|  | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
grandpa
Registered
Entrenched Oldbie
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:41 pm |  |
| thorongil wrote: |
| If you're a group of melee people approaching a group of individuals armed with ranged weapons, I think it's perfectly reasonable for them to be able to get off 1-2 shots before the melee commences. If you aim and go fire fire fire fire, most of your shots are going to miss because your aim won't recover. |
From a roleplay perspective: sure.
Otherwise:
I think that argument's good for a a world without set autofire, but what you're asking for is for each person in the group to get to shoot 1-2 times(sixteen people, in this case, so sixteen to thirty-two), plus the nigh-guaranteed hits from set autofire(from two, up to eight). Codedly, I don't think you comprehend what you're suggesting. You'd end up with a group of dead PCs that sat around being nice, and as a group leader I'll never condone that. It's my responsibility OOCly not to.
ETA:
Or do you mean the entire group getting to fire 1-2 times? Because, again, set autofire allows for that/did that then.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
| | |
| It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools. | |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 7:50 pm | |
| grandpa wrote: |
| From a roleplay perspective: sure. |
Huh. Is this where I should say that I don't think you comprehend that this is an RPI? The roleplay perspective IS the dominant perspective.
Codedly, as soon as you engage in a melee, then people effectively can't fire without hitting teammates. Meaning you're rendering guns more or less useless, which is not okay. They're in the game for a reason. They're a valid means of combat. Picking and choosing when it's okay to abuse the code to your benefit and ignore RP is not something that's okay.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 8:02 pm | |
Any prog resulting in the transfer of PCs from one room to another should probably not move sitting, resting, sleeping or unconscious people, unless they're subdued. That's an issue that came up, I guess.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
grandpa
Registered
Entrenched Oldbie
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 8:55 pm | |
| Aken wrote: |
| Any prog resulting in the transfer of PCs from one room to another should probably not move sitting, resting, sleeping or unconscious people, unless they're subdued. That's an issue that came up, I guess. |
Come up two-three times over the past few days, likely unintentionally on all sides.
ETA: Though I think that you can retcon it as (if they're in a group) the people grouped together protecting/dragging eachother/moving together, I suppose.
| thorongil wrote: |
| grandpa wrote: |
| From a roleplay perspective: sure. |
Huh. Is this where I should say that I don't think you comprehend that this is an RPI? The roleplay perspective IS the dominant perspective.
Codedly, as soon as you engage in a melee, then people effectively can't fire without hitting teammates. Meaning you're rendering guns more or less useless, which is not okay. They're in the game for a reason. They're a valid means of combat. Picking and choosing when it's okay to abuse the code to your benefit and ignore RP is not something that's okay. |
No, I don't think you're ever in the situation where you suggest somebody forgets they're playing an RPI. Especially because it brings up the dreaded discussions of what an RPI even -is-.
Typing hit isn't a code abuse and I'd like to not see that said/spread around. It can be 'ignoring RP,' but again--as Matt's pointed out--once people aim they've shown intent to kill, at least in my eyes. My opinion is that a clan/grouplead's only responsible action is to at least give people a fighting chance, rather than sitting and waiting for people to type aim.
Set autofire if you want to fire before someone can melee. That's what it's there for. It was used then, and will be used again to great effect. Other than that you can hipfire, but as soon as 'aim' comes up it's as good as typing 'hit' in my eyes. We may just have to disagree, but I'm giving my honest opinion.
As far as what guns are for, they're generally for use at the 3-1 room range, not within-same usually. But that's a tactics/positioning, and probably not the place for this. I don't think there's an IC or OOC responsibility to give people advantages when they played bad tactically, any more than someone ought to only fight 8v8 or 3v3 when one side outnumbers the other. If you end up in the same room as a 'melee group' when you're a 'gun' group, it happened ICly.
That said "guns vs. melee" argument is something of a red herring codedly, as it had an effect on both sides equally, as there were guns and melee weapons out on both sides, and misfires have an effect both ways.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
| | |
| It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools. | |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 9:46 pm | |
It was definitely a learning experience. Some things went poorly, some things actually went pretty well. I realize how frustrating and disappointing the things that went wrong were, and I sincerely hope that players are not so discouraged by them that they throw in the towel. As a floundering first step into major interclan conflict, I think it is important to examine both what worked and what didn’t, so that we can try, as best we can, to mitigate the problematic elements, and reinforce the parts we’d like to see more of.
I think it is important, however, to take into account what is meant by “what happened.” There was combat, conflict, and events leading up to it. Everyone was privy to different parts, and in different ways. I realize that close examination runs the risk of going too ic, and I’ll do what I can to dodge the details, but I also feel that a certain degree of context is necessary, so, sorry if this is TMI, let me know and I’ll edit the offending parts or take them down.
My experience (and suggestions), as the player of a pretty rank-and-file pc and (potential) combatant:
In the combat episodes themselves: Yes, that was a cluster. I actually went back over the combat to see exactly what happened, because I could not tell in the moment how it had been initiated, or by whom. Suffice to say I was not thrilled by the speed with which things went to code. Here’s the thing about combat; once it gets started, it’s on. Almost invariably once the first blow is entered, everyone jumps in, and rp from there is next to impossible. It came up before in the context of admin run rpts, and it’s something we are all continuing to learn. To -everyone-: please hold back and wait for rp. Even if someone jumps the gun and dives in, if it is at all possible not to take that as your cue to join them the whole spammy mess might at least be delayed.
That said, for all the insinuations that this was a bloodbath PKfest the bodycount was remarkably low. I think the circumstances of the second death are a pretty good indicator of the general feelings about the first. To everyone up in arms about the murderous intent of “the larger group” I want to point out that -one- PC made that choice, and was subsequently turned upon by the majority. Sadly, PK is not a democracy, and the choice of that player meant the death of another character. “That guy” is a reality of the game, granted, and must be taken into account, however, I would caution against overplaying his role in events as an indicator of how “most” involved intended to proceed.
As for the roleplay immediately prior to hitting the streets: I can only speak for the side I was on, but I would have really appreciated more of a briefing before going out. I don’t know that it would have actually changed anything, in fact, I rather suspect that it wouldn’t, nevertheless, it strikes me as good practice to make very clear the objective and terms of engagement (and surrender) to reduce potential confusion down the line. Of course there is no way to totally anticipate what’s going to happen, but addressing how to handle the likely contingencies would not only make things less confusing in the moment, but also make clearer faster when someone is deviating from “the plan.”
I also want to point out that I am not saying this here in an effort to bring it to the attention of any particular individual. Advice for any one person is best handled privately, with that person, imho. I bring it up generally, for anyone who might find themselves in a similar situation. Entering into even potential PvP combat is no small undertaking, and particularly if the leader is going to be held accountable for the actions of the group it would be useful to know whether the directive was actually “Shoot first, no quarter” or “Don’t fire unless fired upon, only engage active combatants.” The “rules” are already situational, when they are also interpretive it is very easy for things to quickly get out of hand.
So, those are my suggestions regarding the events of the night in question. That night, however, was only the flashpoint of an ongoing situation which, as has been pointed out, stretches back over the previous two weeks. Part of analyzing “what happened” should include the lead-up, which contributed to -why- it happened, in the way it did.
This is in no way intended as a criticism of the way the plan was conceived or carried out, I merely want to offer some points for reflection. Things moved very fast. The question was raised “Why not wait a few more days {before taking action}?” essentially as an argument to have more time to play things out. To this I can only return “Why not wait a few more days to put up the Inciting Object?”
I’m not trying to be shitty here, I’m just trying to point out that a choice was made to work quickly on one end, and it played no small part in the choice to move quickly on the other. I think the question of whether or not it would have been more fun for more people (as I like to think is the objective of this game) if things had gone more slowly and allowed for more interaction is certainly at the crux of the discussion.
We tried it one way, and in some regards it was successful all around. Clan X decided to conduct a very interesting and creative secret building project, and managed to conclude it with little detection and certainly without significant interruption. Congratulations. Clans Y and Z then responded in a totally predictable IC fashion and continued the narrative created by the initial sequence of events. They happened to get what they wanted out of it, more or less. Congratulations to them too.
Except of course there seems to be a certain amount of dissatisfaction with the way things went down. “Where was the RP?” people ask, and the answer is: there simply wasn’t time. I take issue with the assertion that the responsibility for setting the pace lies solely in the hands of the retaliating clans. I also take great issue with the suggestion that no effort was made to respond in any other fashion. Just because you didn’t see it, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
As was pointed out, Clan Y was aware of The Object some time before it’s finalization. The first response was totally nonviolent intrigue (though potentially with violent consequences, which is true of most things in Rust, truth be told.) Clan X pushed forward, making the investigation moot. Clan Y then moved on to plan B, which was less non-violent, but certainly not PvP oriented. Clan X pushed forward, making plan B considerably less relevant. There were individuals in Clan Y working frantically to develop non/minimally violent interventions from the moment they became aware of the situation because they understood that as soon as the Object was finished, there would be war. Clan X finished the object.
I understand that it’s a real bummer not to get to play with the nifty new toy you worked so hard to set up. It’s also a bummer not to get to play through any of the shenanigans that could have ensued.
The decision was made on the part of Clan X not to involve or accommodate Y or Z in the construction process. Which is a totally acceptable IC path to choose, but then it should not be terribly surprising if Y and Z are not particularly accommodating in return.
If we want something different, we should do something different. Again not a criticism of the decisions made, but a suggestion that the next time a similar situation arises we try making concessions for inclusivity, at least as an experiment, and see how that works out. The result will probably be just as messy and informative as this, and then we can talk about it again.
Epic, epic kudos for trying. Seriously. I realize how extraordinarily disheartening it must be to go out on a limb with “I can haz conflict?” and be met with “PK!” but the success of this venture will ultimately be determined by the place it has in the process. It only fails if we let it.
Moving in the direction of a player-driven narrative is a huge step, and one that I appreciate deeply. It wasn’t perfect, obviously, but if we’re willing to learn from our mistakes and keep trying we might at least get a little closer to that holy grail.
I, for one, would so rather admin plots be dramatic curveballs in a story being dynamically created by the players, rather than the Interesting Thing of the Week that we all wait around for...if for no other reason than it being a hell of a lot easier on them. It’s self-interest, really. If we can entertain ourselves it leaves the staff with a lot more energy (and material) to do their amazing staff thing, which I think we all enjoy.
Sometimes, in the thick of conflict we lose sight of the fact that we are ultimately all playing one game, together. Sure, we want different things out of it, but I really think we can work together to develop something rewarding for most people if we can remember to keep the adversarial business IC.
And now I’m going to conclude with a request: Please remember that -no one- has all the pieces. Even the admins, who can scour the logs, have only a limited capacity to deduce the intentions of any given player. As players, which most of us are, we have only an incredibly limited perspective on “what happened.”
Case in point: the “murderball” discourse. I realize people feel hurt and angry, and that such feelings tend to disincline one from wanting to see both sides. It’s what we need to do though. Identifying any group of players/characters as an undifferentiated conglomerate with the intention of bad behavior is not only inflammatory and disrespectful of the players for whom that isn’t true, it is -counterproductive- to what I presume is the intent of this thread, that being a dialogue on how to conduct these things better in the future.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
grandpa
Registered
Entrenched Oldbie
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 10:27 pm | |
First of all, Blue: thank you. I was hoping for a part like this. I agree, mistakes were made on both sides. The origin had flaws, OOC ones, definitely, and I'm glad to see them brought up. Hopefully someone can use them next time.
| Quote: |
Except of course there seems to be a certain amount of dissatisfaction with the way things went down. “Where was the RP?” people ask, and the answer is: there simply wasn’t time...there were individuals in Clan Y working frantically to develop non/minimally violent interventions from the moment they became aware of the situation because they understood that as soon as the Object was finished, there would be war. Clan X finished the object.
|
Which is, I think, where my objection comes in. And yeah, it's an OOC objection. This was an OOC idea, and this is an OOC thread. I think I can say nobody's tried anything like this. Upon discovering it, and endgame was already picked: if creation is successful, war. This is where I object. I won't say whether a week's enough to deal with something, or not, as I'm not certain, but I think picking that endgame that quickly...well, it's discouraging, it's disincentivizing.
| Quote: |
I understand that it’s a real bummer not to get to play with the nifty new toy you worked so hard to set up. It’s also a bummer not to get to play through any of the shenanigans that could have ensued.
|
Absolutely. Both sides were robbed.
| Quote: |
The decision was made on the part of Clan X not to involve or accommodate Y or Z in the construction process. Which is a totally acceptable IC path to choose, but then it should not be terribly surprising if Y and Z are not particularly accommodating in return.
|
ICly, okay. OOCly, less of a decision and more of a reliance on Staff to choose when/how to let others known. OOCly, there should've been posts, though no one's even been able to offer a single suggestion yet as to what those look like.
RE: "Why not give us more time," there was no clue whether people knew or not. And I certainly had no clue people would rather an OOC post of "Something is happening, maybe you'll see it" than to be as in the dark as they ought to be.
From here on in, though, I think whenever people discuss/plan a project in secret, they need to directly ask Staff to post something about it(or write some possibilities themselves) and/or post an OOC RPT notice about it. I earnestly suggest it, because people will take it as griefing/an offense otherwise.
| Quote: |
If we want something different, we should do something different. Again not a criticism of the decisions made, but a suggestion that the next time a similar situation arises we try making concessions for inclusivity, at least as an experiment, and see how that works out. The result will probably be just as messy and informative as this, and then we can talk about it again.
Epic, epic kudos for trying. Seriously. I realize how extraordinarily disheartening it must be to go out on a limb with “I can haz conflict?” and be met with “PK!” but the success of this venture will ultimately be determined by the place it has in the process. It only fails if we let it. |
I'm not a part of this process. And I can currently say I've no interest in starting one. I can't see in the forseeable future that I'll have such an interest. I haven't seen many(any) attempts yet. The one attempt was aborted, messily, yes. I don't see incentive to try for anyone, though maybe others do, hopefully. The burden of creation is still out there, and the burden of counter-creation/reaction's going to exist too. I think we can pick pieces of it up and continue with it, but the general idea is gone, yes. Clan conflict outside of "So-and-so killed so-and-so" or "so-and-so said mean things to me" will have to pop up another day, as will clan conflict that doesn't hyper-escalate immediately.
| Quote: |
| Moving in the direction of a player-driven narrative is a huge step, and one that I appreciate deeply. It wasn’t perfect, obviously, but if we’re willing to learn from our mistakes and keep trying we might at least get a little closer to that holy grail. |
Absolutely. I just think as far as 'incentives' and 'effort vs. consideration' goes, this was all steps back and no steps forward.
| Quote: |
| Case in point: the “murderball” discourse. I realize people feel hurt and angry, and that such feelings tend to disincline one from wanting to see both sides. It’s what we need to do though. Identifying any group of players/characters as an undifferentiated conglomerate with the intention of bad behavior is not only inflammatory and disrespectful of the players for whom that isn’t true, it is -counterproductive- to what I presume is the intent of this thread, that being a dialogue on how to conduct these things better in the future. |
It's not meant that every player has X intent. A person is wonderful, people are animals, etc. I'm identifying a group as a mob, uncontrollable. It's that, as you yourself pointed out; once you create something like this that's what it is, outside of strict, careful control. Attempt something else first, even if that means 'losing' a little. Decide to give it another day, another two, especially when it's offered. That is my honest suggestion when it comes to creation/adversarial roleplay, always, always, always. Save grouping up for combat until the end. Both sides were murderballs; a group like that always will be a murderball.
*ho-hums*
Thank you, again. I'm definitely going to take what I can from that wild 36-hour period. I don't think anyone had ill-will/malice. I do encourage people to try.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
| | |
| It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools. | |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
slyviolin
Registered
Sometimes I struggle with my demons. Other times we just fuck and have cheesecake.
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 10:31 pm | |
Holy crap.
+ 1,000,000 for Blue.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
HAL
Administrator
Senior RPA
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 11:25 pm | |
Indeed.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 11:32 pm | |
| grandpa wrote: |
| Typing hit isn't a code abuse and I'd like to not see that said/spread around. It can be 'ignoring RP,' but again--as Matt's pointed out--once people aim they've shown intent to kill, at least in my eyes. My opinion is that a clan/grouplead's only responsible action is to at least give people a fighting chance, rather than sitting and waiting for people to type aim. |
Ignoring RP and code abuse are more or less the same thing, IMO. Code abuse is using the code to do something that in actuality you would not be able to do. Immediately closing the distance with a group that's ready with guns is not something that should be possible.
Aiming shows intent to kill just as much as drawing a melee weapon. For both of them, it just takes one command after that to initiate combat. You call typing 'hit' immediately giving one side a chance because it doesn't give the other side a chance to type AIM. That's an OOC excuse if I've ever heard it.
Just because the code allows you to do something doesn't mean that you should. Roleplay should -always- come first. That's what the whole point of the game is. We should all strive to represent things in as accurate of a fashion as we feel we're able to do so, even if it's not specifically to our advantage. A leader should lead by example of roleplay, not by example of who can master the combat code the best.
| Blue wrote: |
| In the combat episodes themselves: Yes, that was a cluster. I actually went back over the combat to see exactly what happened, because I could not tell in the moment how it had been initiated, or by whom. Suffice to say I was not thrilled by the speed with which things went to code. Here’s the thing about combat; once it gets started, it’s on. Almost invariably once the first blow is entered, everyone jumps in, and rp from there is next to impossible. (...) To -everyone-: please hold back and wait for rp. Even if someone jumps the gun and dives in, if it is at all possible not to take that as your cue to join them the whole spammy mess might at least be delayed. |
Yes, yes, yes. I feel both sides had instances during this event where combat was jumped into far too quickly, and that really cheapened the entire thing and made it less fun than it could have been.
Ultimately what I'm seeing is a large difference in player philosophies here. Some players put a lot more emphasis on OOC considerations, others put more emphasis on IC considerations. Both are important, but I think that that the ultimate goal should be to portray our characters and the gameworld as accurately as we can.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 03, 2013 8:32 am | |
I would like to point out that I was not directly involved. I didn't pay particular attention to that side of things, but I do remember suddenly being like, "What? There is Object A here now? Interesting... I didn't hear/see/notice anything about this until it was too late."
The RPT suggestion is something that just HAS to be done. You should not be able to do a secret building project that ends in the way it ended without people noticing, sorry. vNPC's are all over the place, construction makes noise, takes people, and is noticeable unless it is done behind closed doors. Maybe I am wrong here and it was played out properly, but it seems like it just happened, suddenly, and without much warning.
Then, on the flip side, the retaliation happened, suddenly... but what can you expect when it feels like the original cause of it happened... suddenly?
Perhaps leadership in the future can delay the conflict, but it is really difficult when you gather groups of people to go see each other. The leaders themselves should perhaps meet "alone" or something, with trusted leadership together to discuss things. Don't bring all the rabble. The rabble adds the potential to have people just start shooting. Let the leaders mingle, talk, decide. Then, it adds to the conflict between the families. You let it simmer, stew, you don't act on anything but maybe individuals and small groups bump, clash, and suddenly you have a longer drawn out conflict. A murder, maybe a fight, someone loses an eye. The stress/tense feeling rises and then a larger scaled conflict is played out. It certainly could of lasted longer and I felt like I missed all of it because I blinked/logged out for a day.
Also, people are speaking vaguely about "someone" starting everything, but many of us know who that someone was, and it is really dumping on that player and if I was that player and I read this I would feel pretty crappy.
I don't know how anyone else feels, but I know of that character and perhaps the Staff knows as well, but there were certain tendencies/wants that character seemed to have that might fall in line with their actions.
We can't all judge characters by a single event. If you aren't that character you can't see their thoughts, their motivations, and if you don't interact with them all the time you can't really know everything about why they did something.
So, if we are planning any major projects that should be noticed by the population it should be placed in some sort of staff RPT announcement. Lets try to roleplay, but in the end, guns kill people and sometimes people die. And lets try not to hate on people for their characters actions and instead give the benefit of the doubt that they thought/felt their way towards a certain point, okay?
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
|
