single promotion to Lieutenant in front of two Byn Sergeants. Also, though nobody wants to do this, close clans and re-organize the playerbase into a new arrangement that would promote more conflict and activity.
Yeah, you're a little bit ahead of me -- you're already pointing out possible solutions, and I like your ideas. Good stuff.
Quote from: Cutthroat on October 05, 2009, 04:40:02 PM
I know what you're talking about, I think. I really wish people would more willingly accept when something bad has happened to their character, and just roll with it. I also think that non-lethal conflict (when possible) tends to open up more possibilities for conflicts. Lethal conflict opens up possibilities for conflict with the victim's surviving friends. I think a conflict is a natural way to draw people into a plot, but it isn't the only way.
Yeah, exactly. If you beat somebuddy up in the Gaj, rather than pretending that their character is too drunk to remember the incident, they will instead go whine to the nearest templar and get you thrown in the arena. The result is that the Gaj is safer than a sunny day in a small town in Oklahoma.
Quote from: Gimfalisette on October 05, 2009, 04:47:08 PM
I actually think that an overabundance of lethal conflict tends to diminish the "harshness" of the game.
Oh yeah, definitely. It creates a higher "barrier to entry." What players don't take into acount is that you might get beat up on or humiliated by one or two PCs every real life month, but you're also getting beat up and intimidated by ten or twelve VNPC. You don't have time to go for revenge over every small slight or imagined insult. You can only bother to go for revenge against people who are really getting on your nuts or who represent a very dangerous threat.
Quote from: Fathi on October 05, 2009, 07:57:43 PM
If your character rarely leaves the city, doesn't ever make any enemies, doesn't ever join a clan that has a built-in allies and enemies list, and doesn't happen to be played during a time of large-scale conflict ala Tuluki Riots, Copper War, or Gith Siege... then yes, I can imagine you would think the game isn't very harsh. But there's plenty of things you can do to initiate some harshness yourself. Or, if you think the tavern scene isn't harsh enough, you are always welcome to roll up a desert elf, a citizen of UnderTuluk, a rogue mage, or a 'rinthi.
If you think it's too easy to survive, try playing like a newbie would. Roll up a character who has no idea how to use half the skills on their skill list. Play a guild you've never played before. Play in a location you've never played before.
Yeah, but I think that's part of the problem. Zalanthans are raised in a conflict-rich environment with poor nutrition, plenty of alcohol and no education. It's not realistic to think that any character "has no enemies." People who play characters that are too bland, in my opinion, are thinly-veiled power players who contribute little to the game.
Also, I'm not saying the game is too easy. I'm saying it's not harsh enough. There's a subtle difference. My complaint doesn't relate to the availability of resources or the strength of traps, pitfalls or mobiles. It's about the amount and the quality of conflict between players.
Quote from: Dar on October 05, 2009, 10:01:17 PM
I swear, there are PCs out there I dont even bother to antagonize, because they manage to involve templars and nobles over the smallest, most casual arguments. If it was anyone else, I would engage them in a conversation and either learn to like them or you know ... create 'some' kind of content. But those people I just ... ignore. So they sit in silence on their side of the bar, and I on another.
Yeah. Secretly, I'd like for the staff to arrange some kind of a purge of characters (edited for syntax) who play people who are too mild rather than going after the people who make too many waves. I think their heart is in the right place, but they're actually discouraging the sort of realism they'd like to create.
Quote from: My 2 sids on October 05, 2009, 10:25:53 PM
Two, quit babying your subordinates!!! Let them fight their own battles and if they get in trouble in the street than they get in trouble at home! Stop making up excuses to punish those who looked at your cook funny or yelled "I hate you" at your stable-girl!!! YOU are the reason there is so little conflict -- you're the "unknown" backing up that filthy 'rinither who doesn't feel the need to step off the street when someone is walking there!
Look, people, things aren't going to be harsh until players decide they're PCs aren't so cheap they don't care if they have to make a new one vs. deal with consequences. And/or there isn't more blood shead and humiliation. AND ROLE-PLAYED OUT!!! Commoners out number important people 9/1 -- so it's not up to them to make sure your PC feels threatened.
Yeah, as I stated in the original post people are too quick to help commoners, or even strangers solve problems.
To your second point, people value their PCs so much because it takes such a long time to establish your PC and to jack up their skills. If it were easier to establish a PC and if there were a smaller delta between starting skills and peak skills, people would be less concerned about loosing their characters, myself included.
Quote from: X-D on October 05, 2009, 11:20:58 PM
Many times I've wondered. If you were a noble, somebody great and powerful, better by blood etc etc etc. Why exactly would you notice if some dirty commoner insulted another dirty commoner...even if dirty commoner #2 did work for your house in some manner? One of hundreds or even thousands. Hell, I'd be more pissed off about that commoner bothering me with dirty commoner problems then anything.
Yeah, this is a common problem both in real life and in Armageddon. Bureaucrats often misinterpret their roles. For example, people who player militia or templars often think their roles are to fight crime. This is of course not true -- there's not enough crime around for them to fight. Their role is to provide game atmosphere.
A very well-played templar could play for a year and not bust a single PC bad guy. After all, they could bust plenty of NPC or VNPC bad guys. Removing PC villains is counterproductive.
Quote from: Me on October 05, 2009, 11:45:13 PM
One of my main rant about the topic of raiding is that if PC 1 lets PC 2 walk away alive, but his pride wounded and his gears completely stripped. PC 2 would then go and find a templar nearby and complain about how he got unjustly raided by a bunch of elves/mages/muls/undead mantis. Templar would then jump to the opportunity to go and hunt down the said raiders, mobilizing his entire unit to wreck vengeance over a little suffering a little commoner grebber had endured. Now that just doesn't make sense to me at all.
Yeah, exactly. Most of this sort of misbehavior is the result of boredom. People need to learn to brush it off if they get bullied/mugged/raided. This isn't easy but it is worthwhile.
Quote from: Gimfalisette on October 05, 2009, 11:56:35 PM
As long as templars are basically bored and basically think they are supposed to be combat PCs, they will always go chasing after raiders and meddling in affairs that really should be far beneath them.
So true.
Quote from: brytta.leofa on October 06, 2009, 12:23:30 AM
Some of you guys have a tendency, in character, to be way too helpful. ;) I'm plenty guilty of this myself, and when it becomes common it can really damage the atmosphere.
One good way to play a desperate, thrifty commoner is to help people only when you expect to get something fairly tangible out of it.
So true.
Quote from: number13 on October 06, 2009, 12:38:01 AM
Spawning scripted NPC incursions to keep militia/Legion amused could be one solution. If they are busy beating back riots from the Rinth or hordes of flaming, mutant raptors, the militia isn't going to be worried about a raider stealing someone's bag of salt.
Yeah, I think the staff could do a little more to give PC lawmen actual problems to solve.
Quote from: number13 on October 06, 2009, 12:47:11 AM
There's that too. Especially in Tuluk, being shady without at least some sanction from the authorities is usually suicide.
That's another thing, people tend to forget that in Zalanthas, it's rare to find people who are virtuous or straightforward. Most people are shady or dishonest in one fashion or another.
Quote from: KankWhisperer on October 06, 2009, 04:22:08 AM
Everyone write three detailed descriptions of imaginary raiders.
Everyone junk a valuable item and a bunch of sids.
Everyone run into the city complaining about the bad bad <insert your raider descs> and how they robbed you and punched you in the face. Add some tdesc action.
Everyone keep doing it until Templars get tired of chasing your imaginary vnpcs and never listen to a grebber again.
Problem solved.
I like this. I'll give this a shot.
Quote from: ibusoe on October 06, 2009, 10:04:52 AM
Quote from: Dar on October 05, 2009, 10:01:17 PM
I swear, there are PCs out there I dont even bother to antagonize, because they manage to involve templars and nobles over the smallest, most casual arguments. If it was anyone else, I would engage them in a conversation and either learn to like them or you know ... create 'some' kind of content. But those people I just ... ignore. So they sit in silence on their side of the bar, and I on another.
Yeah. Secretly, I'd like for the staff to arrange some kind of a purge of players who play people who are too mild rather than going after the people who make too many waves. I think their heart is in the right place, but they're actually discouraging the sort of realism they'd like to create.
Welcome to Armageddon, where our roleplay guidelines are so strict, staff will purge you if ibusoe finds you boring.
I think I'd keep that in the "secret" desire realm. :-*
My ego compels me to point out that the prisoner's dilemma is very arguably a specific manifestation of a greater trend referred to as the tragedy of the commons.
And it's all why we keep having to talk over this issue, because this is our version of community correction.
Though now I am fantasizing about what if the imms had a system of "roleplaying skills to learn" which would ultimately convert to gaining karma. When players showed clear evidence of doing those things, such as not PKing/fleeing immediately from potentially dangerous encounters, then that would be one checkmark on the list.
Quote from: Ocotillo on October 06, 2009, 02:34:17 PM
My ego compels me to point out that the prisoner's dilemma is very arguably a specific manifestation of a greater trend referred to as the tragedy of the commons.
The tragedy of the commons as I'm familiar with it is the inefficient (overuse) outcome arrived at with rivalrous but non-excludeable goods. In other words, a finite but public resource, such as a fishery or public camp-site (non-pay).
That said, I can see what you mean. They're both environments where people acting in rational, self-intereted fashions lead to non-pareto optimal solutions.
I'd still say the prisoner's dilemma is the better comparison to the topic at hand.
Right, though I might phrase it more anecdotally. The prisoner's dilemma is particularly relevant to the immediate confrontation of PKer and PKee, where what I was moreso trying to articulate was an abstract tragedy of the commons, with the public resource being "trust" and/or "not backing the fuck off when the ass is kicked," and thus the macro effect that, over time, fucktards will accumulate, the perceptions of the situation will change for the negative, and thus you experience cycles of tolerance as everyone says "fuck it," kills the bitches, and then eventually get up the balls to try tolerance again, leading to an unpredictable-length period of awesome before the public resource is overused again and the fucktards return.
Quote from: Ocotillo on October 06, 2009, 02:52:28 PM
Right, though I might phrase it more anecdotally. The prisoner's dilemma is particularly relevant to the immediate confrontation of PKer and PKee, where what I was moreso trying to articulate was an abstract tragedy of the commons, with the public resource being "trust" and/or "not backing the fuck off when the ass is kicked," and thus the macro effect that, over time, fucktards will accumulate, the perceptions of the situation will change for the negative, and thus you experience cycles of tolerance as everyone says "fuck it," kills the bitches, and then eventually get up the balls to try tolerance again, leading to an unpredictable-length period of awesome before the public resource is overused again and the fucktards return.
Certainly a little abstracted, but I'll swing it with y'baby.
Quote from: Ocotillo on October 06, 2009, 02:52:28 PM
Right, though I might phrase it more anecdotally. The prisoner's dilemma is particularly relevant to the immediate confrontation of PKer and PKee, where what I was moreso trying to articulate was an abstract tragedy of the commons, with the public resource being "trust" and/or "not backing the fuck off when the ass is kicked," and thus the macro effect that, over time, fucktards will accumulate, the perceptions of the situation will change for the negative, and thus you experience cycles of tolerance as everyone says "fuck it," kills the bitches, and then eventually get up the balls to try tolerance again, leading to an unpredictable-length period of awesome before the public resource is overused again and the fucktards return.
I love this.
I'd just like to mention at this time, that if nobody has actually read Hardin's article entitled "The Tragedy of the Commons"... Pick a nice, morbid night where you're feeling particularly depressed. Go to bed, read it, then proceed to mope and wallow about the destructive nature of the human species.
Quote from: Kankfly on October 05, 2009, 11:36:00 PM
But hey, think of it this way. Maybe outwardly, this PC seems to be stepping on eggshells and avoiding PC conflict when in fact he's the mastermind behind all those little sexcret plots on trying to get these few PCs killed/sold/maimed/etc. And then the reason you don't really get to see the outcome is because he died to a stupid carru in a pit, to the soldiers because he forgot to get rid of one tiny grain of spice in his pack, or a misdirected syntax and couldn't flee in time. Then everyone remembers him as Bob the Dude Who Doesn't Like To Piss People Off.
That seems Tuluk in nature --- I think there should be vast separation between the cultures.
I just wanted to touch point on the notion that all Zalanthans are dishonest.
I actually don't believe this to be the case. Telling the truth is always the easiest course of action for the potential liar (with or without embellishments), since you don't have to work at covering up the truth or someone finding out that you were lying and thus risking a loss of trust (especially in a world where trust is so hard to come by). In fact, unless the benefit of lying outweighs telling the truth, I think you would find that almost everyone is more or less honest in Zalanthas, unless they're an elf, because everyone knows elves can't ever be trusted. I put up a chart of trust somewhere on the boards years ago. Back to my original point, I don't think Zalanthans are dishonest as much as they are more or less distrustful of strangers and highly, highly motivated by self-interest. Given that ethical/moral behavior is limited to whether behaving in another fashion is more profitable for them (like lying to cover their ass, lying to hide an acquisition of worth, lying to protect the people they care for) it might be easy to see that as being dishonest, but it's not really being dishonest or more prone to violence or truly criminal behavior -- it's just par for the course for the population of the city-states and probably for inter-tribal relations as well.
I would say that what is rare is action without some sort of benefit gained for totally altruistic purposes.
I know folks are good about taken into account individual NPCs and VNPCs, but I think one must also take into account massive amounts of NPCs and VNPCs. Specifically, the type of society which could yeld such a complex society and wealth! Oppression or not, the truth is it takes a lot of cooperation and civil peace for that to form.
If you want a harsher game have things upset the peace, because upsetting chaos is hardly upsetting.
You can approach it a number of ways.
>Telling the truth as often as possible can help you cement your lies as true to those that know your reputation.
>However, being a pathological liar and creating webs and webs of confusing deceit has its uses, too.
Regarding social danger...
I think we need to close a lot more clans... force the player base into more competition with one another.
Hunter/merchant -- you all work for this clan
political people -- these are your choices
Combat -- byn or milita
Everyone else -- you're on you own!
It takes a certain amount of active PCs to have inter-clan conflict w/o bringing the entire clan to a grinding halt.
I hate the fact that all of the GMHs have monopolies on particular goods. Why not have three generic merchant houses, each engaged in making numerous products and constantly economically fighting with one another?
Quote from: jcljules on October 07, 2009, 02:55:48 PM
I hate the fact that all of the GMHs have monopolies on particular goods. Why not have three generic merchant houses, each engaged in making numerous products and constantly economically fighting with one another?
Because they'd be physically fighting with eachother, too. The attrition would be quite annoying to everyone involved.
Quote from: Rotten on October 07, 2009, 03:15:16 PM
Quote from: jcljules on October 07, 2009, 02:55:48 PM
I hate the fact that all of the GMHs have monopolies on particular goods. Why not have three generic merchant houses, each engaged in making numerous products and constantly economically fighting with one another?
Because they'd be physically fighting with eachother, too. The attrition would be quite annoying to everyone involved.
Not if the city states made it illegal for them to fight with one another too publicly and violently.
Quote from: jcljules on October 07, 2009, 03:16:43 PM
Quote from: Rotten on October 07, 2009, 03:15:16 PM
Quote from: jcljules on October 07, 2009, 02:55:48 PM
I hate the fact that all of the GMHs have monopolies on particular goods. Why not have three generic merchant houses, each engaged in making numerous products and constantly economically fighting with one another?
Because they'd be physically fighting with eachother, too. The attrition would be quite annoying to everyone involved.
Not if the city states made it illegal for them to fight with one another too publicly and violently.
But then they'd eventually reach the same agreement they have now: it's more efficient to specialize. So they get together and arrange a mutual non-competition pact.
Think: you can try to compete in every market, which will reduce your profitability both through price-gouging and the cost of protecting yourself from competition (both from overt attacks, and the cost of protecting your resource pools), or you can arrange to compete in only one market, where you can maximize profitability by having a monopoly on the sale of the goods, access to all the available resources required for the production of the goods, and by reducing the cost of protecting your investments.
As far as we know, none of the Houses has reached a market saturation point in any of their goods, and as long as they have room to expand in their own market, there isn't any economic reason to break the pact and branch out into another GMH's territory.
Anti-trust laws? ;D
Quote from: jcljules on October 07, 2009, 09:20:26 PM
Anti-trust laws? ;D
Murder. Corruption. Betrayal.
Anti-trust
is the law on Zalanthas.
Meh. Sidestepping my semi-serious idea with your clever wordplay.
I think Bribes contribute to a less harsh world.
Eventually, that OOC knowledge that your 'rinither/ gemmed/ half-breed can make enough connections and sid to kill off that templar -- slips to IC. Then, then suddenly that templar isn't that much of a threat (bam, less harshness)
You know, a lot of people are saying "the world is less harsh now than when I was a newbie" and while some things have (true, it is a shame there's no longer a threat of brutality and enslavement) what's really changed is the player's perception of the world -- specifically what the docs portray (hierarchical society where Oash and Guild are on one side and Milita/ templarate are on another) and experience which says different.
Honestly folks, if more and more people played "typical" PCs instead of "fearless exceptions"... the world would become more harsh
Yeah for sure, I agree. Over time people just get used to being really carefull with their characters maybe, they don't want the PC to die so they take less risks. Either that or they are just sitting in taverns all day long bs'in about god knows what........I don't know, maybe I'm way off, who knows. ???
Quote from: My 2 sids on October 08, 2009, 08:17:49 AM
I think Bribes contribute to a less harsh world.
Eventually, that OOC knowledge that your 'rinither/ gemmed/ half-breed can make enough connections and sid to kill off that templar -- slips to IC. Then, then suddenly that templar isn't that much of a threat (bam, less harshness)
You know, a lot of people are saying "the world is less harsh now than when I was a newbie" and while some things have (true, it is a shame there's no longer a threat of brutality and enslavement) what's really changed is the player's perception of the world -- specifically what the docs portray (hierarchical society where Oash and Guild are on one side and Milita/ templarate are on another) and experience which says different.
Honestly folks, if more and more people played "typical" PCs instead of "fearless exceptions"... the world would become more harsh
Maybe I'm just never going to understand, but...
How do bribes contribute to a less harsh world, when it is understood that there are many officials of every city-state and settlement that are corrupt? Not
all of them are corrupt to a disgusting extreme bordering on treason, but certainly not all of them are paladins. It is that corruption that makes things harsh - that idea that you could bribe, but that your bribe just might not be enough, or that you could pick the wrong person to bribe.
How does a person with no social ranking manage to kill off a templar with just money? Maybe that should be analyzed, if that's even the case. I suspect that it isn't, because that just makes no sense.
How is there no longer a threat of brutality and enslavement? People torture and kill each other quite a bit when they deserve it. Enslavement still happens - granted, it's quite rare due to the OOC constrictions, but it happens when it's appropriate.
How does the
world documentation set House Oash and the Guild against the militia and the templarate? How does the Allanaki documentation even do that? Bad terms with the templarate =/= enemies of the templarate, or allies of the Guild.
I'm sorry, I really don't get what your point is. I do agree that people should play more "typical" PCs, or more appropriately, PCs that are realistic in relation to Zalanthas. I do think that involves bribery, and other methods of dealing with the law. Put simply and bluntly, ignoring your competition is stupid.
Quote from: Cutthroat on October 08, 2009, 08:54:38 AM
Maybe I'm just never going to understand, but...
How do bribes contribute to a less harsh world, when it is understood that there are many officials of every city-state and settlement that are corrupt? Not all of them are corrupt to a disgusting extreme bordering on treason, but certainly not all of them are paladins. It is that corruption that makes things harsh - that idea that you could bribe, but that your bribe just might not be enough, or that you could pick the wrong person to bribe.
You're right. That's how it's supposed to work. What I'm saying is if
every PC is so easily bribed, than that danger that you just described can't happen. Think about the impact if every PC was a magicker -- sure, people could try to RP according to the docs, but it'd be a challenge because of the PC balance, right?
Again, bribing has it's place. I'm suggesting a few PCs which are different that what's already in game would add some harshness.
Quote
How does a person with no social ranking manage to kill off a templar with just money? Maybe that should be analyzed, if that's even the case. I suspect that it isn't, because that just makes no sense.
How is there no longer a threat of brutality and enslavement? People torture and kill each other quite a bit when they deserve it. Enslavement still happens - granted, it's quite rare due to the OOC constrictions, but it happens when it's appropriate.
I'm just going by what I know just like you are going by what you know.
Quote
How does the world documentation set House Oash and the Guild against the militia and the templarate? How does the Allanaki documentation even do that? Bad terms with the templarate =/= enemies of the templarate, or allies of the Guild.
http://www.armageddon.org/general/noble.html#houses
Quote
I'm sorry, I really don't get what your point is. I do agree that people should play more "typical" PCs, or more appropriately, PCs that are realistic in relation to Zalanthas. I do think that involves bribery, and other methods of dealing with the law. Put simply and bluntly, ignoring your competition is stupid.
My point:
Contrast extenuates harshness If everything is done behind the scenes, and everything is done in mostly the same way -- the game isn't going to feel as intense. And really it is
intensity people are seeking.
I'm aware of that link, and referenced it in my reply to you. It specifically says House Oash is often on bad terms with the templarate. It doesn't mean they are enemies of the templarate, or allies of the Guild. It just means they piss the templarate off sometimes. Any noble of any house in either city can do the same - it's just that nobles in House Oash tend to do it more.
I think you don't mean that contrast extenuates (roughly, lessens) harshness, but rather increases harshness. To that point, I agree. I also contend that there is already plenty of contrast in the game, and if you don't detect it yourself, or you don't detect a preferred kind of contrast yourself, you could add to it yourself. I think even assuming Zalanthas is currently a world where everyone was easily bribable, there would be intensity in other aspects of this process, as well as throughout the game.
all i have to say is that i have been robbed many, many times. in differant places. i think that's pretty harsh.
been strong-armed by a certain clan in the table lands a few times
robbed at spearpoint when out hunting
blackjacked and robbed in 'Nak at night.
Lesson learned: bring friends that wont rob you, so youwont be robbed.
I sort of wish more of the above happened to me.
Quote from: jcljules on October 15, 2009, 01:01:42 PM
I sort of wish more of the above happened to me.
PC's a/s/l ...I will dispatch minions immediately...
But I'm your only minion.
Quote from: jcljules on October 15, 2009, 01:08:35 PM
But I'm your only minion.
I make all my minions feel like they're the only one. It's just part of my genius! :D Also, who says I can't dispatch you to do something nefarious to yourself, huh?
feel betrayed
backstab gimfalisette
After some thought and a quick inventory of my PC's recent experiences, I have to say that the game seems plenty harsh from my end.
Alrighty, here's my two cents worth, WHY ARE WE CONSTANTLY PROMOTING CONFLICT?
Okay, the world is harsh, we get it, people are mean, we get it, hard to make a buck, we get it, however, let's keep in mind that it is degenerating into a situation where everyone is trying to outdo each other in character description, trying to outdo each other in ways to creatively kill one another, trying to outdo each other in ways we can be mean.
WTF is the purpose of that, to see who's the biggest and baddest? The best rp'er I have seen walked around, said a few words, did basic emotes, kicked ass when he had to, partied, was mean when it was necessary. WHY do we (Not myself) feel the need that we are forced to constantly be mean or what have you, or arrange pieces of food so that it is showing dipped in shit, picturing gory things along the road etc?
I fear that it is only promoting dark things and frankly holding back the playerbase from growing further.
I love conflict. It's what drives many of my characters and keeps me from sitting at a bar bored (which I also do from time to time). That being said, I play the character not myself so I do try and make an effort to not do anything I don't think whichever current PC I'm playing would not.
That being said, I'm not a great player, but I give it a good shot here or there.
Brandon
Quote from: ianmartin on October 15, 2009, 10:55:49 PM
Alrighty, here's my two cents worth, WHY ARE WE CONSTANTLY PROMOTING CONFLICT?
Okay, the world is harsh, we get it, people are mean, we get it, hard to make a buck, we get it, however, let's keep in mind that it is degenerating into a situation where everyone is trying to outdo each other in character description, trying to outdo each other in ways to creatively kill one another, trying to outdo each other in ways we can be mean.
WTF is the purpose of that, to see who's the biggest and baddest? The best rp'er I have seen walked around, said a few words, did basic emotes, kicked ass when he had to, partied, was mean when it was necessary. WHY do we (Not myself) feel the need that we are forced to constantly be mean or what have you, or arrange pieces of food so that it is showing dipped in shit, picturing gory things along the road etc?
I fear that it is only promoting dark things and frankly holding back the playerbase from growing further.
The conflict that makes the game fun is not any of the things you described above. Conflict just means that you have a goal and obstacles. That's how a story works. Conflict can be an explorer climbing a cliff in the wastes and almost slipping, or two Tuluki nobles fighting over a potential partisan, or two tribes fighting for control of an oasis. The game is nothing but a nicely written setting and a few characters, without conflict. In my opinion, the most fun type of conflict is conflict between PCs. You have an adversary to out think and defeating them is a lot more rewarding than killing an NPC or doing something that doesn't involve stepping on anyone else. I think a lot of people share that opinion, which is why people are always promoting more conflict in game. Conflict is not the same thing as harshness.
While I agree with what you are saying, what I am seeing is what I described. I see some not all persons creating characters where they get a chance
to I guess play out whatever is going on with them elsewhere, vent their anger or what have you, in exchange, we get a moody bunch that I don't
give a hoot about interacting with. Just my $0.02 from what I observed over the years.
I agree with ainmartin. Is this really fun?
Look, simply by the land and how the cities are set up there is conflict. Remember, there are other types of conflict besides "person v. person".
I guess I think of Arm being different than hack-n-slash (or other RPGs) in that it's beauty is telling a story, not necessarily fighting enemies.
Quote from: My 2 sids on October 16, 2009, 10:20:46 AM
I agree with ainmartin. Is this really fun?
Look, simply by the land and how the cities are set up there is conflict. Remember, there are other types of conflict besides "person v. person".
I guess I think of Arm being different than hack-n-slash (or other RPGs) in that it's beauty is telling a story, not necessarily fighting enemies.
I think you missed what jules had said as many of us do not view conflict as PvP or PvE for that matter.
Brandon
Having a goal and obstetrical doesn't mean everyone has to play this big-bad-lone-hero type though. If you're PC is going through life as if everyone is out to get them -- that is PvP!
Quote from: ianmartin on October 15, 2009, 10:55:49 PM
Alrighty, here's my two cents worth, WHY ARE WE CONSTANTLY PROMOTING CONFLICT?
Okay, the world is harsh, we get it, people are mean, we get it, hard to make a buck, we get it, however, let's keep in mind that it is degenerating into a situation where everyone is trying to outdo each other in character description, trying to outdo each other in ways to creatively kill one another, trying to outdo each other in ways we can be mean.
WTF is the purpose of that, to see who's the biggest and baddest? The best rp'er I have seen walked around, said a few words, did basic emotes, kicked ass when he had to, partied, was mean when it was necessary. WHY do we (Not myself) feel the need that we are forced to constantly be mean or what have you, or arrange pieces of food so that it is showing dipped in shit, picturing gory things along the road etc?
I fear that it is only promoting dark things and frankly holding back the playerbase from growing further.
You seem to be lumping two very
different aspects of the game into the same category, which is probably detracting from what I interpret as your actual point.
As others have mentioned, promoting conflict doesn't inherently mean over-the-top displays of hatred, violence, discrimination, or prejudice -- it just means that you have people in the world that disagree. This could be anything from cultural differences (e.g. Tan Muark might not be happy in an establishment serving gwoshi steaks), racial differences (e.g. Elves might mock or criticize a mounted human as being weak), social differences (e.g. A wealthy merchant may ask a smelly Byn Trooper to leave their table.), economic differences (e.g. A wealthy merchant may toss a poorly cooked steak to the floor, while a 'rinthi might kill for it.), and so on.
And that doesn't even begin to integrate the conflict generated from organizations and people simply having different wants and needs which may center around achieving some amount of fame, becoming wealthy, rising above one's station, engaging in city politics, keeping peace between warring factions or tribes, policing the streets for criminals, acquiring land/property, obtaining approval from one's social peers, and thousands of other motivations.
What I think you mean to criticize, and with which I wholeheartedly agree, is the tendency for
some players to consistently play characters with an unrealistic or excessive focus on embodying the "harshness" they feel needs to exist for Armageddon to be Armageddon. These characters seem hell-bent on causing chaos, seeding unrest, and disrupting people's lives with some quality they believe is paramount to the Zalanthan experience. Where I think many of these people miss the point is that Zalanthas is harsh enough without those attempts.
It's completely possible to play normal, well-adjusted characters that are productive, helpful, and successful within their environment without taking away from the "harsh" flavor of the game world. They might be nice to
you, but they may not even pause in stride to help a dying elf. They may nod and graciously accept a drink offered by
you, but they refuse a similar offer from a tribal or someone from the rival city-state. They may conduct honest business with
you, but they may lead a competitor that threatens their livelihood into an alley and have a couple thugs fix their breathing problem.
Virtue and Villainy are two sides of the same coin, and the best way to promote complex and meaningful conflict is to ensure that players can view it from both angles.
-LoD
If you aren't experiencing harshness in the game's current environment, I suspect how your playing your own character is more likely the cause then anything else. The harshness is out there, waiting. If you're playing a character who takes no risks, you certainly can't bitch about having a safe time.
Bribes - I can most certainly say that not everyone can be persuaded this way. I've seen bribes fail, I've had bribes fail. Often times, what you would have to use as a bribe is more valuable then what you're trying to attain. But, you never know. They just might take it. Sounds harsh to me.
Outlaws - They are out there. They will ruin your day. People get frustrated because 'its tough to be an outlaw.' Hollywood glorified crap aside: well duh. If you're the schmuck who is actually using his spear to rob people, your life is going to suck. YOU will be the target of people's ire, not the robber baron who finances you. You will be the one who has to deal with the fact this guy you cornered is actually a Tor Scorpion and is kicking your head in. Don't want a harsh life? Overthrow the robber baron and take his place. Make the templarate see your legitimate business for what it is: profitable for all. Of course, then you have to guard your own position . . . sounds harsh for all to me.
Travel - Unless you're a veteran grizzled combatant, travel's a pain. Of course, sane people use their heads to *avoid* the trouble that is looking for them. And it is looking for you. Sounds harsh here.
Serendipity - The shadows that come in the night, the Mekillot waiting around the bend, the gicker that turns you into an a-cup or makes your manhood not work any more. Some times bad shit happens out of the blue. I know this, because I have both inflicted woe and received woe from others because RP said I should, or the code is just all too happy to show you how abruptly a life can end. RP in Zalanthas is documented to make conflict happen. The code is a unforgiving hammer dropper. The game is built around different *styles* of conflict, and not every style is for every player. But it is there. It wants you. harsh-o-rama.
In short, I've read a lot of squeaky wheels lately. The game is harsh, things are out to get you, and 'its dangerous to go alone', but don't ask me for help. If you're not convinced of this, bump into me IG. I'll be glad to {send to mantis head|rob blind|mudsex|mudsex after robbing blind|mudsexx after sent to mantis head| disgrace|bribe|take bribe from|take bribe from then tell anyway|do all of this to} you as is appropriate. I know I'm harsh.
Yeah I agree no worth to my post, other than to express my personal frustration.
back when i was a storyteller on a WOD chat i would have people ask me "this is the world of darkness but the pc SEEM nice enough, whats up"
The simple explanation of this is that as PC's you arent the average joe or jane running aroun the world, you have that special spark to make you differant. so the status quo isnt necisarillyyou. that being said, just because they seem nice, remember everyone has there own goals, and could be planning your murder in there shady corner.,
(forgive mispellings. it was bar dayfor my shift, so i been drinking a touch...to much)
Quote from: KankWhisperer on October 16, 2009, 12:50:52 PM
Internet/mud tough guy alert.
You really missed the point, didn't you?
:P
Quote from: Fredd on October 16, 2009, 01:14:37 PM
back when i was a storyteller on a WOD chat i would have people ask me "this is the world of darkness but the pc SEEM nice enough, whats up"
The simple explanation of this is that as PC's you arent the average joe or jane running aroun the world, you have that special spark to make you differant. so the status quo isnt necisarillyyou. that being said, just because they seem nice, remember everyone has there own goals, and could be planning your murder in there shady corner.,
(forgive mispellings. it was bar dayfor my shift, so i been drinking a touch...to much)
It's been said before, but most PCs should be exactly, or fairly close to, what the game documentation demands. PCs aren't there to be extremely different, but they do have more opportunities.
Really, if you play with the expectation that your PC will grow to like certain people and hate others, the conflict and "harshness" is all set out for you. It's just up to you to grab it by the horns. You don't have to go out of your way to create problems out of thin air - the tension continually exists.
If you think the game's not harsh enough you're not playing the right roles. There are plenty of ideas out there that involve a huge amount of struggle just to get by. Stay away from clanned roles for a while and play an independent. The game changes a lot when you have to buy your own food and water.
Quote from: Spoon on October 18, 2009, 06:00:06 AM
If you think the game's not harsh enough you're not playing the right roles. There are plenty of ideas out there that involve a huge amount of struggle just to get by. Stay away from clanned roles for a while and play an independent. The game changes a lot when you have to buy your own food and water.
It doesn't really. Indies can make a ton of cash faster than an clanned characters are capable. I agree with you that the game is plenty harsh depending on the type of role you play, but the struggle for food and water is something for vNPCs and PC's lost in a sandstorm to go through. I don't think any PC actually struggles to stave off the hunger and thrist code after even a basic understanding of how the code works, and how you can make money from NPC sales.
Quote from: musashi on October 18, 2009, 06:07:08 AM
[Indies can make a ton of cash faster than an clanned characters are capable.
People keep saying this. Maybe we should clarify it to be "northern indies"?
Quote from: Salt Merchant on October 18, 2009, 03:10:26 PM
Quote from: musashi on October 18, 2009, 06:07:08 AM
[Indies can make a ton of cash faster than an clanned characters are capable.
People keep saying this. Maybe we should clarify it to be "northern indies"?
Golly gee, Mr. Ruth, it's like Deja Vu all over again!
Quote from: Lizzie on October 18, 2009, 03:41:07 PM
Quote from: Salt Merchant on October 18, 2009, 03:10:26 PM
Quote from: musashi on October 18, 2009, 06:07:08 AM
[Indies can make a ton of cash faster than an clanned characters are capable.
People keep saying this. Maybe we should clarify it to be "northern indies"?
Golly gee, Mr. Ruth, it's like Deja Vu all over again!
It must be nice to live in a world where you're right -all- of the time.
It shouldn't be clarified to be "northern indies". Southern indies have it just as difficult as northern indies. To go in any further detail would be bordering on IC info sharing, but if you want to find out what's so difficult in the north, then I suggest you make the effort to find out ICly sometime, by making a northerner who tries to make it alone.
Quote from: Cutthroat on October 18, 2009, 03:53:10 PM
It shouldn't be clarified to be "northern indies". Southern indies have it just as difficult as northern indies. To go in any further detail would be bordering on IC info sharing, but if you want to find out what's so difficult in the north, then I suggest you make the effort to find out ICly sometime, by making a northerner who tries to make it alone.
IC info again. Well, you're right, but it makes trying to settle the issue a little frustrating, doesn't it.
By the way, I've played a character that lived part of his life in the north and made it alone there. He wasn't even a fighter sort. Once you know a few crafting recipes, it's easy to get by. In the south, I'd argue it's not quite so easy, although there are a couple of trades that can make you rich -if- you spamcraft, I'll admit.
It's pretty easy make money no matter what city you're based out of. There's no need to go all, 'Doh-ho-ho-ho Tuluk is easy mode.'
It's just. Not. Funny. Anymore.
If you want conflict, play a prick. Or be one in real life.
Quote from: Sephiroto on October 18, 2009, 04:12:40 PM
If you want conflict, play a prick. Or be one in real life.
Done and done.
So ... ahem ... my point being that the game can be plenty harsh already, it's just that the "struggle for food and water" isn't really part of that unless you decide to play a human/merchant/linguist who never enters the cities and tries to make it like a ranger ... then you would probably be struggling for at least food.
Quote from: Salt Merchant on October 18, 2009, 03:10:26 PM
Quote from: musashi on October 18, 2009, 06:07:08 AM
[Indies can make a ton of cash faster than an clanned characters are capable.
People keep saying this. Maybe we should clarify it to be "northern indies"?
You've never mined obsidian with a mount and a tent, have you?
Quote from: FantasyWriter on October 18, 2009, 09:46:31 PM
You've never mined obsidian with a mount and a tent, have you?
I've had a character that mined plenty. What I don't understand is where people get "thousands of sid per day" from. My experience has been it might take three or four sessions with a glasshacker to end up with one to three large chunks and a couple of small ones before a deposit is exhausted. So maybe a hundred 'sid from a day's work. Then pay forty five for water and whatever for food and you're left with less than half of that. Then wait for the deposit to reappear. It can take ten days worth (= 15 hours of play) to save enough 'sid to buy a pair of studded pants from Salarr. And that's if there are no competing miners.
And at the same time, the new character is hanging his butt out for elves or raiders or the occasional drawn-back tarantula to have a good bite.
Hardly a fountain of 'sid.
Quote from: FantasyWriter on October 18, 2009, 09:46:31 PM
You've never mined obsidian with a mount and a tent, have you?
Yeah, I've had quite a few characters try to make a living off of mining obsidian. You have the potential to either score big, score medium or score crappy when it comes to it and, like mentioned above, you may think your close enough to the city to be safe but, I've also have a few characters who've fallen victim to that same belief.
Mining obsidian is good because of the instant gratification you get for turning in those bits of rock in at the end of the day, but it's definitely not a big money maker.
My second character wanted to be a trader. He was class merchant. For start up capital I spam mined obsidian for several days. I made five thousand coins. I didn't even have a tent. Its definitely too easy, especially since I was a newbie at the time who barely knew anything about the code or game world.
Not that the coin did me any good, seeing as I was friendless and lame.
You're still lame :-\
Harshness should be measured by over-all average PCs, not spamming.
There's plenty of harsh. If you're not in the Byn, in a city, in a tribe, Kurac, the rinth, or Under Tuluk, and you're not feeling any harshness factor, maybe you're a kindly sweet old character living in Red Storm who gives people free bread?
The game is harsh by design.
Quote from: Kryos on October 16, 2009, 12:40:06 PM
If you aren't experiencing harshness in the game's current environment, I suspect how your playing your own character is more likely the cause then anything else. The harshness is out there, waiting. If you're playing a character who takes no risks, you certainly can't bitch about having a safe time.
Yeah, exactly. As I've stated elsewhere, my complaint is not that "the game is too easy." My complaint is that people make things too easy on themselves, which is essentially what you're stating.
While I'm a fan of MUD sexing, social climbing and tavern sitting, people tend to focus on these activities to the exclusion of realism.
Quote from: Cutthroat on October 16, 2009, 01:34:36 PM
It's been said before, but most PCs should be exactly, or fairly close to, what the game documentation demands. PCs aren't there to be extremely different, but they do have more opportunities.
Really, if you play with the expectation that your PC will grow to like certain people and hate others, the conflict and "harshness" is all set out for you. It's just up to you to grab it by the horns. You don't have to go out of your way to create problems out of thin air - the tension continually exists.
Yeah, this is exactly right, and closely related to what I'm trying to say. As I see it, the whole --point-- of Armageddon is that the world is so tough that the lives of average people are not at all ordinary and are in fact quite intense. We as players are meant to be playing your average Joe, with the occasional exception of your odd House member or mul here or there thrown in for variety.
Quote from: jcljules on October 18, 2009, 11:34:31 PM
My second character wanted to be a trader. He was class merchant. For start up capital I spam mined obsidian for several days. I made five thousand coins. I didn't even have a tent.
Possibly once upon a time you could do this. But if you did, the system has been tweaked since. There's no way you could make 5000 coins in "several days", for example; the mining office simply won't buy that much obsidian in that period of time.
Can we have a point of reference here?
I think there needs to be a little perspective given if some player is logging on for 10 hours of straight (rl) obsidian mining.
Quote from: Salt Merchant on October 19, 2009, 04:00:19 PM
Quote from: jcljules on October 18, 2009, 11:34:31 PM
My second character wanted to be a trader. He was class merchant. For start up capital I spam mined obsidian for several days. I made five thousand coins. I didn't even have a tent.
Possibly once upon a time you could do this. But if you did, the system has been tweaked since. There's no way you could make 5000 coins in "several days", for example; the mining office simply won't buy that much obsidian in that period of time.
IG days, or RL days? Totally possible with RL days.
Quote from: ibusoe on October 19, 2009, 10:27:42 AM
We as players are meant to be playing your average Joe, with the occasional exception of your odd House member or mul here or there thrown in for variety.
Mmmhmmm...I would have to disagree with this.
If this were so, why have clans? Why have tribes? We may start out as 'Average Joe', but we're certainly not
expected to remain as such. You're average Amos Zalanthan never even
dreams about the amount of coin even just an 'average' PC makes, for example.
Average Zalanthan may be different and harsh for an Average Earthling, but in the end, this is still a game, as much as we laud "Realism" and "sticking to the docs." All good things and, in my opinion, should be applied..but we could get into
endless arguments about what the docs actually mean, or what real "Realism" actually is...and we've done so. Numerous times. In uncountable threads.
Quote from: Pale Horse on October 19, 2009, 11:32:55 PM
IG days, or RL days? Totally possible with RL days.
I'd say if someone is sinking seventy hours of their life into scratching for coin, let them have their measly few thousand.
Quote from: Salt Merchant on October 20, 2009, 01:49:22 AM
Quote from: Pale Horse on October 19, 2009, 11:32:55 PM
IG days, or RL days? Totally possible with RL days.
I'd say if someone is sinking seventy hours of their life into scratching for coin, let them have their measly few thousand.
I meant a few hours every real life day over the period of less than a week. Like I'd log on Monday through Friday to mine for a few hours.
Quote from: Gimfalisette on October 05, 2009, 06:08:56 PM
Quote from: Ocotillo on October 05, 2009, 06:04:42 PM
Insert here a comment in which I pretend to be a more experienced player and give a depressing but informative anecdote about that one time I tried to prolong conflict and not kill the dumb fucker and they turned around and went revenge-kung-fu-hero on my ass and burned me out on sparing people again.
Yeah, I'm not really sure what to do about that problem, though. I think staff could probably do more to promote the prolonged-conflict behavior they want to see. Leaving it up to the playerbase seems to eventually lead to all of us wallowing in ennui over the issue.
I haven't read past this, so this may well be answered already, but... How?
In all honesty, the players that hold a hegemony on the GDB can probably do a LOT more to influence change in attitudes than the staff can. We're not going to ban PK, and short of that it's a shift in attitude that you're looking for it seems, and we can't do that.
Quote from: Olgaris on October 22, 2009, 01:41:05 AM
the players that hold a hegemony on the GDB can probably do a LOT more to influence change in attitudes than the staff can.
This is an interesting statement. Who are the players that hold the hegemony? The ones that post most often? Or is there a perceptible group that puts a group smack down on any dissenters?
(I pick door number two).
I'm in the hegemony, Salt Merchant.
Your reign of new ideas (and terror) is over. Expect a representative from the Indepentent General Discussion Hegemony to contact you shortly.
And we will sacrifice you to Ginka.
Quote from: Olgaris on October 22, 2009, 01:41:05 AM
Quote from: Gimfalisette on October 05, 2009, 06:08:56 PM
I think staff could probably do more to promote the prolonged-conflict behavior they want to see. Leaving it up to the playerbase seems to eventually lead to all of us wallowing in ennui over the issue.
I haven't read past this, so this may well be answered already, but... How?
In all honesty, the players that hold a hegemony on the GDB can probably do a LOT more to influence change in attitudes than the staff can. We're not going to ban PK, and short of that it's a shift in attitude that you're looking for it seems, and we can't do that.
Stuff I think staff could do:
-- When players write in to clan staff about plot stuff, make concrete suggestions as to how to achieve particular goals without killing. I have seen this done on occasion, but not often. I don't know if it's a policy to do that or not, but if there is a general staff desire for conflict to be long-term, then it would seem to make sense.
-- If staff notice that someone is PKing a lot, and possibly going to put a note on their account about it, then an email conversation with the player should be had as a matter of course. I don't know if this is done or not, but I suspect it's not done in a coordinated or policy-driven way.
-- If there is a particular clan that is supposed to be known for raiding or brutality or whatever, then the staff of that clan might work specifically with those players in a how-to manner...how to raid without always killing, how to torture and make that a scene where the victim feels they can trust the RP of the other players, etc.
-- Work on general measures to increase trust between players. Sometimes the GDB is too flamey and awful, and to be honest, I think it decreases trust between players. Moderation could be done in a way that feels more coordinated and fair.
-- Code in solutions that the players have suggested for more non-lethal options when it comes to detainment, torture, and punishment. Yes, we will always have players who refuse to "lose" in a conflict, but I don't really think they are the majority in the playerbase; however, we have a lot of players who would love to be brutal and mean and leave conflict open-ended, but there are just too few coded ways to do this.
That's it off the top of my head for the moment.
Call me a little boy, but every time I hear the word "hegemony" I still flash back to Ender's Game and mutter to myself about how Peter wasn't really that bad.
I flash back to this game, from my Skotos days in the far distant past:
http://hegemony.skotos.net/
Everytime I see the word I flash back to sociology textbooks and classes.
Everytime I see the word...
Nothing happens. A blank slate comes up.
:(
When I see hegemony, I think of a man giving his ex-wife a hedge maze.
/me continues to hit himself in the head with a hammer before going to sleep.
Hegemony:
1 : preponderant influence or authority over others : domination <battled for hegemony in Asia>
2 : the social, cultural, ideological, or economic influence exerted by a dominant group <extend their own hegemony over American culture as a whole — Mary K. Cayton>
We can all go home now.
I want to know who's in this group and how I get in. Is it special-app?
Quote from: Gimfalisette on October 22, 2009, 10:43:43 AM
Quote from: Olgaris on October 22, 2009, 01:41:05 AM
Quote from: Gimfalisette on October 05, 2009, 06:08:56 PM
I think staff could probably do more to promote the prolonged-conflict behavior they want to see. Leaving it up to the playerbase seems to eventually lead to all of us wallowing in ennui over the issue.
I haven't read past this, so this may well be answered already, but... How?
In all honesty, the players that hold a hegemony on the GDB can probably do a LOT more to influence change in attitudes than the staff can. We're not going to ban PK, and short of that it's a shift in attitude that you're looking for it seems, and we can't do that.
Stuff I think staff could do:
-- When players write in to clan staff about plot stuff, make concrete suggestions as to how to achieve particular goals without killing. I have seen this done on occasion, but not often. I don't know if it's a policy to do that or not, but if there is a general staff desire for conflict to be long-term, then it would seem to make sense.
Generally we don't like to suggest plots or plans to players. This is due to a variety of reasons. First is that we have shifted our role to supporting player actions rather than dictating them. Second is that if we go about suggesting ways of doing things, then we are in essence telling the players what to do to 'win.'
Quote
-- If staff notice that someone is PKing a lot, and possibly going to put a note on their account about it, then an email conversation with the player should be had as a matter of course. I don't know if this is done or not, but I suspect it's not done in a coordinated or policy-driven way.
We do this.
Quote
-- If there is a particular clan that is supposed to be known for raiding or brutality or whatever, then the staff of that clan might work specifically with those players in a how-to manner...how to raid without always killing, how to torture and make that a scene where the victim feels they can trust the RP of the other players, etc.
We do this.
Quote
-- Work on general measures to increase trust between players. Sometimes the GDB is too flamey and awful, and to be honest, I think it decreases trust between players. Moderation could be done in a way that feels more coordinated and fair.
This stems back to the hegemony that I will elaborate on further down.
Quote
-- Code in solutions that the players have suggested for more non-lethal options when it comes to detainment, torture, and punishment. Yes, we will always have players who refuse to "lose" in a conflict, but I don't really think they are the majority in the playerbase; however, we have a lot of players who would love to be brutal and mean and leave conflict open-ended, but there are just too few coded ways to do this.
There are lots and lots of options other than death. They don't need to be coded. Some of the coded ideas that we have come up with as staff have been shot down by the staff as a whole because from experience we've found that players really hate for their PCs to be mutilated. Yes, players actually send in complaints about having things severed, or being disfigured. This is part of the culture of hating to lose at anything. Perhaps it is easier to accept death, because you just get to make another perfect PC, I don't get it personally.
But to get to the core of what I tried to insinuate earlier in less words, is that the regular posters on the GDB have more power to change attitudes than the staff do. We can change rules. We can change some of the structure of the game. But attitudes are your department. What I mean by hegemony is that if there is a general consensus on the GDB that, for example, looking at a bunch of people in a room without using look emotes is bad role-play, then people who read the GDB (regardless of whether or not they participate) will start feeling bad if they don't use look emotes.
If there is a general consensus on the GDB that hacking obsidian is twinkish, and characters that hack obsidian are constantly trashed on the GDB as players who don't know how to role-play properly, then less people will play obsidian miners.
Hegemony is not something possessed by the few. It is a power that permeates to such a degree that you begin to believe and think certain things as your own thoughts, but really come from the group as a whole. Like peer pressure, only you don't realize necessarily you're been pressured by your peers.
The point of raising that is, that raising threads like this on the GDB is probably a lot more effective than anything the staff could do, aside from starting threads like this on the GDB.
The game isn't harsh enough? Post about it. Agree about it. Be the change you want to see. Other people will read it, and they'll see it in game, and they'll think "Hey, this is awesome. I am going to make my PC hate that guy and secretly plot against him." The staff don't have that kind of power.