Backstage - OOC Forums
EVE-Online RP Discussion and Resources => EVE OOC Summit => Topic started by: Ashar Kor-Azor on 22 Mar 2011, 07:48
-
Let's try to keep this civil, despite the anchor bias I just injected.
In reference to a certain recent IGS thread related to the KOTMC event and the guests there and whether they should or should not have been allowed:
[13:25:34] [Name removed] > is your goal to have people only interact IC with their own factions?
[13:25:51] [Name removed] > and the only contact with opposing factions is OOC ?
[13:27:37] Seriphyn Inhonores > IC - attempting to socially isolate the Sansha.
[13:28:06] Seriphyn Inhonores > to him, and OOC I would sympathize with this RP'd view, it is intolerable that Sansha loyalists get an easy freeride.
I think it's pretty weak-tea thinking in a community of this size to try to isolate groups, considering the previous results were disastrous - but the history isn't known firsthand by everyone. People will interact with any given group and form their own opinions.
Generally I'd just let the party attempting to slander any given group go on about it, which usually fails rather spectacularly. However, this time it raised - along with my heckles - a question of what people thought of gestures that were made for the sake of social manipulation or exclusion of a potential demographic that showed no signs of becoming less attractive to new players in future.
I will say the following as many times as is necessary: there are plenty of points that can be made about this situation's particulars regarding metagaming; THEY ARE NOT INVITED BY ME AND WILL LIKELY PREMATURELY END THE DISCUSSION. TRY AND USE THIS AS AN EFFECTIVE WARNING AND HEED IT INSTEAD OF FALLING PREY TO MORE ANCHOR BIAS.
-
To me, it's a matter of immersion. My immersion sure as hell fall through the cracks in the fourth wall when convenience and metagaming takes charge and characters change or circumstances change as a result. Sometimes in ways that just don't make sense, all in the name of said convenience.
For the sake of convenience and metagaming you'll see people that should have been pretty much shunned get hugglefucked whenever and wherever they appear with little consequence nor any raised eyebrows. Characters choosing certain loyalties and promoting allegiance and support for outcast factions and views never seem to pay the price for it, do they? No impact on the social scene at all. No "How dare you monsters show your faces here? Get out before you are thrown out!" or anything like that.
This phenomenon (that's been around since the dawn of RP in MMOs and even before) is particularly visible with the Nation loyalists. Supporters of some of the worst atrocities committed in New Eden since the Day of Darkness, the terrorist acts around the cluster and so on... and there's no consequence for said choices. They're welcomed pretty much everywhere and poof goes my immersion.
Does it really make sense that people who are stated enemies of every faction in New Eden (pretty much) and are currently in the process of invading every single bit of territory they can aim their wormholes at can just walk around consequence free? No social impact? At all?
Yeah... convenience...
While quantity of RP is indeed a matter of concern... it starts to lose it's relevance once the large quantities are mostly of poor quality. Defining poor quality will have to be done entirely individually, but to me, changing characters and inventing excuses to include people like Nation loyalists into such events become poor quality in the long run, as it just doesn't make a lick of sense to me that there's no consequence for choices and actions.
Edit (Came after Borza's post so he responded only to what's above this line):
And something occurred to me... This inclusion of such things is quite a bit of hypocrisy, isn't it? Without naming names or particular examples since that'd probably be flamebait and against the board rules, there's several examples of the exact opposite than what the above Nation example shows.
A Holder RPer that has in the past been a slaver has had some character progression and is no longer a slaver. This has led to something I find very odd. The character is now shunned with the OoC explanation that 'unless you return to be a slaver you won't be getting RP'. This boggles my mind a bit, considering the above example of inclusion into RP against IC and realistic consequences. Where's the sense in this?
On the one hand, characters and factions that should by all reasonable logic be shunned or excluded socially gets free passes while someone who should have become the attention of the Amarr loyalists through political and ideological RP, debates and discussions, religious or not get shunned on an OoC reasoning for not following the partyline of 'slavery WOOOH!'?
I am disappointed by this. I wouldn't have minded either of the two as much if there'd been consistency, but this? This is just 'Oh, if you don't RP the way we want we'll metagame you out of our community. Nevermind our metagaming when it comes to those other guys we'd probably shoot in a realistic setting.'.
-
^ Exactly what Mizhara said. People want to have their cake and eat it, but it can be totally immersion breaking to see.
-
To put it like father Hackett "YES!".
While I do perfectly understand the craving to get more interaction, I do find the tendency amongst the self-styled "RP mainstream" to huggle up together quite .. well at first I was about to say vexing, but in the end it really boils down to disinterrest into what they do, since to me at least its pretty dull.
Thumbs up to UK for being reliable enemies and to the khanids / 1pg for being constant entertainment btw. :)
-
No impact on the social scene at all. No "How dare you monsters show your faces here? Get out before you are thrown out!" or anything like that.
as i understand things, that's not what Ashar's getting at.
as I understand it, it's more of the situation that "monsters" would not receive any interaction. I.e. it would simply be /kick and /ban from channel, rather than rp'ing it out.
-
No impact on the social scene at all. No "How dare you monsters show your faces here? Get out before you are thrown out!" or anything like that.
as i understand things, that's not what Ashar's getting at.
as I understand it, it's more of the situation that "monsters" would not receive any interaction. I.e. it would simply be /kick and /ban from channel, rather than rp'ing it out.
Of course they would not, not in a world that made sense.
Would you invite a 'monster' to come over for a visit an invite her/him to stay for tea?
Lets be serious, most of us would actually answer this question with a no, depending on what you define the 'monster' to be.
Sure, there will always be people who are open to a lot of stuff, but in the end, no matter how much you like it, we are all still subject to our upbringing and the social networks we live in.
-
I, as a Sansha loyalist, want to be "hugglefucked" as soon as I enter a room, and will thus make every effort to join the "RP-Mainstream".
Honestly, I issolate myself from all IC interaction because I dont metagame and IC I wouldnt want to interact with most other charaters. It leads to zero RP.
-
I think there are decent arguments for and against the in-character shunning of enemies. Not every conflict is a WWII-style total war, and not every person or culture is going to treat declared enemies, or people nominally affiliated with declared enemies, in exactly the same way. Jev, for example, would leap at the chance of casual social interaction with the Nation capsuleers; she might think that the Sansha are a threat to be eliminated post-haste, but at the same time she's deeply curious about what goes on in the minds of her fellow capsuleers, and of all the things she might do to counter the Nation, socially snubbing their capsuleers seems simply petty-minded and ineffectual. Other characters might reason very differently, and are perfectly entitled to do so, in my opinion.
OOCly snubbing people with characters in opposing factions is of course just plain silly. You don't have to interact with anyone you don't want to, but it seems pointless to let in-character opposition bleed through like that.
-
EDIT - actually, fuck it, never mind. I'll stay out of this.
-
The main issue comes from the Sansha agents trying whatever they can to look "human friendly". As soon as the Sansha agents will look that way, I don't understand why they should be outcasts everywhere. Honestly and for the sake of not raising a godwin point here, lets say History has had its lot of despicable monsters and that they still had some propaganda working on, and it worked at least a bit.
Anyway, I do not consider my character doing anything wrong ICly when "curiosity above all else" is her main motive. Though I have to admit I have been very, very surprised to see KotMC still accepting Sansha supporters ICly when they ban 'mere' blooders and EoMs.
-
The only socialising that makes sense with enemy aligned characters is a tad limited.
You can have rather stilited and formal negotations over, say, a temporary ceasefire or a prisoner exchange. Because it is the OOC groups that are at war peace talks aren't really an option.
If a third party is seen as a more urgent problem then you might briefly agree to focus on that and put mutual differences aside for a time. I think it is a shame that this hasn't been happening more.
The Sansha, and the other psycho pirate factions (Blooders & EoM) are in something of a hole here because they really are written up as completely outside the mainstream. The EoM are an even more extreme case of this but, outside of a few missions, they don't seem to show up much. There certainly don't seem to be that many capsuleers who have declared their aleigance to them.
Angels, Guristas and Serpentis are easier to find a rationale to interact with. They can provide a service that you need or can be used as a tool to indirectly attack a foe. They are a lot easier to understand and empathise with in terms of their motivations and goals.
Stepping outside the human mainstream should have consequences. Even if they are only a limit on the people that will speak to you.
-
I'll chip in briefly.
Do not mistake a character trying to "socially isolate" another character as an attempt to isolate players. Do I RP with Sansha characters? You're bloody well right I do, even if it's mostly Seriphyn voicing his anger and disagreements with lots of swear words.
OOC, I agree with Mizhara that it's a bit "wat". It's not a case of not wanting to RP with Sansha, we need enemies, and I certainly need to keep the fire of Seriphyn's hate for Sansha burning (which occurs in large part in interaction with Sansha RPers, like Jia-Lei Lian). It becomes different when you're shouting at each in local, to when you're all having a ball together.
-
Stepping outside the human mainstream should have consequences. Even if they are only a limit on the people that will speak to you.
Being a capsuleer means stepping outside the human mainstream. Bet'cha dollars to donuts that from most "normal" perspectives, every single capsuleer in the room could be considered some kind of monster.
-
It doesn't help the bulk of RP characters in eve are racist ideologues and zealots. It's kinda hard to interact with these types of people to begin with, especially if they don't fit into narrow archetypes
-
Stepping outside the human mainstream should have consequences. Even if they are only a limit on the people that will speak to you.
Being a capsuleer means stepping outside the human mainstream. Bet'cha dollars to donuts that from most "normal" perspectives, every single capsuleer in the room could be considered some kind of monster.
I'll skip my usual point here, you all prolly know how I consider capsuleers OOCly.
As far as exclusionist RP, I really don't know what to think. On the one hand, I've practiced it myself; after receiving OOC flak for IC decisions, the best I could think to say was "if it's gonna piss you off, ignore it." It's advice I think we all need to take from time to time. It's a tangent, but it brings me to the next point...
There's a level to which we as RPers are kind of forced to interact with one another, in the same way real individuals often have to interact with people they might not agree with entirely or even like at all. Even in just going about my daily business, Senn comes into contact with a lot of people he reviles. It leads to some interesting interaction.
Here's what it comes down to for me; it comes down to personal discretion, because it was an event. That means the individuals running things make the decision. Are the Sansha capsuleers in question "evil" enough that they shouldn't be allowed in? Are they an opportunity for your character to show how tolerant - even falsely so - he/she is? Ask them to leave, warn them about your security team, whatever. As long as you can handle the consequences, and your character can, you can justify plenty.
As for exclusionist behavior, well, I'll say that Jev said it best so far.
-
Yeah, can I just say (again) that I don't agree that I have been OOC exclusionist :s . Sansha RPers will profess myself having RP'd with them...it's the only way to keep Seri's hate going. :yar:
-
Hate is a valid means of IC interaction. My memory has never been fantastic, but I know Senn already traded sparks with a few Intaki locals in local chat, not to mention the last ANSH public announcement. Both of these were instances of, I don't know what we should call it, "aggressive" RP.
There's a difference between that, typical IGS dramatics of "you're evil and I hate your face," and what I think is the crux of the problem here, which is an OOC ban due to IC differences.
Yes, Sansha loyalists at a KOTMC event would be kinda strange. So what should happen is, the Sanshas are addressed ICly and turned away at the door, or allowed in on conditions of nonviolence. Banning them from the channel is a statement against the player. When someone's been annoying or disruptive, they can be banned or muted. So if a Sansha loyalist went into the party anyway and fired "I Heart Kuvakei" shirts into the crowd with a t-shirt gun, THAT would be grounds to ban them. That was the PLAYER being disruptive.
But the player is not the character. So if the character is legitimately asking entry, turn them away ICly if you want. But don't tell the player to fuck off because you hate their character.
-
Yes, Sansha loyalists at a KOTMC event would be kinda strange. So what should happen is, the Sanshas are addressed ICly and turned away at the door, or allowed in on conditions of nonviolence. Banning them from the channel is a statement against the player. When someone's been annoying or disruptive, they can be banned or muted. So if a Sansha loyalist went into the party anyway and fired "I Heart Kuvakei" shirts into the crowd with a t-shirt gun, THAT would be grounds to ban them. That was the PLAYER being disruptive.
That's exactly what Seriphyn pursued by turning up at the event and mouthing off. Social exclusion not by banhamm0rz, but by actively RPing and being like "Kick these fuckers out, yo"
-
Would David Cameron be welcome at a party held in Tripoli by Colonel Gadaffi?
Would the two of them laugh and joke while enjoying cocktails?
-
Hate is a valid means of IC interaction. My memory has never been fantastic, but I know Senn already traded sparks with a few Intaki locals in local chat, not to mention the last ANSH public announcement. Both of these were instances of, I don't know what we should call it, "aggressive" RP.
There's a difference between that, typical IGS dramatics of "you're evil and I hate your face," and what I think is the crux of the problem here, which is an OOC ban due to IC differences.
Yes, Sansha loyalists at a KOTMC event would be kinda strange. So what should happen is, the Sanshas are addressed ICly and turned away at the door, or allowed in on conditions of nonviolence. Banning them from the channel is a statement against the player. When someone's been annoying or disruptive, they can be banned or muted. So if a Sansha loyalist went into the party anyway and fired "I Heart Kuvakei" shirts into the crowd with a t-shirt gun, THAT would be grounds to ban them. That was the PLAYER being disruptive.
But the player is not the character. So if the character is legitimately asking entry, turn them away ICly if you want. But don't tell the player to fuck off because you hate their character.
How is banning someone from an IC channel all of a sudden an OOC action? :|
-
My stance is pretty simple, as much as I find myself uncertain on 'exclusionist RP' for the reasons people mentioned earlier about 'If someone pisses you off, avoid them as much as you can' and so on.
IC and OOC interaction are divorced; unless disruptive on some OOC level, banning characters from an IC channel for IC reasons seems kinda weird. Similarly, people allowing Sansha loyalists into empire-aligned venues (or Caldari into Gallente, Cartel into Minmatar, or any pairing you care to pick) is a result of some IC judgement about whether they should or shouldn't be permitted entry, and on what conditions they are if so.
Like in reality, some people will be more aggressive towards the people they dislike ("Grr! I frown on you! Leave this place!") whereas others dislike people to similar degrees but use that differently ("Mmf. Fine. Come on in, but don't cause a hassle -- and maybe I can use this as a PR opportunity myself..."). I don't see it as overly immersion breaking, but hey, if people take OOC offense at being kicked out of somewhere IC, something's wrong somewhere, IMO. All in the name of fun RP, etc. etc. :U
-
How is banning someone from an IC channel all of a sudden an OOC action? :|
Some of us like to lurk. That said, it's an IC channel, and if they've been banned from showing up IC, I don't see a problem with removing them from the channel, even if they're not the kind of fools to show up anyways.
-
I've found the KOTMC IC issues the last few weeks to be completely engaging and worthwhile. I like them all OOC just fine, especially Farel, Mintor, and all the others.
A few points since i've been seen as one of the ones instigating/enflaming some of these issues.
Choices and associations we make IC have consequences, IC. There are any number of fantastic RP channels, groups, etc that I simply cannot interact with very much IC due to years of political associations. That is unfortunate for me, but this is how it works. If we don't respect those decisions and give them the proper weight and consequences, it looks incredibly silly. If you don't want to have those consequences, then be a neutral character and go with that. If your group or your character are on one side of an issue you can be assured there will be plenty on the other side. No one is forcing anyone to do anything, these are all choices we make/have made IC.
That KOTMC is a liberal organization is fantastic, more power to them, the more breadth and range we have in Amarr RP the better. But if they expect not to be attacked and have to defend themselves either chat wise or pvp wise due to those beliefs then I'm sorry but that is kind of ridiculous.
The IC issue is one of 'setting' or location. If say, the New Eden Assembly hosts a party, that's actually a great opportunity to socialize with political enemies, as the location is enforced as neutral and expressly set up for those sorts of opposites to be able to act cordially, by definition. It would be reasonable to expect any number of awkward but still IC-acceptable interactions in such a place.
But if say UshraK'han holds a freedom fighter party and Silas shows up and spends half the night drinking with the Brutors and dancing the night away, then I would fully expect the RPers to be giving both Silas and Ushra Khan the riot act IC, publicly, privately, all over the place, with probably some shots fired over it eventually.
My point being I find 0 issues with how this has been transpiring so far, and kudos for the KOTMC for pushing all the right buttons IC. How much of that has been intentional I can't speculate on but it's been incredibly interesting.
-
Would David Cameron be welcome at a party held in Tripoli by Colonel Gadaffi?
Would the two of them laugh and joke while enjoying cocktails?
I'm not sure about what goes on at the good Colonel's parties, but.. mh. If Cameron actually bothered to show up at the door, do you think he'd be turned down? Why?
-
Well, I tend to agree that exclusionist RP is valid, in fact I'd say necessary to a degree. It's to the nature Rodj mentioned, some entities simply do not 'mesh'.
What would happen if the Empress wanted to visit and watch Elder council party? Or on a smaller scale, what happens when a CONCORD labeled pirate attempts to do business with a law abiding entity like PIE? And I highly doubt a Federal high-class party would be open to having State contracted military people showing up for a drink...
However, the imposing entity has the right to attempt to 'party crash' as long as they are prepared to be shown the door in a less than polite fassion (IC).
The major thing to keep in mind... the characters may not like each other and go ouut of their way to make life miserable for each other, but that doesn't mean the players hate each other and they're just playing a game. I've blown up people I like because that's what my characters would do, but that doesn't mean I'm attacking the player.
-
To me, it's a matter of immersion. My immersion sure as hell fall through the cracks in the fourth wall when convenience and metagaming takes charge and characters change or circumstances change as a result. Sometimes in ways that just don't make sense, all in the name of said convenience.
For the sake of convenience and metagaming you'll see people that should have been pretty much shunned get hugglefucked whenever and wherever they appear with little consequence nor any raised eyebrows. Characters choosing certain loyalties and promoting allegiance and support for outcast factions and views never seem to pay the price for it, do they?
Much as Miz may be surprised, I actually agree with this a lot. I have difficulty imagining how a social situation would work where someone is trying to shoot you in the afternoon and have drinks with you in the evening.
And some of the conflicts of Eve are a little on the impolite side to let slip for an evening, if you care at all about the people who aren't podders who suffer in them.
(That doesn't mean that I don't like chatting with people in OOC that I don't talk to IC; Actually, I'm more likely to avoid people IC after talking to them OOC than vice versa)
Brainflash (probably caused by influenza-generated-hallucinations):
There's this 6 part miniseries called "The Edge of Darkness" done by the BBC where the final episode had Craven and Jedburgh (The British Cop and the CIA agent) involved in a gunfight with people sent to kill them. It's complicated, but there is a conflict between business and government involving people being murdered, activist organisations corrupted, critical masses of plutonium being stolen, and used to make political points.
The gunfight scene, (as I remember it) is interspersed with shots of a dinner party where the government bureaucrats who have been on one side of this conflict are having a black-tie dinner with the corporate CEOs who were on the other side of the conflict (One of whom is probably dying of radiation poisoning because of the actions of the cop and the CIA agent). I personally took this to be a sign that all the murders and lies were just maneuvering in a corporate-jockeying-for-influence game, and that while the loose ends were being "tidied up", they were congratulating each other for a game well played.
I just had an image of Ulf and Esna sitting around a table at the Last Gate being scrupulously polite to each other in exactly the same way... <shudder> Ulf in a bow tie? Nah....
-
Brainflash (probably caused by influenza-generated-hallucinations):
There's this 6 part miniseries called "The Edge of Darkness" done by the BBC where the final episode had Craven and Jedburgh (The British Cop and the CIA agent) involved in a gunfight with people sent to kill them. It's complicated, but there is a conflict between business and government involving people being murdered, activist organisations corrupted, critical masses of plutonium being stolen, and used to make political points.
The gunfight scene, (as I remember it) is interspersed with shots of a dinner party where the government bureaucrats who have been on one side of this conflict are having a black-tie dinner with the corporate CEOs who were on the other side of the conflict (One of whom is probably dying of radiation poisoning because of the actions of the cop and the CIA agent). I personally took this to be a sign that all the murders and lies were just maneuvering in a corporate-jockeying-for-influence game, and that while the loose ends were being "tidied up", they were congratulating each other for a game well played.
I just had an image of Ulf and Esna sitting around a table at the Last Gate being scrupulously polite to each other in exactly the same way... <shudder> Ulf in a bow tie? Nah....
Difference being that Esna has held a "no first engagement" policy for a long time. I'm entirely serious about this - have to talk about this in more detail some time.
But I digress... anyhow, I think Morwen hit it on the head here: While there is legitimacy to Seriphyn's IC complaint, the fact was that the invitation indicated that some enemies of the Empire might very well be present. That, combined with the other points Morwen brought up lends the whole thing an heir of baseless troublemaking that a lot of players have trouble ignoring.
Meanwhile, to answer the OP, I think faction-insular RP would drain a lot of the enjoyment from RP. It'd turn the whole thing into a sort of IC echo box.
-
See even after that OOC post thing from Seri, I still think he did the right thing - he did what his character would do.
I think him blowing up about it on IGS was the right thing, I think KotMC telling him that he's an idiot is the right thing and I think that PIE disassociating themselves from KotMC is the right thing.
Actually, I'm not sure I see what the big deal is. It's all an IC interaction, even if Seri (somewhat unwisely) mused about it OOC beforehand.
-
See even after that OOC post thing from Seri, I still think he did the right thing - he did what his character would do.
I think he blowing up about it on IGS was the right thing, I think KotMC telling him that he's an idiot is the right thing and I think that PIE disassociating themselves from KotMC is the right thing.
Actually, I'm not sure I see what the big deal is. It's all an IC interaction, even if Seri (somewhat unwisely) mused about it OOC beforehand.
^^^
IC it's a clusterf***, OOC it's an excuse for good RP. And while I'm not involved in this directly, I'm definitely enjoying watching the 'story' as it unfolds. Cheers to KotMC.
Edit: Cheers to Seri, PIE, and the Sansha folks too. All parties are doing things that would be expected from them IC; KotMC being quite liberal, Seri calling them on it because they're 'consorting with the enemy', PIE for being conservative/distancing from the liberals, and the Sansha folks for stirring the pot (whether it's intentional or just a 'happy by-product' of doing what you do).
-
Meanwhile, to answer the OP, I think faction-insular RP would drain a lot of the enjoyment from RP. It'd turn the whole thing into a sort of IC echo box.
I dunno. The Amarrian block has recently demonstrated that there's quite a lot of potential conflict within their single faction; it looks quite a lot of fun.
And in the past there's been quite a lot of RP infighting in the Matari faction; It's just more subtle than the Matari/Amarr conflicts.
-
It's quite simple to IC ban someone from a 'physical' location.
/me instructs the Horned Masquerade security to bar certain people from entry.
/me adds capsuleer callsign Whatshisface to the VR section's blocklist.
/me does all kinds of things IC.
A ban isn't an inherent OoC action. Quite the contrary, I consider almost every single thing you can do in this game as inherently IC until it's used in a clearly OoC manner. Anyway, tired now, I'll browse the rest of the replies later for further debate. (Later being tomorrow at some point.)
-
Well anyway, Sansha capsuleers played by the players are not really "True Sansha", they are sympathizers, right ? Or maybe I am wrong. But if I am right, this changes everything. They can sylmpathize, or even help, but they are not from the big personnal army of ebil Kuvakei.
Would David Cameron be welcome at a party held in Tripoli by Colonel Gadaffi?
Would the two of them laugh and joke while enjoying cocktails?
Sarkozy had several (hot) meetings with Kadaffi before the latter went mad. Though I have to admit now, I don't think he would anymore...
Anyway, counter example : the olympic games when the cold war was still active.
-
So, back to my original points. Bans are OOC behavior. Therefore, if you ban someone simply for being loyal to [x in-game faction], you've made an OOC affront against that person, and expressed a personal distaste for their RP of choice.
I disagree. I've banned people from IC bars for IC reasons, with the IC-justification of "The bouncers have been instructed not to let you in." - Even for people I quite like OOC.
RP should have consequences. The only consequence that matters outside of having your stuff exploded is the limitation on who will talk to you.
-
Well technically you can IC ban someone without removing him from the channel. Then if he comes back, breaking the RP, he can be banned OOC.
-
You're a tool if you ban someone from an IC channel?
The event referenced by the OP was a channel being used to simulate interaction at a physical place. Banning there would reflect the IC security arrangements for the venue. Nothing more.
IC communication channels have access governed by the purpose of the channel. Electus Matri's public channel quite often has a few hostiles in it. But as long as they don't make a nuisance of themselves they are left alone. It is, after all, meant to serve as a point of contact, for anyone. Not just the people we like IC.
Now how, exactly, is someone out of order for refusing to make nice with their enemies?
IC I'm not overly fond of Mizhara. In point of fact the only thing that stops me actively trying to kill her is that she is in a organisation that is blue to EM, and so I am bound by our ROE. OOC I have no problems with her player ((if you want to develop this BTW drop me a PM and we'll talk it over OOC)).
IC I hate, loathe and depsise Sansha loyalists. More than I dislike Imperials in fact. OOC I have zero issues with players of either sort. Any IC interaction with oponents is likely to be severely constrained by the fact that they are opponents. For one thing I'd be constantly considering what I am saying and trying not to let slip anything useful to them.
How is exclusing such people from certain channels objectionable?
-
Some points I felt like responding to:
I. This wasn't really intended to get as personal as it seems to have gotten, but may serve as a lesson on first instincts being good ones.
Seriphyn was mainly indicated in the original post because without proper indication of the speaker being the same as the author of the relevant IGS thread the context would not have been clear.
II. Breaks in immersion of the sort described above are a product of improper expectations of the environment.
The setting we share is for various reasons quite supportive of using player behavior to define the behavior of one of its elements: capsuleers act as players make them act.
Capsuleers often switch sides, and this can mean (and has meant) joining a group of former enemies because of being approached by them socially.
This isn't a bad way to reflect their capacity to be more affected by social pressures/ideas/memes than threats of death, which has been a long-running thread in the fabric of the setting.
I don't find people's face-value responses to this to jive well with their actions. Miz, we had us a chat about your character not long ago and the directions it may take in light of your distaste for certain circumstances which was reflective of this view (and please don't reconsider the decisions you seem to have made just because it would make me wrong :P).
Ulph seems to have rejected a situation as restrictive of his escapism or jarring or something and then immediately pointed out a perfectly plausible manner in which it might come to pass in the same breath. I suppose I will let that speak for itself.
Lyn's comment on Sansha affiliates being on either side of the line is also interesting. They're mostly capsuleers, but why would being a current faction supporter make a given individual a permanent supporter of a given faction? Because strong loyalties do not shift? Tell that to Wernher von Braun - the guy signed a pretty serious pledge to a certain Godwin-law-invoking figure long before he built rockets for NASA.
III. The setting is only as unrealistic as the player's capacity to make sense of it makes it.
This is mostly the same point as above. Degrees of accomplished realism in art are often judged by the response of the viewer, but here we are given the paintbrush. The setting has always been re-framed and reinterpreted by large groups of players.
As for comparisons to world leaders and tyrants in North Africa, if your analogies are poorly chosen, their utility will suffer.
IV. If a player seeks isolation over interaction because of low expectations, this is sad rather than realistic.
Lookin' at a certain Highlander guy here. Whoever convinced you that you shouldn't find ways to make more sensible or interesting interaction occur may have served only to impede you in drawing enjoyment from the game.
V. Character goals and motivations are a reflection of player goals and motivations; characters are tools to achieve ends as well as to create entertainment.
This is often overlooked in this community because of years spent munching on the red herring of OOC/IC separation.
People have no good reason not to understand the ramifications of a given action, excepting inexperience. Going through with it in the name of authenticity to character can only be answered by reminding them that characters can change.
The player of a character whose behavior over a period of time serves only to draw negative responses from others on a player level has little excuse for such choices save enjoyment. If you don't enjoy drawing negative player responses, choose to act differently.
"IC it's a clusterf***, OOC it's an excuse for good RP." - I would suggest that while the actions taken served to catalyze some interaction, the amount or quality of roleplay had between the various involved parties was not impacted in a significant fashion, let alone noteworthy for the quantity or quality shown.
VI. Political relations do not inherently lead to a lack of dialogue; political relations consist entirely of dialogue.
"There are any number of fantastic RP channels, groups, etc that I simply cannot interact with very much IC due to years of political associations. That is unfortunate for me, but this is how it works. If we don't respect those decisions and give them the proper weight and consequences, it looks incredibly silly."
This would make more sense in a given situation wherein one had had a breakdown of relations with every single member of a given faction or group.
It doesn't hold much water to claim that everyone on a given side of some line in the sand will share the same mindset. I find it often reduces something with great potential down to its most simplistic parts when people hold such positions, and I've not found Silas - or many others who claim otherwise - to hold the position in question interpersonally.
Frankly, I'm confused why people advance it.
VII. Intra-faction relations and complexity are only limited by the creativity of those participating in them, as we all know.
"The Amarrian block has recently demonstrated that there's quite a lot of potential conflict within their single faction; it looks quite a lot of fun." Thanks for underscoring this and for the praise, Ulph, I'm sure it's appreciated by the parties involved.
This is how it's been and how it's done, really, though it often happens behind the scenes. IntRA-faction conflict is there for the picking whenever anyone seeks to engage in it, including intra-subfaction or intra-bloodline conflicts.
There's certainly no requirement for any given party to engage in it in order to reach any great height - there's lots of ways to shine and inspire others if that's what one seeks - but if you can't tap into this whenever you want to because you can't detect its existence, you're missing something.
VIII. Assumptions as to the capacity of given individuals might need to be done away with.
"It's quite simple to IC ban someone from a 'physical' location." These things work both ways. Certainly one can bar a given player from entering an establishment mechanically, but in the case of individuals you're on decent terms with and trust not to make a hash of things, what if they actually seek to challenge their status as an outlaw? Why couldn't they overcome posted guards or security systems?
The reason we don't do these things is because of respect for other players; if one feels this respect is reciprocated, why not extend the offer to change the status quo?
IX. The form and meaning of consequence is not fixed.
"RP should have consequences. The only consequence that matters outside of having your stuff exploded is the limitation on who will talk to you."
Really? So a consequence to going somewhere you're not wanted, perhaps a place filled with those bitterly opposed to you, wouldn't end up with you getting assaulted? That's also a consequence - more generally, the change in the sort of interaction one gets in future is a consequence of choosing to peruse certain postures and actions, whereas one could easily make the case that getting a player to ignore you on a given character is as much a player-level consequence as it is anything else.
We tend to limit the nature of our consequential roleplay along mechanical lines too much, I feel. We could stand to take a lesson from freeform roleplayers there.
"Banning there would reflect the IC security arrangements for the venue. Nothing more."
I feel you're too familiar with the behavior of individuals that wouldn't make confrontations outside of combat satisfying if you've come to the conclusion that the best thing to do with a party one's ideologically opposed to is to bar them from all communications in any given venue. Which brings us along to this:
X. The availability of a given group or person for interaction need not be rigidly defined by in-character conditions if out of character creativity is brought to bear.
"IC I hate, loathe and depsise Sansha loyalists. More than I dislike Imperials in fact. OOC I have zero issues with players of either sort. Any IC interaction with oponents is likely to be severely constrained by the fact that they are opponents. For one thing I'd be constantly considering what I am saying and trying not to let slip anything useful to them."
Then you're not taking advantage of the opportunities presented to interact with people you have no problem with in a productive fashion, or you just aren't interested in the sort of roleplay you might have with a group of people you'd need to be cagey around. It's not for everyone.
If you 'have no problem with' the people involved - they're swell guys - then what gives? I suppose one could run headlong into Dunbar's Number or the limits of one's willingness to be extroverted or something.
I can assure you I've drawn enormous satisfaction from figuring out new things to do with characters that wouldn't be well positioned to explore more familiar avenues of interaction.
-
Would David Cameron be welcome at a party held in Tripoli by Colonel Gadaffi?
Would the two of them laugh and joke while enjoying cocktails?
Sarkozy had several (hot) meetings with Kadaffi before the latter went mad. Though I have to admit now, I don't think he would anymore...
Anyway, counter example : the olympic games when the cold war was still active.
I distinctly recall many Western countries boycotting the 1980 Olympics in Moscow, and the Warsaw Pact countries boycotting the 1984 Los Angeles games.
-
I think the main discussion here is about:
- the pros and cons of social or diplomatic contact with your adversaries
- whether inconsistencies in such matters (which I might shorthand as "hypocrisy") constitute a terrible sin (or not), and
- how socially acceptable it is to point out apparent inconsistencies.
On all three points I think it's going to vary.
I think it's legitimate and appropriate to have some venues which are limited to the people who share some common interest, allegiance or programme of work. There are some things that you want to do and discuss among "friends". I think it's appropriate that there are inner workings and social interactions of Amarrian groups that I know nothing about, for instance.
I think it's desirable to have some venues which are open to all or nearly-all. There are venues where people do mix across lines of interest and faction, and it's normal and understandable that people are sometimes surprised about the permutations of people who talk. That can lead to interesting RP... and can also lead to people being/playing puzzled, uncomfortable or dismayed. We've had the occasional person horrified that we have reds in "Pubic - EM" and are therefore consorting with the enemy, I think because they'd expected a place of refuge. One of that channel's roles, though, is diplomatic contact, so it's open to people who might need diplomatic contact (you might get booted for being a jerk, though). That doesn't necessarily make it a cosy space to chat, but there are other places for that.
From the other side of things, Ulf stopped going to The Last Gate because hanging out with pirates and slavers wasn't working for him. That's fine, and highly consistent for him. Contrast that with the presence of a number of high-ranking EM women on The Last Gate's VIP guest list and you get some interesting questions simmering away. Semi-regularly we dust off the usual tropes and contentions about what our people who do go there are doing there. Is this hypocrisy? Diplomacy? Just the way things are because the people involved want them that way and Veto. wasn't always red to us, darnit? Just as there are "The Pure" who fly only Matari hulls and "The Wise" who use whatever tool seems best for the job, some of us will focus more on "our people" and some will focus more on "making contacts outside our people". It's a common source of solid dramatic conflict within a group.
-
There's a couple things to say at this point, I suppose.
- The point Borza's making has been pretty well-established. We've had player groups with plenty of reason to use certain elements of present-day world culture (for example, Latin and Greek words, Abrahamic religious paraphernalia, various Imperial elements from every great Empire in the West and several in the East, and more for the Amarrians, and that's just the one faction) that were mostly avoided largely because ASIDE from the time gap and the use of them as stand-ins at best, the point we all recognized was that the cultures of New Eden were human cultures.
Any of them have equal claim to any given element of present-day human culture, history, or society. Don't squirm about trying to frame an argument for how this isn't right or whatnot, not everything has to be restricted to some group or labeled as Nefantari this and Achur that and oh, this school of rationalism is from that bunch of people in Feythabolis the Angels ate up.
- The addition that occurs to me to be made to what Mata's brought to the table is simply that there should be very few reasons for any given group that wants to hold a truly public event to be looked down on for doing so in whatever venue they choose.
People can perhaps protest the guest list or the level of safety or whatever else, but it's not going to hold much water in the end. Capsuleer society has taken on enough insular qualities that it's likely enough that the chance to see one's peers will be appreciated in-character by all but the extremely reclusive. Out of character, no defense is necessary.
As a brief aside, I wonder what the ratio of extracorporate or extra-alliance friends to ones inside one's organization might be like for a given member of certain groups including Veto, IPI, EM, CVA, and former VV corps or the present Khanid alliance.
I've been lead to believe that for some of the groups listed above, the relationship between the strength of organizational culture and the number of known outsiders is an inversely proportional one. Some insight from their members would be refreshing.
-
EDIT : honestly the apparent will of some players to impose their RP on ours using excuses like it breaks their immersion, well, I am sad to hear it. Just please know that we have thought a lot about it before bringing it up. We have looked at the pros and the cons. And we believe we have found well... believable excuses to explain our open policies.
Currently in KotMC we already are having some of our RP player base agitating because they are feeling "oppressed" for dubious immersive reasons. Quoting one of the internal reactions :
As conservative as I play xxxx and as much as the character agrees with probably 70% of the crap said against us. I do have a big problem with people imposing their style of play on others. I pay just as much for a subscription as they do (probably more since I dont trade plex)
A big issue with this "You didn't arrest those badguys!" arguement is that we don't have the authority to. We're still capsuleers, we're bound by Concord's rules. We have no more right to throw all of the pirates into the keep dungeon than RSS has the right to arrest us and seize our ship if we docked in Pator...
We, and all of the other loyalists, are capsuleer organisations, and not branches of any of the empire's legitimate government. Even PIE who have had more of their fair share of public spotlight in past storylines, are nothing more than pawns in the hands of the actual policymakers of EVE. The devs and their NPCs.
Would David Cameron be welcome at a party held in Tripoli by Colonel Gadaffi?
Would the two of them laugh and joke while enjoying cocktails?
Sarkozy had several (hot) meetings with Kadaffi before the latter went mad. Though I have to admit now, I don't think he would anymore...
Anyway, counter example : the olympic games when the cold war was still active.
I distinctly recall many Western countries boycotting the 1980 Olympics in Moscow, and the Warsaw Pact countries boycotting the 1984 Los Angeles games.
And yet, only some of them, not all in the first case.
Anyway yes, I don't think the analogy works wel for the same reasons Ashar stated above : we are capsuleers, and not amarrian official entities of any sort.
-
EDIT : honestly the apparent will of some players to impose their RP on ours using excuses like it breaks their immersion, well, I am sad to hear it. Just please know that we have thought a lot about it before bringing it up. We have looked at the pros and the cons. And we believe we have found well... believable excuses to explain our open policies.
Currently in KotMC we already are having some of our RP player base agitating because they are feeling "oppressed" for dubious immersive reasons. Quoting one of the internal reactions :
As conservative as I play xxxx and as much as the character agrees with probably 70% of the crap said against us. I do have a big problem with people imposing their style of play on others. I pay just as much for a subscription as they do (probably more since I dont trade plex)
A big issue with this "You didn't arrest those badguys!" arguement is that we don't have the authority to. We're still capsuleers, we're bound by Concord's rules. We have no more right to throw all of the pirates into the keep dungeon than RSS has the right to arrest us and seize our ship if we docked in Pator...
I think that stations are governed by CONCORD laws which require free passage for capsuleers (I guess it's not unlike diplomatic immunity), so arresting people isn't a practical solution, and wouldn't be very satisfying RP for the poor buggers who had to spend a few years in a cell anyway!
But it doesn't follow that some who can't be arrested would be welcomed with open arms where ever they went.
We, and all of the other loyalists, are capsuleer organisations, and not branches of any of the empire's legitimate government. Even PIE who have had more of their fair share of public spotlight in past storylines, are nothing more than pawns in the hands of the actual policymakers of EVE. The devs and their NPCs.
Would David Cameron be welcome at a party held in Tripoli by Colonel Gadaffi?
Would the two of them laugh and joke while enjoying cocktails?
Sarkozy had several (hot) meetings with Kadaffi before the latter went mad. Though I have to admit now, I don't think he would anymore...
Anyway, counter example : the olympic games when the cold war was still active.
I distinctly recall many Western countries boycotting the 1980 Olympics in Moscow, and the Warsaw Pact countries boycotting the 1984 Los Angeles games.
And yet, only some of them, not all in the first case.
Anyway yes, I don't think the analogy works wel for the same reasons Ashar stated above : we are capsuleers, and not amarrian official entities of any sort.
It was a pretty big boycott - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Summer_Olympics_boycott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_Summer_Olympics_boycott)
Also it could be argued that as members of the militia KotMC and PIE are at least as much official entities as an Olympic team.
Some athletes went to Moscow against their government's wishes, and IIRC were accused of being unpatriotic as a result. That's not unlike what's happened here.
-
[mod]Please review the FAQ and Rules. I've left this unlocked because it seems like people are getting some useful discussion out of it, but next time it will be locked, and while the current set of moderation is being discussed, now that there has twice been moderator action, any future breaches are very likely to result in formal warnings.[/mod]
-
Oh, I am not accusing PIE of anything. You play your part as expected and it is nice.
I was more pointing out the immersive excuses stated above in this thread. I was also pointing out some of the things that were brought up on the IGS, telling us to arrest the hostiles, etc. In the latter case, that's ok because it is IC and we can argue IC against that.
-
- The addition that occurs to me to be made to what Mata's brought to the table is simply that there should be very few reasons for any given group that wants to hold a truly public event to be looked down on for doing so in whatever venue they choose.
That does rather seem to be assuming your conclusion there Ashar.
I think there can be many IC reasons to criticise a "truely open" event. Some of them were used for the KotMC event. Some people will think they're valid IC, and others won't. Some people will think they're valid OOC and others won't.
Telling people that there "should be" few reasons for criticism does rather come across as trying to tell people how they should be RPing.
-
And as a continuation of Ulf's post, if it's a viable argument to say 'there should be very few reasons for a group holding a truly open event to be looked down upon, it's an equally viable argument to say 'there are a plethora of reasons to look down upon someone holding a truly open event'. There's just as much to support that side of things as the other.
Having read all of this a few times now, I've come to the conclusion that I've pretty much learned nothing new and seen very little to change my views on the matter. The largest apparent reason for these inclusions of mortal enemies in huggly cuddly RP seems to be convenience and metagaming, as far as I can tell at least. There's no real consequences for choosing to align yourself with factions that are fairly universally reviled and no real support in the community for having to contend with the repercussions of such choices.
It's all a bit disappointing, ultimately, as for me at least it's immersion breaking to a rather large degree. Of course, this is my own problem and not something the community at large has any reason to care about, but it's lowering the desire to even bother much.
-
Miz, it could also be that you just see a vocal minority. ;) After all, the sorts of folks who don't want to cuddle with their enemies might very well choose to avoid sites like Backstage... ;)
-
Let's put it this way, I'd prefer the opportunity to have a positive, quality interaction with an adversary that gives me a chance to develop my character, rather than simply ignoring them entirely for the sake of 'roleplay purity'. Obviously, that depends on who my enemies are and in what way they challenge me, and that can vary from player to player.
-
There's no real consequences for choosing to align yourself with factions that are fairly universally reviled and no real support in the community for having to contend with the repercussions of such choices.
Who spoke about aligning with faction that are fairly universally reviled ? I think there is a big misunderstanding somewhere. :eek:
Could also define huggly/cuddly RP too ?
-
There's no real consequences for choosing to align yourself with factions that are fairly universally reviled and no real support in the community for having to contend with the repercussions of such choices.
Who spoke about aligning with faction that are fairly universally reviled ? I think there is a big misunderstanding somewhere. :eek:
Could also define huggly/cuddly RP too ?
Did anyone mention how shittily hard it can be to recruit to the 'reviled' factions? :P
-
Well, if there's a positive development that has come from all of this, its that we seem to have quite certainly dispelled the myth that Gal/Cal RP has a greater capacity for interesting diversity and internal conflicts :9.
-
To me it boils down entirely to who I wish to interact to enhance my enjoyment of the game and my character's life. If the character is interesting to me in an ooc perspective I'll definitely not restrict my interactions with him / her because of ic supposed purity.
This said, I do run a line of rp where Elitism is highlighted which surprisingly works well because it matches the definition above, generally the social interactions that Revan has are the characters which I ooc find interesting to interact with.
As per the fact of being ic enemies or friends or whatever else, it's the least important and restriction because of such things do result in loss of very interesting role play.
A good example of that could be the Empire channels years back in the golden times when it was totally ic and wonderful discussions, debates and even events and wars would rise with enemies and friends alike in a single venue without any tainted prejudice.
Also I can see this at the ic venue that I run in game the Midnight Opera. I operate my channels always on blocked mode and invite only basis which automatically ensures that I keep the level of interaction I seek. Surprisingly enough most of the guests lists are always filled with at least 50% of capsuleers whose alignment are negative towards Sani Sabik, a good bit as well comprises of capsuleers of null sec entities many would frown upon and obviously many mercenaries of all paths of life.
Sounds like a good blend for a disaster but in fact this very blend has made some of the most interesting role play interactions and situations rising with space consequence and that makes the game and role playing a pleasing experience to all involved.
And ultimately that's what everyone is seeking, in their own ways.
-
TLDR since I ramble. I don't see anything wrong with our version of detente and having enemies at the same parties, espically open events. I don't think anyone is getting a "free ride" OOC, or rather everyone is. I'm (IC) anti-slavery and anti-pirate, but I've gone to The Last Gate and I know other people who are anti-pirate have as well. I've seen Gallente and Minmatar in Amarrian and Caldari hangouts, even during the war, and the opposite of course. So, if someone has a problem, just make it IC and sit back and watch the fireworks. Seriphyn is no different from the hard liners in every other faction who shout death to <INSERT NAME HERE>. The rest of us shrug and nod, and get back to pumping our dates for information. Reasons below.
I don't think I've seen anyone in this topic make this point yet, so I'll spit it out. I think people are looking at this too much like we would in real life. If we go to a party, we'd be upset if <insert RL enemy group here> also showed up, espically if they had tried to kill us before. But EvE isn't real life, and our characters are not who we are.
When I started getting into RP, ICly I did stick to people mostly in my faction/allignment because why would I pall around with my enemy? Then ICly, a fellow pilot (Takitoo if anyone else knows her), pointed out that because we were capsullers the rules are different for us. We travel around, never dying, never being in a place that wouldn't kill us if we tried anything, and we don't have any real need to fear being with our enemies. CONCORD or something similar is always there watching us and everyone else, so we smile and nod at our enemies, maybe even dance and wine and dine them. She said it better (this was a few years ago), but hopefully I get to point across.
Or think of it like this. Its also like the cold war with the US and Russia. the US didn't nuke Russia because Russia would nuke the US right back. I don't walk into PIE headquarters and set off a bomb on their clones, or hire someone to do it becuase (IC) that would be the end of it. PIE would find out what happened, and do the same to me, and maybe EM too, just because. And EM hits back and includes a few more, and so on and we all die. So we fight our wars through the "proxies" of our ships and clones, and like the US and Russia we trade insults and seduce each other and go to the same parties to spy or maybe just to have a good time.
-
Or think of it like this. Its also like the cold war with the US and Russia. the US didn't nuke Russia because Russia would nuke the US right back. I don't walk into PIE headquarters and set off a bomb on their clones, or hire someone to do it becuase (IC) that would be the end of it. PIE would find out what happened, and do the same to me, and maybe EM too, just because. And EM hits back and includes a few more, and so on and we all die. So we fight our wars through the "proxies" of our ships and clones, and like the US and Russia we trade insults and seduce each other and go to the same parties to spy or maybe just to have a good time.
I can’t say I ever thought of it from that perspective. I suppose it makes sense – normally we don’t try to kill the other side’s capsuleers out of some sort of professional courtesy or the fact that killing capsuleers is 'just not done', but the possibility of retaliation is an interesting take on it as well. I’m not going to try and permanently end my enemies’ careers because they might send people to do the same to me.
Hmm… I suppose that gives me a slightly better IC explanation for sitting down with people I think the cluster would be better off without and not making any effort to make it so. Besides just saying “I didn’t feel like killing him/her/it this time.”
-
Well, one could also say the professional courtest and the just not done aspect can evolve from something like mutually assured destruction. The handshake of today exists because two warriors wanted to show they were not carring weapons. But either way, gald to add something worthwhile.
-
One comment I'd like to make here (and its an entirely personal preference non-binding on anyone) is that I consider any kind of social gathering that happens in channels without the participants actually being at the same station/location to be virtual. I feel virtual meetings don't really involve elements of physical risk and proximity that actual meetings would and so it makes sense to me that laws of association and permission would be loose.
I think one of the huge unwritten benefits to RP in eve that incarna will bring will be the neccessity for people to actually get together to be in the flesh together in the station bars with all that entails for logistics/conflict and general excitement in space outside.
On the general point that (I think) Ashar is making here.
Yes, its a bit short sighted on an ooc level to adopt utterly rigid rules of non-interaction to the detriment of actually finding other players to interact with (even players of characters in "enemy organizations") - with RP being a something of a sub-community (of eve) already its important to not to subdivide and subdivide into tiny little cliques.
Still, ultimately anyone who makes a channel/bar/location or whatever can decide their own criteria for allowing and inviting people.
Eve is big enough for most preferences.
-
Jade makes an interesting point about VR and Incarna.
Keep in mind though, since Incarna won't have the ability to 'VR' yourself to a big get-together, it will be the end of these meet-ups.
People come now because they are convenient to do so. There will still be a few hardcores who make the trip, but you'll see guest-lists of 40 translate to 7 or 8 attendees very quickly.
-
Keep in mind though, since Incarna won't have the ability to 'VR' yourself to a big get-together, it will be the end of these meet-ups.
I'd assumed that the VR stuff would continue as it is now: in chat channels, with textual descriptions, emotes, and dinosaurs like us.
I assume we will still have chat channels... ? /me imagines Local and Fleet as Incarna venues. I assume we will still have chat channels.
People come now because they are convenient to do so. There will still be a few hardcores who make the trip, but you'll see guest-lists of 40 translate to 7 or 8 attendees very quickly.
And, I think, more segregation by location. I wouldn't go to Goinard just for a drink, and without the ability to holo in or monitor the feed to see who's around I'd be unlikely to make the journey. That's likely to see the local venues get more use, which for me means hanging out with my alliance more, and with interesting outlanders less.
-
Well thats an idea I have had for a while now but I think we should really ask CCP to enable VR in Incarna, meaning we could connect ourselves to another station in holo (with some restrictions, or whatever is needed), much like we already do in RP channels.
-
We'll still have chat channels in Incarna, though the existence of "actual IC physical venues" may drop their popularity. It doesn't have to be a killer blow, though. It may be that Incarna interaction isn't fluid enough for some RPers, anyway. No way to lean this way, lean that way, gesture there, etc. That said, it works for lots of people in other MMOs.
Though there's a lot to be said for coming on location via holo and being able to attend various meetings quite casually, I still like what Incarna (potentially) does to RP. Just like Eve PvP is pretty hardcore, Incarna will do the same for RP. You want to get over there and RP? You gotta haul ass and potentially brave the dangers of getting into the target location. Outlaws will have to risk podding to get to high-sec locations. Yes, all of it will very likely lessen participation in random events, but just as long distances to travel for trade created trade hubs, RP hubs will spawn. Jump clones will allow quick attendance in many cases. In three years time, we'll be arguing about whether the RP hubs are destroying the RP community as usual.
-
Well thats an idea I have had for a while now but I think we should really ask CCP to enable VR in Incarna...
It's already been asked several times.
-
We'll still have chat channels in Incarna, though the existence of "actual IC physical venues" may drop their popularity. It doesn't have to be a killer blow, though. It may be that Incarna interaction isn't fluid enough for some RPers, anyway. No way to lean this way, lean that way, gesture there, etc. That said, it works for lots of people in other MMOs.
Though there's a lot to be said for coming on location via holo and being able to attend various meetings quite casually, I still like what Incarna (potentially) does to RP. Just like Eve PvP is pretty hardcore, Incarna will do the same for RP. You want to get over there and RP? You gotta haul ass and potentially brave the dangers of getting into the target location. Outlaws will have to risk podding to get to high-sec locations. Yes, all of it will very likely lessen participation in random events, but just as long distances to travel for trade created trade hubs, RP hubs will spawn. Jump clones will allow quick attendance in many cases. In three years time, we'll be arguing about whether the RP hubs are destroying the RP community as usual.
Incarna may well hurt "bar" RP, but most of the set-piece events (such as the various cermonies in Amarr or the recent CVA inauguration) that I've been involved in have seen most of the attendees travel to the venue
-
Well thats an idea I have had for a while now but I think we should really ask CCP to enable VR in Incarna...
It's already been asked several times.
Good to know.
-
Hm, this "Having your cake and eating it" thing re: Sansha RPers might just be at "crisis levels".
Are there any bars that actually have Sansha characters banned?
-
I have to say its convenient having a pro-Sansha character with absolutely no interest lounging around in a bar. It makes the possibility of being banned a non-issue for me. :P
-
Are there any bars that actually have Sansha characters banned?
Public, advertised bars? I don't know.
Private ones? There are bars where they would not be welcome, and would most likely be banned if they showed up.
-
Keep this up and I'll start going off about the tavern trope in RPGs. ;)
-
Keep this up and I'll start going off about the tavern trope in RPGs. ;)
This Tavern Trope intrigues me, tell me more.
-
Are there any bars that actually have Sansha characters banned?
Public, advertised bars? I don't know.
Private ones? There are bars where they would not be welcome, and would most likely be banned if they showed up.
Paradise Found is not a bar, but Sanshas are either banned from there already, or will be banned when spotted. No Sanshas in an amarrian club ;)
-
It goes back to the question of immersion and RP consequences first brought up by Mizhara.
As roleplaying a Federation officer, I accept all the RP consequences that come from that. He will be seen as an enemy by the Caldari, either seen as another Gallentean heathen by Amarrians (or possibly cooly welcomed, ie. Fed/Empire relations). From the Minmatar, despite their benchmark alliance, he may be seen as another self-important Gallentean.
Walking into "neutral" bars, I and himself are both prepared to receive flak. That is the consequences of his chosen career path (well, "chosen" is arguable).
However, we've got Sansha characters waltzing around everywhere, befriending supposedly anti-Nation people, partying in bars, drinking with them, and generally being more socially accepted.
Whaaat? I'm fine with mine and Seri's position, but having the black faction of the cluster be welcomed moreso than a Gallentean is a massive :bash:
-
Whaaat? I'm fine with mine and Seri's position, but having the black faction of the cluster be welcomed moreso than a Gallentean is a massive :bash:
That assumes all characters share your/ your character's opinions about the politics of the Cluster and the various factions.
-
True. I'm going to go out on a limb and theorize that perhaps people don't want themselves or their characters to appear as unlikable.
OOC immersion issues aside, IC, it's a different matter. There is no reason for Seri to tolerate "fraternization", and there's plenty of reasons to make a fuss about it.
-
Mh, yes. There's presumably reasons for the (relative) popularity of the Sansha-affiliated characters. If it annoys you, trying to find them and dissecting them will probably be more constructive than just plain expressing frustration. It takes a lot of schwung to change people's minds by sheer force of will, otherwise.
-
To be fair, Seriphyn does make sense. As far as PF and CCPs portrayal of things go, the way the Nation supporters are more welcomed and coddled all over the cluster than others fly straight in the face of what CCP has provided.
It's back to convenience, I feel. It's just convenient to completely disregard realism and invent far-fetched reasons for not having anyone pay the price/face the consequences of their actions. It's honestly very sad to see this go this way, because this philosophy makes almost all RP gravitate into tiny private areas where people can avoid rubbing shoulders with deadly enemies or into a very few large public venues where everyone rubs shoulders with everyone without even a hint of the inter-faction hostility at play.
Those who don't feel like hammering at the fourth wall with a sledgehammer just to get RP - any RP, with anyone or anything, no questions asked - thus get pretty much blocked from getting any RP since it's just easier to disregard realism and consequences.
I'm wholly convinced that there'd be a far more vibrant and wide-spread RP, across more themes and more stories, with more meaningful interaction if this policy of 'we don't care about what you've done, just come play in our channels!' wasn't there. It'd mean people would create more RP elsewhere, instead of just hitching onto the same old drinkin' in the same old bars. More RP locations, and the choices between some shoulder-rubbing and some more faction specific RP without the automatic intrusion of deadly enemies in it.
There's a tangent here about how this philosophy also kills off some of the less neutral RP by creating these black holes where no non-neutral RP can escape from, but that's another topic altogether.
-
When WoD releases, folks who play Sabbat and those who play Sansha in EVE will have a great deal to teach one another.
-
To be fair, Seriphyn does make sense. As far as PF and CCPs portrayal of things go, the way the Nation supporters are more welcomed and coddled all over the cluster than others fly straight in the face of what CCP has provided.
It's back to convenience, I feel. It's just convenient to completely disregard realism and invent far-fetched reasons for not having anyone pay the price/face the consequences of their actions. It's honestly very sad to see this go this way, because this philosophy makes almost all RP gravitate into tiny private areas where people can avoid rubbing shoulders with deadly enemies or into a very few large public venues where everyone rubs shoulders with everyone without even a hint of the inter-faction hostility at play.
Those who don't feel like hammering at the fourth wall with a sledgehammer just to get RP - any RP, with anyone or anything, no questions asked - thus get pretty much blocked from getting any RP since it's just easier to disregard realism and consequences.
I'm wholly convinced that there'd be a far more vibrant and wide-spread RP, across more themes and more stories, with more meaningful interaction if this policy of 'we don't care about what you've done, just come play in our channels!' wasn't there. It'd mean people would create more RP elsewhere, instead of just hitching onto the same old drinkin' in the same old bars. More RP locations, and the choices between some shoulder-rubbing and some more faction specific RP without the automatic intrusion of deadly enemies in it.
There's a tangent here about how this philosophy also kills off some of the less neutral RP by creating these black holes where no non-neutral RP can escape from, but that's another topic altogether.
Ok, so from what I understand here, you think that liberal RPs are happily cuddling with sansha loyalists just because they are allowed to walk in their public RP locations ?
-
Ok, so from what I understand here, you think that liberal RPs are happily cuddling with sansha loyalists just because they are allowed to walk in their public RP locations ?
I'm not Miz, but I think there are people who want RP (any RP) badly enough that they have their characters be very tolerant of opposing factions so they don't have to miss out on RP with people who some people might expect they would normally not talk to. I'm Ok with that, I don't want to play that way, but their way is not wrong.
What annoys me is people saying that I am damaging the RP community by not wanting to do social RP with people from opposing factions.
-
Ok, so from what I understand here, you think that liberal RPs are happily cuddling with sansha loyalists just because they are allowed to walk in their public RP locations ?
I'm not Miz, but I think there are people who want RP (any RP) badly enough that they have their characters be very tolerant of opposing factions so they don't have to miss out on RP with people who some people might expect they would normally not talk to. I'm Ok with that, I don't want to play that way, but their way is not wrong.
What annoys me is people saying that I am damaging the RP community by not wanting to do social RP with people from opposing factions.
Mostly this.
-
I'm not Miz, but I think there are people who want RP (any RP) badly enough that they have their characters be very tolerant of opposing factions so they don't have to miss out on RP with people who some people might expect they would normally not talk to. I'm Ok with that, I don't want to play that way, but their way is not wrong.
What annoys me is people saying that I am damaging the RP community by not wanting to do social RP with people from opposing factions.
We walk between Mizhara on one side and Ashar on the other...
-
I see. Well, I have a character that thinks she is above most of the factions (even if she works inside of one), so she will not refuse any talk with opposite factions. Anyway, speaking with minmatars openly when being an amarr is nothing weird for liberals, but for Sansha like hostile entities, I can see the point. Anyway, she will never look for a talk by herself, or only if she has enough curiosity for something specific.
And that does not mean she will like them more, at the contrary.
Of course I don't know which characters you have in mind but I think you are going a little too fast in accusations, unless you have already taken the time to speak with the involved players to understand what are their reasons, and if they are worth it.
Ok, so from what I understand here, you think that liberal RPs are happily cuddling with sansha loyalists just because they are allowed to walk in their public RP locations ?
I'm not Miz, but I think there are people who want RP (any RP) badly enough that they have their characters be very tolerant of opposing factions so they don't have to miss out on RP with people who some people might expect they would normally not talk to. I'm Ok with that, I don't want to play that way, but their way is not wrong.
What annoys me is people saying that I am damaging the RP community by not wanting to do social RP with people from opposing factions.
Mostly this.
Mostly, but not all of it ?
-
No, it doesn't cover all of it, but close enough.