Conflict, Consent, Cooperation, Clan Wars

[Gum]

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

Open/Closed flag on your threads.

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.

And do you really think PG wars are worth it?

Absolutely!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!