PlaneShift

Gameplay => General Discussion => Topic started by: Xillix Queen of Fools on May 08, 2008, 05:28:22 pm

Title: Conflict?
Post by: Xillix Queen of Fools on May 08, 2008, 05:28:22 pm
Please make suggestions below.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Earl_Listbard on May 08, 2008, 05:36:50 pm
I'll open by saying yes it lacks ic conflict, theres no real struggle for the people of yliakum its mostly a peaceful fairy tale. Sure theres a few guild wars and they are shot down quickly for being against settings.

Rebels vs Empire

Horde vs Alliance

Ignis vs Syrtis vs Alsius

Zerg vs Terran vs Protoss

Greens vs Tans

Nazi's vs Allies

Ahem... There are no waring factions in planeshift, the biggest conflict that occurs is a bar brawl in the tavern.


There is no racism in ps, keep this in mind, because according to settings every race is tolerant and very culturally blended with another.

Talad and Laanx followers haven't shown hostility towards each other, at least not beyond a simple pissing contest over 'who can build the better temple' still no sign of disdain between either religion when it comes to settings.

Politics? There is only one political government in all of yliakum, there is no political struggle.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Nikodemus on May 08, 2008, 05:42:45 pm
There is no fight because there is nothing to fight for.
Fighting for the sake of fighting is stupid. It is almost the same as playing all the time for reaching the ultimate goal - pvp.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Earl_Listbard on May 08, 2008, 05:44:12 pm
There is no fight because there is nothing to fight for.
Fighting for the sake of fighting is stupid. It is almost the same as playing all the time for reaching the ultimate goal - pvp.

True, which is why there needs to be a reason to fight.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: SovHed on May 08, 2008, 05:45:01 pm
Yes, it was actually ME! who mentioned this on TS the other day :P lol anyway...

I think it does lack internal strife. So much so that its an ideal world. There is NO conflict at all, any conflict is instantly crushed by "the guards" and any large attempt at RP'd unrest is instantly crushed by an angry mob of forum people. So... Yes PS does lack struggle... having some races disliking/hating/at war with others is necessary to have a developing challenged world. At the moment we all exist in a fantasy fairy tale where every race co-exists peacefully with no war with anyone else.. The most major battle I have come across is the battle between lorytia and her ex-husband trasok... invloving a badly crafted metal face.

Not very much conflict I must say :P

Anyway yes please add some conflict! It may then appeal more than my current gaming addiction :) (possibly)

Niko: Yes theres nothing to fight about, thats the problem we are talking about. No conflict in game, so no need to fight.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: eldoth_terevan on May 08, 2008, 05:56:08 pm
Very little IC conflict, as we all know. Better mechanisms to support and resolve guild to guild conflict could make it a lot more interesting for many.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Zan on May 08, 2008, 06:02:32 pm
In my opinion .. and my opinion alone apparently  .. No.

There is plenty of conflict between players. Religious disagreements, power struggles among guilds, domination plots, 'bad' guys with black cloaks and flashy daggers who live to break laws, 'good' guys who think everything even remotely dark is evil and needs to die, ... that and plenty more in between.

Even the Settings creates conflict:

- Creatures from the Stone Labyrinths vs the Intelligent Races of Yliakum.
- Laanx vs Talad.
- Black Flame vs Dakkru.
- Black Flame vs Everyone. :P
- Octarchy vs Onyx Dagger (= Law vs Crime)
- ...

However what I do agree with is Nikodemus' statement. There is no reason to fight. The game's mechanics aren't developed enough yet to make the world dynamic enough. If you fight NPCs, they just respawn. If you fight players, they just run through the Death Realm. The conflicting factions that the Settings describes need to be supported by game mechanics. Players should be able to participate in those conflicts and gain or lose something out of it.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Donari Tyndale on May 08, 2008, 06:04:50 pm
PlaneShift definitly lacks IC conflict, since game mechanics wise everyone is equal. Only little conflict is there, mostly through player initiatives. This is something I regret, since conflict is a great source of roleplay, as well as motivation to do the latter.  However, there can't be much conflict, since if someone tries and claims a position from where he could do things IC wise it likely causes whining (aka OOC conflict), and only this difference in status could cause IC conflict and roleplay. In my eyes, these differences are needed to have a working roleplay system in game, and the game should support differences in character status. I see that this might be considered unfair by some, however, it is not. Everyone needs to have the same chances, not the same status.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Xordan on May 08, 2008, 06:09:28 pm
PS is supposed to be dark fantasy. Atm it feels comparable to Hello Kitty Online from the 'dark' side of things, if you're a random Joe player who hasn't read any of the settings. Players shouldn't need to read a website and books to get that idea though, so yeah we're lacking.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Draklar on May 08, 2008, 06:15:46 pm
I think the real conflict starts when guilds find a real need to compete.

For example:
Set a fixed number of "background population" for each city.
Set areas of interest for population of each city - what the people value: nature, law, Laanx, freedom, death o_O
Allow in-depth guild customization (to be chosen from drop-down boxes - several, to allow more combinations - and make these rather general), which will allow guild leader to fully characterize their guild (based on what the guild actually represents) - this should also help in creation of new original guilds (that actually have some real aims).

And now.

Set influence for each guild (% of background population that supports it) based on:
- Association between population's areas of interest and decisions made in guild customization.
- Amount of members (big influence boost with first additional members, but smaller as guild grows - if done right this will limit zerg guilds and give a growing chance for the still petit guilds)
- Guild reputation (the easiest way is to modify this one through winning/losing guild wars, but there could be additional factors like average number of finished quests per member - this would additionally limit zerg guilds - and quest solved total to set the initial reputation).
Edit: Come to think of it, faction points associated with guild characteristics would probably make more sense than quests in general.

And in the end make the guild receive money based on its influence, and further divided between ranks according to the settings done by the leader.

And if a guild can choose only one city to compete in, then smaller guilds will probably start in villages, before moving to large cities once they feel confident enough.
"Yo, some nature hippies showed up in our 'hood!"

Adding possibility of coup d’etat within guilds is another way of inducing conflict.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: SovHed on May 08, 2008, 06:22:04 pm
Ok... for creating conflict my suggestions would be: 2 factions emerge from the races of Yliakum and This should be done by race of character and then people are given the option to change faction by quests/ repuation etc... but that has to be quite hard.

Anyway people complain about PVP, not wanting to take part in it, winge about getting ganked/killed. Ok, thats going to happen, its a game, its not the end of your life particularly. Anyway the point is I think Open PVP is a little too much.

You will likely flame here but Its very good actually and i'm sure many will agree with me. World of warcraft (waits for flames) has a good war system. There are friendly areas, conflicted areas and hostile areas. This could be implemented on PS without too much trouble.

The one faction has a few starting areas, and a few low level areas that are totally PVP-free. Decent monsters, decent quests, you can train reasonably there. For the higher level of gaming, you have to go into a contested areas, which has higher monsters, monsters that give more PP.. Trepors, ulbers, tefus, etc... They all are in contested areas that have inter-faction PVP.

I think this would work because the majority of PS is a sensible community, ganking, ok it will happen, but in anywhere where pvp or conflict exists there is killing.... Sorry to burst the hello kitty bubble..

I'm not exactly sure how the factions should be split up that should be looked at in detail.. But I really think the game needs more conflict, and some areas with PVP is a good place to start.. At the moment everyone can just run to ojaroad2, kill the 40pp ulbers in a few hits, get uberxp, level to the max and just sit about doing nothing more. With PVP even if you are levelled to the max there is still incentive to carry on.

Focus on RP will not be lost through this, only enhanced as people are given the ability to RP better with the possibility of actually striking someone down... rather than having to sit through 500 declines of a duel. Or put up with a ridiculously god-mode RP fight that invariably results in both sides saying "jolly good show ol' chap, now lets go have a spot of ale in the tavern and resolve our differences like the outstanding individuals we are".

Thanks for listening and I really hope something similar to this is considered/implemented. If not, fine.

Note: I saw another poll about lack of players in PS.. I believe the lack of conflict is a good reason for people getting bored.

PS: I'd like to point out that though there is conflict between people that is not major and doesnt affect anyone but themselves, thus is not constructive to the whole game. The same for guild wars, unless on a LARGE scale.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: StitchedChin on May 08, 2008, 06:23:06 pm
Yes there is no meaningful conflict so far, but there could be.  But like everyone has said, there has to be something worth fighting for, and it does not even have to be violent, it could be wealth, land, a symbol, power, etc.  It can be won by strategy, good old fashion hard work or diplomocy, and yes, just shear brute force.  I always come back to ripping off of other ideas, like a point system similar to HP where guilds achieve points for accomplishments and top guild receives a prize after a certain time frame, a year or each month.  Or it could be like all the online RTS type of games, a capture the flag type where there is a sweet spot/territory that gives you some sort of advantage, a weekly income of trias, a platinum or some unique metal spot and you either defend it or just govern it, allowing the owner to use it for their pruposes so they could turn it into a market place, training center, brothel (just kidding), and either let outsiders in or keep them out.  Or there is some high level government official that you strive to have in your pocket.  Ah if only I was a programming genius, I'd build a test environment out right now...
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Nikodemus on May 08, 2008, 06:46:14 pm
oh, suggestions. Wishlist is full of them. I would post few links, but it is such complete chaos, which i don't know how to search, that no wonder wishlist questions are asked on the fly... that one a side note.

I'm all against statistics, points, bars or whatelse. Even though these sounds good ideas, and they are successfull in games... these games are RPG parody, unlike PS. They will cause people to require and describe others by their eg completed quests, etc. Something you can't explain ICly and so it will be caled unencouraging RP.

Few things i remember from wishlist, probably those i proposed myself before:
- ambushes on ore caravans from the mines to cities
- struggle for a land, a mine, for economic gains

And i was wrong, fighting for the sake of fighting can be present with all the examples Zan provided, all player initiatives without gains. It doesn't have to be fighting for the sake of pvping.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Draklar on May 08, 2008, 06:54:42 pm
They will cause people to require and describe others by their eg completed quests, etc. Something you can't explain ICly and so it will be caled unencouraging RP.
Hold on. You can't explain people sucking up to the quest solvers ICly? What about a hero? A renown adventurer? That dude over there, who talked with an Octarch?
Surely such people would be of great value to any rationally thinking guild leader.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Orgonwukh on May 08, 2008, 07:31:57 pm
I think in general many conflicts are created by the attempt to get more power. The outlaws are trying to get more powerful while violating laws. Since it is difficult to roleplay with the executive and judicicary, I am struggling with this kind of roleplay. I'd love to have more good guys as opponents, but it is unclear how the good guys can fight the bad ones without violating laws themselves.
I think a good way of doing it is described in the SROR: http://hydlaa.com/smf/index.php?topic=28009.0
It is difficult to find a common way of dealing with IC conflicts.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Nikodemus on May 08, 2008, 07:35:03 pm
 
Hold on. You can't explain people sucking up to the quest solvers ICly? What about a hero? A renown adventurer? That dude over there, who talked with an Octarch?
Surely such people would be of great value to any rationally thinking guild leader.
But not quests in general. There is so variety in quests, that a number will give you nothing.
Reputation is something much more complex than a bunch of numbers. Although you can have some indicators on which some gains can be built.. this is going to be really complex and i'm affraid people will look at the indicators not trying to find out what is behind these, it is they will act occly instead of icly. And you will need huge knowledge about these indicators to be even able to explain them icly, unless it will be somehow made intuitive, what i have no idea on.
So yeah, I'm unconvinced, not that my oppinion counted.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Draklar on May 08, 2008, 07:40:26 pm
But not quests in general. There is so variety in quests, that a number will give you nothing.
Well, that's what you have faction points for.
Reputation is something much more complex than a bunch of numbers.
So is intelligence, but most games limit it to a single number. When you're making a game, it's gameplay, not realism that counts the most.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Xillix Queen of Fools on May 08, 2008, 07:40:54 pm
what are the arguments of those suggesting that there is enough conflict in PS?
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Nikodemus on May 08, 2008, 08:22:19 pm
So is intelligence, but most games limit it to a single number. When you're making a game, it's gameplay, not realism that counts the most.
ok, this is my last quote. Well, in a game, yes. But for RP game i would be carefull. Maybe it is better to leave this aspect to people.
Factions points may be good indicator, but if for instance it will turn out you couldn't gain points in one faction, because you had points in another and this is because of dependency a given recruiting guild would agree to be stupid... you still won't be accepted, because you had no points in a faction and the guild doesn't know it is only because of this dependency.
Just saying some things may be too complicated. Well, just like PS quest system... what is another reason why i wouldn't want to work on another complicated feature and rather release the simple, not restricting ones first... but then again i'm not dev and i have no idea if i ever will have any meaningful impact on the shape of PS.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Draklar on May 08, 2008, 08:44:34 pm
I wouldn't say RP games are more realism-demanding than other genres. It's usually good to have a realistic setting/plotline, but as far as mechanics go - not really. The mechanics discussed here should be fairly realistic in a strategy game, but here it's just a background. Likewise, realistic combat is needed more in an adventure game like Monster Hunter than in a RP game like Planeshift.

Edit: Um, sorry. I guess as far as mechanics go, the character development should be fairly realistic.
Factions points may be good indicator, but if for instance it will turn out you couldn't gain points in one faction, because you had points in another and this is because of dependency a given recruiting guild would agree to be stupid... you still won't be accepted, because you had no points in a faction and the guild doesn't know it is only because of this dependency.
So like someone went through law-focused quests, got high in "guards" faction and now cannot go through illegal-themed quests? I think it's only natual a shadowy guild wouldn't wish to recruit someone with the reputation of a lawful boy...

I don't know about these stupid dependencies though. If something really doesn't make sense, it should be reported to and fixed by the settings team.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Miaua on May 08, 2008, 08:52:40 pm
I voted for no... Um...

Its maybe just mine opinion, but I dont like that kind of 'forced' pushing of being enemy to someone. I like more freedom of choosing whom to hate and fight and whom not to.
Settings should provide some kind of reasons for conflict (as it is now, but counting with some more developement) to allow players to create their own conflicts and maybe gain some courage and reasons to it.. But not that kind of 'You choosen this and that, and you 'have to' hate and fight those and this."
Hm...
Maybe I should have voted yes -.-' Cause game lacks IC conflicts.

Whatever...  :D

Anyway, togeather with some settings, which are quite suitable i my opinion atm (~Zan's post), there could be some couragement from game mechanics for conflicts, like the guild wars and so...

And some conflicts are as well prevented by bad PvP mechanics. Not everyone is albe to stay 3 hours for RP fight, or there is godmoding or diagreements... *shrugs* Players with worse connections (like me) and from Europe are usually p0wned by players with low pinged connection. And powerlevelers vs RPers counts too, but thats quite hard to solve.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Tuxide on May 08, 2008, 09:13:55 pm
I voted yes.  Every time some player wants to do something that could potentially create conflict that is actually within settings, the feedback is always something like "oh this could get abused" or "the game is not mature enough to support something such as this".  It's as if the critics don't even take the effort to support conflict.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Raa on May 08, 2008, 09:46:36 pm
I voted yes, and don't need to explain why.

There are ways--ICly legal ways (well, kind of)--that players can help create conflict in Yliakum. Not war-like conflict (unless you're from Mexico (http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2008/03/anti-emo-riots.html)  :thumbdown:), but like social tensions between sub/countercultures. Examples: punks vs. rockabillies, preps vs. goths, jocks vs. nerds, hippies vs. gangstas (all those silly little high school fads). Of course it couldn't be exactly the same as in the real world, but there could be PlaneShift equivalents. Like nature-obsessed enkis, angsty anorexic little Dermorian boys, Krans with engraved tattoos (ow)... Make it up! It would be realistic and acceptable by the law, as things like this did exist a long time ago in our own world, and it definitely isn't against the rules.

Just a simple, random idea.

(Listbard, I saw your post! >:[ )
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Mythryndel on May 08, 2008, 10:02:27 pm
I have posted about this before, but there is no way to force a conflict in-game. The example I used previously is someone deciding to charge a toll for crossing a bridge. I cannot force a character to even stop and acknowledge my existence, let alone pay a toll to me. Also, from my previous example, other players cannot come and send me to DR for harassing people into paying the toll. This limits the type of character you can effectively play in-game.

I can also, outside of upsetting a couple of specific NPC monsters, walk from Akkaio to BD without anyone bothering me. This is for many reasons right now, both story and technical. I think that in future, it might be nice if after "sunset" more monsters show up and become more aggressive.

I don't want to start a feud over this, and it has probably been discussed before, but I think it would be a good idea to have a dedicated map area that is completely open for both "PvE" and "PvP". I am not of the opinion that someone with all stats maxed should go around picking on and killing newbies all day, but the relative safety of Y'liakum can become boring after a while.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Eliseth on May 08, 2008, 10:14:09 pm
I voted yes. I noticed a few people saying that we can't force people into conflict. This is true. The keyword I think we need to use is facilitate. The framework for conflict needs to be put in place, for those who wish to use it. Those who do not want to fight, do not need to. After all, not everyone fights in a war.

Let's face it, conflict makes computer games more exciting for the majority of game players, why do think commercial games focus on conflict scenarios? That is where the money is ;)
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: MustangMR on May 08, 2008, 10:33:55 pm
I voted yes, though I know I'm too new here for it to mean much.  So I'll just add my point of view.  Take it for what it's worth.

I hate pvp for providing conflict.  As I've said, I play wow.  I rolled on a PVE server because I don't like pvp, however, the game goes through massive changes in gameplay on a regular basis to try to balance things for pvp.  My main character is a PVE resto druid.  I love healing as a druid.  However, I have suffered through some of the worst times as a gimp class because of it.  I can't kill a dang thing.  That's okay, it's what I rolled.  But then, low and behold, druids became powerful in 2v2 arena play, and the nerfs started coming as Blizard started trying to balance things to counter that, hurting our PVE in the process.  That's just an example.  Every class has gone through major nerfs/revisions to balance things for PVP.  WoW also suffers heavily from the point that gear makes so much difference in the game.  Well geared players destroy under geared players, irregardless of skill.  So the end result was to make gear so easy to get, that it started to mean nothing.  If everyone has epics, then no one has epics.  So the whole thing just seems to be melting down now with little reason to care about any of it.

The point I want to make is that you pretty much have to chose what kind of game you want to be.  You don't seem to have the resources to do both.  If you chose PVP, given the type of combat and skill based system you have, you are going to spend a lot of time dealing with complaints from people who are just plain weak in the game because they chose to specialize in crafting and not combat.  My character is a Demorian in game.  I can't imagine I would have even the slightest chance against any other race in the game.  If PS goes that way, then I won't play.  Not crying about that, I will just find something else.

So given that I'm asking for PVE based conflict, what I don't really want is faction based conflict.  At least nothing that requires hours and hours of faction farming.  Factions end up being a good way to do it though, but we should be able to declare our allegiance to a faction and be done with it.  We should be able to turn traitor, and have the both sides remember it.  Do it too often and you will be hated by everyone.  Conflict should have factions attacking factions, or have quests that have you affecting other factions in some meaningful way.  Assassinations that stick (i.e. kill the NPC and he's gone from the game... sure, replace him with a new one later).  Items that have to be raided and captured.  It doesn't always have to be "go get object from dank dungeon crawl for the bazillionth time", though you certainly may want that too.  Have raids on each other cities that players can participate in.  Yes, that's PVP, but it mixed the PVP with PVE, and it's opt in.  If players don't want to fight, they should be able to move out of the way. 

Anyway, I voted yes.  I could ramble on forever on this, but I'll sum it up with you need conflict to keep things interesting. 
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Shadow1490 on May 08, 2008, 10:37:59 pm
Oh man...
My character is basically broke due to lack of IC conflict...
Its probably because every evil plot gets shot down too quickly...
Eh maybe I'm just not around in the right places but it seems to me that there are plenty of 'good guy' characters but mostly they just sit around twidling their thumbs. I know there are 'evil' characters out there. I'm looking at you Duraza/Xeonart/ Morvex/Dakara/all the other alts I don't know about But they don't seem to do anything but hey I may just have the foul luck to miss out on everything.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Duraza on May 08, 2008, 11:40:03 pm
what are the arguments of those suggesting that there is enough conflict in PS?

I, surprisingly, was one of the people who said no. I think there is plenty of conflict in PS. I just feel people don't take advantage of what the settings gives us. When you think about it there is much you could create. For example

Religious conflicts (Laanx vs Talad, Dakkru vs BlackFlame, Dakkru vs Atheists, Law followers vs people with made up gods).

Law conflict (Good vs evil, thieves vs guards, etc).

Guild conflict (as in guilds with purposes that contradict each other would/could war).

Conflict against that which lies in the labyrinths (Need I explain more? Unknown enemies, fierce monsters, etc. If you talk to the right NPC's you can find out a little about that).

There are probably more examples you could list as well as more things that settings will add as it develops. Sure, game mechanics doesn't support all of it. However I think most of us have the imagination to rp it without game mechanics. Many of us do that anyways  :P

So like I said. Plenty of conflict. Its just that no one actually uses what is given for whatever reason they have.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Zan on May 08, 2008, 11:42:06 pm
I have posted about this before, but there is no way to force a conflict in-game. The example I used previously is someone deciding to charge a toll for crossing a bridge. I cannot force a character to even stop and acknowledge my existence, let alone pay a toll to me. Also, from my previous example, other players cannot come and send me to DR for harassing people into paying the toll. This limits the type of character you can effectively play in-game.

Another way of looking at it is ... that it limits the type of player you can effectively play with in-game. ;)

Personally I am also against forcing conflict on people. Mainly because it always benefits those with more time/willingness to grind their skills. This doesn't mean that conflict and fighting shouldn't be encouraged. It should definitely have a reward attached to it but a meaningful and optional reward. For example Dakkru followers could gain Dakkru faction for attacking and killing Black Flamers or atheists. Good citizens can gain Guard and Law faction for taking down criminals. It's essential of course that you can only gain that faction once and from someone with plenty of faction points (read: in-game time) themselves. Killing the same person a second time won't give a reward anymore .. else you create a system that can easily be abused.

Other options are PvP/PvE quests, where NPCs could order the assassination, arrest or hunting down of certain characters or NPCs. This can be a specifically named character or it can be any character with a certain faction alignment.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Prolix on May 08, 2008, 11:44:08 pm
I am conflicted because I do not understand the question. Please define IC  (in character? in context? in continent?  ;D) conflict.

Are practical jokes such as one NPC might play on another by player proxy an example of conflict? Is the mandated suppression of the Black Flame another form (or source) of conflict? Are the evil-doers preying on whomever they may another type of conflict? What about the raging beasts that chase the unwary? or the patsies of the arena?

Is the fact that players who attempt conflict actions allow themselves to be thwarted by OOC criticism evidence of yet another type of conflict and why do they stand for it? I suppose that does not count as it is not IC.

Any time one philosophy is opposed to another conflict is unavoidable.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Lanarel on May 09, 2008, 12:15:50 am
I voted no. For me there is enough conflict already :). I like being able to walk around in a generally peaceful city. There are too many people running around in battle gear already. Many of the roleplays I notice in game or especially the forums, are about conflicts or people under the power of some strange force that should be fought. For other people this may be not enough, but I would not like to be forced into conflict all the time. A raid from labyrinth creatures ones in a while is fine, some bandits battling in the mountains OK, but for me large factions fighting each other on a permanent basis sounds bad.

Also, I just read the article mentioned in this thread (http://hydlaa.com/smf/index.php?topic=32373.0;topicseen), which may have influenced my vote :)
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Dajoji on May 09, 2008, 12:46:37 am
I voted yes but I don't think we need the settings or the mechs to change dramatically or at all for that matter. Instead, I think it's the players who need to be more open to conflict and the possibilities it brings: loss, pain, hate, hunger for revenge, need to find answers for a great injustice... all these things are strong motivations for any character. But many players are content with nothing happening to them and filling their description with a background story that never took place in-game. Many players have this "nothing can or should happen to me" approach because they don't wanna die or lose their stuff or whatever... but that makes it very difficult for evil characters to do anything and if we had more mechs to let them get away with stuff, there would be a whole amount of complaints both with and without grounds.

So, I think players should look for opportunities to be victims just as much as they want to be heroes, be imperfect, show pettiness every now and then, act selfishly, be a coward, show weakness, roleplay someone whole, not holy. And evildoers should focus on making enemies in ordinary situations. Let that feeling of competition with a friend turn into envy and act accordingly so it evolves into hate and murder and then keep going. Megalomaniacs will always have a hard time achieving their plans because they need the goodies to collaborate with them OOC and play along (which doesn't mean their plots are scripted). But if you pick an enemy, someone you really enjoy roleplaying with, and then let things escalate naturally, just by reacting IC, you'll be able to stir things up more than you'd ever thought possible as a hooded figured with a dark aura.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Lanarel on May 09, 2008, 01:09:23 am
I had another though, but maybe that should have yet another poll :) :

Do you think there are enough things to progress in in game that are NOT only useful in conflict?

Because, what can you do in game, to progress, game mechanics wise?

You can train and get better in the following:
Mining => Metalurgy => Blacksmithing, end in sword/axe/knife making. You use those to fight.
Sword, melee, knife training, make you better in fighting
Training strength, endurance, and that other one (time for sleep :) ), make you not die when you fall and run longer, but mainly make you stronger and healthier, so you last longer in a fight
Training charisma, will and err that other thing, give you more mana and may influence some spells.
Training magic and using spells, helps you kill things better, or heal characters after someone hurt them.
You can cook carrot soup.

I think the last is a great improvement, but the rest makes me wonder whether the question in this poll is wrong, and mine is better :)
But I am sure Xillix has this all thought out ;)

Addition, cause I forgot about quests:
Of course you can do questing, which besides fun with npcs (I mean that :) ) gives you PP that you can use above, and items, such as helmets, armor, glyphs, which you can use above. And a pan flute. Maybe you can use that in melee :).

Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: SovHed on May 09, 2008, 01:12:49 am
Just on my 43rd re-read of the noob comic brought me to this panel.. the last block is rather relevant to PS in its current state.
http://thenoobcomic.com/index.php?pos=40
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: MustangMR on May 09, 2008, 01:19:44 am
So, I think players should look for opportunities to be victims just as much as they want to be heroes, be imperfect, show pettiness every now and then, act selfishly, be a coward, show weakness, roleplay someone whole, not holy. And evildoers should focus on making enemies in ordinary situations. Let that feeling of competition with a friend turn into envy and act accordingly so it evolves into hate and murder and then keep going. Megalomaniacs will always have a hard time achieving their plans because they need the goodies to collaborate with them OOC and play along (which doesn't mean their plots are scripted). But if you pick an enemy, someone you really enjoy roleplaying with, and then let things escalate naturally, just by reacting IC, you'll be able to stir things up more than you'd ever thought possible as a hooded figured with a dark aura.

I go back and forth on this.  I do like the idea of bad things happening, but the problem I see is that why should I play a game to be greifed?  So some ubernaught can feel all giddy about themselves for ganking me because I'm a weaker character?  Forget that.  That's what opens up when you take out the choice of pvp'ing.  If I could count on other players to play evil correctly and not just exploit game mechanics to make life miserable for others, then I think I would be more open to the idea. 

EDIT:  Would you feel the same way about being evil if, when finally cornered and killed by other good players, your character was gone for good?  If it's just the lack of consequences that makes you want to be evil, then really, that's why we have laws in real life, to stop that behavior, and if you want true roleplaying, then you should have penalties both ways.

Btw, I don't know if I understand the poll correctly either.  I assumed "in character" and that the conflict should revolve around our characters and who they are.  That implied to me PVP since the game world is not going to know about who I am, just other players.  But then my yes answer is wrong because I don't want PVP... so I'm confused too.  I want conflict to drive a story that can be played out in many different ways, but not sure if I'm addressing the poll correctly.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Prolix on May 09, 2008, 01:25:28 am
Well nobody answered my question so I vote Huckleberry Hound. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huckleberry_Hound) If a clearer picture emerges I might change my vote.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Xillix Queen of Fools on May 09, 2008, 01:32:17 am
In Character I meant.

I wanted to get a read if people even thought there was a lack of conflict and hear some discussion before forwarding ideas to alleviate any perceived lack of conflict should that be the answer.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Dajoji on May 09, 2008, 01:35:07 am
MustangMR: I did not mention PvP at all in my post. PvP or RP duels are just ways to handle conflict but not the source nor the only means to deal with it. I meant being victim of someone else's thieving, poisoning, or deceiving skills for instance. In other words, allowing both good and bad things to happen to your character. It's the player who decides that and in doing so makes his or her character more or less interesting to RP with.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Under the moon on May 09, 2008, 01:41:33 am
A very subjective question with very subjective answers.

I suppose it all comes down to... What is conflict to me? Since I asked the question, I'll answer first.

First point:
Do not confuse conflict with combat!
Combat is only one form of conflict.

As a writer, I see conflict as any obstacle that blocks or pushes my characters back from achieving their goals, and the struggle to overcome that obstacle. It can be simple to epic, but always must be meaningful to the character. 'Conflict' does not mean random meaningless fighting in the streets that achieve no IC goal.

So, does PlaneShift seem to lack IC conflict to me?

No... and yes. If you are talking about minor social (player created roleplay) conflict, then no. There are plenty of grudges and dramas going around. Where there are players, there will be conflict.

If you mean violent conflict (remember, it has to be meaningful to count to me), then yes, it is completely lacking. Mobs are used for training, farming, and nothing else. PvP has little or no meaning for the most part unless mixed with player created social conflict. What a player does has no impact on the world, so any 'conflict' they take part in is not real.

Political? Strike out. Support one side or the other. No point to it yet.

Law verses Crime? Non-existent outside of social conflict, since you can't really do anything outside of the law.

Faction verses Faction? This can be guilds to religions. Supporting your religion or guild does not have any impact on the world either. No one is going to gain or lose real power. There is nothing to strive for.

Epic conflict? None. It would not matter if every player in the game rushed out to drive back the darkness... or had a tea party. The cities are not going to burn if everyone leaves the creatures alone. In fact, remove the loot and EXP from killing them, and that is pretty much what would happen. Part of 'epic' is do or die.

So, outside of player-to-player interactions, conflict is not lacking. It is completely missing. In time, I am sure we will address all of these issues. It is part of my jorb. ;)
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Prolix on May 09, 2008, 01:43:52 am
Well I changed my vote to no (from "no vote".) My character is almost as conflicted as I am: full of lofty goals and no gumption to achieve them. Hardly any to even appear in game! My other character continually wants to thump various npcs who do not show him the respect he feels is owed to him so he would like it if he actually could. Instead he takes it out on various mobs. As far as conflict with other players, I try to avoid that and usually succeed pretty well.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: neko kyouran on May 09, 2008, 01:50:07 am
I feel left out in this poll. 

Wheres the option for those that can't say yes or no becuase they don't go in game on a regular enough basis to be able to see if there is conflict going on in game IC'ly?

:P
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Taniquetil on May 09, 2008, 02:02:29 am
Yes. I think there is no large struggle between good vs evil, order vs chaos, government vs anarchy, guild vs guild, etc. the Rps that do try to create a struggle are immediately shot down because they are against settings or something. It seems to me the devs are on the side of order and peace. I would like for it to not be so, but perhaps it is. Prove me wrong.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: MustangMR on May 09, 2008, 02:10:45 am
MustangMR: I did not mention PvP at all in my post. PvP or RP duels are just ways to handle conflict but not the source nor the only means to deal with it. I meant being victim of someone else's thieving, poisoning, or deceiving skills for instance. In other words, allowing both good and bad things to happen to your character. It's the player who decides that and in doing so makes his or her character more or less interesting to RP with.

Okay, I can see your point, and that is the part that I debate with myself if it's a good idea, but isn't that just a subtle form of PVP?  It's still player vs. player, even if the conflict doesn't end in death.  My skills of perception against your skills of subterfuge. 

My concerns may not apply to PS as it exists today, but it will grow.  Precedents set now may not have the same intended effects years down the road.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Earl_Listbard on May 09, 2008, 03:30:41 am
Just on my 43rd re-read of the noob comic brought me to this panel.. the last block is rather relevant to PS in its current state.
http://thenoobcomic.com/index.php?pos=40

Lul
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Waoknie on May 09, 2008, 03:37:36 am
It's curious how the last trap made me think twice and I'm still unsure if I'll fall this time..
I would rather have more than 2 choices for this poll.
My answer was yes but it's conditional, so it's kinda depending on the point of view.

A couple of days ago, I was chattn with a friend that is also a PS fan and I told him something like "...they're making Barbies (tm) out of us." a reference close to the Hello Kitty (tm) one that I've read here. I also wrote a post with a similar reference.

There IS conflict IG. That's undeniable!. The exercise of RolePlaying is very well related with an interaction of distinct characters on which one will either surrender to the other or both agreed on who's leading at the beginning. For having a healthy human relationship, we rely on leadership and surrender, even if the powers switch depending on the situation between the same individuals. Sometimes you lead, others you surrender. Either you live with that, or face oblivion.

But here is where we have to face the truth: We don't like surrender.. it is degrading, irritating, makes you angry and hungry for revenge, payback or whatever you call it.

PlaneShift gave us a world which recently achieved an unnatural way to deal with conflict because it was thought that by avoiding the bitterness of surrender, the IG world would be a happy, inviting and welcoming one. And in some ways, it is. But it lacks intrigue. It lacks vertigo.

And I find that the reason remains on the fact that nothing happens to our characters. Nothing that is not agreed, explained, scripted, etc.. The element of surprise is almost erradicated. Our characters are embeded in an impervious bubble for other players.
Players are the only elements in the game that cannot inflict direct actions to players and that's IMO, totally out of context.

The feel of surrender exists for natural reasons.. the 'survival of the fitest' is not an argument. It's a law! and this one is not to be considered for decision to obey or not. It's the way it is, period. The feel of surrender is the fuel for the brave. It exists as an incentive for improvement, not as an excuse for sloth.

The fairytopia world had it's chance and failed.. we don't need more conflict. We need to let those conflicts to be solved in a natural way.. the way of the conqueror and the defeated. Which is something that ... well, sorry but simple RolePlaying does not provide very effectively.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Raa on May 09, 2008, 03:53:37 am
The fairytopia world had it's chance and failed.. we don't need more conflict. We need to let those conflicts to be solved in a natural way.. the way of the conqueror and the defeated. Which is something that ... well, sorry but simple RolePlaying does not provide very effectively.

Well, it would if there weren't so many hypocritical elitists out there with huge egos... So you're saying that roleplaying isn't fair since everyone wants their way? I kind of agree, but good roleplayers can avoid that, and I'm sure there are a lot of those on PlaneShift.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Waoknie on May 09, 2008, 03:59:56 am
The fairytopia world had it's chance and failed.. we don't need more conflict. We need to let those conflicts to be solved in a natural way.. the way of the conqueror and the defeated. Which is something that ... well, sorry but simple RolePlaying does not provide very effectively.

Well, it would if there weren't so many hypocritical elitists out there with huge egos... So you're saying that roleplaying isn't fair since everyone wants their way? I kind of agree, but good roleplayers can avoid that, and I'm sure there are a lot of those on PlaneShift.

True.. I tried not to say that RP is not a posibility of dealing with conflict, I just said it's not quite effective.. I forgot to mention.. : the fact that to defeat an oponent the RP way is so difficult, makes it THE ONLY TRUE WAY TO DO IT FOR GOOD.
I've done it.. and yes.. you have to be a really good one.. not trainable by NPC's in PS.. gained through experience itself.


EDIT: Sorry but I think there's a contradiction on this post.. Please understand that I try very hard to explain myself in english but sometimes these things happen.. just try to catch the idea and don't.. erm.. 'cherry-pick' on it.. thank you.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Illysia on May 09, 2008, 06:01:17 am
PS is supposed to be dark fantasy. Atm it feels comparable to Hello Kitty Online from the 'dark' side of things,...

Ack... I never thought of PS as Dark Fanatsy, there are enough of those out there as it is. X-/  I rather like the fact that there aren't wars and battles breaking out constantly. It gives you time to RP the everyday things which are just as valuable to RPing as conflict. I understand that conflict and combat are different, but the more conflict you have the more likely constant combat will rise. Even though I don't think it has  much conflict,  I'd prefer that PS stay that way. Otherwise there is little reason for it not to become like WOW. Even now, it is hard to find new people to RP with or to RP with random passing people because many are more concerned with training or they only RP about training. The other aspects of life need their RP time too.  :'(
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Candy on May 09, 2008, 08:57:19 am
Good roleplayers create conflict when they want it to happen.

Good roleplayers also understand that even in their idealized fictional worlds, there will still be times when they/their characters don't get what they want all the time, and just keep playing towards their goal anyway.

PlaneShift has good roleplayers, and if you're lucky enough to find them, you'll have in-character conflict up to yer eyeballs.

Even something as simple as an NPC quest can create conflict. I just had the best roleplay session ever with two other players merely discussing a quest (and our backstories as well, but the best parts had to do with the quest).

EDIT: Oh, and for the whole dark fantasy thing? It seems like regular fantasy to me. Dark at times, and utterly lighthearted and silly at others, just like real life (but with Elves and Magic and Ulbernauts and suchlike ;P).
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Xillix Queen of Fools on May 09, 2008, 05:23:29 pm
I am surprised by the number of people who see adequate conflict within the game atm. Let's get this to 100 so we can move to another debate.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Orgonwukh on May 09, 2008, 06:19:29 pm
If you mean violent conflict (remember, it has to be meaningful to count to me), then yes, it is completely lacking. Mobs are used for training, farming, and nothing else. PvP has little or no meaning for the most part unless mixed with player created social conflict. What a player does has no impact on the world, so any 'conflict' they take part in is not real.

I'd love to see an area where fighting would take place without consequences from the law (maybe there might be regions of no interest for the government?). True, there is the PvP area in the arena, but the Dlayos mainly attract powerlevelers. One proposal is a more attractive PvP area. An attraction might be resources (see for example http://hydlaa.com/smf/index.php?topic=29759.0).
Another possibility could be a new score system for guilds that hold a certain area.
However, PvP conflicts seldomly include roleplaying. See some proposals for an improvement here: http://hydlaa.com/smf/index.php?topic=32392.0
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: MrGadget on May 10, 2008, 03:45:37 am
Voted no, perhaps selfishly.  I have enough conflict in RL, and enjoy coming into PS and escaping from it for a few hours.  There's dozens of ways to make drama without inventing direct conflict between characters.  Problem solving, fending off a raid by a band of rogues, disaster recovery/rebuilding (think building/wall/statue/whatever falls down) etc.

MrG
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Under the moon on May 10, 2008, 06:29:33 am
You are mixing conflict with combat. Conflict can be two taverns competing over the same customers. Auctions are a conflict of interests. Both people want to win, but they toss money instead of rocks.

Conflict is simply two or more groups wanting the same thing, or a single group that wants to go different ways. Everything you describe is a form of conflict.

Problem solving: You verses the problem, or the creator of the problem.
Fending off a raid: You and Co. forming a conflict with rogues over your belongings. You want to keep them. They want to take them. Possession of your stuff is the source of the conflict.
Disaster: Classic case of the conflict between people and nature. You want peace, order, and an undamaged home; nature does not care.

Another good word for conflict is fight. You can: Fight your foes. Fight the wind. Fight the System. etc. All of which can be done without raising fists.

IC means conflict for your character, not necessarily between your characters.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Thinzall on May 10, 2008, 07:12:01 am
you can have conflict just being a hermit IC...


I am me, JUST ME
Thinzall
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Under the moon on May 10, 2008, 08:19:00 am
/me imagines Thinzall as an old hermit yelling at the clouds.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Taniquetil on May 10, 2008, 08:19:09 am
BTW, Xillix, i love what you are doing here  :D
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Xillix Queen of Fools on May 11, 2008, 04:38:30 am
still looking for opinions and perspectives.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Prolix on May 11, 2008, 05:36:23 am
I am still not certain what adequate conflict means where most of the traditional sources have been ruled inadmissible. Are you trying to support a position where interspecies or interfaith tensions can arise? Perhaps you wish to have implemented a class or caste system or some other more original means of dividing the populace.

If you keep extolling the user base to be more friendly how is conflict to occur?

This poll does not seem as popular as the last one, perhaps next time use the thread title form: [Poll] -- Poll Question?
That way people will see that their input is required more so than with just a discussion thread, and they just need to read the thread to see what are the options.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: eldoth_terevan on May 11, 2008, 07:26:09 am
Its not that the poll isn't popular, its a tough question actually. To the perspective of some, there is plenty of conflict available in roleplay. To others looking at it from a mechanics perspective, not enough. A class/caste system already exists somewhat as defined by the settings -- at least there are different sorts of citizens with different privileges, groups and goals -- so there is a basis for IC-RP conflict. The groundwork for conflict IC-mechanical was begun with the addition of the faction system, so the basic system for this is in game, and appears to be working now. And... I completely forgot what I was going to say. What UtM said, then...
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Xillix Queen of Fools on May 11, 2008, 07:44:23 pm
What I am asking is if players feel there is enough institutional conflict.

Are there roles to play, provided by settings or mechanics that the players feel satisfactorily grant enough room for people to roleplay approved conflict.

If not what should we try to do to make it better for players?

Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Mythryndel on May 11, 2008, 08:17:07 pm
I believe that the settings allow for conflict, but either players or mechanics do not allow for much conflict. Also, there is nothing that the players can do to make the conflict mean anything. There is not a changing of property values if too many shady characters start migrating to an area of hydlaa, or an economy where the market is flooded with platinum so the price goes down. These are just examples of things that it would be nice to see in-game. The players actions having an observable effect on the game.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Prolix on May 11, 2008, 08:23:10 pm
Perhaps, as I suggested elsewhere, you could play up the merchant house aspect, at the moment you can get faction points for merchants but not for say Mikana Trading Company. If you build these companies up the players could associate with one or another and rivalries would be started. This would be a good vehicle for the current wish list thread to do with npc-led guilds. This kind of thing would not fall afoul of the rules as it is not racially, religiously based. It would be politically based but in every utopia there is an undercurrent dystopia.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Shadow1490 on May 11, 2008, 08:38:21 pm
Perhaps, as I suggested elsewhere, you could play up the merchant house aspect, at the moment you can get faction points for merchants but not for say Mikana Trading Company. If you build these companies up the players could associate with one or another and rivalries would be started.
I like this idea. It'd give mercenary characters more options as well. And other combat oriented characters as well I guess.

Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Prolix on May 11, 2008, 09:43:12 pm
Doesn't the faction system actually encourage prejudice? If I have a significantly low faction rating that members of that faction, e.g. kran or laanx, etc, treats me like dirt or worse if they will deal with me at all, could I not respond with hatred for all their kind? I suppose it is not certain and that you will take due care when implementing faction effects. Something to think about at any rate.

No news is good news and old news is not new so old news must be good news.  ???
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Irgendwer on May 12, 2008, 12:05:17 am
And here I'm totally lost, whether or not I should vote yes or no. No, the world does not lack opportunity for conflict. You get that automatically, when/wherever people meet (and thats what people do all the time in Yliakum). What PS lacks is the opportunity of making conflict matter. Right now, there is pretty much no gain in engaging in a conflict situation. You can do it for the sake of it, but actually thats a) pretty boring and b) you have to find someone, willing to be your opponent.

What I would really like to see in PS would be player outlaws (see one suggestion here: http://hydlaa.com/smf/index.php?topic=32367.0 ). Make the "Law" faction matter. Everyone above 0 is law abiding, everyone below is a criminal and can be hunted for a bounty. Captured players would be sent to the prison map, where they have to either mine ore till their faction reaches 0 again, so they can be releases (other alternatives would be trying to kill the guards or of course be killed - both preserves faction).
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Hrothbert on May 12, 2008, 01:11:29 am
I like the outlaw Idea but I foresee the /die command being abused yet again by the inmates so that they can "escape" the prison, and thereby making the prison of no effect other than another map to explore.

Working it off would make sense, a sort of escape, or being killed by interior guild wars would be nice but the suicide command would have to be disabled in the prison
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Prolix on May 12, 2008, 02:47:24 am
It could be kept if it sent you to a section of the DR with no other exit than back to the prison map.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Irgendwer on May 12, 2008, 04:04:59 am
I like the outlaw Idea but I foresee the /die command being abused yet again by the inmates so that they can "escape" the prison, and thereby making the prison of no effect other than another map to explore.

Working it off would make sense, a sort of escape, or being killed by interior guild wars would be nice but the suicide command would have to be disabled in the prison

Sure, you could use /die to escape the prison. That would pretty much be the same as being killed by the guard in a prison break attempt. The downside of this however is, that once being again in the lands of the living, you not only still have your negative faction, but also Dakkrus curse and the bounty on your head ;). Have a read at that PlayerKill proposal I made. The core idea is to give criminals an edge that can easily be used for creating conflict, but the price for it is dear.

As for disabling /die in prison: Whats the point? People would either sent an alt to kill themselves or loose interest in playing.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Mythryndel on May 12, 2008, 05:17:43 am
Don't disable the /die command, just have the guards confiscate their weapons/armor. This is reasonable in any armed society, and if they don't either successfully provide the duties assigned, or break out and grab their gear on the way out, then their items are forfeit. I really like this idea. If you /die, then you still have to break back in and reacquire your items. I would assume that you could do this either by stealth, or showing up at the prison with 0 or greater faction in law.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Under the moon on May 12, 2008, 05:54:13 am
It is easy to create areas where if you die you respawn back in that same area. NPCroom (Dev testing ground) does this. The only way out is through teleporting. Die all you want, you are not leaving.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Orgonwukh on May 12, 2008, 02:28:12 pm
Please correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the Octarch's decree tell us that the only possible punishments are perma-death and banishment? I see nothing about any jails, although I would like to see them in game.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Hrothbert on May 12, 2008, 02:29:24 pm
Now respawning always in the pison would to me be more like torture than trying to navigate Dakkrus realm for the first time. I like the  loss of weapons and armour/personal effects, This would cause a much greater need to 'reform' and/or escape 'legally' without the use of /die command.

And would also cause more strife in the prison. Although as one mentioned it may take to long and make some loose interest. We do have to remember it is a game and not meant to completely emulate real life otherwise we would have to get rid of the magic system and other things that don't match the real world.


Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: MustangMR on May 12, 2008, 04:36:54 pm
Now respawning always in the pison would to me be more like torture than trying to navigate Dakkrus realm for the first time. I like the  loss of weapons and armour/personal effects, This would cause a much greater need to 'reform' and/or escape 'legally' without the use of /die command.

This would become obsolete with the addition of bank storage.  Just put the good stuff in the bank and then use some scrub items to go on a killing spree and then just die to get out without losing anything you care about other than maybe faction, but I would assume if you did that, you wouldn't care about faction.

Another possible solution?  Put the jail in the death realm.  When released from prison normally, they have no curse, otherwise they have to escape through the death realm, and guards could be placed at various locations to make that extremely challenging.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Dajoji on May 12, 2008, 04:44:50 pm
Note that as development progresses the death realm will be much, much, much bigger than what it is now. Using it as an escape route is at the moment more of an OOC alternative than it would be IC, just like it is when people use it as a shortcut between cities, since the sole idea of going through it should be preposterous for most characters.

The idea of a prison I've always liked. I'd like to see it somewhere behind the Bronze Doors, in the labyrinths or really, really far away from the cities. The death realm escape can be avoided with existing mechs and coherently explained IC as well.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Nikodemus on May 12, 2008, 04:53:42 pm
store valuable items in a bank?
Valuable items are to be used, not storing. Why do you even want an item you can't use because it is too valuable and it is good only for storing  ::| ?
I'm very happy you don't loose your items, that Dakkrus take you to DR with all your possessions
(I would be happier if after dying your body stayed where you was with all items behind a deadly field and so unable to be picked up. And Dakkrus servants would know where and when someone died and after a while would take the body and all its items to a body storehouse outside free public viev and it is where you would wake up after coming back from DR ~~ add good climate details to the idea and it is quite good IMO)

And another idea written on these forums already:
Insert quarry works instead of prison. You are trapped there and can try escape or do your due. The higher the crime, the more stones you have to get from the stone pit. and again develop this idea with details and we end with something really usefull. + the anti-cheating ideas people here have about prison
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: SerqFeht on May 12, 2008, 05:01:12 pm
I like mining in the prison. There must be someway, though, to help out noobs that get stuck on the wrong side of the law. Let's say a noob kills his friend, another noob, and gets captured. He is sentenced to mine 20 stones. But he has no mining skills, and no way to train them! I support the forced mining, but there must be something for people with no mining skill, and no pp or trias to train it...


Also this stone must be slow to mine, even for people with maxed out mining. Otherwise, some might be out in seconds, while low leveled miners might be stuck for hours for the same crime.

But i do like the prison map.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Nikodemus on May 12, 2008, 05:22:25 pm
I'm assuming the convict will get a free pick (because all their items they had while captured would be stashed somewhere and returned after paying for their crime in labour.
I'm also assuming there would be a trainer for these noobs up to say rank 5
And the PPs will be dead when we have these labour camps and a system with much more sense in play.

IMO your skill should matter, so miners will be at an advantage there, but not so big. I don't know how it is now in game, but a guy with say rank 20 wont dig 4 tims better than a guy with say rank 5. It wil be 2 times at most.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: MustangMR on May 12, 2008, 06:40:22 pm
store valuable items in a bank?
Valuable items are to be used, not storing. Why do you even want an item you can't use because it is too valuable and it is good only for storing  ::| ?

Check the banker sometime.  He already has tabs for items, they just aren't implemented yet.  Just about every game has some kind of off character storage.  I assume that in real life you don't carry around all your belongings?  There are a lot of reasons for storage.  Store extra ore and tradeskill materials for those times when you want to make something for a friend... that's the main reason I use it in other games. 

Don't guild halls already give you storage?  I don't know.  Just heard some indicate that they had stuff in them for other people.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Nikodemus on May 12, 2008, 07:19:03 pm
You are not commenting the quote. please do so or dont at all.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Xillix Queen of Fools on May 12, 2008, 10:07:19 pm
the topic is ranging all over the place now.

Focus.

There will likely be a prison at some point (far far in the future) but remember there is nothing wrong with killing someone in a duel, dueling is an acceptable form of conflict resolution under the Octarchy.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: MustangMR on May 12, 2008, 10:17:07 pm
You are not commenting the quote. please do so or dont at all.

Yes, I did.  If you don't understand the answers, don't ask the questions.  (Sorry for going off-topic one last time).
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Liadan on May 12, 2008, 10:51:44 pm
Question: what type of conflict are you asking about? and on what scale? Intrapersonal conflict, on a smaller scale, if it has been going on most likely wouldn't draw the attention of all player of PS, just those who are immediately involved. But anything larger will most likely draw attention to how close to the setting it is.  And i'm just going to assume that interpersonal conflicts, for those with multiple personalities, isn't going affect much of us. :)

and if dueling is an acceptable form of resolution, how come game mechanics doesn't quite agree? I'm not 100% sure on this, feel free to correct me, but outside the arena, isn't there an option to give the final blow or something?
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Under the moon on May 12, 2008, 11:23:48 pm
If you agree to a duel, then it is legal to kill or be killed by your foe, but not to use means to inflict true death. Attacking someone without them agreeing to a duel is illegal. Since we do not have a system to punish that yet, it is simply not allowed.

Also, the decree is 300 yours old, so there will be additional laws not stated in that decree or others. The laws are not completely defined yet.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: RichardShru on May 13, 2008, 12:41:30 am
In my opinion, there is alot of potential for conflict in the PS world. First off, you have a government that is semi-democratic semi-hereditary rule. In addition, you have creatures that are "attacking" the people under the rule of said government. In additon, you have many different guilds (all with their own agenda) looking to further their own goals. From there, you have different religions that are opposed with eachother. From there you have different individual characters that are looking to further their own goals. Now, all you really need to do is light a match under all this and you have conflict. lol. Pesonally, I always did like player driven conflict. If their should be anything done on a large scale, I think it should be set into motion by the players. Who knows? Maybe something intresting will come if you wait long enough.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Geckolous on May 20, 2008, 05:59:53 am

Gameplay mechanic's Idea:
[/b]


Being able to force conflict can give RP a 'real' edge, and allows 'evil' players some support.
PVP zones and similar idea's are a pain - as pointed out early in this post, they often end up unbalancing the dynamics.

What if players could collectively choose to enable or disable conflict in particular areas?


For example, an attack on the plat mine....

A guild wants to force out the plat miners and corner the market...
They turn up and start using a /conflict command
Before fighting can start, there has to be a 2/3 majority that want to fight (have used /conflict)

As tension rises, players start getting messages like:
"Everyone seems a little tense today"
"The air is charged"
"You've started catching some evil glances"
etc

When it gets to 'breaking point' (just like a real mob!), a 1 min warning is given.
"You have 1min to leave the area before fighting will break out"

Define the zone of conflict being a distance from each player (eg 50m), and
wherever that zone has a 2/3 majority, it is highlighted (eg a red effect on the ground)
and players can attack each other as if in a guild war.

Conflict can be stoped by more people choosing /peace, or
by having extra people (eg guards, others players) entering the fight (while choosing /peace)
until the fighting forces looses it's 2/3 majority and tension starts to ebb.



This way fighting is easy to get into...
Fighting supports roleplaying goals....
Anyone who doesn't want to fight gets to run away...
And area's can be 'tamed' by more /peace(ful) players and made safe again.



Last thing would be to add guards behaviour so they will rush into a fight to break it up (/peace)
and stand a very good chance of surviving while they fight (make then extremely strong)
This makes it possible to start a fight near town, but really unwise to continue it!





Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Beniel on May 20, 2008, 09:12:36 am
Oh wow, I really like this idea. It seems to me that it will mean living in Yklium would certainly be a lot more interesting (and dangerous!) if this was the case. I've never heard of an idea remotely similar to this before (though I'm not exactly a forum vet, so I don't really know if similar ideas have come up before). I'll be interested to see what the devs and more experienced players have to say about this idea.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Candy on May 21, 2008, 05:35:13 am
I like the idea.

Of course the tavern would be /conflict(ed) almost all the time...XD
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: RichardShru on May 21, 2008, 05:38:58 am
I am not going to comment one way or the other, but I am going to say this was obviously well thought out and I applaud you for it.  \\o//
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Geckolous on May 21, 2008, 05:46:53 am
:)

Nice to get such good feedback!


It would be great to see particular area's often be /conflict(ed) lol
I can just picture the taven casting a red glow out the doorway, an easy warning for new players that "there be danger".

Watching (and getting hints via messages) as the fights are broken up would also be fun.

Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: SerqFeht on May 21, 2008, 05:51:35 am
Sheesh Geckolous, stop having such good ideas all of the time!
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: ruskie on May 21, 2008, 12:26:46 pm
Geckolous great great great brilliant etc... idea... Really nice... I'd ad another thing...
make the players colidable once it hits the 2/3 so that they can't pass through one
another thus making it possible to actually blockade areas etc...

I'm voting for this if it ever goes to the point. Now to the question...

Yes I belive there is not enough conflict in game on any level. I play
a true neutral character(always my prefered way) as is possible with
the current quests and all.
Issues I see currently:

a) bandits/outlaws/bad guys etc... that would actually matter(Geckolous' idea would recitfy that a LOT).
    as the robbery thread notes... most people just ignore them and go through them etc... not even
    deeming it worth their time to roleplay it...

b) no strife... you can't have joy without strife as you have nothing to be joyfull about
    think this one through: if you always had everything on a silver platter delivired to you, had
    anything you wanted all the time, not needing to fear anything and anyone what would you think
    your life would be like? I'll give you my answer now... it would be dull dull boring life. No happines, no joy.
    As it is Yilakum is basicaly that world... there is no IG strife nothing to strive to achive. And no training
    isn't that(no matter how tedious and annoying and OOC(player should NOT see their stats only have a
    feeling of how good they really are(i.e. stats window would display I'm a master swordsmith or some such)) it is)

c) power plays, major ones... c'mon... where's the competition between merchants, how about some wannbe ruler
    trying to overthrow the Ochtarchy(and the players either help one or the other), massive BD invasion anyone?,
    Laanx vs Talad part 2 - beyond the pissing contest, secret societies that try whatever(like trying to control
    the Crystal etc...), some mad alchemists and other inventors that constantly blow up their labs and that cause
    interesting things to happen(think some odd gas mixture that causes everyone to halucinate(in that area) everyone
    else is some beasty

Yes there is the mundane to think about but that's just not enough. There's only so much excitemnt most people will get
from crafting, hunting etc... Just like there's a limited number of people that find programing, driving etc... exciting...
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Geckolous on May 21, 2008, 01:00:38 pm

Making players collidable would make it very interesting!

It's likely to be hard to do with lag and other nasties, and there doesn't seem to be a physics engine as such...


We could have essentially the same idea if the area defined by the conflict formed a one way barrier - while the fight is on, you can enter the /conflict area, but you can't leave unless you die or the fight ends :D
(Somewhat evil, it would mean no running away from the conflict... and make it even more of a risk trying to break up a fight by sheer numbers!)

Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Orgonwukh on May 21, 2008, 01:23:54 pm
Geckolous, I love your idea. Something to add: Zones should have different conflict thresholds.
For example at the plaza, a conflict may only occur if 90% of the mob is angry, while on a road outside city walls, it might be only 50%. Riots inside secure areas would be more seldom.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: Zwenze on May 21, 2008, 05:17:30 pm

Making players collidable would make it very interesting!

...


The idea sounds interesting but i think that is way more difficult then it sounds at the first moment. I think collision between moving and acting objects is a hard thing, when you have a huge lag of lets say larger then 100ms between both parties. If you duel often you might have an idea where I see a problem. In dueling its happens often that you get hit while you are far away from your opponent due to lag and for aiming you also have to consider the lag and "guess" where the server sees your opponent right now. Having a delayed hit is tolerable. But for a collision an action like bouncing of must happen at least almost immediately. I think it will be very annoying when you have to consider lag to walk through a crowd to avoid being "teleported" back for 1 second all the time.
Title: Re: Conflict?
Post by: khoridor on October 23, 2008, 08:25:28 am
The majority /conflict idea sounds real nice, except that a huge flaw comes to mind instantly: 2 guys attacking 1 isolated guy come with the majority already. So, maybe, the command should work when a minimum number of voters is involved. Next issue: would not voting count as /conflict or /peace by default?

For blockades, as collision is indeed not adequate, just bring your henchmen at an empty spot and use your /conflict commands. With instant 100% majority, the zone you control becomes auto PvP. People can run through, if they survive. I find your idea very fair since the zone cannot move, and is visible from a distance; or maybe there is a safety perimeter with a big red warning message.

I'd like people to keep improving that idea. For example on what happens to the aggressors when peace wins? Is there a time limit to the blockade? How many aggressors are needed to keep it alive?