|  | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 10:20 am |  |
I'm not sure if the right way is to make the families compete over necessary things. That will just settle into place a new status quo of agreed trading, out of pure necessity.
It would be cool if the families had a jurisdiction over plot-related items, though. I really don't know, this seems to be a lot of work for the administration. It's like when I had an idea about a whole craft to build vehicles. Coding, changes, etc, that would only dubiously make the game better. There was recently a conflict between families and it was resolved in an odd way that makes me wonder if the playerbase really wants inter-family conflict. (Probably not.)
My personal problem right now with stagnancy is related to my playtime. Because I can't always play at prime-time anymore, I'm missing out on the more exciting events and that makes me feel less interested in the game in general. It would be nice if more exciting things could be accomplished sometimes with fewer players.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 3:27 pm | |
The problem with inter-family conflict right now is that the only way it can be handled is with coded combat, which is a weak tool if what you're trying to do is promote conflict RP. If you're trying to turn the place into a PK MUD, as I think some people are, then, by all means. Keep rambling about inter-family conflict without proposing sane means by which to enact that conflict without it devolving to 'lolpk'.
Inevitably, means to engage in sustainable conflict wind up requiring staff assistance, and unless they confer significant benefits to overcome or carry a reliable deterrent to, they will almost always ultimately be met with 'lolpk' because it's simply the most -efficient- way to handle conflict. Albeit the least RP-oriented.
Let's stop gearing discussion of 'stagnation' to ways to artificially force conflict, or fail significantly at trying to, by simply proposing a system that would force a hasty trade agreement and return everything to business as usual while rewriting ALL of the significant lore, and start talking about what actually matters.
If you want to do something constructive regarding this perceived stagnation, the answer is in your RP. Find ways to engage in conflict without escalating it to ridiculous PK. RP it out well. Give people a reason to RP with you. And don't be impatient. Lay out goals for your character, both in regard to themselves and their family, that this character wants to enact over their lifetime. Not short-term things. Then work at it.
If you still perceive stagnation after making that effort, then we can have a reasonable discussion about efficient conflict-resolution mechanisms that are more RP-conducive than 'lolpk'. You know. Rather than trying to force the thing without proper tools to handle it in a beneficial way.
If all you really want is more 'lolpk' when you guys scream about conflict. More permdeaths. More codefighting. More 'wars'...
Then GTFO and STFU. It's an RP MUD, not a PK MUD. Conflict will come where and how it's necessitated, enacted through means that are conducive to RP. Or it ought. Crying about how conflict is an important part of RP because all you want to see is PK is disingenuous.
Not saying that's the case with clock. Or Flincher. But. It's DEFINITELY the case with SOME people mouthing off in this irritatingly overlong-perpetuated bitchfest.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 6:59 pm | |
| crayon wrote: |
| If you want the families to have unique cultures, practices, goals, and identities, it's up to YOU as the player, to put them into play through what you do ICly. |
This is the first constructive post with a comment that I disagree with, so I'll respond to you, at least.
Putting the burden on the players to create a culture in a game that inspires very little is like creating an amusement park and telling the customers it's up to them to enjoy it.
The game should naturally inspire creativity and culture. I've seen it done successfully before a few times, but the best example is the single-sphere city of Tur Edendor, which was actually a lot like Rust in spirit, but it had a lot more flavor and zeal. It was split into four "quadrants", with a "neutral zone" sort of place not unlike PRPI's family territories and the market place respectively.
There were a few key differences, but the most important is, I think, the way the Black Numenoreans were used-- an aristocracy responsible for law making and law enforcement, who strongly regulated the rest of the city's resources because they were heavily outnumbered. As there are three major clans established now, I think it might actually be fairly easy to have something occur that creates a new clan, and sets one (either the new clan or one of the existing ones) above the rest. This would immediately shake things up without invalidating anything that's happened so far-- such as the tenuous alliances forming between families. If anything, it'll test the characters involved in making those alliances and force them to prove whether or not they're truly willing to honor them.
Once again, this is a single specific suggestion, but there are no limits to the possibilities. Try not to get hung up on my example-- some of you won't like it. But the status quo- the way the game is now- is simply not as fun or interesting as it could be. It's heading towards stagnation, but it's not yet at a point where we can't pivot and take it in a more exciting direction. But every day we sit back and do nothing to fix it is another day players dig in and become accustomed to the game as it is, and we slip that much closer to true stagnation.
Unfortunately, it seems Holmes has no intention of taking me or anything I say seriously, so I get the feeling he doesn't mind if it does.
Holmes has nothing but my gratitude for spearheading the creation and administrative duties of what amounts to nothing short of the best RPI currently in existence. If his vision for the future contradicts my suggestions, I have no hard feelings about that.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 7:24 pm | |
| clock wrote: |
Putting the burden on the players to create a culture in a game that inspires very little is like creating an amusement park and telling the customers it's up to them to enjoy it.
The game should naturally inspire creativity and culture. I've seen it done successfully before a few times, but the best example is the single-sphere city of Tur Edendor, which was actually a lot like Rust in spirit, but it had a lot more flavor and zeal. It was split into four "quadrants", with a "neutral zone" sort of place not unlike PRPI's family territories and the market place respectively. |
This is a sandbox game, is it not?
Staff should not have to babysit players for them to get the most out of the game. Staff should not have to push goals and agendas down players throats in order for them to take things in a direction that is constructive for RP. There are characters IC that are doing things aimed at shaking things up, changing the game, changing families, and making the game more interesting. If you aren't one of them, that's your own fault. If you aren't taking proactive actions to make your own play more interesting, what right do you have to criticize staff for not spoon-feeding you things to do? Figure it out. The setting's there. The codebase is there. The lore is there. Do something with it. For fuck's sake. Don't just sit around on your hands being part of the status quo, doing nothing to change the status quo, and simultaneously pitching a bitch about the status quo.
If you want families to have purposes and goals, fucking push for those purposes and goals ICly, and stop whining that staff isn't forcing them on people. Take it up with your clanleads. If your clanleads are inactive or aren't pushing constructive RP-oriented clan goals, they're wrong. If they're wrong, speak to them about it. If they don't listen... try to replace them and start pushing plot.
I don't blame Holmes for not taking you seriously because what you're offering... does nothing constructive? If you want clans to have purposes... just fucking do it. If you want your family's primary goal to be protecting its dependents, do things ICly that are geared towards helping vNPCs. If your family's purpose is business-oriented, push inter-family trade ICly. If your family has a serious interest in cracking Hyperion, do things in that direction. Don't sit around waiting for RPTs. Maybe you'll fail. You probably will. But it'll be fun and you're doing things.
All of the suggestions you're throwing out there are things that throw the gamestate into either a preservation of the status quo by simple trade agreements, or an imbalance leading to a state of perpetual conflict, with the only means of resolving conflict being 'lolpk'. Or as grandpa likes to phrase it 'mmmballs'. He'll never live that down.
If perpetual conflict is what you really want, I have every right to expect you to have a coherent and easily implemented suggestion for a means of conflict that is actually RP intensive rather than spammy, annoying, and PK-oriented.
Holmes has every right to get his hackles up when people consistently criticize something he's poured effort into, for things that -aren't his problem-. It's not his job to spoonfeed people things to do. That's an individual's responsibility as a player. You are one hundred percent responsible for giving your PCs depth and purpose. For establishing their goals, interests, and ideals. If you can't even do THAT without a staffer spoonfeeding it to you... I don't know what to tell you.
Edited in: This probably sounds EXTREMELY hostile. It's not, clock. I'm not saying you're doing nothing. I'm using you in a general sense. I don't know who you play, or what you're doing. For all I know you could be busting ass to push constructive goals forward. This is more of a general point to people complaining. People need to think about what they can do to fix the problem, before immediately starting to complain to staff, because... staffing is a fucking thanklessly shitty job. It makes being a clanlead look like a cakewalk. And while from the player perspective, complaints and criticism always feel like something going on because the player cares, because the player wants to help, because the player wants to do their part to make the MUD better... From the staffer perspective, every complaint and criticism can be a little bit painful at times.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
grandpa
Registered
Entrenched Oldbie
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 9:42 pm | |
We need to really look at this, take a deep breath, and realize that there's three spectrums you have to consider this by, even as a player, and people are firing shots across all three as if they're one and the same.
IC.
IG.
OOC.
These are all entirely different things. IC is in-character. It's what your character would do, and there's likely a spectrum of actions here you can use as a -creator- of -ficiton-, rather than one, but there are certainly actions you can take that would be not-at-all IC/not at all fit your character. It's influenced by IG and OOC both.
IG is what -happens- In Game.. VNPCs are not IG(except as turfquests), backgrounds are not IG, etc., etc. And so much of lore is not IG. this is important, because so much of lore _doesn't matter_ to players or PCs. IG generally comes first, and it's the primary arbiter of IC actions for most players. It's a mix of IC and OOC, and ignores a bit of both of those.
OOC is out-of-character, it's the way you design a PC previous to playing him, it's crafts, it's how scavenging works. It bleeds over into what's in-game, and it bleeds over into in-character.
Clock's suggesting things without(I think) playing the game a lot. That said, I play the game a lot. I think hobos is right, and i think Clock's right. We need some changes, because attempts have been made to create OOC fun, and they're mostly met with hostility and/or quitting the game. People are taking their toys and going home. This comes and this goes, but I think it's -coming- because of how the game is designed, and I think it's not going to -go- as swiftly as we might like without changes.
Yes, changes. Changes were promised and not delivered on, as is always the case with a MUD. I think it's past what is usual for most MUDs, however, and I -think- players are taking notice. Maybe I'm wrong there.
First thing's first: the culture of a clan only extends along the lifetime of the PCs IG currently. If they all die that culture doesn't exist. I think that things need to be changed, in design, in character, in game, out-of-character, on EVERY level, to improve EVERY clan. The Reds were well-designed, but could use some improvement. Every other clan is GOING to struggle to find a sustainable meaning. The Niners had a massive party. Has anyone seen anything outwards from them since? I haven't seen a Niner leader in public in a week, and have only seen one Niner leader even notify in that time. It happened. Then what? The New Guard are going through an equal leadership crisis. We can't purely expect PCs to change everything, because PCs -die-. We need to act, but we need -help-. PCs are too impermanent to do some things, and the suggestions Clock's asking for(or that I'm asking for, that I'm saying we -need-, and have been since Day One) don't work without help. They don't last past the life of a PC.
Crayon, I love you, but I think you're confusing(ETA: I mean blending/mixing, as a a player, which isn't an insult but a possibly positive thing) IC, IG, and OOC. You're describing OOC behavior(not being good for the game), and expecting IC/IG reactions from it. I -get- that. But I think that we both know that that isn't how the entire Pbase plays. People don't see positive play and react with an equal level of positive play all the time. We need a culture that's designed to create that level of positive play.
ETA:
Removed something I didn't need to be saying.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 10:24 pm | |
| grandpa wrote: |
| And if I'd been talked to by Holmes or any other admin like that, I'd be out right now. -Gone-. And I don't think it was fair for there to be a public reaction to someone well-meaning that even -seems- to be that hostile. |
Having gone back and read that, this is a very, very, fair point. But, tempers get high. This is... how many critical threads in how many weeks that aren't exactly offering viable solutions, but still poking and prodding at problems?
IC, IG, and OOC are all intertwined. It's to be expected for there to be some mingling. If you want to achieve an OOC end, you should expect to have to marginally change how you interact with things ICly.
Are there changes that can vastly improve the state of the game? Yes.
Are they easy to make? No.
Are there changes WE as players can make to the way we play to achieve the changes we want to see, without relying entirely on staff help? Hell yes.
We have to meet staff halfway here.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 10:34 pm | |
No offense taken or intended, but crayon, I don't think you really understand what I'm trying to convey here. You're right that I've offered nothing constructive, because I've tried that in the past in similar situations, and people get hung up on the specifics of what I'm suggesting, when really all I want is to, again, /avoid stagnation/. I'm offering abstract suggestions that can lead to concrete solutions to that end.
Most of what you said is absolutely right from a certain point of view, but what I'm urging the community to see is that player-only solutions are /always/ short term. A handful of great characters can make things interesting for months-- the best of the best can do so without even being online very often. But characters come and go, as do their players.
What I believe I've caught onto is an abstract problem that can only be directly addressed by the staff-- and I'm proposing a solution that I believe will /help/ well-intention players who only want to enhance the game, without hindering anybody at all.
In regards to this being a sandbox game-- that's something that I /like/ about PRPI, and what I'm suggesting is with a deliberate mind to making things run more smoothly with that format.
So, to restate, I think we need to change up the dynamics between families-- which, in order to maintain the integrity of the characters and clans already IG, should involve the creation of a fourth (possibly NPC, or highly RPP-restricted) clan. Clans would begin to depend on each other for certain things-- and certain circumstances could easily change a clan's bargaining position.
For example-- in the format I suggested above, the Reds would have territory, weapons, firepower-- probably control of most of the outer edges of the city and the gates. If there's a serious outside threat to rust, suddenly the NG can't get them their cycle's supply of water fast enough, and the Niners are all too happy to negotiate about the price of their metals.
Again, this is just an example to help illustrate the potential for intrigue. As someone already pointed out, the Niners having metals creates issues for scavvers, which is something that would have to be addressed before implemented. There are ways it could be (a Niner-NPC toll to access the junkyard for scavving, or simply make one type of valuable metal available only to the Niners), or we could simply go in another direction entirely-- maybe the Niners don't contribute much, but they have an impenetrable fortress and all the best ladies-- money keeps flowing in, bribes ensue, and somehow they stay relevant (which would make this clan neither combat nor crafting, but purely political in nature).
Hate both of those ideas? Suggest your own! Work with me here. All I want is to stave off burnout with good game design-- I'm trying to make the load /easier/ on the staff in the long run, because that's what's best for the game. Please understand that.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 10:48 pm | |
| hobos wrote: |
I'm not sure if the right way is to make the families compete over necessary things. That will just settle into place a new status quo of agreed trading, out of pure necessity.
It would be cool if the families had a jurisdiction over plot-related items, though. I really don't know, this seems to be a lot of work for the administration. |
I see no reason that couldn't work! But yes-- any kind of major change would create a lot of work for the staffers in the short term, but if we plan around it, we can avoid creating too much for the coders, leaving only the grunt work, for which builders could be hired.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 10:51 pm | |
What I'm saying is that, these things you're suggesting are not fitting with the lore of PRPI. Or the direction things are going.
| clock wrote: |
| So, to restate, I think we need to change up the dynamics between families-- which, in order to maintain the integrity of the characters and clans already IG, should involve the creation of a fourth clan. Clans would begin to depend on each other for certain things-- and certain circumstances could easily change a clan's bargaining position. |
I can't disagree more. Three is a magic number. For a lot of reasons. Four is not. Also for a lot of reasons.
| clock wrote: |
| Again, this is just an example to help illustrate the potential for intrigue. As someone already pointed out, the Niners having metals creates issues for scavvers, which is something that would have to be addressed before implemented. There are ways it could be (a Niner-NPC toll to access the junkyard for scavving, or simply make one type of valuable metal available only to the Niners), or we could simply go in another direction entirely-- maybe the Niners don't contribute much, but they have an impenetrable fortress and all the best ladies-- money keeps flowing in, bribes ensue, and somehow they stay relevant (which would make this clan neither combat nor crafting, but purely political in nature). |
This kind of situation is already possible. People just haven't really put thought into it really yet, it seems like. -Can't- elaborate because of things that I'd like to do IG.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 10:56 pm | |
I edited my comment about the clans-- just saw you guys using "ETA", which I'll start doing now. But the edit said that it can be NPC-only, easily, because I recognize that three clans is plenty for our pbase at this time. The heavy RPP restriction idea could also work, because the few players that would go there would do so with the full knowledge that they'd have to use their role (and its advantages) to find ways to reach out and interact with other players.
Most of my suggestions are aimed at maintaining the interest of new players (and players who frankly just need a little more from the gameworld, like myself)-- and even helping them grow into "good" players. I think a big difference between our respective outlooks is that you're speaking only to the better players, whereas I'm saying that no number of great players can affect newbies the way good game design can.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
|
