PROBLEM PLAYER

[Toffee 2843]

My main issue with pvp oriented groups (not just the Ferrymen) is that, if my character dies IRP, I want to PK. And PKing feels really cheap and not worth it if there was negligible, poor quality roleplay leading up to, during, and after the death. If you want to be impactful, make people feel as if their characters dying or losing was actually for something, rather than just because you were bored and wanted to click some things

 

this is made worse when many Ferrymen personas aren’t actually characters at all but alts with meme names. If you expect people to have their roleplay influenced by you, let them also influence your roleplay. Play real characters with motivations and dreams and goals that can be thwarted and hurt just like any other character 

 

I would feel much better about PKing to a character that will actually continue to exist, so they can brag about the kill, feel remorse, be hunted down by my characters family etc. than teal bandana #53 never to be seen or heard from again 

[SethWolf 2340]

10 hours ago, LazyBacon220 said:

(They also irply killed children which isn't cool)

 

 

[LazyBacon220 600]

11 hours ago, Unwillingly said:

ok everything else u said is fair and I'm not discrediting that but why is it unacceptable to kill children in rp genuinely curious what the perspective is here

To be honest? It just seemed a little unnecessary. There is almost certainly some bias here from my end but it did just seem a little unnecessary. 

[Tide1 4535]

18 hours ago, Xarkly said:

If something like EOM or whatever actually came out of these wars one day it would be much more interesting. Granted server rules and how hard it is to do shit like that does play a big role, but you get what I mean.

 

You have been part of a nation that regularly fosters for server-wide coalitions to prevent dominant powers from rising, like you are some sort of LOTC NATO, and a nation that openly admits to curbing it's own growth out of fear for internal struggles, for years. I know not your current relations with that playerbase, but it is not one to talk.

 

It would be nice if somewhere on lotc could grow out of warfare, that is true, but it is not possible with NATO on the track during every single "large scale" conflict, while the place itself is too afraid to take the center stage. It is a shameful display.

[Smmer 2441]

5 hours ago, SethWolf said:

 

 

 

 

HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR 

 

ferrymen would be more creative if they created fnaf ocs. 

 

@Werew0lf

[Xarkly 17299]

32 minutes ago, Tide1 said:

 

You have been part of a nation that regularly fosters for server-wide coalitions to prevent dominant powers from rising, like you are some sort of LOTC NATO, and a nation that openly admits to curbing it's own growth out of fear for internal struggles, for years. I know not your current relations with that playerbase, but it is not one to talk.

 

It would be nice if somewhere on lotc could grow out of warfare, that is true, but it is not possible with NATO on the track during every single "large scale" conflict, while the place itself is too afraid to take the center stage. It is a shameful display.

 

This is a bit silly for a few reasons.

 

1) First of all, discrediting my opinion in particular is against the entire point of this thread. We can all sit around and say "I wish X group did Y" because that's what we want to see them do, but ultimately our opinion has no standing outside of our own perspective. The difference is this thread is literally asking for opinions, and I'm giving it. Generalising 1 player's opinion to be the same as what you perceive to be an entire playerbase to be is also silly (i.e., I kept pushing the victors of the Covenant war to form some kind of empire as a new thing after Veletz was beaten).

 

2) The NATO/hugbox arguments continue to ignore context. They essentially boil down "man, why do all these nations that we keep raiding and turning into enemies join up together to fight us". It follows logic that if you antagonise multiple groups, you'll create a joint interest against you. This isn't really some sophisticated conspiracy but it's literal cause and effect. 

 

3) Even in spite of the above, I think the last war is a counter-example of it. You should probably bear in mind that the Heartlander Accord existed to counter 'my' nation and pretty much had it by the balls in a vice grip. If that alliance had endured, Haense & et al. would definitely be either dead or crippled right now and team Veletz could form their own Empire or dominant order etc. This fell apart internally because of the same antagonisation I spoke about above - that's not a product of anyone but you guys'. The only reasons 'NATO' is still alive is because of that. 

 

>complains about NATO

>continues to act in a way that creates NATO

>briefly actually learns from this and creates anti-NATO

>continues to act in a way that re-creates NATO 

[Tide1 4535]

40 minutes ago, Xarkly said:

>complains about NATO

>continues to act in a way that creates NATO

>briefly actually learns from this and creates anti-NATO

>continues to act in a way that re-creates NATO 

 

Considering this has happened with or without my involvement, both to my favor and not for years now, I am curious to see how that pattern will definitely change in the future, with or without my involvement.

 

 

[Cpt_Noobman 1954]

I think calling the ferrymen a conflict group is disingenuous and also doesn't make any sense. It seems to me that you often conflate conflict and pvp, but they are not the same thing. Conflict is a storytelling element that occurs when two or more characters goals conflict and need to be resolved somehow.

 

The type of 'conflict' the ferrymen provide is usually just raiding or banditting. There is almost never anything interesting or meaningful in this type of 'conflict' because the conflicting goals boil down to 'I want you dead, and you want to live' or 'I want your stuff and you want to keep it.' It's incredibly boring and the time it takes to deal with it detracts from much more interesting role-playing and conflict scenarios happening elsewhere.

 

The misunderstanding or deliberate ignoring of what enjoyable conflict is on the part of the ferrymen has led them to be viewed as bad actors on the server, which is a fair label in my opinion. If they ferrymen want to be seen as contributing anything of value to the server then they will need to fundamentally shift their understanding of what conflict is from pvp focused to story focused. In story focused conflict, your goal is NOT to win, it is to tell interesting stories.

 

So long as the ferrymen focus stays on min-maxxing their chance to win pvp encounters and doing the bare minimum amount of roleplay required to start pvp, they will continue to be seen as bad actors. Frankly, I believe this is warranted and this kind of approach to 'conflict' has no place on the server and detracts from the experience of other players without adding anything of value.

 

Tl;dr: Ferrymen do not understand what conflict is. Their focus is pvp and doing the minimum amount of rp to reach pvp. This type of behavior is bad for the server and detracts from other players experiences.

[Xarkly 17299]

4 hours ago, Tide1 said:

 

Considering this has happened with or without my involvement, both to my favor and not for years now, I am curious to see how that pattern will definitely change in the future, with or without my involvement.

 

 

 

I wouldn't agree it's been happening for years really. Renatus beat the big coalitions in 2018-2020, Tripartite v Oren war was pretty evenly matched with nations/allies until the 3rd warclaim, and EATO v USA was pretty much the same until USA fell apart because of its internal rebellion. It's only really post Heartland Accord that you have a more unity with human nations when it comes to defence, but that has plenty of cracks.

[Ninjay 1184]

13 hours ago, Cpt_Noobman said:

The type of 'conflict' the ferrymen provide is usually just raiding or banditting. There is almost never anything interesting or meaningful in this type of 'conflict' because the conflicting goals boil down to 'I want you dead, and you want to live' or 'I want your stuff and you want to keep it.' It's incredibly boring and the time it takes to deal with it detracts from much more interesting role-playing and conflict scenarios happening elsewhere.

Genuine question, what other 'much more interesting' conflict scenarios are there that are being taken away from? And how does it detract from players' involvement in other things going on?

Maybe I'm wrong but from my understanding most 'conflict' is either player run events, ST events, or some noble bickering / feud that probably has little actual action ever occur, or is stamped out before any real conflict can happen. And those, in general, I don't think ever really get messed with aside from by people already involved in them. Maybe some casual tavern rp gets interrupted or delayed, but otherwise I doubt it is actively interfering with peoples' ability to participate in these other scenarios and events.

Aside from those, I'm aware of Lurak-Vikela (which I imagine most people uninvolved have no interest or care in getting involved), the Gash-Koyo Kuni conflict (which, again correct me if I'm wrong, is basically a player / ST event at this point as well), and other generic darkspawn activity being a thing. These are all well and good, but optional if you don't want to be involved with them. Being able to pick and choose some of your battles is good and all, but at a certain point you shouldn't be able to just fully opt out of anything you personally don't want to be a part of. Conflict does not always conform to whatever you think it should be, when you want it to occur.

Avoiding these types of conflicts is not hard - nor is avoiding banditry. Limiting a bit, if you're unwilling to ensure you stay around groups of people and/or behind locked doors or closed city gates. The same can be said for avoiding getting kidnapped by darkspawn and sacrificed or something similar, only difference I'm aware of being that those just tend to occur less often than banditing. If you really don't want to experience it, though, then the option is there.

 

13 hours ago, Cpt_Noobman said:

Tl;dr: Ferrymen do not understand what conflict is. Their focus is pvp and doing the minimum amount of rp to reach pvp. This type of behavior is bad for the server and detracts from other players experiences.

Minimum or maximum rp given, fighting is still conflict. Plenty of interesting rp can come from it afterwards, if you choose to let it.

Edited July 14, 2024 by Ninjay

[MCVDK 2830]

I would answer more constructively, and I might do later because I have thoughts on this subject, but I’m on vacation right now. 
 

All I wanted to add was that @Mickaelhz is the good guy. That’s it for now.

[trinn 5134]

im doing my part to get this to 200 replies

 

[Gaja 1311]

i like these ferryguys

bandited me multiple times when adria was part of aaun, was always a decent encounter
then we were in a nation together in veletz and i only had good interactions with them

that jerry guy is a maniac though

[argonian 14254]

On 7/14/2024 at 12:00 AM, Cpt_Noobman said:

I think calling the ferrymen a conflict group is disingenuous and also doesn't make any sense. It seems to me that you often conflate conflict and pvp, but they are not the same thing. Conflict is a storytelling element that occurs when two or more characters goals conflict and need to be resolved somehow.

 

The type of 'conflict' the ferrymen provide is usually just raiding or banditting. There is almost never anything interesting or meaningful in this type of 'conflict' because the conflicting goals boil down to 'I want you dead, and you want to live' or 'I want your stuff and you want to keep it.' It's incredibly boring and the time it takes to deal with it detracts from much more interesting role-playing and conflict scenarios happening elsewhere.

 

The misunderstanding or deliberate ignoring of what enjoyable conflict is on the part of the ferrymen has led them to be viewed as bad actors on the server, which is a fair label in my opinion. If they ferrymen want to be seen as contributing anything of value to the server then they will need to fundamentally shift their understanding of what conflict is from pvp focused to story focused. In story focused conflict, your goal is NOT to win, it is to tell interesting stories.

 

So long as the ferrymen focus stays on min-maxxing their chance to win pvp encounters and doing the bare minimum amount of roleplay required to start pvp, they will continue to be seen as bad actors. Frankly, I believe this is warranted and this kind of approach to 'conflict' has no place on the server and detracts from the experience of other players without adding anything of value.

 

Tl;dr: Ferrymen do not understand what conflict is. Their focus is pvp and doing the minimum amount of rp to reach pvp. This type of behavior is bad for the server and detracts from other players experiences.

I agree with a lot of this but not with the framing that trying to win is an issue or at odds with good storytelling. I know you probably didn't mean it that way, but I don't think you should have to have a focus on providing the best story unless you're an ST member doing an event nor do I think it's necessary at all. Trying to win can and should be enough to create an interesting story if all parties (mostly, cuz they never fully do) abide by the rules.

 

I see the issue not as PVP groups and the likes not trying to win, but as their win conditions being cringe and OOC. Winning a raid is a win condition but it's ******* dull and pointless for anyone with an attention span over 15 minutes, as well as being totally OOC for the most part. Trying to win in achieving significant IC ambitions, on the other hand, is a huge driver of RP and hugely beneficial to the server (again, unless massive rule-breaking takes place to achieve it, but that's largely a separate issue).

 

We need more conquerors, or at least destroyers, and less pointless forever-raids. Even a random raid should ideally make me fear for what's to come - but rn the only thing that "looms" is another raid in which I'd lose my nation-provided gear If I, uh, chose to fight them and not just walk into a building and log off like any civilian does.