+- NEUS Projects (https://neus-projects.net/forums)
+-- Forum: Sigrogana Legend 2 (OOC) (https://neus-projects.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Forum: General Discussion (https://neus-projects.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: The state of "antags" (and conflict?) (/showthread.php?tid=10400)
RE: The state of "antags" (and conflict?) - FaeLenx - 07-30-2023
(07-30-2023, 01:13 PM)Skullcatrons Wrote: If someone wants to do their own plots. Or settle a place, or so but can't because someone else doesn't like them! I'm all for regulating role play spaces, but when you're taking essential positions like leaderships on Korvara. You'll just stranglehold a LOT of people's enjoyment.
If you really wanted to strictly regulate your own RP space. There is always That Place.
![[Image: image.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/923738753145647134/1135198498212548608/image.png)
![[Image: c625f85bd250e150e43d7e6af7c9ff5b.gif]](https://i.gyazo.com/c625f85bd250e150e43d7e6af7c9ff5b.gif)
RE: The state of "antags" (and conflict?) - 1starbob - 07-30-2023
(07-30-2023, 06:59 PM)FaeLenx Wrote:(07-30-2023, 01:13 PM)Skullcatrons Wrote: If someone wants to do their own plots. Or settle a place, or so but can't because someone else doesn't like them! I'm all for regulating role play spaces, but when you're taking essential positions like leaderships on Korvara. You'll just stranglehold a LOT of people's enjoyment.
If you really wanted to strictly regulate your own RP space. There is always That Place.
![[Image: cooltext440250700674973.gif]](https://r69.cooltext.com/rendered/cooltext440250700674973.gif)
I think it's odd to say "You can interact with the people of a nation without having to harangue someone personally" because I mean sure you can always just vibe in a city that just so happens to have a leader that doesn't like you, but if you want to: join the government/join the guards/buy land/communicate antagonism/make an influence/etc your likely going to run into the leader who doesn't like you OOCly and your likely going to be forced to talk to them due to their position. Someone prior to joining a leadership position should've asked themselves "Can I handle talking to people I probably won't like" because due to their new position they should've known it's probably gonna happen.
RE: The state of "antags" (and conflict?) - Poruku - 07-30-2023
What the fuck is that font, bring back normal letters guys
I just wanna say, I think I'm with sawrock here. I understand why people don't like pvp, but this discussion always goes the same way.
1: I don't want pvp to decide the fate of my character
2: Ok, well dice rolls or rp conflict exist
3: Yeah, but dice rolls and rp conflict aren't good solutions either
I think the pvp being unfun and unbalanced is perhaps the easiest problem to fix here. If the pvp was made to feel more fair and balanced, it would probably be acceptable to more people. I'm of the same mind as sawrock as well, I think if SL2 was pure RP then there's no point to playing SL2 instead of roleplaying in any other platform without a mechanical system. The pvp, the "game" part of the roleplaying game, is fun because it's a game. It removes the headache of having to manage and agree on everything when it comes to combat. Dice rolls are boring, and RP combat is only fun when both participants know in advance the result. Otherwise, it feels really frickin bad. There's no good solution to this problem aside from fixing pvp. PvP is the entire point. If two players are in conflict, the answer is PvP by definition. In my mind, that's part of the point with Korvara.
I don't think that means anyone who doesn't like it should run back to G6 or anything. I just think antags are getting the short stick and some things could be done.
On that note, I am working on a large post where I'm detailing an idea for an area similar to the runescape wilderness in korvara. So if that kind of thing were to come out, I could get my fix of pvp gameplay without running into all these issues, since it'd be opt-in by definition, with all expectations set from the get-go. The issue is that Korvara and SL2 as a whole is very nebulous when it comes to what is expected of you.
Expectations are really important, and people disagreeing is mostly because we all have different ways of enjoying the game, which is fine. I don't think we should segregate certain people to G6 because they don't like being pvp. I also don't think we should be able to entirely avoid consequences just because we don't consent to something logical happening. Much like when I got arrested in the past and was unable to bargain for my freedom. Or when other people have been in situations where they were kind of forced to accept death. Korvara isn't built on the same platform of consent as G6, there are situations where consequences can be forced. I think however, that these rules should be clarified a lot more. And I think we should have more systems in place that allow us to manage expectations, and choose how we wish to play the game without stepping on too many toes.
RE: The state of "antags" (and conflict?) - Skimmy2 - 07-30-2023
(07-30-2023, 08:22 PM)Poruku Wrote: I don't think that means anyone who doesn't like it should run back to G6 or anything. I just think antags are getting the short stick and some things could be done.
The issue is that Korvara and SL2 as a whole is very nebulous when it comes to what is expected of you.
Expectations are really important, and people disagreeing is mostly because we all have different ways of enjoying the game, which is fine. I don't think we should segregate certain people to G6 because they don't like being pvp. I also don't think we should be able to entirely avoid consequences just because we don't consent to something logical happening. Much like when I got arrested in the past and was unable to bargain for my freedom. Or when other people have been in situations where they were kind of forced to accept death. Korvara isn't built on the same platform of consent as G6, there are situations where consequences can be forced. I think however, that these rules should be clarified a lot more. And I think we should have more systems in place that allow us to manage expectations, and choose how we wish to play the game without stepping on too many toes.
I for one, support banishing people to play G6, we can start with all Onigan Characters >:3
I feel that Expectations are a huge culture shock, and have been for quite a while.
Ask every single person in this community what they thought Korvara's "Expansion" would bring to Sigrogana and what the state of the game would look like a year later on this day; and I highly doubt anyone thought that the game would look like this.
Even now in this discussion, was Korvara not meant to be PvP focused? Evidently debatable.
Was I suppose to be expecting it to be "Player Driven" as opposed to "Event Driven"? Eventmins were always meant to change the world in drastic ways since their very inception, and IDK fam, Korvara do be looking mighty event spicy at a glance.
I feel that ultimately, as has been repeated countlessly in this thread and elsewhere.
That opening up a dialogue and discussing these things over with the other party is the most healthy way to go about conflict or any significantly major RP in general.
Regardless of whatever external factors, policies, or rules happen. Nothing beats talking things over with the other dude OOCLY and figuring things out.
RE: The state of "antags" (and conflict?) - FaeLenx - 07-30-2023
(07-30-2023, 08:15 PM)1starbob Wrote: I think it's odd to say "You can interact with the people of a nation without having to harangue someone personally" because I mean sure you can always just vibe in a city that just so happens to have a leader that doesn't like you, but if you want to: join the government/join the guards/buy land/communicate antagonism/make an influence/etc your likely going to run into the leader who doesn't like you OOCly and your likely going to be forced to talk to them due to their position. Someone prior to joining a leadership position should've asked themselves "Can I handle talking to people I probably won't like" because due to their new position they should've known it's probably gonna happen.
That's a bit of a nuclear option and demands people who are already putting a lot of time into their environment to be extremely tolerant rather than asking the people they're expected to interact with to be even mildly tolerable.
But it's funny that the original problem stated was even worse. The original concern was that not only are you potentially blocked by someone in that position, it's that you're also up to the 'mercy' (tolerance) of both the GMs and potentially the eventmins that you could talk to as well. Which means you're not just worried about ONE person being generally not unavailable to talking to you, you're worried about NUMEROUS people not wanting to do it.
So far, the GMs have gone out of their way to ensure that people in those leadership positions act with a reasonable enough measure of good faith. If you're worried that someone would fail the test of scrutiny from so many people, though, then I don't really think that you're even measuring it in terms of good faith for this 'ostracized' party. You're measuring in 'This person isn't enjoyable to be around but they should still be allowed to be here and other people to be forced to interact with them because...' Reasons. I don't know why.
Maybe just try to be fun to be around. Most antagonists ARE. Sawrock is the epitome of what so many claim to have a problem with but they're FUN TO BE AROUND SO PEOPLE LIKE HIM.
RE: The state of "antags" (and conflict?) - 1starbob - 07-31-2023
(07-30-2023, 10:12 PM)FaeLenx Wrote:(07-30-2023, 08:15 PM)1starbob Wrote: I think it's odd to say "You can interact with the people of a nation without having to harangue someone personally" because I mean sure you can always just vibe in a city that just so happens to have a leader that doesn't like you, but if you want to: join the government/join the guards/buy land/communicate antagonism/make an influence/etc your likely going to run into the leader who doesn't like you OOCly and your likely going to be forced to talk to them due to their position. Someone prior to joining a leadership position should've asked themselves "Can I handle talking to people I probably won't like" because due to their new position they should've known it's probably gonna happen.
That's a bit of a nuclear option and demands people who are already putting a lot of time into their environment to be extremely tolerant rather than asking the people they're expected to interact with to be even mildly tolerable.
But it's funny that the original problem stated was even worse. The original concern was that not only are you potentially blocked by someone in that position, it's that you're also up to the 'mercy' (tolerance) of both the GMs and potentially the eventmins that you could talk to as well. Which means you're not just worried about ONE person being generally not unavailable to talking to you, you're worried about NUMEROUS people not wanting to do it.
So far, the GMs have gone out of their way to ensure that people in those leadership positions act with a reasonable enough measure of good faith. If you're worried that someone would fail the test of scrutiny from so many people, though, then I don't really think that you're even measuring it in terms of good faith for this 'ostracized' party. You're measuring in 'This person isn't enjoyable to be around but they should still be allowed to be here and other people to be forced to interact with them because...' Reasons. I don't know why.
Maybe just try to be fun to be around. Most antagonists ARE. Sawrock is the epitome of what so many claim to have a problem with but they're FUN TO BE AROUND SO PEOPLE LIKE HIM.
Yeah no I messed up- didn't know the original issue was EMs/GMs saw newest post with giant fire letters then saw what was being responded to and thought "Is this about leaders..." and then posted the above with that assumption instead of reading up. The whole "Interacting with people of a nation" bit confused me and I shoulda read up/maybe not responded so I do apologize. GMs and EMs I don't think thus far what I've said would be as big of an issue with GMs/EMs. If a EM or a GM for some reason doesn't chill with you, it's really possible to just go to another one. I've talked to plenty of people who have a favorite GM that they usually go to for stuff and it's the same with EMs. If you've somehow made the entire EM/GM team mad- then no what you said at the end of the post I was responding to is absolutely right that says more about you then it does the system we are dealing with. I also don't see what I was talking about really being an issue with leaders as they are currently, as they all seem chill at a glance!
I apologize for my miss understanding of the original issue and thank you for the response back. I'll be noping out of this thread now-