|  | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 11:30 pm |  |
So, conflict.
Having exhausted myself in the writing of that last, epic, and marginally useful post, I now feebly provide the thread promised therein.
I’m just going to get the ball rolling, and will probably chime in later with more of my typical, overblown rhetoric. People have said some very interesting things, and I think if there is one thing that warrants further discussion, conflict would be it.
One: Hal, genius. I absolutely agree that if each clan “played” differently it would do a lot toward contributing to the misunderstanding, mistrust and tense negotiation that drives the sort of simmering, low-level conflict I think many players are interested in. How then, do we create those differing experiences?
Two: Am I right in assuming that players are interested in simmering, low-level conflict? I am, but then, I also share the sense with a number of other posters that every time potential hostilities crop up they are quickly dismissed. Is this because players feel that cooperation negates potential enmity? Is cooperation felt to be required, or desired?
Three: Maybe this all relates to a certain lack of clarity regarding the “official” or vnpc opinion on interfamily relations. It can be confusing, even jarring, when one party assumes that fraternizing with other clans is something looked upon poorly, and behaves accordingly, while another claims it as a point of pride that they get along spectacularly well with other families. Who’s right? I realize that players are bound to enjoy the company of members of other clans, sometimes more than the company of their own, and they should absolutely be free to pursue these relationships. The question is, should those relationships be public, and accepted, or treated as potentially suspect?
My initial suspicion regarding the conflict around conflict is that PC actions and opinions should not necessarily be taken as “the norm”, but that without strong agreement on what the norm is most of what we have to work with -are- those PC interactions. Some people, myself included, wave the tattered banner of what they perceive as canon and then feel shot down because the people around them seem hellbent on getting along, and ultimately, if getting along is what people wind up doing... that becomes canon.
So, do we want to get along, or don’t we?
I think it would help to first decide what kind of experience we’re hoping to play through, and then discuss the means to providing it in a way that drives rewarding interaction and engagement.
Now, this might be too ic-infotastical, in which case someone please just remove the lot of it, but since the Jalthans came up already I’m going to assume it to be safe.
The Jalthan-Niner conflict was brilliant, not because an individual (or group of individuals) decided to cause trouble, but because their clan-lead -let- them. Now, whether or not that was intended as a subtle political ploy, it had the potential of being interpreted as such and thus could engage whole clans on both sides.
The trick to conflict, ironically enough, is playing along. Conflict can be (relatively) safe, and fun, and doesn’t necessarily need to devolve into a clan shattering pk-fest, but it requires a fair degree of trust and consent to participate from both sides.
Lastly, for now, on the topic of shit-talking indies. This is another point which I think deserves some clarification. I don’t think I’m familiar with the incident in question, so there are bound to be issues at play of which I’m unaware, but it seems to me that the potential for any given family member to summon twenty of his friends in retaliation for any given slight should be a reality of which most Indies would be aware. Perhaps such vendettas would be frowned upon in the Market, and considered an affront to the authority of the Market Watch, however it strikes me as one of the major differences between Indies and Family members, that those in a Family should have the protection of their peers, and the power of numbers behind them. Who gets to treat whom with impunity and where does seem to be something worth discussing, however, as well as the more general question of what the “typical” relationship between a Family member and any given indie should be.
But that’s enough inchoate rambling for now. Far more interesting things have been said already than I can manage at the moment, and I hope this discussion continues, because I think, ultimately, clarifying these things, and deciding what direction we want to go in will be good for the game, and provide a richer, more interesting experience for us all.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
Kalopsios
Registered
Summer Intern
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 08, 2013 11:44 pm | |
Just a head's up, boys and girls: We'll be watching this thread closely, as we are the other one, both to read your input and ensure the discussion remains civil and appropriately OOC. No finger pointing, name calling, shoe throwing, etc. etc. etc.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2013 1:37 am | |
Though I haven't read all of the available discussion in the previous post, there's something that I haven't seen pointed out yet.
There are a lot of ways to stoke conflict between clans through events that don't require as much extra code as game-changing things like Hal mentioned. Of course those coded solutions to problems are great, but the events I have seen in the game so far (during my limited playtime) are ones that do this very simple thing:
They provide an external enemy or goal for which all Rust can unite against.
It seems like naturally that's what will happen.
This type of atmosphere works directly against the possibility of clans fostering enmity towards each other.
I think more productive events - in terms of stoking conflict between players, at least - wouldn't be ones that force everyone to team up for the sake of minimizing casualties, but rather ones that give the clans reasons to start hating each other beyond lore or individual emotions.
This could be accomplished in various ways. Just one example is by giving a clan something (something that can't be easily shared) that the other clans don't know about or don't have access to, and giving another clan a reason to find out about that thing or want that thing. Another way could be something like giving one clan an opportunity to do something that would be profitable but also make another clan hate them for lore-related reasons.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
wirsindallein
Registered
(ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*:・ﾟ✧
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2013 1:45 am | |
It recently occurred to me that a small change might be made to turfquests that would encourage a little more friction, by sheer virtue of forcing clans to compete in teams.
Make it a craft. Make that craft require 2 or more followers. (I think 2 is good because it means at least groups of 3, and let's offpeak do them still). Make turfquests a little more numerous, but provide a little less chips.
If rank can't be checked in a craft, maybe just have the prog check for follower count, too?
I think that once clans need to compete against one another as teams, you'd start to see enmity grow a bit more. Turfquests already help with that to some extent, but it feels like a lot of people just quietly go off alone too.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2013 2:27 am | |
It's all in the lore, ladies and gents. Be a little more clear that the families dislike each other, and then give each clan lead a little nudge. Maybe make some board posts every now and again about a prominent Guard investor getting in a brawl with a Niner punk, etc. etc. Of course, I'm talking to the staff here.
Some coded nudges would be swell, also. Something like wirs is talking about, though I'd like something 'larger' and more 'visible' than just a NPC standing on the side of the street. Just something to give the various mentioned turf wars in the lore some credit. Nothing better than a turf war. Also, it's been mentioned to just 'separate' the families some more. Best idea that I've ever read in the forums.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
grandpa
Registered
Entrenched Oldbie
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2013 2:57 am | |
| Blue wrote: |
| The Jalthan-Niner conflict |
Let me put another perspective on this, on why it -wasn't- as brilliant as you say: this exact ending was almost guaranteed from the start with those backgrounds and the way the Pcs acted from day one. It was a foregone conclusion this would happen, with really no chance or ability to change it. The conflict wasn't really something that could involve people, outside of reactionary roleplay to events--it was one-sided, one-dimensional, and one-way. What's an Indy care about it/able to do? What's a Red able to do?
This isn't to say it wasn't everything that you say it was, but there were definite flaws that make it -not- the model to follow.
All this said, having talked to a few admins/read the documentation, I'm not sure there's a clear 'canon'/definition for the theme/setting as a whole. And I think there's not -going- to be something that satisfies even the majority until: there is a setting/theme that's well-defined and agreed upon by every admin AND one that the game world/coded game agrees with.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
| | |
| It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools. | |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2013 3:03 am | |
Indies should know that they really don't have a place to talk trash or tough at Family people. They'd grow up knowing the Families are in charge, and unprotected people who stir the pot quickly end up hurting bad, or even dead. That's reality. The hobbit shouldn't be surprised and complain when the giant crushes him underfoot. Indie means independent and seperate, being in a Family means you got folks who have your back, in everything.
As for Family-on-Family conflict, I don't really have much comment because I've enjoyed it so far, myself. I already know which event, should it happen, would shatter open a floodgate of potential, intense conflict, but obviously will not say it here.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2013 4:52 am | |
Mm. Just to clarify, for the record:
Absolutely agree with you Grandpa that the Jalthan situation is not a desirable model for future conflicts. I could debate ad naseum the relative merits and potential for interaction, but it seems beside the point.
My feelings regarding The Jalthan Affair ought to come with a strong disclaimer that I am in no way recommending a repeat of the situation. Conflict happened, it was interesting. Not by virtue of the specifics, which is what I intended to point out, but simply by providing a dramatic impetus with which to interact.
So yeah. Could have made that clearer, and thank you for pointing that out
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
WorkerDrone
Registered
Duke Attitude
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2013 7:29 am | |
If there was more of away to interact and compete, even say in just the market, but also out in the slums and out there in the wilderness, fighting over choice scav spots because there's pretty much only enough in each spot for one Family--then you could potentially make a group of people in the Niners or New Guard who totally hate the Niners/New Guard, but knowing what happened to the Jalthans, probably take a different route to hurting them.
That isn't to say I don't still support direct, low level conflict, or even escalating tensions that result in deaths at times, but they should probably be the result of these competitions. Getting chips should take Family interaction, and there should be some sort of incentive to keep a presence out there consistently (albeit not frustratingly frequent) or else face the consequences, like reduced chips because the people in that area of town don't like you as much as the Niners/New Guard/Reds ect.
Or even better, and in my opinion greater incentive, change the weird chip collection system into a monthly stipend for controlling turf, and have the patrols/turf quests more directly relate to how much industrial output you have. Do more turf quests = Stronger hold on turf.
More frequent patrols through that area = better security, people get more work done, you get more raw resources. If you add a flow of valuable goods to these areas of town, there'll be incentive to hold onto them, and incentive to fight over turf, thus, creating conflict.
Few other ideas, but just throwing what I got out there.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 09, 2013 1:11 pm | |
| Tyrael wrote: |
Indies should know that they really don't have a place to talk trash or tough at Family people. They'd grow up knowing the Families are in charge, and unprotected people who stir the pot quickly end up hurting bad, or even dead. That's reality. The hobbit shouldn't be surprised and complain when the giant crushes him underfoot. Indie means independent and seperate, being in a Family means you got folks who have your back, in everything.
As for Family-on-Family conflict, I don't really have much comment because I've enjoyed it so far, myself. I already know which event, should it happen, would shatter open a floodgate of potential, intense conflict, but obviously will not say it here. |
The threat of being hugely disadvantaged and outnumbered ICly is great. It's a great source for tension and drama, and I figure some individuals play Independent for just that reason despite the setbacks of not necessarily having a usual crew to interact with/team to work beside.
When there's a big looming threat of retribution for acting or saying a certain thing it has the potential of being more potent. It's just hard in the setting for conflict not to feel contrived, and often OOCly it feels like players decide to openly ignore dissidence - or shut it down in other, more permanent ways if it threatens to break an ignore-bubble or is particularly contrived/stupid.
Like backtalkers on scavs and those who step out of line with their clanleads, or noisy Indies. I wish for two things: meaningful reasons to cause conflict/dissidence, so it's not all signed off as player stupidity/attention whoring/suiciding, and that people OOCly note attempts to create conflict and find ways to go with it instead of ignoring or actively snuffing, aka zerg rushing with twenty of your comrades.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
|
