|  | |
|
| | |
|
grandpa
Registered
Entrenched Oldbie
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 01, 2013 11:50 am |  |
Sustainable conflict/a reason for it that doesn't quickly get shut down seems to still be the Holy Grail of PRPI. Any thoughts about how this attempt went?
A plea: Constructive criticism, absolutely, but please, please, please, no raging/insults. Constructive compliments, all the way, but please, please, please no masturbatory kudos. I love them, but keep it focused.
ETA:
Nothing IC, hopefully.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
| | |
| It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools. | |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 01, 2013 11:57 am | |
Pretty okay. Kind of confusing, a little stupid in a few areas, but whatever is to be expected. A little bit ticked with what people are saying -actually- happened that didn't, which bothers me a bit because it feels slightly, ya know, like people are just getting upset on an ooc level and taking it out IC. But that may not be true, and I've just been getting wrong implications from people. Otherwise, it was, as stated before, pretty okay. We had some bad RP from a few people, but all the good RP involved makes up for it. I wish we could take code slower, you know? Taking away the life of a PC isn't an easy thing, death is not something that should be done quickly. It should be beautiful, horrible, terrifying and memorable. Not just LMAO SHOT IN HEAD NOW U DED OMG BUSTA RYME GANGSTUR.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 01, 2013 11:58 am | |
I think the original direction of this was good. There was a ton of potential. It ultimately devolved into... well. 'lol pk'.
And so HERE are my pleas:
1) MAKE A SERIOUS ATTEMPT TO FIND A CLEVER WAY TO SOLVE IC PROBLEMS THAT DOESN'T INVOLVE CODED PVP COMBAT. Plot. Plan. Blow inanimate things up? Talk to staff. SCHEME. Schemes can be interacted with through RP in ways far beyond what annoying and spammy PK can.
2) USE HIT, NOT KILL. I didn't even know or think about this, until Grandpa told me about it. I was just using kill, waiting to see one hit land, then stopping. But hit. Don't kill. There's no reason to be killing an unconscious person. Knock them out. THEN RP. Just codedly killing them out cuts out the vast majority of the RP that goes into a scene that matters as much as killing somebody. You're taking a PC's life. That player has put days or weeks of time into that character. The least you could do is take the time to RP before you kill them.
+3) Edited in because Adam's post reminds me. PLEASE DON'T TRY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE CLUSTERFUCK AND SPAM TO TRY TO PASS OFF FICTIONAL ACCOUNTS OF EVENTS. One person did this. Everybody told them they were wrong. I understand that sometimes in all of the spam and confusion it's really easy to lose track of what the hell is going on. REALLY easy. But seriously. When people correct you on what really happened, because you were OOCly confused and said something incorrect ICly... don't just keep pushing it. Doubly so when the fictional account is hostile to another character. Shit happens, people get confused. But I think this one falls on the wrong end of Wheaton's Law.
It's the morning. That's all I've got right now. I suck. I'll add more if it comes to mind.
HANDJOBS FOR EVERYBODY.
(But especially slyviolin and WorkerDrone.)
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 01, 2013 11:58 am | |
*E-turbates all over you*
No, I think that it was a good attempt at creating conflict without instantly resorting to deadly violence (on behalf of the clan starting it), and while I think that getting upset or violent in response is IC, the way it was handled? Was not. It was insta-hit, perma-kill on people who perhaps didn't deserve that. I mean, things happen, people die by accident or the actions of a few (one). Sucks, but I think it -might- have gone better if the information was disseminated beforehand to a better extend, because it was a quick shocker to those not in that clan, and that may have led to overreaction.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 01, 2013 12:08 pm | |
Personally, I think what recently happened was great. Not the way certain things went down, obviously, but the conflict itself. There was a powergrab of a relatively large scale, and it initiated a situation that could have gone many different directions. And honestly, I think that this DID generate a reason for sustainable conflict. What ended up happening is probably going to tear some major rifts between different factions. And ultimately, while there was a regrettable PC death in the process, the death count was pretty low.
The attempt was perfect. It allowed for at least two factions to let their ideologies show and conflict. I think from a roleplay perspective, this has and will continue to generate opportunities for further character development and clan identity.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 01, 2013 12:09 pm | |
The problem with sustainable conflict is that eventually one side starts to "win" and they continue to be all "hey, conflict is great". The winning side can usually afford to be lenient and expect to win prizes and pats on the back for not being super harsh. Meanwhile, portions of the losing side are doing the complete opposite of being happy for mercy and saying, "this sucks, screw those guys". The losing side inevitably quits or takes advantage of something to start winning in a douchey way and the formerly winning side starts raging and going "but we could've killed you 100 times!" Or something similar.
The problem with conflict, imo, is that a majority of MU* players only like it when they're winning. RPing losing isn't everyone's cup of tea. Neither is RPing winning. Fun conflict requires actual risk too, which sucks.
Good try, was fun.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 01, 2013 12:58 pm | |
I think people have to die and pk has to happen every once in a while. If we are trying to live in a perfect society where we talk out all our problems then we shouldn't be playing in Rust.
Tactics are hugely important, I think too many people have it in their mind that if you have 10 guys and the enemy has 5 guys you are going to win..and yes in a straight up fight you will win.
But lets say those 5 guys are all good shots with a rifle, one of them can lay down traps, they are all hidden and they get a drop on the group of ten. Well bullets will fly and traps will stop the larger group from rushing the smaller one. The sheer surprise and effectiveness of guns would make the smaller group a winner.
Early on in arpi one guy targeted the niners and caused some serious troubles with guerrilla style fighting. Now think of 4-5 guys who can do the same thing and you can win a war that way. So I've always hated the idea that 1 family is always going to be against 2 families because numbers are not all important there.
FINALLY this aversion to pc death via pk has to get toned back. The mud just got a breath of fresh air, if the individuals who died didn't like the manner in which they died, try getting mauled by npc lagatos and see if you feel any better about dying that way.
EDIT: FRANKLY the mud was party stagnant because we were being very diplomatic since the start of the game, the leaders we've had have been averse to war and it got to a point recently where nothing was happening because the leaders wanted the status quo. Its better now.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 01, 2013 1:18 pm | |
Flincher, the issue isn't with people dying or conflict.
In fact, there ISN'T really an issue.
I think the thread is more here to talk about how we could make things BETTER from an RP standpoint for future conflicts.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
Roadhawk
Registered
We lurk inside your brain, we hide inside your mind.
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 01, 2013 1:23 pm | |
| Flincher14 wrote: |
I think people have to die and pk has to happen every once in a while. If we are trying to live in a perfect society where we talk out all our problems then we shouldn't be playing in Rust.
Tactics are hugely important, I think too many people have it in their mind that if you have 10 guys and the enemy has 5 guys you are going to win..and yes in a straight up fight you will win.
But lets say those 5 guys are all good shots with a rifle, one of them can lay down traps, they are all hidden and they get a drop on the group of ten. Well bullets will fly and traps will stop the larger group from rushing the smaller one. The sheer surprise and effectiveness of guns would make the smaller group a winner.
Early on in arpi one guy targeted the niners and caused some serious troubles with guerrilla style fighting. Now think of 4-5 guys who can do the same thing and you can win a war that way. So I've always hated the idea that 1 family is always going to be against 2 families because numbers are not all important there.
FINALLY this aversion to pc death via pk has to get toned back. The mud just got a breath of fresh air, if the individuals who died didn't like the manner in which they died, try getting mauled by npc lagatos and see if you feel any better about dying that way.
EDIT: FRANKLY the mud was party stagnant because we were being very diplomatic since the start of the game, the leaders we've had have been averse to war and it got to a point recently where nothing was happening because the leaders wanted the status quo. Its better now. |
I am actually in some agreement. What happened seems to have been part of a longer string of the same behavior afflicting the game. It has only now affected a pc/pcs considered more important than the rest of us. Therefor it is now a serious problem.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
| | |
| Warrior on the edge of time. | |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 01, 2013 1:31 pm | |
| Roadhawk wrote: |
| Flincher14 wrote: |
I think people have to die and pk has to happen every once in a while. If we are trying to live in a perfect society where we talk out all our problems then we shouldn't be playing in Rust.
Tactics are hugely important, I think too many people have it in their mind that if you have 10 guys and the enemy has 5 guys you are going to win..and yes in a straight up fight you will win.
But lets say those 5 guys are all good shots with a rifle, one of them can lay down traps, they are all hidden and they get a drop on the group of ten. Well bullets will fly and traps will stop the larger group from rushing the smaller one. The sheer surprise and effectiveness of guns would make the smaller group a winner.
Early on in arpi one guy targeted the niners and caused some serious troubles with guerrilla style fighting. Now think of 4-5 guys who can do the same thing and you can win a war that way. So I've always hated the idea that 1 family is always going to be against 2 families because numbers are not all important there.
FINALLY this aversion to pc death via pk has to get toned back. The mud just got a breath of fresh air, if the individuals who died didn't like the manner in which they died, try getting mauled by npc lagatos and see if you feel any better about dying that way.
EDIT: FRANKLY the mud was party stagnant because we were being very diplomatic since the start of the game, the leaders we've had have been averse to war and it got to a point recently where nothing was happening because the leaders wanted the status quo. Its better now. |
I am actually in some agreement. What happened seems to have been part of a longer string of the same behavior afflicting the game. It has only now affected a pc/pcs considered more important than the rest of us. Therefor it is now a serious problem. |
| crayon wrote: |
Flincher, the issue isn't with people dying or conflict.
In fact, there ISN'T really an issue.
I think the thread is more here to talk about how we could make things BETTER from an RP standpoint for future conflicts. |
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
|
