'State of the RP' feedback thread

[Elijah Brockway]

edit: fucking ninja'd

 

[Roen]

Its alright, Norb. I'm not insulted, nor do I feel this is necessarily a tense discussion. Green Ranger issued a blanket statement asking what members would do to fix things, and I said what I wanted to say. I've ideas and the will to implement them, which is more than I can say about others.

Would it help if I showed an example of what I mean?

 

[Malon]

woah malon hi

Also WB.

TBH I get where you're coming from, but...I feel like this is sort of like the easy answer, but not the right answer...mainly because we've tried this exact thing before and it only has short term benefits before everyone starts to complain about the RP growing stagnant.

So...I mean, sure it can be part of the solution, I think the demand for pre-determined battles from the userbase definately seems to indicate that it should be a thing again in some form or another - but I wholly believe we need to do more than that as well in order to curb the other issues - partially because unless we try to fix competitive combat (as opposed to just reducing its frequency), then we haven't really fixed anything at all.

Thanks for the welcome back :)

Honestly, I understand. It is the easy answer, and I'm not sure what the right one would be; but until it's found, I think that's the approach I'm going to take.

As for predetermined battles, I think I saw (earlier in the thread) where it was mentioned that an objective system could be set up: a list of realistic objectives for each of the Main Thread RPs, and whichever faction meets those objectives wins—or perhaps meets the most objectives—wins. I haven't seen the responses to these, so forgive me if I'm already beating a dead horse, but I find that to be a reasonable solution. It would allow for the spontaneity that most users crave in a PvP battle, while giving them concrete goals to fight for that, once complete, would win their faction the battle. It might not fix everything wrong with the toxic nature of PvP, but it might get things moving in the right direction.

 

[soed]

If you've been barred from PvP by your faction you're likely not the best candidate to write the PvP rules. Like someone convicted of a financial crime shouldn't be the new secretary of the Treasury.

Explain penetration testing :)

I think @Roen is being more than reasonable in his response here, while several of you are dogpiling him.

I have no dog in your particular fight, but saying what you're saying is totally nonsensical. If the moderation and implementation of PvP rules were reserved for people who never had a formal warning in regards to language/behaviour, or indeed a ban, then who would be left? @Green Ranger would be gone, certainly, and you would be, too.

Discount his proposal by all means, disagree with him to your hearts content, but don't say his opinion doesn't matter because of his circumstance.

 

[Jabonicus]

Not to disparage you, but maybe because we don't need somebody who has been banned from PvP until February due to their poor behaviour in every PvP thread they've been in trying to tell people how we should do PvP.

c:

I personally don't believe this form of degradation of opinion is acceptable.

 

[SonOfFire]

woah malon hi

Also WB.

TBH I get where you're coming from, but...I feel like this is sort of like the easy answer, but not the right answer...mainly because we've tried this exact thing before and it only has short term benefits before everyone starts to complain about the RP growing stagnant.

So...I mean, sure it can be part of the solution, I think the demand for pre-determined battles from the userbase definately seems to indicate that it should be a thing again in some form or another - but I wholly believe we need to do more than that as well in order to curb the other issues - partially because unless we try to fix competitive combat (as opposed to just reducing its frequency), then we haven't really fixed anything at all.

It may be possible to "tweak" the combat but I don't think there is any way to "fix" it. By trying to fix it for one side you'll just get complaints from the other side.

 

[Green Ranger]

Let's get back to the discussion, folks. :)

Guys. Seriously. ^^^^

 

[Nor'baal]

I think tweaks are better than overhauls.
Slow and steady, wins the race.


Unless its formula one....

 

[Prudence]

Explain penetration testing :)

I think @Roen is being more than reasonable in his response here, while several of you are dogpiling him.

I have no dog in your particular fight, but saying what you're saying is totally nonsensical. If the moderation and implementation of PvP rules were reserved for people who never had a formal warning in regards to language/behaviour, or indeed a ban, then who would be left? @Green Ranger would be gone, certainly, and you would be, too.

Discount his proposal by all means, disagree with him to your hearts content, but don't say his opinion doesn't matter because of his circumstance.

EDIT: I should note I know this is not strictly on topic, and I apologize. I lurk a lot of threads, and @Roen just seems to get dogpiled a lot, which I should think would be beneath what I assume are adults, on this forum.

I didn't say he shouldn't be in charge of formatting a new PvP system because he's been warned. I said he shouldn't because he is currently banned from participating in PvP by his own faction. There is a difference.

 

[Prudence]

Guys. Seriously. ^^^^

Whoops missed this. Ninjad

 

[Minuteman75]

Maybe having some kind of referees, appointed by the Admins that could read and review PvP matches could help. They could then discuss with the roleplayers involved, privately to see if the problems could be solved in house if such issues arise. If not then report back to the Admins with their recommendations who then make the final judgment.

 

[Elijah Brockway]

We actually have two PvP Moderators who basically do that.

@Arclight and @Phœnix.

 

[soed]

I should stress, by the way, that I think this forum and its members are awesome. I appear to have randomly fallen upon it, a true gem, which is why it pains me to see this bickering and strife. For Gods sake, we aren't all teenagers... Right?

I think the extreme PvP focus of the timeline is the core of it all. Everything from the tech/force debacle, to the apparent cutthroat nature of PvP engagements.
If less rode on your character being an excessively powerful, brutal combatant, not only do you open up more opportunities for yourself, but for everyone else engaging in RP with you.

 

[Roen]

Anywho, @Green Ranger

Before you dismiss out of hand, would you like to see an example of product?

 

[Green Ranger]

I don't know why you're directing the question at me. It's not like I actually have any say on whether things get implemented, cos I'm not part of the site leadership anymore. This discussion's purely for the community to try and discuss and work on the problems we have to try and come up with solutions.

 

[Nor'baal]

Anywho, @Green Ranger

Before you dismiss out of hand, would you like to see an example of product?

Yes.
It would be interesting at least to get an understanding of what youre suggesting.

 

[Roen]

Wunderbar! Let's go see if I can scrounge it up. Now, be mindful. It isn't designed for Star Wars. More than this, it was designed for a competitive setting. Non-lethality wasn't just the rule, it was the expectation. It revolved around this idea. I have it here somewhere. I was using this website to tinker on it.

 

[Logan]

Outside of some general clutter that needs pruned and rules that need consolidated I think the system we use here is fine. It lends itself to free-formity and I think most of the problems we have stem from members attitudes and misconceptions about what is feasible, and what the rules actually entail and cover.

 

[Roen]

http://www.thestarwarsrp.com/forum/index.php?threads/combat-redefined-open-source.70418/

There. Be gentle, I made it for another community a bit bigger and more cosmopolitan than here, this place being strictly Star Wars. I had to account for a Jedi fighting a Predator, or a D&D Devil squaring off with a 40K Daemon, so you're going to see a strict overwatch concerning balancing issues because I had to address these things.

Most of it is structuring, you might take more from stuff near the middle and bottom. Again, this was made for somewhere else, it's just one of my more recent projects.

 

[SonOfFire]

Thanks for the welcome back :)

Honestly, I understand. It is the easy answer, and I'm not sure what the right one would be; but until it's found, I think that's the approach I'm going to take.

As for predetermined battles, I think I saw (earlier in the thread) where it was mentioned that an objective system could be set up: a list of realistic objectives for each of the Main Thread RPs, and whichever faction meets those objectives wins—or perhaps meets the most objectives—wins. I haven't seen the responses to these, so forgive me if I'm already beating a dead horse, but I find that to be a reasonable solution. It would allow for the spontaneity that most users crave in a PvP battle, while giving them concrete goals to fight for that, once complete, would win their faction the battle. It might not fix everything wrong with the toxic nature of PvP, but it might get things moving in the right direction.

I like the idea of having objectives. Maybe you'd have to take down a planets shields with days of bombardment if you wanted to go for a more aggressive approach, or you could do what our ancestors did and simply blockade the planet thus preventing any food or supplies in. There are so many possibilities with an objective system. It'd also expand more on both PvP and PvE.

Edit: It also keeps things simple and with proper moderation could make each roleplay somewhat unique.