|  | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 11:15 am |  |
This is a discussion thread not a whining thread.
Part of Prpi is suppose to be about being in a sandbox and building up our own sandcastles, enjoying family politics etc.
However there is going to be plots to keep things fresh and generate new scenarios and roleplay opportunities. Unfortunately there is a slight conflict between the ability to sandbox and the plot.
Here is where the conflict lies:
Scenario A
We have a combat focused plot that quickly becomes less interesting or risky as nobody dies when participating in said plot. The administration running the plot sees a general sense of safety and cockiness forming and decides to do something about it....
X is a scav leader, he easily forms 20+ players together at prime time and takes them out to the most dangerous places of the wilderness, allowing everyone to scav and also X brings the playerbase out to where the current plot is occuring. X then becomes solely responsible for advancing the plot, because he gets other players involved and he doesn't get anyone killed so the confidence is high in him.
Now the admins decide to ramp up the danger behind the plot and load up twice to three times the amount of baddies then they usually do, multiple people die on X leader's trip, everyone comes home limping within an inch of death. Two days later X wants to lead another trip but only 15 players show up, all the non-coms no longer feel safe and even some combatants don't trust X's leadership ability. The plot grinds to a halt from lack of numbers as so far it has relied on large group teams to operate.
Scenario B
Exactly the same situation however. The plot admins realize that X leader is important and central to the plot and therefore do not give his groups more than he can chew on for danger and risk.
Now the plot becomes boring and less risky..now Y leader rises up in another clan and manages to pull together a 20+ man team, but Y leader is fresh, he isn't central to the plot and he just wants to help his clan get good scav without becoming embroiled in the plot. Y's scav group is now going to contribute to the plot unwillingly in a nasty way.
Y group trip meets its goals, loads up on good scavenge, fight a hoard of wildlife to their destination. Now administration decide to spawn a sizable force of enemies, one that X leader hasn't had to deal with on such scale with numbers now at Y's disposable. Said force kills one or more pc's before being defeated by Y team and the the admins have achieved their goal of making the plot feel much more dangerous and interesting than before.
X leader who also happens to be a clan lead uses Y leader's misfortune as an excuse to boycott all of Y leader's clans trips. Taking away Y clan's ability to gather more that 12-14 players for a trip as other clans no longer participate for political reasons. Y clan becomes marginalized and seriously weakened and X leader becomes even more influential and powerful.
How this affects sandbox elements and family politics:
What happens to Y leader and his clan as an unfortunate side effect to Scenario B. Admins could not predict X leader would take advantage of Y leader's misfortune in the political scene of Rust. GIving X family a huge boost in power and Y family a huge loss in power.
Instead of doing Scenario A and risking the plot by treating X and Y leader equally. The administration opts for Scenario B which allows the plot to advance but seriously shakes the sandbox, unintentionally knocking down some more vulnerable sandcastles(clans)
Summary and point
In atonement there were multiple instances where the plot shattered or wounded lesser clans and allowed more central plot focused clans to rise forward. For example, the Wilmington's taking control of the market while the three other clans get absolutely decimated by the Hrpt. The clans in atonement were gradually dissolved on the ship until one individual became as close to clan lead for the whole ship as you could get. Anaxious was targeted and severely weakened by the moon beast Lucy in one instance, during a time where Anaxious was quickly becoming one of the more popular clans with goals that didn't coincide with the plot at the time.
The main point of Scenario B's method is that it removes the sandbox flavor and it causes a good deal of player dissent, people quit atonement almost purely based on the fact anything they tried to build that was sandbox flavored would get destroyed and anyone who tried to rise who was not X leader generally became a hinderence to the plot and therefore expendable.
This thread is a straight discussion on whether Scenario A is preferable to Scenario B and I would fully want to hear any potential Scenario C, E, F, Z's.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
grandpa
Registered
Entrenched Oldbie
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 11:47 am | |
You're creating a few false dichotomies/erroneous assumptions here, I think. Scenario A and Scenario B both happened in the game, as one and the same event(s):
So Scav leader X goes out, gets chewed up, comes back, can no longer get 20+ people, but instead 15. Scav leader Y/Clan Y see this and push in based on what the Admins did to try and run things. For some reason, it goes badly. Scav Leader X/Clan X(and maybe Scav Leader Z/Clan Z, too!) see this, step in, and push back--Scav Leader Y's gambit failed, because they didn't do any better than X or Z. They use their influence, but failed, and suffered for it. Both Clans/Scav Leaders made an effort, put something in/risked something--they saw that groups going out to a certain place will see a certain level of danger, and that Clan X was waning, and decided to make an active play rather than just let it happen. They faltered, and then their move got countered.
Politics. It happens.
And maybe Scenario A happens because there's a challenge, and clan X doesn't do entirely perfect at it--so then Scenario B comes up, and Clan Y tries--but it turns out Clan Y didn't have the armor/training that Clan X had, so they do even worse. That's part of the sandbox--you GET to attempt. And politically sometimes it'll work and sometimes it won't.
What Sandbox means isn't that you get to do whatever you want: it's that there's a world and you can try and build in it. But so can others. And sometimes when you build your sandcastle badly, or do things that don't pay off, the sandcastle either drags down under its own weight or gets kicked by somebody else. Sandboxes are about freedom to move within the world. That's what we saw and it's working better than you describe it, I think.
Your successes and failures aren't necessarily related to anything the admins are doing.
ETA:
This is all worth discussing, and there are good points.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:05 pm | |
Well that's scav leader X's opinion so I'd like to think it might be Bias.
I think one option C is pre-determined responses to pc numbers/actions/goals being achieved.
Size 20 group reaches hospital, on exit 10 barkers are spawned, no matter who leads or what the state of health the group is in.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
starsignal
Registered
just a page in someone's book
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:12 pm | |
Wouldn't predetermined (and therefore predictable) responses to certain situations just serve to make scenarios more boring?
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
HAL
Administrator
Senior RPA
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:41 pm | |
There could be a variety of random, unpredictable scenarios. But, I'm somewhat confused.
Clan-Lead X runs Scav Runs at 3pm every day. All staff work during this time, and can't be there to load stuff.
Clan-Lead Y runs Scav Runs at 6pm every day. 3 staff members are online, and load stuff.
Clan-Lead Y loses more people than Clan-Lead X. Over time, Clan-Lead X grows in power, while Clan-Lead Y is accused of being incompetent.
What's the solution? Staff never loading anything for anyone, and pulling an Arm static world? Or do we acknowledge the limitations of the game and of staff, and move forward with a generally fun game.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
WorkerDrone
Registered
Duke Attitude
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:53 pm | |
I agree with HAL but suffer myself to point out that nothing exactly merits complete freedom or fairness by the way player awareness and player hours work. Just because -you're- not incompetent for something you couldn't have predicted or affected even if you were player X put in the same situation, doesn't mean Player X -has- to acknowledge ICly that point. If they can benefit from refuting that point and implying that you're responsible, completely, and not some wicked game master in the sky who decided to mess up a laid out plan, that's part of the sand box.
But back to suffering the acknowledgement, granted that there will be limitations to the game for all time, when someone suffers under this scenario, like say Player Y, while Players Z and X both come out for the better based on the results of arguably (arguably) arbitrary events, suuuure that player won't be having a generally fun time.
But the same could just as easily (and has in the past!!!) happen to the other two players!
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 12:58 pm | |
Balance it out IMO. If the admin are loading mobs, instead of just grrr bad, throw some rare random drop event out. A good reason to go on a run with x- sure 10 people died that one time but last time he found a whole cache of real wine!
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
WorkerDrone
Registered
Duke Attitude
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 1:05 pm | |
*Vinegar.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 1:51 pm | |
There's an easy way to break this equation. If staff interaction = negative consequences which can be used to imply scavenge leader Y's ineptitude acts as a constant, then yes, it makes sense.
Making staff interaction vary between death/hardship and significant gains for risk taken during their online hours certainly changes the negative social outcome of having bad things happen on your peak-hours scavenges.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
HAL
Administrator
Senior RPA
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 02, 2013 2:28 pm | |
The fact most of you come back alive should be a plus, and can be fixed.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
|
