'State of the RP' feedback thread

[GABA]

Recommendation 2: Cater for both lethal and non-lethal combat in main battles by introducing non-lethal battles. The recommended procedure for this is that a battle is announced and both factions involved post sign-ups. In those sign-ups, members are asked to elect if they would prefer lethal or non-lethal combat. Once the sign-ups are concluded or have sufficient numbers, both FLs of the factions involved work together to discuss how many battle of both lethal and non-lethal combat there should be, based on a compromise between the needs of the two Factions. No member can be forced into a lethal battle unwillingly - a FL can request that a member join a lethal battle, but the member retains every right to refuse this request. Nonlethal battles can still include capture, injury etc. Additionally, per site rules, if a member or members are seen to be blatantly using the nonlethal rule to circumvent clear and obvious defeat and/or are seen to be effectively gaming the system, then an admin still retains the right to impose a mortal wound on the offending player.

At this time, Main Battles will still follow the parameters that we have set up for battles. However, there is nothing wrong with members setting up their own battles in addition to the main battle threads with their own parameters, which means they can have non-lethal battles. Now it was also suggested:

Recommendation 4: Encourage Faction Leaders to conduct space battles to occur more frequently, using the site rules and policy regarding space battles of 'strategy trumps technology' to determine the victor.

I agree with this, this is definitely a battle scenario where we definitely would need to judge via tactics and strategy rather than technology. Its how it should be anyways with the space battles.

Now back to the Main Battles in general, I have talked with the Faction Leaders about giving variety to the battles. It seems that battles are at a point where they're fairly cookie cutter and generic, and that's a big turn off for many members including me. This issue too may also be contributing to how gamey battles feel with the roll-with-the-punches presentation. Battles can have a timed effect, or be boarding parties, they can have tech toys like walkers or tanks, like there is nothing at this time limiting on what you can do with battles. So not every battle not need to be straight up member A with their gun versus member B with their gun in the middle of the garden courtyard; those are fine every now and then, but at this point battles need to mean something more than winning a grid square. So, as members, if you have ideas for battles, please pass them on to the FLs and their AFLs.

Recommendation 5: Allow NPCs to be used in battles for the purpose of world-building, as props for the setting. Essentially use the Stormtrooper rule for NPCs in battles in that they are there and they contribute, but they are not pivotal, nor can they be elite soldiers with custom equipment that will somehow trump the opposition PC. The primary goal of a battle must remain to be to be either objective based, or supremacy vs a player character.

The rules state:

J. All NPCs are inferior to PCs. An NPC is only to have equivalent skill to a rank-and-file soldier or average trained Force user. NPCs are not to be used in order to gain an advantage in a PvP setting. NPCs used as obstacles in a mission may be allowed to have a higher strength to make the mission harder, but only for that mission.

I. Faction-oriented NPCs cannot be used unless writer is a member of the faction or has explicit permission from the faction leader. A faction leader may decline any members, of their faction or outsiders, from using NPCs.
II. NPC or setting-related defensive emplacements are not to be used to outright overcome a PC Character. While such defenses may be used to provide a challenge to a PC, creating invulnerable locations (such as an unassailable fortress, an unapproachable planet, a flawlessly defended person or location to the extent that one can be killed by simply attempting to attack it) are strictly forbidden.
III. Members may not enter threads with only an NPC, the NPC must be accompanied by their PC, with the exception of Faction and Cross-fractional Events and/or specific missions.​

This doesn't mean NPCs cannot be used at all in Battles or Missions, it means they can be used, but with restrictions such as not having them be super soldiers and the like. So if a faction plans on invading a base, prepare for a reasonable amount of NPC resistance.

Recommendation 6: Relax the duration limits on the Manaan/battle rules in order to reduce the amount of pressure on players in battles. The site RP is ultimately recreational in nature, so even an additional 24 hours between post requirements could significantly ease pressure. A standard 3 week time-out might also help threads have more substance to them as well, since I recall when I was a staff member that a lot of battles were difficult to rule on because nothing had actually happened yet >.>

We don't believe adding an additional 24 hours will ease pressure; we're fairly lenient with members asking for extra 24 hours to post if they get busy, but at this time, there are still many members who wait until the last minute to post. Instead, since if everyone waited 48 hours to post in a two week time span would only give 8 posts total, and that's not much of a thread. So we'll add an additional week onto battles, so that 1v1 will be 3 weeks and 2v2 will be 4 weeks. Please remember also non main battles can follow their own parameters, so they don't need to be as strict with posting times as the official ones.

Recommendation 7: Reports in battles need to have a limit to restrict arguments from dragging on endlessly. This could be handled as simply as a member announcing they want to report an issue in a thread, whereupon both members have a chance to plead their case within a set number of OOC posts (say, two posts each to allow for rebuttal) before the admin rules on the thread based on the IC information and the OOC points raised. This is proposed as a way to address/reduce the amount of bickering in OOC chats, but also to reduce the amount of resentment and ill will that rises from extended and heated arguments.

Sometimes there are many OoC posts even with productive discussion. So limiting this may also be hindering productive conversation and at this time extra micromanaging by the administration. We ask members to use their best judgement, if they know the member they're arguing with is often disagreeable and never reach conclusions, then its probably best to go a head a report after a couple of rebuttals.

Recommendation 7A: Any rules on 'x number of reports and a battle is automatically concluded' should be revised and loosened. Particularly in a timeline where admins are hands off in the story, they should be more involved with handling thread disputes and acting as rules enforcers and shutting down threads for reporting too often is counter-intuitive to getting members to report disputes.

This is not going to be loosened at this time. The Staff are here to enforce the rules, but we're not here to babysit. However, we have seen by the third report, its time for the thread to be shut down anyways.

Recommendation 8: If there isn't one currently, then there needs to be a rule about intentionally misleading a player to lure their character to their death, simply because well...dick move. But at the same time there still needs to be some leeway for allowing these scenarios, provided they aren't directly, intentionally and blatantly misleading.

It is a rule and allowances for such scenarios when appropriate. It would be good if you guys read the rules.

Recommendation 1: Implement the FAIL score for Force powers to replace the current arbitrary measurement of fatigue that currently exists. Moderators, admin and members alike must all be aware that the Force is not as exhausting as has become the case in the RP of late, and that patterns of extended overexertion are the only situations where exhaustion should be considered as opposed to the current system where even a single use is considered tiring. See here for more information: http://www.thestarwarsrp.com/forum/index.php?threads/force-powers.70907/page-2#post-1325676

On my to-do list.

Recommendation 1A: Based on the way the gameplay of the RP changed due to the above proposal, observe how the RP evolves and changes with respect to the 'balance of power' between Force and Tech users - particularly hybrid characters who utilize large amounts of both. From this analysis, determine whether or not equipment or weight limits should be of different values for Force and non-Force users for the sake of balance.

Also on my to-do list.

Recommendation 3: Undergo a full review of the tech boards in terms of the state of technology being approved and the guidelines of the tech boards. Determine whether or not the guidelines are being adhered to, both by moderators and members, and determine whether the state of technology is acceptable. If it is deemed acceptable, then changes need to be made to the rules and guidelines of the technology board to reflect this. If technology is determined to be out of hand, a review of overpowered or excessive technology is recommended. How this is actually undertaken in practice is probably a matter for further discussion if the determination is made that such a review is necessary, but potential options include but are not limited to:

Clayton is in the process of reviewing how tech and generic tech should be analyzed.

 

[TheBeta]

I love how well the staff work on this site to make Role Playing more enjoyable for as many Role Players as possible, and this is a prime example of that!
I apologize if this post seemed largly unnecessary, but I just didn't feel like a 'like' was enough.

 

[Green Ranger]

Given the really big stuff is still being discussed/worked on (not surprising), I guess I'll say this is a good start and it's encouraging that you guys are willing to take stuff on board so that's something - and even just the act of saying 'we've looked at what you guys have to say, we're listening and we are trying to implement some of what's been suggested' is encouraging, so thanks for letting us know where things are at...and we'll have to wait and see what happens next in regards to the site, the RP and the stuff you guys are still working through.

If you don't mind me asking, though, why the no to non-lethal battles? There's pretty strong demand for it (nonlethal combat in general has been one of the most repeated requests in the thread so far), so surely there has to be a reasoning behind that call?

 

[Dmitri]

Given the really big stuff is still being discussed/worked on (not surprising), I guess I'll say this is a good start and it's encouraging that you guys are willing to take stuff on board so that's something - and even just the act of saying 'we've looked at what you guys have to say, we're listening and we are trying to implement some of what's been suggested' is encouraging, so thanks for letting us know where things are at...and we'll have to wait and see what happens next in regards to the site, the RP and the stuff you guys are still working through.

If you don't mind me asking, though, why the no to non-lethal battles? There's pretty strong demand for it (nonlethal combat in general has been one of the most repeated requests in the thread so far), so surely there has to be a reasoning behind that call?

I would like to point out that the rules don't demand they be lethal. It's the default, and main battles are set up as such, but nothing's stopping Faction Leaders from having threads like that. The biggest complication in that fact is that with non-lethal, it can be somewhat difficult to determine a victor. The rules state main faction combat by default uses Manaan Rules. Nothing is technically forbidding non-lethal battles at this time. Heck, the Trials of Heroes campaign (which once Round 1 finishes will move to fights for the grid) is entirely non-lethal (though I want to stress that it is preferred a majority not be non-lethal; it is in Trials of Heroes due to its focus on giving practice for PvP to new members).

 

[Logan]

Given the really big stuff is still being discussed/worked on (not surprising), I guess I'll say this is a good start and it's encouraging that you guys are willing to take stuff on board so that's something - and even just the act of saying 'we've looked at what you guys have to say, we're listening and we are trying to implement some of what's been suggested' is encouraging, so thanks for letting us know where things are at...and we'll have to wait and see what happens next in regards to the site, the RP and the stuff you guys are still working through.

If you don't mind me asking, though, why the no to non-lethal battles? There's pretty strong demand for it (nonlethal combat in general has been one of the most repeated requests in the thread so far), so surely there has to be a reasoning behind that call?

there's plenty of room for non-lethal combat in every scenario outside of main faction battles, and inside them. just because you can die in a thread doesn't mean you will.

retreating is and always will be a viable option.

 

[GABA]

I would like to point out that the rules don't demand they be lethal. It's the default, and main battles are set up as such, but nothing's stopping Faction Leaders from having threads like that. The biggest complication in that fact is that with non-lethal, it can be somewhat difficult to determine a victor. The rules state main faction combat by default uses Manaan Rules. Nothing is technically forbidding non-lethal battles at this time. Heck, the Trials of Heroes campaign (which once Round 1 finishes will move to fights for the grid) is entirely non-lethal (though I want to stress that it is preferred a majority not be non-lethal; it is in Trials of Heroes due to its focus on giving practice for PvP to new members).

Especially if you start varying the battle types, not all of them need to be life or death situations, I'm also certain there hasn't been any battles where explicitly states that this certain thread is to-death-battle. I believe if members start holding that thinking, of course there is going to be some anxiety about it. If you change your thinking, you change your attitude. I guarantee that a lot of the writers members look up to, don't think like that when they enter a battle story. I can tell you from personal experience, that I look at battles from a story perspective, and ask, how can this be tied in to my character's story. Not to mention, its been fairly rare to have character death on the site. There have been a few instances with some peculiar situations, but otherwise, if you pay attention to what is being written, I am certain you'd do just fine.

As I mentioned in the above post about battle variance, I believe this would help cut down the uncertainty of entering battles. Faction Leaders have guidelines they need to follow now for battles to help boost some out-of-box thinking when it comes to main battles.

 

[Black Noise]

Especially if you start varying the battle types, not all of them need to be life or death situations, I'm also certain there hasn't been any battles where explicitly states that this certain thread is to-death-battle. I believe if members start holding that thinking, of course there is going to be some anxiety about it. If you change your thinking, you change your attitude. I guarantee that a lot of the writers members look up to, don't think like that when they enter a battle story. I can tell you from personal experience, that I look at battles from a story perspective, and ask, how can this be tied in to my character's story. Not to mention, its been fairly rare to have character death on the site. There have been a few instances with some peculiar situations, but otherwise, if you pay attention to what is being written, I am certain you'd do just fine.

To add a note on this, out of all the years I've been RPing here, I can count on one, maybe two, hands where a character death was the result in a thread without any peculiar circumstances. 9/10 the character death isn't the result of the story, it's a result of the attitudes of the member's when they joined and during the thread. The more décontracté, relaxed, a member is about a battle or pvp situation, the better the story ends up being.

The only time I know of where a thread established required a death ending is the sith leadership challenge threads. Even then, the members knew what they were getting into and I can remember some really good stories coming as a result of those threads.