Hello everyone, been a while since my last one of these (school's come up and both my time and motivation have gone down.) So today I am here to post on a perceived topic issue within the community once again. As the title suggests, that topic is based on conflict. Any kind of tension or conflict at all, really. The Question: Is conflict too constricted through the enforcement and consequent "abuse" of consent? Pretty straight forward, I won't linger. The Opinion: People are too afraid of conflict. Over the past few days I've been taking on a rather observatory role on Monroe. Particularly in New Chicago, as that's the only place that's been particularly active. But there are also other things to take into account. The USCM USAF event a few weeks ago. The subsequent bounties from that and the backslide on the events effects. The minor squabbles of conflict to the major ones. In that time I've seen any number of things that disconcert me about the server's reaction to conflict at all. There seems to be a number of things that conflict is met with. And all branch from the absolute fear that something could change for the worse for a character, even if only minor ways or temporarily. -Metagaming -Powergaming -"Consent Abuse" Metagaming An example of metagaming I saw in the past few days. A group of Avians was "robbing" a place that, from what I could tell, had left the door open (despite being out of the way). They did not actually physically take anything. Yet a group of security guards conveniently placed themselves on their path and interrogated them, took their picture, and demanded their names before letting them pass. There is no doubt in my mind that if the group hadn't said a thing in the global chat, they would not have been intercepted in this manner. Shortly there-after, the security went away and the birds convinced a Human to go distract them. Very far from earshot. When the Human distracted the guard, he almost immediately said "You were used as a decoy." Another bout of either beautifully executed detective work, or metagaming. Powergaming This example is a bit more glaring. A group of USCM Operators beamed into NC and within minutes the entirety of the city (ICIA or not) was on top of them. The situation quickly devolved into OOC assumptions, blame flinging and unanimous screaming for "void" (god that word. GOD THAT WORD!) Now. One.) "Voiding is bad and you should feel bad" was the general consensus of pretty much any and all "voiding" discussions ever.. Two.) I don't care if you have cameras in your entire city. It's impossible that someone doing other things and not actively watching the cameras can be instantly alerted to any conflict that happens on the settlement within their vision. This is a metagaming/powergaming issue. Cameras aren't magic. They require someone to watch them and monitor them. Not idly glance at them once ever thirty minutes (or conveniently when a fight/conflict/something bad is happening). Second: It takes a considerable bit of time to get geared up, and yet the entire ICIA was geared and there as fast as they could click their vanity armor into place and bubble boost to ground zero. Another barrier to conflict. ---- Now, there have already been a few discussions on consent, so I won't get into it. But the point comes down to the fact that pretty much unanimously, across the board, everyone is either trying very hard to win a game without a victory clause, or they're trying very hard to keep any major events from being interesting or happening at all. This is probably a mindset where again, things are being taken too seriously, and again, people are trying to win, rather than try new things and add a bit to the monotony of sitting in a bar all day every day. It keeps things like the bounties from being acted on by anyone. It keeps villains from doing anything. And it keeps people stuck in the bars. Edit: This is not an attack on anyone or NC. These are simply the most immediate examples that come to mind.
I actually found myself slightly amused by this example. Granted, there is metagaming afoot, and yes it is wrong. The funny part to me is people picked a populated location to commit a crime in, presumably to get attention, and then they got attention. There is any wealth of unpopulated colonies at the moment, and if you are going by "this door was open" as an okay to rp robbing someone (which btw is not how you should go about this sorta thing) then why bother going the to the place you have the greater risk of getting caught? The first paragraph, to me, is semi acceptable. That said, in cases like this, it should be used to promote roleplay, not shut it out. The player in question who metagamed should have gone slowly to the location, giving the people time to do whatever they were doing. Also shame on bird thieves for not having a lookout. Noobs. The second part however is in no way acceptable. Piecing together unrelated things due to metagaming is one of the worst waste of everyone's time. That said, issues like this, should they become serious, are reportable. I do however suggest you as players take the time to chat with the offending party first though. Some players are inexperienced. Omnipresent cameras would fall greatly under the new faction guidelines. If a player is not watching them, and lets be real here, no one is going to watch them 24/7 and no one can watch them all at the same time. Camera use is fine for gathering information and evidence after the fact, where finding something on them is no longer a time sensitive thing. Use of cameras as if they are the eyes of God should not, and will not be tolerated. Instant clothing changing and weapon gearing has always been a problem, this again falls under the realm of being a courteous and FAIR player by giving people time. It shouldn't take you the same amount of time to throw on armor and grab items from a locker as it does for someone to say a few lines of dialogue. Wait a bit before responding to things, unless you are already suited up. If the conflict in question is a bit away, stop and wait every so often to allow talking/fighting to happen then continue moving. As an example, I was called into a fight via radio awhile back. I beamed down to the planet, and for the next 6-7 turns of combat, I made my way to the fight, just emoting I was coming nearer. Be reasonable. We are all here to roleplay. We are all here to have fun. If you dislike conflict in roleplay so much, perhaps it is time to remove yourself from being in conflict centric roles. Your job, especially as law enforcement roleplayers, is not just to safeguard a city or faction. It's there to be a foil to people who are "bad" guys. They are your market, your purpose, without trouble makers law enforcers don't have a purpose. So let things happen, and deal with them respectfully and responsibly. --- Just something worth mentioning, but with our new rules out, feel free to make another topic in regards to consent.
I concur that interaction is not just appreciated, but the point. However there are certain ways that this should happen. Rather than positioning oneself conveniently at a choke point while blatantly waiting for something to come toward you and then automatically jumping to all the right conclusions is a bit... Well, a bit cheesy. If you want to be involved, make things more coincidental. Instead of automatically deducing that the people before you are criminals, take time to investigate, instead of immediately lining them up and taking mugshots like they're being processed for incarceration. Not just does playing things out mean there's less meta-gaming involved, it means there's less more interaction, more room for character development, and more space for the situation itself to develop without things instantly devolving into the self-satisfying, instantly gratifying victory of having won. As for consent, I think the rules in place are appropriate, however I also think that they are used to keep pretty much any conflict from going anywhere. Not that there's anything wrong with spending all day every day in a club/tavern/bar, peacefully bantering until someone says something mean and gets kicked ou. But... well, a bit of conflict can go a long way to making things more entertaining for everyone involved.
I've always used the cameras on NC for purely investigative purposes and urged others to do the same. The main problem with metagaming is that nobody just up and does it. They always do it in a way where they can make up an excuse for their character knowing/doing something that, however flimsy, can't really be disputed. The thing that comes to mind first is that there is a multitude of characters who are 'onto' the the fact that the bar on NC is a front for the Outcasts. The only reason they even found out about it is because of who the players behind it are and various OOC discussions of the situation. However, as soon as they hear this OOC their character becomes suspicious of the bar. Why? "Oh, because they're paranoid/cautious/whatever" Even though it's clear that the character wouldn't have these suspicious if the player was not aware OOC, there's very little way to counter the argument of "well it's not metagaming my character just believes this!" This is why it's so difficult to fight metagaming. Because around 70% of it is just let slide due to the aforementioned argument. As for the USAF attack on NC, the reason that people were throwing around the void was because nobody in the USAF had bothered to so much as ask Julius or anyone else on the colony if they were alright with the invasion, and to my knowledge that's a pretty dick move. Conflict is good, but going around forcing it on people who'd rather not engage in it is most certainly not.
From my understanding, the "invasion" was never actually an "Invasion". Everyone simply assumed it was an invasion because they showed up. Yet they never drew their weapons until fired upon, they were even willing to comply before being fired upon, and when they "escaped" which was doing exactly what they had been told to do "leave", they were chased, and it's about then that things broke down into a loud shouting match in OOC. Which was also rather one-sided, because they all just stood around numbly waiting to be told they didn't exist. Point being, if it WAS an invasion, no one certainly waited for an explanation or even asked. When someone did try to point out it was probably not an invasion by their behavior, Julius simply shouted "IT WAS AN INVASION" and that was that. (From what I heard, they were there to talk, offer an ultimatum, and leave. That did not happen.)
I wasn't there when it began, but by the time it arrived it seemed to have devolved into straight-up shootbangs.
Which the USCM Operators hadn't started. They were first fired upon by Julius, and then another player who even said "Don't shoot and I won't shoot" and then shot at them. I'm not sure about the second team, but the team I was watching didn't actually fire off a single shot the entire time until putting suppressing fire down to keep themselves from getting shot while boarding a shuttle. Of course, by then everything had been frozen and shortly there-after voided. All-around a mess due to people jumping to conclusions. Which is, in it's own way, meta-gaming. But when you meta-game the wrong information, then you have a different kind of conflict, and things go bad. However, I'd prefer to keep this from turning into a flame war over another failed event, and keep an eye on the initiation of that conflict which was the entire city, civilians and security, suddenly being in one place, suited up and ready to kill pretty much anything that moves within seconds of discovery-by-camera. (Which, by the way, is a great strategy for any criminals. Distract the entire police force at one place, and do your business.) I'm not really sure if this is a power-gaming issue or a courtesy issue as Twitch said, or both. But it is exactly the kind of behavior that is aiming to "Win" a conflict.
Personally, I believe that falls more under 'I take what these guys tell me to heart' rather than metagaming. I don't know how many people know ICly what happened in Union, and have portrayed the USCM core as racist and, worse, as 'shoot before asking'. Since none wanted to realize what was happening (everyone assumed it was an invasion, none asked what they were doing there), it degenerated in a blink, and somehow it's very strange how 5-6 soldiers with holstered weapons were taken as invaders. Union's event is not an excuse to gun them down in sight, much less after it's results (technically speaking, it was a major goof). It's possible these issues come from a desire of planning anything which involves any conflict, and thus, when faced as day-to-day (like sitting in a bar, maaaaaaaybe? : >), players doesn't know how to properly react, or worse, overreact. There was a slight slack of communication, but reaction was excessive (with it's ultimate voiding). Unfortunately enough (I partially suffered it too, and it was hard to change that behaviour) a lot of players wants to be in any big event happening anytime in a popular colony, forcing themselves into those situations, not accepting they could be mere witnesses to them, so when something 'big' happens, they end up around them too fast. Add a large pool of those just following whatever their friends instantly does, owning their own weapons, and everyone points guns very fast. 'Win' behaviour can come from different reasons, not only because some want to 'win'.
Well, I would just like to point out, the reason it was decided voiding the NC "invasion" was necessary was because, as it has been stated, there was no planning involved prior to the event. Not with the USAF, not with the NC guys, the operators showed up in the armor without anyone being aware that they would do so OOCly before it happened. Maybe it was a little excessive, but if it hadn't been voided, issues could have been caused between several different groups. To relate this to the thread topic, somewhat, is that a little planning can go a long way. There's no need to plan out every event entirely, but a small amount of planning can help to reduce powergaming and metagaming. Especially for major events that involve a large group of people. This isn't always true, but in many cases, planning can be very beneficial.
Then this is another problem. Having to have everything planned out before means that everything is planned out before. There's no room for wiggle room. If the Operators had been a band of mercenaries hunting the bounty and delivering an ultimatum, would it have ended any different? Probably not. Roleplaying is in part reacting to the universe around you as your character. Knowing an event is going to happen is just another reason for meta and unrealistic behavior. With large, inclusive events at times planning is needed, but then you have to ask what is an event? Is a group of people going to deliver an ultimatum suddenly an event that needs planning? Is some guy shooting someone on the street suddenly something that needs planning? Is someone trading their pocket change for a soda suddenly something that needs planning? Roleplaying doesn't have to be planned, and while at times that is necessary, it isn't always. Being able to react to things without planning is just as important as being able to plan well. As we saw with the USAF event at Union, the best set plans can go awry. This could have easily worked if instead of getting defensive and angry, powergaming to a point and then demanding that the conflict be voided, the "defenders" had simply asked ((Why are you here?)). Instead, every person on the colony arrived with a gun. When OOC did break out, let's be honest, it was a lot of whining and complaining and calling for a void.
Did you miss these? There wasn't going any conflict expected, and if there's a need to plan absolutely everything when it involves opposing parties, it will just derail any micro-event and make everything boring... you know, sometimes is good to let some things flow : > Related to this, I have to remind a similar event between Fleet and Armored Wolves some months back. Situation at hand: Fleet was banned from Den because some soldiers misbehaved. Then, a month after that happened, a bunch of Fleet characters walked to their door, being received as expected (Wolves and half the bar pointing guns) and instead shouting ((INVASIOOON)) everyone stayed in character, a Beta came to the door, talked with the Fleet high-ranks, and guess what? They regained access due to willingness to talk, something that some edgier characters than Wolves doesn't even consider. It's something which is decreasing through time, and it's not good to see. A entire settlement resorting to guns at the slightest sense someone could have come to cause trouble without proof or trying to talk means psychiatrists will make a fortune opening up business there. That is, if that happens for IC reasons : >
Throwing in my two cents. Regarding the infernal V word, it seems to be a major tool to stop conflict. Although I can't think of good quote examples off the top of my head, it ends up being the majority group voting "I don't like where this is going, VOID" and thus, no way to stop it.
Very true. But, a simple band of mercenaries, no one would have had a problem with at first I'm guessing, if they kept their weapons holstered like the operators did. When they made their move, the reactions would have likely been all IC, doubtful any OOC comments would have been made. The major issue is that unnofficial members of a dead faction, known for incidents with powergaming in the past, showed up with no prior plans, even with their weapons holstered, that causes huge issues right there. Especially when the old leaders of the dead faction knew nothing about it. About the issues with planning, while it's true planning too much causes little room for reactions, and like the Union event, these events still do not always go well, even a little planning is good. Say you plan beforehand for an event that no characters, or certain characters don't die. There, no issues with any arguments about hiding behind consent during the event, the characters may still end up injured, but its been agreed on that they don't die. it's the little stuff that matters, ya know? Edited first paragraph, should have specified that the operators were not members of the faction before it was killed.
Of course, when there's a general consensus, it can't be stopped. But it's still cheesy using it when only one party wants it because, frankly, fear floats above their heads and lets it control their minds.
the main issue surrounding the void, from what i understand, was that people representing the USCM had shown up in onyx power armor without asking permission from said owners of that tech beforehand, which lead said owners to assume their assets and technology had been stolen from them OOCly by a third party and then utilized ICly that caused a metric shit ton of confusion on all sides and resulted in people going "what how does this work" which ultimately escalated into calls for the void, and it doesn't help that the onyx suit has been regarded as a tad overpowered
Sure thing. The operators that showed up have not been members of the United Systems faction at any point recently, and seeing as they were playing CentCom operators, who belong to the United Systems, they were technically playing characters of a dead faction without having signed up prior to the OOC disbanding of the faction. Now, while the United Systems is technically still around IC, I doubt anyone wants to see someone revive the faction, not so soon, considering the bad reputation it had. Now, since they were not members of the faction before it was disbanded, and they never asked permission to cause trouble at NC as CentCom operators, of course it was going to cause OOC issues. That's all I can really say about it. I'd also like to say, CentCom is apart of the United Systems, as far as I know. It's never been a separate faction OOC, so unless CouchPotato says otherwise, I'm pretty sure it is part of the United Systems.
You can hardly claim to own a lore based faction. That's just... rude. The USCM is based on lore, and refusing to allow anyone ever to do anything with it because you had control of a branch of it at one point is just... meh. Although, I have other issues with what the USAF did to the USCM (such as inventing their Xenophobia and such), they can't simply state that no other members of the USCM can ever exist. The United Sysetems Central Command is even based in Lore (I'll get links when I get back from class), so cutting people off from using it is rather... MEH. Inventing and imposing your will on Canonical, dev supported lore is a totally different topic. Perhaps the next topic.
I though CentCom were rped as troops from US lore faction. Does the USCM, as faction branch, claim ownership of a full lore faction?
