|  | |
|
| | |
|
Roadhawk
Registered
We lurk inside your brain, we hide inside your mind.
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 01, 2013 1:32 pm |  |
I will add that this is entirely a problem with our players base and its most visible and active players. We/they dictate what rp and behavior is acceptable and what is bad. The game and the staff are the framework on which it is built.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 01, 2013 1:56 pm | |
I mean, it was a great attempt at non-PK PVP. I think it went over very well initially.
However, the response was super heavily escalated, more reminiscent of ARPI gang wars. Which is fine, and perfectly IC. Choices were made, and consequences resulted.
The regrettable thing, though, is that it has clearly been shown that not instantly taking every advantage (I.e. PKing a bunch of enemies if you have the opportunity) is very risky and not the best move from an OOC standpoint. One side made an effort to keep PKs down, and whether it was OOC inexperience or trigger happiness, the other side gave much less of an effort. I'm worried that players will take from this, the hindsight 20/20 of, "Well, we should have facestomped them hard to begin with." Had they wanted to, I'm quite convinced that group could have strewn the game with other corpses (probably still could) - but chose not to.
I'm worried that this actually showed a failure of sustainable, non PK conflict, because one clan that rocked the boat, and did so with OOC considerations to other players, were met with a massive squashing response.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 01, 2013 2:49 pm | |
| Bogre wrote: |
I mean, it was a great attempt at non-PK PVP. I think it went over very well initially.
However, the response was super heavily escalated, more reminiscent of ARPI gang wars. Which is fine, and perfectly IC. Choices were made, and consequences resulted.
The regrettable thing, though, is that it has clearly been shown that not instantly taking every advantage (I.e. PKing a bunch of enemies if you have the opportunity) is very risky and not the best move from an OOC standpoint. One side made an effort to keep PKs down, and whether it was OOC inexperience or trigger happiness, the other side gave much less of an effort. I'm worried that players will take from this, the hindsight 20/20 of, "Well, we should have facestomped them hard to begin with." Had they wanted to, I'm quite convinced that group could have strewn the game with other corpses (probably still could) - but chose not to.
I'm worried that this actually showed a failure of sustainable, non PK conflict, because one clan that rocked the boat, and did so with OOC considerations to other players, were met with a massive squashing response. |
I don't think that a clan should depend not getting a squashing response if they rock the boat. You don't have the moral high ground because you non-violently committed an act of war. There has been so many instances in prpi where a clan would be perfectly justified in declaring war over a grievous insult to the family. Half the reason that never happened is because of the OOC stink that would've come from 'you pk'd people over nothing' but it would have been icly justified. Don't hide behind the fact that Pk death is so horrific as long as you don't cross that line you are able to do whatever you want to goad your rivals and retain moral superiority.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
WorkerDrone
Registered
Duke Attitude
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 01, 2013 2:54 pm | |
The whole guilt, IC, makes perfect sense to some characters who might be angry or sad about what happened, I.E, one side made conflict, completely restrained themselves, PK'd no one, otherside, day later, did the exact opposite.
But the intent obviously was not to PK, and honestly what all happened was super twinky and dumb and a lot of people including myself were pissed off, OOC.
So if you're thinking a whole group of players was like, 'lol i'mma pk joo' please take into consideration that we're a large and varied group, and that also the people leading weren't inexperienced or inconsiderate. The game moves very fast, and you can only respond so quickly to people being code abusive.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 01, 2013 2:56 pm | |
| Quote: |
| I'm worried that this actually showed a failure of sustainable, non PK conflict, because one clan that rocked the boat, and did so with OOC considerations to other players, were met with a massive squashing response. |
I honestly don't think it was a massive squashing response. I think it was a reasonable response ICly but with a pretty small measure of players (1-3 maybe) that can only be controlled with muzzles, choke chains, and PKing them back that escalated things beyond what would have otherwise been a PK-free event.
I kind of hope some kind of admin action is taken against players like these when it's shown repeatedly that they're playing Halo where the rest of us are trying to RP.
They don't really deserve a place here.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
WorkerDrone
Registered
Duke Attitude
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 01, 2013 3:00 pm | |
I'm going to have to reiterate on the whole choke chains and muzzles thing, because it's entirely 100% true. 1-3 players involved are either very twitchy and feel sorry (or don't) or can't honestly be controlled in the first place without resorting to their own measures of control, I.E PKing them.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 01, 2013 4:05 pm | |
There were a few folk who jumped into combat a bit prematurely, and perhaps one person who was way too intent to get a kill under his belt, but I don't think that there was a lack of restraint to PK on the part of the larger group last night. It wasn't the most organized scheme ever, but all in all it was just a small handful of players (or perhaps even just one) that really turned it into as nasty of a thing as it was.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 01, 2013 4:39 pm | |
| Flincher14 wrote: |
| Early on in arpi one guy targeted the vultures 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. |
Kolt Jagger was a beast doe
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 01, 2013 5:46 pm | |
I agree with Bogre.
It's not that I have a problem roleplaying losing, I actually enjoy the conflict/character-development. The problem is what this means for the game.
There was just a thread a while back about how to have enjoyable PvP conflict, and it was widely recognized that people were just afraid of getting PK'd, and the best way would be to enjoy the PvP while trying to keep from killing - and if you did kill another character, to try to ensure it was done in a meaningful and satisfactory way (i.e., take a little time to roleplay it out if you can).
And so there's a player who rocks the boat, per se, and also tries to do PvP in a fashion that isn't harmful to the playerbase's desire for PvP.
But this gets shot down in favor of the status quo, by (a?) player(s?) who do PvP in precisely the fashion that makes people scared of PvPing.
And the lesson is internalized to anyone watching or participating.
It's my opinion that staff should crack down on this behavior the same way they might crack down on other breaches of roleplay etiquette. It's not about dying, exactly, as someone pointed out previously, people die to NPCs in a far less meaningful way.
This is more about PvPing responsibly; we should try to keep PvP conflict a desirable thing to other players if we want the game to be exciting.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
grandpa
Registered
Entrenched Oldbie
| |
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 01, 2013 6:00 pm | |
RE: the game moves very fast, the combat in question lasted 40 seconds, start to finish. Ten of those were spent unconscious. Of the sixteen people there, at least one person was still typing hit 30 seconds into the combat. Seven seperate players alone took coded action before using say/talk. About half of those didn't end up using say/talk, and nobody emoted.
This was both OOC and IC, and is a failure of leadership on both levels. Predictably, it went shitty. Predictably, nobody could control it.
People came into this with a couple scary mindsets, and they're ones that don't have much place in an RPI.
Warning, this is where I get straight-up critical, and I do not hold back when I think you played it badly:
"I'm anxious to use my guns."
Kelil I believe put it best, and was the one who brought this to mind: PVP is what a lot of people are looking for. But people also have no experience in this same PVP. Guns and traps are toys, cool things to play around with. As clanleads, as players, -realize- that these are things you have 0 control over. You have -slight- control over a melee. You can save people, you can stop people. When guns come out people can fire four killing shots before you can type -stop-. If you intend to roleplay, shove your guns away. If you intend to roleplay, don't put traps about. They're PK tools and not roleplay tools, and you cannot control the beast you make of players when you whip them out. What happens when people are bleeding, what happens when people retreat into traps? They're indiscriminate tools of warfare.
This also is a place where I agree with Bogre, that a great deal of measured attempt to keep a conflict under control was met with obliterating force: double the numbers, traps, and guns out? ICly, sure, fine, that makes sense, overwhelming force, but if you have even the slightest intent at creating OOC fun, control shit, people.
TL;DR: Guns and traps lead to PK and a 16 man group running around with them will obliterate things before you can blink. You're -lucky- you didn't kill more PCs, OOCly. If you say it wasn't your OOC intent, you acted entirely otherwise in how you structured yourself.
"What am I going to do to end this?"
Maybe this one's controversial, but if you app in as a clanlead, or are their second, or if you become a clanlead IG, your responsibility's 50% OOC. And the response here was one of ending something, quick as one could: a portion of the playerbase/Staff spent something that it was OOCly assured was going to have -mechanisms- to control it/interact with it, and rather than attempt that/interact with those when they came, it was decided on a clanlead level the best option was to form up an MMMball and attack move.
...what? What?! I'm -floored-. We could've gotten there eventually, but it couldn't wait twenty-four hours? Forty-eight? A week? Two? Three?
Next time, don't go into it looking for a way to end it: go into a way looking to attempt fair play and -continue- the hard work/roleplay someone went into it. You can always 'win' later. And if sometimes that means bending your PC, that really wants to win, you should do so. There were options to take offered to every leadership PC involved to find something other than "roll up and roll over them," and....they went ignored. This was a conscious decision, and one that still shocks me.
TL;DR: Work with, not against. It's not about the ending, but about the journey to get there. A journey of two weeks of effort was shattered in ~24 hours, and I can't quite say anybody's particularly impressed by the 24-hour journey.
And here's where I'm done being mean, and say positive things:
What we can do going forward:
Forgive, first.
Forgive that people are mad that they think you played it badly, forgive that people got out of control, forgive that people played it badly if you think they did. This is a world-building game, and we have to work together to create it. You're mad? I guess I am too, but overall I wouldn't change a thing. We dared, and we -won- because of it.
Keep creating.
Please, keep creating. Keep creating reasons for conflict that aren't "so-and-so killed my pap," and keep creating reasons to then bridge that conflict again. Low-level conflict and bridge-burning, fighting. Please creating cultural mores, and -responses- when those cultural mores are ignored ICly. Please keep creating adventures and journeys and reasons to fight. Dare to build and dare to create and dare to see things burnt to ashes in the ground, because while we reached the inevitable ending far too soon, it was beautiful in its own way.
Cheers.
| |
|
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
|
