EVE-Online RP Discussion and Resources > EVE OOC Summit
Redux: Can you expect safety in Eve, as RPers?
Veiki:
Frankly, you never know what's considered 'appropriate' by people until the dec goes live.
Mizhara:
--- Quote from: Silas Vitalia on 15 Oct 2018, 09:08 ----Younger, newer RP corps and players, I always felt more appropriate to take a 'lighter' approach. War decs of limited scope, hunting of limited nature, not trying to crush people out of the game overwhelmingly out of the bat. Just because you are a 6 or 7 year vet and you have friends and resources to shit on younger RPers doesn't mean you necessarily -should-. You can get your RP points across with an appropriate amount of destruction and not totally make people want to quit the game. I think the idea is to show them that what they do and say in game has consequences, but that you'd rather them be a part of the community for the long haul and have them around, and that pew pewing them doesn't mean you don't like them.
--- End quote ---
I'd agree with all of it, but the above needs one more qualifier: If the lesson does not take, the gloves come off. Especially if there are "vets" involved that should know better. I'll gladly nurture and guide a little newbling - Ferra Orta currently of Ushra'Khan and doing WH spoopypewpews on another character now is my proudest achievement - but if they go ultrasalt and just refuse to take kind advice or hints, instead just basically wallowing in self-pity about being 'bullied'... well, sod them.
MakotoPriano:
So, without wading into this topic, I'll note this:
If you receive any threats or excess salt from anyone in ARC, be sure to give me a heads-up so that I can talk some sense into the person.
Cheers.
Louella Dougans:
It's a game. played by people.
the setting of blocs against blocs means that there is very little room immersion wise to ""play nice"".
for example: take the situation of House Sarum vs House Ardishapur. Now, for two player entities, it's possible for a war between them, to result in a resolution whereby house Sarum agrees to something with house Ardishapur. And so, the sarumite characters and ardishapuritan characters can then choose to bear a grudge, or let bygones be bygones.
now take the example of Amarr Orthodox vs Sani Sabik. There Can Be No Resolution. There is No reasonable end to a war between those player entities.
"While vile mutants still draw breath, there can be no peace. While obscene heretics hearts still beat, there can be no respite. While faithless traitors still live, there can be no forgiveness.", as wh40k would say.
It can be argued that it is a betrayal of an Amarr characters fundamental nature, to allow a Sani Sabik to persist, to allow their organisation to exist in any way, shape, or form. They must be killed wherever they are found, their supporters and followers executed, their supplies and equipment burned.
From an IC sense, there is no reasonable force to be employed. YOu hit them hard, and keep hitting them, until they're dead.
Now, there are plenty more of these bitter conflicts, amarr vs minmatar for example, there's not really much of a middle ground there, is there.
So it ends up, that the only rp pvp that can be resolved, is the 'internal' disputes - between Houses in Amarr, between Megas in Caldari, between Tribes/Clans in Minmatar, between fashionistas in Gallente.
But for the big IC disputes, the only immersive resolution is to drive the enemy characters out of existence. Which usually requires making it extremely un-fun for the player behind that character to play at all.
So a lot of the time, the only way for a resolution ends up being to drive the opposing players out of the game. and you end up playing with yourself.
kalaratiri:
Personally I am a big proponent of RP in space and actions having tangible consequences.
However.
I believe the issues with RP wardecs are the same issues that plague all of highsec wardecs. The problem isn't the RP side of things, it's the game mechanics behind it:
* Immense psychological and tactical advantage of being the agressor
* No tangible "win conditions" (unless player set) to dictate how long a war should continue for
* Neutral alts/scouts, older player advantage through locator agents and general mechanics knowledgeI very much agree with Silas' point about appropriate force. As much as an RP-inspired war can be about 'winning', I believe that in the spirit of collaborative story telling the war should, as best as possible, be fun for both sides. The relentless harassment of a group in the long term often does considerably more harm than good, especially if they're not a PvP motivated group.
Yes, of course, Eve is a PvP game and a non-consensual one at that, but the simple fact is some people aren't interested in space combat and aren't suddenly going to become budding space marauders just because they've been wardecced for the last 6 weeks. Some groups aren't going to fight no matter how hard you push them. We've seen this repeated thousands of times across more than a decade and a half of highsec wars.
In these cases, I believe there needs to be a point where the war is ended by some other means, whether that's IC negotiation or straight up surrender conditions.
I think the biggest point for me is that the game, and the RP, is more fun with enemies. Much like Batman and The Joker you can't just eradicate your enemies entirely because then what would you do all day?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version