The Massive Conflict Thread
I think that there is not enough conflict in the game. I think this lack of conflict is leading to a lack of plots, which is leading to a feeling of stagnation.
As a result, I have analyzed most of the open clans for their positions, goals, and why ultimately the conflict that involves them isn't working as well as it should.
I have also proposed solutions that staff could implement to better increase conflict opportunities, and thus better enable plots.
I would be curious to hear everyone's thoughts on my analysis, the troubles, and proposed solutions. What conflict sources do you currently see? What conflict opportunities could you see?
For those who want a TL;DR version, your best bet is to just skip to the section about the problem and the solution, in each section. Short of that, I have nothing for you.
Borsail
Assets: Slaves, primer House status (political influence)
Interests: Expanding slave stock
Dislikes: Oash, magick
Oash
Assets: Magickers, wine production
Interests: Expanding magickal knowledge or wine offerings
Dislikes: Borsail, people using "their" magickers (some templar friction)
Fale
Assets: Popularity with commoners
Interests: Parties
Dislikes: Tor, magickers, stuffy/serious people
The Goal: To encourage conflict by having a House set up where the Houses dislike each other and want to compete for political supremacy
The Problem: There is no built-in competition. Borsail has slaves, Oash has wine/magickers, Fale has parties. None of these things happening makes it more difficult for another to happen. While they have reasons to dislike each other, there is no asset gain for the House in conflict. If there is, the scope would make it largely virtual or NPC-based.
Possible Solutions (from Staff): Enabling conflict over smaller resources and goals, introducing something which all Houses would have an interest in obtaining. Destabilizing one of Allanak's NPC Houses and having the PC Houses have to try to undermine them to steal assets, or work with them to secure political favor. Introducing events that cause more conflict and trade (threatening of resources to force PC Houses to work together or work to undermine each other).
Templars: War Ministry
Assets: Power of the Highlord, massive political might, control of militia, possible better connection with combat roles (Byn?)
Interests: Expanding influence of the Ministry, projects to increase power base
Dislikes: Criminals that they can't use (some are manipulative), others trying to limit their power
Drawbacks: No direct trade or city building influence
Templars: City Ministry
Assets: Power of the Highlord, massive political might, control of city building projects, possible better connection with builder support (Borsail?)
Interests: Expanding influence of the Ministry, projects to increase power base
Dislikes: Criminals that they can't use (some are manipulative), others trying to limit their power
Drawbacks: No direct control of martial forces or trade influence
Templars: Trade Ministry
Assets: Power of the Highlord, massive political might, control of city trade, possible better connections with trade sources (Kurac, Kadius, Salarr, tribals; possibly nobles who have trade goods such as Oash)
Interests: Expanding influence of the Ministry, projects to increase power base
Dislikes: Criminals that they can't use (some are manipulative), others trying to limit their power
The Goal: To encourage PC templar conflict and expand templar opportunities beyond the scope of merely war
The Problem: Any given PC templar is limited in what they can do. This was the same problem in Tuluk with the Jihaen/Lirathan orders, and why they were ultimately combined. There are not enough templars to have inner-Ministry conflict. A lack of activity of a single templar can drastically limit plot opportunities for others (as odds are only one PC templar can do any one thing).
Possible Solutions (from Staff): One option would be to combine all the templars in to a single order that could do all things (war/trade/city), and have PC templars compete with each other for promotions. The other option is to provide more overlap, via having each Ministry do a primary thing and a secondary (War Ministry also does city building, City Ministry also does trade, Trade Ministry also does war), thus enabling one PC templar to do multiple things and increasing conflict.
Arm of the Dragon
Assets: Combat capabilities, templar back-up
Interests: Keeping Allanak supreme, enforcing laws
Dislikes: Criminals (Guild, rogue 'gickers), low races (breeds, elves), outsiders (northerners, tribals)
Drawbacks: Strict expectations of behavior, often reactionary for plot focuses
The Byn
Assets: Combat force, can hire any race, work with any group that pays
Interests: Securing contracts and coin
Dislikes: Lack of coin
Drawbacks: Oftentimes must rely on others for plots
The Goal: To enable roles for combat-based PCs. Byn: To enable and facilitate the combat plots of others. Arm: To provide an answer to crime, as well as opportunities for patriotic combat and assist in Allanaki harsh flavor.
The Problem: Both are reactive, in that they rely on the actions of others (Byn: People who hire them, AoD: Criminals or templars initiating plots) to have opportunities, the limits of crime-code, and the lack of crime scale (generally 'criminal secretly used by templar' or 'we want them dead').
Possible Solutions (from Staff): Providing more things which to react to, in the case of the Byn. This could be rogue 'gickers (also beneficial to AoD), more dangerous trade routes (although the drawback is that Kurac may easily clear that up), or other such things. In the case of the AoD, such things would be useful as well. Additionally, providing a very different sort of opportunity could be useful (attempts at expansion?), although that would require the work to make the goal. Expanding the threats Allanak faces or depowering Allanak so that more threats posed a legitimate danger could also be helpful.
Kurac
Assets: Luirs (trade outpost), Fist's martial strength, spice, desert goods, tribe relations (sometimes), possible criminal connections, knowledge of rogue 'gickers (declared persons), warehouse for MMHs, can hire anyone (no race restrictions)
Interests: Expanding wares (desert gear, spice)
Dislikes: People trying to threaten their sovereignty (Allanak at times), people who try to interrupt business, gith
Drawbacks: Semi-iffy Allanaki status, less prestigious then other GMH
Kadius
Assets: Large variety of wares (clothing, furniture, drinks, catering, jewelry, aimed at high and low class), access to wood (primary in Morin's), access to higher political persons
Interests: Expanding wares, events that increase trade
Dislikes: People who try to interrupt business
Drawbacks: No real martial strength (no hunters), possibly harder to connect with very low society
Salarr
Assets: Armor, swords, primary supplier for combat characters, northern Salarri-only outpost
Interests: Expanding wares, conflicts that increase trade
Dislikes: People who try to interrupt business
Drawbacks: No real martial strength (no hunters)
The Goal: To provide mercantile-based opportunities (crafting, politics), with some conflict and competition
The Problem: There's not really any competition. The wares of any given Houses are carefully tailored to not overlap any others, all the treaties are designed to avoid House wars, and everything is pretty settled. The former goal was resource competition, but this has been outsourced (which indy group likes which House best). There's no reason to dislike anyone, because selling to them makes you money.
Possible Solutions (from Staff): Possibly doing something that allows for GMH reaction on an NPC level, similar to what was suggested for nobles. Basically, having NPC MMHs provide a source of conflict (stealing or reproducing designs, trying to undermine the House), and having to deal with that conflict politically (are the nobles going to support the NPCs for their lesser prices? Can their resources be undercut? Will the other GMH try to side with the underdog to undermine a different GMH?). However, the largest issue with the GMH is that they're too big to fail or see any real risks. Possibly drawing the nobles into conflict with GMH may work (perhaps an overlap in desires for goods/resources, for example Oash trying to acquire more brew opportunities, Fale deciding they want to do something with spice, or Borsail deciding they want to outfit their own gladiators). Basically, more reasons for conflict, in whatever form, especially which requires political or "social RP" solutions.
I think there's plenty of conflict, just not plenty of "significant" conflict. There's lots of little squabbles, minor disturbances, petty jealousies, moderate ladder-climbing toe-stepping conflict. But nothing that speaks "crunchy nuggets" in my mind.
There used to be HARD-CORE conflict, back in the day. Scary OMGWTF kind of conflict. But that was back when sorcerers were a thing, the HK was a thing, the Archives were a thing, the Red Fangs were a thing, so many things were a thing. It was those factions that created and drove the conflict, while everyone else scrambled to maintain or resolve the conflict.
People think that splitting up the population is bad - but we've condensed the population, and it's feeling more or less stagnant in terms of "hard-core conflict." Back "in the day," there were more clans, more spots to pop out of the Hall of Kings, fewer players - and yet - more conflict.
That's proof right there, as far as I'm concerned, that "close clans and condense player-base" does not equal "more conflict-based plots" and "keep crazy insane things open and available, if limited" does not equal "bad thinning of characters."
Open all that shit back up, and put caps on each of them. Make sorcerers - full-fledged head to toe sorcerers - a thing again. Maybe just no more than 2 at a time. Make it TEN karma so you can't even special app it til you have 7 karma. Or make it by invitation only as a fluff role. Or hell- make it a rule that at any given moment, someone on staff has to be playing a sorcerer role. You can pick straws to see who gets to play it.
But we really do NEED that kind of nitty gritty over the top significant conflict. We need someone WORTH chasing after, someone WORTH risking our citizenship and maybe our very lives in exchange for alliances and friendships with monstrosities loathed by everyone.
Toss in another Thrall...
Seriously. This is the kind of stuff I miss SOOOOOOOO much in Arm, that got me hooked in the first place. We don't need 24/7 of this stuff - but we really do need some of it back, at least on occasion.
I remember my 0-day warrior just traipsing around the Tablelands (... why? God, so newbie). Some "weird creepy guy" came up to me, and RP'd a bit, then started attacking me with something clearly magickal in nature. I almost killed him just because of stats and good combat rolls.
I later found out it was fucking Falcon. And I almost shit myself ICly and OOCly. That kind of weird shit doesn't "just happen" to my PCs (still doesn't).
Paying off Red Fangs. Hearing through a friend how they were basically battling a goddamned Dragon's Thrall. Columns of fire burning the undead. Clutches of mantis screeching and assaulting outposts at the behest of some ridiculous sorceror. Undead rising from Post-Flood Tuluk. Almost dying to Kust the blue eyed Halfling NUMEROUS goddamned times. That one time I had to fight wezer, got knocked out, and woke up -just- in time to escape as one of like 3 from the original 9 that went in.
Now? Well. I guess sometimes TWO spiders attack...
Ive not been here that long, about two or three years, and in my time here I have done some fairly badass things, but it was small scale badass. I once met a guy who was thrown from his mount afew times. We later found out it was all a joke organized by some bored nobles (memory is a little hazy, noble shenanigans were involved though), once had an -epic- dungeon crawl rp session.
But thats about all the insanely memorable stuff consists of that I can talk about(even in passing)
The thing is I too see a lack of conflict, I see lots of fun being had but no conflict, there is no repurcussion for doing something.
Recently a thing happened that icly made zero sense, people died and stuff happened. And there was no real repurcussion despite one side having both means and motivation to straight up WTFPWN the ever loving shit out of the other team. Im not talking he stole my sweet role conflict im talking 'holy shit why are lettingthese guys get away with this' conflict.
I havent seen a sorceror IG despite being around long enougg for them to have been a thing intheir full glory. Ivenever even had magick used on me offensively. Now I play characters who have a good knack for inflicting violence but not the disposition to do it, so I dont see raiding etc but I hearvery little about it even so, like too little considering the game world.
Nice post Taven.
I don't think there's any real answer to the "lack of real, meaningful, sweeping conflict" other than Staff intervening to drive it. Dragonthrall, sudden Tuluk invasion, spider rampage, gith assault, what have you.
There's not enough conflict of interest among PCs to drive conflict. A better source is to create an enemy that PCs, of multiple clans, have to unite against and overcome. If it can be made so that PC clans have secondary and conflicting goals, so much the better. The plot "We must overthrow the sorcerer, but make sure his magickal trinkets don't fall in to the hands of our allies-of-convenience" has more potential than "We must overthrow the sorcerer."
Massive conflict seems hard to sustain when minor conflict gets so ruthlessly stamped out.
Quote from: Delirium on December 01, 2016, 10:48:55 PM
Massive conflict seems hard to sustain when minor conflict gets so ruthlessly stamped out.
Indeed. Also, there've been nerfs and such to my understanding to skills that once would have saved your ass from massive conflict (potentially) so you at least stood a chance. Nowdays it's like, randomly spawned spiders/gith/what-have-you with RNG mega stats end tiny plots before they can turn into something bigger. It's the circle of ~liiiiiiife.
But damn is it depressing and embarrassing.
Quote from: Delirium on December 01, 2016, 10:48:55 PM
Massive conflict seems hard to sustain when minor conflict gets so ruthlessly stamped out.
Seriously. I had a mildly abrasive encounter with some rando in the middle of nowhere once, and next thing I know a fucking templar is all up in my business like EXPLAIN YOURSELF SCUM.
I've been witness to some pretty massive conflicts. Nothing long term, but definitely some crazy flare ups.
Quote from: 650Booger on December 02, 2016, 02:39:05 AM
I've been witness to some pretty massive conflicts. Nothing long term, but definitely some crazy flare ups.
Thats pretty much where I am at, my only issue is that things just die, there is just an ending and no real resolution to events
Quote from: Delirium on December 01, 2016, 10:48:55 PM
Massive conflict seems hard to sustain when minor conflict gets so ruthlessly stamped out.
Massive conflict isn't meant to be sustained, first of all. It's not something you'd want to have to deal with for a RL year. Perhaps a couple of RL months.
Minor conflict won't ever last all that long because it's easy to stamp out.
Compare your reactions:
An ant is crawling on your leg. You could let it crawl, it's just an ant, no biggie. But could just brush it off your leg - also - no biggie. But you'll probably kill it. Why? Because you can, and it's easy to do, and you're not fond of ants.
Now - you're surrounded by a pack of wolves. You can't let them close in, because they're ants. This is a biggie. You can't just chase them away - again - it's a biggie. You could try and kill them, but you'll probably get eaten alive unless you strategize - and FAST. It's not easy to do.
Now - there's an ant on your leg, AND you're surrounded by wolves. Do you really think you're going to give a shit about the ant crawling on your leg? You'll probably forget it's even there. It's insignificant.
Minor conflict is an ant crawling on your leg.
Significant conflict is being surrounded by a pack of wolves.
Minor conflict is your character's boyfriend having sex with a half-elf.
Significant conflict is a sorcerer leading a clutch of mantises to your outpost.
Easy to get the half-elf killed, or your boyfriend, or just tell your boyfriend to cut it out, or break up with him.
Not so easy to stop the mantises and kill the sorcerer.
This might go somewhere. I have some ideas:
1.) The risk/reward ratio for starting conflict is dismal, with way too much risk. Synth is talking about this with the "EXPLAIN YOURSELF SCUM" line; if you try and stir up conflict generally you will be crushed, even if the conflict is very minor, such as when you just happen to mess with the wrong player with lots of strong allies. Obviously, the ultimate risk is character death, which is extremely significant when you realize that it takes hundreds of hours ("5 days played") to even have a chance at being dangerous, so dying means starting from scratch with that. Obviously, this risk is less so with the addition of karma allowing for "character creation points," and giving us the ability to boost skills in places that allow us to skip some of that grind. But is that enough to offset the risk of starting conflict?
solutions: A.) Create further incentives for being a conflict-generating character by giving MORE CPP for certain roles. For example, create or re-open a conflict generating clan, one with lots of enemies such that you're practically hunted on sight from character creation onwards. To reward a player for choosing this despised role, give them like 5 extra CPP just to use for skill boosts so that they have very little grind and can start generating conflict immediately, and churn through PCs with moderate threat to the playerbase and stimulate some action.
B.) Create more clans/groups where the risk of dying from conflict is offset by strength in numbers. I recall the glorious Tuluk v Allanak conflicts with large scale battles, or patrols into enemy territory with groups of 5 or more, where injuries from archery or poison can be protected by the group's coordination. (Had a great time as a gemmed being dragged from combat unconscious by an AoD Lieutenant).
C.) Invent more conflict modalities that aren't necessarily lethal. I have to hand it to whoever is trying to start up Bloodball as a thing, as it's a good example of that. Also, political/economic conflict, as already suggested above, since the risk is "less economic influence" instead of "dying and starting all over."
What I DON'T want is to end permadeath... but maybe limiting it a bit more by bringing back ways players can cheat death... i.e., Nilazi.
Anyway, the point is that when the risk of making conflict is an immense inconvenience to the player, it discourages conflict.
I think it's interesting that most of the replies are aimed at combat-centered combat, and nearly all of them want some sort of external force to team up against.
Sure, the sorcerer is scary and we all want to kill him. But not all conflict is meant to be in reaction to external forces, and not all conflict is about joining together against the big baddie.
The game is supposed to be providing reasons that clans dislike and want to outdo each other. This can provide political conflict, which is better at scaling progressively over time then regular combat, especially if players are given a goal to obtain (or a range of goals, starting small and escalating).
Quote from: BadSkeelz on December 01, 2016, 10:48:48 PMThere's not enough conflict of interest among PCs to drive conflict. A better source is to create an enemy that PCs, of multiple clans, have to unite against and overcome. If it can be made so that PC clans have secondary and conflicting goals, so much the better. The plot "We must overthrow the sorcerer, but make sure his magickal trinkets don't fall in to the hands of our allies-of-convenience" has more potential than "We must overthrow the sorcerer."
I think your complexity of plots (allowing both internal and external conflict in reaction to the same event) is a good distinction.
However, I also think we should be examining why there's no PC interest in driving conflict with each other. As mentioned in my massive post, part of this (I feel), is a lack of things to react to or a lack of smaller conflict goals to focus on. This is something staff could provide.
But even if that was provided, would it help conflict? Or are PCs just extremely adverse to having any sort of disagreement and political maneuvering against each other? I'm curious on everyone's opinions.
Quote from: Synthesis on December 02, 2016, 02:29:57 AM
Quote from: Delirium on December 01, 2016, 10:48:55 PM
Massive conflict seems hard to sustain when minor conflict gets so ruthlessly stamped out.
Seriously. I had a mildly abrasive encounter with some rando in the middle of nowhere once, and next thing I know a fucking templar is all up in my business like EXPLAIN YOURSELF SCUM.
This is the other thing, too. Conflict generally doesn't have a lot of range. All too often it's "ignore them" or "BRING THEM IN LINE" or "MURDER THEM"!
I think it's easier to have conflict when you're part of a group with reasons to have political conflict, but even then I've literally seen some of the parties go "Let's just murder the other PCs until we get a replacement that will make a treaty we like".
That's pretty discouraging.
Also, if anyone actually quotes and responds to any of the ideas (goals/problems/proposed solutions), I will be both pleased and impressed.
I'd also be curious on people's thoughts about the specific solutions I proposed.
Hi Taven,
There's a lot to process in your post. Let's focus on the possible solutions:
NoblesQuote from: Taven on December 01, 2016, 09:47:44 PM
Possible Solutions (from Staff): Enabling conflict over smaller resources and goals, introducing something which all Houses would have an interest in obtaining. Destabilizing one of Allanak's NPC Houses and having the PC Houses have to try to undermine them to steal assets, or work with them to secure political favor. Introducing events that cause more conflict and trade (threatening of resources to force PC Houses to work together or work to undermine each other).
o Small-resources conflict plot. (Examples?)
o NPC House plot. (This makes sense, although I worry it'll just be a PC vs. staff RP, rather than PC vs. PC RP. That is, PCs would file reports, set up a time to negotiate with the NPC house, then negotiate. End of plot.)
o The third sentence -- not sure what you mean. Do you mean more conflict to generate more conflict, hehe!
TemplarsQuote
Possible Solutions (from Staff): One option would be to combine all the templars in to a single order that could do all things (war/trade/city), and have PC templars compete with each other for promotions. The other option is to provide more overlap, via having each Ministry do a primary thing and a secondary (War Ministry also does city building, City Ministry also does trade, Trade Ministry also does war), thus enabling one PC templar to do multiple things and increasing conflict.
I'm going to skip the templars. For me, the templars probably could just be stuffed into the AoD as leadership. Plus I don't really understand what's what.
Byn/AoDQuote
Possible Solutions (from Staff): Providing more things which to react to, in the case of the Byn. This could be rogue 'gickers (also beneficial to AoD), more dangerous trade routes (although the drawback is that Kurac may easily clear that up), or other such things. In the case of the AoD, such things would be useful as well. Additionally, providing a very different sort of opportunity could be useful (attempts at expansion?), although that would require the work to make the goal. Expanding the threats Allanak faces or depowering Allanak so that more threats posed a legitimate danger could also be helpful.
Here I have more to say, but from my experience in game this is also an area where conflict is the richest. My one suggestion is to design Byn/AoD plots (the meat and potatoes of Armageddon) in such a way that they could involve other clans. I remember once staff had a Byn plot where they came into the Rinth, and none (to my knowledge) of the Rinth PCs were ever included. I also remember once staff had a Byn plot where an NPC wayed someone in a clan affected. So more of the latter, less of the former.
o Rogue gickers. Yes. But really staff should be providing more succor to bad guys (bad guy clan 2017).
o Trade Route Dangers. Yes. But again, bad guy clan 2017.
o "Additionally, providing a very different sort of opportunity could be useful (attempts at expansion?), although that would require the work to make the goal." I can't parse this. Explain?
o External Allanaki threats. Yes. I've for some time wanted a threat present that every PC straight out of chargen (in Allanak) could include in their RP. The Tulukis were that.
GMHPossible Solutions (from Staff): Possibly doing something that allows for GMH reaction on an NPC level, similar to what was suggested for nobles. Basically, having NPC MMHs provide a source of conflict (stealing or reproducing designs, trying to undermine the House), and having to deal with that conflict politically (are the nobles going to support the NPCs for their lesser prices? Can their resources be undercut? Will the other GMH try to side with the underdog to undermine a different GMH?). However, the largest issue with the GMH is that they're too big to fail or see any real risks. Possibly drawing the nobles into conflict with GMH may work (perhaps an overlap in desires for goods/resources, for example Oash trying to acquire more brew opportunities, Fale deciding they want to do something with spice, or Borsail deciding they want to outfit their own gladiators). Basically, more reasons for conflict, in whatever form, especially which requires political or "social RP" solutions.
[/quote]
I would treat GMHs (now that they are without hunters) exactly like we treat Nobles in terms of conflict.
It boggles the mind. I can find conflict straight out of chargen, and usually do, just by being there, and it only continues to escalate, until the Synthesis scenario where it's like, huh? Is this really warranted? It's like, Rando somewhere, call them a stump and they're like U WOT M8!? And the next thing you know the Guild and half the noble houses are trying to crawl up your butt. Like, really?
Quote from: Taven on December 01, 2016, 09:47:44 PM
The Byn
Assets: Combat force, can hire any race, work with any group that pays
Interests: Securing contracts and coin
Dislikes: Lack of coin
Drawbacks: Oftentimes must rely on others for plots
The Goal: To enable roles for combat-based PCs. Byn: To enable and facilitate the combat plots of others. Arm: To provide an answer to crime, as well as opportunities for patriotic combat and assist in Allanaki harsh flavor.
The Problem: Both are reactive, in that they rely on the actions of others (Byn: People who hire them, AoD: Criminals or templars initiating plots) to have opportunities, the limits of crime-code, and the lack of crime scale (generally 'criminal secretly used by templar' or 'we want them dead').
Possible Solutions (from Staff): Providing more things which to react to, in the case of the Byn. This could be rogue 'gickers (also beneficial to AoD), more dangerous trade routes (although the drawback is that Kurac may easily clear that up), or other such things. In the case of the AoD, such things would be useful as well. Additionally, providing a very different sort of opportunity could be useful (attempts at expansion?), although that would require the work to make the goal. Expanding the threats Allanak faces or depowering Allanak so that more threats posed a legitimate danger could also be helpful.
I'll respond to this, as I've had a couple Byn Sarges before, and many of my combat-focused characters spend time in the Byn because "hey, they had 300 coins".
Byn is incredibly reactive to the needs of others, and it honestly isn't a main focus of many "leadership" PCs to come up with a goal that both satisfies their own needs AND utilizes a clan like the Byn. In fact, often times INVOLVING another clan like the Byn ends up with scheduling conflicts or diminished force size because of playtimes.
Allowing for Byn Leadership to run "their own" contracts once in a while is helpful, such as getting water from the Mantis Valley, or "someone" asking for a dozen gith skulls. These funds come out of a Sergeant's own pocket most of the time, which usually means the clan has to have already been doing well, and the Sergeant needs to know these things are possible.
IMHO, Byn is best when the client has a target in mind, has done "all the legwork" and just needs 5-6 strong arms to move in. In the classic example, Byn aren't particularly fans of going 'on a hunt', but they are more than willing to go 'with a hunter' who does all the work, and then just needs able bodies to fight. There are already "trade route" contracts that can be done, but few think to pay the Byn to keep them clear (What, you think the fact that there are no beetles in Storm is an accident?!). Even with the Fangs around, people would want to take a Trooper with them just so that 'someone' can be thrown at the enemy while the client gets away.
Unfortunately, just like the AoD, the T'zai Byn is a militaristic clan without a noted enemy. Byn wants coin, and if they find the opportunity, I'd expect them to shovel shit or work as rock haulers if the coin was right, its just that for a Mercenary to consider such low slave-style work, the coin better be worth the embarrassment.
What staff can do: Understand that 1-2 "big contracts" a year might net a trooper about a large in total, depending on size. A GMH Hunter (used to) gets about 400 a month. So to make being a Bynner "worth it", they should be making 1500 coins a year. Try to come up with some 'simple' contracts from the virtual world that normally go to a vNPC warband to supplement the slow times.
Be more clear on the "smaller" contracts that can be run, how they are run, etc. (You know the patrols I'm talking about). The onboarding process for a sponsored Sergeant shouldn't be -all- that different from a Promoted Sergeant, but it seems that Promoted Sergeants get the short end of the stick as far as onboarding information.
What players can do:Tell your staff in your weekly reports that you are struggling to find contracts, or Runners, or etc. Ask for advice. If they won't give it, ask to speak to your NPC Lieutenant for advice instead. They are far more likely to say "Get off your ass" than staff are, most of the time.
Come up with unique ways to serve the PC base. The Mercenary role that recently got put in is a great way to be a field aide to a Noble, or an extra caravan guard for a merchant hauling their wares. Not just for Byn PCs, but 'regular' PCs too, understand that not -every- Byn contract requires a Sergeant and 2000 coins. Do you -need- to make the full 5000 coins on this trip, or can you sacrifice a cut for realism, playability, and fun for another PC?
Allow the Byn to be the "gritty" mercenaries they are. Beating someone down in the streets shouldn't be a Templarate-level affair requiring more coin to bribe than should be received from the contract. Have more fights with people, demand duels and then hire a Byn to be your second. Byn aren't -assassins- but they'll kill someone for the right price (or should). Realize at their core, a Bynner wants to be rich, and filled with battlefield glory. Throw 50 coins at a Trooper and have them beat the ever loving piss out of a half-breed. Bynners, -offer- to do those things. BE gritty and harsh, refuse to move a muscle until coin is in the mix. Let Leadership roles deal with the Templarate/Law issues :)
Combat isn't the only form of conflict, but all conflict can escalate to become combat, therefore consideration into how combative conflict actually plays out is important. Lots of political intrigue will eventually include an assassination or maybe just the threat of it. Being able to properly defend against assassination attempts has to balance that threat or else nobody will care to stir up shit in the world.
Riev made an excellent post above. I think maybe removing some of the restrictions on Bynners that all business had to be done by a sergeant, giving mercenaries independence, is a lot of why this change was a good one. Similar removals of restrictions on interactive possibility is a good general rule that promotes conflict development
Massive conflict requires the right place, right time, right people. Right Staff, right Players.
Arbitrarily injecting Massive Conflict is just as bad as having no Massive Conflict, IMHO. Seeding in conflict to become a Massive Conclusion is what I think we, as players, enjoy the most.
Involving many different groups without it feeling forced is incredibly difficult, but I think should happen as often as possible. Pitting people against each other as enemy is a surefire way to escalate conflict.
I think the Byn has finally shifted away from 'we're all buds with each other'. Mercenary companies should be hired, split up, working for different people, killing people they trained with. This isn't a bunny hugging fluff ball of a world. Yes, people die, people fight people they don't want to, people maybe refuse to fight people they like and create more trouble for themselves. I always hated that the Byn was 'either working for Tuluk or Allanak', and either way, they fucked themselves politically. So dumb.
Conflict escalation is a careful process. I think we as a playerbase have reverted to Defcon 10 as the only answer, but it kills plots and conflict immediately.
I agree with Delirium -- If we can't manage to handle small scale conflict, how can we handle massive conflict? My answer, with the help of avid and willing Staff members who want to be the unseen guiding force. Staff really is the key to massive conflict, and without them, we are forced to wallow in minor conflict drama. When Staff took their foot off the pedal and said 'Player Initiated Plots Only', I couldn't think of a more boring time in the game. Now that they've committed to Staff Plots, and Player Initiated Plots, I think the world has resumed its dynamic course. It may take some time to really feel the effects.
So, I'm curious:
Do we or do we not want staff interfering? There's never any consensus on this and the opinion sways from one end of the pendulum to the other so drastically that it's hard to keep up... especially when the only board I ever frequent with regularity is OOC.
Isn't this is the point of having leaders in clans? To create plots? I thought that's why those roles had staff to support them and for staff to possibly run their own plots, which lately has been based off of PC in/action. (Like with the recent ball of fire in the sky and other things I've seen on a clan level.)
I don't know why these solutions in the original post are aimed only at staff. Isn't it kinda... leaders' jobs, too?
Quote from: boog on December 02, 2016, 11:51:24 AM
So, I'm curious:
Do we or do we not want staff interfering? There's never any consensus on this and the opinion sways from one end of the pendulum to the other so drastically that it's hard to keep up... especially when the only board I ever frequent with regularity is OOC.
Isn't this is the point of having leaders in clans? To create plots? I thought that's why those roles had staff to support them and for staff to possibly run their own plots, which lately has been based off of PC in/action. (Like with the recent ball of fire in the sky and other things I've seen on a clan level.)
I don't know why these solutions in the original post are aimed only at staff. Isn't it kinda... leaders' jobs, too?
I think that's a given -- But the people supporting leaders are Staff, so it ultimately draws back to Staff involvement. Leaders kick things up the chain to their Staff. Leaders can most assuredly create minor conflict, and sometimes even seed major conflict, but whether or not that seed grows into a major conflict is entirely up to Staff support.
That isn't to blame any of this on Staff -- I was against this 'survey' from the beginning, and I think it has skewed metrics to serve a opinion piece, as proven by Taven's few posts following the survey results. I think there is minor and major conflict abound, it's just a matter of finding it and stoking the flames.
Just like real life, you can step off into a big batch of conflict REAL QUICK without suspecting it was there.
The thing is ... if it can kill me then it's big conflict. It doesn't matter if it's a stronger-than-usual gortok prowling the road, or part of a giant sinister plot of the High Lord to breach Tuluk's walls and enslave all their people.
Dead is going to be dead. I'm just as satisfied with small plots that endanger me as I am with large, world-shattering plots. Maybe I'm a minority in that.
Quote from: Miradus on December 02, 2016, 12:27:14 PM
Just like real life, you can step off into a big batch of conflict REAL QUICK without suspecting it was there.
The thing is ... if it can kill me then it's big conflict. It doesn't matter if it's a stronger-than-usual gortok prowling the road, or part of a giant sinister plot of the High Lord to breach Tuluk's walls and enslave all their people.
Dead is going to be dead. I'm just as satisfied with small plots that endanger me as I am with large, world-shattering plots. Maybe I'm a minority in that.
No, I think you're right. Massive conflict (at least to me) is 'Incredibly Dangerous, Volatile Stuff Happening'. That can mean a Sewer RPT for the Byn, or a traipse about the Eastrook Mountains. Massive conflict (as it is referred to in this thread) I believe refers more to Global Scale Conflict. Involving multiple groups of people, and basically what we've termed "HRPT" Level conflicts.
Quote from: nauta on December 02, 2016, 09:06:50 AMQuote from: Taven on December 01, 2016, 09:47:44 PMNobles -
Possible Solutions (from Staff): Enabling conflict over smaller resources and goals, introducing something which all Houses would have an interest in obtaining. Destabilizing one of Allanak's NPC Houses and having the PC Houses have to try to undermine them to steal assets, or work with them to secure political favor. Introducing events that cause more conflict and trade (threatening of resources to force PC Houses to work together or work to undermine each other).
o Small-resources conflict plot. (Examples?)
Okay, examples pulled out of my ass time! Borsail and Oash hate each other, but they each have specific goals. An area of land opens up that the Templars want to grant to a House. Oash thinks it would be perfect for raising Ocotillo GM super food (that's Gemmer Modified for all you newbs) to make an even more awesome wine. However, Borsail has been working on a new slave breeding program where they breed elves and dwarves to make the fearsome new dwarelfs, which are of course perfect for gladiator events.
Now, only one of these two Houses can get this land. They have several options:
- Make offers to the templars, trying to outdo their opponent (PC templars can, meanwhile, try to further their own plots by demanding specific support)
- Undermine the powerbase of the other (Did Oash promise the templars wine batches? Well, let's see how that goes when I hire the Guild to sneak in and spoil it all!!)
- Work together... For the moment. (Oh, sure Borsail, you can take that half of the land... No, no, of COURSE there won't be 'gickery water spillage onto your side, not at all)
You get the idea. They both want the same thing, they have to think of ways to get it. Note that none of my examples includes murder. Murder is easy. Long-term ruining your enemy's capability to negotiate is much more difficult and rewarding.
Quoteo NPC House plot. (This makes sense, although I worry it'll just be a PC vs. staff RP, rather than PC vs. PC RP. That is, PCs would file reports, set up a time to negotiate with the NPC house, then negotiate. End of plot.)
Yes, they would file reports and set up times to negotiate. Let me pull an example out of my ass. Good ol' currently-NPC House Tor has hit on hard times. One of their training facilities is getting too expensive to maintain. House Fale wants to take the property and convert it into an epic party center. Borsail thinks that they can work with Tor to get better training for their gladiators, and may invest money to do so. Oash, meanwhile, is trying to decide if Tor can offer them more for their support (they really could use some martial support to secure their Ocotillo-growing locations) or if Fale can offer them more (they could secure all booze-selling rights at the new party center).
Well, staff is in charge of not just Tor, but of other areas as well. Tor may be motivated to negotiate and play both Borsail and Oash against each other, to make the sweetest deal. Kasix hates Borsail and may try to undermine their efforts (how does Borsail know this? Perhaps staff decides to pass a tip to Guild PCs and involve another clan and their interests). Negotiations take place IC, with staff playing the virtual Houses with the intent to build conflict in a reasonable way. PCs must think creatively and work within the overall picture, rather then merely simple PC-to-NPC negotiations.
There's ways to do this and make sure it's facilitating PC conflict. It just needs a combination of staff and player efforts.
Quoteo The third sentence: "Introducing events that cause more conflict and trade (threatening of resources to force PC Houses to work together or work to undermine each other)."
-- not sure what you mean. Do you mean more conflict to generate more conflict, hehe!
I mean a specific event that triggers things. Using an actual event this time, instead of something from out of my ass, something like "Copper is found in the Red Desert" is an example of an event that inspired conflict (IE, the Copper War).
QuoteQuoteTemplars - Possible Solutions (from Staff): One option would be to combine all the templars in to a single order that could do all things (war/trade/city), and have PC templars compete with each other for promotions. The other option is to provide more overlap, via having each Ministry do a primary thing and a secondary (War Ministry also does city building, City Ministry also does trade, Trade Ministry also does war), thus enabling one PC templar to do multiple things and increasing conflict.
I'm going to skip the templars. For me, the templars probably could just be stuffed into the AoD as leadership. Plus I don't really understand what's what.
Let me try to clarify for you. The Templars control all of Allanak. That has a lot of sub sections. The commonly-known templar groups (ministries) are: Trade, War, and City.
They each address pretty much what they're named for. The War Ministry handles soldiers and fighting. The Trade Ministry handles the trade aspect of things, including things like trade taxes. The City Ministry handles things like city planning and new construction. They don't always get along with each other, because oftentimes any given Ministry wants more power. This is designed to provide conflict.
However, a PC templar can only belong to one group. We have a max of 3 PC templars at any given time. If a templar is not around as often, it cuts off an entire portion of plot avenues. Even if all 3 templars are active, if one templar just doesn't like you, it still cuts off plot opportunities in the whole area. This is something that does not make for good conflict.
Changing how the Ministries worked to allow more overlap would provide PCs with more conflict options, both inner-Templar conflict and broader conflict.
Does that make a little more sense?
QuoteQuoteByn/AoD - Possible Solutions (from Staff): Providing more things which to react to, in the case of the Byn. This could be rogue 'gickers (also beneficial to AoD), more dangerous trade routes (although the drawback is that Kurac may easily clear that up), or other such things. In the case of the AoD, such things would be useful as well. Additionally, providing a very different sort of opportunity could be useful (attempts at expansion?), although that would require the work to make the goal. Expanding the threats Allanak faces or depowering Allanak so that more threats posed a legitimate danger could also be helpful.
Here I have more to say, but from my experience in game this is also an area where conflict is the richest. My one suggestion is to design Byn/AoD plots (the meat and potatoes of Armageddon) in such a way that they could involve other clans. I remember once staff had a Byn plot where they came into the Rinth, and none (to my knowledge) of the Rinth PCs were ever included. I also remember once staff had a Byn plot where an NPC wayed someone in a clan affected. So more of the latter, less of the former.
The Byn is often involved with the most plots because while relying on everyone else for involvement can be a disadvantage, it can also be an advantage. Literally anyone in the game can hire the Byn, so they can be involved in pretty much any plot that requires a fighting force. The downside, as mentioned, is that they often have to wait for others to be involved.
I think sometimes other clans are involved, and I can think of recent examples where the Byn faced severe challenges on a contract due to other groups' reactions. I agree that having more clans involved can make things interesting... Although sometimes also deadly.
Quoteo Rogue gickers. Yes. But really staff should be providing more succor to bad guys (bad guy clan 2017).
o Trade Route Dangers. Yes. But again, bad guy clan 2017.
I got into this a little in my Plot Thread (http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,51969.50.html), but one of the issues with "bad guy clans" is that it's... Very black and white interaction.
The goal of everyone else is to kill you. Once they kill you, they win. It doesn't take long for clans to team up and accomplish this. A raider clan would almost certainly face Kurac, AoD, and the Byn right off the bat, and be stomped swiftly and efficiently out of existence.
Allanak is all-powerful. I don't just mean militarily, I mean economically. All of the GMH are dependent on Allanak for trade. Storm (as a location) is dependent on Allanak for trade, certainly the Dust Runners are. The 'Rinth is a little uppity with their crime organization, but ultimately they rely on Allanak for trade as well. It is the nobles paying them protection money and hiring them to kill each other that is enabling them.
"Ahh, but Taven!" You might say. "What about the Pah? The Pah is not dependent on Allanak economically!". This is true. And those elves can also get pretty uppity. But they don't have the martial strength to seriously challenge Allanak. In terms of economics, they do have trade interests in Luirs, and again... Kurac is dependent on Allanak economically (even if they like to pretend they're not).
This used to be balanced out a little by Tuluk. It was an alternative city-state that also was a source of trade for GMH (and possibly still is). However, with the craziness going on inside, it's hard to say how much trade there really is. Staff does not actually know the answer to this question, as Tuluk is actually a giant vague undecided.
Anyways, my point is that a raider clan or Conflict Oriented Group has some pretty large hurtles to overcome.
Quoteo "Additionally, providing a very different sort of opportunity could be useful (attempts at expansion?), although that would require the work to make the goal." I can't parse this. Explain?
Everything is always attacking Allanak. Spiders, ghyrrak, other beast creatures too dumb to know better... What happens if Allanak decides it wants to attack? Now, as I've already outlined, Allanak is a pretty powerful force. So picking a plot it could devote all its resources to is just an assured success based on NPCs, and thus no fun.
But what if it was an exparimental process? Allanak has an interest in sending a limited number of forces (PCs, esesentially), out to conquer an area. They're not dead-set on it, so if the PCs fail, they leave it at that. If the PCs succeed, they increase Allanak's holdings (and perhaps spawn off some political resource plots for the nobles, as an added benefit).
The issue is that there's not really a lot of places to...you know...take over. It would require staff effort to make an area with someone that had a force actually worth taking over and securing. The Known is...well...already pretty well know, so new things can be difficult. Still, I think it could be an interesting sort of plot.
Quoteo External Allanaki threats. Yes. I've for some time wanted a threat present that every PC straight out of chargen (in Allanak) could include in their RP. The Tulukis were that.
You'd have to severely destabilize Allanak to have any current threat actually seem scary. Because... Allanak is too big to fail. It is the main PC hub. Nothing is going to be legitimately dangerous at this stage, the best you can hope for is interesting and diverting challenge.
Wouldn't it be fun if something awful happened and Allanak actually had something to be scared of for awhile?
QuoteQuoteGMH - Possible Solutions (from Staff): Possibly doing something that allows for GMH reaction on an NPC level, similar to what was suggested for nobles. Basically, having NPC MMHs provide a source of conflict (stealing or reproducing designs, trying to undermine the House), and having to deal with that conflict politically (are the nobles going to support the NPCs for their lesser prices? Can their resources be undercut? Will the other GMH try to side with the underdog to undermine a different GMH?). However, the largest issue with the GMH is that they're too big to fail or see any real risks. Possibly drawing the nobles into conflict with GMH may work (perhaps an overlap in desires for goods/resources, for example Oash trying to acquire more brew opportunities, Fale deciding they want to do something with spice, or Borsail deciding they want to outfit their own gladiators). Basically, more reasons for conflict, in whatever form, especially which requires political or "social RP" solutions.
I would treat GMHs (now that they are without hunters) exactly like we treat Nobles in terms of conflict.
The thing is that with a noble House, you're expected to politic. You have political standing and influence. Sure, GMH have some standing and obscene amounts of money (for whatever that's worth), but they also have a different set of goals. Those goals are namely linked to profit. The PCs that are allowed in GMH are now crafters and merchants (and soldiers if you happen to be in Kurac).
There's a big danger, IMHO, of the whole GMH system even feeling more like a system of repetitive vending machines. Nobles are not expected to ICly sell their wares to speak of (Oash perhaps a little, but PC slaves are forbidden, so that knocks out Borsail, and Fale doesn't have a trade, they just throw parties).
Noble House minions are typically aides, and thus involved in political maneuverings and plottings (ideally speaking). However, GMH minions are crafters who make stuff, purely utilizing coded skill for coded gain.
So what's the next step? I think it's exactly what you're suggesting. Let's look at GMH more like noble Houses in what they can do. Let's make them more deal-oriented, scheming for how to massively expand their wares.
And, perhaps, let's look at creating more overlap so there's more to gain and more to fight over. Because if we all have our own little niche and stay out of each others' way, where's the conflict in that?
Quote from: Riev on December 02, 2016, 09:37:20 AMI'll respond to this, as I've had a couple Byn Sarges before, and many of my combat-focused characters spend time in the Byn because "hey, they had 300 coins".
I didn't have a lot to add, but I did just want to say that I enjoyed your post. Great contributions! :)
Quote from: boog on December 02, 2016, 11:51:24 AM
So, I'm curious:
Do we or do we not want staff interfering? There's never any consensus on this and the opinion sways from one end of the pendulum to the other so drastically that it's hard to keep up... especially when the only board I ever frequent with regularity is OOC.
Staff control the virtual world.
If the general setting is feeling slow or without opportunities, they can make things happen in the world to give PCs something to respond to. This isn't saying that staff should control all plots, but they can provide an event, a seed, that players can react to and take off with.
Basically, this is a way to let players run the show, but also have staff enabling them by providing a starting point. Some PCs can come up with all their own conflict and don't need things in the world happening. For others, this can be extremely useful, especially if they're unsure of what to focus on next. It makes the world more vibrant and alive.
QuoteIsn't this is the point of having leaders in clans? To create plots? I thought that's why those roles had staff to support them and for staff to possibly run their own plots, which lately has been based off of PC in/action. (Like with the recent ball of fire in the sky and other things I've seen on a clan level.)
I don't know why these solutions in the original post are aimed only at staff. Isn't it kinda... leaders' jobs, too?
Yes, absolutely conflict and plots are also something that leaders should be involved in and also initiating. I would never argue against that; it would go against what Armageddon is.
That said, the world is set up a certain way. Ideally, the very way that the world is set up should be assisting in conflict, and generating opportunities for leaders. There should be things to compete over and things for gain. To some extent, there are.
However, this thread is looking at how to make that better. Specifically, by looking at the overall structure of how the game is actually composed, in terms of basic clan strengths, weaknesses, and conflict basis (dislikes of others). Because this is how the world itself is actually constructed, the suggestions are aimed at those who can change the overall picture. In other words, staff.
I want to better empower leaders to have conflict by taking a look at how we can make the very organizations they serve more competitive and conflict-prone.
Quote from: Reiloth on December 02, 2016, 12:08:05 PMThat isn't to blame any of this on Staff -- I was against this 'survey' from the beginning, and I think it has skewed metrics to serve a opinion piece, as proven by Taven's few posts following the survey results. I think there is minor and major conflict abound, it's just a matter of finding it and stoking the flames.
I have a challenge for you:
Instead of passive-aggressively complaining about me indirectly to another player in my own thread, have some respect for me. Tell me your opinions directly. Take a look at how I've said I think we can improve the questions for more accurate data, and tell me your suggestions. It's through feedback and working together that we make everything stronger--Be it a survey about the game, or the game itself.
Every bit of what you've said is very insightful, and I couldn't agree more. So much so, that I don't feel I can even add to more than a a topic or two, other than saying, once again, I agree. The path of least resistance in the system that's set up is cooperation, and most conflict, not all, is artificially drummed up. Any clan that is in conflict with Allanak has little chance of survival, and I think that's a key factor that needs to addressed in regards to conflict plots: Suspension of disbelief.
If anyone is going to play the antagonist to Allanak's protagonist, or more realistically, any individual clan based in Allanak, there's needs to be a perceived modicum of success. If your PC has above average wisdom, that perception just isn't going to be there, imho.
Quote from: Taven on December 06, 2016, 01:54:55 AM
Quote from: Reiloth on December 02, 2016, 12:08:05 PMThat isn't to blame any of this on Staff -- I was against this 'survey' from the beginning, and I think it has skewed metrics to serve a opinion piece, as proven by Taven's few posts following the survey results. I think there is minor and major conflict abound, it's just a matter of finding it and stoking the flames.
I have a challenge for you:
Instead of passive-aggressively complaining about me indirectly to another player in my own thread, have some respect for me. Tell me your opinions directly. Take a look at how I've said I think we can improve the questions for more accurate data, and tell me your suggestions. It's through feedback and working together that we make everything stronger--Be it a survey about the game, or the game itself.
It's honestly a lot of opinion to read.
My general feelings are: Conflict scale needs to be reduced. I think this is systemic with having a large city-state in which only a few aspects are played by PCs, and strata above them is occupied exclusively by NPCs/vNPCs. As the latter bit is in the realm of Staff, it can often feel like Leader PCs butt heads with Staff, not NPCs, and it just gets murky. Everyone tries to be as linear and copacetic as possible, but the heirarchy is basically:
Leader PC < Staff NPC above Leader PC < Staff NPC above that NPC, and so on.
Rather than raising the glass ceiling, i'd rather the game in general have a lower glass ceiling. I'd be a major proponent for smaller-scale outposts and villages rather than the bureaucratic complexity of a city-state. While I loved the complexity of Tuluk, and in part I like the complexity of Allanaki politics, it also seems at odds with the theme of the world most of the time. It's often difficult to find that gritty harsh world I first was exposed to when I began playing ArmageddonMUD.
It does feel like minor conflict gets squished out as quickly as possible, which in turn makes it seem that major conflict will either be fabricated by Staff, or fabricated by Leader PCs with a modicum of control and room for nemesis.
As I don't see Allanak disappearing anytime soon, and I don't imagine the game will suddenly shift to smaller Outposts and Villages, we have what we have. I don't think your suggestions are bad, I think they are astute. However I feel like the onus continually rests on Staff rather than Players, and I find that many PCs I interact with are either unwilling to take a chance on a new plot thread, or are content just being dramatic relationship-heavy PCs focused on very mundane, day-to-day soap opera plots. Obviously there can be IC reasons for this, but when we complain of stagnation, I feel the onus is on us as players to drive forward a sort of momentum. If we don't, how can we expect Staff to do it for us?
Your examples for Noble House conflict sounds good on paper, but having seen it play out in game, it tends to be a very 'top heavy' sort of conflict. It takes place in the request tool, and you don't typically see a lot of that conflict on the ground level. So to expand on your idea (Say of the plot of land):
The plot of land is in the Desert. The Templarate grants holdings of the land to both Borsail and Oash. It also leaves them to their own devices to figure out who keeps the land, or if the land will remain split, by any means necessary. This opens up the ability to politic (For the Nobles). It also opens up the possibility of combat encounters, declaring part of the land 'No Man's Land' for either side. (Hiring the Byn to patrol the land, both sides hire different units). This creates a pseudo 'Copper War' sort of engagement, where sides may have to get approval from Staff before going across enemy lines, but allows for bloody conflict as well as bloody politics.
I would just rather see unilateral plots that involve the Plebs and the Highborn, rather than it being one or the other as I often see. High-end Politics really only affect the players of that game, and the trickle is felt by the lower-downs. But I can think of nothing more boring than a Senate meeting, for example. It's a bunch of NPCs talking with a bunch of PCs in a closed environment, where 'big change' happens.
Anyways, I can go point by point later when I get home, if you prefer, Taven.
Oh, oh! Let's just blow everything up. A single surviving House (I choose Borsail) will run the ruins of Allanak, its players being mostly in charge. The Patriarch/Matriarch is selected by vote every 6 months and players vie for the top spot. Populations are greatly diminished and this House runs whatever it can with its few remaining resources - a hefty swath of Allanak's ruins being lawless. They'll have to actively work to enforce their will. They'll handle finances, securing supplies, and so on. Right now, it's all too top heavy and PCs feel utterly... uh, stuck by demi-gods and literal gods permeating every facet of the upper tier.
There's no such thing as gemmed in the new world and the few military holdings under Borsail control are actively sent to investigate and hunt magickers throughout the Known. They're a danger to everyone and will destroy what little is left.
By and large, the game would then center around outposts, PC groups, et cetera, and actually give meaning to mundane actions. Whereas right now, they're mostly pointless. A little like real life. If I orchestrated the destruction of a shipment of food, there could be an actual impact on the powers that be.
You wouldn't even have to change the post-apocalyptic landscape too much. Do an open call for description submissions from players to adjust sections of Allanak, erase Tuluk, and maybe cream some of Kurac's power. Voila.
Mmm. These are just dreamy ramblings about reduction, though. What were we talking about again?
For there to be massive conflict, you have to rule out the exclusivity of the plots that are feeding the conflict. It's alright to have secret-y side plots, but the driving theme should be known to all, and you shouldn't have to attend a special secret RPT at this chosen time, or be part of the in-group that knows what's up, it should be known to everyone, and have far reaching participation. I'd be impressed if we ever had a large scale conflict that drew in every single player on Arm. I feel at times, we've been very close.
Quote from: SuchDragonWow on December 06, 2016, 04:09:01 PM
I'd be impressed if we ever had a large scale conflict that drew in every single player on Arm. I feel at times, we've been very close.
I still like my idea of a massive demon invasion. ;D
I'm still for something happening with Tek's little... ah... sabbaticals wherein he leaves a pair of Black Robes in charge, who become rather contentious of the other one's plans. Allanak becomes a split city, with REAL West side vs East side troubles. Each side has its own view of how the city should be run, and the internal struggle that results leaves it in a more weakened state. It's an arc that could last a while, and is "easily deus ex Tektolnes" when he returns to find shit so disorganized that he vaporizes the two blacks, raises someone from the City Ministry and puts them in charge of bringing things together.
During this time, the Bagheads gather, and while Allanak seeks to put itself back together, the Thirteen Tribes of the Gol Krathu seek to destroy their enemy once and for all.
SuchDragonWow, I really do not find your conflict compelling. How can we get this shit on?
Quote from: Dunetrade55 on December 06, 2016, 06:46:48 PM
SuchDragonWow, I really do not find your conflict compelling. How can we get this shit on?
I'm not sure what you're asking.
Quote from: Taven on December 06, 2016, 01:14:20 AM
Quoteo Rogue gickers. Yes. But really staff should be providing more succor to bad guys (bad guy clan 2017).
o Trade Route Dangers. Yes. But again, bad guy clan 2017.
I got into this a little in my Plot Thread (http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,51969.50.html), but one of the issues with "bad guy clans" is that it's... Very black and white interaction.
The goal of everyone else is to kill you. Once they kill you, they win. It doesn't take long for clans to team up and accomplish this. A raider clan would almost certainly face Kurac, AoD, and the Byn right off the bat, and be stomped swiftly and efficiently out of existence.
Allanak is all-powerful. I don't just mean militarily, I mean economically. All of the GMH are dependent on Allanak for trade. Storm (as a location) is dependent on Allanak for trade, certainly the Dust Runners are. The 'Rinth is a little uppity with their crime organization, but ultimately they rely on Allanak for trade as well. It is the nobles paying them protection money and hiring them to kill each other that is enabling them.
"Ahh, but Taven!" You might say. "What about the Pah? The Pah is not dependent on Allanak economically!". This is true. And those elves can also get pretty uppity. But they don't have the martial strength to seriously challenge Allanak. In terms of economics, they do have trade interests in Luirs, and again... Kurac is dependent on Allanak economically (even if they like to pretend they're not).
This used to be balanced out a little by Tuluk. It was an alternative city-state that also was a source of trade for GMH (and possibly still is). However, with the craziness going on inside, it's hard to say how much trade there really is. Staff does not actually know the answer to this question, as Tuluk is actually a giant vague undecided.
Anyways, my point is that a raider clan or Conflict Oriented Group has some pretty large hurtles to overcome.
Well, here are some points in defense of a straight-up black-and-white raider clan:
o Combat in Armageddon tips towards the defender. It is very easy to get away. Hence, most of the conflict that will result from a raider clan will be brief encounters that get the heart thumping in the sands. Unless the opponent or the raider are crazy enough to stand their ground, it'll be a quick skirmish that'll generate a lot of interesting plots. (Assuming no poisons are involved, or magick, or muls/giants/delves involved.)
o I do think interesting plots will result. As I said elsewhere, death generates a lot of plots. Even pits do. I remember on my first few characters being in love with the idea of Borsail gladiators. There were, I think, two of them at the time (early 2014), and they were so flavorful. Then I heard they fell in a hole and died to gith. It really created the impression of a dangerous world, even though what likely happened was a typo off the shield wall.
o Raiders should expect short lives, but the clan should expect this too. It's a nice palette cleansing character between regulars.
o Raiders can also engage in diplomacy -- Kurac might harbor them, for instance.
o Ultimately, I wouldn't want raiding plots to replace other forms of more nuanced conflict. But I do think raiding plots can bring the world to life -- make trade routes dangerous, Byn missions dangerous, motivate patrols from Kurac and AoD.
o My model here is Hawk, a mul raider who loomed large in legend when I first started playing. I have no idea how Hawk played out in the game -- I just got the reports and rumors: from the legend that a Templar had his blade up north, to his double death, on down to his attack on some Bynners in the sands.
o Sure, you can roll up a raider. But a clan -- with all its benefits, including a hideout -- would make such characters more regular occurrences.
That said, there'd be a lot of restrictions. I think people rightly get upset at desert elf conflict, and I wouldn't want the clan to be desert elf. They're too good. Probably no dwarves or giants or gicks either: just straight up human-a-human.
Quote from: Reiloth on December 06, 2016, 12:13:46 PMIt's honestly a lot of opinion to read.
I think clearly accusing me of intentionally skewing my efforts and using them to support my own opinions is a hard thing to wave away as "a lot of opinion to read". Certainly you seem to have a very assertive opinion about it. I would still encourage you to evaluate and comment on my data collection, which I readily admit could be improved. But please comment in the appropriate thread (http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,51969.0.html) where I actually use that data.
QuoteMy general feelings are: Conflict scale needs to be reduced. I think this is systemic with having a large city-state in which only a few aspects are played by PCs, and strata above them is occupied exclusively by NPCs/vNPCs. As the latter bit is in the realm of Staff, it can often feel like Leader PCs butt heads with Staff, not NPCs, and it just gets murky. Everyone tries to be as linear and copacetic as possible, but the heirarchy is basically:
Leader PC < Staff NPC above Leader PC < Staff NPC above that NPC, and so on.
The power arrangements in Allanak are extremely top-heavy and geared towards NPCs. This is part of the reason why I think taking the whole city's power level down wouldn't be a bad thing for players. With less top-heaviness and less power in the hands of NPCs, it would give more power and more responsibility to PCs. It would provide more room for upwards mobility. I think that could be a really good thing.
QuoteRather than raising the glass ceiling, i'd rather the game in general have a lower glass ceiling. I'd be a major proponent for smaller-scale outposts and villages rather than the bureaucratic complexity of a city-state. While I loved the complexity of Tuluk, and in part I like the complexity of Allanaki politics, it also seems at odds with the theme of the world most of the time. It's often difficult to find that gritty harsh world I first was exposed to when I began playing ArmageddonMUD.
Honestly, I'm glad we don't have lots of small-scale villages. It sounds like Red Storm x20. Storm is very harsh and gritty, but it's also very empty. There's not a lot to do there and there's limited opportunities. One of the great things about a larger city is that there are a lot of different opportunities, and different groups all in one space. In theory, this helps to creat conflict.
However, I also think we're too squished together right now. I think that having only/mainly internal conflict as an option is making things too stifeling. There was a lot more conflict and plot going on before Tuluk closed, even though the playerbase was more spread out.
QuoteIt does feel like minor conflict gets squished out as quickly as possible, which in turn makes it seem that major conflict will either be fabricated by Staff, or fabricated by Leader PCs with a modicum of control and room for nemesis.
Yes, it does feel like most conflict is immediately and aggressively killed. There's an overwhelming idea in the playerbase that if you kill off all the PCs in a given clan, the threat will go away. This may not be true, virtually speaking, but it does lead to a very powerful set of old PCs who can repeatedly kill off any new PCs who dare cross them.
I think the solution is something similar to what you suggest. Essentially, you could have two leaders who were set up with the intention of making scaling conflict. People who weren't afraid to go at each other, but also tried for outdoing or sabotoge instead of straight out death. In other words, Allanak needs its own version of Raleris and Dragean.
QuoteAs I don't see Allanak disappearing anytime soon, and I don't imagine the game will suddenly shift to smaller Outposts and Villages, we have what we have. I don't think your suggestions are bad, I think they are astute. However I feel like the onus continually rests on Staff rather than Players, and I find that many PCs I interact with are either unwilling to take a chance on a new plot thread, or are content just being dramatic relationship-heavy PCs focused on very mundane, day-to-day soap opera plots. Obviously there can be IC reasons for this, but when we complain of stagnation, I feel the onus is on us as players to drive forward a sort of momentum. If we don't, how can we expect Staff to do it for us?
Well, there's a few reasons why I think larger-scale or more complex plots with PCs are exceedingly difficult:
1. Plots can easily be halted by staff/NPCs (sometimes it can be hard to tell if it's an obstacle or a "NO")
2. Plots can easily be halted by other players (perhaps they are too busy with their own relationship dramas)
3. Plots can easily be halted by a lack of dependable minions (you have to wait for the right people to be able to do it)
If there are leader PCs who are pursuing no plots and not involving minions, what is to be done? Many underling PCs are not willing to assassinate their superiors, due to clan loyalty. I have said it before, but I will say it again:
It is oftentimes better not to attempt plots at all, because plots require risk, effort, and have a high chance of failure. Doing nothing means you can outlive everyone and watch your enemies fail.This needs to change. There need to be more rewards for pursuing plots and conflict. There needs to be more downside to doing nothing. How do we change this? Staff control the NPC leadership of clans. They can encourage appropriately. Staff also control many of the events in the world, which can lead them to introduce more rewarding conflict. Staff decide when PCs get promoted to the next level, and how a House thinks a PC is doing.
Basically, what we need is more opportunities and encouragement for PCs to pursue plots. If we make conflict something that is desirable and something to be gained from, if we have situations where the reward is worth the risk, then we may see more players taking chances.
QuoteYour examples for Noble House conflict sounds good on paper, but having seen it play out in game, it tends to be a very 'top heavy' sort of conflict. It takes place in the request tool, and you don't typically see a lot of that conflict on the ground level. So to expand on your idea (Say of the plot of land):
The plot of land is in the Desert. The Templarate grants holdings of the land to both Borsail and Oash. It also leaves them to their own devices to figure out who keeps the land, or if the land will remain split, by any means necessary. This opens up the ability to politic (For the Nobles). It also opens up the possibility of combat encounters, declaring part of the land 'No Man's Land' for either side. (Hiring the Byn to patrol the land, both sides hire different units). This creates a pseudo 'Copper War' sort of engagement, where sides may have to get approval from Staff before going across enemy lines, but allows for bloody conflict as well as bloody politics.
I'm not really seeing the drawback to any of this.
QuoteI would just rather see unilateral plots that involve the Plebs and the Highborn, rather than it being one or the other as I often see. High-end Politics really only affect the players of that game, and the trickle is felt by the lower-downs. But I can think of nothing more boring than a Senate meeting, for example. It's a bunch of NPCs talking with a bunch of PCs in a closed environment, where 'big change' happens.
Well, we obviously differ a lot, because I think Senate meetings sound fascinating. You have all of the political manuvering ahead of time from the PCs to try and make sure that they push their side through. You have the possibility, as a House or GMH affilitated commoner, of being in attendance. If staff wanted to, they could even allow for crazy things such as PCs making speeches to try and sway either side from the senate floor itself! That sounds wonderful to me.
Sure, there's no combat-related conflict in that portion of a senate plot... That doesn't mean it couldn't come later. Of course, not all conflict needs combat, either. Some people just love political and economic plots.
QuoteAnyways, I can go point by point later when I get home, if you prefer, Taven.
I am always happy to evaluate and address any thoughtful points people bring to the table.
Quote from: Raptor_Dan on December 06, 2016, 06:39:08 AMEvery bit of what you've said is very insightful, and I couldn't agree more. So much so, that I don't feel I can even add to more than a a topic or two, other than saying, once again, I agree.
I appreciate you taking the time to read and comment! :)
QuoteThe path of least resistance in the system that's set up is cooperation, and most conflict, not all, is artificially drummed up.
Any clan that is in conflict with Allanak has little chance of survival, and I think that's a key factor that needs to addressed in regards to conflict plots: Suspension of disbelief.
If anyone is going to play the antagonist to Allanak's protagonist, or more realistically, any individual clan based in Allanak, there's needs to be a perceived modicum of success. If your PC has above average wisdom, that perception just isn't going to be there, imho.
There's an overwhelming OOC knowledge that as the main city, Allanak is too big to fail and the last remaining large PC population center. In that regard, I agree that a suspension of disbelief is definitely required.
But that's not the only answer. There have been opportunities in the past when we saw massive virtual unrest against the city, riots on the street, commoners burning things down. If PCs had wanted to, they could have tried to take advantage and been a part of that, working to try and overthrow the city-state.
The problem is, nobody really wants to play the doomed rebel in the sorcerer-dominated city-state. People would rather play the loyalist and Allanaki die-hard. They want to be on the winning side.
So part of the answer perhaps lies not in the suspension of disbelief, but also in the willingness to make a PC with goals that would seem to many to be utterly insane. To play someone who wants to do what we see OOCly as impossible. Only by trying can there ever be any success.
Quote from: Taven on December 06, 2016, 07:50:00 PM
Allanak needs its own version of Raleris and Dragean.
It won't do us any good. It won't do us any good. It won't do us any good.
No, really.
The difference looks something like this:
You know what it takes to be an effective noble? Be chosen by staff and let into the game. From there on out, you can at once spend your time pursuing your wishes, bribing, scheming, funding operations, doing whatever you want. Effectively speaking, you're at full potency from level one on out.
And what it takes to kill our noble? Lots. Some very strong PC's who can distract/kill his bodyguard as well as the noble himself. The money to hire those people willing to do that. Some way of catching your noble off-guard and not in a safe place, which for a noble includes most of the city. Contacts to make sure his death doesn't cost you your head.
That's what it takes for a noble. Let's look at what it takes for the noble's heavies now.
What it takes to be an effective heavy? It depends. If you're a pickpocket, you can expect to have mastered steal in about a hundred hours of your real life time. For your stealth skills to develop fully, you can look at easily five times that, given the way your branchings work. Burglars have it a little easier, but assassins need a way to train up backstab, which is a silly skill and requires much time also. I've neglected all mention of weapon skills for these guilds, which are infamously hard to train and won't reach master, ever, unless you go well out of your way to do so. Even so, the thing where you're fully capable of doing your own thing the moment you come out of chargen
just doesn't apply.What it takes to get rid of the heavy? It really depends on what you're trying to do, and who you are. If you're a rival noble? Pocket change and a friendly favor from a templar. If not? Some more money still and a favor owed. The noble's heavies do not have personal bodyguards. The noble's heavies can be arrested, will go into unsafe areas, have less status, are far more likely to face trouble. If any of them ever rents an apartment and uses it, they can be killed in there anyday.
So, really, you can have all the awesome nobles you want. You can have the most excellent cadre of roleplayers with the most interesting ideas you'll ever read about.. But as long as playing a noble's pawn takes several times over more time than playing the actual guy in charge does, Armageddon can't and won't stop being top heavy.
I say get rid of PC-nobles entirely, and have the plots they currently generate instead be allowed to come from hired Aides.. Aides would need to get these plot ideas approved by their Noble employer (i.e. staff, so functionally the same as what we have to deal with now).
The con of course is some staffer would have to occasionally sit in a noble NPC and hire someone to act as their hands, eyes, and brain.
The pro is that hired PCs are more readily disposable if they prove unproductive.
Just chiming in after Patuk's post to point out that all the things I had mentioned about why dying is a discouraging factor for making conflict is really a core issue here. As Patuk describes, it takes hundreds of hours to build up any PC capable of meaningful antagonism, and not much work at all to kill them off. Therefore conflict avoidance is the best way to survive and continue to RP your concept. See my original post if interested in some ways we can mitigate the fear of death and promote conflict in the face of heavy losses.
Quote from: nauta on December 06, 2016, 07:07:07 PMWell, here are some points in defense of a straight-up black-and-white raider clan:
o Combat in Armageddon tips towards the defender. It is very easy to get away. Hence, most of the conflict that will result from a raider clan will be brief encounters that get the heart thumping in the sands. Unless the opponent or the raider are crazy enough to stand their ground, it'll be a quick skirmish that'll generate a lot of interesting plots. (Assuming no poisons are involved, or magick, or muls/giants/delves involved.)
Until the attackers use the track skill to trail them back to their lair and kill them all.
D-elves are generally immune to this because their hideouts are hard to get to and they have enough NPCs to offset it, which you could argue could apply to a raider tribe... But I think that ultimately, this would only lead to AoD/Byn/Kurac making a large, massive group and then tackling completely wiping out the hideout. It would probably be a single RPT. (Yes, I am horribly pessimistic when it comes to this sort of a thing)
Quoteo I do think interesting plots will result. As I said elsewhere, death generates a lot of plots. Even pits do. I remember on my first few characters being in love with the idea of Borsail gladiators. There were, I think, two of them at the time (early 2014), and they were so flavorful. Then I heard they fell in a hole and died to gith. It really created the impression of a dangerous world, even though what likely happened was a typo off the shield wall.
Sometimes death can generate plots, sure. I am not sure the deaths of raiders will generate plots (other then the initial plot that was used to kill them). Certainly raiders could help create an impression of how dangerous the world is, and could lead to more people getting hired (Byn/Kurac/whatever), but my concern is that it may not be viable to keep up, long-term. If raiders kill people, that could generate plots against the raiders, but only until they are all wiped out.
Quoteo Raiders should expect short lives, but the clan should expect this too. It's a nice palette cleansing character between regulars.
I think this could actually be a solid argument. I remember back in the day when you could store your regular PC to play gladiators at the big events, and then go back to your PC when the event was over. While I wouldn't recommend that approach for a raider clan because of potential conflicts of interest, I do agree that it might be nice to play a "flavor character" between roles. Just something completely different, a throw-away that could cause some excitement for others.
Quoteo Raiders can also engage in diplomacy -- Kurac might harbor them, for instance.
They might have their work cut out for them, but I think that there could be some wheeling and dealing that could occur if people looked for it--Be it with Kurac, or someone else.
Quoteo Ultimately, I wouldn't want raiding plots to replace other forms of more nuanced conflict. But I do think raiding plots can bring the world to life -- make trade routes dangerous, Byn missions dangerous, motivate patrols from Kurac and AoD.
I think you'd need a really responsible group of PCs (on the part of the raiders) to make for good, solid conflict. I also think it would need to be well thought-through if it was to be something that was to be a lingering source of conflict (as I previously mentioned my pessimistic misgivings). I do agree that it could make the world seem more dangerous and give the combat clans more to do, however, which would be a good thing.
Quoteo My model here is Hawk, a mul raider who loomed large in legend when I first started playing. I have no idea how Hawk played out in the game -- I just got the reports and rumors: from the legend that a Templar had his blade up north, to his double death, on down to his attack on some Bynners in the sands.
o Sure, you can roll up a raider. But a clan -- with all its benefits, including a hideout -- would make such characters more regular occurrences.
This is sort of crazy, but going off of Hawk... Is there anything actually stopping anyone from making a silt crew/raider clan MMH based out of Storm? That would obviously require a lot of IC build up (which a staff-condoned clan would not), but is it actually a currently viable option?
QuoteThat said, there'd be a lot of restrictions. I think people rightly get upset at desert elf conflict, and I wouldn't want the clan to be desert elf. They're too good. Probably no dwarves or giants or gicks either: just straight up human-a-human.
I think half-giant raiders could be fine if done properly. I remember stories of one half-giant raider who would stop people and demand like... 20 sid or something like that. Or he'd demand more and wouldn't be able to count it. I suppose he was on his own, though, and having a human behind a half-giant makes them a lot more dangerous.
What are your thoughts as to how a raider clan could ever possibly compete with long-lived skill-maxxed PCs like those who inhabit clans like Kurac?
QuoteBut I think that ultimately, this would only lead to AoD/Byn/Kurac making a large, massive group and then tackling completely wiping out the hideout.
This isn't even without precedent; a few such RPT's happened right in 2014, as the 'rinth rumor board actually noted until some months ago.
Quote from: Patuk on December 06, 2016, 08:07:56 PMYou know what it takes to be an effective noble? Be chosen by staff and let into the game. From there on out, you can at once spend your time pursuing your wishes, bribing, scheming, funding operations, doing whatever you want. Effectively speaking, you're at full potency from level one on out.
Actually, you're not at full potency right away. Why? Because you're just some random guy with a title. You have no minions yet. You have no positive relations yet. You have a House name, a lot of coin, and some goals. What you don't yet have is the way to realize those goals. Let's not underestimate the amount of work it takes to actually build connections that allow you to accomplish things.
QuoteWhat it takes to be an effective heavy? It depends. If you're a pickpocket, you can expect to have mastered steal in about a hundred hours of your real life time. For your stealth skills to develop fully, you can look at easily five times that, given the way your branchings work. Burglars have it a little easier, but assassins need a way to train up backstab, which is a silly skill and requires much time also. I've neglected all mention of weapon skills for these guilds, which are infamously hard to train and won't reach master, ever, unless you go well out of your way to do so. Even so, the thing where you're fully capable of doing your own thing the moment you come out of chargen just doesn't apply.
You're comparing coded skills to IC influence and connections. These things are completely different.
I've seen assassins who had coded worked on their skills and were good at what they could do... But they had nobody who was trying to utilize them. They had nobody who was working with them on plots. They wanted to be a bad-ass minion, but there were just no leaders who tried to take advantage of them. It was pretty sad.
I've also seen assassins who took the time to skill up and managed to link up with a leader player who needed them and utilized their skills. Assassins who were able to make the IC influence connections they needed to actually take their coded use and put it to RP/Plot use. Now those guys, they're the scary ones.
QuoteSo, really, you can have all the awesome nobles you want. You can have the most excellent cadre of roleplayers with the most interesting ideas you'll ever read about.. But as long as playing a noble's pawn takes several times over more time than playing the actual guy in charge does, Armageddon can't and won't stop being top heavy.
Nobles exist to facilitate plots. They exist to find and use minions to their advantage. Finding minions is a pain in the ass for nobles, especially good and reliable ones. Nobles can't accomplish a lot of what they want to do directly, that's why they need minions. And more, they need to be able to keep minions thoroughly entertained while they collect them. This is pretty difficult.
Yes, getting skill competency in Armageddon is difficult. More skilled people better enable plots. I don't think somehow blaming nobles as the root of all evil is the answer, however.
I also think you missed the point of my post, which was to say that Raleris and Dragean had long-term, escalating conflict that didn't end in the assassination of either one (though they may have been tempted). It was a conflict that wasn't immediately squashed out, but rather was kept at a steady, burning hate over years. I think we could use more nobles who actively hate each other, put but that hateful energy into plots against each other... And let's be clear, this was no subtle behind the scenes hate. This was an open hate in the forefront, which commoner PCs could choose sides on or try to manipulate.
Quote from: Taven on December 06, 2016, 08:24:19 PM
What are your thoughts as to how a raider clan could ever possibly compete with long-lived skill-maxxed PCs like those who inhabit clans like Kurac?
o Give them a hideout in a place in the known other groups aren't supposed to go to, for lore reasons. The Canyons of Waste, the Canyons in the Tablelands. If no lore reason exists, make one up. But in short, put their hideout somewhere secure so AoD or Kurac couldn't just go there on a whim (nor could they hire a war party of Soh to clear them out either).
o Simply make others unable to enter the hideout. The hideout would be: a long twisting multi-branching canyon. Only those in the clan can enter / exit. Plots wouldn't involve wiping the hideout out, but the conflict from the raids.
o Finally, the raider would entertain the AoD and the Kurac by raiding people around them -- the lumberjack on the north road, the grebbers in the salts, etc.
The 'track' thing is an important problem. Gicks are the other big problem.
Quote from: Taven on December 06, 2016, 08:40:39 PM
Actually, you're not at full potency right away. Why? Because you're just some random guy with a title. You have no minions yet. You have no positive relations yet. You have a House name, a lot of coin, and some goals. What you don't yet have is the way to realize those goals. Let's not underestimate the amount of work it takes to actually build connections that allow you to accomplish things.
You're at full potency
to pursue these things, which is all you need. An assassin with zero skill saying hi to a noble is going to get laughed off, or at best hired as an aide to hit on tressies a bit. The henchman has to train skills
and work on politics.
Quote from: Taven on December 06, 2016, 08:40:39 PM
You're comparing coded skills to IC influence and connections. These things are completely different.
I've seen assassins who had coded worked on their skills and were good at what they could do... But they had nobody who was trying to utilize them. They had nobody who was working with them on plots. They wanted to be a bad-ass minion, but there were just no leaders who tried to take advantage of them. It was pretty sad.
I've also seen assassins who took the time to skill up and managed to link up with a leader player who needed them and utilized their skills. Assassins who were able to make the IC influence connections they needed to actually take their coded use and put it to RP/Plot use. Now those guys, they're the scary ones.
Yes, this is true. It still is also true that a henchman needs freaking ages to become halfway competent.
Quote from: Taven on December 06, 2016, 08:40:39 PM
Nobles exist to facilitate plots. They exist to find and use minions to their advantage. Finding minions is a pain in the ass for nobles, especially good and reliable ones. Nobles can't accomplish a lot of what they want to do directly, that's why they need minions. And more, they need to be able to keep minions thoroughly entertained while they collect them. This is pretty difficult.
Yes, getting skill competency in Armageddon is difficult. More skilled people better enable plots. I don't think somehow blaming nobles as the root of all evil is the answer, however.
I also think you missed the point of my post, which was to say that Raleris and Dragean had long-term, escalating conflict that didn't end in the assassination of either one (though they may have been tempted). It was a conflict that wasn't immediately squashed out, but rather was kept at a steady, burning hate over years. I think we could use more nobles who actively hate each other, put but that hateful energy into plots against each other... And let's be clear, this was no subtle behind the scenes hate. This was an open hate in the forefront, which commoner PCs could choose sides on or try to manipulate.
I don't think nobles are the root of all evil. I don't think people who play nobles are worse or better than others.
I
do think the difficulty in playing a minion is a problem, as well as the death rate such characters have. If you don't address that, scheming is going to work out for nobody at all.
Quote from: Harmless on December 06, 2016, 08:22:31 PMJust chiming in after Patuk's post to point out that all the things I had mentioned about why dying is a discouraging factor for making conflict is really a core issue here. As Patuk describes, it takes hundreds of hours to build up any PC capable of meaningful antagonism, and not much work at all to kill them off. Therefore conflict avoidance is the best way to survive and continue to RP your concept. See my original post if interested in some ways we can mitigate the fear of death and promote conflict in the face of heavy losses.
I apologize for missing your original post and not responding to it. I'll attempt to rectify that now.
Quote1.) The risk/reward ratio for starting conflict is dismal, with way too much risk. Synth is talking about this with the "EXPLAIN YOURSELF SCUM" line; if you try and stir up conflict generally you will be crushed, even if the conflict is very minor, such as when you just happen to mess with the wrong player with lots of strong allies. Obviously, the ultimate risk is character death, which is extremely significant when you realize that it takes hundreds of hours ("5 days played") to even have a chance at being dangerous, so dying means starting from scratch with that. Obviously, this risk is less so with the addition of karma allowing for "character creation points," and giving us the ability to boost skills in places that allow us to skip some of that grind. But is that enough to offset the risk of starting conflict?
I agree that there's a lot of risks to starting conflict and not a lot of rewards in comparison. Even with the risk of death aside, there's the risk of political setbacks and disappointments.
If I recall correctly, staff (within the last year?) did take a look at revising how combat worked. Essentially, they make it easier to get to a level of moderate competency. I don't know what people's personal experience with this is.
For me, the thought of losing a PC really isn't so much about a dread of needing to put in lots of hours skilling up, but the dread of losing them as a character, and losing their IC non-skill-based accomplishments. I'm not sure if that's a unique quirk to me or something other people also worry about.
Quotesolutions: A.) Create further incentives for being a conflict-generating character by giving MORE CPP for certain roles. For example, create or re-open a conflict generating clan, one with lots of enemies such that you're practically hunted on sight from character creation onwards. To reward a player for choosing this despised role, give them like 5 extra CPP just to use for skill boosts so that they have very little grind and can start generating conflict immediately, and churn through PCs with moderate threat to the playerbase and stimulate some action.
My concern here is that you would see a lot of twinks abusing this system, purely for the pleasure of codedly killing people. I've seen a lot of people ignore documentation in favor of power (I can be a tribal and use the bank and love 'sid! All my friends are magickers!), and I have reservations about giving people more coded power in a role where their goal could well be just killing PCs. This could possibly be mitigated by making a conflict-clan karma-regulated, or the like, but that would probably also yield complaints of unfairness.
QuoteB.) Create more clans/groups where the risk of dying from conflict is offset by strength in numbers. I recall the glorious Tuluk v Allanak conflicts with large scale battles, or patrols into enemy territory with groups of 5 or more, where injuries from archery or poison can be protected by the group's coordination. (Had a great time as a gemmed being dragged from combat unconscious by an AoD Lieutenant).
Is there an advantage to having PC vs PC conflict in large-scale battles? The advantage of staff assisting with the enemy is that they can better tailor the NPCs to match the skills of the PCs, for more balanced combat in general. They can also avoid piling on all the attacks on a single person (PCs may not do this).
It also allows for combat scaled over time (such as a war), since generally it avoids completely decimating an entire PC group (although not always, as we often see with the Byn).
QuoteC.) Invent more conflict modalities that aren't necessarily lethal. I have to hand it to whoever is trying to start up Bloodball as a thing, as it's a good example of that. Also, political/economic conflict, as already suggested above, since the risk is "less economic influence" instead of "dying and starting all over."
Players have a habit of turning most types of conflict lethal. I've seen economic conflict turn lethal, even, as PCs decided that the best way to get what they wanted was just to try to kill off all the leader PCs in the opposing clan.
However, it doesn't have to be this way. The only real way to change it is for us as players to re-evaluate what calls for lethal conflict and what calls for escalation. The problem is usually that whoever jumps to lethal first "wins". We need a way to fix that, where while murder can be a solution, it's not always the best or most appealing solution.
QuoteWhat I DON'T want is to end permadeath... but maybe limiting it a bit more by bringing back ways players can cheat death... i.e., Nilazi.
Anyway, the point is that when the risk of making conflict is an immense inconvenience to the player, it discourages conflict.
I think some of that "immense inconvienance" isn't even the risk of a PC dying (althiugh that's part of it), but just the sheer amount of player time and effort it takes to actually try to make a plot happen. In my personal experience, about 80% of the time that effort is completely wasted and nothing ever comes of it (not even that you die, but that you're unable to pursue the goal at all). That's a pretty dismal rate, and it's pretty depressing to constantly be unable to pursue plots/conflict.
Quote from: Patuk on December 06, 2016, 08:54:50 PMI do think the difficulty in playing a minion is a problem, as well as the death rate such characters have. If you don't address that, scheming is going to work out for nobody at all.
What are your proposed solutions?
Quote from: nauta on December 06, 2016, 08:52:24 PMo Give them a hideout in a place in the known other groups aren't supposed to go to, for lore reasons. The Canyons of Waste, the Canyons in the Tablelands. If no lore reason exists, make one up. But in short, put their hideout somewhere secure so AoD or Kurac couldn't just go there on a whim (nor could they hire a war party of Soh to clear them out either).
o Simply make others unable to enter the hideout. The hideout would be: a long twisting multi-branching canyon. Only those in the clan can enter / exit. Plots wouldn't involve wiping the hideout out, but the conflict from the raids.
o Finally, the raider would entertain the AoD and the Kurac by raiding people around them -- the lumberjack on the north road, the grebbers in the salts, etc.
The 'track' thing is an important problem. Gicks are the other big problem.
Putting their hideout in a hard-to-get to area would certainly help, although again, it would probably just delay things until "Team Good" could put together a group to assault the area. While there could be ways around this (making it atop cliffs, etc), there would also be solutions (like gemmers, they are the solution to most outdoor challenges).
Making others unable to enter the hideout could have its own problems. Namely that it could make any conflict against the group seem ultimately pointless. In effect, the PC raider clan would just become the new gith. You have to periodically kill them all off, but there's no real plot drama because they can't be gotten rid of.
I suppose a possible solution could be to make the hideout mobile. Basically, a series of tents that could be packed up and moved. While this might have coded challenges, it would mean that the work required by "Team Good" would be higher. They would have to try and figure out where the raiders would be relocating to.
You could also make it so that if ANY of the raider clan escaped (NPCs, vNPCs), they could rebuild. Or perhaps that they have a fallback point to regroup. Essentially, making it harder for a single strike-force team to take them out. It would have to be considered more, but it might be a possibility.
QuotePlayers have a habit of turning most types of conflict lethal. I've seen economic conflict turn lethal, even, as PCs decided that the best way to get what they wanted was just to try to kill off all the leader PCs in the opposing clan.
However, it doesn't have to be this way. The only real way to change it is for us as players to re-evaluate what calls for lethal conflict and what calls for escalation. The problem is usually that whoever jumps to lethal first "wins". We need a way to fix that, where while murder can be a solution, it's not always the best or most appealing solution.
I find it altogether appealing, and I find the repeated assertion that conflict isn't meant to be resolved to be kind of a hosh posh assertion. I get killed sometimes. I kill sometimes. Sometimes I deserve to be, and don't. Sometimes I should kill, and don't. The fear of death is the entire point of a permadeath game, and if you start telling people conflict should purposefully avoid it, then you're wrong.
No, you don't need to kill someone for calling you a bad name at the bar. No, you shouldn't think that every person on Zalanthas is reasonable as far as 'measuring out' what deserves death and what doesn't. The game-old practice of calling people's boots comes rooted from the sentiment of 'life is cheap'. I don't think you're actually taking into account what that means; life is not valuable on Zalanthas.
And for the billionth time, killing someone does not do an injustice to the game. It actually plays a very integral part -of- the game. I'm not saying that we're a proving grounds mud, but I do indeed get tired of posts repeatedly put up that frame things in such a way that you're admonishing people for actually resolving conflict rather than just letting it go. Conflicts end, new ones grow. The insistence that every conflict has to go on for aeons and develop into something else is not accurate. It's arguably -boring- to have the same players in the same conflict for too long.
Arguably. Which is really the point of this entire post. You're asserting things in your visualization of how things should be that are incredibly arguable. I admire long-lived, rich PC's who left a pile of bodies on their way to the grizzled top, running the gauntlet of life, a lot more than a guy who can give long winded explanations about how things happened but didn't actually happen, but them and another player played it that way or how many times they communicated with staff to get a thumbs up on a cool story.
QuoteThe risk/reward ratio for starting conflict is dismal, with way too much risk.
...you mean the risk of death in a permadeath game? I don't follow you. There are plenty of low risk endeavors, but they certainly don't pay off like big risk endeavors. I don't know what you mean by the risk/reward ratio being off. Rewards for taking risks are pretty damn high, even if you just find a way to brag about the badass thing you did to the right people and land a reputation off of it.
As far as the raiding group topic, you guys keep pretending Blackmoon never existed. If a raiding group has staff support, you can send whole clans at it all you want; it won't cease to exist until the staff agree that it will. It's the advantage of a staff-run clan versus a player-group. You're splitting way too many hairs on it, and not realizing this is a game. If you want to have a sponsored antagonist force, it will exist.
We've all been completely okay with this not really being a sandbox that we can do whatever we want in for a long time, I'm not sure why this topic in particular is being reduced down to all the inconsistencies that every other clan would be subject to. Make a raider clan, support it, and it won't be wiped out as long as it has a staffer. That's...how the game works.
Quote from: Taven on December 06, 2016, 09:10:11 PM
Quote from: Patuk on December 06, 2016, 08:54:50 PMI do think the difficulty in playing a minion is a problem, as well as the death rate such characters have. If you don't address that, scheming is going to work out for nobody at all.
What are your proposed solutions?
Depends. How invasive do we want to get?
Random list o' results for the benefit of assassins, thugs, thieves, toughs, and other ne'er do wells:
Make the Arm less ubiquitous. Make it more obviously corrupt and uninterested in crime. Increase the rift between templars and nobles. Nerf magick(already happened, cities are safe as fuck). Discourage death. Have staff tell survivors who was behind some attack. Make the city-based grind less tough. Have characters start out stronger.
Really, if you're
absolutely sure you want to solve this, staff can animate gangs of angry relatives and lynch any person who is too trigger-happy. It'd be very top-driven, entirely subjective, and draw much ire from many people. It'd also work better than anything I have suggested, so there's that.
It's not a subtle solution, but it's
a solution.
What about de-emphasizing (combat) skills? A large part of the risk-aversion is people not wanting to lose their stats and skills that make their characters effective. Stats and skills which they've probably invested dozens or hundreds of hours in. It's not the sole reason people fear losing their characters, but I wager it's a big reason. Fuck, it's the main reason I don't store my long-lived-but-now-dull combat PCs.
If all combat classes came out of the box effective (everyone's a 30 day warrior, 20 day ranger, etc.) we have less to lose. Maybe we'll more willingly throw away our characters in conflict.
Let badasses and leaders earn their gravitas by being good leaders, through smarts and charisma and luck. Not simply by living the longest and sparring the hardest.
Armageddon counter-strike. Let's fucking do it.
To taven's last reply to me:
1.) As to the combat changes; I don't notice any significant difference yet. Learning may be better, I dunno. I don't min-max the skillgaining as much as I did when I first played 7 years ago and was arguably more obsessed with skillbuilding. But I did notice sleight of hands takes significantly longer to advance the other day, but besides that things seem similar.
1a.) I am also referring to the political gains a character makes as a bad thing to lose. The skills are kind of step one, though, for combative characters. So when your next Bynner, just about 1 year in or so, is killed pretty much instantly by a staff-spawned NPC or monster, it is a major bummer, because at that point your character was codedly powerful enough to "get the job done" and accomplish meaningful tasks.
2.) The familiar cycle of concern that twinks will abuse power --> karma can be used to restrict twinks --> concerns of favoritism. I agree this is a balance that needs careful monitoring and tweaking to remain fair but while giving players who have earned trust that they roleplay consistently a time saver to both reward them for consistent roleplay and understanding of the gameworld while also remove some of the burden of building a character, both codedly (boost CPP) and in terms of their clout (open more roles with strong antagonistic potential).
What I would also say is that a lot of the nostalgia that I see posted about, logs with player instigated plots and the like, there is a familiar thread of karma being more "meaningful" back in the day, with the power balance being more tipped in favor of those with karma. They had more political power also, such as Senior Agents (no longer available) and of course, red robes. Back then there may have been cries of favoritism, but did it stop people from playing? Maybe if they kept landing on the losing side of the staff "favorites" but they could always roll up their next character to work FOR your now dead character's enemy, since all sides of the conflict were open for players to join. Now the character who orchestrated your death is someone you work for. This may have been harder to do in the case of sorceror, nilazi, or similarly "bad" characters, but I remember many times dying to a Templar or The Arm for example and then later getting a special thrill out of joining that same clan and "seeing the other side of the curtain." If I have the ability to switch sides like this then it's not as concerning to me that some players, especially leaders who have accrued clout and other means of power, may be getting additional perks from staff.
3.) There are definitely advantages to PC to PC conflict. For one, see above; if your nemesis is a player, then you only have another player to blame. Solution? Get other players to help you overwhelm them, or join that player's side.
If it's PC vs Staff, sure the conflict will be balanced (and arguably, more predictable and boring), but if you wanted to switch sides... nope. Can't. Can't be a Tuluki anymore. Can't join a raider clan that will last more than one HRPT (gith).
Secondly, PC to PC conflict generates more unpredictable interlinked character networks. Staff have to animate NPCs to make them do stuff, and that takes time and is limited. A player, who is motivated, can network with 50 other players in a month. A staff may animate enough to interact with 4 players regularly, and most of those will be inner-circle players.
Conflict is unpredictable if you have an ace in the hole nobody's aware of. This is something one can do through interacting with the complex, diverse group of character backgrounds we have. Staff won't be able to do this without basically being players.
Another reason conflict has stagnated is that the diversity of character backgrounds has decreased.. true, you can still make a Warrens born Tuluki. But they can never enter Tuluk and gain any favor from their citizenship again, so players will not be rolling them often. Therefore fewer people play Tulukis.. suddenly, everyone in Allanak who "knew a few people in Tuluk" no longer has that element to add to the plot. Interactions between the citystates would often have interesting consequences on a plot that seemingly only occurred in one city.
The rest of your points I agree with. It's depressing that people only have the wherewithall to instigate plots 80% of the time and conflict needs to turn lethal less often. Hopefully through more brainstorming... and perhaps the rethinking of a few "permanent" staff decisions, which definitely do not need to be permanent much like the staffers that made them are not, will help things get a bit more interesting again on the large scale.
Quote from: Taven on December 06, 2016, 08:40:39 PM
Nobles can't accomplish a lot of what they want to do directly, that's why they need minions. And more, they need to be able to keep minions thoroughly entertained while they collect them. This is pretty difficult.
I'm not trying to nitpick here, but I disagree. Not with the need of minion but with the notion that you need to entertain your minions as a noble. I've played an aide many, many times. I think (personally) that the best aides are self-starters who generate their own plots, and that the best nobles I've seen and their relations with their aides had a sort of synergy where the noble isn't working to entertain the minion, the minion entertains themselves, but instead, the noble engages the minion by incorporating some of the minions plots into their own machinations and designs. At least personally for me, that has been some of the best noble/minion RP I have found, and kudos to the people behind those nobles. They know who they are.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on December 06, 2016, 09:38:10 PM
What about de-emphasizing (combat) skills? A large part of the risk-aversion is people not wanting to lose their stats and skills that make their characters effective. Stats and skills which they've probably invested dozens or hundreds of hours in. It's not the sole reason people fear losing their characters, but I wager it's a big reason. Fuck, it's the main reason I don't store my long-lived-but-now-dull combat PCs.
If all combat classes came out of the box effective (everyone's a 30 day warrior, 20 day ranger, etc.) we have less to lose. Maybe we'll more willingly throw away our characters in conflict.
Let badasses and leaders earn their gravitas by being good leaders, through smarts and charisma and luck. Not simply by living the longest and sparring the hardest.
I like this idea, if for no other reason than that the longest lived combat pc I've had in about 9 years of playing next month, was 27 days played, and they got reel-locked by a carru and died.
QuoteLet badasses and leaders earn their gravitas by being good leaders, through smarts and charisma and luck. Not simply by living the longest and sparring the hardest.
That's already how it is. Coded skills have nothing to do with being a good leader or an acclaimed/admired character in the game. They do, however, make you useful to those people, who may or may not engage in the grind themselves depending on the character, and they do draw attention and make you a concern if you start drifting towards the other 'side' of a conflict already in place.
QuoteWhat about de-emphasizing (combat) skills? A large part of the risk-aversion is people not wanting to lose their stats and skills that make their characters effective.
That's been talked about before, but it's inherently flawed, because it ultimately just moves the starting line forward. People still compete to be ahead in the race, and in the process of using this approach to try and fix it, you just throw the whole world's balance of skills/starting levels out of whack. Everyone being able to kill scrab effortlessly out of the box might sound appealing, but that's just taking the risk aversion to another level. Instead, just acknowledge that if you have fear of losing progress keeping you from doing exciting things in the game...no amount of switching things around in the game is going to change that aside from changing us into a MUSH, where progress is easily come by and the risk of losing it is low.
Choosing the seat farthest away from the game to sit in while you compose yourself while planning to move up when you're ready is fine. But this is turning into forgetting that you're choosing that seat and hating the view, but complaining that when you move up you lose your seat back there, and that we should change the layout of the stadium to fix it. (And when I say you, I don't mean you, Skeelz, I'm using 'you' in the generic sense). When you choose to play low-conflict styles, you're going to have a hard time finding conflict.
I...do -not- have a hard time finding conflict. At all. Even when I'm actively trying to avoid it.
QuoteSecondly, PC to PC conflict generates more unpredictable interlinked character networks.
That's what I'm talkin' about. I'm doubting you and me are on the same side in this topic, Harmless, but hopefully I'm not getting the above out of context. The more we drift into a cooperative nature, and the less willing we are to keep that healthy respect/fear for the fact that other players can and will choose to end your plot sometimes, the less exciting as a whole the game will be. I don't think drastic changes in the game itself are needed to combat that. I think that's common sense for what the game is. There are huge boons to us acknowledging that I think you're a cool dude on the GDB, but in the game we may very well kill each other. No hard feelings man, but I had this thing going on and you purposely made yourself an obstacle (on the flipside, that person would be saying 'I have my things going, and what you already have going is an obstacle').
Again, not a proving grounds mud, but the best conflict in the game is brought about by every player just trying wholeheartedly to play their character, and if that character wants to leave a footprint, do what's in that character's interest. Because that's what the character would do.
On a sidenote...I am not against there being more plots, more conflicts, more storylines, etc.
But I don't think talking about how non-aggression and less skills is even remotely necessary to that task, nor do I think the game is set up in a such a way to prevent conflict as it stands. I think we, the players, are pretty responsible for conflict and lack of conflict, not the game.
Quote from: Armaddict on December 06, 2016, 09:28:36 PMI find it altogether appealing, and I find the repeated assertion that conflict isn't meant to be resolved to be kind of a hosh posh assertion. I get killed sometimes. I kill sometimes. Sometimes I deserve to be, and don't. Sometimes I should kill, and don't. The fear of death is the entire point of a permadeath game, and if you start telling people conflict should purposefully avoid it, then you're wrong.
You say, "the fear of death is the entire point of a permadeath game". Well, okay, if that's the entire point, then people are doing what they should. They are avoiding any and all conflict because they are avoiding any and all risk of death.
If the entire point of a game is fear of death, then nothing ever gets done, period. People are simply too afraid and unmotivated to do anything.
QuoteAnd for the billionth time, killing someone does not do an injustice to the game. It actually plays a very integral part -of- the game. I'm not saying that we're a proving grounds mud, but I do indeed get tired of posts repeatedly put up that frame things in such a way that you're admonishing people for actually resolving conflict rather than just letting it go. Conflicts end, new ones grow. The insistence that every conflict has to go on for aeons and develop into something else is not accurate. It's arguably -boring- to have the same players in the same conflict for too long.
If you think I'm advocating for no killing ever, then you clearly didn't read my post. What I did advocate for is a better scale. Things shouldn't be black and white, where black is INSTA DEATH NOW and white is SMILE AND BE FRIENDS. If you want to kill people, that can be a valid solution. But let's please stop trying to make it the only solution.
As things stand, there is a player habit of turning to murder as the first and best option to avoid all other conflict and risk. Because this is the first thing people turn to, all too often people will not take any risks at all. They will not make any conflict at all.
Let's vary up our responses a little, shall we?
QuoteArguably. Which is really the point of this entire post. You're asserting things in your visualization of how things should be that are incredibly arguable. I admire long-lived, rich PC's who left a pile of bodies on their way to the grizzled top, running the gauntlet of life, a lot more than a guy who can give long winded explanations about how things happened but didn't actually happen, but them and another player played it that way or how many times they communicated with staff to get a thumbs up on a cool story.
Most cool stories aren't "things started getting somewhat annoying, so I decided to stab the other guy first". Most cool stories involve enemies, and plots, and sure they may include murder... But how often does a cool story have murder as the first action taken?
QuoteQuoteThe risk/reward ratio for starting conflict is dismal, with way too much risk.
...you mean the risk of death in a permadeath game? I don't follow you. There are plenty of low risk endeavors, but they certainly don't pay off like big risk endeavors. I don't know what you mean by the risk/reward ratio being off. Rewards for taking risks are pretty damn high, even if you just find a way to brag about the badass thing you did to the right people and land a reputation off of it.
You're not actually quoting my post anymore, just so you know. I did agree with that poster, however, that risk/reward ratio is off. As previously stated, I'm not saying all risk is death. Risks can be political disappointments and wasted effort as much as anything else. It's so hard to get much of anything done in this game that I think a lot of people have simply given up trying.
QuoteAs far as the raiding group topic, you guys keep pretending Blackmoon never existed. If a raiding group has staff support, you can send whole clans at it all you want; it won't cease to exist until the staff agree that it will. It's the advantage of a staff-run clan versus a player-group. You're splitting way too many hairs on it, and not realizing this is a game. If you want to have a sponsored antagonist force, it will exist.
I'm not sure when Blackmoon was open, but it may well be before I started playing, and I've been playing a little under a decade. I think a lot of people in this thread are newer to the game then I am.
QuoteWe've all been completely okay with this not really being a sandbox that we can do whatever we want in for a long time, I'm not sure why this topic in particular is being reduced down to all the inconsistencies that every other clan would be subject to. Make a raider clan, support it, and it won't be wiped out as long as it has a staffer. That's...how the game works.
I think you're reducing the topic a lot there as well. In my opinion, a raider clan should be fully considered, not dismissed as merely existing as long as it has a staffer.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on December 06, 2016, 09:38:10 PMLet badasses and leaders earn their gravitas by being good leaders, through smarts and charisma and luck. Not simply by living the longest and sparring the hardest.
Why isn't this already true, though?
I'm serious. If right now we have leaders who are leading purely because they have lived the longest and sparred the hardest, are we really emphasizing the right things?
Maybe the answer isn't changing the skill levels of everyone, but changing the promotion standards of everyone. Maybe you have to accomplish things besides living a long time and sparring a lot to be a leader. Maybe you have to actively be trying to pursue plots to be promoted.
If our standards were more about trying to make a difference via conflict and plots, isn't that really the best way to improve the game, regardless of skill level?
Quote from: Taven on December 06, 2016, 10:06:14 PM
They [sc. players] are avoiding any and all conflict because they are avoiding any and all risk of death.
I know this is a bit of hyperbole, but I think the above statement is wrong for two reasons.
(1) As a matter of fact, I, like Armaddict, do see a lot of conflict (some lethal, some quality and long term) in the game right now. Could we see more conflict and better conflict? Sure. Are some staff doing that right now and others maybe not? Sure. This gets back to what Reiloth said, and what I discussed with the poll: bless your heart for making a poll and putting in the work, but I'd be hesitant to take much take-away from the poll for the reasons I outlined in another post (which even then the data doesn't support it).
(2) The 'because' clause can't be right either. I'm not sure why some players avoid conflict, but presumably it's because people are different and play the game for different reasons: some want to make pretty things, some want to tell stories, some want to go on adventures, etc. Moreover, there's the passive vs. active player -- a lot of players are passive (or sometimes passive) and look to others for their activity.
In any case, I think it's a good conversation to be had in general -- it might motivate players and staff to look at the kinds of conflict going on and how they can make conflict more interesting.
Quote from: Harmless on December 06, 2016, 09:44:12 PM3.) There are definitely advantages to PC to PC conflict. For one, see above; if your nemesis is a player, then you only have another player to blame. Solution? Get other players to help you overwhelm them, or join that player's side.
I specifically meant in large conflict scenarios. Basically, when you have two opposing armies and a handful of PCs. You can completely crush and murder each other in a single conflict, which drops one side all the way to 0. It doesn't seem like a good way to sustain long-term combat conflict such as a war.
QuoteIf it's PC vs Staff, sure the conflict will be balanced (and arguably, more predictable and boring), but if you wanted to switch sides... nope. Can't. Can't be a Tuluki anymore. Can't join a raider clan that will last more than one HRPT (gith).
Well, again, I was looking at it in terms of staff assisting in large-scale conflict. So instead of having a PC vs PC single battle, you'd have PC Team A fight NPC Team B. This would allow for more skirmishes and the like, or perhaps even just evening out the odds (PC Team A fights NPC/PC Team B).
QuoteSecondly, PC to PC conflict generates more unpredictable interlinked character networks. Staff have to animate NPCs to make them do stuff, and that takes time and is limited. A player, who is motivated, can network with 50 other players in a month. A staff may animate enough to interact with 4 players regularly, and most of those will be inner-circle players.
Well, again, I was looking at large-scale combat conflict. A player can make one PC and work their skills up for awhile... When they're dead, they start over. Staff can make a lot of NPCs of varying skill levels which can help make combat more interesting and challenging.
QuoteConflict is unpredictable if you have an ace in the hole nobody's aware of. This is something one can do through interacting with the complex, diverse group of character backgrounds we have. Staff won't be able to do this without basically being players.
In my large-scale combat example, the staff NPCs would be helping round things out to support player efforts, rather then taking the place of them. Players would still have to consider strategy, etc etc.
QuoteAnother reason conflict has stagnated is that the diversity of character backgrounds has decreased.. true, you can still make a Warrens born Tuluki. But they can never enter Tuluk and gain any favor from their citizenship again, so players will not be rolling them often. Therefore fewer people play Tulukis.. suddenly, everyone in Allanak who "knew a few people in Tuluk" no longer has that element to add to the plot. Interactions between the citystates would often have interesting consequences on a plot that seemingly only occurred in one city.
I agree that the closure of Tuluk closed off a lot of opportunities for conflict. Most especially because it was the only foil Allanak had; nothing can even come close to Allanak's military might in the current day and age. That's why I'm all for making something awful happen to depower Allanak and make the rest of the world more of a risk. Or, alternatively, we could just reopen Tuluk.
QuoteThe rest of your points I agree with. It's depressing that people only have the wherewithall to instigate plots 80% of the time and conflict needs to turn lethal less often. Hopefully through more brainstorming... and perhaps the rethinking of a few "permanent" staff decisions, which definitely do not need to be permanent much like the staffers that made them are not, will help things get a bit more interesting again on the large scale.
I was actually saying that if you try to accomplish 10 plots, 8 will fail, sometimes before you can even get anywhere with them. The other 2 may achieve some limited degree of success; results will vary. I would argue that only 10% of all attempted plots actually achieve a true degree of success. (When I refer to plots, I mean ones that are changing the game in some way, not just throwing a party or pursing relationships).
What "permanent" staff decisions are you referring to?
Quote from: bardlyone on December 06, 2016, 09:53:49 PM
Quote from: Taven on December 06, 2016, 08:40:39 PM
Nobles can't accomplish a lot of what they want to do directly, that's why they need minions. And more, they need to be able to keep minions thoroughly entertained while they collect them. This is pretty difficult.
I'm not trying to nitpick here, but I disagree. Not with the need of minion but with the notion that you need to entertain your minions as a noble. I've played an aide many, many times. I think (personally) that the best aides are self-starters who generate their own plots, and that the best nobles I've seen and their relations with their aides had a sort of synergy where the noble isn't working to entertain the minion, the minion entertains themselves, but instead, the noble engages the minion by incorporating some of the minions plots into their own machinations and designs. At least personally for me, that has been some of the best noble/minion RP I have found, and kudos to the people behind those nobles. They know who they are.
I agree that the best minions will be self-starters, and the best leaders will provide their minions the support to pursue their own goals. However, there are also a lot of minions are not that way. There are minions that look to their leaders to engage them and keep them involved and active (IE, entertain them).
QuoteYou say, "the fear of death is the entire point of a permadeath game". Well, okay, if that's the entire point, then people are doing what they should. They are avoiding any and all conflict because they are avoiding any and all risk of death.
If the entire point of a game is fear of death, then nothing ever gets done, period. People are simply too afraid and unmotivated to do anything.
This is misconstruing the statement. The statement says that you, the player, are avoiding risky situations and thus not enjoying the game by diving into conflict out of fear that you could lose your character, or lose your plot, as a result. So instead, you play passively. However, the in-character world, while risk-averse, necessitates some brutality...unless everyone is doing the same thing, which is what we've come to and is now being discussed.
Drawing a line between those two dots isn't what the statement was about, which I think you understood just fine and wanted to say something witty and turn-against-you like.
QuoteIf you think I'm advocating for no killing ever, then you clearly didn't read my post. What I did advocate for is a better scale. Things shouldn't be black and white, where black is INSTA DEATH NOW and white is SMILE AND BE FRIENDS. If you want to kill people, that can be a valid solution. But let's please stop trying to make it the only solution.
It isn't the only solution. Other solutions are come to often in the game. I experience them often. I use them often. As a matter of fact, there are often things that occur that are small escalations, over and over, until someone dies, and then that is often portrayed as the only escalation that happened. That is what I'm combatting here, is the simplification of the game to 'Everyone just kills everything and it's not fun!'
That's not true. It's not remotely true. People do die, and people do kill each other. But as noted, this is not a proving grounds.
QuoteAs things stand, there is a player habit of turning to murder as the first and best option to avoid all other conflict and risk. Because this is the first thing people turn to, all too often people will not take any risks at all. They will not make any conflict at all.
...are you actually asserting that jumping into combat with people with political connections and combat skills is -avoiding- risk? That setting up assassinations is risk free? Because that's what I was saying to you; resolving conflict is not bad. Not bad at all. If conflicts are engagements between you and another force with differing goals or ideologies, resolution is kind of the point.
I played a character recently where I warred with a faction and people got dead. But strangely enough, it actually de-escalated after that, when we agreed that pushing it further was unneeded. It wasn't 'winning', it was agreement to get off each other's toes and end the conflict. That's not impossible in the game, and it happens, and just because it isn't constantly happening in every conflict, or even most of them, doesn't mean the game itself or its mechanics need shifting to cater to non-aggression better.
QuoteMost cool stories aren't "things started getting somewhat annoying, so I decided to stab the other guy first".
Most stories in the game don't go that way either. This is a gross hyperbole that keeps coming up. Sometimes you make enemies, sometimes you don't, but the vast majority of the time, I do not see this jump that you're describing.
QuoteMost cool stories involve enemies, and plots, and sure they may include murder... But how often does a cool story have murder as the first action taken?
Against a main character? Almost never. But I think you're assuming that because you're involved and got killed, you were a main character. Sometimes you're just an accessory in another story, or the beginning or detail of another conflict. Just because you're the main character in your story doesn't make you a main character in all stories.
My assassin killing a noble from house snot-nose because he said the wrong thing seems out of sorts, until you find out that said assassin has ties with a group who that noble has been conflicting with for a long time and they've been complaining about him. That noble wasn't shit to the assassin, he was just another notch of good faith with that other group to get what he needs out of them. Not a main character in his story. Just a main character in yours.
QuoteYou're not actually quoting my post anymore, just so you know.
I'm well aware. At some point, I might sit down and start actually putting full quote tags instead of clicking the neat button.
QuoteRisks can be political disappointments and wasted effort as much as anything else. It's so hard to get much of anything done in this game that I think a lot of people have simply given up trying.
This is true. But that's not often what's talked about these threads, which is why I always come in opposing; I've not averse to anything you're talking about aside from the oft-taken stance that conflict should not often escalate to violence. I think a lot of what makes things escalate faster than people are ready for is when it goes from a passive aggressive stance to an outright threat, then not expecting anything to come of it. A lot of the people on Zalanthas only take shit from nobles and templars, and there are the ones who won't even do that without a vendetta forming in their head (elves in particular). A lot of them will remember that you had gear they could live off of for a year, and that you insulted them, to boot. There's no reason in Zalanthas for that guy to hold off if he's given or creates an opportunity. None. And it's good that way.
I think a large part of it has to do with the use of the word 'conflict', because this escalation is being brought up so much. So let me break that down.
Life is cheap. If someone doesn't know you, or doesn't particularly like you, you're kind of worthless to them. Opportunity to put themselves ahead at your expense is a-ok, and to some degree, expected. While elves get the brunt of the 'trust game', it's everyone who should be wary of each other. As noted, betrayal is commonplace. Murder is common enough. Corruption is reality. When I say 'conflict', I mean opposing goals between characters. There is a driving force behind each of them to get done what they need or want done. Reducing conflict to insults? Yeah. That's not impressive conflict, and it won't be impressive resolution, either...but it will be resolved, or fade off into history (both happen).
QuoteI think you're reducing the topic a lot there as well. In my opinion, a raider clan should be fully considered, not dismissed as merely existing as long as it has a staffer.
Blackmoon was a raiding clan with staff support with its own hideout that required coded tribe-ness to enter, much like any other clan compound. It was positioned in a way to be unassailable without staff support, which means staff got the say on its destruction. Much like...Tan Muark. Red Fangs. The northern occupation. Blackwing (still around because...). The Guild. These things only exist(ed), regardless of how well you did against the PC population, because of staff support saying that the rest of it still existed. There were raids on them. There were wars with them. But ultimately, it comes down to 'Does this clan still serve a purpose so that we want it to be around, even though it just got rocked?' If the answer is yes, then it survives.
The guild has been slapped around so hard so many times over the years due to how people play in it. Blackmoon got utterly rocked a few times, before it was decided it should disappear. You say I'm reducing it too much, but at this point I'm talking about how you're saying something can't exist because of IC feasibility and how it would work, but we already make these exceptions all over the game based off of staff-supported clans.
That's not to say people shouldn't do their own raiding, but just know that it can be wiped out until such a time as a staffer decides to make it present beyond the existence of just the PC's in it. Once they do that, you can't destroy it until they say so. That's not an extreme position, that's how the game has run from the beginning of clans up to and including now.
Quote from: nauta on December 06, 2016, 10:13:56 PM(1) As a matter of fact, I, like Armaddict, do see a lot of conflict (some lethal, some quality and long term) in the game right now. Could we see more conflict and better conflict? Sure. Are some staff doing that right now and others maybe not? Sure. This gets back to what Reiloth said, and what I discussed with the poll: bless your heart for making a poll and putting in the work, but I'd be hesitant to take much take-away from the poll for the reasons I outlined in another post (which even then the data doesn't support it).
Guys, my poll is in the other thread about plot satisfaction, where I specifically look at trying to improve satisfaction levels of plots. This thread does not have a poll. This thread opens by me analyzing how the current clans are set up within the game and how I think staff could take actions to make the way the game world is set up, to better enhance conflict opportunities. These are separate threads and topics.
You may be seeing conflict in the game, but I believe that there is an overall feeling of stagnation because there are a significant number of players who are avoiding conflict. Some of this I have personally observed, some of this I may not have access to and am speculating on.
Quote(2) The 'because' clause can't be right either. I'm not sure why some players avoid conflict, but presumably it's because people are different and play the game for different reasons: some want to make pretty things, some want to tell stories, some want to go on adventures, etc. Moreover, there's the passive vs. active player -- a lot of players are passive (or sometimes passive) and look to others for their activity.
There are different playstyles, yes. That does not mean that fear of death is not a legitimate reason that players avoid conflict. I would say that it is a very large reason that people avoid conflict. I would also further say that conflict is avoided because it's easier for everyone to work together and be friends. That's why you so often see people being friends or kanking magickers, breeds, or elves. It's just easier to avoid sources of conflict, even the more basic documented racial/magicker tensions.
Do some PCs have reasons for this? Perhaps. But it's that age-old if everyone plays the exception to the rule, then is there really a rule?
And yes, there are PCs who do an excellent job of RPing their hate. I applaud those players. I think there should be more of them.
QuoteIn any case, I think it's a good conversation to be had in general -- it might motivate players and staff to look at the kinds of conflict going on and how they can make conflict more interesting
I think the conversation is good, yes, and people giving their opinions gives a better overall picture. I still think that there should be more rewards for successful conflict, more incentives for getting into conflict, and in general making conflict more appealing (largely as staff changes, since I think the world would need to be adjusted).
I guess a tidy way to sum it up, which I can never do, is I think that the state of small-scale conflict in the game is alive, relatively healthy, and accessible when you want it. I haven't experienced a lot of bad apples at all recently.
The thread, though, is about massive conflict. I think that it will be hard to do with so few clans right now (i.e. fewer interests flying around on collision paths), lack of overarching built in antagonism (allanak vs tuluk), and the policy that the playerbase asked for back in 2006 or so, which was for staff to stop running their plots and let players take the reins. I don't think the 'take the reins' has been successful because of obvious, very understandable concerns. And I'd be glad to have staff go back into big plots, organized by clan, that players participate in more than control.
There are no permanent staff decisions, that's why I put it in quotes. Nothing staff has changed is permanent and everything can be changed back, either right to where it was or to something similar to what it was. I'm not going into specific changes because I don't want to jinx anything.
As for whether NPC enemies ever have the level of intrigue as PC enemies, never.
When the right hand man on the side of your enemy happened to be lovers with someone in your crew, long ago.. and decides, at the last minute, in a whim really, to neglect to tell his boss that he saw someone move in the corner of his eye, that's a form of slight betrayal that I doubt an NPC would even think of doing, let alone consciously.
It's that "butterfly effect" of player-player interaction, the small scale conflict and the little alliances and friendships, over time that makes large-scale conflict interesting. Moreover it's important that there be multiple groups that share a common enemy, but have enemies within themselves... such as how Byn supports both Tuluki and Allanaki interests, or Kadius had northern and southern branches, competing against each other but also against Salarr, or how raider tribes might have enemies and allies among other tribes...how Kurac kind of works its way through all of those competing groups and struggles to balance their place in the Tablelands' politics.
When a new antagonist group opens up out of the blue, not having any history with anybody else is a major limitation to the intrigue. When someone builds a lasting, strained coalition on one side, in order to openly antagonize another, that's a lot better. Examples of strained relationships being required just to survive against another more violent enemy, such as trying to appease Templars in order to manage the constant threat of wild witches plaguing Tuluk, forced Templars and Merchants to interact. With no witches, less reason to need powerful templars...
.
A lot of the reason why lethality is necessary is that if you're identified in your murder attempt, then you can be later hunted down and killed. Since identifying someone is as easy as looking at them, copying their description, then later looking at them again in a crowd, or even as simple as using the Way, then you are pretty sure to be identified for your crimes. The easiest way to prevent being identified is to kill your victim. Letting them live is hazardous to your health.
Therefore thieves become sappers, and muggers become straight up killers.
Empowering bad actions to prevent being identified, say with enhancements to defensive psionics and disguising abilities, may reduce kill rates and enhance the rates of lesser crimes, perhaps paradoxically.
This of course assumes that staff be able to punish players abusing this power to kill needlessly, which staff already do anyway.
.
Quote from: Armaddict on December 06, 2016, 10:38:03 PM
QuoteYou say, "the fear of death is the entire point of a permadeath game". Well, okay, if that's the entire point, then people are doing what they should. They are avoiding any and all conflict because they are avoiding any and all risk of death.
If the entire point of a game is fear of death, then nothing ever gets done, period. People are simply too afraid and unmotivated to do anything.
This is misconstruing the statement. The statement says that you, the player, are avoiding risky situations and thus not enjoying the game by diving into conflict out of fear that you could lose your character, or lose your plot, as a result. So instead, you play passively. However, the in-character world, while risk-averse, necessitates some brutality...unless everyone is doing the same thing, which is what we've come to and is now being discussed.
Drawing a line between those two dots isn't what the statement was about, which I think you understood just fine and wanted to say something witty and turn-against-you like.
I don't think that you meant to draw a line between those two points. I think there is a line between those two points. I think that people are afraid of death (be it ICly, OOCly, or both) and that it prevents them from doing as much as they otherwise could.
I don't think this is a reason to get rid of permadeath. I do think it's a reason we need to take a look at conflict risk/rewards as a whole.
QuoteIt isn't the only solution. Other solutions are come to often in the game. I experience them often. I use them often. As a matter of fact, there are often things that occur that are small escalations, over and over, until someone dies, and then that is often portrayed as the only escalation that happened. That is what I'm combatting here, is the simplification of the game to 'Everyone just kills everything and it's not fun!'
That's not true. It's not remotely true. People do die, and people do kill each other. But as noted, this is not a proving grounds.
I think that we actually have similarities in what we are saying. We both agree that conflict should escalate and that murder is an option at some point, and a part of the game. Where we seem to differ is if there is currently progressive escalation before murder, or if things go to murder too fast. I think that's going to be something that is hard to definitively argue, since each will be based on our personal experiences, and what plots we were personally exposed to. It sounds like we both agree on what the goal is, however.
Quote...are you actually asserting that jumping into combat with people with political connections and combat skills is -avoiding- risk? That setting up assassinations is risk free? Because that's what I was saying to you; resolving conflict is not bad. Not bad at all. If conflicts are engagements between you and another force with differing goals or ideologies, resolution is kind of the point.
No, I'm asserting that if there's two players, they may avoid getting too conflicting with each other out of concern that things will go from 0 to DEAD. That instead of engaging in conflict that could ultimately lead to death, many players would prefer to avoid that conflict, and be friends and work together, instead.
There's nothing inherently wrong with working together. There's some really fabulous things that can be accomplished that way, and oftentimes more things can be accomplished together then can be accomplished alone. It's just that it's not a conflict opportunity.
QuoteI played a character recently where I warred with a faction and people got dead. But strangely enough, it actually de-escalated after that, when we agreed that pushing it further was unneeded. It wasn't 'winning', it was agreement to get off each other's toes and end the conflict. That's not impossible in the game, and it happens, and just because it isn't constantly happening in every conflict, or even most of them, doesn't mean the game itself or its mechanics need shifting to cater to non-aggression better.
Your example, while interesting, is still people avoiding conflict out of fear of death. In this case, it was after death occurred, rather then beforehand.
However, maybe there will be more conflict to your story. Maybe you will just attempt subtler conflict against each other, rather then straight-out murder. And really, isn't that pursuing one of the options we've been talking about all along?
QuoteQuoteMost cool stories aren't "things started getting somewhat annoying, so I decided to stab the other guy first".
Most stories in the game don't go that way either. This is a gross hyperbole that keeps coming up. Sometimes you make enemies, sometimes you don't, but the vast majority of the time, I do not see this jump that you're describing.
I guess there's nobody who can really chime in on this objectively, except perhaps staff. We each just see a tiny portion of the overall picture. Your portion and mine may be very different.
QuoteQuoteMost cool stories involve enemies, and plots, and sure they may include murder... But how often does a cool story have murder as the first action taken?
Against a main character? Almost never. But I think you're assuming that because you're involved and got killed, you were a main character. Sometimes you're just an accessory in another story, or the beginning or detail of another conflict. Just because you're the main character in your story doesn't make you a main character in all stories.
My assassin killing a noble from house snot-nose because he said the wrong thing seems out of sorts, until you find out that said assassin has ties with a group who that noble has been conflicting with for a long time and they've been complaining about him. That noble wasn't shit to the assassin, he was just another notch of good faith with that other group to get what he needs out of them. Not a main character in his story. Just a main character in yours.
I think you have a good example here that does illustrate your point well.
QuoteQuoteRisks can be political disappointments and wasted effort as much as anything else. It's so hard to get much of anything done in this game that I think a lot of people have simply given up trying.
This is true. But that's not often what's talked about these threads, which is why I always come in opposing; I've not averse to anything you're talking about aside from the oft-taken stance that conflict should not often escalate to violence.
I think it's okay if conflict escalates to violence. The key word is
escalates.
QuoteI think a lot of what makes things escalate faster than people are ready for is when it goes from a passive aggressive stance to an outright threat, then not expecting anything to come of it. A lot of the people on Zalanthas only take shit from nobles and templars, and there are the ones who won't even do that without a vendetta forming in their head (elves in particular). A lot of them will remember that you had gear they could live off of for a year, and that you insulted them, to boot. There's no reason in Zalanthas for that guy to hold off if he's given or creates an opportunity. None. And it's good that way.
Is it bad that my first reaction is that it strains my belief to have someone that concerned off of gear they could "live a year off of"? Indies are so ridiculously rich, it doesn't seem to me that this would come up often.
Secondly, it's going to depend on what the person did. If all they did was insult you? Jumping right to killing them seems pretty extreme. If they've been shitting on you over a long period of time and you're fed up with it, and the opportunity presents itself? Well, I could see someone taking advantage of that.
QuoteBut ultimately, it comes down to 'Does this clan still serve a purpose so that we want it to be around, even though it just got rocked?' If the answer is yes, then it survives.
I think this is very likely true. I'm going to argue with it anyways, not because I'm arguing with you, but because I am arguing with the underlying idea and concept.
I think that it should be possible to wipe out clans through IC means and IC actions. Sometimes there are clans weakened by fights on a virtual level; I think it would be interesting to see PCs try to take advantage of those weaknesses and completely decimate the other side. I think that players don't often try this, because we already OOCly assume (and perhaps not incorrectly) that it is futile. Maybe part of the stagnation that we're feeling is this OOC safety net of staff keeping around a clan (or at least players' perceptions that there is a safety net which makes it so they never even attempt to get rid of a clan).
Quote from: Molten Heart on December 06, 2016, 10:54:16 PMAre there ways to have meaningful conflict that falls short of being lethal, or does it always have to come down to someone risking losing a character?
Depends on the type of conflict, but there certainly should be ways. Economic and political ventures, for example, can always be about sabotage and ruining someone, rather then death. Or simply out-maneuvering someone. Combat conflict usually has someone dying unless the PCs happen to be on the same team, so I don't have any non-lethal suggestions there.
QuoteAlso, I believe that leaders and other types of characters with authority would do good to foster small-scale animosity and conflict where it doesn't already exist, even to their own detriment as long as it stimulates conflict in the game and is part of their character. It seems that many leaders are quick to make alliances and get along with other people in attempts to play it safe and while this is good in the short-term, in the long-term the organizations involved actually begin to stagnate in a sort of alliance malaise. It'd be good if groups/clans/organizations had a sort of middle ground where they would feud and fight but never enter into a total war situation.
There should definitely be middle ground options, I agree. If this eventually did become total war over time, that might not be bad either, but there's no reason that a little animosity should always end that way.
Quote from: Molten Heart on December 06, 2016, 11:00:51 PM
Also, it's never a Fale party until someone dies.
I thought it was never a Fale party until something was lit on fire.
There may be some overlap between these two ideals.
Quote from: Akaramu on December 06, 2016, 04:33:24 PM
I still like my idea of a massive demon invasion. ;D
Given how demons exist in Armageddon, that would be pretty wicked :D
In order for PC-PC conflict to be worth anyone's time there needs to be a change in how players kill one another.
As it stands we punish players that take risks. And the winners in any conflict will always be the players with the lowest play standards.
Quote from: John on December 07, 2016, 05:10:44 AM
Quote from: Akaramu on December 06, 2016, 04:33:24 PM
I still like my idea of a massive demon invasion. ;D
Given how demons exist in Armageddon, that would be pretty wicked :D
+1 for mass extra-dimensional demon army. Githyanki return!
Quote from: Taven on December 06, 2016, 11:31:56 PM
Quote from: Molten Heart on December 06, 2016, 11:00:51 PM
Also, it's never a Fale party until someone dies.
I thought it was never a Fale party until something was lit on fire.
I thought it was never a Fale party until a
templar died.
QuoteIn order for PC-PC conflict to be worth anyone's time there needs to be a change in how players kill one another.
As it stands we punish players that take risks. And the winners in any conflict will always be the players with the lowest play standards.
There are people who already find it worth their time. We don't punish people who take risks. Risks are risks because there's something to lose, and sometimes you do indeed lose (and I do too). The lowest play standards do not determine winners unless the other side isn't planning on another player being willing to kill them. Start being suspicious of other PC's the way the game world is set up to be; other people want you -dead- and out of their way.
Basically your entire post is wrong. There's a lot of back slapping about how good the roleplay is when people play it through and let their character lose and how awesome they are...but then we have posts like this that essentially complain that no one else is doing that for them. A prepared, cautious individual is much harder to kill than you ever give it credit for.
Quote from: Akaramu on December 07, 2016, 01:14:48 PM
Quote from: Taven on December 06, 2016, 11:31:56 PM
Quote from: Molten Heart on December 06, 2016, 11:00:51 PM
Also, it's never a Fale party until someone dies.
I thought it was never a Fale party until something was lit on fire.
I thought it was never a Fale party until a templar died.
templars don't die, silly
what do you think this is, 2007?
Quote from: Armaddict on December 07, 2016, 02:05:06 PM
QuoteIn order for PC-PC conflict to be worth anyone's time there needs to be a change in how players kill one another.
As it stands we punish players that take risks. And the winners in any conflict will always be the players with the lowest play standards.
There are people who already find it worth their time. We don't punish people who take risks. Risks are risks because there's something to lose, and sometimes you do indeed lose (and I do too). The lowest play standards do not determine winners unless the other side isn't planning on another player being willing to kill them. Start being suspicious of other PC's the way the game world is set up to be; other people want you -dead- and out of their way.
Basically your entire post is wrong. There's a lot of back slapping about how good the roleplay is when people play it through and let their character lose and how awesome they are...but then we have posts like this that essentially complain that no one else is doing that for them. A prepared, cautious individual is much harder to kill than you ever give it credit for.
Fine allow me to redfine. Risks arn't risks when you can accurately predict the outcome every goddamn time. And then getting called a scrub for even trying. It isn't a risk, it's an expectation. THAT is a problem.
And secondly. I don't have a goddamn problem with losing. I love adversity, I like working for hard-fought victories and I enjoy injecting tension into the game. I play the souls series religiously for christ's sake.
I'm just sick of being punished for playing the way I want to play. So here I sit, staring at the mantis head, wondering to myself yet again if I should just fuck trying and build a twink that avoids interaction with other players just so it doesn't happen a twenty-ninth time.
And yes, low play standards does determine who wins. I wouldn't pull the garbage that I've been subject to.
Why do all discussions on the GDB become so disheartening? It's like we take the pulpit on a conversation and change course to gripe about our feelings on X player or Y viewpoint. Ah well.
I liked Badskeelz suggestion of flattening out combat. Lower caps, eliminate the grind, thrust yourself into danger and play a character, not a doppelgänger created to drive your self esteem.
Quote from: SuchDragonWow on December 07, 2016, 03:52:15 PM
Why do all discussions on the GDB become so disheartening? It's like we take the pulpit on a conversation and change course to gripe about our feelings on X player or Y viewpoint. Ah well.
I liked Badskeelz suggestion of flattening out combat. Lower caps, eliminate the grind, thrust yourself into danger and play a character, not a doppelgänger created to drive your self esteem.
+1, and part of my idea in the other thread. I'm wondering if PCs in general can be more capable with skills to start, and have much further to go to be 'legendary legit ninja' if they want to. It's part of why I would like to see combat between two non-trained people be brutal and short, and between a non-trained person and a trained person even brutally shorter. If it's paired with 'You can make a new PC and not spend 10 days getting them borderline competent, they come out of the box pretty alright', I dunno. It'd be a whole different game for sure.
I just don't buy the mystique of 'ArmageddonMUD is too legit' with these fundamental systems, like fail to get better, and massive amounts of time to get passingly good with a PC, and/or gaming the system to take advantage of fail timers.
Part of why i'm trying to figure out a solution to skills by increasing them is -- I'm tired of thinking about them. When I hit my stride as a 'Jman' at most skills, i'm comfortable and don't give a flying fuck about skills. The Novice/Apprentice grind is my least favorite, I could give a shit about the endgame 'master' level stuff. It may be just me (I doubt it) but when I hit that stride, I feel like I can actually do things my character wants to do, and still fail at things they want to do. Before that, I pretty much set my expectations so low that it doesn't even feel like i'm playing a PC. Want to sneak? Good luck, asshole! How about peek? Better luck, asshole!
Couple this with 'Skill Alerts' to Staff when you are 'Twinking' them, and it feels like the cards are stacked against you. I could care less about skills if they actually worked some of the time (to start). Starting off at 10 or 20 for skills that go to 90 just seems...Silly, when it's a skill your 'class' is supposed to be marginally talented in. Especially compared to Subguilds that start with higher minimums to skills than guilds they are tangentially related to.
Anyways, i'm woefully off topic, here. I like your support of the idea of flattening out combat. I would also recommend flattening out craft branches -- So you branch lockpick crafting when you branch pick, and so on.
I always considered your Guild as your potential. What you were born for, in this fated world we play in. You are BORN to be a ranger, an outdoorsy person, to understand plants and what have you. The terrible part is, you never got to realize it because you became an aide, instead. A subguild, rather conversely, is what you've spend your life "up until now" doing. Which is why I sort of dislike that subguilds have branches anyway. Its not a perfect system of thought, but it helps explain the non-coded side of guild/subguild.
On the topic of flattening out combat, I actually feel like lately its gotten LESS brutal. I see more damage being done per hit in combat, but that combat itself is slower.
Quote from: Riev on December 07, 2016, 04:03:29 PM
I always considered your Guild as your potential. What you were born for, in this fated world we play in. You are BORN to be a ranger, an outdoorsy person, to understand plants and what have you. The terrible part is, you never got to realize it because you became an aide, instead. A subguild, rather conversely, is what you've spend your life "up until now" doing. Which is why I sort of dislike that subguilds have branches anyway. Its not a perfect system of thought, but it helps explain the non-coded side of guild/subguild.
On the topic of flattening out combat, I actually feel like lately its gotten LESS brutal. I see more damage being done per hit in combat, but that combat itself is slower.
See -- The tricky part is having a background. We then should (pretty much always) be making PCs who did nothing significant before coming off the vNPC stage. The age-old simple fix to me is:
Younger PC -> Better Physical Traits, Lower Wisdom
Older PC -> Higher starting skills, Lower Physical Traits, Higher Wisdom
Make 30 the median, and scale it in both directions. Sort of how it's done now with age and stats, but add a 'skills' graph that scales according to age. Does not apply to weapons skills.
I think you would need to keep the "skill gap" between starting and established characters relatively narrow to increase risky behavior. If you push back the "end goal" people will just continue to chase it. You need to narrow the range entirely.
Quote from: LauraMars on December 07, 2016, 02:16:04 PM
templars don't die, silly
what do you think this is, 2007?
Hey, I saw a templar die in 2013... or was it 2014? All the party guests were dressed up as spiders, though. It was kind of creepy. :(
(sorry about the derail. Move along now, nothing to see here.)
I think Allanak needs to launch a combat RPT to finally do something about that twinked out sinkhole whose been camping the north road. Fucker doesn't even RP.
Quote from: BadSkeelz on December 07, 2016, 04:12:34 PM
I think Allanak needs to launch a combat RPT to finally do something about that twinked out sinkhole whose been camping the north road. Fucker doesn't even RP.
Imagine the road that was created back when the game existed ACTUALLY BEING USABLE AGAIN. Instead of us just coming up with Least Objectionable Alternative route through the sands.
Parts of it would be pretty easy, just incorporate the ivory-salt road. Other parts... not so easy.
I like it. Let's do this.
Quote from: Riev on December 07, 2016, 04:17:59 PM
Quote from: BadSkeelz on December 07, 2016, 04:12:34 PM
I think Allanak needs to launch a combat RPT to finally do something about that twinked out sinkhole whose been camping the north road. Fucker doesn't even RP.
Imagine the road that was created back when the game existed ACTUALLY BEING USABLE AGAIN. Instead of us just coming up with Least Objectionable Alternative route through the sands.
Heheh, it still is in game, or was last year. It's accessible via a strange spot -- which I didn't realize until months later (I bugged it) that it wasn't supposed to be there.
There's a Highlord who's sure
All that glitters is black
And He's buying a stairway to Allanak
Quote from: SuchDragonWow on December 07, 2016, 03:52:15 PM
Why do all discussions on the GDB become so disheartening? It's like we take the pulpit on a conversation and change course to gripe about our feelings on X player or Y viewpoint. Ah well.
I liked Badskeelz suggestion of flattening out combat. Lower caps, eliminate the grind, thrust yourself into danger and play a character, not a doppelgänger created to drive your self esteem.
I like this suggestion too, but I think that the flattening out of combat should only apply to roles that are guaranteed to face a lot of adversity. If you're going to play as a "good guy," i.e. build a character up from scratch as an Allanaki born commoner with the potential to join almost any House, the Arm, the Byn, and have easy access to training and resources and allies, then do NOT give them any combat boosts. If on the other hand you roll up a raider concept, maybe as a part of a specific raiding clan that identifies you as a raider to others and therefore makes you a target, less access to training or allies, then give those characters a combat boost so they don't have to grind and can stir up shit from the get go.
Predictably, I'm sure, I'm outright against flattening skill trees and making the game less skill oriented under the pretense that people will no longer be attached to their characters and take risks just because of skill grinds. I think that's a big fallacy, and in the meantime is tweaking with fundamentals of the MUD for the sake of a player mentality rather than a game approach. If you want conflict, it's easily found. If it's a hard, bigger-than-you conflict, it will be a long-term goal and conflict that you work to overcome and manipulate situations to try and gain ground. Sometimes you succeed, and sometimes you don't, and sometimes when you don't, you die. That's well and good, and I don't see any reason to change that.
QuoteFine allow me to redfine. Risks arn't risks when you can accurately predict the outcome every goddamn time. And then getting called a scrub for even trying. It isn't a risk, it's an expectation. THAT is a problem.
And secondly. I don't have a goddamn problem with losing. I love adversity, I like working for hard-fought victories and I enjoy injecting tension into the game. I play the souls series religiously for christ's sake.
I'm just sick of being punished for playing the way I want to play. So here I sit, staring at the mantis head, wondering to myself yet again if I should just fuck trying and build a twink that avoids interaction with other players just so it doesn't happen a twenty-ninth time.
And yes, low play standards does determine who wins. I wouldn't pull the garbage that I've been subject to.
Oh it's you again. Saying that same thing in yet another thread. Let me just follow you around to reiterate that I find your descriptions of how you got screwed generally hyperbolic and sounding more like you just didn't want to die than something terrible actually happening. I think you should either post or PM me these terrible shitty things that happened so that I can rate them, because when you keep saying how shitty the other players in the game are for having skills and killing you, I just kind of imagine you doing something where you're making enemies and not really counting on enemies actually being dangerous.
Perhaps you could prove me wrong. But I've been killed many many times in this game, including during the 'twink-era', which now comes nowhere near to, and I really haven't seen things that you seem to hint at happening. Either that, or your standard is just too high. I know you'll take it as an insult, even though I don't mean it as one, nor do I think it should be taken as one, but your description of things is far more reminiscent of mush-type interaction, to me.
It should be noted that my last death, I got utterly curb stomped out of nowhere in a way that I didn't expect at all, and I got exactly one non-flowery emote...and it made me chuckle and 'holy shit' by the mental picture. For someone who claims to enjoy death, you sure complain about how it happens a lot. For someone who claims we all solo-twink just to kill you and don't rp, you sure don't seem to get very involved in what a lot of other characters are capable of or willing to do beforehand. Just because you didn't like it does not make it a low standard of play.
Jingo, I died in a really shitty way, once. I mean really, really really shitty, after about two years of incredible development and once-in-a-lifetime stories that I'll never, ever be able to recreate. It actually took me about two MORE years to really sorta get over it.
I still get a little angry when I think about it. But eventually, you move on, and you start having fun again.
The best way to do that is to just ... actually... move on. Stop re-hashing it. Be like Elsa and let that shit go.
I think the point is, Armaddict, some of us are quite shitty and could stand to reflect on how, and what can be done to change it, so as to confer much more lively conflict on the game. I, myself, have engaged in some shitty PKs, but mostly because locked room kills are the only viable assassination method for Guild Merchant. Do I like conflict? Yes. Do I have trouble finding it? No. Apparently some do though, and I think that's what this thread is about.
When you play Guild Merchant, no matter how high your offense/defense may be, you will know you are at the disadvantage. If you attempt to be reasonable with anyone, they will know too just how weak you are, and rub it in your face, thus, your only logical defense is to kill everyone involved before it gets out of hand. You can't insult or toy with anyone, ever, because they will immediately begin working to destroy anyone or anything that means anything to you at all... suddenly, a casual slight goes huge... and why? Because you know that if ANYTHING attacks you, you are pretty much done. You can try reasoning, but everyone will always know that you're the weakest link, and probably the most profitable one as well.
... the sad thing is, when you play Guild Merchant, you are likely the HINGE of numerous plots, so when you encounter a problem, you have to OOCly weigh their goals against your own, and usually it comes out, the other side is lacking, they must be destroyed for X,Y, and Z to take place...
QuoteDo I like conflict? Yes. Do I have trouble finding it? No. Apparently some do though, and I think that's what this thread is about.
I know what the thread is about, man. I just came in because we suddenly took a jump to proposing pretty large changes based off of the idea that we need more conflict. As you said, it's not really that hard to find small-scale conflict unless you're purposely avoiding it, which people sometimes do, and sometimes people don't (though I think people tend to feel screwed when the conflict finds them anyway, which happens sometimes). And as I said earlier, it makes sense for Large Scale Conflict to be really hard to pull off under our current platform, because it puts staff into the position of having to referee everything and try not to show favoritism. A lot of the times, that can mean 'deny everything equally'. Large Scale Conflict that doesn't momentously wreck the static sandbox has to be carefully managed, which is why it was largely predestined prior to the player-run-plot change...players could influence things, and things could be turned, but the story as a whole was largely regulated to make sure no one swung it out of bounds and wrecked the equilibrium that keeps the game accessible to everyone for all time.
I don't think we need to go down to tweaking and adjusting all the skill levels and percentages of not just all the classes, but all the beasts, all the bonuses, all the numerics of the game, in order to tell people 'Hey. If you want conflict in the game, you can go out and find it, or create some.' That is using it as a scapegoat for what is a player-made decision. At least on the small-scale front. I think we just have people insisting on sitting in the back row until they're absolutely ready, but complaining about the view, and being unwilling to move up because they may lose that seat they have.
QuoteOn a sidenote...I am not against there being more plots, more conflicts, more storylines, etc.
But I don't think talking about how non-aggression and less skills is even remotely necessary to that task, nor do I think the game is set up in a such a way to prevent conflict as it stands. I think we, the players, are pretty responsible for conflict and lack of conflict, not the game.
QuoteOh it's you again.
Hi.
QuoteEither that, or your standard is just too high.
My standards are high. Largely because I take a contractarianist view of the game. The game doesn't just require us to play realistically within the IC realm. It also requires us to play in a way that respects the player on the other end. I believe the game is better when you do.
I believe, we've hashed it out before. That rule that isn't a rule. It can be broken at any time. Call it player trust, call it respecting the enjoyment of others, call it an agreement not to kill-other-players-right-away. Rule 4 says this rule doesn't exist. But in my view, the game isn't worth playing without it. I can't play the way I would like to, if at least some players didn't at least try to extend a level of trust back at me.
And again, without that rule, why wouldn't I just take the path of least resistance? Why don't I just bend my standards and play a skill-maxer that doesn't even interact with other players till the 20 day mark? Why wouldn't I just pre-empt every conflict to be with a locked-room kill or a arrow pin cushion? Or I could just play in a way that completely ignores the themes of armageddon, as a happy-go-lucky, friends-with-everyone (but not elves!) selectively-murderous cypher. I feel this is the result of a game without that rule. Players become conditioned to adopt these play styles because it's how you succeed when the rule isn't present.
I try to abide by that rule. And I'd like to believe that's why I'm a high karma player. When I'm trying to inject a bit of chaos, tension or negativity in the world, I'm trying to invite players to realize the themes of the game and avoid the cliche's mentioned above. And yes, especially to encourage
****CONFLICT**** But especially these days attempting to extend that trust to other players seems to be a formula for getting marginalized and killed at the first opportunity. Not to mention playing that way is fucking boring.
QuoteFor someone who claims we all solo-twink just to kill you and don't rp, you sure don't seem to get very involved in what a lot of other characters are capable of or willing to do beforehand. Just because you didn't like it does not make it a low standard of play.
To be clear, I'm not angry about players abusing code just to kill my characters. (that's happened but it's also a subjective matter) "Low standard of play." was just an impromptu term I used for players more interested in pulling the rug out from under you even after you've tried to extend that trust to them.
Yes, I stand by my assertion that the player that abuses the trust of another player will win the conflict 9 times out of 10. It's the notion of "playing to win" that I hammer at without fairly or unfairly.
QuoteIt should be noted that my last death, I got utterly curb stomped out of nowhere in a way that I didn't expect at all, and I got exactly one non-flowery emote...and it made me chuckle and 'holy shit' by the mental picture.
Yeah, I've been killed out of the blue and haven't been angry about it. Mostly because it wasn't such a visible pattern that I recognize now. If I didn't have the shit year of play that I just had, my view might be different. But now it just feels endemic to the game and disappointingly predictable.
QuoteThe best way to do that is to just ... actually... move on. Stop re-hashing it. Be like Elsa and let that shit go.
Yeah, this is on me. Without making excuses, I get into a headspace when I think about this game. I should be trying to absolve it instead of putting angst on anyone else.
That's enough typing. I got too much work to do.
.
Quote from: Molten Heart on December 08, 2016, 12:32:10 AM
Quote from: Riev on December 07, 2016, 04:17:59 PM
Quote from: BadSkeelz on December 07, 2016, 04:12:34 PM
I think Allanak needs to launch a combat RPT to finally do something about that twinked out sinkhole whose been camping the north road. Fucker doesn't even RP.
Imagine the road that was created back when the game existed ACTUALLY BEING USABLE AGAIN. Instead of us just coming up with Least Objectionable Alternative route through the sands.
What if roads weren't just flavor and they had major advantages so they weren't so easily ignored... That'd be weird.
Like, if you could only drive Argosies on roads, or they stood a good chance of getting stuck every few rooms of wilderness?
#annoythekadians2017
Quote from: Patuk[quote
what it takes to kill our noble? Lots. Some very strong PC's who can distract/kill his bodyguard as well as the noble himself. The money to hire those people willing to do that. Some way of catching your noble off-guard and not in a safe place, which for a noble includes most of the city. Contacts to make sure his death doesn't cost you your head.
This is not only a pessimistic view, it's completely untrue. It is in fact so incredibly easy to kill off a noble or high ranking merchant type that I'm surprised it doesn't a) happen all the time, resulting in b) complaints that npc guards are ineffective at their job. Stealing from the above is also easy pickings if you know what you're doing. If few players are willing to try this sort of thing, it's not for lack of capability on their part.
Most of the conflict I see centers around petty feuds between two players that everyone treats as an out and out war between two clans. But Mr. Kadius having a spat with Mrs. Salarr does not equate to Kadius and Salarr being on bad terms. It just means those two merchants are. It's understandable that this happens because we're often craving large scale conflict like this. I really have to believe that if you clearly communicate with your clan staff and explain that your objective is something more akin to a war between clans (even a small one) rather than just between two people, staff will give you a helping hand without immediately loading up some senior npc to make you vanish.
There are a lot of inherent conflicts in the game. Desert elves, rogue gicks, runaway slaves, 'rinthi thieves. They have conflict and risk baked right in, straight out of chargen.
If those roles are only scarcely played, does it really send a message to staff that we want more conflict?
Quote from: Miradus on December 08, 2016, 10:04:27 AM
If those roles are only scarcely played
They're not really, they just die really really really quickly. (not so much delves I guess)
Also those roles, inherently, require a lot of solo or minimal contact play. Which leads to either boredom, twinkery, or lack of interaction.
Those that -do- interact, as Patuk said, die rather quickly because conflict IS so scarce that it gets wiped quickly (and should, but its quite a deterrant)
Quote from: Riev on December 08, 2016, 10:12:42 AM
Also those roles, inherently, require a lot of solo or minimal contact play. Which leads to either boredom, twinkery, or lack of interaction.
Those that -do- interact, as Patuk said, die rather quickly because conflict IS so scarce that it gets wiped quickly (and should, but its quite a deterrant)
I agree with the iso claim -- to an extent. You shouldn't expect to play a bandit or a Guild boss who hangs out at the Gaj. But I want to put forward an alternative picture to the Patuk/Jingo pessimistic view, with some anecdotes from three experiences as a criminal within the last three years.
1. The Rinther. I played a low-level Guild minion for about half a year with very high play times. I was a pickpocket. Together with a dwarf (who I believe had the focus of being the scariest motherfucker in the Known, and he sort of was, kudos to you) we not only managed to live for that half year, but we also managed to pull off some high-level hits on people -- some of which failed in hilarious ways. (When I first met the dwarf in the narrows, he tossed knives at me, hehe.) Sure, the AoD was out to get us -- and we were out to get them. I had several assassination attempts on me, including a templar and a unit of AoD coming into the narrows, a couple gemmed (even a gemmed giant) coming into the narrows, and an entire barricade put up (which I'm still not sure what this was about). I had elves from the narrows out to kill me too and we were out to kill them. It was a lot of fun -- there was a lot of wheeling and dealing and a lot of very tense weeks where I'd be afraid to even come out of a hidey-hole (although I did, because fun). Eventually, I met my end in a great interrogation scene with a templar. I barely left the rinth during this time, hardly ever idled in 'safe' rooms, never left the city, and managed to have a lot of great RP scenes inside the rinth.
2. A Bandit. I recently played a minor league bandit out of Red Storm straight out of chargen. I posted about this before, but after about 5 days playtime put in I stored for another role. Overall, the responses were superb -- I forget the numbers now but only one person fled with no emotes, and the other six or seven gave me great scenes -- at least three initiated the emote exchange putting themselves at the position of disadvantage, even though codedly they knew, and I knew, that they were better than me on a meta level. As far as I could tell, there wasn't a great big multi-clan, multi-indie rally to get me, and even if there was: all the better.
3. An elf. I also had success with an elf from the rinth. A lot of conflict activity (internal to the rinth) happened, but the one scene I want to highlight: there was an AoD soldier who was superb at not picking out elves and turning the blind eye to petty crimes. He grabbed me at the Gaj while I was semi-afk and I thought for sure this was the end, but he just released me with a laugh saying he thought I was someone else. I'm pretty sure the player knew I was into some dank shit, but his character (and perhaps some of the player) felt it was fun enough to let it continue.
The point: people already do care about the things that generate good stories and meaningful conflict. Sure I've encountered revenge PCs (newbies in each case) and I've met my end in a locked room for no clear reason a couple of times.
I get where the other side is coming from: when you die for being in the wrong place at the wrong time with no explanation: that hurts. It gives the impression that there are twinks out wanting to win. I've also seen a couple players move to the kill button as soon as an insult is put forward, and some have succeeded. So I get it.
I just find it hard to believe that this happens that often -- that such players are that common.
So get out there and shake things up. Insult the breed at the bar, show some fear to the gemmed at the bar, start conflicts. As I also said: I've been seeing this in the game right now.
I'm going to second natua's post. This is all anecdotal, but not useless.
I've played rinthers and raiders in the past. I've mugged people in the cities and in the waste. Generally, people respond awesomely, and these were incredibly fun roles to play. These characters didn't go level up and do this, either. Everything was right out of char-gen, basically.
None of these characters have been the target of grand conflict-stomping inquisitions. I've lost them to NPCs, to falling, and to hazards of the job. Never to people white-knighting when they shouldn't. I've never experienced a response that seemed like obscene escalation.
Also, this locked room thing keeps coming up. I realize it's a cheap way to kill someone, but I don't think it's necessarily poor roleplay. I've done it a few times, and I feel dirty when it happens. Still, sometimes you gotta get shit done, and usually a lot of roleplay gets put into setting these things up. I sympathize if someone doesn't emote -- I always try to emote during combat. I also like to emote a bit before actually killing someone -- once they're on the ground and out. But sometimes this shit happens really, really fast. Sometimes you can't control how fast it goes, either.
I don't believe that tons of people just go out and do crazy no-roleplay random murdering in locked apartments.
Locked room killings shouldn't be tolerated at all. There isn't a reasonable person in this world or Zalanthas that would find it as an acceptable way to get the job done.
But because we're not really playing in a gameworld, but some ludonarrative in which npc reactions and stigmas don't need to be considered. And since staff just arn't interested in enforcing it anymore, you can get away with it without any fucks to be given.
Realistically, if someone disappeared on the Tor estate after a meeting with Lord Tor, someone would notice, someone would have questions, and Lord Tor would develop a reputation among the public, among other nobles and among his own staff.
Oh. And "roleplay". Sure, you roleplayed it though, so that makes it okay. Have a gold star. Nevermind that it's easy, lazy and damaging to the players on the other end.
QuoteThere isn't a reasonable person in this world or Zalanthas that would find it as an acceptable way to get the job done.
You're telling me that catching someone by surprise, in a room they can't escape, so that you can hopefully quickly and quietly kill them, isn't a viable or realistic tactic? I don't even know how to respond to that except to say I disagree.
QuoteRealistically, if someone disappeared on the Tor estate after a meeting with Lord Tor, someone would notice, someone would have questions, and Lord Tor would develop a reputation among the public, among other nobles and among his own staff.
I don't know why you think this doesn't happen. It does.
People who do
anything without considering the world, particularly the virtual one, should not be tolerated. But, a lot of people, hopefully myself included,
do consider how the world would react. Wishing up, turning in character reports, thinking and feeling, and playing your character in a believable and consistent way are all ways to insure you're doing that.
We also have to remember that this is a game, with a limited playerbase, which can't perfectly simulate the real world. I also don't think we want it to simulate the real world. That wouldn't be any fun.
Getting killed sucks and it makes everyone salty. I suspect that people are extra-salty, though, because they forget that this stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum. Just because you got killed in 3 hits in a locked room doesn't mean that was the beginning and end of play. For example,
remember something has to happen to the body.Someone who leaves a body in their perfectly furnished room and runs away because they know it will codedly vanish without leaving any evidence at some point should be punished.
People who wait until dark to take the body out, or abandon the apartment in a bloody ruin, or come up with some scheme to dispose of it should not be punished.
QuoteBut because we're not really playing in a gameworld, but some ludonarrative in which npc reactions and stigmas don't need to be considered. And since staff just arn't interested in enforcing it anymore, you can get away with it without any fucks to be given.
QuoteOh. And "roleplay". Sure, you roleplayed it though, so that makes it okay. Have a gold star. Nevermind that it's easy, lazy and damaging to the players on the other end.
These two statements make me wonder if it was even worth responding. Why talk like that? All this tells me is that you have an overly pessimistic view of the game, and that you don't mind talking down to people.
If someone gets upset about something that happens in game, they should file a player and/or staff complaint about it. If people are playing responsibly, then it's likely staff already knows what's going on, to some degree, and can deal with it.
Quote from: Feco on December 08, 2016, 03:45:03 PM
If someone gets upset about something that happens in game, they should file a player and/or staff complaint about it. If people are playing responsibly, then it's likely staff already knows what's going on, to some degree, and can deal with it.
This is the part where I have to disagree. Staff are great, but they aren't omnipotent and aren't watching us NEARLY as often as you think. Sure, they watch the interesting people, but the average player doesn't have staff who see them playing responsibly, and understand whats going on.
Quote from: Riev on December 08, 2016, 03:53:03 PM
Quote from: Feco on December 08, 2016, 03:45:03 PM
If someone gets upset about something that happens in game, they should file a player and/or staff complaint about it. If people are playing responsibly, then it's likely staff already knows what's going on, to some degree, and can deal with it.
This is the part where I have to disagree. Staff are great, but they aren't omnipotent and aren't watching us NEARLY as often as you think. Sure, they watch the interesting people, but the average player doesn't have staff who see them playing responsibly, and understand whats going on.
I agree with that.
I don't expect them to know everything, though. What complaints can do, though, is the following:
If someone gets lured into an apartment and is killed under roleplay-suspicious circumstances, if they send in a request, staff might ask that the PKer start sending in PK logs/PK reports. If suspicous play is reported a number of times for the same player, at least there's a history to point to when it's time to do something. A lot of people don't report PKs, I'm sure, just because they've never thought to. But I'm sure some people out there don't do it because they know they're doing stuff they shouldn't. Complaints can help catch them.
I always send in PK reports with logs. I have no doubt I've upset people PKing them. It's my hope that, if they complain, staff would be able to at least tell them "Listen, there's a lot that went on before and after, and what happened wasn't just a twinky no-roleplay random act of nonsense."
Not only is this a good practice to keep staff informed, and to deal with any complaints, but if I'm doing something wrong, it's right there in the logs. Staff can point it out to me. I can improve my play.
Please don't get the wrong idea about me. Not every character I make is a bloodthirsty PK-seeker. I haven't actually PK'd that many PCs. But it has happened, sometimes more frequently than others.
I've played this game for 9 years next month.
I've never once been apartment killed. I know it's a thing and it happens. I have seen and heard about it in game and heard about it on the boards here. But it's never happened to me.
I've been pked in the wilderness a couple times. By far, the most prevalent killings I've been on the receiving end of is people leading me into clan compounds and pking me. And when I say by far, I mean 4-6 times as opposed to the 0 apartment killings and the couple times out in the wild.
Clan compound killings can be a bit different. In some cases I don't think they're any different than what I described above. But if players are using clan NPCs and doing suspicious things that multiple NPCs and vNPCs would notice, and ignoring it, that's something else.
There are rules in place to make sure PCs don't get away with abusing the privileges of being in a coded clan. This is another instance where player complaints can go a long way if people do suspicious-seeming things.
Quote from: Riev on December 08, 2016, 03:53:03 PM
Quote from: Feco on December 08, 2016, 03:45:03 PM
If someone gets upset about something that happens in game, they should file a player and/or staff complaint about it. If people are playing responsibly, then it's likely staff already knows what's going on, to some degree, and can deal with it.
This is the part where I have to disagree. Staff are great, but they aren't omnipotent and aren't watching us NEARLY as often as you think. Sure, they watch the interesting people, but the average player doesn't have staff who see them playing responsibly, and understand whats going on.
Staff aren't omniscient, which is why player complaints (or reporting things in your character reports) are so important.
I've had good turn around on complaint requests recently -- like Feco said, it's important to keep staff informed. (One complaint -- and really I wish the label were changed to 'concern' since that's all it was -- turned out to be a really unfortunate series of unrelated events that gave the impression of grief behaviour where none occurred.)
Of course they aren't omniscient, but if you notice something twinky, mention it. We trust them to do the right thing with the information we give them. See something, say something.
In general, the pessimistic view not only strikes me as highly dubious, but as damaging to the game when new players read such things and come away with the impression that this happens all the time or even a lot of the time or even, in my view, some of the time -- it hardly ever happens. Even worse, the pessimistic viewpoint stifles players from going out and stirring things up for fear of the bogeyman of a whiteknight twink retribution.
PS: I do think apartment killings should be nerfed. Perhaps the kill command in apartments could trigger a staff alarm like sneaking into a guard does.
Eh. Every time it's happened it's been a leader pc/sponsored role. They've never used npcs to do it. Some did it personally, and some have had their underlings do it. I'm not particularly salty about it in an overarching way, though usually for a few days after it, I'm pretty pissed at having to start out at 0 again. I feel like people that get a reputation for doing this only wind up hamstringing themselves though, so I don't really mind. If you want to do it, do it. Same as I want to let people know that I'm disappearing into a clan compound with X or Y leader before I go when it happens, just in case they do get knife happy - so that there are people out in the PC world who know what happened.
I take that back, I was pked probably 2-3 times by Qoriya, but I don't think the jails count as a clan compound. And it was her job to rid the world of shiftless abominations, so, again, even if I didn't like the methodology, I understand it on the meta. She was doing her job. :P
Quote from: nauta on December 08, 2016, 04:07:20 PM
Perhaps the kill command in apartments could trigger a staff alarm like sneaking into a guard does.
I think this is absolutely a good idea, if it's not too difficult to implement.
Quote from: Feco on December 08, 2016, 03:45:03 PM
QuoteThere isn't a reasonable person in this world or Zalanthas that would find it as an acceptable way to get the job done.
You're telling me that catching someone by surprise, in a room they can't escape, so that you can hopefully quickly and quietly kill them, isn't a viable or realistic tactic? I don't even know how to respond to that except to say I disagree.
No I'm saying there should be a stigma attached to characters that pull this. Even on the most desolate and brutal societies on the planet, betrayal was not a taboo broken lightly.
Quote from: Feco on December 08, 2016, 03:45:03 PMQuoteRealistically, if someone disappeared on the Tor estate after a meeting with Lord Tor, someone would notice, someone would have questions, and Lord Tor would develop a reputation among the public, among other nobles and among his own staff.
I don't know why you think this doesn't happen. It does.
And yet it's still normalized to the point of acceptability. It shouldn't be.
Quote from: Feco on December 08, 2016, 03:45:03 PM
We also have to remember that this is a game, with a limited playerbase, which can't perfectly simulate the real world. I also don't think we want it to simulate the real world. That wouldn't be any fun.
I could see the good in enforcing this sort of rule. There would be more room for assassins. Plausable deniability would be a useful consideration. I believe The Way needs to be changed before actual spycraft becomes relevant, but it would allow plots like this to be sussed out and for actual risk to enter the game.
But this is easy. That is hard. So easy wins. It's really got nothing to do with the state of the game.
Quote from: Feco on December 08, 2016, 03:45:03 PMGetting killed sucks and it makes everyone salty. I suspect that people are extra-salty, though, because they forget that this stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum. Just because you got killed in 3 hits in a locked room doesn't mean that was the beginning and end of play. For example, remember something has to happen to the body.
Someone who leaves a body in their perfectly furnished room and runs away because they know it will codedly vanish without leaving any evidence at some point should be punished.
People who wait until dark to take the body out, or abandon the apartment in a bloody ruin, or come up with some scheme to dispose of it should not be punished.
Again, "But roleplay!" I just don't think that's good enough.
I could come up with a dozen solutions for getting rid of a body in Zalanthas. And a few in a locked room. Most of them would probably work. Again, there should be risk attached. But there functionally isn't any.
Quote from: Feco on December 08, 2016, 03:45:03 PMQuoteBut because we're not really playing in a gameworld, but some ludonarrative in which npc reactions and stigmas don't need to be considered. And since staff just arn't interested in enforcing it anymore, you can get away with it without any fucks to be given.
QuoteOh. And "roleplay". Sure, you roleplayed it though, so that makes it okay. Have a gold star. Nevermind that it's easy, lazy and damaging to the players on the other end.
These two statements make me wonder if it was even worth responding. Why talk like that? All this tells me is that you have an overly pessimistic view of the game, and that you don't mind talking down to people.
If someone gets upset about something that happens in game, they should file a player and/or staff complaint about it. If people are playing responsibly, then it's likely staff already knows what's going on, to some degree, and can deal with it.
Sure I get salty. And I frequently need to watch my language on the forum. So point taken.
But I also try to see why things are the way they are and how they can be changed to make the game more rewarding for everyone.
Sorry, but no. I'll never consider this sort of play acceptable. I have never organized a killing like this and never will. And I resent the fact that players will endlessly justify cheapening the game for others just because it's an easy, risk-free solution.
I apologize if I misread your post a bit. It seems like you're saying, at least in part, that we should look down on characters that do this sort of thing. I absolutely agree with you. It's smarmy. It feels dirty to do it. But my characters do a lot of shitty things I would never do, and I invite people to treat them shitty because of it.
If it's easy and risk free, though, I think it's being done wrong. It can be risk-free if you operate in a vacuum and twink around. It's risk free if you 1) know you can win the fight, and 2) just leave the body there and walk out like nothing happened, only coming back when you know it's all cleaned up by the code.
Character reports letting staff know your plans, wishing up at the time, and responsibly considering the environment make it everything but risk free. PCs frequent apartment complexes. You need to get past lots of actual NPCs -- not just vNPCs. These things make it difficult for a good roleplayer.
Roleplay *does* make the difference, here. If you're roleplaying, it's hard. The only bonus is you have a higher chance of actually killing someone. There are less risky ways to do things, but they may not be as effective. What plan your PC makes, if any, depends on the situation.
So, player complaints. Make staff pay attention to people you think are being shitty.
Also, just banning apartment killings would be weird. Not all apartment killings are the result of planning an ambush. I would think such a rule would be "don't lure people to your apartment rooms just to kill them." But, people don't always do that. People bring people to their apartments for a plethora of reasons, and sometimes someone ends up dead. You'll probably end up with the same amount of player complaints, and it'll require the same amount of staff oversight (if not MORE). Also, is it just specific to apartments? What if you get lured into a ruin and the assassin got a key to the door? Or reverse lockpicked it? I don't see such a rule adding anything to the game.
And again... please don't think I'm constantly luring PCs into apartments to kill them.
Yes. I frequently have to remind myself that I'll get better results when I'm not attacking people. Like I said earlier, that's on me.
Kicking the ball into staff's court isn't the wrong way of doing it. But even they're subject to the notion that this kind of thing is normal for Zalanthas too. (when even what's normal is just an interpretation of static game artifacts and application of our own beliefs about society)
So I'm not just shouting into the howling wind at players here either.
I like assassins. Assassins need to be easier to play and widely employable.
In my opinion the greatest contributor to a feeling of stagnation is that compared to even 5-6 years ago, PCs seem to live a fuck of a lot longer. Maybe that's just rosy-goggle nostalgia or the bias of memory, but I used to remember being blown away when I'd take a one year break and come back and see a scant handful of the same people. Those two dudes must be SUCH BADASSES, wow!
I recently returned from an almost two-year stint of playing only very sporadically and I recognized 8 of the 10 PCs my new character ran into from back in the day. That shit was wild.
Not that every long lived character is some stagnant do-nothing--the opposite, in fact, tends to happen--but over the course of playing my last super long lived character, having little PC turnover in her social circles for like 3 RL years made things feel pretty stale sometimes.
Edit: I feel like maybe I should elaborate on why a bunch of long-lived characters can result in an RP desert, so to speak.
1. Old characters have shitpiles of resources, which makes it easier to do that stamping out of minor conflict people have brought up repeatedly in this thread.
2. Old characters tend to have shitpiles of skills, which means that if they are the sort of player who's prone to UTTERLY MURDERFY anyone who crosses them or upsets them, they can do so more or less with impunity.
3. Old characters often occupy higher ranks of their clan and social ladders, which means they may be more inclined to be defensive toward newcomers and react in a way that stymies conflict RP rather than engenders it.
4. I'm definitely guilty of this with my long-lived PCs: you end up in your own little bubbles. You have a few friends, maybe a couple people you've sworn to hate, maybe a long-lived boss. If you're a clan leader, clan leader demands can take up a lot of your time. When you're a long-lived character it's easy to interact with fewer people because you've got an established "cast" and that can stifle conflict with newer characters who may not even MEET you.
5. A world where even nobles, GMH leaders, and super-warriors die frequently would in theory inspire more PCs to work together for survivability's sake. If surviving is easy, you don't have to plot as much to simply not die.
But at the same time I'm not really sure how to fix it, because I understand that the players of these characters don't deserve to just have their PCs die simply because they've been around for a while. But I do wish there were more environmental factors--disease, inner city dangers, whatever--that made dying a more real threat in ways that weren't just PK.
However, I have no idea how staff could accomplish that without upsetting a lot of people! Or if they'd even want to. Again, perhaps "people live too long and things get stagnant" is a perception issue on my end.
Quote from: Fathi on December 08, 2016, 05:27:02 PM
However, I have no idea how staff could accomplish that without upsetting a lot of people! Or if they'd even want to. Again, perhaps "people live too long and things get stagnant" is a perception issue on my end.
Demon invasion ftw!
It's a double-edged sword with long-lived PCs.
Either the turnover is higher and they get jaded at losing all their friends; or the turnover is low and they get in a rut.
The answer is almost always "more conflict".
PArt of the issue, in my opinion, hinges on established clans being "too big to fail" and having virtually limitless resources compared to your average upstart commoner. Try what you'd like, but sooner or later you may hit a wall with one of these and no matter how many chinks you make in it, you'll never get anywhere real with it, except maybe stuffed into a box and buried in the garden. This can be stifling to conflict in that even if you "win", you lose, why engage in it at all if the outcome is already pre-determined? But that's just how the game is, I suppose.
I feel if clans were player founded, run, and operated, you know, actually lived or died by the players within them, then we'd see a lot more REASON for the conflict (or considering some saner negotiating tactics), then we'd see a lot more meaningful conflict, whereas the rest could just be, closed to play save a few special instances. I mean, it worked for the Jaxa Pah (didn't it? Or did I miss something?)
I mean, in Romeo and Juliet, both the Montagues and Capulets are a big deal, their conflict is central to the story. Never does one get the impression, however, that they are in any way timeless and invincible. The struggle is meaningful because it is REAL, because if you DON'T get the upper hand here, you, and everything you care about, is done. There isn't a sponsored role-call when the shit hits the fan and a knife finds the boss's heart, that's just not how it works.
Quote from: Dunetrade55 on December 08, 2016, 07:01:40 PM
PArt of the issue, in my opinion, hinges on established clans being "too big to fail" and having virtually limitless resources compared to your average upstart commoner. Try what you'd like, but sooner or later you may hit a wall with one of these and no matter how many chinks you make in it, you'll never get anywhere real with it, except maybe stuffed into a box and buried in the garden. This can be stifling to conflict in that even if you "win", you lose, why engage in it at all if the outcome is already pre-determined? But that's just how the game is, I suppose.
<snip for brevity>
There isn't a sponsored role-call when the shit hits the fan and a knife finds the boss's heart, that's just not how it works.
The main problem with this is that the too-big-to-fail clans in Armageddon serve a valuable purpose and the game gets kinda clunky when they aren't properly represented. I played a Byn Sergeant during a time when there was about a 6-8 month period with no visible PC presence from Salarr, for example. Sure, fancy weapons and armour aren't a right to every PC, but that also meant Salarr wasn't out there giving contracts to the Byn or wheeling and dealing with the nobility or any number of things. I played a Tuluki noble in a house that was obsessed with spice during a time when Kurac had no agent in the city. That was also not fun and resulted in a lot of weirdness that felt very OOC, such as my fellow nobles just buying spice from elves who'd wander down to Red Storm and sift it.
PC-founded clans often fall apart when the leader PC dies or stores. Be it because they were founded on a cult of personality basis, or because that PC was the glue holding everything together.
I'm not sure I'd want to play a game where a couple ill-timed PKs or people riding off the wrong cliff could make large chunks of the game's resources completely unavailable to PCs. Sometimes it's good that staff can just whip up a sponsored role to keep things chugging along.
The too-big-to-failness can be really frustrating in a lot of ways, but I don't think independent merchants or player-created merchant clans could fill the void of the Merchant Houses and ESPECIALLY the social void of the Noble Houses. There's be whole swaths of RP opportunities that would just
vanish if you could simply nuke Kadius by killing the dude who ran it and all his PC underlings.
Quote from: Fathi on December 08, 2016, 07:18:00 PM
The too-big-to-failness can be really frustrating in a lot of ways, but I don't think independent merchants or player-created merchant clans could fill the void of the Merchant Houses and ESPECIALLY the social void of the Noble Houses. There's be whole swaths of RP opportunities that would just vanish if you could simply nuke Kadius by killing the dude who ran it and all his PC underlings.
While I agree that killing the Kingpin shouldn't result in the demise of an entire House...
I disagree that the demise of an entire House would necessarily be a bad thing, or vanish RP opportunities. In fact, I think it'd ADD opportunities where they had previously not existed.
No one is ALLOWED to make a clothing-and-accessories GMH to rival Kadius, because Kadius is Kadius and they won't stand for it. You can try, but as a player, you are expected to accept that it won't ever happen.
On the other hand - if Kadius were wiped out - there now is a HUGE RP opportunity to be "the ones" to replace them. Battles over who rules the silk trade, who can amass the fortune necessary to buy their way into a GMH estate instead of just a mere 2-room warehouse...who gets to clothe and bejewel the nobility... it'd be immense. The RP possibilies are staggering.
Quote from: Lizzie on December 08, 2016, 09:15:14 PM
Quote from: Fathi on December 08, 2016, 07:18:00 PM
The too-big-to-failness can be really frustrating in a lot of ways, but I don't think independent merchants or player-created merchant clans could fill the void of the Merchant Houses and ESPECIALLY the social void of the Noble Houses. There's be whole swaths of RP opportunities that would just vanish if you could simply nuke Kadius by killing the dude who ran it and all his PC underlings.
While I agree that killing the Kingpin shouldn't result in the demise of an entire House...
I disagree that the demise of an entire House would necessarily be a bad thing, or vanish RP opportunities. In fact, I think it'd ADD opportunities where they had previously not existed.
No one is ALLOWED to make a clothing-and-accessories GMH to rival Kadius, because Kadius is Kadius and they won't stand for it. You can try, but as a player, you are expected to accept that it won't ever happen.
On the other hand - if Kadius were wiped out - there now is a HUGE RP opportunity to be "the ones" to replace them. Battles over who rules the silk trade, who can amass the fortune necessary to buy their way into a GMH estate instead of just a mere 2-room warehouse...who gets to clothe and bejewel the nobility... it'd be immense. The RP possibilies are staggering.
Oh yeah, absolutely. I'm not disagreeing with any of that. But that would take a huge amount of time for PCs to do all that stuff mentioned in your bottom paragraph. In the meantime, the absence would probably be pretty frustrating. That's more what I meant when I say that just suddenly being able to nuke a clan would create a vacuum that would irritate a lot of players and put a lot of plots on old.
If all that stuff in your last paragraph were possible to do over time for an eventual Kadius takeover or something, it'd be great. I'm all for it.
But I think it would be shitty from a gameplay perspective if PKing the right people could result in a complete and utter absence of a Kadius-type entity until someone could build all that up enough to be considered the new dude in town. That could take RL months.
Basically, those huge clans offer a continuity that's just as much for OOC convenience as it is IC lore.
When it comes down to it Fathi, the basic function of the Merchant Houses is to provide consistent quality products to the masses. They also serve as a platform upon which the mighty and fancified can strut their noble stuff. ANYone can now mastercraft, thanks to the master crafting subguilds. I really don't like this, because I sincerely believe it dilutes the primary function of the GMHs, when any Byn mercenary, Militia, or Kuraci Sergeant can mastercraft their own House's livery. However, this IS how it is. Anyone can do what Kadius and Salarr do, now. Unless the staff choose to re-evaluate and restore Merchant_guild to being THE master crafters of the game, we're stuck with the dilution.
Since it's been diluted, the GMHs (Salarr and Kadius specifically) are no longer as "premier" as they used to be. It used to be, an individual merchant could crop up, and build a crew, and BE a merchant, while his crew did their crew things. That was the only way to be a merchant outside of the GMHs. This is no longer true. With the sole exception of authorized use of wagons, there is nothing a GMH Junior Merchant can do, that a Byn recruit can't do.
So blow up Kadius, and HAVE a battle to replace them. Make it last a few game decades. While that's happening, you'll STILL get your purple and orange jewel-encrusted wickedly sharp razor-etched dildo of deth and destruction, because there will be a dozen Byn recruits waiting to master-craft it for you.
Also just noticed this at the bottom of your post:
QuoteBut I think it would be shitty from a gameplay perspective if PKing the right people could result in a complete and utter absence of a Kadius-type entity until someone could build all that up enough to be considered the new dude in town. That could take RL months.
I don't think it'd be shitty at all from a game-play perspective.
But I started playing when playable the only thing I knew about "the north" was that it consisted primarily of Freil's Rest, owned and operated by Kadius, and Tuluk had been recently sacked and was mostly just an enormous crater of burnt-out rubble and ruins.
You didn't hear much complaint about an utter absence of anything, really. It was too exciting to notice that Amos Salarr couldn't make you a fancy sword. If you needed a sword you'd take the best you could get. If it didn't come from Salarr, it really didn't matter at all.
Yeah and there's also no stopping a zero CGP player from rolling a merchant with the appropriate subguild to quickly fill the niche they perceive, well, except KADIUS.... AUGH!
EDIT: Look at it this way, your past experiences with Kadius or Salarr being unable to fill orders would no longer have to go through a huge, laborious process including staff picking and choosing sponsored roles, and some player bored with their current combat role could be like, you know what? I can do that, and I /WANT/ to do that, and specifically that, to fill this niche, instead of I want to walk into the game with boosted social status and skill ranks... not saying some sponsored role players aren't capable of mastercrafting you some fine goods, but wouldn't you want someone who wants the job solely for the sake of making the things you want, than someone who feels obligated to step in and "make the world more real" for everyone by following the roles as they're currently documented?
Wouldn't upward player mobility, and the potential conflict and resolution ahead, be worthy of the sacrifices? Can we not count on our fellow players to want to make sexy, bejewelled dresses, which they'd be otherwise unable to do without managing some status in house X? Don't we want to see them out there FIGHTING over the chance to do it for you, and better than the other person? The question is, what do we want? All-powerful monopolies render a lot of potential plots and pursuits dead before the door even opens. It's time to pick up the priorities and give them a really painful amount of inspection.
I hadn't thought about it like that but yeah, subguilds can mastercraft. That does sort of diminish the pure merchant role.
I think it's also something to consider that these GMH institutions aren't just stationary targets waiting for you to plot against them. They aren't Costco; they're the Medici. You want to try to take over then you're in the OLYMPICS of plotting.
If a random street mugger killed Mark Zuckerberg tomorrow then they don't make him the next CEO of Facebook. He goes to jail and the #2 guy steps up. And in Zalanthas, you're going to have to BE somebody in order to have a chance at taking over. And if you are somebody, then you're now a target too as you begin to maneuver.
Uneasy is the head that wears the crown, so they say.
Quote from: Miradus on December 08, 2016, 09:55:06 PM
I hadn't thought about it like that but yeah, subguilds can mastercraft. That does sort of diminish the pure merchant role.
I think it's also something to consider that these GMH institutions aren't just stationary targets waiting for you to plot against them. They aren't Costco; they're the Medici. You want to try to take over then you're in the OLYMPICS of plotting.
If a random street mugger killed Mark Zuckerberg tomorrow then they don't make him the next CEO of Facebook. He goes to jail and the #2 guy steps up. And in Zalanthas, you're going to have to BE somebody in order to have a chance at taking over. And if you are somebody, then you're now a target too as you begin to maneuver.
Uneasy is the head that wears the crown, so they say.
However, if you hack the Facebook server and turn all the datafiles into random integers, and then blow up their corporate headquarters, and find out where their cloud server is located and blow that up too - then Facebook will cease to exist. And SOMEONE will be vying to take its place. You don't even have to kill Zuckerberg. You just have to eliminate his primary resources.
Um, ok. Sure?
That's not exactly an easy endeavor. Frankly, you do the Arm equivalent of all of that then you probably deserve your own house.
But as a single player operating alone, you're not even going to be able to touch the vNPC world. You can't just wave your hand and say, "I wiped out all the vNPC spice sifters so now I control the spice flow."
Quote from: Miradus on December 08, 2016, 10:04:16 PM
Um, ok. Sure?
That's not exactly an easy endeavor. Frankly, you do the Arm equivalent of all of that then you probably deserve your own house.
But as a single player operating alone, you're not even going to be able to touch the vNPC world. You can't just wave your hand and say, "I wiped out all the vNPC spice sifters so now I control the spice flow."
Exactly, and this is what stops conflict dead in its tracks. You can't really have conflict in such an environment without staff giving it the go-ahead beforehand, you can't see player actions actually impacting the game world, and all of what does go on mostly goes on behind closed doors, and the status quo is largely maintained. No one but the sponsored roles really feels a part of anything "meaningful" and all that happens is some PCs die and nobody ever talks about it.
I guess after 6 pages I'm not sure what we're talking about anymore.
After 6 pages, I don't envy staff the task of finding the happy medium.
Quote from: Delirium on December 08, 2016, 10:16:21 PM
After 6 pages, I don't envy staff the task of finding the happy medium.
How can there be a happy medium when what's been established is the Incredible Hulk and the rest of us are stuck just playing variants of Ernest P. Whorl? That's not conducive to conflict, tragic comedy, maybe.
Well, I do trust them to know what is and isn't hyperbole ;)
Quote from: Delirium on December 08, 2016, 10:52:09 PM
Well, I do trust them to know what is and isn't hyperbole ;)
Know what I mean, Vern? I don't trust them, but then, I don't trust anyone. I'm simply pointing to the scales any of us can look at and see that massive leap that leaves one position unassailable, and the next in the dust. People should misccalucate leaps and get screwed at times, but the scales are always significantly tilted and there's no room for shaking anything up without everything coming down on your head. For a MMH, for example, you have to find a niche. Since the closing of some roles, there are more niches to fill, yet, these are still signiicantly limiting. Anyone else who wants a niche after the first is taken is significantly limited.
I do love the game, however, and I trust staff and my fellow players to do that much. But if you want conflict, invincible monopolies will not encourage any kind of conflict.
I've been a fan of lowering the glass ceiling for a long time, but there also needs to be some continuity.
I've been seeing a decent amount of low-level conflict, though it would be cool to have some world-spanning conflict going on as well.
I have seen no shortage of conflict in the last 6 months but it may depend on your role/ location so I am interested in this thread.
Quote from: Miradus on December 08, 2016, 10:04:16 PM
Um, ok. Sure?
That's not exactly an easy endeavor. Frankly, you do the Arm equivalent of all of that then you probably deserve your own house.
But as a single player operating alone, you're not even going to be able to touch the vNPC world. You can't just wave your hand and say, "I wiped out all the vNPC spice sifters so now I control the spice flow."
That is precisely how some of the current, existing houses in Armageddon were created. That's what I want to see again. The chance to do exactly that.
Why could an independent merchant not do something unique?
(Just for example)
Like he discovers how to make clockwork springs out of mekillot bones that are powerful enough to move a small wagon forward.
The plot then moves forward as he tries to come up with ways to protect his designs from people who are vastly more powerful than he is.
I don't see why the impetus has to be on taking something existing and trying to steal it. Is there no mechanism by which new things can be added?
Over the past year I've watched (from multiple characters) as a certain trade group became a thing. While they're not a GMH, they certainly wield a lot of "soft power" in the game world. And over time soft power tends to become hard power.
Quote from: Miradus on December 09, 2016, 09:35:39 AM
Why could an independent merchant not do something unique?
(Just for example)
Like he discovers how to make clockwork springs out of mekillot bones that are powerful enough to move a small wagon forward.
The plot then moves forward as he tries to come up with ways to protect his designs from people who are vastly more powerful than he is.
I don't see why the impetus has to be on taking something existing and trying to steal it. Is there no mechanism by which new things can be added?
Over the past year I've watched (from multiple characters) as a certain trade group became a thing. While they're not a GMH, they certainly wield a lot of "soft power" in the game world. And over time soft power tends to become hard power.
Clockwork springs? I know it's just an example, but that that's the best you can come up with is evidence that there's simply no room to manuever. Won't discuss the recent thing because it's too recent, but in my opinion it's not a particularly good example to cite (though they are/were awesome). You're missing the point, there is absolutely NO room for an indie merchant to make anything of value without being shut down by one of the houses. But hell if you can mastercraft a grandfather clock and get it accepted, by all means do so.
As far as that's concerned... a LOT of times (in Arm History at least), an established group won't simply snuff out the competition. They want their coin. They want the design. They want the mind. Usually they offer to buy out the company, or the design, or try to force the inventor into their ranks so they can have it all.
SOMETIMES, making sure they get a huge cut of the profits is enough to make them go away. They'll let you have your little stall in the Bazaar so long as they're getting coin off you one way or another.
The struggle comes in, I believe, when you have to pay off the Templarate (plus Trade Ministry probably), the Guild, the Merchant Houses... and they all want HUGE cuts of your profits, to the point where you're -not- making a profit anymore. It sucks, but its how the monopoly of Merchant Houses came about.
Grandfather clock?
No, my idea was actually for wagons to be propelled by mainsprings carved from mekillot bones, wound by half-giants using bahamet ligaments which turn wheels made only from silt horror shells.
These wagons would then be propelled around the Pah. Imagine the intense conflict scenes of you, the indie merchant, cruising along the crumbling road while dodging pits, gith, and wagon-loads of desert elves painted white try to jump onto your wagon and engage you in melee.
Still waiting to hear back on that request. I'll let you know!
Quote from: Riev on December 09, 2016, 11:16:11 AM
As far as that's concerned... a LOT of times (in Arm History at least), an established group won't simply snuff out the competition. They want their coin. They want the design. They want the mind. Usually they offer to buy out the company, or the design, or try to force the inventor into their ranks so they can have it all.
SOMETIMES, making sure they get a huge cut of the profits is enough to make them go away. They'll let you have your little stall in the Bazaar so long as they're getting coin off you one way or another.
The struggle comes in, I believe, when you have to pay off the Templarate (plus Trade Ministry probably), the Guild, the Merchant Houses... and they all want HUGE cuts of your profits, to the point where you're -not- making a profit anymore. It sucks, but its how the monopoly of Merchant Houses came about.
Dude. Have you ever started your own business? Because that's pretty much MBA level business right there.
I operate out of my house. Technically, all of my profit comes out of my own mind and from an old easy-chair I got at a garage sale. There are no employees, no materials consumed, and no carbon emissions (except on Taco Tuesdays). Yet the county charges me a business fee, the bank charges me a business fee, the state of Texas charges me sales tax, and the Federal government at the end of the year charges me a couple of thousand bucks for the privilege of existing.
And if I ever refuse to pay then each of those entities will send the Arm of the Dragon, oops, I mean law enforcement, to come and either imprison me or collect by force.
The reality is that I think of something and put it down on paper and then some other guy somewhere says, "Hey, that's mildly entertaining and I'll pay money for it." At which point a thousand official hands appear out of thin air and start grabbing chunks out of the money.
Quote from: Miradus on December 09, 2016, 11:21:10 AM
Grandfather clock?
No, my idea was actually for wagons to be propelled by mainsprings carved from mekillot bones, wound by half-giants using bahamet ligaments which turn wheels made only from silt horror shells.
These wagons would then be propelled around the Pah. Imagine the intense conflict scenes of you, the indie merchant, cruising along the crumbling road while dodging pits, gith, and wagon-loads of desert elves painted white try to jump onto your wagon and engage you in melee.
Still waiting to hear back on that request. I'll let you know!
If you are ever ambushed by a wagon-load of elves, I suggest filing a complaint of some sort. Otherwise, good luck.
Quote from: Miradus on December 09, 2016, 11:29:38 AM
Quote from: Riev on December 09, 2016, 11:16:11 AM
As far as that's concerned... a LOT of times (in Arm History at least), an established group won't simply snuff out the competition. They want their coin. They want the design. They want the mind. Usually they offer to buy out the company, or the design, or try to force the inventor into their ranks so they can have it all.
SOMETIMES, making sure they get a huge cut of the profits is enough to make them go away. They'll let you have your little stall in the Bazaar so long as they're getting coin off you one way or another.
The struggle comes in, I believe, when you have to pay off the Templarate (plus Trade Ministry probably), the Guild, the Merchant Houses... and they all want HUGE cuts of your profits, to the point where you're -not- making a profit anymore. It sucks, but its how the monopoly of Merchant Houses came about.
Dude. Have you ever started your own business? Because that's pretty much MBA level business right there.
I operate out of my house. Technically, all of my profit comes out of my own mind and from an old easy-chair I got at a garage sale. There are no employees, no materials consumed, and no carbon emissions (except on Taco Tuesdays). Yet the county charges me a business fee, the bank charges me a business fee, the state of Texas charges me sales tax, and the Federal government at the end of the year charges me a couple of thousand bucks for the privilege of existing.
And if I ever refuse to pay then each of those entities will send the Arm of the Dragon, oops, I mean law enforcement, to come and either imprison me or collect by force.
The reality is that I think of something and put it down on paper and then some other guy somewhere says, "Hey, that's mildly entertaining and I'll pay money for it." At which point a thousand official hands appear out of thin air and start grabbing chunks out of the money.
And then Walmart hires a company out of China who can manufacture a duplicate of the stuff you make, at pennies on the dollar. Then, they buy the property next to yours, and sell the exact same stuff you make for less than half of what you *pay* for raw materials because they buy in bulk - as in - millions of pieces, while you're still tooling away with your hundreds.
That is the reality of Armageddon GMHs vs the independent "awesome item that people actually want to buy" merchant.
Quote from: Lizzie on December 09, 2016, 12:53:48 PM
Quote from: Miradus on December 09, 2016, 11:29:38 AM
Quote from: Riev on December 09, 2016, 11:16:11 AM
As far as that's concerned... a LOT of times (in Arm History at least), an established group won't simply snuff out the competition. They want their coin. They want the design. They want the mind. Usually they offer to buy out the company, or the design, or try to force the inventor into their ranks so they can have it all.
SOMETIMES, making sure they get a huge cut of the profits is enough to make them go away. They'll let you have your little stall in the Bazaar so long as they're getting coin off you one way or another.
The struggle comes in, I believe, when you have to pay off the Templarate (plus Trade Ministry probably), the Guild, the Merchant Houses... and they all want HUGE cuts of your profits, to the point where you're -not- making a profit anymore. It sucks, but its how the monopoly of Merchant Houses came about.
Dude. Have you ever started your own business? Because that's pretty much MBA level business right there.
I operate out of my house. Technically, all of my profit comes out of my own mind and from an old easy-chair I got at a garage sale. There are no employees, no materials consumed, and no carbon emissions (except on Taco Tuesdays). Yet the county charges me a business fee, the bank charges me a business fee, the state of Texas charges me sales tax, and the Federal government at the end of the year charges me a couple of thousand bucks for the privilege of existing.
And if I ever refuse to pay then each of those entities will send the Arm of the Dragon, oops, I mean law enforcement, to come and either imprison me or collect by force.
The reality is that I think of something and put it down on paper and then some other guy somewhere says, "Hey, that's mildly entertaining and I'll pay money for it." At which point a thousand official hands appear out of thin air and start grabbing chunks out of the money.
And then Walmart hires a company out of China who can manufacture a duplicate of the stuff you make, at pennies on the dollar. Then, they buy the property next to yours, and sell the exact same stuff you make for less than half of what you *pay* for raw materials because they buy in bulk - as in - millions of pieces, while you're still tooling away with your hundreds.
That is the reality of Armageddon GMHs vs the independent "awesome item that people actually want to buy" merchant.
That's about right, except Armageddon's Wal-mart starts by murdering your family as you watch, then boards you up inside and burns your house down... THEN they make that super-awesome thing and totally tell everyone it was their idea to begin with.
EDIT: Can't skip the formalities, you know? They're still paying pennies on the dollar but now they're overcharging massively because they have no competition. It's like trying to get reasonably priced internet in the USA.
Thank you for choosing a GMH to mastercraft your items. That'll be eleventy billion sid. Oh? You'll get an indie to do it? Can't find any indies? That's too bad.
(http://i.imgur.com/S3YAL4k.png)
I find the situation extremely realistic. Which is to say it makes me want to chop someone in the face with a mekillot's sharpened hip bone. Kind of like when I have to go to town to pay my internet provider because they don't accept payments online.
Lets not confuse conflict with achievement, and less so with success.
It is quite possible to have conflict with a GMH. But given the game world, one really should not expect some sort of achievement in supplanting a GMH, or even significantly damaging it. One has to go into certain conflicts expecting that they won't succeed.
As long as your goal is conflict, that is fine. If your goal is actually some sort of achievement, or success, then you are really interested in something different than conflict.
This isn't some Marvel Universe where our characters are heroes. Our characters are like those in the Walking Dead, except all the main characters that actually stay alive are NPCs (or GMH, Noble Houses, etc if you like that analogy), and we are all the other characters, living, dead and sometimes undead.
An interesting point Twilight just made.
Without conflict, isn't achievement meaningless?
"Oh, Gandalf! It's an evil ring? What can be done?"
"Well I can cast this spell and make it vanish. POOF. See? Done."
"Thanks, Gandalf! Sure glad we didn't have to walk across the known world being pursued by Ringwraiths, fighting orcs, and climbing mount doom. That would have been a lot of conflict. Now. When's second breakfast?"
(http://www.xblafans.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/AchievementUnlockedTemplate_mobile.jpg)
The point of the thread, I thought, was to highlight why there feels like a stagnation with conflict. I have just explained why. It's unsustainable, and the characters you actually see engaging in conflict with these monolithic monstrosities are limited in number...
... as well as time spent twinking up so they can maybe give the rest of you more than three rounds of coded combat, making social connections so they can give you more in the way of social conflict than calling you a stupid meany-head, and gathering arms and armor for the inevitable slaughter-fest that awaits them. If you want to see more of it, try drawing it out a little more and you might. Otherwise, you get what you get.
It seems to me that most of the people complaining about a LACK of conflict are more victims of their own success. I am constantly engaging in conflict. I have presented what I believe will reinvigorate conflict for those of you who feel it is lackingi. That is all.
The only nemesis I've ever really had in Arm has been the Unexpected Carru, who refuses to ever roleplay.
But in other games when I've found someone fun to be a nemesis I've always drawn it out over a long period of time with no clear end. Because ... fun.
Quote from: Miradus on December 09, 2016, 07:32:42 PM
The only nemesis I've ever really had in Arm has been the Unexpected Carru, who refuses to ever roleplay.
But in other games when I've found someone fun to be a nemesis I've always drawn it out over a long period of time with no clear end. Because ... fun.
I roleplayed with a scrab once. That was fun. Sent kudos in to staff shortly after being eaten alive. I would have been upset but I couldn't stop laughing.
I had the most amazing nemesis a while back. So good. I still sigh about that crazy enemy chemistry.
It ended too soon, Nemesis. So many duels unfought. So many insults unslung. So many regrets. A+++ would despise again.
Quote from: Dunetrade55 on December 08, 2016, 09:50:38 PMWouldn't upward player mobility, and the potential conflict and resolution ahead, be worthy of the sacrifices? Can we not count on our fellow players to want to make sexy, bejewelled dresses, which they'd be otherwise unable to do without managing some status in house X? Don't we want to see them out there FIGHTING over the chance to do it for you, and better than the other person? The question is, what do we want? All-powerful monopolies render a lot of potential plots and pursuits dead before the door even opens. It's time to pick up the priorities and give them a really painful amount of inspection.
If someone worked hard enough and clever enough, they'd be able to impinge on Kadius's monopoly. This happen enough times, Kadius would become but a shell of what it once was.
Quote from: Dunetrade55 on December 09, 2016, 01:01:24 PMThat's about right, except Armageddon's Wal-mart starts by murdering your family as you watch, then boards you up inside and burns your house down... THEN they make that super-awesome thing and totally tell everyone it was their idea to begin with.
You're not asking for more conflict. You're asking for the risk of taking certain conflict to be lowered. I think the risk/reward ratio is pretty much exactly where it should be right now for trying to take on a GMH.
Quote from: Dunetrade55 on December 09, 2016, 04:20:13 PM... as well as time spent twinking up so they can maybe give the rest of you more than three rounds of coded combat
If you're really as jaded as your posts indicate you are, maybe taking a break from playing the game would allow you to come back and enjoy actually playing it. I also suggest that avoiding jcarter's forum will likely help with not becoming so jaded, but I'm sure you'll take anyone's advice on that issue the day that Allanak gets blown out of the ground.
Suffice it to say: your opinion is simply that of an extremely jaded player. There are plenty of people who do not share your opinion and are able to enjoy the game. Your opinion is not fact and you'd do well to not post as if it were.
Quote from: John on December 10, 2016, 11:18:15 PM
Quote from: Dunetrade55 on December 09, 2016, 01:01:24 PMThat's about right, except Armageddon's Wal-mart starts by murdering your family as you watch, then boards you up inside and burns your house down... THEN they make that super-awesome thing and totally tell everyone it was their idea to begin with.
You're not asking for more conflict. You're asking for the risk of taking certain conflict to be lowered. I think the risk/reward ratio is pretty much exactly where it should be right now for trying to take on a GMH.
The TLDR of my and I think Dune's position is that the risk/reward of any conflict with any other player is so out of whack that nobody would rationally engage in that conflict. So in effect we're punishing players who engage in that conflict while having to consider that players who don't engage in that conflict get to keep their characters and will be rewarded with more power for their continued survival.
The rational approach under this system is to engage in as little conflict as possible while gathering power and to meet characters who are willing to start conflict with instant death.
So yadda yadda, feedback loop that discourages conflict and creates extreme responses to any attempt at said conflict.
Responses to conflict may or may not vary with GMH houses based entirely on the actual players inside the GMH scene.
Quote from: John on December 10, 2016, 11:18:15 PMQuote from: Dunetrade55 on December 09, 2016, 04:20:13 PM... as well as time spent twinking up so they can maybe give the rest of you more than three rounds of coded combat
If you're really as jaded as your posts indicate you are, maybe taking a break from playing the game would allow you to come back and enjoy actually playing it. I also suggest that avoiding jcarter's forum will likely help with not becoming so jaded, but I'm sure you'll take anyone's advice on that issue the day that Allanak gets blown out of the ground.
Suffice it to say: your opinion is simply that of an extremely jaded player. There are plenty of people who do not share your opinion and are able to enjoy the game. Your opinion is not fact and you'd do well to not post as if it were.
Assertions are normally presented as fact. That's just debate language we're using here. And we are are a bit short of facts because we can't really pull data from the game. So instead we try to reinforce our positions with the strength of our arguments (and hopefully not with the strength of our invective).
Now I consider writing off a problem as just plain pessimism to be a bad argument.
That's probably good advice about that other forum though.
Jingo, you are the type of player I would regret engaging in conflict with. Perhaps there is a no-zero-sum solution that can be achieved with players, even when experience tells you they'll avoid risk at any cost and execute your char upon signs of conflict, but it requires either trust on both parties side in order to break that feedback loop, or the willingness to hold yourself to a higher standard. If you don't trust the other players to help break that feedback loop, you become an obstacle in and of yourself towards good conflict roleplay.
When you say 'nobody would rationally engage in that conflict', I find myself wondering whether you mean no player, or no character. I find myself disappointed when I consider the prospect of a char willing to engage in, say, a war against a GMH, and their player deciding risk/reward is too small. I would gladly engage in a war with a GMH, even knowing that my char wouldn't 'win', and single-handedly destroy the merchant house, because in the process I would be creating a plot for both myself, and the merchant house members, and hopefully for the people either of us hire or recruit to help battle each other.
And if I failed, if at first attempt I was slaughtered mercilessly and given no chance for escape or good roleplay, yes, I would stop trusting. I would stop trusting the char that did that to me, but just the char.
Quote from: Jingo on December 11, 2016, 03:11:22 AM
The TLDR of my and I think Dune's position is that the risk/reward of any conflict with any other player is so out of whack that nobody would rationally engage in that conflict.
Not all characters are rational, in the sense that they would be motivated by Vulcan-level rational calculation: emotion, honor, and pride are traditional motivators in history, and so too I think on a desert planet like Zalanthas. Indeed, a 'rational' character of the sort suggested here would strike me as rather un-Zalanthan, and a very boring character to play.
Quote
So in effect we're punishing players who engage in that conflict while having to consider that players who don't engage in that conflict get to keep their characters and will be rewarded with more power for their continued survival.
I think there's a lot wrong with this paragraph. First, I, as a player am not the one engaged in conflict: rather it is my character. This is why I (the player) get a lot of reward out of putting my character in conflict situations: even if that character dies, the story was worth it. E converso, I, as a player, do not get rewarded with more "power" (huh?) much less gratification from playing a long-lived character who avoids conflict. Like I said, I would find playing such a character dull and boring.
I've already mentioned elsewhere how I find your pessimistic view concerning the degree to which Armageddon players abandon role play and OOC consideration for a good story in order to 'win' highly dubious and your repeated siren's call towards it bad for the community as they paint a very wrong picture of the state of the game to newer players.
I have yet to prove or disprove the pessimistic view myself. I remain hopeful but also wary. It's not outside of a character's nature to act as if any potential conflict ISN'T going to blow up in their face.
Sort of like a mom who calls the police to speak to her drunken adult son but then the police arrive and shoot the belligerent drunk. You never know which conflict is going to escalate, or how quickly.
I understand at a storytelling level that massive conflict is desired. But from an individual character's perspective, all conflict is big. Whether it's an impeding war or a kryl on the road.
Quote from: Miradus on December 11, 2016, 04:57:00 PM
Sort of like a mom who calls the police to speak to her drunken adult son but then the police arrive and shoot the belligerent drunk. You never know which conflict is going to escalate, or how quickly.
Never before have I seen a simile that so aptly sums up my Armageddon experience.
Quote from: nauta on December 11, 2016, 11:40:07 AM
Quote from: Jingo on December 11, 2016, 03:11:22 AM
The TLDR of my and I think Dune's position is that the risk/reward of any conflict with any other player is so out of whack that nobody would rationally engage in that conflict.
Not all characters are rational, in the sense that they would be motivated by Vulcan-level rational calculation: emotion, honor, and pride are traditional motivators in history, and so too I think on a desert planet like Zalanthas. Indeed, a 'rational' character of the sort suggested here would strike me as rather un-Zalanthan, and a very boring character to play.
No I'm thinking more at a play level. I'm not talking about character rationalization, I'm talking about player rationalization.
It's smarter just avoid conflict in general, regardless of IC circumstances. Even if it makes complete IC sense, for your character, supported with game documentation. If you want to survive, it's just better to play an agreeable character.
And I am in perfect agreement that it's better for the game that we involve ourselves in conflict. But then we routinely punish players who do try to generate something, even just to add a bit of tension to a scene.
Quote
So in effect we're punishing players who engage in that conflict while having to consider that players who don't engage in that conflict get to keep their characters and will be rewarded with more power for their continued survival.
I think there's a lot wrong with this paragraph. First, I, as a player am not the one engaged in conflict: rather it is my character. This is why I (the player) get a lot of reward out of putting my character in conflict situations: even if that character dies, the story was worth it. E converso, I, as a player, do not get rewarded with more "power" (huh?) much less gratification from playing a long-lived character who avoids conflict. Like I said, I would find playing such a character dull and boring.
I've already mentioned elsewhere how I find your pessimistic view concerning the degree to which Armageddon players abandon role play and OOC consideration for a good story in order to 'win' highly dubious and your repeated siren's call towards it bad for the community as they paint a very wrong picture of the state of the game to newer players.
You the player make the choice to engage in conflict with your character. You are still making OOC decisions when you're making IC decisions. It's a convenient fiction to suggest that IC decisions are based entirely within the textual reality of the game. Every time you make an "IC" decision, you are still turning all the same cogs at the back of your brain and employing all the biases you carry with you.
And as far as my little social model goes, I'm not saying it's a good thing. I'm saying that it carries a heavy influence on players. Whether we know it or not, we are conditioned to play in certain ways as a result of the game environment.
Yes, characters with longevity do get more power. They get skills, they get contacts, they get better support from their house etc. This isn't rocket science.
Yes, some players see more reward in engaging in conflict and trying to play the game in a way that brings it's themes to life. I'm one of them. But if my characters get killed for even trying, predictably and repeatably by the same characters that have lived for three-plus years then I start to wonder what the point is.
So I would very much like some sort of changes to be made that encourage conflict.
Edit: And please don't try to tell me my ideas are bad for the game. I think it's far more damaging if we can't investigate a problem to come up with good solutions.
Quote from: Raptor_Dan on December 11, 2016, 08:45:11 AM
Jingo, you are the type of player I would regret engaging in conflict with. Perhaps there is a no-zero-sum solution that can be achieved with players, even when experience tells you they'll avoid risk at any cost and execute your char upon signs of conflict, but it requires either trust on both parties side in order to break that feedback loop, or the willingness to hold yourself to a higher standard. If you don't trust the other players to help break that feedback loop, you become an obstacle in and of yourself towards good conflict roleplay.
I agree. You are actually putting this better than I can. Thank you.
QuoteWhen you say 'nobody would rationally engage in that conflict', I find myself wondering whether you mean no player, or no character. I find myself disappointed when I consider the prospect of a char willing to engage in, say, a war against a GMH, and their player deciding risk/reward is too small. I would gladly engage in a war with a GMH, even knowing that my char wouldn't 'win', and single-handedly destroy the merchant house, because in the process I would be creating a plot for both myself, and the merchant house members, and hopefully for the people either of us hire or recruit to help battle each other.
I'm talking about the player level. And I mean rationally, given the context of the system I outlined above. I'm not using "rational" in the sense of right thinking. I'm using "rational" as taking the best choice out of the lot. Engaging in conflict might be rewarding, but it won't grant you power if it kills you. In the long-run, characters that don't engage in conflict will have more power.
QuoteAnd if I failed, if at first attempt I was slaughtered mercilessly and given no chance for escape or good roleplay, yes, I would stop trusting. I would stop trusting the char that did that to me, but just the char.
Mhmm-hmmm. That's a good place to start. But I've played long enough to know that this is the norm and not just a few bad apples spoiling my play.
Your definition of 'best choice out of the lot' is the part of the opinion I disagree with. If, veterans like you, who have been playing so long, continue to take the least conflict/most power path that you've outlined as the 'best choice', then I feel like I'm forced to ask:
What do you propose you do about that?
Or, if I may rephrase the situation, and ask a different question: In the 'Prisoner's Dilemma' scenario, have you fully committed to always betray the other prisoner?
Quote from: Raptor_Dan on December 11, 2016, 09:23:58 PM
Your definition of 'best choice out of the lot' is the part of the opinion I disagree with. If, veterans like you, who have been playing so long, continue to take the least conflict/most power path that you've outlined as the 'best choice', then I feel like I'm forced to ask:
What do you propose you do about that?
You seem to be misunderstanding me still. The rational choice is the one that nets you the most external gain. Not the choice that's "right" or makes you feel the best.
I propose we reward players who engage in conflict and punish players that are too quick to kill conflict.
Okay, there is definitely a communication error, and I think I see where it is. I threw in a little blurb up there, added on as an afterthought, before I realized you posted. I must have missed the 'new post' warning because I was eating. Regardless, let's continue this...
I have been rewarded for engaging in conflict, and I have seen others that are punished for killing conflict too quickly (in such a way that it inhibits roleplay).
I didn't get more contacts, better gear, more coins, more skills, a longer life, neat mounts, magickal powers, combat echoes, access to new areas, old lore, artifacts, titles, or anything like that.
I got kudos. It was very rewarding.
What kind of rewards do you think we should give PLAYERS?
I have a few ideas.
Karma and kudos are nice for validation. But are lacking as an external reward.
I think staff should be more willing to support players on the fringe when a powerful player whips up a witch-hunt against them.
Players could be rewarded with further support, rare items, rare opportunities and the means or motivations to further disrupt the game's status quo via more conflict.
Killing another PC doesn't equal killing roleplay. It means killing that PC, as part of roleplay, and potentially creating NEW conflict/roleplay scenarios as a result of that character's death. Yes, your character is dead. But your next character is not, and is now ready for you to app it and get it approved. See - dead PC = new opportunity for you.
In addition, if your character was in a clan, there'll be some RP revolving around "Where's Amos?" or "Hey boss I just saw Amos's corpse" or "Arena time, Amos, and you're the guest of honor!"
Also, if your character was involved in plots, there is now a new twist to that plot, because your character is now dead/missing.
There is actually MORE opportunity for roleplay and new and/or escalated conflict as a result of your character's death, than there is as a result of someone storing a character.
I would ALWAYS prefer my character die, than live so long I can't stand playing her anymore and storing her.
Quote from: Lizzie on December 11, 2016, 11:17:43 PM
Killing another PC doesn't equal killing roleplay. It means killing that PC, as part of roleplay, and potentially creating NEW conflict/roleplay scenarios as a result of that character's death. Yes, your character is dead. But your next character is not, and is now ready for you to app it and get it approved. See - dead PC = new opportunity for you.
In addition, if your character was in a clan, there'll be some RP revolving around "Where's Amos?" or "Hey boss I just saw Amos's corpse" or "Arena time, Amos, and you're the guest of honor!"
Also, if your character was involved in plots, there is now a new twist to that plot, because your character is now dead/missing.
There is actually MORE opportunity for roleplay and new and/or escalated conflict as a result of your character's death, than there is as a result of someone storing a character.
I would ALWAYS prefer my character die, than live so long I can't stand playing her anymore and storing her.
Nobody here has said "killing kills roleplay." But that's a pretty meaningless assertion anyways.
I wish we had some kind of command that'd make you attack people if they tried to leave the room.
I know I'm not the only one who's a little reluctant to trust people after falling victim to the "x looks at you" then "x walks north" times infinity meme.
Guard works well, particularly in choke points. As it should.
A "room" in the wilderness is approximately a league of space, in most conditions.
Often I'll emote riding in the distance and waving or signalling somehow before I ride closer to someone I don't know, even if I'm in the same room.
The opposite would also be true. If you wished to demonstrate your aggressiveness, you could ride straight at them, after coming into the same room.
You can't force roleplay on someone, even in this type of mud environment. If they aren't going to play with you then they aren't going to play with you. If you have code methods to force them to interact you should use them, otherwise you're relying on the goodwill and interest of the other player to respond to YOUR roleplay.
Some of this is "my roleplay sucks and someone won't hold still and let me inflict it upon them."
If you look interesting, I'm going to stop and participate.
QuoteYou can't force roleplay on someone, even in this type of mud environment. If they aren't going to play with you then they aren't going to play with you. If you have code methods to force them to interact you should use them, otherwise you're relying on the goodwill and interest of the other player to respond to YOUR roleplay.
Sure, just don't be surprised when the goodwill isn't offered a second time and next interaction with the rude little raider who is trying to force their horrible RP upon you comes in the form of a OHK peraine laced arrow from three rooms away.
Yeah, that's my point.
There's other issues there, but that's sort of what leads to the dissatisfaction with the roleplay.
Personally, unless I'm going up against someone who I know is going to be fun to roleplay with, I'm going to drop back to code.
This is really all speculation based on my experience in other games. I've literally never had any of these interactions in-game here on Arm. The only time I ever met a raider it went well and with some decent roleplay.
Then I'm not really sure why you're disagreeing with me to begin with?
A command that engages combat at an attempt to leave the room doesn't force you to RP or hold you captive. If someone's truly so terrible that you can't fathom the idea entertaining their meager attempts of interaction with an emote you can just kill x or flee after combat's initiated. It just means you're not going to be able to hand wave coded consequences if the big meanie makes the mistake of trying of make something other than "kill keyword" the first thing they type.
Generally, I find using a command emote with the direction command sets the scene better and encourages people to stick around for the scene, e.g.:
e (riding down the dune, sword glinting in the sun)
I also mentioned earlier that I have seen very few spam flee situations, by far the minority, and most of these I suspect are newbies.
The bandit will also want one or two emotes cued up too.
If they do opt out of the scene, ultimately my thought has been: so what? Clearly, they didn't want to play with you today, and I don't really want to play with someone who goes straight to code anyway.
Quote from: Lutagar on December 12, 2016, 11:41:07 AM
Then I'm not really sure why you're disagreeing with me to begin with?
I didn't know I was. :)
I can see all sides of this. A lot of it just depends on player's in-game experience. Mine have been mostly good, so I lean towards the positive side.
I'll say I have had more demotivating encounters in taverns with non-combat people than I have had with raiders or bandits.
Quote from: Lutagar on December 12, 2016, 10:39:35 AMa OHK peraine laced arrow from three rooms away.
is codedly impossible
So I've been reading, and I think there's a couple things I want to address.
First of all, there's a lot of discussion about being on your own and trying to take on massive organizations. Organizations that are, by in large, considered too large to fail. As an individual or part of a small crew, you are massively outnumbered and out resourced. However, while that may seem extremely discouraging, it is not the end all. If you want to take out a big House, you need to make it worthwhile for others to support you.
My point is that conflict would be better facilitated if large groups have more worth fighting over. In terms of GMH, for example, Salarr and Kurac have no reason to back you to try to take out Kadius, because Kadius has no conflicting wares. The GMH are carefully portioned off to have extremely minimal overlap, because all the mercantile wars were fought and resolved a long time ago. While there is some resource competition in theory, this has also now all been outsourced (Kadius and Salarr have no hunters and have to hire indy groups, and Kurac also has to hire indy groups, but also has an MMH-starting location as well as the Fist).
Quote from: Miradus on December 11, 2016, 04:57:00 PMI understand at a storytelling level that massive conflict is desired. But from an individual character's perspective, all conflict is big. Whether it's an impeding war or a kryl on the road.
I disagree with this statement. From an individual character's perspective, a kryl on the road is usually just an obstacle, or potential death hazard. An impending war is long-scale, multiple-instance conflict that literally defines the goals of cities and those in them. An impending war has potential for large-scale gain and loss, on a PC level and House level. From an individual character perspective, that is very different and vastly larger in scope than a mere kryl on the road.
Quote from: Jingo on December 11, 2016, 03:11:22 AMThe TLDR of my and I think Dune's position is that the risk/reward of any conflict with any other player is so out of whack that nobody would rationally engage in that conflict. So in effect we're punishing players who engage in that conflict while having to consider that players who don't engage in that conflict get to keep their characters and will be rewarded with more power for their continued survival.
The rational approach under this system is to engage in as little conflict as possible while gathering power and to meet characters who are willing to start conflict with instant death.
I'm going to come down on Jingo's side on this one. I think that there's few reasons to participate in significant levels of conflict, and a lot of reasons to avoid it. We've talked a lot about the risk of death already, but that is far from the only risk.
Honestly, another huge risk is frustration and disappointment. Let me clarify: I do
not mean frustration that you failed to accomplish your conflict related goal of X, because you were masterfully outmaneuvered by the other House or group, and were ICly crushed. I mean that often times you can't even get the conflict to happen at all. You put in a very large amount of time and effort, and you can't get either the player or staff support to even get the conflict sparked and initiated.
Now not all conflict is going to go anywhere. Some is always going to be something you can't pursue or that fizzles out and dies. That's understandable. But I think that right now the ratio is way off. I think that we need to make changes so that
conflict is easier to pursue, and we need to do this by changing the way things are set up.
1. We need to have more built-in competition, to gain better House support and reasons for conflict
2. We need to have more gain potential for conflict, to better encourage players to participate with and pursue conflict
I'm still just reading this as 'I'm consciously deciding not to get involved in these things and I want someone to come up with something that makes me stop deciding not to do these things.'
Stop deciding not to do those things. There.
Edit: STOP IT. STOP IT OR I WILL BURY YOU ALIVE IN A BOX.
Quote from: Armaddict on December 12, 2016, 09:38:47 PMI'm still just reading this as 'I'm consciously deciding not to get involved in these things and I want someone to come up with something that makes me stop deciding not to do these things.'
Stop deciding not to do those things. There.
Edit: STOP IT. STOP IT OR I WILL BURY YOU ALIVE IN A BOX.
Well, you have a PC, with a PC's motivations. They have a lot of different motivations, PCs, depending on who they are. But there's a fair portion of them that want to achieve success and accomplish things, either for themselves, their House, or both.
One option is to improve their own situation by engaging in conflict. But what conflict? Well, conflict means that you are, by nature, conflicting with someone. Usually this means they have something you want or are standing in the way of something you want. If they don't have that, there's no reason to have a conflict. That kills things off before they even get started.
But let's assume they do have something that you want. Next, you have to try to pursue this conflict. It takes a lot of time and effort. Maybe, like a large portion of conflicts, it fizzles out and doesn't get anywhere. Your effort has now been wasted, and you are not further ahead, but rather further behind. Maybe, like some conflicts, you fail. Maybe you're killed off, or maybe you're just out maneuvered. You are significantly set back, in either case (either literally dead or politically hamstrung). In the small portion of conflict that is left, you may succeed. This success can either be total, or is more likely to have earned you enemies (which you will then have to deal with).
The reward better be pretty large for all those risks.
But let's say instead that you are not really interested in conflict at all. You would rather work together with another group. Now, there's still some challenges here too. Sometimes this also won't get enough support to go anywhere and will fizzle out. But in trying to build things with people, benefiting everyone, you're making friends and connections. You're not making so many enemies (although any success can make some enemies), so there's a lot less risk to you. In general, it would seem that you are more likely to be successful.
So saying "STOP IT" is not helpful. If I am to act in an IC way, I must consider my character's goals. I can't simply decide "maybe I should ignore all these drawbacks and pursue conflict, just because". So what I'm saying is
LET'S GIVE PCS MORE REASON TO ENGAGE IN CONFLICT!
Which the last 8 pages have been sprinkled with people telling you, 'I dunno, I don't have a hard time finding conflict', then you countering with that not being worth it because this and this, and so on and so forth.
Which is why I'm saying...apparently, it's you stopping you, not anyone else. -I'm- not having a hard time finding people to consider enemies and kill or not kill. -I'm- not seeing feeling like all of my characters live long, pointless existences. Because my characters find things to make into their causes. I think the justification that you're just following the IC desire for safety to be a convenient one for you at this time.
As far as massive conflict? I've said multiple times that I agree, but that such is a staff endeavor, not a player one. They have to be okay with taking the reins back and doing big plots, because what we have now is what the playerbase demanded from them before; stop running plots, let us control things. This is what reduced them to the game equivalent of an approval board.
However. Stating over and over that there's no things worth you joining over (which is, paraphrased, what you've said a few times now) is saying you're selecting the choice not to, not that there's no opportunity around you.
It's summed up pretty well by your outline that ends in:
QuoteThe reward better be pretty large for all those risks.
Edit: Which is to say...oh my god, your plan might not work out? Oh my god, you might make enemies?! Oh MY GOD, THINGS MAY NOT GO AS PLANNED? You're calling these things outrageous risks and using them to justify evasion of having goals because they're not worth it. This is, again, an illustration of you making the conscious decision not to pursue those things that you acknowledge could be a possibility, not that they don't exist.
Quote from: Taven on December 12, 2016, 09:53:07 PMLET'S GIVE PCS MORE REASON TO ENGAGE IN CONFLICT!
Red Fangs
Tuluk
Sorcerers
Nilazis
Conclave
ALA
Senate Meetings
Psi/Sorcs
Archives
Tor with gemmed "war-mages"
Thralls
The Rebellion
Only "the few" with enough karma having full-on mage guilds, no magick subguilds.
Only "the few" who chose Merchant main-guild being able to mastercraft.
All. Gone.
Make crazy shit happen, make neato stuff rare. That's how you create massive conflict.
Quote from: Armaddict on December 12, 2016, 09:59:40 PMVarious things
I'm confused what you are trying to say.
You seem to be saying that there's lots of conflict, and how dare I say it's hard to pursue, while simultaneously saying that you agree with me on large-scale conflict. While then also stating that there's nothing we can do about it, because everything is staff. But then you also blame players for wanting to control things and say that's what's ruining it all. And then you bring it back around to it being my fault for not pursuing opportunities that clearly exist.
So... Is there a problem with conflict or not? Because if you're saying that you believe there is a problem, then it would be logical to discuss solutions.
I wonder if it's not so much conflict that's lacking as a narrative. Two narratives:
1. A grand narrative, or at least an Allanaki-wide narrative, where everyone in Allanak has a rationale or motivation to engage with (and conflict with) someone else (Tuluk, for instance).
2. A clan narrative. A narrative in which someone in clan A has a rationale or motivation to engage with (and conflict with) someone in clan B. (With exceptions: the Byn needs no such narrative, for instance.)
These really should come from staff, not players.
Quote from: Lizzie on December 12, 2016, 10:08:39 PM
[Adjusted by Taven for size while trying to keep content]
Red Fangs, Tuluk, Sorcerers, Nilazis, Conclave, ALA, Senate Meetings, Psi/Sorcs, Archives, Tor with gemmed "war-mages", Thralls, the Rebellion, Full Magick Guilds (no subguilds), Only Merchants MC-Capable
Make crazy shit happen, make neato stuff rare. That's how you create massive conflict.
There's a few things I would pull forwards from your post.
First, that there's a number of things you listed that generated some conflict just by existing. For example, Red Fang stirred up conflict by their nature. Tuluk and Allanak are by nature conflicting with each other. Thralls and Sorcs are also, by their nature, existing in conflict. All of these threats mentioned are external. Instead of all being in the same city, you have opportunities to work with others in your city against an outside force. I think as a general rule, people just enjoy conflict they can work together with others on. Right now, the game has next to no external conflict.
Secondly, you mentioned "make crazy shit happen". I think that's another thing we're lacking right now. Conflict is easier to initiate as a reaction to something happening, particularly a large event that offers a lot of opportunities. This is something that staff can initiate.
So I think both of those points of your post are good.
I'm a little less sold on some of the other pieces. Why is having only Merchant Guilds be MC-capable an added advantage to conflict, for example?
Quote from: nauta on December 12, 2016, 10:20:09 PMI wonder if it's not so much conflict that's lacking as a narrative.
I'm thinking we need more
reasons to engage in conflict. I wouldn't call it "narrative", as some clans already have narrative (the story behind why they should conflict) without having a large enough gain (what they get out of conflicting).
Quote1. A grand narrative, or at least an Allanaki-wide narrative, where everyone in Allanak has a rationale or motivation to engage with (and conflict with) someone else (Tuluk, for instance).
Having a large opponent for Allanak would be beneficial to aiding conflict, yes. However, this is hard to do (as mentioned previously), because Allanak massively dominates in size and power. Additionally, all of the other PC locations rely on Allanak economically (save maybe the Pah and Morin's, but those have indirect economic ties via other close-by organizations). While you certainly can create a large NPC baddie to overcome, and that can provide some excitement, it does not provide long-term PC-on-PC conflict.
Quote2. A clan narrative. A narrative in which someone in clan A has a rationale or motivation to engage with (and conflict with) someone in clan B. (With exceptions: the Byn needs no such narrative, for instance.)
Narratively speaking, Borsail and Oash have story reasons to dislike each other. Borsail hates magick, Oash has magick. In theory there's some political gain by messing with the other, because of rising or falling in rankings. However, they have no direct competition in that their scopes are vastly different (slave breeding vs wine making). Changing this to have something they both desire or creating an overlap in what they do would enable more substantial reasons for conflict.
QuoteThese really should come from staff, not players.
Yes, a lot of this would need staff to alter and change the world to better balance it. It wouldn't have to be all at once; it could be an ongoing shift, a series of events, which then PCs could then react to.
My ideas on the first page of the thread analyze many of the clans, then take a look at how staff could change things to make conflict more appealing, rewarding, and imminent.
Quote from: Taven on December 12, 2016, 10:09:39 PM
Quote from: Armaddict on December 12, 2016, 09:59:40 PMVarious things
I'm confused what you are trying to say.
You seem to be saying that there's lots of conflict, and how dare I say it's hard to pursue, while simultaneously saying that you agree with me on large-scale conflict. While then also stating that there's nothing we can do about it, because everything is staff. But then you also blame players for wanting to control things and say that's what's ruining it all. And then you bring it back around to it being my fault for not pursuing opportunities that clearly exist.
So... Is there a problem with conflict or not? Because if you're saying that you believe there is a problem, then it would be logical to discuss solutions.
Mm, I see what you mean. To clarify, I'm addressing both the main point and several repeated derails as far as conflict as a whole.
Massive conflict, I agree, but I'm saying that's kind of expected; It's what the playerbase pretty much demanded from the staff a long time ago, was the ability for us to take the reins even if it meant that there was less world-enveloping conflict that was beyond our grasp (this tradeoff was explicitly discussed in it). If we want the stage of massive conflict to change, due to the nature of the game, we kind of have to lean on staff to do things that we can join in on. This means we won't be in charge of it. We have to be okay with that, but I was saying I'm perfectly okay with this coming back under those conditions. As far as players running huge world-enveloping things, it gets really dicey, due to how players tend to want to achieve massive change for it to feel 'worth it', and massive change doesn't often conform to the long-time standard of the static sandbox. I'm firmly rooted in the idea that the static sandbox is a good thing, not a bad thing. If players were able to just build shit just because they wanted to, end houses because they wanted to, and so on, the game would cease to be something steady over time to engage in (i.e. Everything is a shrinking time window, not something everyone gets to experience when they choose).
What I'm also addressing is that some people are also saying that the state of small conflict is healthy enough for the game to continue even if we don't have that change in the massive conflict. That keeps receiving a chime in that small-scale conflict isn't worth engaging in at all, which has prompted my above responses; when I read it, it comes across as 'if we don't get big achievements soon, this game sucks and all of you who engage in small time conflict are lying about it being good'. Small scale conflict is still pretty dang healthy in the game, if you're actually willing to play in it. I'm simply saying that if you're unwilling to engage in the conflict that -is- available (and entertaining), then you're kind of depriving yourself. The opportunity for things to do is definitely there.
Quotehow dare I say it's hard to pursue
I didn't say how dare you. I made fun of you for acknowledging that it's there, but that you just refuse to engage in it, so there's something wrong. That's on the small-scale side of things, though, not the point where I agree with you as far as world-sweeping plots.
I believe the game exists fine without the massive world-sweeping plots, but they are not currently present as you said. They would be cool bonuses to the game to have, again, so long as we realize they can't really all be player-run.
Quote from: Armaddict on December 12, 2016, 10:45:02 PM
It's what the playerbase pretty much demanded from the staff a long time ago, was the ability for us to take the reins even if it meant that there was less world-enveloping conflict that was beyond our grasp (this tradeoff was explicitly discussed in it).
This was before my time, and it seems kind of strange. The best times I've had have been being involved in staff-delivered narratives, be it actively as an agent, or passively, soaking in the vibes and excitement of bats in Tuluk or a war with Tuluk or gith in the tablelands.
And, like Taven pointed out above, the most frustrating times I've had was trying to get my own plots moving, be it via staff or via players.
Quote from: nauta on December 12, 2016, 11:11:00 PM
Quote from: Armaddict on December 12, 2016, 10:45:02 PM
It's what the playerbase pretty much demanded from the staff a long time ago, was the ability for us to take the reins even if it meant that there was less world-enveloping conflict that was beyond our grasp (this tradeoff was explicitly discussed in it).
This was before my time, and it seems kind of strange. The best times I've had have been being involved in staff-delivered narratives, be it actively as an agent, or passively, soaking in the vibes and excitement of bats in Tuluk or a war with Tuluk or gith in the tablelands.
And, like Taven pointed out above, the most frustrating times I've had was trying to get my own plots moving, be it via staff or via players.
The other thing to note is while there was a period of time where this was true (Staff wasn't doing railroad plots/their own plots, only encouraging PC to PC conflict/plots), they ended up rolling that back and saying 'Not anymore'. So...We're living in a time 'post' that.
There's no way I'm going to read everything written in this thread, but my experience with player conflict on Armageddon, both observed and participating in personally, has been overwhelmingly negative.
Every time that I've seen it's just been hundreds of hours poured into a given PC for it to end with virtually no roleplay or interaction, but just a coded line or two.
Honestly, I know this isn't going to be popular, but I don't want more escalated kinds of player conflict on Armageddon - at least the way things stand now - because no one that I've yet seen has really made a roleplaying effort of it. Player conflict beyond petty rivalry and jealousy hasn't felt interesting to me on this game more than a couple of times, if that. It's more like a contest of who's spent less time roleplaying and more time bumping their skills up.
The only solution most have to conflict - even minor conflict - is one-line-of-text-kill-them-they're-dead. Maybe conflict winds up being a sort of excuse to use the most extreme of coded skills people have spent so much time building up? I don't know. I'm still a newbie on the coded side of things.
I personally want to groan every time one of these "moar conflict!" threads pop up. Conflict's important but my experiences on Armageddon have, to date, completely soured me on it. It changes what's otherwise a beautiful environment, gritty atmosphere and deep characters into who's been crapping away their time with improving their skills the most or trying the hardest to win with the least amount of interaction possible. But OMG!! They might not win if they emote!!!11 and winning is what's most important on our roleplay-intensive fantasy game!!!
Anyway, I know I'm a MUSHer in the wrong environment sometimes, but I'm okay with the amount of conflict here. At least until something's done to ensure it's made more interesting when it happens.
Quote from: Taven on December 12, 2016, 10:20:41 PM
Quote from: Lizzie on December 12, 2016, 10:08:39 PM
[Adjusted by Taven for size while trying to keep content]
Red Fangs, Tuluk, Sorcerers, Nilazis, Conclave, ALA, Senate Meetings, Psi/Sorcs, Archives, Tor with gemmed "war-mages", Thralls, the Rebellion, Full Magick Guilds (no subguilds), Only Merchants MC-Capable
Make crazy shit happen, make neato stuff rare. That's how you create massive conflict.
There's a few things I would pull forwards from your post.
First, that there's a number of things you listed that generated some conflict just by existing. For example, Red Fang stirred up conflict by their nature. Tuluk and Allanak are by nature conflicting with each other. Thralls and Sorcs are also, by their nature, existing in conflict. All of these threats mentioned are external. Instead of all being in the same city, you have opportunities to work with others in your city against an outside force. I think as a general rule, people just enjoy conflict they can work together with others on. Right now, the game has next to no external conflict.
Secondly, you mentioned "make crazy shit happen". I think that's another thing we're lacking right now. Conflict is easier to initiate as a reaction to something happening, particularly a large event that offers a lot of opportunities. This is something that staff can initiate.
So I think both of those points of your post are good.
I'm a little less sold on some of the other pieces. Why is having only Merchant Guilds be MC-capable an added advantage to conflict, for example?
Making "things that were traditionally done by only a small group of people" made for dynamics not available when everyone and their brother wants to - and now can - do it. The ranger no longer has to rely on Salarr for a fancy suit of armor, when he is able to mastercraft his own. Lord Templar Tor doesn't need to find a Merchant OR go to Kadius, when any Byn warrior mercenary can make a unique, special, custom-designed pair of silken underwear.
If everyone can do it, there's really no reason for any of them to fight over customers. But when only three - or four - if only a very few can do it, then you'll see actual competition. "He's MY customer" "No, he's MINE." It is meaningless when the customer can make his own and doesn't need you at all, because he is now self-sufficient and can kill his own critters, skin them with ease, make a suit of armor, and wear it - or sell it to another PC and set up shop as a one-man travelling NPC.
Lizzie, roughly 1/6 of the people on at any given time are merchants. That's not rare. That's not something you have to fight over.
What's rare are pick pockets.
Quote from: bardlyone on December 13, 2016, 08:20:17 AM
Lizzie, roughly 1/6 of the people on at any given time are merchants. That's not rare. That's not something you have to fight over.
What's rare are pick pockets.
Pickpockets, in a conflict thread, are the perfect example of "conflict happened, time to call in the army".
As soon as someone is missing something from their inventory, that they are SURE they had there a minute ago, every enforcer in the game is called. That guy stole my pair of dice, get 'em. The guy that killed my lover? Yeah no idea, he seems kinda cool, we had a drink the other week but MY DICE MAN.
Pickpockets are rare because if you're good, MAYBE someone won't know it was you, but they're pretty sure it was you. Latch/Unlatch made pickpockets my dream, and PROBABY my next PC, but only because I'm a huge fan of the ability to "pay" people in coin pouches without them knowing or seeing you.
I don't know that I've ever been pick pocketed in game. And more often than not, I keep my sids in something that's open unless there's a specific reason not to. Including my pack, which is still 90% or more of the time open. It's entirely possible that it's happened and I haven't noticed. But pickpockets, yeah, are super rare. They are less common than any given element of witch. They are that rare. Whereas the 3 most populace guilds in game at any given time are warrior, ranger, and merchant. That's why I don't understand the logic of looking at merchants as rare and something to fight over. Is it shitty for merchants that other pcs can master craft? I don't know, how many different types of things can that other pc mastercraft? And how many types of things can a merchant mastercraft. Exactly.
But you're dead on right about how people get w/regards to pickpockets, Riev. I don't play them for the same reason I don't play elves or warriors (the general shape of the role itself is unappealing to me as someone who doesn't enjoy stealing or pking regarding other players, I don't mind it happening to me, but I don't like to be the one doing it). I would encourage anyone who likes pickpockets though, roll one up sometime. :D
Yeah.. Pickpockets are a lot of fun, but even at master steal/hide, crit fails can and will happen. It's surprisingly easy fleeing from the grasp of NPC soldiers, and rooftops are a godsend, but playing a guy who can and will die because of a crit fail in your most important skill someday is something I don't see most people do.
Quote from: Patuk on December 13, 2016, 10:21:53 AM
Yeah.. Pickpockets are a lot of fun, but even at master steal/hide, crit fails can and will happen. It's surprisingly easy fleeing from the grasp of NPC soldiers, and rooftops are a godsend, but playing a guy who can and will die because of a crit fail in your most important skill someday is something I don't see most people do.
I once had a PP in Tuluk who was trying to be an Aide to a Jihaen. The Templar asked for him to fetch some spice, so he hid, snuck off to the Spice Store (tm), bought some papers and some product, rolled it up, and then tried to sneak in and plant it on him.
It did not go well.
Hilarity ensued, and I lost a helmet that I'd spent 2000 coins on as 'tribute'. 10/10 would do again.
Quote from: Taven on December 12, 2016, 10:30:33 PM
I'm thinking we need more reasons to engage in conflict. I wouldn't call it "narrative", as some clans already have narrative (the story behind why they should conflict) without having a large enough gain (what they get out of conflicting).
You're playing a GAME with me. A game.
I want you to have fun as much as I am having fun. If you think that bumping up against a character of mine could result in some fun conflict then let's do it! Heck, I wish we could collude OOC and come up with a good, all-encompassing plot that would result in a couple of RL months of conflict. Instead, I'll just deal with people IC and hope they have the same intention.
If someone just wants to end conflict with pk or wants a killboard of some sort to show their epeen, there are better muds for that, and heck, better games for it. Fireballing someone in the face is immensely gratifying. When I want to do that, I go play MUME.
To get back to the main post, one thought I had -- I agree with a lot of what Taven has to say:
Staff Proaction. Perhaps the staff of each clan could open a request upon each new leadership change, and periodically throughout, appealing to the players in that clan for ideas on storylines that might be fun to pursue. Players, of course, can and should be pro-active here too. I'm sure this is happening now.
I think it's been mentioned before, but my view is that what makes Armageddon great is that it allows for good stories (or plots, or narratives, or conflicts, whichever word you want to use).
Structural Issues.
It might be worth drawing a distinction between three kinds of storylines (or narratives):
Grand. The grand narrative that every character out of chargen can hook into. This used to be Allanak vs. Tuluk or the clawfoot vs. the tribes. This isn't just 'background', but a living narrative.
Clan. The grand narrative for a given clan that each character (or at least those who aren't intentionally trying to play against the clan) has access to. This will vary clan-by-clan: some clans have this (Oash vs. Borsail), some don't (Fale), some don't need it (Byn). If you feel this narrative is missing in your clan, then open a request and prod staff with ideas to provide one.
In an ideal world, yes, the structure of the clan documentation would have this narrative built into it -- Oash vs. Borsail for instance.
Personal. This is the storylines we pursue on the petty level: who is fucking whom, insults, thefts, etc.
I think things are stellar at the personal level here, but I do think that there definitely is no grand narrative, at all, and I doubt anyone would disagree. Clan narratives will vary from clan to clan.
Anyway, I hope that can help steer the discussion a bit. I know that some of my disagreements with people in this thread have been about the degree to which personal-level conflict is possible (and happening) in the game: I think it is happening a lot, and if it's not, then that's on the player. But I would agree with Taven et al. that there is no grand narrative, and at least a couple years ago the clan narrative in Oash was pretty barren. (Otherwise, I have no experience with clans in Allanak.)
The best extended times I've had playing this game were when major story arcs (with a number of related minor arcs) affected a lot of clans, tribes and individuals at the same time over an extended period of time. It can, but doesn't have to be HRPTs.
There is conflict in the game but sometimes it needs to be spiced up a bit. The game world can feel very stale at times, and staff and players both have their parts in keeping things fun. Many of us have played this game for a long time and some things tend to become repetitive, but we also have a good bunch of creative people playing/staffing so surely that shouldn't be an impossible obstacle to get around.
I miss the depth to magick that you had a shot at reaching if you were (un)lucky or tried real hard. It had drawbacks but also led to a lot of conflict. I'd take just a pinch of semi-high fantasy magick vibes in the hands of players over NPC shows/echoes any day.
Edited to add: Also, I want to be able to feel a sense of direction when I'm playing in or around a clan. The feeling that there's a narrative but also a long-term, possibly rather vague, goal that PCs can actively work towards and also hope to achieve to some if not full extent. Or, if that's lacking, that there's support for the PCs to pursue their long-term goals if it aligns with the clan's mindset. It happens sometimes but probably not often enough, hence threads like this.
Even when there is fun stuff happening in game. I can't find it appealing at all when when all the win-at-all-costs play comes to the forefront. Even plots that should be fun and exciting start to lose their luster when it's clear one party is just going to kill their way to victory. Or otherwise win the game by pulling dirt moves out the bag of tricks.
I honestly think the lack of trust I am seeing between players (not between PCs) is what leads to conflict avoidance, skill focus, and apparent lack of drive to 'do anything'.
As MJ said, i'm starting with the man in the mirror.
I think unless we start giving each other the benefit of the doubt, we will be playing a zero sum game together. No one will want to stick around for the raider, because 'all raiders are crap players and just griefers'. No one will want to engage in conflict, because 'conflict is a zero sum game where everyone just wants to win'.
I can tell you with certainty that there are many, many players of this game who simply DO NOT DO THIS. We play to lose. We love losing. We love having mental breakdowns with our PCs when they are failing. We like to see our PCs fail and die horribly.
I've lately looked at the GDB and been sort of disappointed to see people vocally expressing how the other players in this community are crap. How they only care about skills, and will jump to murdering people for completely OOC reasons of 'winning'. I just think this is utter horseshit, and i'm sort of disappointed to see this is how some people think about their fellow players.
There might be a couple rotten apples in the bunch, but I don't think that makes the whole barrel of apples rotten and inedible.
No wonder you avoid conflict. You don't trust anyone to engage in conflict with.
I stand by the enforcement of a strict monologue policy. It's very eloquent and never in bad taste, lads.
Guys, please, keep it civil. If you have opinions, post your opinions. I would highly suggest submitting player complaints if you have issues with any anecdotal situation. We, as players, never get the full story - and that's part of the fun. But ragging about it on the GDB isn't fun.
So usually I play live-under-a-rock pcs and don't know where major conflicts are happening usually. Where are they missing recently? Do you think the lack of nilazis is a significant part of it? Not enough interHouse conflict? Maybe staff can set aside some time to start throwing gith at Luir's every three or four days for a couple of weeks. You wouldn't have to do anything major apart from spamming the creation of the cannon fodder--- just make the gith interested in throwing some forces at Luir's and you have a party involving Kurac and the Byn.
Perhaps throw out a couple of secret House role calls to stir up trouble. Staff have been that specific before, where the overarching plot has already been decided. Example, revive the Borsail Wyverns, gear them up, and have them alternate between sparring and clashing with other Houses.
This thread is not about one specific person.
Staff are not going to be drawn into discussing your case in public. Put in a request and we'd be more than happy to explain. Further derailment of this thread by the same posters will lead to temp bans.
Can we maybe petition for pickpockets to be able to bribe when crim flagged then?! Because hard jail time for stealing some sids sucks donkey balls.
I'd settle for starting with hide and getting climb up to actual master, really. Training sneak on a character with AI agility is impossible enough that staff bumped it up for me when nothing would branch from it.
Thank you for that, by the way. I still appreciate it <3
Quote from: boog on December 14, 2016, 08:31:59 AM
Can we maybe petition for pickpockets to be able to bribe when crim flagged then?! Because hard jail time for stealing some sids sucks donkey balls.
That would be neat. I know every guild has its own playability snags that people wish they could address (warriors primary weapon points being plateaued so low, merchants sometimes having to branch through 4 different skills for a thing if they don't take a redundant subguild, assassins backstab training grief, burglars and finding picks if you don't know how to find the right connections, pickpockets and the crim code for trying to mess with picking pockets, etc). I think there's room for playability improvement with all of those things, and if it would help encourage people to make more 'petty thieves', then I'm all for it. God knows it'd likely make it easier to play an elf. I don't play them but people who do have problems enough at times so... yes please, and +1.
Actually, the way people play these days, just app an elf in Allanak and act like TeamFourStar's Mr.Popo. (youtube that if you don't know.)
By doing nothing other that being a total creep and an elf, you will have spurred the whole city into trying to kill you. Have sneak and hide.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgRPpGZTfMY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgRPpGZTfMY)
I'm changing my perspective on conflict somewhat.
As a player, what responsibility to the playerbase at large do I hold towards making sure the shit in the pot I am stirring won't splash on someone who wouldn't enjoy it?
Don't stir the pot. If you have no chance in hell to breed IRL, mudsex and start a lot of baby mama drama. If you're getting enough of that IRL, start plots that emphasize your maniacal genius. Just make sure in your self-aggrandizement that no one gets hurt. Always smile at everyone, and make lots of lasting friends. Twink hard and die to an NPC.
I hope this post helps.
Show some restraint? That's it pretty much. Nobody is saying you need to be nice to other characters. But you shouldn't be allowed to torpedo other players if they're willing to invite you into negative roleplay.
Kudos if you're willing to put yourself at a disadvantage or play without certain knowledge of the gameworld.
Quote from: SuchDragonWow on December 17, 2016, 02:33:16 PM
Don't stir the pot. If you have no chance in hell to breed IRL, mudsex and start a lot of baby mama drama. If you're getting enough of that IRL, start plots that emphasize your maniacal genius. Just make sure in your self-aggrandizement that no one gets hurt. Always smile at everyone, and make lots of lasting friends. Twink hard and die to an NPC.
I hope this post helps.
I enjoyed that.
And thus the hurtme flag was born.
toggle hurtme
You are now okay with being hurt!
l
(Hurt me!) The tall, muscular man is standing here.
The tressy-tressed maiden is standing here.
kill tall
You can't do that! They're willing to play it out!
kill tressy
You kill the tressy-tressed maiden, teaching them to want to roleplay it out.
Quote from: Armaddict on December 17, 2016, 02:52:21 PM
And thus the hurtme flag was born.
toggle hurtme
You are now okay with being hurt!
l
(Hurt me!) The tall, muscular man is standing here.
The tressy-tressed maiden is standing here.
kill tall
You can't do that! They're willing to play it out!
kill tressy
You kill the tressy-tressed maiden, teaching them to want to roleplay it out.
Shall we invent an IWIN flag? Dedicated to players who want to win ezpz without any interest in collaborative storytelling?
Or can we understand that sort of strawman isn't helpful.
"Snark helps though," she said snarkily.
Oh, I think it's clear enough in pointing out just how...
QuoteBut you shouldn't be allowed to torpedo other players if they're willing to invite you into negative roleplay.
...sounds.
'I was only being stupid because I wanted everyone to know how dumb I think you were'
Ouch. That stings. (Not really).
You're still just telling other people how you think they should be allowed and not allowed to play the game according to the dictates of your own enjoyment. Which means I will come out to point it out again.
I'm trying to be a bit more respectful in my shitposting here. I don't think it'll last long at this rate though.
If you want, switch out "shouldn't be allowed" to "discouraged".
Quote from: Miradus on December 17, 2016, 01:26:38 PMAs a player, what responsibility to the playerbase at large do I hold towards making sure the shit in the pot I am stirring won't splash on someone who wouldn't enjoy it?
Absolutely none. This shit aint Tuluk. If you have played a character in Armageddon you have opted-in to get your character shit on, killed or framed for something someone else did. If you don't want to engage in that sort of play, there is an easy opt-out command we have in the game. Type "help quit" and then use it to opt-out of harsh and potentially negative towards your character roleplay.
Jesus Christ people. What the hell has happened to this game where this sort of thinking isn't laughed at the second it's posted on the forums? (No offense intended to Miradus. it's a really kind and considerate thought you had. It simple isn't applicable when playing Armageddon. This isn't Gemstone after all).
Just a question. :)
If the general answer is "none" then that's acceptable to me. If the general answer was "some" then I'd adjust accordingly.
Quote from: John on December 17, 2016, 06:08:58 PM
Quote from: Miradus on December 17, 2016, 01:26:38 PMAs a player, what responsibility to the playerbase at large do I hold towards making sure the shit in the pot I am stirring won't splash on someone who wouldn't enjoy it?
Absolutely none. This shit aint Tuluk. If you have played a character in Armageddon you have opted-in to get your character shit on, killed or framed for something someone else did. If you don't want to engage in that sort of play, there is an easy opt-out command we have in the game. Type "help quit" and then use it to opt-out of harsh and potentially negative towards your character roleplay.
Jesus Christ people. What the hell has happened to this game where this sort of thinking isn't laughed at the second it's posted on the forums? (No offense intended to Miradus. it's a really kind and considerate thought you had. It simple isn't applicable when playing Armageddon. This isn't Gemstone after all).
It sounds good for those HARDCORE PLAYERS THAT LOVE THEIR CONFLICT. But the reality is that no established norms of restraint means no trust between players. No trust means no risks taken and means no fun for Jingo.
Look, you dumb butts. Don't go around indiscriminately killing characters. Open two common sense routes during the rise of conflict with one ending in the avoidance of death.
Whether that's a raider giving you the option of handing over your shit or dying, or a noble telling you to get on your knees or die.
(This is where I apologize to the Bynners for that, uh, minor indiscretion. I regret three things and those deaths tally as one.)
Nobody actually thinks a completely random arrow to the throat is cool.
That'll be all. I'm closing this thread now.
What did you do to the Byn?
I, umm... think I did it to you and your subordinates, actually. It was a long, long time ago in the October of 2015 where I ended up killing 2 (maybe 3) Bynners.
If it's any consolation, I've sincerely regretted it since. Even if events like those are the single most interesting things to happen in the Arena due to the actual threat of an unknown outcome.
The me of today is much firmer on the two routes and I'm fairly sure those were the only PCs I killed without offering an out. It weighs heavily upon me. : (
wait, i closed this thread.
I thought it was fun. I like to think the players who lost characters also had fun. I liked the characters that died and my own character was angry about it, but shit happens. I like to think people aren't treating their PCs so seriously that they're no longer having fun.
Quote from: TheWanderer on December 17, 2016, 07:07:55 PM
Look, you dumb butts. Don't go around indiscriminately killing characters. Open two common sense routes during the rise of conflict with one ending in the avoidance of death.
Whether that's a raider giving you the option of handing over your shit or dying, or a noble telling you to get on your knees or die.
Nobody actually thinks a completely random arrow to the throat is cool.
This. So, so much this.
QuoteLook, you dumb butts. Don't go around indiscriminately killing characters.
I don't think anyone disagrees with this. The thing that comes up as argued is whether or not 'indiscriminate' really means 'but I didn't want you to'.
No, you don't need to give someone a choice if they live or die. Yes, doing so can possibly result in something cool, the same way their death can.
No, killing someone does not make you anti-roleplaying or against collaborative storytelling, as has been gone over time and time again. If you suspect someone of killing indiscriminately just for jollies, then submit a player complaint and have it investigated. There we go.
I don't disagree with you, Armaddict, but a PC's death should involve at least the amount of roleplay, emoting, or interaction that most good, experienced players would give the average chalton or scrab before it dies.
From firsthand experience, let me tell you that it doesn't always, and at least to me it's the single the worst possible experience to have on this game or anywhere else I've ever roleplayed.
I dunno, I've enjoyed killing some characters. It's funny when you give them every possible out, and they don't take it. Hell, they usually spit on you like some kind of movie badass. They die every time and I laugh. If I give you like ten outs and you're like RAGE AGAINST THE MAChINE, I'm gonna laugh and it will be your own fault.
Quote from: SuchDragonWow on December 17, 2016, 09:56:43 PM
I dunno, I've enjoyed killing some characters. It's funny when you give them every possible out, and they don't take it. Hell, they usually spit on you like some kind of movie badass. They die every time and I laugh. If I give you like ten outs and you're like RAGE AGAINST THE MAChINE, I'm gonna laugh and it will be your own fault.
Quote from: Armaddict on December 17, 2016, 09:43:32 PM
QuoteLook, you dumb butts. Don't go around indiscriminately killing characters.
I don't think anyone disagrees with this. The thing that comes up as argued is whether or not 'indiscriminate' really means 'but I didn't want you to'.
No, you don't need to give someone a choice if they live or die. Yes, doing so can possibly result in something cool, the same way their death can.
No, killing someone does not make you anti-roleplaying or against collaborative storytelling, as has been gone over time and time again. If you suspect someone of killing indiscriminately just for jollies, then submit a player complaint and have it investigated. There we go.
Ugh. I wish I wasn't doing this on a phone.
If you kill somebody, you should have a better reason to do so than, "time for hardcore shit, bruh." I wholeheartedly disagree with the sentiment that raiders axing random dudes in the desert helps the atmosphere of this game. I'd go ahead and wager this is one of the reasons the gith aren't available for play.
It's not interesting and it's not enjoyable to have somebody randomly kill you in a misguided attempt at introducing a grim experience.
At last count, I was directly responsible for 13+ PC deaths on the character with the Byn story. I'm not adverse to killing people, I just try to make sure there's solid reasoning due to their choices made through RP. Outs generally came in the form of being my bitch.
I approach conflict with the Tek complex: You keep your face in the dirt and do what I say, you live to serve another day.
QuoteIf you kill somebody, you should have a better reason to do so than, "time for hardcore shit, bruh." I wholeheartedly disagree with the sentiment that raiders axing random dudes in the desert helps the atmosphere of this game. I'd go ahead and wager this is one of the reasons the gith aren't available for play.
QuoteIt's not interesting and it's not enjoyable to have somebody randomly kill you in a misguided attempt at introducing a grim experience.
Yet again. I don't think 'Time for hardcore shit bruh' is anyone's justification for killing anyone. But just because you don't like being killed and they didn't draw out a giant scene for you does not mean it is reduced to bad roleplay or not having it's purpose in the game. People die, people kill, people get manipulated, ideals are undermined, and so on. If you think someone killed you for a willy-nilly reason, again, submit a complaint about it and move on rather than trying to form a blanket statement that infers that characters killing characters somehow equates to a tremendous responsibility or is an injustice towards the other player.
It can be investigated and determined if that's the case and they are, indeed, killing indiscriminately. But you will literally never convince me that this game needs to cut back on characters having the 'valuation of life' similar to an african warlord for the sake of some people thinking it's mean or not fun.
QuoteAt last count, I was directly responsible for 13+ PC deaths on the character with the Byn story. I'm not adverse to killing people, I just try to make sure there's solid reasoning due to their choices made through RP. Outs generally came in the form of being my bitch.
I approach conflict with the Tek complex: You keep your face in the dirt and do what I say, you live to serve another day.
Cool. I think that's healthy and good. But don't assume that because you got blindsided by someone who you don't know why they did it, it must be because they were doing it indiscriminately. You should assume you don't know the reason, and if you suspect otherwise, bring it up.
That's all I've said. Indiscriminate killing is bad, I agree. Not all killing is bad, and just because you didn't have a choice doesn't mean you got screwed out of a narrative. As a matter of fact, that means you were -probably- an important part of something that you had no idea about, to the point someone needed you out of the way. And just because someone is acting off of an opportunity rather than spending weeks trying to set up an elaborate scene for you doesn't mean they're a shitty roleplayer; a lot of the 'third party death' in this game is worked for, but the actual event itself is completely unplanned and brought about by 'Holy shit, I can do it now. I CAN DO IT NOW!'
But yeah. Nothing you just said changes anything that I said in the quote.
Is this not the thread where people were supporting random arrows to the neck to make traveling "harsh" again?
Edit: oh, that was the blackmoon thread. hmm.
Quote from: TheWanderer on December 18, 2016, 02:09:33 AM
Is this not the thread where people were supporting random arrows to the neck to make traveling "harsh" again?
Could be the Blackmoon thread as well. Either way, I don't disagree. Start fearing other people in the sands. Sorry you don't like arrows, but I think that's kind of the idea. Sorry you don't like characters who view yours as an opportunity for prosperity in a non-political way, but I have no qualms with that.
However, that is not indiscriminate killing. Nor is it lacking in roleplay, nor is it unfitting for the game world. Again, if you suspect it is otherwise, submit a request asking them to look into that raider's practices.
I did an arrow to the neck in the last two years. I'm sure that guy's pissed and thinks it was a random thing where someone just wanted to kill a PC. Or maybe they connected the dots that they were a gemmed mage who threatened to curse people in public and someone higher up decided they shouldn't be kept around.
Regardless. You can have your expectations, but just because you don't know the story behind things and you just see a death, don't assume that the roleplay around it was bad.
It's a choice, Armaddict. But it's one I'd rather go the other way on.
You can "DO IT, DO IT NOW WE CAN WIN NOW", but that's... a scary mentality to read on here openly and understand. It's the kind of the mentality that lowers the bar on roleplay and says, "I'd rather just code win than create a roleplaying experience. And I can justify it even if I know 100% it's going to be shit for other people". That's the kind of reason players don't trust each other. At its core that's the lowest common denominator.
I'm not saying you're wrong. What you say seems to be in line for a lot of peoples' expectations and vision for Armageddon, but it's also saddening because that's just not why I play roleplaying games. I'm not sure all the time that I really belong on this one with people who'll slot the codewin button in line before the emote just because it's permitted, but similar options are kind of few and far between, so I kind of am anyway.
To Armaddict:
You see, I don't take issue with your assassination example because my personal prerequisites have been met. I do, however, take issue with Jack the Raider happening upon Joe the Grebber and immediately putting an arrow in his neck simply 'cause "I raid."
The outs I mentioned would come in the form of shaking him down (much like LoD's excerpts) and shooting him if he ran.
I think there's a certain responsibility as a veteran to try and ensure a somewhat enjoyable experience, as opposed to killing PCs simply because it's in line with the theme.
If you really miss surprise, completely unprovoked mantis heads, I guess you could send me your character information. I'll then go twink archery for a couple weeks until I'm ready to randomly pop you in the neck.
It's about in line with falling into a chasm. Thematic, but, umm... oddly lacking.
QuoteIt's a choice, Armaddict. But it's one I'd rather go the other way on.
Fair, you can do so. But don't think that because you chose it means everyone else has to, or that others need to feel guilty for deciding to end a threat that they can't figure out another way to.
Quotethat's... a scary mentality to read on here openly and understand.
I'm sorry, what about what was said should have been hidden subtly and made so that you didn't understand?
QuoteIt's the kind of the mentality that lowers the bar on roleplay and says, "I'd rather just code win than create a roleplaying experience. And I can justify it even if I know 100% it's going to be shit for other people". That's the kind of reason players don't trust each other. At its core that's the lowest common denominator.
I disagree. People living longer does not mean that roleplay is healthier. Role-playing is exactly that, playing a role, and trying to insert the demand that others okay all of their character's goals and methods by you for it to be good roleplaying is a false standard. Again, if you think someone is -not- roleplaying when they kill you, then by all means, send in a report. Likewise, it's a permadeath game; every death is shitty in its own way. It happening suddenly, which is what you're talking about, is jarring and unpleasant, regardless of whether it comes at the hands of a player who decided you were an opportunity, or an NPC who is programmed to see you as food.
The latter doesn't detract from the game world. Neither does the former. They exist within it. It isn't the lowest common denominator (though I'm not sure that phrase even fits here) to play a character in a world that treats all characters in this way. Even the nobles get rude awakenings and sudden deaths.
Quoteit's also saddening because that's just not why I play roleplaying games. I'm not sure all the time that I really belong on this one with people who'll hit the codewin button, but similar options are kind of few and far between, so I kind of am anyway.
See, this is fine. But it's also what I was talking about with MUD versus MUSH. It's not 'codewin' buttons, it's literally the interface that we're given in how to have the game put our actions into reality. There are plenty of places in the game where you're more separated from these bits, but that's also a removal from a lot of the grit of the game; I don't say grit as in 'Zalanthas is a gritty place', but as in 'Armageddon is a -hard- game'. You can't bypass that it's hard. It's hard for veterans, it's hard for newbies, it's hard for everyone, because yes, the code does random wtf 'gotcha!' moments out of nowhere to remind you that -the game itself wants to kill your character permanently-. We, the players, are not allies against this phenomenon, we're part of it.
You don't have to go elsewhere to get the roleplaying experience you like. It's embedded right here as well. Likewise, the way I'm describing is not the only way of doing things, as has been iterated throughout the thread. I'm not saying 'F U guys, I'm going to kill all of you!' That would be detracting from the game world just as much as removing the violence altogether. Likewise, I'd like for you guys to not say 'F U guys, you just want to win every time you kill my character via programmed actions of the game'. It's a MUD. We're mostly autonomous entities inside of it, able to affect, interact with, and experience the world within it through commands and code. Just because sometimes that's just as much against another player as an NPC baddy coming at you doesn't suddenly shift it into a bad practice.
To make a new perspective, realize that this isn't me being defensive; I'm very secure in my contributions to the game and plots and my rationale behind actions taken IC. But I'm vocal so that other dude reading this thread knows that his concern over his raider getting killed for raiding is -fine-, and he's absolutely -fine- being a raider who kills his targets. He'll probably die horribly, but he's not behaving out of character because he's learned some good survival tricks in combat. He's not a terrible roleplayer because he tries to keep his target from getting away. He's contributing to the game world when he makes someone realize not everyone out in the sands is a friendly hunting buddy. Let the staff deal with who's doing things badly and ruining the game, don't try to shame someone else who is actually bringing their own little conflict into the game. I'm sorry if it's not in the method -you- would like, but...it -is- collaborative, as noted. Their way is just as present and viable as yours until they're showing that they can't understand the role they're trying to play.
The only difference between you and me isn't that I think death needs to be everywhere and you don't; it's that you think whenever death comes about, it has to be in a very particular way, and I don't. It just isn't that important unless it's actual abuse...which again, we know how to take care of.
TheWanderer(Edit here, fixed an autocorrect) said: STUFF (I only write it this way because I'm not a person who fiddles with quotes, I just click the button, and I wanted to be sure you saw your name here to know I was responding to you).
For the most part, you aren't saying anything that I think anyone would disagree with. Perhaps the only thing to swing on is 'Raider -must- do things this way', where I say that makes it ideal, but is -not- necessary for them to be playing as a raider.
Again. You think things have to be done a certain way. I don't. I think people need to play their character, interact with the world via whatever medium they choose, and do so responsibly. That's it.
It's not a scary mentality at all to me. Killing someone doesn't have to be "I win".
People sometimes spend RL days, weeks, months trying to corner someone and give them a scene and things either KEEP GOING WRONG or the target(s) rabbit or turtle every chance they get. That's their right EVERY BIT as much as it is the right of someone to take advantage of a weak moment and do them in. It goes both ways. If your character can't get out of trouble other than ducking and covering and praying the boogie man isn't going to get them, expect to get clubbed like someone is playing Whack-a-Mole next time they pop their head out. I'll defend your right to do it every bit as much as I defend the killer who takes you out. But try give other players a chance. There are plenty of times I thought I was going to die in game and stood there with my character's head held high (or cowered like a punk) while I was freaking out at the keyboard and thinking of what my next character would be -- and survived the encounter because RP. Play it out.
Can't say I'm perfect. I've run at times too. Felt a bit cruddy when I bolted, but that's just me. Always felt a bit like a champ when I stayed. I am not going to force that view or stance on anyone because sometimes you just hit e,e,e,e,e,e in a panic and then say.. "Oh, shit..." after the adrenaline fades. If you run, expect people to be as lenient on you as if you were a perp and you made a cop chase your ass.
In the end, this is a game. So long as we aren't cheating OOCly, then there shouldn't be a question on how fists are flying. Kill and file the report. Got beef after, file a complaint. Undrstand that IG, if you knock someone weak down, their big brother might tap you on your shoulder and knock you the fuck out. This talk of sparing people from conflict.. I'm not sure I'm following it correctly.
I thought we were in a "Talk Shit, Get Hit" world in Zalanthas. I understand letting conflict organically grow and nurturing enemies and all that. Not killing willy-nilly. But from past experience, you bust someone's lip or otherwise put someone in their place, they KEEP ESCALATING and then they possibly wonder why they're on the pile afterward. But YOU'RE the bad guy because you hit an "I WIN" button by killing them? Even if you'd let them go previously and they came back at you like a boomerang? Fine.
(http://i59.tinypic.com/akaik3.jpg)
Quote from: Reiloth on December 13, 2016, 11:51:35 PMI've lately looked at the GDB and been sort of disappointed to see people vocally expressing how the other players in this community are crap.
The only thing to do is to call people out on the crap they're peddling. If they truly distrusted the playerbase as much as their posts indicate, there'd be no point playing the game.
Quote from: Jingo on December 17, 2016, 06:44:11 PMNo trust means no risks taken and means no fun for Jingo.
Sounds like Jingo is using a lack of trust to either justify Jingo's own bad behaviour or to bitch about having to engage in aspects of the game that for whatever reason Jingo doesn't want to. Either way, this game has conflict. This game has murder. Sometimes you're going to be impacted by negative play simply so someone can establish their superiority over you. Sometimes you'll be engaged with by code first emoting second because you have something someone desperately needs and they want to maximize their chance at getting it from you. If you're unwilling to play the game as it is, that's your choice. Bitching about it is not achieving anything except souring how people feel about the game and their fellow players.
Quote from: TheWanderer on December 17, 2016, 07:07:55 PMDon't go around indiscriminately killing characters.
Quote from: In Dreams on December 17, 2016, 09:52:30 PMlet me tell you that it doesn't always, and at least to me it's the single the worst possible experience to have on this game or anywhere else I've ever roleplayed.
Quote from: TheWanderer on December 18, 2016, 01:42:52 AMIf you kill somebody, you should have a better reason to do so than, "time for hardcore shit, bruh."
If you believe anyone is doing this, report them. Vague booking on the GDB about it does not contribute anything positive to the game.
Quote from: TheWanderer on December 18, 2016, 02:09:33 AM
Is this not the thread where people were supporting random arrows to the neck to make traveling "harsh" again?
Nope. I don't support random arrows to the neck for the sole reason of making the game harsh. I do support purposeful arrows to the neck because the person shooting you wants or needs something you have. That's not the same thing you've been bitching about in the quotes above.
Quote from: In Dreams on December 18, 2016, 02:46:12 AM"I'd rather just code win than create a roleplaying experience. And I can justify it even if I know 100% it's going to be shit for other people". That's the kind of reason players don't trust each other.
Sometimes engaging in the code in order to kill someone is an appropriate and IC response to the situation. You can dress it up with language such as "people are using the code win button" and complain about the lack of "roleplaying experience". But sometimes creating an ornate scene where someone is tormented for IC hours on end is not an ICly appropriate course of action to take. Sometimes the backstab to the back is the appropriate course of IC action. I hear you say that's not fair? The game isn't fair. There are no free meals. Welcome to Armageddon.
Quote from: In Dreams on December 18, 2016, 02:46:12 AMAt its core that's the lowest common denominator.
Using code, any code, as your sole means of interacting with the game world is the lowest common denominator. Accusing someone of being the lowest common denominator because they did something that you didn't like is unnecessarily judgemental. But if you truly distrust your fellow players that much, report them. I've had players with karma engage in me with code as their opening assault, and I trusted in that player to have their reasons for doing so. If you don't have that trust, that's on you. Either get over your butthurt or report the player in question you SUSPECT of engaging in poor play.
Okaaaay, well you win! Like I said above, I know I just belong on a different platform than this one anyway. So I should just find one that fits me better. I will.
Thank you, and au revoir!
Quote from: John on December 18, 2016, 04:41:15 AM
Quote from: Jingo on December 17, 2016, 06:44:11 PMNo trust means no risks taken and means no fun for Jingo.
Sounds like Jingo is using a lack of trust to either justify Jingo's own bad behaviour or to bitch about having to engage in aspects of the game that for whatever reason Jingo doesn't want to. Either way, this game has conflict. This game has murder. Sometimes you're going to be impacted by negative play simply so someone can establish their superiority over you. Sometimes you'll be engaged with by code first emoting second because you have something someone desperately needs and they want to maximize their chance at getting it from you. If you're unwilling to play the game as it is, that's your choice. Bitching about it is not achieving anything except souring how people feel about the game and their fellow players.
I'll try not to make assumptions about your motivations and I'd appreciate it if you didn't make assumptions about mine.
And I'll bitch about whatever I want. And all the louder if I can't play the way I want to play because of the way others play. I'm sick of routinely being disappointed when I know I could just drop myself to a substandard level of play and avoid virtually all risk.
That's it. That's literally everything that gets Jingo butthurt.
If you truly distrust your players as much as your posts indicate, put in player complaints. If you don't distrust players as much as your posts indicate, I don't understand why you're posting in such a negative way. Especially when it's impacting other people's enjoyment of the game.
If it were a problem player complaints could solve. Unfortunately staff are more interested in enforcing explicit rule breaking. And not the other ways players ruin the game for others.
Quote from: Jingo on December 18, 2016, 08:20:12 AM
If it were a problem player complaints could solve. Unfortunately staff are more interested in enforcing explicit rule breaking. And not the other ways players ruin the game for others.
Oh look. More vague booking ::) Guess your bad opinion of others doesn't extend to just players ::) Enjoy the game. I'll be sure to avoid you if I ever find out who you play. Wouldn't want to impinge on your so awesome roleplaying that can't survive contact with anyone else.
http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,51856.0.html
Rule 2. Follow it. Stop being shitty to each other. Thanks.
Don't be a dick. You damn well know he can't just drop IC information on the gdb, and snarking about it gets nobody anywhere.
Quote from: Patuk on December 18, 2016, 08:44:10 AMYou damn well know he can't just drop IC information on the gdb
Making vague references to IC events also isn't allowed.
The guy is using these vague references to in game events to support his stance that the playerbase (and apparently staff) suck. As someone who is part of the playerbase, I take exception to that. Vague booking is shitty behaviour because it lends the voice of authority to one argument without letting anyone respond because no-one actually knows what the guy is talking about because he's being oh so vague about it. It's used simply to lend authority to his posts about how shitty the playerbase is and I'll respond to that by telling him exactly what I think of his posts and behaviour. If I cross the line of acceptable behaviour, I'll accept my posts being edited and the potential temp ban that may follow. But I won't take the accusations on the cheek without saying anything in the defence of both myself and some of the finest players I've found in any roleplaying game (both online and offline).
Quote from: Patuk on December 18, 2016, 08:44:10 AM
Don't be a dick. You damn well know he can't just drop IC information on the gdb, and snarking about it gets nobody anywhere.
Jingo is the one snarking about his current IC issues with staff and players. We get it. I don't even know what the situation was that got him on the roll, but I totally get his beef.
But seriously, he needs to stop. He's making me not want to play, he's making a lot of people not want to play, because no one wants to end up in the game dealing with a Jingo PC whose player is going to shit-post on the GDB about them every time his character pisses someone off and ends up dead as a result.
And it seems to me, he does this with enough frequency that we ALL end up with a very high possibility of being involved in one of his PC's death.
I hate PKing other people, I'm bad at it, I panic, I emote on the way to the location, and emote when I'm finished, and generally don't emote, talk, or even think during it because I'm so focused on "omg I'm about to PK I'm gonna end up dead cause I don't know if there's a hidden guy watching him ready to kill me first". Me, the player, is going through that, while my character is there attempting to kill someone. So no, you'll get no emote from me. I do wish up to let the staff know after it's done, or whenever possible, I send a request before-hand to give them a head's up so they know it's what I'm planning.
MOST players don't go around randomly PKing for no reason. Raiders don't even do that, that's not what raiding is about. Raiding isn't murder - it's extortion. If the ONLY thing you're doing when you are a "raider" is PKing people, then you're doing it wrong, and you're not a raider at all.
HOWEVER - if you try to extort from your mark, and the mark gives you shit about it, then all bets are off.
Raider: "Give me a tribute to pass safely through this part of the desert."
Mark: "Fuck you."
Raider: "So you want to die instead then?"
Mark: "Your mother wears army boots."
Raider: kill mark
That is raiding, when the mark isn't cooperative.
Here's raiding, when the mark isn't cooperative, but at the very least, entertaining and potentially useful:
Mark: "But all I have is my mount and my shield, I'm out here trying to earn food for my poor family!"
Raider: "I'll take the shield then."
Mark: "Pllleeeease!"
Raider: beat the mark up a bit, take the shield, and warn him that next time he'll need to learn how to use a shield a little more efficiently if he plans on passing through without tribute.
If you're being randomly PKed for no reason send a complaint to staff. If you think it's staff that's doing it, send a complaint to staff and ask that someone OTHER than the staff member you're complaining about address the complaint. And try to be nice about it. If the person reading your complaint wasn't logged in when this happened, it's possible that yours will be the first he's even heard about it. If you come at him defensively or offensively - it's more likely than not he's going to take a defensive or offensive position before he even gets a chance to check out the logs.
We'd have alot more conflict if people treated eachother IG how they do on the GDB. My next PC will be made believing their opinions are the greatest, the most true, and the moral, rational, and logical while being condescending of everyone else's.
I suppose it should come as no surprise that a thread about encouraging clan-vs-clan conflict would devolve into an argument about what players do or don't do to one another. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of players follow the rules, and respect the concept of roleplaying before killing or attempting to kill. There is no requirement at all that you should see this roleplay firsthand.
Conflict in this game will never work if you do not have trust in your fellow players. The official stance of staff is that we want to see conflict over various things: clan differences, cultural differences, racial differences, and so on. The talk of courtesy in player-vs-player conflict is confusing as a good chunk of interaction between players seems to be carebeary and cooperative, even in instances where it would be more beneficial to the player or to the organization to be in conflict. If there's anything that could kill the game, it would be that behavior proliferating across the entire playerbase.
Conflict will also never work if a good chunk of interaction stays in that carebeary form. Players' OOC fear of losing their characters (justified or not) translates into a lack of any conflict behavior, even behavior not likely to end in fatalities. So we see players with PCs with genuine care for rogue mages, other races and cultures, people in rival clans, etc. because they seem to think that even a slight tip into conflict territory will get them killed. Inter-clan play tends more toward alliance-forming than conflict-starting. The irony is that while only a few people in this thread seem to voice that phenomenon, it seems to be generally accepted by a much bigger chunk of the playerbase (including people who are vocally disagreeing in this thread on it).
The "be the change" phrase has been done to death over the years. It's gotten to a point where we don't expect that any player will be the change for the entire playerbase, although some are certainly trying. Instead, staff have already come up with ways to talk to players about following documentation, especially on cultural and clan differences, in a way that is 100% encouragement and 0% punitive. We want to encourage gradual conflict - that is, conflict that starts in a manner not likely to end in PKs, but could eventually get to that point if it continues. Staff want to start plots that will help with this as well, and we hope players will too. We want to see PCs call out other PCs in game when they ignore cultural and racial norms, or notify staff if it's too awkward to do that ICly (for example, if your character is a commoner and the deviant is a noble). We want to coach players on conflict and answer questions on how it can be started. We want to award karma to players that are not afraid to start conflict on their own and increase the overall tension in the game.
One suggestion I'd make for staff would be to empower city elves. City elves are so gimped being mean to them isn't even conflict, it's one-sided bullying, because everything that's supposed to empower them (tribes, numbers, being able to run etc) has been made virtual.
Quote from: John on December 18, 2016, 08:53:09 AM
[Making vague references to IC events also isn't allowed.
Sure it's allowed. It's the
only thing that's allowed, barring things from a decade ago. It's unfortunate, but them's the rules.
Quote from: John on December 18, 2016, 08:53:09 AM
The guy is using these vague references to in game events to support his stance that the playerbase (and apparently staff) suck. As someone who is part of the playerbase, I take exception to that. Vague booking is shitty behaviour because it lends the voice of authority to one argument without letting anyone respond because no-one actually knows what the guy is talking about because he's being oh so vague about it. It's used simply to lend authority to his posts about how shitty the playerbase is and I'll respond to that by telling him exactly what I think of his posts and behaviour. If I cross the line of acceptable behaviour, I'll accept my posts being edited and the potential temp ban that may follow. But I won't take the accusations on the cheek without saying anything in the defence of both myself and some of the finest players I've found in any roleplaying game (both online and offline).
Your words, not his. I'm sure Jingo could tell people they suck easily enough, if he really thought as much; I thought you were being a dick, so I noted that. Certainly you can tell people they're wrong without resorting to snark the way you did.
I havent read the entire thread. I promise I will, because it's awesome. But right now I've got some thoughts in my head I would like to pen down. I hope I'm not repeating something someone else already wrote. The suggestions I offer would require some coding. Or lots of it maybe. It might require attention to different NPCs, and adding extra clans to them for it to work. While a lot of other things can be simply rped out by players themselves.
So ... imagine this. Every game year, a massive Tek worshipping ritual is commenced with a White Robe heading it. During the ritual, there is an assistant task to the White that only one person can do. It could be something insignificant like holding a freaking candle, or significant like personal bloodletting, doesnt matter. The point is that the Robe chooses a person of one singular Noble House to be that assistant to him. Upon completion of the ritual, the Robe thanks the assistant and blesses his house with the Highlord's blessing. At that time, that house and all of its members (hopefully automatically, or by first doing it to the noble pc first), gets initiated into Clan_Favoured. It's important to note that the assistant can be an NPC, if the PC could not show up. Or even from an NPC house if all currently open houses suck.
The coded aspects of being favoured would be lower prices since every city merchant are actually part of favoured so they cut prices for them (Hopefully not by half, I dont know if this can be changed). Different ranks of favoured can become exempt from gate searches, or even become able to request the gates be open/closed. Barkeeps might be scripted to say something like, "Such an honor to have one of the favored in our establishment." This part relies on code. Crimes have different tiers, is it possible to make a certain clan immune to being wanted for a low tier crime? But generally, your imagination and code's flexibility is the limit on 'perks' that should be coded. A lot can be rped out as well, Kadius/Salarr/Kurac would be highly encouraged to sell certain items "only" to those currently favoured, even on the Noble level. People could give up their spot in line to the shopkeeper. Give up chairs at the bar, just general whatever.
How is the assistant chosen?
By player deeds! Be it parties, intrigue, faux pah, mudsex, Templar monthly recommendations, Merchant House monthly Recommendations, Grandiose Arena games, Smart high-intrigue moves that somehow moves things. Even performing some highly covert thing by a low noble, then eventually telling of it their parent the high noble, with the story eventually turning into a half joke/half brag during a coffee and izdari game between a high noble and a red Robe would earn points. The NPC Leaders of Noble Houses would be aware of which house is currently winning the race, but not why and how. While the NPC Leaders of a Merchant house and possibly Guild would periodically and unreliably be hinted on why some particular decision making Templar was impressed, or dissapointed by some whatever house.
The Templars are already in a race for their own favor. So the noble houses can progress in their own race, by assisting the templars willing to support them, or cockblocking the templars whom are known to support the other.
I think this alone would create conflict and cause Nobles to actively seek out avenues of 'standing out and being noticed', which will hopefully involve the rest of the playerbase. Byn definitely included.
By year's end. There is another ritual and if a different house wins. The previous house gets stripped of Favoured rank and it goes to the next one.
Certain things can always be in effect.
Borsail always has two extra points for being a high tier House.
Oash always has two extra points for being a high tier House.
Oash loses two points for employing magickers.
Tor/Fale gets one extra point.
etc.
For pure deviousness and outstanding cruelty to elves, I award House Oash sixty points!
I do think having a petty reason to compete amongst themselves for favor with the Templarate is nice, but it'd be cool if it wasn't graded by points.
Having the Houses more fluid in their standing -- So it wasn't "House Borsail Always #1", but changed year by year, or every few years, depending on such a competition...That I could really get behind.
Part of the stagnation I think is not having these massive entities like Salarr or Noble Houses or so on -- But having them provide so much inertia that trying to change their standing or place in the world is nearly impossible. It has happened, and it will happen again, but the amount of effort required is pretty staggering.
For example, House Borsail fell into a lava pit and had to live somewhere else in the city for an incredibly long time. Now that they're back, it feels like nothing has changed. They're #1 again, there's some markers for historical notation (NPCs, objects), but it's kind of the come back of the century. Obviously -- There was quite a ton of stuff going on behind the scenes, between PCs, to reach that sort of outcome. But from the outside looking in, it's as if Borsail fell from #1 to #4, and then is back at #1, and that's that.
Having more fluidity -- Or risk of fluidity -- Sparks conflict. If Oash can edge out Borsail for that #1 spot, like, ever -- That enmity isn't just little snippy comments at the bar. It's a real deal, an actual dilemma. If Sath could suddenly vault itself up through some political back dealing, or Valika, and so on...Then it gives PC Houses something to band together against.
Just using the Noble Houses as an example here. I think conflict between Salarr/Kadius/Kurac has escalated in recent years, and i'm not seeing as much arbitrary hand holding. The less of that, the better!
I like the idea of some coded benefits to a higher ranking or status, which make achieving that status more appealing in a concrete way. I think this would greatly encourage competition, because there's an actual tangible benefit.
If it was because of an event with a templar's assistant, I don't think once an IC year would work. It's hard to get anything done in an IC year. I'd suggest maybe once every 3-4 IC years (about 2 times a RL year), with smaller goals and plots to earn the proper favor in the meanwhile.
The noble House rankings changing more fluidly with a more regular review and senate meeting could also be an option, if that would motivate people. But I kind of like the idea of the festival and the Highlord's favor, too, just because it's something more cultural, and it seems more unique and special.
Dialing up competition for resources and titles creates other problems. Namely it rewards try-hard play styles and punishes players that are willing to play to weakness.
I like it on paper. But given how people "win" in this game, I don't want to see it.
Quote from: Jingo on December 26, 2016, 03:14:54 PMDialing up competition for resources and titles creates other problems. Namely it rewards try-hard play styles and punishes players that are willing to play to weakness.
I like it on paper. But given how people "win" in this game, I don't want to see it.
Yeah, but if the goal is to increase conflict, then increasing competition opportunities for tangible benefits does that.
Is there any conflict situation where "try hard play styles" aren't rewarded and "players willing to play weakness" aren't punished, in your view?
Reminds me of Tan Muark post destruction. So many views that conflict with each other, that nobody can decide on anything and in the end achieving nothing.
Relegating the status change to the senate isnt that good, because it requires a senate meeting. Normally, pretty massive changes happen after Senate meeting with scheming in preparation of sometimes taking over a RL year. It's just too rare and grandiose a thing to allow for a dynamic shift in favor and healthy competition. Senate is when top tier houses become middle and vice versa. Not a petty lateral promotion that I would hope to suggest.
It's true that dialing up on conflict makes playing roles of great influence require a go-getter, but ... that is extremely realistic. I do imagine there to be ways to discourage power gaming. Such as allying with rogue magickers to get shit done. Mainly because if you do this, you must keep it in secret even from your own house, for if you do not, the faux pah may cause a loss of such an intense amount of favor that your house will not be anywhere near a chance of becoming favoured.
Points is a loose thing, but a required one. Templar's power is point based in a sense, though what grants those points is an arbitrary judgement of the Red Robes and above. The beauty of points is that a house can have multiple ways of achieving the desired status. If it is a matter of reputation and influence of opinion, then a singular act can completely block you. While with points, even without backing of a major power, you can still win by gaining the support of a multitude of minor powers and preventing major powers from achieving consensus. This allows for all sorts of different gameplay and use of different tools. A House can potentially become favoured by only having the Guild as its ally and using it as an enforcer to beat both GMH into submission and even an occasional templar. Or allying with one singular, but very talented and smart GMH PC Leader who could be a literal Kingmaker in that fashion. All kinds of stuff is possible, if the paths to victory are varied and are not dependent on ONE singular thing.
Nothing is stopping a player from playing a noble that eschews all that rat race of chasing favor and just living to their heart's content. They just shouldnt be surprised that some newly created Noble of the same house that seems to start holding greater loyalty of your own employees, respect of templars, adoration of the masses and PCs wanting to join their banner. All of which somehow eluded that player's character for years, despite seniority. If after 10 years of being on the bottom of the potentials list, they suddenly somehow managed to almost reach it, or indeed reach it and strut around with free drink offers, all kinds of people trying to make friends in exchange for leechaway perks.
Quote from: Taven on December 26, 2016, 03:27:51 PM
Quote from: Jingo on December 26, 2016, 03:14:54 PMDialing up competition for resources and titles creates other problems. Namely it rewards try-hard play styles and punishes players that are willing to play to weakness.
I like it on paper. But given how people "win" in this game, I don't want to see it.
Yeah, but if the goal is to increase conflict, then increasing competition opportunities for tangible benefits does that.
Is there any conflict situation where "try hard play styles" aren't rewarded and "players willing to play weakness" aren't punished, in your view?
The catch 22 from a design perspective is obvious.
As it stands now, the incentive is to form alliances to work at goals and crush any troublesome outliers. I don't think added competition would much change the state of things as the incentives are largely the same. But then again I haven't really played in six months so I'm unsure about the current state of things.
But I'm wondering what would happen if we started rewarded players for making enemies and sowing chaos instead of just doing well at IC goals. The problem is that we're no longer rewarding people to work towards IC goals but to work towards the OOC goal of starting conflict.
I do actually have at least one idea in mind that I've been mulling about.
I'm thinking of a special type of role call. Not an antagonist PC per se. But a PC with the motivations and power to throw a wrench into the works.
Example: A skilled assassin makes it known that their services are available for the highest bidder. The assassin's goal is to make as much coin as possible regardless of how many bodies are left behind. They only have an IC year to pay off a very large debt.
The role has a term limit of three months. So unlike most powerful PC's they aren't playing the long game. They only have a limited amount of time to achieve their objective and their mandate should stir something up at the very least.
So you'd like to place a highly skilled character who's got absolutely nothing to lose into play, whose main income is PK, who cannot be really reasoned with and doesnt actually need anything except money?
As long as a player playing one such was responsible enough. Think more responsible then a player of a Mul for example. I'd be up for that.
Although unfortunately that does not help the creation of conflict thing in any way.
Quote from: Dar on December 26, 2016, 06:06:52 PM
So you'd like to place a highly skilled character who's got absolutely nothing to lose into play, whose main income is PK, who cannot be really reasoned with and doesnt actually need anything except money?
As long as a player playing one such was responsible enough. Think more responsible then a player of a Mul for example. I'd be up for that.
Although unfortunately that does not help the creation of conflict thing in any way.
I might be exaggerating a bit. It could just as easily be one or two high profile hits for a massive payout.
Or they might get caught and die in the arena.
One of your complaints, Jingo, is that people jump straight to death too easily. And that people with weaknesses are exploited by offering more reasons to engage in conflict.
How is introducing an assassin who has no objective except coin helping any of those problems?
My primary complaint is that players are allergic to conflict. They'd pull a cheap win rather than slug it out. This system allows players to consolidate power and to marginalize and kill those that don't cooperate.
My suggestion is a way to introduce a power outside the pc-centric structure to chip away at the cement.
Quote from: Jingo on December 26, 2016, 08:21:10 PM
My primary complaint is that players are allergic to conflict. They'd pull a cheap win rather than slug it out. This system allows players to consolidate power and to marginalize and kill those that don't cooperate.
My suggestion is a way to introduce a power outside the pc-centric structure to chip away at the cement.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, because I would rather see players given more conflict opportunities, and not present death as the singular solution.
Instead of placing a special role with the intent of maximizing their kill-for-coin ratio by convincing players more people need to die for any reason at all (because they want coin and it's in their interests to convince people of that), I want more complex conflict. I want more reasons for complex conflict.
Not to mention yanking the rug out from under all the other assassins (guild or independent) who would like to take the coin to commit some murder.
Put a small, non-disappearing deposit of iron in the sands, uncovered by the winds.
1. See how long it takes for people to notice.
2. See how long it takes for word to get to the powerful.
3. Watch them fight and kill each other over what amounts to maybe twenty pounds of iron.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rolecall for a small band working out of Storm, requiring at least two sorcerers/psions and three witches.
These would all be family and friends who hit the galactic lottery, a small group who just happen to have fat in all the wrong places.
Accept those who don't have a history of quick storing and don't have recent naughty things they did.
Give them an overwhelming reason to want one of the merchant houses dead.
I really feel hampered by the rule that we can't disclose stuff that's going on.
Y'all need to drop by the Gaj occasionally and check the rumor board.
There's conflict up to your neck all around you all the time and everyone's complaining that they can't find it.
Come out of your mudsex apartments, come in off the sands, log on for more than 5 minutes every hour while you get your skill fails in ... and conflict will find YOU.
Quote from: Miradus on December 26, 2016, 09:36:22 PM
I really feel hampered by the rule that we can't disclose stuff that's going on.
Y'all need to drop by the Gaj occasionally and check the rumor board.
There's conflict up to your neck all around you all the time and everyone's complaining that they can't find it.
Come out of your mudsex apartments, come in off the sands, log on for more than 5 minutes every hour while you get your skill fails in ... and conflict will find YOU.
There's conflict, and there's conflict. There are little hints, currently, that there might possibly be something significant, though whatever it is, might just be something very INsignificant and trivial. It's only rumor board hints with the usual scripted feel:
"Word around the tavern is something might have happened. Some say it happened this way. Others say it happened that way. Still others insist it happened the other way. But what all agree on, is that someone was involved."
The star that fell the other month - THAT seemed like it was going to be game-changing. I don't know if it was or not. I have no idea if any of the current changes to the game, are the result of that falling star. I don't know what became of that plot line, or even if it was a plotline at all, or just a device to get others to create plotlines, which might or might not have actually been created.
What some of us mean by "massive" conflict - is war. Serious hard-core war between city-states. Or a coordinated effort by the desert elf tribes to invade and infest Allanak. Or maybe a new species shows up from "beyond the known" and demands to "see your leader."
Maybe a thrall or two. Or the resurrection of ancient scary clans (ALA, Sandas, etc). Something kickass, creepy, scary, heart-poundingly interesting that lasts longer than a typical Byn RPT.
Quote from: Lizzie on December 26, 2016, 10:05:11 PM
What some of us mean by "massive" conflict - is war. Serious hard-core war between city-states. Or a coordinated effort by the desert elf tribes to invade and infest Allanak. Or maybe a new species shows up from "beyond the known" and demands to "see your leader."
Maybe a thrall or two. Or the resurrection of ancient scary clans (ALA, Sandas, etc). Something kickass, creepy, scary, heart-poundingly interesting that lasts longer than a typical Byn RPT.
"War. War never changes.
The end of the world occurred pretty much as we had predicted. Too many demihumans, not enough space or resources to go around. The details are trivial and pointless, the reasons, as always, purely Dragon ones." - Muk Utep
Good plan Lizzie, I agree.
Quote from: Lizzie on December 26, 2016, 10:05:11 PM
Quote from: Miradus on December 26, 2016, 09:36:22 PM
I really feel hampered by the rule that we can't disclose stuff that's going on.
Y'all need to drop by the Gaj occasionally and check the rumor board.
There's conflict up to your neck all around you all the time and everyone's complaining that they can't find it.
Come out of your mudsex apartments, come in off the sands, log on for more than 5 minutes every hour while you get your skill fails in ... and conflict will find YOU.
The star that fell the other month - THAT seemed like it was going to be game-changing. I don't know if it was or not. I have no idea if any of the current changes to the game, are the result of that falling star. I don't know what became of that plot line, or even if it was a plotline at all, or just a device to get others to create plotlines, which might or might not have actually been created.
This one saddened me, too.
It was so exciting! Staff posted on the gdb about it! Every rumor board in the game had something! And then.. Dud. The rumor boards note something along the lines of 'GMH's show up; wall off and cover up everything.'
So.. Yeah. Staff tried, I guess? I really wish it could've been more though.
Oh, there was play around it. But that star didn't offer a lot of avenues for future enjoyment.
Quote from: Taven on December 26, 2016, 08:40:04 PM
Quote from: Jingo on December 26, 2016, 08:21:10 PM
My primary complaint is that players are allergic to conflict. They'd pull a cheap win rather than slug it out. This system allows players to consolidate power and to marginalize and kill those that don't cooperate.
My suggestion is a way to introduce a power outside the pc-centric structure to chip away at the cement.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, because I would rather see players given more conflict opportunities, and not present death as the singular solution.
Instead of placing a special role with the intent of maximizing their kill-for-coin ratio by convincing players more people need to die for any reason at all (because they want coin and it's in their interests to convince people of that), I want more complex conflict. I want more reasons for complex conflict.
It's just one example. Maybe a focus on bodycount is the wrong idea.
I think the idea still has some merit.
Why not a rogue magicker with designs on intruding upon a clan compound to recover a secret artifact?
Why not a Nenyuki NPC with an unlimited bank balance that wants to turn noble houses against one another?
Or a criminal gang with designs on pulling a heist?
Jingo, my worry with all of your ideas is that they are plot ideas of heavy Immteraction. Dont get me wrong, they're all cool ideas, but they dont solve the underlining issue. The problem with lack of conflict is that the clans are designed in such a way that they've got nothing to conflict about. That is how I understood the OP anyway. Your ideas are good ideas for having an one-off plot. But they dont solve a problem, unless you're expecting staff to continuously create, run, and maintain plot designs that would bring the conflict in. Instead of letting the players create their own.
- What about a gang of elf youths who sneak into upscale bars and plant dung in the pockets of aides/soldiers?
- What about a reverse burglar who breaks into apartments and tidies the place up and tastefully decorates the interior?
Quote from: Bushranger on December 27, 2016, 01:52:21 AM
- What about a reverse burglar who breaks into apartments and tidies the place up and tastefully decorates the interior?
one and done my friend, this is next PC concept.
Quote from: Reiloth on December 27, 2016, 02:39:35 AM
Quote from: Bushranger on December 27, 2016, 01:52:21 AM
- What about a reverse burglar who breaks into apartments and tidies the place up and tastefully decorates the interior?
one and done my friend, this is next PC concept.
I guess you could say they...
...cleaned the place out.
YEEEEAAAAAAAAAH!
"As a templar, you will be responsible for upholding the laws of the Glorious Highlord's city of Allanak, and occasionally bending them to suit your own needs. You may be interested in war, or in catching criminals and throwing them in the Arena, or maybe you are disinterested in everything except making those sids and your own comfort."
A Templar like this---- but whose greed knows no limit. They are like an elf, trying to take every damn thing that they want. Nobles' pleasure slaves, House Kadius's money, it doesn't stop. They do it often enough that it starts creating a snowball effect. And it starts screwing around with other peoples' interests.
And why? Because that Templar is too fucking greedy.
;D
there's mad conflict right now.
had to necro this thread to say so.
Quote from: Reiloth on January 12, 2017, 12:21:04 PM
;D
there's mad conflict right now.
had to necro this thread to say so.
I can't believe she slept with him!
... oh wait... that's not the mad you meant
Quote from: Reiloth on January 12, 2017, 12:21:04 PM
;D
there's mad conflict right now.
had to necro this thread to say so.
I wish I wasn't so clueless all the time. :(
There's almost always conflict going on, it's just a question of how long it takes for them to explode into fountains of blood so more people see them. :)
Quote from: wizturbo on January 12, 2017, 01:21:05 PM
There's almost always conflict going on, it's just a question of how long it takes for them to explode into fountains of blood so more people see them. :)
Does conflict that only happens in backrooms and way conversations really count though?
Quote from: Jingo on January 13, 2017, 12:20:03 PM
Quote from: wizturbo on January 12, 2017, 01:21:05 PM
There's almost always conflict going on, it's just a question of how long it takes for them to explode into fountains of blood so more people see them. :)
Does conflict that only happens in backrooms and way conversations really count though?
If you're currently playing in Allanak, I think you have to -avoid- being in conflict.
Quote from: Reiloth on January 13, 2017, 12:24:24 PM
If you're currently playing in Allanak, I think you have to -avoid- being in conflict.
I might avoid it if I knew what it was in the first place. :P
I don't know. I like conflict as in "there are sinister forces moving against me/my people" but most of the actual people interaction just comes away feeling like mean high school girl drama. OCCASIONALLY you get someone who presents a sense of genuine menace due to the power behind them (not individual, but lore). They are rare enough to be notable when you do stumble across them.
Quote from: Miradus on January 13, 2017, 01:07:18 PM
I don't know. I like conflict as in "there are sinister forces moving against me/my people" but most of the actual people interaction just comes away feeling like mean high school girl drama. OCCASIONALLY you get someone who presents a sense of genuine menace due to the power behind them (not individual, but lore). They are rare enough to be notable when you do stumble across them.
.
Do you even Allanak bro?
Hardly ever. :)
Quote from: Miradus on January 13, 2017, 01:35:57 PM
Hardly ever. :)
Maybe give it a shot if you want conflict 8)
Heh. I don't know that I do. :)
I'm enjoying my current character a lot. A little bit of conflict going on around me, but not much. I'd say just about the right amount.
Except, of course, being conflict, it can suddenly go from knee deep to neck deep without you doing much.
Quote from: Jingo on January 13, 2017, 12:20:03 PM
Does conflict that only happens in backrooms and way conversations really count though?
Pretty sure not all conflict occurs in backrooms and way conversations. But like in real life, if people are open about who they want to murder it only makes it harder to do that. Secrets are a big part of the game. With that said, some characters are naturally more secretive than others. Some like to plot and manipulate from behind the scenes, some like to swing a big hammer at things in broad daylight. If you want to see more hammer in broad daylight, make a character that behaves that way. Just have a second character concept handy... :)
What I personally wish was more of a thing in Armageddon was less death focused conflicts. The solution to everyone's problem too often is 'kill so and so'. While murder
definitely has its place, it's not always the most entertaining. Trying to humiliate your enemies, make them miserable, or sabotage their ambitions tends to create much more memorable interactions and leaves room for conflicts to percolate into something that can end in a more satisfying fountain of blood with juicy collateral damage.
Ah, if only kidnapping wasn't so OOCly intrusive and terrible to play.
I am, however, all for "I'm going to steal his favorite erdlu" or "He likes that sword so much? I'm taking it". Granted, they CAN just buy new ones, but you took -theirs- and now they're pissed.
Something something bone swordz
Quote from: wizturbo on January 13, 2017, 04:04:39 PM
What I personally wish was more of a thing in Armageddon was less death focused conflicts. The solution to everyone's problem too often is 'kill so and so'. While murder definitely has its place, it's not always the most entertaining. Trying to humiliate your enemies, make them miserable, or sabotage their ambitions tends to create much more memorable interactions and leaves room for conflicts to percolate into something that can end in a more satisfying fountain of blood with juicy collateral damage.
This!
The snarky commoner does unspeakable damage your ego with his words.
You reel from the blow.
I'm really torn about that. In 9 years of playing this game, only 1 time has any pc of mine fooled around with an elf.
And yet I can't count the number of times that has been used as a lie to discredit and make female pcs of mine look bad.
I would rather my character be killed than sexual shit used to punish a female pc of mine falsely at this point. If you can't come up with better than 'whore' or lies about whose been between their legs, just fucking off the character.
I'm a phone sex operator IRL, to hear 'whore' as a gendered insult spat at a pc of mine (who objectively is not a whore)... frankly, I'll leave the clan, I'll store the character, etc. I have to deal with derogatory sexual BS every day in real life. I don't need that in my escapism. I would rather you just leave me be or pk me. Because it makes me hate the game. If I EVER saw it used in the same way against male pcs it'd be different, but I don't.
Quote from: bardlyone on January 13, 2017, 05:04:36 PM
I'm a phone sex operator IRL, to hear 'whore' as a gendered insult spat at a pc of mine (who objectively is not a whore)... frankly, I'll leave the clan, I'll store the character, etc. I have to deal with derogatory sexual BS every day in real life. I don't need that in my escapism. I would rather you just leave me be or pk me. Because it makes me hate the game. If I EVER saw it used in the same way against male pcs it'd be different, but I don't.
I don't think the term 'whore' should even be an insult IG unless you're attaching the label to a person of high birth. Prostitutes are common and pursuing a perfectly acceptable profession. Some of them are silky and rich and get invited to all the best parties.
Kanking an elf, yes. Whore, no.
Quote from: Akaramu on January 13, 2017, 05:09:19 PM
Quote from: bardlyone on January 13, 2017, 05:04:36 PM
I'm a phone sex operator IRL, to hear 'whore' as a gendered insult spat at a pc of mine (who objectively is not a whore)... frankly, I'll leave the clan, I'll store the character, etc. I have to deal with derogatory sexual BS every day in real life. I don't need that in my escapism. I would rather you just leave me be or pk me. Because it makes me hate the game. If I EVER saw it used in the same way against male pcs it'd be different, but I don't.
I don't think the term 'whore' should even be an insult IG unless you're attaching the label to a person of high birth. Prostitutes are common and pursuing a perfectly acceptable profession. Some of them are silky and rich and get invited to all the best parties.
Kanking an elf, yes. Whore, no.
You'd think. And yet it still happens. Often.
If you experience what you think is sexism in game, that's grounds for a player complaint. Also, you should feel free to mock the sexist characters, because they're fucking wierdos.
This also applies to RL.
Quote from: bardlyone on January 13, 2017, 05:04:36 PM
I'm really torn about that. In 9 years of playing this game, only 1 time has any pc of mine fooled around with an elf.
And yet I can't count the number of times that has been used as a lie to discredit and make female pcs of mine look bad.
I would rather my character be killed than sexual shit used to punish a female pc of mine falsely at this point. If you can't come up with better than 'whore' or lies about whose been between their legs, just fucking off the character.
I'm a phone sex operator IRL, to hear 'whore' as a gendered insult spat at a pc of mine (who objectively is not a whore)... frankly, I'll leave the clan, I'll store the character, etc. I have to deal with derogatory sexual BS every day in real life. I don't need that in my escapism. I would rather you just leave me be or pk me. Because it makes me hate the game. If I EVER saw it used in the same way against male pcs it'd be different, but I don't.
This might be a bit of a derail so I'm not going to say much more other than YES, THIS, I AGREE SO MUCH WITH YOU.
On the subject of nonlethal plots, man, it's so tough. I have had some success with it, I think. I do wish the code supported kidnapping way more than it does, because while it IS possible, it's way riskier than frankly it should be because of some proclivities with our old code and the Way being a bit of a foil. There are methods to get past those proclivities, but I feel like it should be easier, darn it.
I also love authority figures who maim people who displease them rather than killing them. I always try to go for a toture/maim first if I must, unless there is some very specific reason why the character absolutely has to die.
Also I must say that I feel like players who do engage in nonlethal conflict resolution don't always get enough credit.
Often times that "backroom chatter" you're talking about IS nonlethal conflict resolution. People wheeling and dealing to avoid one having to step over the line of violence. Paying people off, convincing them to step down, forging tentative agreements, being mindful of one another's business turf, this is all shit I see in Armageddon all the time and frankly it's a little sad that some people don't see that as "good conflict roleplay" because it can be very tense and spawn a lot of plots even if it's just talking.
I can't say I really encountered 'sexism' (the obvious kind with insults being thrown around) with any of my PCs, but my one female sort-of military leader got shit on a lot for what I felt were very minor things that wouldn't even be mentioned if I was a male PC. God, so much whining and complaining (including, apparently, OOC complaints to staff). Especially when I tried to put people in their places.
Unfortunately I didn't have the IC authority to kill people, which would probably have earned me respect. ::)
Quote from: Akaramu on January 13, 2017, 05:23:31 PM
I can't say I really encountered 'sexism' (the obvious kind with insults being thrown around) with any of my PCs, but my one female sort-of military leader got shit on a lot for what I felt were very minor things that wouldn't even be mentioned if I was a male PC. God, so much whining and complaining (including, apparently, OOC complaints to staff). Especially when I tried to put people in their places.
Unfortunately I didn't have the IC authority to kill people, which would probably have earned me respect. ::)
Edited by Delirium: please don't troll.
I scoff at your "IC authority".
(https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder454/43078454.jpg)
Maybe just more violence that doesn't lead to death. Beat someone unconscious and toss them naked in an alley. Beat the crap out of their girlfriend and leave her in an alley. Break into their apartment and murder their pet lizard. Plant spice on them. Throw a poisoned knife at them and run.
Not all of it has to be political backstabby stuff. In fact, I think commoners in general probably shouldn't be so susceptible to the old "kanked a halfbreed" rumor. Or if anything, people shouldn't care so much. Life is hard. If you wanna get your rocks off humping a dirty halfbreed, unless you work for a merchant house or some respectable organization, who would really care? I think it would be equivalent to knowing someone was cheating on their spouse in real life. You might not think highly of them for it, but you're not likely to stab them in a bar over it unless you're the spouse in question.
The larger problem with "beat someone up" is that we go back to the Law and Crime code. REALLY, 2-3 big guys with fists beating on someone shouldn't be a Kill-All affair. And if you ARE good enough to attack someone in broad daylight, you either are going to kill a couple soldiers on your way to escaping (which gets Templars on your ass) or you weren't good enough in the first place and get cut down.
There is, for all we say it exists, very little to fear inside the city outside griefers or Templars. There is unfortunately no variation on violence. You either aren't being violent, or you are and the wrath of the city will be upon you.
I can't imagine a bunch of Bynners 'tok-stomping someone on the road would get much of anyone's attention. Shit, if I socked someone in the jaw in the bazaar I'd think most people would scatter away.
For all the talk about conflict, gritty roleplay, grimdark edgyness etc. There does seem to be a remarkably small amount of intimidation and terrorizing in Armageddon.
Egads what have I done.
Quote from: Jingo on January 13, 2017, 10:16:10 PM
For all the talk about conflict, gritty roleplay, grimdark edgyness etc. There does seem to be a remarkably small amount of intimidation and terrorizing in Armageddon.
I've been PvP'ed 4 times in the last couple of months, so...I guess it depends on what YOU'RE doing as well as what other people are doing.
Quote from: Synthesis on January 14, 2017, 12:24:42 PM
Quote from: Jingo on January 13, 2017, 10:16:10 PM
For all the talk about conflict, gritty roleplay, grimdark edgyness etc. There does seem to be a remarkably small amount of intimidation and terrorizing in Armageddon.
I've been PvP'ed 4 times in the last couple of months, so...I guess it depends on what YOU'RE doing as well as what other people are doing.
I'm thinking something more along the lines of explicit threats or warnings. Idle or not. I don't think I've been threatened or warned once before I was attacked or killed. Which makes sense, since it has a way of putting a target on your back.
Quote from: Jingo on January 14, 2017, 12:42:08 PM
I'm thinking something more along the lines of explicit threats or warnings. Idle or not. I don't think I've been threatened or warned once before I was attacked or killed. Which makes sense, since it has a way of putting a target on your back.
The only issue I've seen with that is that someone who is completely, IC-uninvolved with the conflict you're trying to generate will jump into that thinking they've got a free pkill opportunity.
Quote from: Miradus on January 14, 2017, 12:53:26 PM
Quote from: Jingo on January 14, 2017, 12:42:08 PM
I'm thinking something more along the lines of explicit threats or warnings. Idle or not. I don't think I've been threatened or warned once before I was attacked or killed. Which makes sense, since it has a way of putting a target on your back.
The only issue I've seen with that is that someone who is completely, IC-uninvolved with the conflict you're trying to generate will jump into that thinking they've got a free pkill opportunity.
Could you perhaps create a scenario where what you describe would happen? I dont understand the concept of what you're saying, Miradus.
I guess I'm saying that conflict tends to escalate outside the bounds of what you ICly expect.
The dirty rinthi breed at the bar probably knows the aide of a noble and you'll end up being beaten half to death by the noble's bodyguards.
Or you will threaten some random guy out in the desert over a chalton and the next time you go to town you get beaten unconscious and stripped naked by the Byn while you're in the Gaj.
Neither of which has happened, I'm just trying to give you examples of what I'm talking about. It's a small, small world and I've noticed that (when I'm not some unknown indie out in the weeds) some minor IC event today will be Way'd back to me twelve different ways tomorrow when I log on.
I know you were just pulling examples off the tip of your tongue, but for reference "beaten up and stripped naked" is the Zalanthan equivalent of a slap on the wrist.
A light slap on the wrist.
A firmer one would be if they then left you in the desert somewhere distant.
Quote from: Narf on January 14, 2017, 02:27:02 PM
I know you were just pulling examples off the tip of your tongue, but for reference "beaten up and stripped naked" is the Zalanthan equivalent of a slap on the wrist.
A light slap on the wrist.
A firmer one would be if they then left you in the desert somewhere distant.
I believe they're getting at they are put off by the fact that they can't perform what should be basic, everyday acts of conflict/aggression without getting a force multiplier in response.
Using Miradus' examples: a rinthi breed at the bar won't start something with an aide because they can assess the blowback from doing it, but even when the assessment seems clearer - such as warning some seemingly unclanned nobody off a chalton you want to hunt - you likely end up getting an overblown response (the byn beating you up).
If there's a situation in-game where every slight, no matter how small, results in a disproportionate consequence then there is a flattening effect on what situations will decide to act in an antagonistic way.
While it's natural for people to want to go and tell their friends that some guy told them to fuck off and leave a chalton alone, it just takes someone to disproportionately react to contribute to such things not happening in the future.
That's exactly it!
Quote from: Rathustra on January 14, 2017, 03:01:15 PM
Quote from: Narf on January 14, 2017, 02:27:02 PM
I know you were just pulling examples off the tip of your tongue, but for reference "beaten up and stripped naked" is the Zalanthan equivalent of a slap on the wrist.
A light slap on the wrist.
A firmer one would be if they then left you in the desert somewhere distant.
I believe they're getting at they are put off by the fact that they can't perform what should be basic, everyday acts of conflict/aggression without getting a force multiplier in response.
Using Miradus' examples: a rinthi breed at the bar won't start something with an aide because they can assess the blowback from doing it, but even when the assessment seems clearer - such as warning some seemingly unclanned nobody off a chalton you want to hunt - you likely end up getting an overblown response (the byn beating you up).
If there's a situation in-game where every slight, no matter how small, results in a disproportionate consequence then there is a flattening effect on what situations will decide to act in an antagonistic way.
While it's natural for people to want to go and tell their friends that some guy told them to fuck off and leave a chalton alone, it just takes someone to disproportionately react to contribute to such things not happening in the future.
Yeah. You more or less have to be in a position of power to be an antagonist, and even then you have to tread careful.
I do what I can to help the antagonists not get gangbanged by the playerbase, but it's tough.
Quote from: wizturbo on January 13, 2017, 04:04:39 PM
What I personally wish was more of a thing in Armageddon was less death focused conflicts. The solution to everyone's problem too often is 'kill so and so'. While murder definitely has its place, it's not always the most entertaining. Trying to humiliate your enemies, make them miserable, or sabotage their ambitions tends to create much more memorable interactions and leaves room for conflicts to percolate into something that can end in a more satisfying fountain of blood with juicy collateral damage.
The most satisfying rivalry I've had in game was between Kitt Borsail and Ru Fale for this reason. Most other rivalries I've had IG have felt stale in comparison.
Quote from: Jingo on January 14, 2017, 12:42:08 PM
Quote from: Synthesis on January 14, 2017, 12:24:42 PM
Quote from: Jingo on January 13, 2017, 10:16:10 PM
For all the talk about conflict, gritty roleplay, grimdark edgyness etc. There does seem to be a remarkably small amount of intimidation and terrorizing in Armageddon.
I've been PvP'ed 4 times in the last couple of months, so...I guess it depends on what YOU'RE doing as well as what other people are doing.
I'm thinking something more along the lines of explicit threats or warnings. Idle or not. I don't think I've been threatened or warned once before I was attacked or killed. Which makes sense, since it has a way of putting a target on your back.
I said "pvp" because 2 of the episodes didn't involve any attacking, but definitely were aggro. I.e. explicit threats or warnings, involving non-melee code of various sorts. So...yes, exactly what you want to happen does happen, if you're willing to risk your ass to let it happen.
Quote from: Rathustra on January 14, 2017, 03:01:15 PM
While it's natural for people to want to go and tell their friends that some guy told them to fuck off and leave a chalton alone, it just takes someone to disproportionately react to contribute to such things not happening in the future.
This hits the nail on the head.
And it's something of a vicious cycle. Overt threats like this are rare because of these disproportionate responses, but because they're rare people tend to leap at the opportunity to get involved in a conflict, creating more disproportionate responses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLKbcrC0krQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLKbcrC0krQ)
What a terrible character. What an overblown response. The guy even wanted to talk. This ruined the movie.
(Play your character, stop worrying about everyone else's and how they react to things. It all webworks into the grand story. Yours is not the focus, regardless of who you are.)
Edit: (Which is not to say that some things are not overreactions, but every time you guys talk about overreactions you make it out like every time conflict actually -does- rise, it's scewing you. You're either willing to play with conflict whether it's escalated or not, or you're not willing. It seems to be the latter in most cases, which makes it so that less people are willing to do the former. This isn't some new scenario within the game, and it's not what's destroying massive conflict for you, else we would have never had the two simultaneously before.)
Quote from: SuchDragonWow on December 07, 2016, 03:52:15 PM
Why do all discussions on the GDB become so disheartening? It's like we take the pulpit on a conversation and change course to gripe about our feelings on X player or Y viewpoint. Ah well.
I liked Badskeelz suggestion of flattening out combat. Lower caps, eliminate the grind, thrust yourself into danger and play a character, not a doppelgänger created to drive your self esteem.
Honestly, I think at least part of the time. People get upset and start chucking arguements and naysaying out because this idea is something that would affect their way of playing in some manner, or what someone is saying makes someone think, "Hey they are talking about me! Jerks!" Or something similar even though that isn't the case. Watch, someone will probably get offended by this post here and argue it.
Also the issue of people thinking that a certain point of view might allow them to score points with the Imms.
Also the whole, NOT IN MY BACKYARD, type mentality that makes people mostly hate, fear and fight change.
NOT ALWAYS, but I think there is a goodly percentage of threads/posts that are responded negatively too because of these thing above.
Please note I said not always. (if you get offended by this post, you are kinda proving my point)
That or...they just...you know. Don't like the idea. And they explain why. And that disagreement devolves into proving which side is right even though it comes down to preference and vision for the game.
I do like how you did your post in the same way as that Shane Koyczan poem called 'Troll', where he puts in a part talking about how he's already upset the trolls. That way everyone who says they don't like the poem gets called out by all the people who like the poem as a troll or troll enabler or horrible human being because they didn't like the poem.
Then it didn't apply to you Armaddict, if that's what you feel. I said NOT ALWAYS. Thus your point, covered in my points. Thanks for agreeing I guess? ;)
NO F U I THOT U WERE TALKING ABUT ME
Edit: This is totally me messing around and trying to be fun. Just in case. Because some people...don't see the bad spelling and exaggerated caps and see sarcasm, they think I'm actually flipping out. Having to disclaimer sucks.
Quote from: Armaddict on February 01, 2017, 07:02:32 PM
NO F U I THOT U WERE TALKING ABUT ME
Edit: This is totally me messing around and trying to be fun. Just in case. Because some people...don't see the bad spelling and exaggerated caps and see sarcasm, they think I'm actually flipping out. Having to disclaimer sucks.
Does that...actually happen on here? Lol.
Most of the time I just sit here and laugh. I know you guys can't hear me. But trust me. I'm laughing.