Conflict, Consent, Cooperation, Clan Wars

Printable View

12-10-16, 07:03 PM
Gum

Conflict, Consent, Cooperation, Clan Wars

How do you guys feel about IC conflict in Althanas? Now that the PG scene is suspended for the moment there's really no element of surprise conflict between characters.

I think conflict is good. I even think conflict without consent is good! I think it would be a real thrill if I woke up one morning, came to Althanas.com and found a thread in Dheathain where another player--without having discussed it with me whatsoever--had launched an attack on Gum's home. What a thrill to have to jump into the thread and get into exactly how my character would defend himself, escape, fight back, whatever. And every post would be a complete surprise to me.

Am I the only person who would find that exciting? I am kinda dumb, but I'm not so dumb that I don't see the glaring problems with my vision lol. That kind of play could lead to metagaming/bullying and just all round antisocial behaviour. But maybe there are solutions to those problems? After all, only an asshole posts a complaint without making some sort of constructive suggestions. And I don't want to be an asshole. So here are some thoughts.

PVP Flag

So Elth plays a lot of WoW. And that got me thinking. In WoW you have a PVP flag. Without your PVP flag toggled on then you can't be attacked by other players. Maybe Althanas should introduce a PVP flag system where those brave enough could play with their flag on could be attacked IC at any time. With your PVP flag on, there's no such a thing as a closed thread. Thrilling!? Yes/no?

And then the meat and potatoes of this post is all about...

Bringing Back PG Conflict

There's no ignoring the fact that the community's low activity numbers are the cause of a lot of problems. There's not much to be done about it. Ray, to her infinite credit, put a huge amount of effort into growing the community. Even with all that effort, we have a small community. It is what it is. Maybe it's time to start shaping our community based on the small membership?

Limit PG Membership

I think it was Ebi (if it was somebody else I'm so sorry lol) who made the excellent suggestion that PG membership should be limited due to the small size of the community. That suggestion blew my mind. Imagine a PG with only four spots on the team. The PG leader is only going to keep active players in the team and one single PG won't dominate our small community with ease.

More Dynamic & Simpler Clan Wars

I'm gonna say it, I'm gonna do it. Introduce a draconian word limit per post for clan wars. 250 words. That's it. Speed it up and make it easier for judges. Use a simplified rubric. Focus on fun, unpredictability and competition. With such a tight knit (small) community we only need one PG HQ. Make it easier for it to change hands. Make the rewards preset and simple, an XP bonus or something. It has to be a considerable bonus to make it desirable though!

Make It More IC

Make it a castle, a fort, a tower, a town--something. Produce a story to match the bonus (XP or whatever, gold, something) to an IC magical item or force or some kind of power. If you control the tower then you benefit from some super srs ancient orb of knowledge. People seem to like the famous locations in Althanas, lots of lore helps I suppose.

Well, thanks for reading my stupid suggestion post. Appreciate ya!

Quote:

p.s. I wasn't around when the big pg discussion thread was alive, otherwise I would have totes taken part in it. I didn't want to necro that thread when half of what I'm talking about here isn't exactly the same thing.
12-10-16, 07:24 PM
Mutant_Lorenor

I think an auto-flag idea for The Citadel would be interesting to explore.

Like maybe a specific part of The Citadel where ganking/etc would be allowed and even encouraged.

And yes I DO play a lot of WOW. The key point would be that it would have to be balanced in such a way to allow for growth in roleplaying skills versus just mindless combat. I think that auto-flagged zones (Such as the corpse areas in Raiaera as a loose example) could also work. I think similar ideas have been discussed in the past...to no fruit. But I think we're at a crux in Althanas's history at this point and need more fresh in-game elements. So yes I'd be okay with a Flagging system as long as it A) Were OPTIONAL and B) Could be turned off or on basically at will.

I personally think that there are certain characters in game who would attack others with very little actual IC motivation and that's something that is very frustrating for me.

I personally have always tried to have a legitimate reasoning behind why my characters do this or that. For example: Lorenor (My Paladin and member of the former Ixian Knights) outwardly HATES Madison Freebird and Lichensith (Can't remember Jack's character ICly last name atm) for what happened in Eiskalt. Lorenor was present for that event, but played a minor role. He knows, legit, he can't take either of those people down. BUT he is training and planning things to eventually at least attempt to take them down. It would all depend on where a meeting or battle between those two peeps would occur.

But I'm currently having Lorenor gain power until he feels ready to tackle them both.

But yes in regards to the current discussion motivation should always play a key part of any real conflict.

Long story short, I'm with you on most of this Gum I think that anything that would bring fresh life to Althy is probably a good idea.
12-10-16, 07:51 PM
BlackAndBlueEyes

Conflict in the way Gum is pitching it is only useful if there are good OOC reasons to fite. With the PG system down for the time being, there are no incentives or ramifications for engaging in this kind of IC behavior.

There are also issues of personal canon, and the fact that some of us here see Althanas as a creative writing forum and not a game. Let's use Pavel's example here. Lorenor gets it in his head that he wants to be the hero, and comes gunning for Madison. Pavel writes an opening for a thread wherein Lorenor finds Maddy's compound in Concordia, and starts smashing everything that looks remotely useful. But because I have nothing OOCly that he can actually attack, I can just say "that's cute" and carry on telling the stories I'd like to tell, with Lorenor's assault having zero effect on my personal canon.

As for the PVP flag, "A NEW CHALLENGER APPROACHES" would probably mess with the pacing, continuity, clarity, and quality of a thread. Sure, you could put "closed" at the top of the thread if you really wanted to--but that's an extra, unnecessary step that will probably only complicate things further. Because why put that PVP flag on your character if you decide to do a thread where you don't want to be attacked? What's the point of having it in the first place, then?

I'm all for a cap on PG members, though; but then you risk limiting the variety and scope of your threads, if you only have four or five people in it. The PG would have to have a very specific, linear, concrete goal; and we're not good at that ;)
12-10-16, 08:17 PM
Gum

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mutant_Lorenor

Long story short, I'm with you on most of this Gum I think that anything that would bring fresh life to Althy is probably a good idea.

I appreciate your support on this! It's just a passing idea, but it's really awesome to hear you like it. Maybe we can work on improving the idea and seeing if we could make it happen?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackAndBlueEyes

there are no incentives or ramifications for engaging in this kind of IC behavior.

Conflict would arise in the same way it does in real life. Disagreements are pretty natural for the kind of characters people play here. Just look at the situation Pav has described. It's perfectly organic. If you were then to engage your PVP flag you'd run the risk of the IC ramifications of what Lorenor witnessed your character doing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackAndBlueEyes

There are also issues of personal canon, and the fact that some of us here see Althanas as a creative writing forum and not a game. Let's use Pavel's example here. Lorenor gets it in his head that he wants to be the hero, and comes gunning for Madison. Pavel writes an opening for a thread wherein Lorenor finds Maddy's compound in Concordia, and starts smashing everything that looks remotely useful. But because I have nothing OOCly that he can actually attack, I can just say "that's cute" and carry on telling the stories I'd like to tell, with Lorenor's assault having zero effect on my personal canon.

The PVP flag would be entirely optional. If you see Althanas as a creative writing forum that's totally compatible with my suggestion. Simply do not partake in open "PVP", don't toggle your PVP flag on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackAndBlueEyes

Because why put that PVP flag on your character if you decide to do a thread where you don't want to be attacked? What's the point of having it in the first place, then?

I might have mistyped or explained it goofily, sorry. I said exactly what you said here. We agree! A PVP flag would entirely do away with your character being in closed threads. That's a feature, not a bug. And, just to reiterate, an optional feature!

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackAndBlueEyes

I'm all for a cap on PG members, though; but then you risk limiting the variety and scope of your threads, if you only have four or five people in it. The PG would have to have a very specific, linear, concrete goal; and we're not good at that ;)

Not necessarily, my IRL crew of friends is maybe four or five people deep. We're just friends, we share similar interests, we do shit together. In a fantasy land four characters could be real tight and like doing different things together. OR! You could have an IC clan with a thousand members, but only four of them are "on the team". I agree with you, you're spot on that it's limiting IC for OOC reasons. But it is what it is.
12-10-16, 10:49 PM
matthewkuch

Quote:

There are also issues of personal canon, and the fact that some of us here see Althanas as a creative writing forum and not a game.

Perhaps some people would like to suggest more active participatory options.

Black and Blue Eyes, I do understand where you are coming from; however, in character spontaneity can also be seen as an opportunity for creative writing. I'm all about trying to broaden peoples' perspectives, so here we go.

Black and Blue Eyes, you see creative writing through a certain, specific lens. Gum, you see it through a different lens. Dirks sees it through yet a lens that differs from Black and Blue Eyes's view, and Gum's view. Say Ranger views the site as a game. That is okay! We have to be understanding and respecting that our specific view doesn't entail the view of others. Black and Blue eyes, what you see as creative writing may be a set, pre-planned plot in which you can dictate every single aspect of story and rock that storytelling score. However, perhaps what Black Shadow sees as creative writing is persona, and character development- no matter how that comes about. To go even further, say that Gum views his creative writing as expressing character traits through dialogue.

We need to understand, that these are three very different people who have very different takes on writing- and we should be okay with that. According to the rubric, no one category (i.e. storytelling, character, action, etc.) should be more important than another; however, if dialogue is what turns you on as a writer, and that's all you care about, who am I to tell you that your ideas on how to improve the site are stupid, or wrong, or would be of no help to anybody? (not saying that anybody did this, I'm just saying this for argument's sake) If Black Shadow wants to write a Persona thread with horrible mechanics and poor storytelling, why should we stop him? If he is having fun, and if he is doing what he likes to do, is that bad? If somebody interjects to a thread, that doesn't mean he is only thinking of Althanas as a game. He can still value spontenaity as a valuable skill for creative writing because it expands the mind (i.e. "how do i make this important and save the story?"). This particular approach may not be your viewpoint specifically, Black and Blue Eyes, but if it is somebody else's viewpoint, that doesn't mean it's any less important than your view.

Quote:

...there are no incentives or ramifications for engaging in this kind of IC behavior.

This isn't necessarily true. So we have already established that there are many different people on this site,and with a lot of very different people, there are so many different ways by which people are motivated to write. Even if somebody doesn't want a particular piece of writing to become cannon, so what? If he is having fun, and becoming a better writer, then why should we stop him? Isn't that what this site is about? Being a better writer?

Plus, as stated earlier, perhaps people value different parts of the rubric at different levels. Black and Blue Eyes, you hinted that interjections into a thread would mess with the quality of the story, and therefore would have no purpose, but I would argue that we have to look at it in relation to the writers' strengths. Say that somebody jumped into The Gathering and ambushed the main characters. "A random fight out of nowhere" certainly does mess with the storyline and just looks absurd; however, there are so many opportunities in that for growth as a writer. Taking an unexpected twist that even the writer didn't plan for, and turning it into something that truly matters to the story would be a valuable skill to be honed. Not to mention character development, possible points in persona and action, etc. Spontaneity helps to fight complacency.

I'm not saying that I agree with all of what Gum was saying, but if we view each others' suggestions to better the community with an open mind, perhaps we can hear each other, and maybe come to a compromise if it will help the community as a whole become better writers.

(Disclaimer, I'm not advocating for interjecting into threads without permission- that's not what I'm saying- I'm just saying these instances assuming that the original poster is a good sport about the situation)
12-11-16, 06:03 AM
Shinsou Vaan Osiris

The single biggest issue we have on Althanas is that we cater for two, perhaps even three distinct demographics:

1. People who want to roleplay (play the "game" as BABE put it)

2. People who want to focus on writing.

3. People, like me, who enjoy a bit of both.

It is extremely difficult to find one system that meets the needs of all of these people, because each one will want something different from their experiences on here.

Personally, though I can understand the PvP idea, I think it's superceded by things we already have in place. What is the Citadel for? What are open threads for? People who want conflict can go to the Citadel or post in open threads without any recrimination. If you want conflict on a closed thread, say so in an OOC header in the first page.

If we're talking about popping in to throw a proverbial wrench into a thread to make it more interesting off the cuff, I have mixed feelings. Yes, in a lot of my threads I would love for someone to come and mix it up. But not in a thread where there is a possibility of something I worked hard on being totally derailed. Again, open threads are here for that.

I would love to see more conflict on the boards. Gum, on that front I am with you 100%. When I tried to stir things up between the BoC and the Tarot I was met with a wall of criticism along the lines of "but you have no IC reason to do this." So what? I just wanted to have some fun and get the BoC a HQ.

The problem was that the PG system and clan war idea wasn't created with the consideration that we would need an IC reason to do everything, and so made it very difficult to get anyone on board for a good old fashioned war. In the end (whether because of this or not) the PG section was canned by Lye.

Anyway, i'm going a little bit off topic.

The main aim for everyone here is to have fun. My suggestion would be something along the lines of a seperate, new region in the Outlands which allows anyone to participate in any thread, regardless. This means that the people who want to write without any interruptions to their own work can do so, whilst those of you who want total asskicking anarchy are free to do what you want. Of course the element of surprise is somewhat dampened (because you know that posting in that forum is signing up to those encounters and interruptions) but it is the only thing I can suggest that would be different to what we already have in place.

It's just a concept at this point, but feel free to critique and construct accordingly.
12-11-16, 06:57 AM
Gum

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthewkuch

We have to be understanding and respecting that our specific view doesn't entail the view of others.

I really, honestly, strongly agree with your core sentiment here. Tolerance and inclusion should be 100% top priority. I would truly be upset if there were changes made to Althanas that forced people to take part in a new feature they didn't like. Keep it entirely optional imo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shinsou Vaan Osiris

Personally, though I can understand the PvP idea, I think it's superceded by things we already have in place. What is the Citadel for?

Well, to me the Citadel feels like the IC equivalent of putting on hockey gear to have a pillow fight. And that makes perfect sense because people want the thrill of combat without the risk of losing their character. The PVP flag would offer people the option of a much more extreme alternative lol.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shinsou Vaan Osiris

I would love to see more conflict on the boards. Gum, on that front I am with you 100%. When I tried to stir things up between the BoC and the Tarot I was met with a wall of criticism along the lines of "but you have no IC reason to do this." So what? I just wanted to have some fun and get the BoC a HQ.

That's why I think if/when the PG system comes back we should have the single HQ I mentioned (to reflect the smaller population). And make that HQ mega desirable both IC and OOC. That way no matter what happens, there'll be way less metagaming or whatever you wanna call it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shinsou Vaan Osiris

My suggestion would be something along the lines of a seperate, new region in the Outlands which allows anyone to participate in any thread, regardless. This means that the people who want to write without any interruptions to their own work can do so, whilst those of you who want total asskicking anarchy are free to do what you want. Of course the element of surprise is somewhat dampened (because you know that posting in that forum is signing up to those encounters and interruptions) but it is the only thing I can suggest that would be different to what we already have in place.

Not gonna lie, I love this idea. Pav suggested something similar too, and I like it. Althanas has these extreme and remote environments with difficult weather, dangerous monsters, fallen civilisations, but it doesn't really have a Wild West?
02-16-17, 04:27 PM
Lye

Open and Closed threads are somewhat of your PvP flag. Technically, I could join the AC and try to kill someone on my team. Might make for a bad score, might make for a great one. Who knows! Open threads always have that potential for someone to jut in and gank you.

And do you really think PG wars are worth it? What if people want to have groups, but never want to get into conflict? What if we removed HQs entirely and removed all perks for having a group besides just being in a group? Would that maybe force people to develop IC reasons?

I like the idea of smaller PGs, but everyone wants to have a large group. What if we created a method that any group could obtain an HQ with enough IC effort? Would there still be conflicts between HQs? Would there be more incentive to have multiple groups?

I actually really dig the speed posting clan wars. Like really, really dig it. I might run with that.

I also like the IC location with reasoning behind it.
02-16-17, 07:16 PM
Arch_Nemsis

I feel of this two ways.

The first point is the Open/Closed flag on your threads. People forget that unless they STIPULATE level ranges, the thread is OPEN to all. That ALSO means that hypothetically speaking someone could gank your thread and totally be disruptive and there's very LITTLE that could be done about it. I think people need to look at what Open Thread means versus CLOSED. If you're saying your thread is Open be mindful that someone not inclined to be constructive to your thread (Unless you're gming the thread yourself and respect everybody involved) could join and mess you up.

Then we have the problem of personal canon/lore versus site canon/lore.

As Andy has suggested, I could (As Lorenor who openly hates Madison Freebird) like burn down one of my Maddy's labs in my storyline.

But in all fairness, Andy wouldn't even have to acknowledge my lore UNLESS my lore made site canon you guys feel me?

So case in point, back to the subject at hand.

I feel that we already have solid systems in play we just need to use what the site HAS. I think people need to start using build in mechanics on the site more and more often for them to become viable. I personally have a villain character and I intend to make him a RAT bastard. Not for the sakes of villainy itself, but for the sakes that we need more active bad guys on site.

Anyway guys, I think I've rambled on for a bit already what do you guys think?

We need to have this discussion, everybody on the site, and we need to implement policies that are fair and everybody enjoys using.
02-17-17, 04:32 PM
Gum

Hey guys! Thanks for reviving this thread, I'd honestly almost forgotten about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arch_Nemsis

Open/Closed flag on your threads.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lye

PvP flag

It's funny how ideas and feelings change over time. I'm not 100% behind my own idea of a PVP flag anymore. Not necessarily because I think it wouldn't be fun, I just think maybe it's trying to put a square peg in a round hole with Althanas. And the mechanism is there with open threads, so yeah, it's honestly not something I think is worth spending any time on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lye

And do you really think PG wars are worth it?

Absolutely!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lye

What if people want to have groups, but never want to get into conflict?

That's a really good point. I think I understand; so you mean like, why should players with no interest in combat be forced into defending an HQ, they might be contributing otherwise and deserve the associated rewards? That's a good point. Maybe there could be two different types of HQ? One that has quest related rewards and the other has more combat related rewards? Although, I can see why it would be better to avoid making the system convoluted and demanding to administer for the mods.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lye

What if we removed HQs entirely and removed all perks for having a group besides just being in a group? Would that maybe force people to develop IC reasons?

I'm not sure really. I've been doing some IC stuff alone and working with Ebivoulya and hopefully the guys from the BoC to develop a strong backing story for IC conflict between the BoC and a group we're working on. I think that the quality of the IC stories behind conflict will always come down to how much integrity the members have. If they wants the rewards for meta reasons then they'll rush in willy nilly. Maybe, without wanting to put pressure on mods and putting them in socially difficult positions, maybe there could be some kind of moderation of IC reasons--if an attack doesn't have the story to back it then bullshit gets called and it gets rejected? I don't know, that sounds like a lot of work though. Just an idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lye

I like the idea of smaller PGs, but everyone wants to have a large group.

I'm not sure you'd have that much friction if you wanted to try out a member cap on PGs. Maybe telling me what I want to hear, but I asked around a while back and a lot of people didn't seem to mind the idea of limiting PG membership. Especially if it resulted in more PGs and activtiy. But that doesn't necessarily mean we need to mess with any solid existing IC groups to implement some meta crap rules we make up. For example, the Tarot has a lot of members, but to make the process of PG conflict fun and fast and easy to administer, you could simply have four characters "on the fight team". That might suck for people who want to be "on the team" but I bet just as many people might be happy to be not on the team. Maybe they're not in the position to meet the obligation of defending an HQ. Whereas, under the old system they would have felt like assholes if they didn't answer the quorum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lye

What if we created a method that any group could obtain an HQ with enough IC effort? Would there still be conflicts between HQs? Would there be more incentive to have multiple groups?

I don't think there would be conflicts between PGs if there was nothing to fight over i.e. everybody can get an HQ. I think if any PG could obtain an HQ there might actually be less incentive to have more groups because, as was the case recently, most people joined the Tarot because why not? The job's already done. That's not to say I think all PGs being able to obtain an HQ is a bad idea. It's an interesting idea. I also don't think it necessarily has to be the end of all conflict between PGs. There could be something else to fight over, some kind of IC resource or prestige or something--possibily a moderated goal of some sort.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lye

I actually really dig the speed posting clan wars. Like really, really dig it. I might run with that.

That is music to my ears! We already have tournaments and full judgement scores and people trying to get JCs. None of that focuses on brevity and OOC pace of posting, which I think would be fun in the case of PG conflict. It goes back to what I said earlier, nobody wants a burden.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arch_Nemsis

I feel that we already have solid systems in play we just need to use what the site HAS.

I think in the case of the PVP flag vs using open/closed threads you're absolutely right. But for PGs I think we need something new, something that meets the needs of the community and how it's changed since the old days.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arch_Nemsis

I personally have a villain character and I intend to make him a RAT bastard. Not for the sakes of villainy itself, but for the sakes that we need more active bad guys on site.

Yeah, you're absolutely right about that. Hey, and maybe with an improved PG system there might be an all villain PG? God, that would be awesome!

Anyway, sorry for being so long winded. I'm really excited about PGs coming back and I'm just happy to take part in the discussions. I'm not married to any of my ideas, it's all just for the sake of brainstorming. Even if my ideas or anybody else's ideas are bad, that doesn't mean that they won't inspire a better or more suitable idea in somebody else. It's always good to contribute!