Game Balance
Categories
- 4.3K Life in Lusternia
- 474 Announce Posts
- 76 Event Posts
- 1.7K Common Grounds
- 589 Q&A
- 83 Combat Overhaul
- 1.5K World Library
- 86 Combat Logs
- 870 Event Scrolls
- 403 Mechanic's Corner
- 329 Ideas
- 314 Last Chance Trading Post
- 478 Life Outside of Lusternia
- 9 Forum News
- 275 The Real World
- 94 Meet and Greet
- 37 The Funnies
- 63 Mafia Hideout
Comments
I mean, I'm all for people being nice to each other in the game if they want. I do it all the time, for reasons that are entirely my own and not because I think it's the morally superior choice or w/e. I also frequently don't get treated the same way I treat other people - that's life, even in a game. Refusal to accept this is likely a huge part of why you develop unnecessary ooc grudges against other players.
RECOGNISE <player> <reason>
Note: This should only be used for roleplay recognition.
[2020-10-21@14:14:30][12300h][7695m][7800e][10p]mBexb<>-
With that said, I maintain my position that the entire philosophy - playing to deny others - is a problem for the game as a whole. The players can surely do their part in ensuring that some semblance of equity tempers actions, but the game's conflict systems should also work to discourage it. One way to do it would be to lessen the burden on the 'losing' orgs. Make winning be about winning, not about avoiding losing.
Scarcity should not be the dominant vehicle of conflict in the game. And I know - Lusternia is post-apocalyptic, and the hunger for power (nexus power, astral power, etc.) is a major part of its story. But it's not sustainable, especially not when simple activities (such as crafting) can become so impacted by conflict systems that are so easily gamed.
Explorer (80%), Achiever (53%), Socializer (53%), Killer (13%)
Bartle Taxonomy
(test yourself)
Could also be an issue that it seems like part of the vernacular of Lusternia is that "roleplay" on one hand is considered that sort of thing and is separate from designing/pk/conflict/combat/bashing/etc, and on the other is your characters identity and can include the first definition as well as, effectively, any pursuit in game.
Mostly a question of intention, if recognise is for the former you could expand it or replicate it for conflict stuff. Could even create a separate commendation thing like ffxiv has where basically at the end of any conflict thing you get to commend another participant which might be open it up to more daily uses cause it's linked to something that's mechanically tracked?
For me, all the conflict objectives give daily credits already and should be functioning as an incentive to show up along with org points.
But the stuff I interpret as the "roleplay" intended in this context is really all stuff that doesn't have some other kind of reward unless an admin is watching which doesn't happen for everyone, so potentially being recognised functions as an incentive to participate in those aspects of the game.
Particularly given that purely social sort of scenario I associate with it typically also means time away from other activities that would earn you dailies/exp/etc.
Anyway, something for the admin and as mentioned before, you could potentially implement a more broadly usable variation with stuff that is mechanically tracked.
From the way I see it, yes, numbers are sometimes an issue. It's widely accepted that the alliance is screwed and needs addressing. That said, there are times when IHC is outnumbered.
There is a core group from ShadowLight that are very capable and are almost entirely perpetuating combat at the moment.
From my perspective, the issue is less about numbers and more about morale. Granted, people need to do other things from time to time, but it's hard to watch when you guys just seem to... Give up. I have seen it almost daily. Even when the odds are stacked in your favour, very regularly, we see you guys just disappear. It's a very hard thing to watch, if I was honest. We're all here to have fun and when the game in its current state is unable to provide that, yes, it's painful.
It's a very difficult situation to be in and I really feel for everyone involved.
If there is anything I can personally do to help improve the situation, please don't ever hesitate to contact me via whatever method available.
Let's, as a collective, make Lusternia a fun place to hang out.
The example of the tailor, for example, there was a Seren from years ago (like... 2005/2006) who was a MD tailor and absolutely hated skyclad, lots of people had tailoring but this person had worked it into their character's identity so it was kinda always present beyond the fact that they mechanically had and used those skills.
You can also see a similar kinda differentiation outside Lusternia in TTRPGs with the Roleplayer(story focused) vs Rollplayer(mechanics focused) differentiation/spectrum which could also be somewhere the split comes from.
idk, makes more sense to me if it was basically any IC actions that you'd use the term IC because then it wouldn't have the murkyness.
I'd probably end up checking the previous days logs at the weave and giving out recognitions to guild members for like completing tasks/ranking up/joining/collecting visions and if I didn't hit 3 from that then move to Seren logs. Could do something with bashing too, like if everyone on the crew/squad throws recognises at each other for turning up. Maybe throw one at someone for returning the dominators to Lirangsha.
The differentiation is also present in MMOs, you have people who RP in WoW and FFXIV and it holds effectively the same meaning as it does in TTRPGs, there are even people who roleplay combat stuff in them heh. Same with the Discworld MUD because it doesn't have the "be IC at all times" rule. The likely overlaps between all those different types of gaming and Lusternian players is pretty high.
Also ... because it's how you refer to that type of gameplay within a game across so many games, I'm now trying to think of how you'd describe that type of gameplay without calling it roleplay lol.
For a "rollplayer" you can build a character with the skills/abilities/etc so mechanically you can reliably talk your way out of encounters, maybe even diplomancy enemies into allies temporarily. Your character uses that tactic because that's the build.
"Roleplay" would be something like... you're a half-orc and don't want to kill orcs so you want to stop the fight. Or maybe you're a good character who wants to try to rehabilitate evil. You could also be violently enraged by orcs because they destroyed your home town and you immediately try to slaughter all of them on sight.
The playstyles can co-exist, but they can also clash and become unfun so the terminology helps. And again, roleplaying as a reference to a specific playstyle separate from just "playing the game" it's super common and holds a relatively consistent meaning across various gaming genres.
For myself, looking at my favourite medium for roleplay - LARP, I can give examples of how my own tastes differ. In combat heavy events, I've put my characters in situations where they're really unlikely to survive because they are a career soldier and had signed up for that risk. I've had characters die because they're maddened by grief at the death of a loved one and throwing themselves at enemy lines until they eventually get their throat slit by the event because their lack of self preservation was really good for putting holes in shield walls.
In my current tabletop games - last week, two of the squishier characters survived what would have been a tpk because the Paladin, fighter and Barbarian held off the enemy and let them run while they fought to the death. Our shopping trips have dissolved into chaos because my tiefling bard and his changeling friend caused enough chaos that the shop keeper gave them what they wanted to make them shut up and stop driving away other customers.
The long and short of it is, any encounter in an RPG that has mechanics and rules, whether it's MUD, TTRPG, LARP, or anything else, can be broken down into a purely numbers exchange, but also any numbers situation can be fleshed out into a part of the story. Some people prefer one way, some way prefer the other. I prefer to build rp elements into everything - it's where my fun is. Some people just want to get impressive numbers. It's where their fun is. But ultimately, if you want to roleplay through it, it's roleplaying. Doesn't mean it has to be, but it can be if you want it to.
I haven't seen the terms being used negatively IRL, they're just a way to reference different gameplay styles/preferences/focuses so that the people participating are on the same page about the sort of game they're signing up for. The use of the term spectrum was also intentional because people are often not one end or the other but somewhere between the extremes.
To note though, the second and third paragraphs here are... all examples of roleplay which isn't an argument being made? Where your last paragraph is... basically the same point I'm making, particularly the bolded. You also seem to be making the same broader point because you're differentiating between roleplaying and just playing the game.
You're also... seemingly doubling down on agreeing with me with this because you appear to be emphasising the point that you can play an RPG without actually having your characters actions be roleplay which... is my point lol.
It's something only the admin can actually confirm (because ultimately, it's a question of what did they intend as it is apparently unclear) but again if it's meant to be for basically any action in game then it doesn't make sense to me to use language in the help file and command that implies a more narrow range of reasons to use it, which... given just comments from players seems to have been a relatively commonly shared interpretation.
act out or perform the part of a person or character, for example as a technique in training or psychotherapy. "study participants role-played as applicants for community college" participate in a role-playing game. "one to six players can role-play as any of over 100 characters"
By stating that roleplay is only the form in which you subscribe to comes across elitist. PK is roleplaying if that is what the character I am playing would do. Shopkeeping is RP if your character runs a shop. Herbing is RP if your character has the Herbalism skill. Now, if you want to take that up a notch and really flush out your character's development then maybe that is a higher form of RP, but just like hardcore PKers shouldn't shut general-PKers out of PK. Hardcore RPers shouldn't shut out general-RPers out of RP. Everyone is entitled to their feelings, but no one should feel superior because of those feelings.Anything IC is RP. OOC is the only thing that isn't RP. This is why game mechanics are not normally discussed in the open. People avoid saying the word level because of this. As someone who loves theory crafting, my characters try to never talk about seconds when discussing balances. However, most of my characters do have a quality in which they hone their combat skills, so theory crafting becomes RP for them.
The qualifiers are “skilled and valuable role player” in the help, other people’s enjoyment can be valuable, though in low pop times simply being here can also be considered valuable.
With your comments I’m being a “skilled roleplayer” because I did something without it being overtly ooc in-game which is a basic requirement for playing the game heh.
The argument you specify also doesn't incorporate the helpfile, which specifies that they are a "skilled and valuable roleplayer" which makes it more generic. So your argument is open enough that it covers pk-related stuff that demonstrates such or could be considered a sign of "poor rp" under the help dictionary definition if they're "doing anything your character wouldn't do by virtue of his or her personality".
For concrete examples, a zealous (1st gen) Hoaracean defending nil would be betraying the teachings of their god, a pacifist aggressively organising and leading raids. You could also find out if you interact with them that maybe they've extrapolated on that, so maybe the pacifist has decided to "kill them before they kill us". But given the initial suggestion involved recognising people on the enemy team who you might never have interacted with and have no idea about their rp it all seems rather messy when you have a qualifier on who you can recognise which is being interpreted differently.
Hence why I suggest/support reviewing the language or implementing a separate system. Remove the question of whether it's intended completely if it is and if it's not, implement something.
Personally, I think a specific system would be way better, for example... you could make it that PK thing ends, everyone that participated gets to acknowledge/recognise/award/whatever someone else who also participated. That way every event everyone will be able to recognise, rather than maybe people give out all of them in the first one of the day and can't give them out later on. Because they're connected to the event, that's the limiter rather than a static 3 per day, so if you participate more you get to give out more.
XIV has something similar and it's pretty great, you also get bonuses and the like for giving out a certain number every week (which also rewards you for participating enough in content that week to give out that many) as well as achievements and the like.
My question is would you do the same if asked by an enemy of your commune? If the answer is no then this is an IC decision. However, I have had to have characters accept/obtain trade work enemies which is an OOC mechanic issue. This is a failure of mechanics to correct game/Org population.
My initial post's tone came across much harsher than intended. My apologies for that.