|  | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
wirsindallein
Registered
(ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*:・ﾟ✧
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 11, 2013 1:22 am |  |
| HAL wrote: |
| wirsindallein wrote: |
| Seer wrote: |
| .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. |
I'd be happy with just the first one, honestly. |
And frankly, this.
We're going to provide the first.
Players, you lot really need to provide the second. |
With all due respect, and I'm sure this will come off far worse than it sounds, from what I've seen/heard with my limited play times, there's been a pretty strong effort on the part of staff to reinforce the attitude of unification the playerbase has been displaying so far. So I'll believe that when I see it. Again, I don't mean disrespect by that, but while I'd love to at least try to go along with and create conflict, the current situation in game leaves me very uncomfortable in doing so. Either I start a series of petty arguments which never amount to anything (because there's no real point behind them anyways), and feel like an attention whore, or I escalate those petty, pointless disagreements and feel like a griefer at worst and one of those dumbasses who repeatedly suicides at best.
I want conflict. Hell, I might want to see conflict more than any other player. But as someone repeatedly pointed out in the last thread, flavor is only going to extend as far as it's feasible in-game. Until there's a reason to create conflict that doesn't make me feel like I'm playing Post-Apocalyptic 90210 or Desperate Housewives of Rust...I guess, let's just say I don't want it badly enough for that.
I, personally, think it's too late for any one player to really change the course of things on their own, not without something drastic like the Jalthans, a group of characters who's backstories were basically built for conflict, showing up again. At this point, it has to come from the top because--
And here's my next thing. Why are we discussing clanleads in this thread? How would replacing any of our leads change anything, whatsoever? Seriously, please, someone explain that to me? Because I don't have a doubt in my mind that if we had a reason for clans to be going at it, our current leads would be leading them to do so. And if not that, I'd be willing to bet that at least some of the characters under them would be disregarding orders to do so. At least, maybe if that reason had been around before things became a resource-scarce, moon-based colony of the Kingdom of Caring.
We don't need new clan leads, we need things that are worth fighting about. If you want to lead a clan maybe consider handling it In-Game, rather than insisting the role magically be ceded to you because of an unrelated forum discussion.
Again, this probably comes off as way harsher than it means to sound. I'm an aggressive person, and while I enjoy the game I'm finding things to be a bit absurd right now. Apologies in advance for any offence that might have been given here.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
creepyguyinblack
Registered
The Alpha and the Omega
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 11, 2013 1:36 am | |
| HAL wrote: |
So, what game design changes would prompt low level tension?
What we have coming down the pipe:
Updated wilderness with more numerous but smaller scale scav sites.
Updated wildlife that takes group size into account to scale.
That's what's on our plate. What else might help? |
Different thread, but same topic.
I appreciate any work done for the game and on our behalf, but I think the wilderness is the reason why there is such a big current culture of cooperation. I think adding more things to do inside the walls, especially in the Turf, will aid in inter-family conflict. Since no one goes traipsing about outside alone or in small groups, competition inside the walls would be much more feasible and likely to occur.
More turf quests might be nice, but also other similar things for the families to vie over would foster conflict. Maybe returning the old turf-code could be a start. I remember it had different ways to garner love and fear from each location, there could also be additional actions that each family would favor more than others, like drugs and prostitutes for Niners, extortion or something for NG, not sure what would be Red comaony specific, militia drafting? Forced labor, along those lines. I just think if the turf code were re-introduced, and turf had real coded benefits, we would see an overnight shift in family relations.
All in all, we should be focusing on what conflict can be had inside the walls, since that is where the majority of players spend the majority of time, and tend to spend that time in smaller groups, mostly with their own family or groups.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
grandpa
Registered
Entrenched Oldbie
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 11, 2013 2:30 am | |
| creepyguyinblack wrote: |
| Maybe returning the old turf-code could be a start. |
Conflicts used the turf code as a means, but there were never any conflicts based around events -from- turf code. Turf code wasn't a means to conflcit, it was a means during conflict to achieve coded aggression when the enemy wouldn't aggressively move against you.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
| | |
| It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools. | |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 11, 2013 3:17 am | |
Turf would also be incredibly imbalanced if it were put back the way it was, for this map. The NG clan is on one side of the map by itself, while the Reds and the Niners are at very close proximity, especially when speaking relatively. NG would be at an extreme advantage, with Reds being completely shafted.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 11, 2013 3:41 am | |
| wirsindallein wrote: |
| Why are we discussing clanleads in this thread? How would replacing any of our leads change anything, whatsoever? Seriously, please, someone explain that to me? |
Well, at the risk of sounding like an ass... do people simply ignore posts that are longer than three or four inches? Because we're not talking about replacing clanleads - that suggestion was made quite a while ago. Right now (or at least, at the time that you posted) we're (we were) talking about how to make the existing clan lead jobs less shitty (by suggesting more people to spread the work load onto).
[derail]
| eltanimras wrote: |
| It's quite likely that I was underestimating the power of both that title and the IC role |
Yeah, you underestimated the importance of my title and position when I was your clanlead too 
[/derail]
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
| | |
| The forum blight formerly known as Rivean | |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 11, 2013 4:04 am | |
Turf code never worked very well anyway and was really buggy and odd.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 11, 2013 4:24 am | |
I feel like this thread has been massively derailed. I'm a newer player, albeit one with some measure of experience from ARPI, but I feel like I can say with a fair measure of confidence that clan leadership has little to nothing to do with the 'lack of conflict' in the MUD presently. From my experience, present clan leads have been doing a fantastic job of facilitating both RP and the organization of their families with extreme success to the benefit of the MUD as a whole.
As far as making things less sucky for clan leads goes... sure, that would probably be helpful. But not in generating inter-character or inter-family conflict. Coherent 'rank' structures within the families (or at least the NG and Reds) would probably make things easier (to include the suggested Quartermaster position) etc.
Gravitating back towards the focal issue, however-- There are two very valid reasons why we aren't (and shouldn't be) seeing tremendous amounts of conflict:
First, there is no incentive to engage in conflict-oriented RP. Less people die, and everybody has more stuff, the more everybody cooperates. Food and resources ARE an IC motivation. Well-played characters should WANT to live, and keep living, and do it as comfortably as they can manage. And engaging in conflict with others can only HURT your ability to do that at present. Not only because you put the things you HAVE at risk to do it, but because you GET nothing from it. This isn't a 'stuff' culture problem. Or a super-best-friends problem. Or a New Moon Order conspiracy alliance problem. It's a matter of incentives. In order to get players to do something, you must do two things. First, make sure it's fun. Conflict can be. When done well. Second, you have to provide a REASON to do it. The reason exists in lore, but codedly it's not there. Families get nothing from getting the upper hand on the others. So all conflict does is hurt EVERYBODY.
Second, non-fatal conflict tends to get ignored, and is rarely played out. Nobody wants to beat somebody down and then have to worry about them shooting you in the head the next day. Or whatever the prevalent excuse in favor of PK over beatdowns/maimings is at present. So nobody bothers with non-PK conflict resolution, because it's kind of pointless. And PK conflict resolution doesn't get put into play because it leads to unnecessary quantities of death for no gain in return. In reality, non-PK conflict resolution should really be the GO-TO means for most situations, as it's less likely to incite an all-out war, but still CREATES conflict-RP.
The above are my criticisms. I'm an adult. The adult thing to do when you criticize something is to offer some prospective solutions along with the critique, so here goes:
1) Incentive-ization of Conflict to Match Theme. Thematically, when a family gets an upper hand over another, they should get something out of it. Turf's been brought up for this, but nobody cares about turf and the map isn't good for it. It's inelegant at best. Turf might be useful for other purposes, but let's ignore it for now. What people really want (as we've seen) is STUFF. Stuff that can help them survive, especially. We presently have turfquests as the only injection of chips into the game. I would propose giving each family a 'REPUTATION' with the vNPC community, representing their bulk relative love/fear. This would go up with things like... doing turfquests, beating up other family members in public, etc. It'd go down with stuff like... getting beat up, etc. Then this would determine some sort of daily or weekly quantity of chips that get forked over to families. Or maybe adjust the amount of chips they get from turfquests up or down.
2) Facilitation of Non-PK Conflict Resolution. This is an RPI. The swanky thing about RPIs is that a large number of the things you want to do in RP, you are able to do codedly, with your character's statistics, et cetera. At present, there's not a whole lot of point in codedly smacking somebody around unless you're going to kill them. Introducing coded non-fatal resolutions to coded combat could fix this. Like... kneecapping somebody. Scarring up their face. Stripping them naked and tying them up in the market. Whatever. All of these things can be done with RP. But players are lazy. Introducing a coded way to handle cripplings/maimings/humiliating beatings in code will give players a new avenue to handle conflict resolution without it being 'lololol PK'.
I'll see what else I can throw out there, idea wise. But there's no reason people -shouldn't- be cooperating on runs. Then trying to beat the crap out of each other on the streets to make a point when they get back
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
grandpa
Registered
Entrenched Oldbie
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 11, 2013 4:25 am | |
| Moriarty wrote: |
| wirsindallein wrote: |
| Why are we discussing clanleads in this thread? How would replacing any of our leads change anything, whatsoever? Seriously, please, someone explain that to me? |
Well, at the risk of sounding like an ass... do people simply ignore posts that are longer than three or four inches? |
This is the forum version of a delayed spit-take. He's only replying 7-8 posts later because the enormity of the suggestion just hit him.
Either that or he's just gotten to it/responding to it just now.
ETA:
That, and the theme of his post generally seems to be that even changing clan leadership a whole lot isn't the -best- way to fix the problem, and that the best fix to this problem relies on admins/the GAME world, rather than playestyles/players.
Both are good, though.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
| | |
| It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools. | |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 11, 2013 8:32 am | |
I for one would be very interested to hear more turf- & reputation-based ideas for inter-Family competition and/or conflict, if anybody's got them. We may not have gotten it to work in the past, but I think it'd be very thematic & immersive if we could.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
starsignal
Registered
just a page in someone's book
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 11, 2013 11:32 am | |
| crayon wrote: |
| All of these things can be done with RP. But players are lazy. Introducing a coded way to handle cripplings/maimings/humiliating beatings in code will give players a new avenue to handle conflict resolution without it being 'lololol PK'. |
I don't disagree with you, but I feel it needs to be pointed out: we're playing a RPI. For anybody who's forgotten, that acronym stands for RolePlay Intensive. So...why are people being lazy about RP?
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
|
