Poll

Does planeshift seem to lack IC conflict to you?

Yes.
75 (70.8%)
No.
31 (29.2%)

Total Members Voted: 102

Author Topic: Conflict?  (Read 9167 times)

Nikodemus

  • Prospects
  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 1808
    • View Profile
Re: Conflict?
« Reply #15 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.



What you can failure tommorow, failure today.


Better click for shiny stylez Help me with images!

Draklar

  • Forum Legend
  • *
  • Posts: 4422
    • View Profile
Re: Conflict?
« Reply #16 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.
AKA Skald

Xillix Queen of Fools

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 1876
    • View Profile
Re: Conflict?
« Reply #17 on: May 08, 2008, 07:40:54 pm »
what are the arguments of those suggesting that there is enough conflict in PS?

Nikodemus

  • Prospects
  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 1808
    • View Profile
Re: Conflict?
« Reply #18 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.



What you can failure tommorow, failure today.


Better click for shiny stylez Help me with images!

Draklar

  • Forum Legend
  • *
  • Posts: 4422
    • View Profile
Re: Conflict?
« Reply #19 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.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2008, 08:59:54 pm by Draklar »
AKA Skald

Miaua

  • Hydlaa Resident
  • *
  • Posts: 102
    • View Profile
Re: Conflict?
« Reply #20 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.

Tuxide

  • Hydlaa Notable
  • *
  • Posts: 715
    • View Profile
    • Banker
Re: Conflict?
« Reply #21 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.

Raa

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 1005
  • Halp meh...!
    • View Profile
Re: Conflict?
« Reply #22 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  :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! >:[ )

Mythryndel

  • Testers
  • Hydlaa Notable
  • *
  • Posts: 605
    • View Profile
Re: Conflict?
« Reply #23 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.

Eliseth

  • Hydlaa Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 321
  • Spiffirific
    • View Profile
    • Eliseth's Journal
Re: Conflict?
« Reply #24 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 ;)

MustangMR

  • Hydlaa Resident
  • *
  • Posts: 128
    • View Profile
Re: Conflict?
« Reply #25 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. 

Shadow1490

  • Hydlaa Resident
  • *
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
Re: Conflict?
« Reply #26 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.
Optimists are just cynics waiting to happen.

Duraza

  • Hydlaa Notable
  • *
  • Posts: 761
    • View Profile
    • Want to know the truth now?
Re: Conflict?
« Reply #27 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.
Saggi Lezeheso, The Whisper's Jest
Demoik and Rioqura, The Immortal Harrow
Vertum, Will of Dakkru

Duraza Darkom, Slayer of Kittens

Zan

  • Veteran
  • *
  • Posts: 1944
  • Just a regular guy, with an irregular soul
    • View Profile
    • Photography
Re: Conflict?
« Reply #28 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.
Zan Drithor, Member of the Vaalnor Council
Tyrnal Relhorn, Captain of the Vaalguard
Thromdir Shoake, Merchant
Giorn Kleaver, Miner.

Grayne Dholm, Follower of Dakkru

Prolix

  • Guest
Re: Conflict?
« Reply #29 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.