'State of the RP' feedback thread

[Vinn Esper]

Again, not quite. The closest the Jedi have had to a "Holy Crusader" since Bau Zo stopped being Jedi Lord was Apollyon's character Hlodovic. All the Jedi Army people agree that the Sith are bad and they need driven away, but they don't go Holy Crusader mode normally. They go the mode of the Mandalorian Wars-era Jedi from legends canon. And that's been pretty accurately reflected in all the write-ups and in the pre-timeline-start info stuff.

Take it from the former Jedi FL: You're really not quite hitting the nail on the head. Jedi are less peaceful and more warlike, but they're haven't been going Crusader mode or anything like that, and nothing we've seen has really reflected that whole "Holy Crusade" or "savage and warlike" idea you've been trying to put out.

Perhaps I'm in the wrong part of the timeline in my head. Hold on. I'm going to go dig now.

 

[FinnSimmons]

Perhaps I'm in the wrong part of the timeline in my head. Hold on. I'm going to go dig now.

From the writeup of the Jedi for this TL I gathered pretty much the same you did.
Maybe thats another thing in need of an update then?

 

[Elijah Brockway]

Or maybe y'all are just understanding it differently than what most people have gotten from it, which is fine, but yeah.

 

[Nor'baal]

If anyone kills your character when you specifically ask them not to, then they are (to use the scientific term) a phallus.

 

[Elijah Brockway]

If anyone kills your character when you specifically ask them not to, then they are (to use the scientific term) a phallus.

This is true, but nobody is requiring them to agree to that. If you enter into PvP with somebody and only try to work out a no-death thing once PvP has actually started rather than prior to starting the PvP itself, then that's your problem, and you don't really have much of a way to withdraw at that point.

Work out no-death stuff prior to actually beginning the PvP. Also, if you're in a 2v2 battle and your partner agrees not to kill their main opponent and you agree not to kill your main opponent, but then your partner turns around and kills your main opponent (that has happened), then they are even more of a phallus than in the other circumstance (because I do agree that you're a phallus if you refuse to come to some sort of no-death agreement if the person cares that much about it even after PvP has started). Don't kill a disabled/unconscious character based on a technicality like that. Even if it's technically within the rules that's bullshit and shouldn't fly, because that's just poor interpersonal behaviour.

 

[Outlander]

So much could be solved if there was some sort of "Don't be a Phalus" rule as it pertains to behavior directly screwing over other players IC. I get that characters can be angry to other characters, but that doesn't mean people should actively seek to destroy other people's sandcastles.

(phalus)

 

[Nor'baal]

So much could be solved if there was some sort of "Don't be a DIck" rule as it pertains to behavior directly screwing over other players IC. I get that characters can be angry to other characters, but that doesn't mean people should actively seek to destroy other people's sandcastles.

The word is Phallus.

 

[Outlander]

The word is Phallus.

Edited just for you ;)

 

[Elijah Brockway]

And you misspelled "Phallus." That's just depressing.

 

[Outlander]

And you misspelled "Phallus." That's just depressing.

Not edited, just for you ;)

 

[SonOfFire]

This is true, but nobody is requiring them to agree to that. If you enter into PvP with somebody and only try to work out a no-death thing once PvP has actually started rather than prior to starting the PvP itself, then that's your problem, and you don't really have much of a way to withdraw at that point.

Work out no-death stuff prior to actually beginning the PvP. Also, if you're in a 2v2 battle and your partner agrees not to kill their main opponent and you agree not to kill your main opponent, but then your partner turns around and kills your main opponent (that has happened), then they are even more of a phallus than in the other circumstance (because I do agree that you're a phallus if you refuse to come to some sort of no-death agreement if the person cares that much about it even after PvP has started). Don't kill a disabled/unconscious character based on a technicality like that. Even if it's technically within the rules that's bullshit and shouldn't fly, because that's just poor interpersonal behaviour.

I haven't PvPd here (yet;)) but I have done quite a bit in various other places and i'd have to absolutely agree with this. As stated somewhere in the 1st or 2nd page a lot of people have the "special snowflake" mentality, I personally haven't seen it yet but I have no doubt about it. The last place I was roleplaying on a guy got shot in the chest with a heavy laser cannon and roleplayed it out as if he got ripped in half and some random NPC Sith saved his life because he was trying to kill a Jedi. If you decide no PCs will die beforehand then you need to stick to it unless EVERYONE involved changes their mind. If there is no mention about PC death or there is mention that it's enabled then that's how it should play out unless EVERYONE involved changes their mind. By involved I don't mean the guy not even apart of the PvP chiming in, I mean the people involved in the 1v1/2v2. At the same time just because PC death IS enabled, it doesn't mean it has to go down that way.

 

[Eccles]

Generally, the site itself needs some cleanup with regards to descriptions, information threads, etc. The Republic forum description still states that the Border Alliance is a thing for example.

and like, the 'Dawn of the Republic' bot posts, like the official map description stating no independent factions own grids.

Especially with the Republic @Krajin @Fyremage, the write-ups are an incoherent mess and have been for months. Simplify it, as clearly making the difference between 'Republic Command' and 'Grand Army of the Republic' is too complicated when the first constitutes the Navy (and thus GAR-personnel) and the latter has literally no active members aside from leadership players. @Prudence did a good job summarizing Sith rules in recent info threads, perhaps he might be willing to help.

Right now activity in the Republic is dead. This would be the moment to simplify the descriptions and roster and work on a strong IC-story that might bring activity back or establish a story-motive for a merger.

The Sith might lose every invasion when given opponents (lol), but if it wasn't for the Jedi even the Sith would conquer the Core without contest. That's a problem, because this inability to play the faction game causes more stress then we all dare to admit and at the end of the day its the stress that makes the drama-threads.

 

[Roen]

@Green Ranger

I don't agree with what you had to say concerning the utilization of the report system. I don't believe it should be used, let alone abused in the frequency that it has been and can be. By encouraging people to forgo debates with their peers and leave any points of contention in the hands of arbitters, you neuter the very idea of Role Play: collaboration.

I don't find debates distasteful, nor do I believe arguments, long winded or otherwise, epitomize a break down of communication. Quite the contrary. The idea that a disagreement cannot be settled without a higher power intervening smacks of a lack of faith in the community as a whole, however.

It should come as no surprise that there is sentiments of a divide, even fracture among the community, with reports of passive-aggression, double-thinks, and inclusive elitism being bandied about. I'm not naming people, nor am I offering conjecture. These are facts and sentiments than can be readily discerned.

Personally speaking, most of this stems from the PvP system in place. I find it small, flawed, and prone to be abused for its lack of focus. Coupled with a loose character system, most fights either look more like throwing two virgins in bed, all inexperience and enthusiasm, or consist of a whore and a green, in which both cases someone typically gets hurt.

You say reports are the cure, I disagree. They are bandaids on gunshot wounds. The core needs to be addressed, with the rules and etiquette involved. Fix the system, and reports may become superfluous.

 

[Green Ranger]

I'll try and do a more extended response soon, but I just want to give you guys another prompt to work with for the discussion. It seems like there's a fairly large amount of people opining that pvp is bad for various reasons (which, good, discuss why it's bad, give those reasons. Detailed responses are good!), but I'm not seeing much in the ways of ideas, or solutions.

So the next thing I'd ask everyone to do is to look at ideas of how to fix the problems you see. What would you personally implement or change to remedy the problems you're seeing?

 

[Jabonicus]

I'd like to see a turn to more theatric PvP, and discussion between people instead of OOC conflict, as well as larger encouragement of this.

 

[Roen]

What would you personally implement or change to remedy the problems you're seeing?

I would personally design a more expansive and comprehensive system of combat for players, if asked. I have several rubrics and codexes I've designed over years I could cannibalize and repurpose. I've designed working and functional systems revolving around multi-universe power and technological sets; one for a single universe would be as easy as sin. I'd need moderator and administration input and approval, however.

I've only really put my mind to competitive, non-lethal settings, so things will have to be tweaked to account for an inherently more vicious flavor e.g death enabled threads.

 

[Nor'baal]

We tried banning @Nor'baal (our final fall back) and that just did not have the desired effect.*

So in light of that I would:

• Expand the PvP rules to include the use of NPCs in admin approved situations
• Make the FLs work together more on a site wide story that can be influenced by players (aka: Success and failure outcomes for missions)
• Expand MBs so that non-PvP threads can impact as well.

*this was a joke

 

[Green Ranger]

@Roen: I....don't think the site's interested in going down that path.

 

[Arcangel]

We tried banning @Nor'baal (our final fall back) and that just did not have the desired effect.*

So in light of that I would:

• Expand the PvP rules to include the use of NPCs in admin approved situations
• Make the FLs work together more on a site wide story that can be influenced by players (aka: Success and failure outcomes for missions)
• Expand MBs so that non-PvP threads can impact as well.

*this was a joke

At least we can all agree on one thing...

@Nor'baal is the root of all the sites problems.

 

[Nor'baal]

At least we can all agree on one thing...

@Nor'baal is the root of all the worlds problems.

ftfy