Backstage - OOC Forums
EVE-Online RP Discussion and Resources => EVE OOC Summit => Topic started by: Lillith Blackheart on 21 Apr 2010, 16:59
-
Thought experiment:
The best roleplayers in EVE are the average player that would not call themselves a roleplayer. The scammers, the Nullsec Controllers like BoB and the Goons (hell, especially the Goons), -A- and the like.
Discuss.
-
Thats the garreck theorem, yes, well done.
I personally preferr my RP with a bit more fluff and the odd spice in it though - as long as it doesn't become a drama fest. Rescuing people from the jovian ambassador every second tuesday gets boring so very quickly its not even funny anymore.
This jovian ambassador type is quite the pervert, abducting and raping people every second week... thats just sick!
-
Assuming (like I do) that the best RP gets reflected somehow in game actions, then yeah.
I understand that many RPers take a different tack, though.
-
Assuming (like I do) that the best RP gets reflected somehow in game actions, then yeah.
I understand that many RPers take a different tack, though.
I see we agree on this matter.
RP is nothing without some fireworks to go by it :)
-
At least, I like my RP and my gameplay to align. I don't mind the occasional IC chat-type RP, and I know lots of awesome people who primarily focus on that. It's just not my bag, that's all. :)
-
I am actually speaking more about not just the ingame actions (i.e. pewpewpew), but their activities as well.
Take for example random Mission Runner 8,472. He talks ingame spamming nonsense. He freaks out and rages over salvage ninjas, but everything he is doing is in character (even though unbeknownst to him).
Then take, for a different example, random Self-Professed Roleplayer 1,226. In his corporate channel he is "out of character", in three other channels he is "out of character". In the Summit and in "RP" channels, he is "in character". Some of the actions his characters does are "out of character" (for instance running missions).
Who is the better roleplayer?
On the other topic of backing up RP in game with the pew, and also the pew, and perchance some pew:
I have no qualms with people who don't. However I do have a direct problem with people that make exorbitant claims and then have no way of backing them up. If your bio says you're a cold-blooded killer and an elite soldier and you've been around for exactly 1 day and your military career as a pod pilot is entirely fabricated, then I will immediately think you're an assjockey. If, however, you're an arrogant loud-mouth that talks a big game, but then gets his ass kicked, that can be entirely in character and I have no problem with that. It's when you have to fabricate accomplishment that I think that you are treading into poor storytelling.
Edit: OMFG I will spell exorbitant right I SWEAR TO GOD!
-
I've been in a non-rp 0.0 alliance.
They really aren't roleplaying.
The big one for me; most people have multiple characters, and they co-ordinate and act as one, and are treated as a unitary being by the rest of the alliance as far as security, assets and responsibility.
When someone buys a character and sells an old character, but is still considered to have never left the alliance, that's not RP.
When attack times are chosen because the targets are Russians, and won't be awake at a particular time, that's not RP.
When corp chat is full of talk about little Luke and how he scored 2 goals in his football game on the weekend, and how proud his dad is about it, then thats not RP.
Of course, I look sideways at corps that have OOC corp chat, but that's probably because EM has spoiled me.
-
TL;DR version: I disagree with this entirely.
I've been in a non-rp 0.0 alliance.
They really aren't roleplaying.
Strongly disagree. By definition of the term they are. They are in game playing a role. They are roleplaying. (This is a key part of what this thought experiment is bringing up, mind)
The big one for me; most people have multiple characters, and they co-ordinate and act as one, and are treated as a unitary being by the rest of the alliance as far as security, assets and responsibility.
Fair, however my girlfriend and I are treated as a unitary being by many of our friends.
When someone buys a character and sells an old character, but is still considered to have never left the alliance, that's not RP.
Why not? Did they stop playing a role?
When attack times are chosen because the targets are Russians, and won't be awake at a particular time, that's not RP.
Nonsense. That is a primary war strategy irl. Attack before dawn. This is one of the main tenets of Sun Tzu. This is entirely RP. You know that your target's defenders will be asleep - therefore that is when you strike. Many mideval wars were conducted prior to dawn for exactly that reason. That is entirely an in character action -- even though they may not be aware of it.
When corp chat is full of talk about little Luke and how he scored 2 goals in his football game on the weekend, and how proud his dad is about it, then thats not RP.
And why is that different from, for instance, Marisse Velahar talking about Arctarus (i bastardized their names, sorry), or a character talking about their kind and how proud they are?
Of course, I look sideways at corps that have OOC corp chat, but that's probably because EM has spoiled me.
I don't mind it, I've been in both types, though I tend to make concessions.
-
Strongly disagree. By definition of the term they are. They are in game playing a role. They are roleplaying. (This is a key part of what this thought experiment is bringing up, mind)
I don't think they're roleplaying any more than someone playing Counterstrike is roleplaying a soldier/terrorist. They're playing it like a strategy/tactics game, not pretending to be another person, and that lack of even attempting that is what for me defines what they do as "not RP".
They are playing themselves playing a game, I do not think they do not have different motivations than the player. they do not do things because "That's what a pilot would do" - they do things because that's what the gamer sitting in their computer room would do.
When someone buys a character and sells an old character, but is still considered to have never left the alliance, that's not RP.
Why not? Did they stop playing a role?
I have to ask at this point; What would count as not RP in Eve for you? If you've expanded the term to encompass anything that people do in Eve, you've sort of removed much of the usefulness of the term from my point of view.
-
Roleplaying is love. Therefore! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsCXZczTQXo)
-
I don't think they're roleplaying any more than someone playing Counterstrike is roleplaying a soldier/terrorist. They're playing it like a strategy/tactics game, not pretending to be another person, and that lack of even attempting that is what for me defines what they do as "not RP".
They are playing themselves playing a game, I do not think they do not have different motivations than the player. they do not do things because "That's what a pilot would do" - they do things because that's what the gamer sitting in their computer room would do.
Author Insertion Fantasy Persona. Richard Garriot does it all the time, it's still playing a role. :)
I have to ask at this point; What would count as not RP in Eve for you? If you've expanded the term to encompass anything that people do in Eve, you've sort of removed much of the usefulness of the term from my point of view.
But this is where we start to get into the meat of it. What is Roleplaying?
I was talking with someone (while I didn't play Eve mind) at one point, and I mentioned something in the RP community that was going on derisively, and he said "You know, you could take any BoB pilot out of a hat you want, and I guarantee you he's roleplaying more effectively than most of the roleplayers".
Obviously my initial reflex was, "...what the fuck?" but before I said anything I thought about it for a minute, and he's right.
To wit:
Everyone is roleplaying, but not everyone is a Roleplayer.
The people who are best at roleplaying are generally not Roleplayers.
Discuss.
-
Everyone is roleplaying, but not everyone is a Roleplayer.
The people who are best at roleplaying are generally not Roleplayers.
Discuss.
If you are able to forget you are playing a role while you are within your role, yes, you can roleplay more effectively.
That is why a BoB pilot can be a better role-player.
Also, because the role that the BoB pilot plays doesn't match the role he should play as determined by the EvE Fiction (that of a New Eden pod pilot, and not that of a Earth gamer in a simulated space enviroment), his improved role-play can often collide with what we think of as RP-ers, those people who try to match their characters perceptions consciously to what they think of the fantasy world would be.
A BoB roleplayer would maintain that there are no actual people dying when he shoots pirate ships in belts where as a 'true' RP-er would. The BoB player would be right, the 'true' RP-er not. The BoB player would play his role better, he would not be making things up that aren't really there. His role as a pilot of a spaceship is there, but not the dying NPCs.
-
Strongly disagree. By definition of the term they are. They are in game playing a role. They are roleplaying. (This is a key part of what this thought experiment is bringing up, mind)
I find fault with this logic.
In such a discussion, the definition is fluid unless explicitly agreed upon. The whole point of this discussion is to discuss and hopefully arrive at a definition, is it not?
Also, taking the concrete approach that 'roleplaying' must mean 'playing a role' is almost an insult to language and undermines the point of discussion. If it were so simple, the discussion would not be necessary.
I think we both agree that words adopt the meanings that we attach to them. More and more frequently, the etymology is becoming mere artifact. It is easy to accept false cognates, much like what happens with dilettantes trying to improve their French (http://french.about.com/od/vocabulary/a/fauxamis-c_2.htm). For instance, where someone thinks 'sensible' in English is interchangeable with 'sensible' in French, whereas in truth it means 'sensitive'..
So, to summarise, roleplaying does not necessarily mean playing a role, and stretching the definition to mean whatever we like is fine so long as enough people agrees and start putting it into use 8)
-
Roleplaying is cybersex. Duh.
I put on my robe and wizard hat.
-
You can call just about any straightforward playing of the game roleplaying in a fundamental sense, if you wish. However, that is almost outright avoiding the point. Those people who appear in commercials are actors, but I can't say I really relate well with many of the things they are portrayed doing. The conversations and actions that take place are so heavily dependent on a framework of trying to sell something, that it can't be taken seriously beyond a certain point. Contrast that with a deeply moving and gritty drama filled with some of the bitter realities of life we don't trot out in everyday conversation, but certainly resonates in us.
I tend to view the actions of those who aren't deliberately considering narrative or character motives as entities apart from themselves as more background or setting, not entirely divorced from the RP from my perspective, but not primary material either. Its as real as instability in the Middle East and fluctuations in world currency markets and just as distant in comparison to our constant need to secure our own needs and maintain the friendships and associations we have. Obviously the capsuleer has a bit more socio-economic mobility and potential political influence than most of us, but the orientation of your own personal "inner circle" being more central to you than the rises and falls of what comes to seem after a while like generic entities out on the periphery of your experience.
-
"Lol, liek i totally pwnzd my nub brother wile racing cars down the hood last night LOL he was liek eating my rubber and burning my dust LOL So wut u been doing this weekend?"
"Watching teh news. Icland is blowing up LOL!!!!"
"Yeh, CCP iz fucked OLOL"
vs
"Ergh. Spent the weekend trying to chase down some wartargets, while I kept being pestered by my family. Had to show my brother that he's still inferior to me when it comes to racing. How about you?"
"Eh, relaxing. Watching the news about (insert in-game news here)."
"Yeah, (insert alliance here) are screwed. Heh."
Simply put: They're not roleplayers. They're themselves, playing a game. They're not IC, they're not being a character, they're not roleplayers by ANY definition of the word. You can sugarcoat it however the hell you want, but they're not playing a role. They're playing a game. There's a major difference there.
I'm a bit of an elitist jerk when it comes to roleplaying, but there's some self-evident truths that just can't be avoided. The character you play isn't you. It's a role, which you 'act'. You create a separate personality and character (sure, base it on yourself if you want to be boring, but it's still a separate personality and character) with which you interact with a universe and other characters that's also separate from the real world.
That guy who faffs about playing a game won't think twice talking about the latest sports event somewhere in real life. He'll spend an hour bragging about the cheerleader he got on her back last night. The next week, he'll complain about the chlamydia he got. All separate from the in-game universe. That's not roleplaying. It's being himself, playing a game.
It's all valid. Eve Online is a game, and people play it as such. But please, PLEASE stop trying to justify horrible roleplaying by saying "Oh, everything in this game is roleplaying, kinda.". It's simply not true. It's playing a game, or playing a role while playing the game. Those two have similarities and overlap, but they're still extremely distinct and separate things.
/thread
-
/thread
Not quite ;)
-
Aww...
-
/thread
:golf clap:
-
I think what's more relevant to all this is our interpretation of players who aren't consciously acting. Alliances and mission runners may not give a damn about roleplay, but their actions are no less relevant to the world you decide to immerse yourself in.
People ask me where I'm from and ill say "Pellile". Then they ask if that's in France and I reply its not far. My immersion level is personal it doesn't rely on anyone else to play a part to interact.
-
I think what's more relevant to all this is our interpretation of players who aren't consciously acting. Alliances and mission runners may not give a damn about roleplay, but their actions are no less relevant to the world you decide to immerse yourself in.
People ask me where I'm from and ill say "Pellile". Then they ask if that's in France and I reply its not far. My immersion level is personal it doesn't rely on anyone else to play a part to interact.
Well-put, Kaleigh.
-
Everyone plays a role when they decide to play a video game. Some just take it moar srsly than otherz.
-
Alternatively, given that most people don't immerse themselves in the game universe, and most of those who claim to do at some point or other feel forced to over-rationalize or even ignore game mechanics and the dialogue or even actions of the "non-roleplayers" for the sake of immersion, it can be argued that nobody roleplays in EVE.
All that's achieved by extending the label of "roleplayer" to everyone is that the word becomes useless. Then we have to find new words to describe the kind of players who fit into the implicit operational definition we still retain of the now-defunct term, such as "immersioneer". Then it can in turn be argued that everybody who plays the game immerses themselves in it to some degree (or else there'd be no reason to keep playing).
And so on and so forth, ad nauseatum, until the fog of essentialism lies so thick that there are no words left to describe "people like us". And when we finally come to the conclusion that there's no such things as "people like us" (or "people unlike us", depending), the people who are supposedly not so unlike us after all will still be sitting around making fun of "roleplayers".
/sip.
-
You can call just about any straightforward playing of the game roleplaying in a fundamental sense, if you wish. However, that is almost outright avoiding the point. Those people who appear in commercials are actors, but I can't say I really relate well with many of the things they are portrayed doing. The conversations and actions that take place are so heavily dependent on a framework of trying to sell something, that it can't be taken seriously beyond a certain point. Contrast that with a deeply moving and gritty drama filled with some of the bitter realities of life we don't trot out in everyday conversation, but certainly resonates in us.
I tend to view the actions of those who aren't deliberately considering narrative or character motives as entities apart from themselves as more background or setting, not entirely divorced from the RP from my perspective, but not primary material either. Its as real as instability in the Middle East and fluctuations in world currency markets and just as distant in comparison to our constant need to secure our own needs and maintain the friendships and associations we have. Obviously the capsuleer has a bit more socio-economic mobility and potential political influence than most of us, but the orientation of your own personal "inner circle" being more central to you than the rises and falls of what comes to seem after a while like generic entities out on the periphery of your experience.
So then what you are saying is that you decide on whether or not someone else is roleplaying based on your ability to suspend disbelief according to their actions?
Simply put: They're not roleplayers
...this does not mean they're not roleplaying.
They're not IC, they're not being a character, they're not roleplayers by ANY definition of the word. You can sugarcoat it however the hell you want, but they're not playing a role. They're playing a game. There's a major difference there.
Given that the core of the game is that it's a role-playing game I would suggest your "major difference" is first and foremost not anywhere near as "major" as you imply, and secondly purely semantics based on personal preference and of course, in your words:
I'm a bit of an elitist jerk when it comes to roleplaying
XD
there's some self-evident truths that just can't be avoided
I think the FAQ even has something in it about "self-evident" and "obvious" things, but to paraphrase: Things you think of as "self-evident" aren't.
The character you play isn't you. It's a role, which you 'act'. You create a separate personality and character (sure, base it on yourself if you want to be boring, but it's still a separate personality and character) with which you interact with a universe and other characters that's also separate from the real world.
Except the role can be you. You may consider it boring, which is fine and dandy, but there is nothing wrong with playing a role of yourself. This happens all the time. Was John Malkovich not acting in Being John Malkovich simply because he played himself?
That guy who faffs about playing a game won't think twice talking about the latest sports event somewhere in real life. He'll spend an hour bragging about the cheerleader he got on her back last night. The next week, he'll complain about the chlamydia he got. All separate from the in-game universe. That's not roleplaying. It's being himself, playing a game
I fail to see the problem with any of those things being taken as IC when they say them, in which case again -- still seems a pretty well-played role.
But please, PLEASE stop trying to justify horrible roleplaying by saying "Oh, everything in this game is roleplaying, kinda.". It's simply not true. It's playing a game, or playing a role while playing the game. Those two have similarities and overlap, but they're still extremely distinct and separate things.
I disagree on the basis that this is a semantic argument.
Furthermore I find it absolutely fascinating that you attempted in the initial post with your examples to discredit the opposing viewpoint by typing everything with improper grammar and spelling for the opposing view and perfect grammar and spelling for the view you were trying to present. There is a direct fallacy involved in that, as there are numerous roleplayers (including some that are considered focal points) that can't spell or type to save their own asses and there are absolute multitudes of those that would not call themselves roleplayers whose vocabulary, grammar, and spelling would put everyone and anyone on this forum to shame.
Bad form.
I think what's more relevant to all this is our interpretation of players who aren't consciously acting. Alliances and mission runners may not give a damn about roleplay, but their actions are no less relevant to the world you decide to immerse yourself in.
People ask me where I'm from and ill say "Pellile". Then they ask if that's in France and I reply its not far. My immersion level is personal it doesn't rely on anyone else to play a part to interact.
...someone understands the point of this little thought experiment, methinks.
Alternatively, given that most people don't immerse themselves in the game universe, and most of those who claim to do at some point or other feel forced to over-rationalize or even ignore game mechanics and the dialogue or even actions of the "non-roleplayers" for the sake of immersion, it can be argued that nobody roleplays in EVE.
All that's achieved by extending the label of "roleplayer" to everyone is that the word becomes useless.
I was with you right up to this point. Then you said this:
Then we have to find new words to describe the kind of players who fit into the implicit operational definition we still retain of the now-defunct term, such as "immersioneer".
...why do we "have to"?
-
I avoided this thread all weekend. It set off my "spidey senses" as one of those threads that would not resolve anything and would essentially be two sides stating, restating, counterstating, etc. :bash:
I finally gave in and read it out of morbid curiosity. I was right in my first assumption.
Last I checked, games like Eve and WOW were called MMORPGs. Everyone, let's say it together: massively multiplayer online role-playing game. To play the game, you have to create an avatar. The avatar is not you. Therefore, whenever you log in to PLAY the game, you assume the ROLE of someone who is not you. If you play Eve, you are a roleplayer, end of story.
However, saying the people talking about football and Internet pron in local while meticulously planning how to exploit real-world time zones and game mechanics in their corp chat are "better" role players because they are more consistent in their actions than an immersionist who also talks OOC in some channels is questionable in my mind.
While both the immersionist and the LOLrpg player are participating in the same game, they are doing it in very different ways. One is not necessarily better than the other.
-
The "RP" in "RPG" means different things to different people, and I suggest it may not necessarily mean what those of us with varying versions of the "roleplay" playstyle want it to mean. See this article (http://scarsofwargame.com/DevBlog/?p=1140) examining the RPG-ness of Mass Effect for what I mean.
While both the immersionist and the LOLrpg player are participating in the same game, they are doing it in very different ways. One is not necessarily better than the other.
This. I'm not sure counting the number of angels that can roleplay on the bottom of a Rupture does much to enhance the actual enjoyment of the game.
-
...why do we "have to"?
Because neutralizing the term will not neutralize the subculture. It will in no way change the fact that the "people formerly known as roleplayers" perceive themselves as playing the game differently than the rest of the players. There will still be a divide between those who portray their characters as having their own distinct histories, personalities and motivations, and those who make no such pretense. This divide will continue to be acknowledged by both sides. And a nameless subculture will not remain nameless for long.
Comparatively, it is possible via similar essentialist word games to argue that nobody, or alternatively everybody, is poor. While clever word games like that may give the illusion of eliminating poverty as a phenomenon (and by extension, problem), it won't feed anyone, nor do anything to dispel friction between the haves and the have-nots.
-
Eh, personally, classifying a 'subculture' tends to lead to elitism and exclusive behavior, when roleplay should be about inclusion and fun. Personally, I've found the attitude of 'oh he's not roleplaying, but that guy is' extremely unproductive and overly judgemental.
-
It is fine to say that roleplayers need to do a better job of engaging the broader game.
But that's an argument that stands on its own; it shouldn't be made obliquely by nerfing a perfectly useful word into uselessness by extending it to every person who logs in.
And it is a useful word — consider what corporation recruitment would be like, for example, if corporations could not refer to themselves as "RP corps" or players announce that they are looking for one.
-
Role-players in tabletop games were easy to identify:
- They addressed each other's characters rather addressing the others players, usually immediately obvious through use of character name instead of player name when saying or suggesting something.
- They acted out their conversations rather then describing what their character would say.
Non role-players would shy away from taking the role of the character by speaking in their voice. They preferred to inform the DM indirectly. My characters explains X to the King etc. There used to be quite a large barrier/threshold for such players to talk directly as the character. That is what for me was the definition between a RP-er and a gamer. Gamers could play along in a tabletop game for years, but remained uncomfortable when addressed as a character, rather than as a gamer that is playing a certain type of character.
In EVE, we have no easy distinctions. Everyone addresses one another by their character names, even when OOC. Everyone acts out their conversations (and even actions). It is more difficult to notice who just wants to play the game, and who actually wants and dares to inhabit their characters.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rw8gE3lnpLQ
-
I agree that the subculture should ideally act in an inclusive manner, but I don't see the merit in trying to deny its existence altogether.
If the subculture did not exist, neither would this forum.
-
Roleplay isn't simply playing a role either; it has a purpose. Beyond being more entertaining the idea is to learn another viewpoint or insight on another perspective, which is really where the average player doesn't consciously partake in. But that's just the official definition of roleplay- obviously what it means to us individually is another matter.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rw8gE3lnpLQ
I take your Onion's meta-RP and raise you this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk2vR8w2sjc).
On a more serious note, I'd type up a long response and put it here, but I'd probably just be agreeing with a lot of what other people have said (Merd, Miz, Havo, Kaleigh, Katla in particular). No need to reinvent the wheel. :)
-
RPing is something you do consciously when playing the game. in order to roleplay, you have to consciously be "in character".
If you aren't, then you're not roleplaying. let's not needlessly complicate things beyond that point, please.
-
An important question is: How, in game, do you identify a roleplayer from someone who isnt roleplaying? I think that this is actually more difficult than what the "roleplayers" in Eve actually think.
Graanvlokkie is a little over a year old, he is my main and the only charater I have ever played in the game. I have one account, with one charater on it. During the past year I have met and interacted with various charaters but non of these charaters would know though the interactions that I am roleplaying.
My RP does not involve forcing my charaters views on others though my direct interactions or on IGS and making them aware that I am an evil underhanded person who should not be trusted and intends to lead them into the metaphorical dephs of hell. Does this mean I am not roleplaying?
My corp chat and corp public channel is only a text router and not a fancy VR interface allowing charaters to see one another, meaning that I dont use emotes because people wont see my face or hear me (unless logging into the voice comms). Does this mean im not roleplaying?
I use shorthand text in the text channels and not walls of flowery text. Does this mean im not roleplaying?
My corp mates and I chose not to engage the rest of the RP community on the IGS or on the various forums [the reason for which would merit a whole different thread*]. Does this mean im not roleplaying?
I believe that most people who have had conversations with me wouldnt catch onto the fact that im playing a charater. Does this mean im not roleplaying?
One of the reasons I love roleplaying in Eve is the extra layer of immersion in the game, and I never do things that break the immersion, such as refering to CCP, lag, logging off, downtime ect. Personally, I think this may be one way to pinpoint a roleplayer, but not necesarily.
A person in a ninja corp or low-sec pirate corp, with the ransoms and all, may not class himself as a roleplayer, may make references to immersion breaking mechanics like downtime, CCP and last nights real life sporting events, but he is still roleplaying a charater in my opinion. I dont believe that in real life he runs around stealing from helpless people and people who try to avoid conflict (carebears).
My roleplaying corp is in a fairly large (900 member) SOV holding alliance, which isnt a roleplaying alliance. Even though they do not declare themselves roleplayers, use shorthand speech on the text communication channels and often refer to immersion breaking mechanics doent mean that there isnt a lot of roleplaying going on in the alliance.
Our alliance charter makes reference to many ideals including "not being Goons" and not tolerating such sorts of behavior. This is a shared code of conduct. This, I submit, is roleplaying.
All alliance members are instructed to honor all 1V1 challenges, breaking this is punishable by death (ganking by fellow alliance members). Consequences for actions and a justice system in place to punish offenders. This, I submit, is roleplaying.
When the alliance joined the Ushra'Khan fleets in the final push to expel Paxton from Providence we were not told that we were doing this to free slaves or to punish Paxton for their actions and past misdeeds. We were told that in order to secure our pocket of space from Paxton and CVA red roaming gangs that were a common occurrence they needed to be driven out of Providence so that our space would be more easily defendable. This, I submit, is roleplaying.
What is the alliance roleplaying? They are roleplaying an independent, sovereign, space holding entity free from political ties to the High Sec factions. It has relations with its neighbors in order for all parties to mutually benefit, grow and expand in order to claim more space. It is for all purposes its own state or faction. This, I submit, is roleplaying.
Yes, there are references to immersion breaking mechanics in alliance mails, over vent during roams and in alliance chat, but when my FC says over vent during a roam that he was out all night and has a terrible hangover, how do I know he isn’t roleplaying? How do I know that’s not the character he's portraying. I’m very sure he doesn’t know I am portraying a character if I tell him I have just come back from a strip bar myself.
If you classify roleplaying as immersion in the game universe does it mean that anyone who makes reference to logging off, downtime or session counters is not roleplaying? Even though they are a hardcore ransoming pirate, a carebear ganking griefer in the pursuit of tears or a 0.0 sec fleet commander living honorably up to his alliances charter and needs of its members?
Yes, people can roleplay without declaring themselves openly as roleplayers, without engaging the roleplaying community and without elaborately stating their beliefs on IGS.
[* On a side note the recent live events have given Graanvlokkie motivation to contact some characters in game, so I have found myself interacting with some of the more "famous" RP characters.]
-
The Onion news service best news service.
I've always subscribed to the Garreck theorem, but being one of those geeks that misses 50+ page backstory sections in game manuals, I have to prefer engaging in an immersive story with intentional character development over distant and apathetic character consistency.
-
Its long read trough all posts, claim me lazy if you like. But on topic want to say what is my idea of what rp is. Its swimming into dreamlands. reference: http://www.hplovecraft.com/writings/texts/fiction/sk.asp (http://www.hplovecraft.com/writings/texts/fiction/sk.asp)
Other question is what rp is in eve.
My rp is what i do, as was stated above. Of course i enjoy communication with others and im always ic. But if im talking about game itself or planetside stuff i tend to sharply put line and fluently change to ooc.
I like to imagine what Kra thinks about this and that and do what he would think he would must do in different situations. Im not literate to write story's about what Kra has done and is thinking, i like to have easy attitude towards strict line of development. But all i rp is what i do, thats for sure.
-
When I started Eve, I had no ideas of joining the roleplaying community - wasn't even really aware that there was one. I had one or two dealings with CVA and Ushra'khan (on both sides), but beyond some vague background I created for Mortis for my own amusement and occasional semi-IC banter on a boring day waiting for the mission runners to show up, I never put much thought into it.
When I applied to Ghost Festival, I had to rethink Mortis and my large collection of alts - but not much. Personally, I think roleplaying is a matter of perspective. You either claim to be doing it or not. If you claim not to be, like most of Eve, then you're not.
I'm of the fairly whole-sale RP crowd - while I'll occasionally bend time by RPing in the Last Gate with Reppy when she's mining or something, I view pretty much all my actions as IC. My characters are specifically built around the roles I need them for, and originally all were part of an unofficial organisation run by Mortis, hence the common ties. Some have since drifted away from that, but it explains why they hang out together. I do dabble in plenty of 'extended chatroom' stuff, but if Mortis goes out and kills somebody, he's actually done it. If nothing else, it provides a useful springboard for plot arcs. During a particularly bad week where I got podded three times, for instance, Mort started getting nightmares as a result of the stress.
It's an attitude that's helped if you have the imagination to explain away game-breaking concepts and a light touch when dealing with non-RP entities. There was a thread on the GF forums where I actively set out to explain game mechanics IC; I was particularly pleased with the technobabble behind respawning asteroid belts :P
-
Here are a few basic rules for roleplaying in EVE:
1. You are obligated to invent arguments against every single thing your enemy says, even if they are stating true facts or their point makes perfect sense to your character.
2. Everyone must RP the way you think they should, otherwise their RP is wrong and you should thus inform them.
3. An IGS thread must stay on topic for the first 3 posts, after that it's fair game for derailing.
4. If you aren't creative enough to think of a way to communicate with someone IC, their RP must be wrong and you should thus inform them.
5. If your enemy has an event, accuse them of grandstanding and looking for attention.
6. If your enemy tries to enjoy eve, accuse them of trying to be relevant.
7. You should never perform a heroic action when petty bickering will suffice.
8. Whenever it suits you, you have no actual political enemies, they are just pirates.
9. Your character should never believe something if you ooc know it couldn't be true.
10. If all else fails, you didn't want that [//]insert anything here[//] anyways.
Failure to follow these simple rules will result in your character being biomassed by the RP gods.
-
Here are a few basic rules for roleplaying in EVE:
1. You are obligated to invent arguments against every single thing your enemy says, even if they are stating true facts or their point makes perfect sense to your character.
1a. Or you can have your character agree with your enemy on a single point, then proceed to argue how they could have argued that point better.
9. Your character should never believe something if you ooc know it couldn't be true.
9a. Or you must set out to convince everyone OOCly that it's true.
-
Here are a few basic rules for roleplaying in EVE:
1. You are obligated to invent arguments against every single thing your enemy says, even if they are stating true facts or their point makes perfect sense to your character.
2. Everyone must RP the way you think they should, otherwise their RP is wrong and you should thus inform them.
3. An IGS thread must stay on topic for the first 3 posts, after that it's fair game for derailing.
4. If you aren't creative enough to think of a way to communicate with someone IC, their RP must be wrong and you should thus inform them.
5. If your enemy has an event, accuse them of grandstanding and looking for attention.
6. If your enemy tries to enjoy eve, accuse them of trying to be relevant.
7. You should never perform a heroic action when petty bickering will suffice.
8. Whenever it suits you, you have no actual political enemies, they are just pirates.
9. Your character should never believe something if you ooc know it couldn't be true.
10. If all else fails, you didn't want that [//]insert anything here[//] anyways.
Failure to follow these simple rules will result in your character being biomassed by the RP gods.
I LOLed. :D
-
Mind if I repost (with citation) elsewhere? That's awesome.
-
Go for it.
I like Vieve's amendments. I'll include them in all future editions :D
-
Right, a little de-rail perhaps. Or at least slightly derail while staying on-topic.
Division of IC/OoC, Channel RP and Actions in Space.
So quite recently (not half an hour ago) I came to an IC conclusion that someone had to die as a consequence for IC actions in channel RP. Now, I can't be arsed to spend too much time hunting down people in space, nor do I really have the SP for it on the characters in question. Well, one of them, perhaps, but not both. So both IC and OoC, the conclusion was that this needed a different approach.
However, I do have ISK. Solution: My characters hire Mercs to gank two pilots. All IC motivated, and IC executed through game-mechanics and searching for Mercs. Well, that was the plan, anyway. I decided to be a little OoC merciful, and I let them know that this would probably happen. I did not expect the shit-storm in that channel.
Apparently it's 'taking it too far' when you take RP done in RP Channels and move them into space without consent from the players in question. If they OoC don't want to lose a ship (I can't think of anyone who does, but hey... ) it's very wrong to either shoot them yourself, or send others to do it for you.
I was told that 'Staying IC in both space and in RP channels is just fine and dandy... unless you force others to take IC consequences in space'. Paraphrased, but there it is. It was also said by one of the pilots that 'Fine, RP in Eve isn't for me, if it means I can't play the game the way I want', which entailed not having to deal with risk in space.
To which I replied 'Derena Del'thul > Grow a thicker fucking skin. It's Eve Online. You risk ships every time you undock. If you can't take it, quit the damn game.'
Sure, I got a bit pissed, but is it really that evil of me to use the game-mechanics, play the game, and stay IC both in-space and in RP channels? Why should I be limiting my RP, which I extend both to space and RP channels, because people want to avoid in-space consequences of In Character actions and words?
I want your opinions on this stuff, guys. Does 'IC' only exist in RP channels? Does 'IC in space' somehow godmode others? If someone wants to separate the game from the RP, should they be the ones making that decision even if it means limiting those who do immerse themselves in the game, IC?
And before a mod takes this as 'urdoinitrong', I'm not saying they're doing it wrong. I'm just asking whether or not I'm doing it wrong if I take my RP in both space and channels.
EDIT: Because Eric Kirby demanded it:
[spoiler](http://redlegg.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/giraffe1.jpg)[/spoiler]
-
Mizhara, it sounds like they are trying to invoke rule 2 on you. I suggest calling shenanigans to nullify their claim.
But seriously, anytime somebody takes an RP stance on anything, they open themselves up to consequences.
By the same token, you open yourself up to consequences when you present consequences to others.
-
A little more explenation for those not up on the situation for those who didn't see it:
The player of the one of the two targets who objected, hereafter refered to "target player". Disclaimer: My statements about target player are entirely based on my interpretation of statements she made; I'm not presuming to speak for her.
Now, target player is someone who evidently does not like PvP situations. She is a player who evidently (based on comments she made) likes to mission in highsec. For this reason, she had not joined an immersive RP corp, nor had she sought IC conflict. Months ago, target player had done something in the formation of her character that she did not regard as something that would result in her getting mercs hired on her. Frankly, I wouldn't have regarded it as such either.
Tonight, this player was surprised to discover that this something which she had done in the past was going to get mercs on her. She became upset because she did not feel she could play EVE if she was being constantly hunted by mercs. Furthermore, she has made comments which suggest she is willing to accept IC consequences and allow her character to be hurt or killed; she just doesn't want this to happen in space, which she views as OOC unless agreed upon, while Mizh, based on what was said in her post, regards space as constantly IC.
Before we go any further, I'd like to state that I don't think either is "right" or "wrong". RP is a personal choice - some choose to join RP corps where corp chat is in character, others go to RP corps where IC is kept to other, player-made channels, and some go to corps with no other RPers. An example of the last is myself - I prefer not to go into "deeper" levels of immersion, such as regarding space as always IC, because at the end of the day I am a 0.0 PvPer and wish to do this largely unimpeded. My way is no more "right" than anyone else's.
In my opinion, the real question here is, "Is it more important to be respectful of other players' views on their levels of RP immersion, or to maintain my level of immersion at all costs because it is what I choose."
A lot of people have said "Well, that doesn't make EVE any more than MSN with fancy graphics" or some version of the above. Regardless of whether this is actually true, the question still remains: If someone wants to play MSN with fancy graphics, and I want more, should I force them to obey my level of immersion?
EDIT: While I was writing my walloftext, it seems Kazzzi got here first.
Mizhara, it sounds like they are trying to invoke rule 2 on you. I suggest calling shenanigans to nullify their claim.
But seriously, anytime somebody takes an RP stance on anything, they open themselves up to consequences.
By the same token, you open yourself up to consequences when you present consequences to others.
Said person isn't averse to IC consquences. She doesn't regard space as IC, though - so should she be forced to regard it as such?
-
Before we go any further, I'd like to state that I don't think either is "right" or "wrong"
I do, in a way.
Here's why:
Ishe has made comments which suggest she is willing to accept IC consequences and allow her character to be hurt or killed; she just doesn't want this to happen in space, which she views as OOC unless agreed upon
This is hypocritical of someone to expect.
A paraphrase of this is:
"You can not dictate my level of immersion, but I can dictate yours."
Said person isn't averse to IC consquences. She doesn't regard space as IC, though - so should she be forced to regard it as such?
Counter-question. Mizhara regards space as IC, should she be forced not to?
Why does one supercede the other?
Edit: Wow. I don't know how I accidentally quoted the wrong paragraph. My bad. Fixed that.
-
Said person isn't averse to IC consquences. She doesn't regard space as IC, though - so should she be forced to regard it as such?
No, she doesn't have to acknowledge anyone elses RP, but she might still get kerploded for other peoples IC reasons whether she agrees or not. Lillith put it well^
But digging up character background to look for a reason to grief carebears? I'm sure there's many IC ways to handle the situation without combat or hysterical channel drama.
-
Before I go to bed, I feel I should put this into further detail.
Given the nature of EVE, one should expect at any point they might get wardecced. An RPer even more so. It is an unreasonable expectation that everyone is just going to let you do whatever the hell you want with no consequence in space.
There are only two ways that that can be a reasonable expectation, and in all actuality only one way is truly that way, the other only partially so.
1. Remain in the newbie corp. You can't be wardecced here, so you are free from IC consequences in space while in highsec. This is the only way you can have a truly reasonable expectation that any antics you choose will not come to haunt you in space.
2. Join an alliance -- for instance a nullsec alliance -- that one would be unlikely to bother trying to send mercs after (since mercs would want a pisston of cash to wardec IT or BoB in their hayday). This is mostly reasonable expectation that it won't come back to haunt you.
I think this statement:
In my opinion, the real question here is, "Is it more important to be respectful of other players' views on their levels of RP immersion, or to maintain my level of immersion at all costs because it is what I choose."
Bothers me at its very core, because it is directly implying that the person that opts to hire mercs (and in this situation Mizh hadn't even hired them yet, and actually warned the person beforehand) is disrespectful unless the person consents beforehand.
That is an unreasonable expectation in a game like EVE. You're in a nearly fully PvP game, you can't reasonably expect that your actions will never have "in space" consequences unless you agree with them. Hell you could get wardecced tomorrow by someone like STIMULUS that just felt like giving you a hard time just because you were there (<3 STIM by the way).
I suggest that that question is not the real question. The real question is "Is it reasonable to expect that you will not have in-space consequences to your IC actions unless you agree to them?"
I say the answer is an emphatic "No".
For every one individual that legitimately just doesn't want to mess up their gameplay, there's a dozen that will use it to hide being a douchebag.
-
Without counter-arguing much yet ( I'd like to hear more opinions on what is and isn't IC/OoC, and whether or not consequences in space for things that happen in RP channels is acceptable before I post more on the subject. ) I would like to clarify one thing:
Months ago, target player had done something in the formation of her character that she did not regard as something that would result in her getting mercs hired on her. Frankly, I wouldn't have regarded it as such either.
Tonight, this player was surprised to discover that this something which she had done in the past was going to get mercs on her.
Is not quite correct. This is the summary of several things done/said over a long period of time, said months in fact. The character(s) who are considering getting Mercs (not for a wardec even, just to hunt and gank two characters, appending a message to the kill, with quite generous bounties) are ideologically opposite to these two characters, and have repeatedly seen insult after insult (as they perceive it) and have finally come to the conclusion there needs to be consequence.
The consequence is rather light. One kill of each character, and thus the ships they're flying at the time, and preferably the pods as well.
I'd rather not get the erroneous reputation that I go rooting in player backgrounds just to find reasons to grief players. This is legitimate IC consternation for IC actions and words.
-
Miz, you're doing it exactly the way I do it (and lots of other folks). Nothing wrong at all.
-
It also gets my alt pew pew \o/ Have to bait like hell to get a decent fight these days.
I'm with Mizhara. In space is in character. I expressed my view to the other player as well that in space is in character (How can it NOT be?), hence my alt losing her child when she was podded. I would have disagreed at one point, but I really don't see how it can be otherwise. Space combat is the ultimate extension of the RP.
-
The question still remains... what makes viewing IC space as any more "right" than viewing it as OOC?
-
I'm not a big PVP person myself, but even I agree that in space is in character. You can't pick a fight in a bar and call it off when they catch you in the street. Well, I suppose you could try, but I don't expect it would work.
The ILF's anti-piracy policies have brought a lot of pirates down on us. We've gotten bloodied a few times, but we weather the storm and fight the good fight. The ILF's separatist policies got us War dec'd a time or two. We gave it as good as we got it and came out on the other side.
I try to stay in character with Saxon just about everywhere. I certainly don't drop character when I undock. What makes that viewpoint more "right" than the other? Well, in a game where the characters are spaceship pilots, being out of character while piloting your ship just doesn't seem very logical to me.
-
The question still remains... what makes viewing IC space as any more "right" than viewing it as OOC?
Well, like Saxon said. Spaceship game: Spaceships should be IC. But that's only a small part of it. This may come off as... self-righteous and a bit kindergarten, but it strikes me as true:
Viewing both space and RP channels as IC is the only 'fair' way of doing it.
Viewing it as OoC, and forcing that on other people's RP: The player gets to both have the cake, and eat it. Get to RP no matter what kind of character, and won't have to face consequences. No risk in calling anyone anything, no risk in committing unspeakable atrocities. In fact, the player gets to do whatever the hell they want, while they also get that nice cuddly carebear gameplay where they risk nothing. (If that's their cup of tea, in space). Enforcing this would limit and stop anyone viewing space as IC from getting to do half their roleplay (or 30%, 90%, whichever ratio the player has) because it's 'bad' to take RP into space according this particular philosophy. Detracts from the other player's RP.
Viewing it as IC, and forcing that on other roleplayers in space: The same as the above, except it doesn't remove anything from that player's RP. It ADDS to it, in fact, by introducing RP in yet another dimension, instead of merely in chat. Sure, the player may not want it, but it's still part of the game the player is subscribing to. Doesn't detract from either character's RP, but it does introduce an element of risk into the other player's virtual life. However, that risk is there every time you undock, anyway. Hell, it may not even add RP to it. Just risk, which is an inherent game-mechanic in Eve, no matter where you are or even if you're in the newb corp. (I love suiciding newb-corp haulers and steal their shit, but that's another subject entirely). So it either adds something, or at the very least, doesn't detract anything from that person's RP.
As far as I can see it, one detracts from another player's RP. The other adds to the other player's RP. And it is also the most fair because it's the least limiting on both players. The OoC player has access to every single tool the 'space is IC' player has. Ships. Guns. Intel. Locators. ISK to hire Mercs. So on and so forth. The IC player doesn't have any advantages over the other player. All this does is level the playing field until both have access to the exact same mechanics.
So yeah, kindergarten mentality, but it's the most fair as I see it. And thus, it's the most 'right' way to do it. And that's even disregarding the fact that it's also the only one of the options which actually says 'yeah, we both get to play the game'. The other option says 'I get to the play the game, but I'm stopping you from playing yours. Nyer.'. Okay, maybe not nyer, but yeah. You get my point.
-
I have a simple approach.
It's a roleplaying game. When I'm gaming, I'm roleplaying. What I do IG is IC, and if you don't like it, you can take it as OOC if you like. But I'm still doing it, and I'm not going to stop my gameplay (within the rules established by CCP) because you might not like the results. That goes both ways, of course: I don't get to complain that the Goons shouldn't have effectively destroyed New Eden Research because I joined it for IC reasons and they acted OOC.
-
The question still remains... what makes viewing IC space as any more "right" than viewing it as OOC?
I feel that this was answered in my second post above. If you do not believe that I answered this clearly, please respond to my post explaining why you feel it does not resolve your question so that I may go from there.
Edit: Hrm. Better response: This question isn't relevant, because in the question is the belief that one or the other "viewpoint" is "better" or "more right". However that isn't really what is in question here. What is in question here isn't whether Mizh was "right" to think that she can wardec the person or the person to believe she was "right" to think that she should be able to do whatever she wants IC in channels with no "in space" response. The question is which expectation is reasonable and which expectation is unreasonable, as this allows for both beliefs of ic v ooc to be equally valid. I suggest it is unreasonable in a game like EVE to run a corporation of any sort and think you are going to be free from having someone piss in your cheerios.
-
I agree with Lilith. This is Eve. You don't need to deserve it to be war-decced. It isn't relevant whether space is IC or not. War-decs happen OOC as well.
The question still remains... what makes viewing IC space as any more "right" than viewing it as OOC?
It seems that the person this originally applied to wants to have what happens in space not be affected by what happens in RP channels, and presumably what happens in RP not affected by what happens in Space?
Does it seem reasonable to you that I could esplode your ship in the afternoon, and RP with you in a bar later that night without there being any effect on the RP? Even if only chagrin on your part at being esploded or congratulations on a tough contest? Would the "target player"? If not, then the target player can hardly complain if the effect runs in the other direction as well, neh?
-
Whenever you are using game mechanics to force your playstyle on others you are telling them that their playstyle is wrong.
Same applies to RP.
-
Whenever you are using game mechanics to force your playstyle on others you are telling them that their playstyle is wrong.
Same applies to RP.
>.< Wat?
How about: If their playstyle doesn't mesh with the game being played, they should either play the game that's there, or go play their game elsewhere.
To wit: If I pull out a board and some checkers and you start setting up chess pieces, there's something very wrong.
Non-metaphorically: EVE is a game where people can wardec you. This is not "forcing your playstyle" this is a reality of the game environment. If this is something that someone is uncomfortable with, there are workarounds built into the system (which were stated above) that they could then use.
If they opt to not use those, then they are open to it.
Corollary to other games: If you enter a PVP zone, you have done so voluntarily. You are going to get stabbed/shot/whatever. By leaving the newbie corp, every individual has voluntarily agreed to PvP, with or without direct consent.
This is a reality of the game environment we are playing in. People can accept it or not, but it is an unreasonable expectation to think that one is going to be free from PvP just because they want to be when they're in a non-newbie corp.
-
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with IC actions stemming from IC motivations, in space or not. And I'm the biggest carebear out there.
I'm not quite sure how using game-mechanics (so long as it's not an exploit) can be seen as forcing your playstyle on others? If we say we can't do a range of things that the rules and the game allows without prior permission ... well, nobody would engage in a fight they had a disadvantage in, nobody would agree to be suicide ganked when they were flying anything more than an empty T1 hauler, etc ...
In my opinion, I tend to think that RPers should be able to use everything 'non-RPers' can use, so long as they have an IC motivation and are acting on IC information. I.e. I'd think it wasn't cricket to wardec someone because you found out they had an IRL blog in which they professed a love for early French noir, which you hate, for example.
-
Big part of EVE is doing things without the consent of the other people participating in the activities that you participate in.
I don't think there is nothing wrong with that IC or OOC.
Pretending that forcing someone to do something that they have not agreed to just because it is possible through the game mechanics does not take away the inherent violence of the action.
Which is forcing someone that is playing the game in a certain way to play the game in the same way that you are playing.
This is quite a fundamental thing that constantly happens in human communication, when someone says that someone should do something, you are trying to force them to agree with you, it is of course up to the individual to comply or not, but it does not take away the nature or the intent behind the communication in the first place.
To me this is a similar situation, someone is saying that they want to handle the situation in a certain way, then the other person says that they should do it in another, because they have a different playstyles, when the other party does not have compunctions about using in-game means to affect the others RP (the good old Carebear vs PvP player argument, the dynamic RP vs good brother RP, you can come up with your own dichotomies to suit the situation) they are using the in-game means to force their own playstyle on the other party, also on their RP.
I see nothing wrong with this, I just find that people should be aware of the implications of their actions and not pretend that just because they can do something means that it is right or that they should.
Personally I thought that Backstage was the place where you could have constructive discussion about things, not go for the good ole Harden The Fuck Up approach to things that seems to be the norm in EVE at the moment.
Of course it is a viable viewpoint but personally I think it has been a bit overused.
Too internet tough guy for my taste.
-
Well, you see, not everyone views competition in such a pessimistic manner. Or do you normally see a game of chess as 'forcing your viewpoint on another'? ;) Some people actually like it, and see it as a challenge rather than a non-consensual act. Hence why the 'mutual' option exists. I figure someone in PIE for all these years would be one of the first to understand that. I recall a long time ago when you guys and the U'K guys had something similar going.
I think the debate at this point has been reduced to semantics.
-
Wow that's... a way to see it.
This is not forcing people. You can not force someone to leave the newbie corp. You can not force someone to drop their corp and create a new one, causing you to waste isk when you wardec them. You can not force someone to leave highsec.
These are decisions other people made freely and voluntarily.
They are not forced.
This is quite a fundamental thing that constantly happens in human communication, when someone says that someone should do something, you are trying to force them to agree with you, it is of course up to the individual to comply or not, but it does not take away the nature or the intent behind the communication in the first place.
Since when? You may simply be telling them that it's in their best interest. If someone is overweight, and you tell them they should go on a diet, you're not in any way trying to force them to go on a diet. You're just letting them know "It is in your best interest to do this, in my opinion," no more and no less.
To me this is a similar situation, someone is saying that they want to handle the situation in a certain way, then the other person says that they should do it in another, because they have a different playstyles, when the other party does not have compunctions about using in-game means to affect the others RP (the good old Carebear vs PvP player argument, the dynamic RP vs good brother RP, you can come up with your own dichotomies to suit the situation) they are using the in-game means to force their own playstyle on the other party, also on their RP.
Are you serious? There's nothing Carebear v PvP player here, and also there's no making them play your way. They made the decision to open themselves to PvP, therefore they get PvP. That's really the nuts and bolts of it.
One thing that drives me insane is when people will defend that someone did not voluntarily accept the possibility of PvP and is having it forced upon them when the game makes it very very clear when you do certain things that you are voluntarily accepting the possibility of PvP and also how to get around it.
Personally I thought that Backstage was the place where you could have constructive discussion about things, not go for the good ole Harden The Fuck Up approach to things that seems to be the norm in EVE at the moment.
Of course it is a viable viewpoint but personally I think it has been a bit overused.
Too internet tough guy for my taste.
This is not a "HTFU" argument. Let me restate the fucking question again because no one is willing to address it:
Is it reasonable expectation, if you leave the newbie corps and/or leave highsec, that you will still get to be free from PvP consequences?
There's nothing about "forced" or "htfu" or any of that nonsense. This is all about the fundamental core of the game and whether or not an individual has a reasonable expectation that they get to be free of the core mechanics of the game they agreed to, and even have the option to move away from. No more and no less.
They were not forced into anything, and wow that took restraint.
-
Best analogy ever from my girlfriend.
"It's like playing PacMan and complaining about the Ghosts being there. Y'know, 'I just want to eat the dots. . .' I mean, really."
Heh.
-
Best analogy ever from my girlfriend.
"It's like playing PacMan and complaining about the Ghosts being there. Y'know, 'I just want to eat the dots. . .' I mean, really."
Heh.
:D
The problem with Eve is all the other MMOs. They are all entirely pussified, with very few exceptions, and with so many developers jumping on the WoW clone train to Dullsville, people are now in a mindset that this is how an MMO is. It makes Eve such a shock for newcomers: they are entirely unprepared for it.
Frankly, though, who gives a shit if a bunch of effete weaklings are too terrible to bring it in space? I always maintain that Eve should be harder - much harder - to weed out more of the clueless and the mentally deficient. even then, it'd still be pretty easy to ride the coattails of some 0.0 alliance and get by as long as you have basic social skills. That's the only rational explanation for a lot of the players I encountered over the years...
-
It further is exemplified that they aren't going into it unawares. Everything you do that could open you to pvp comes with a giant popup that says "YOU MIGHT GET SHOT IF YOU DO THIS". There's no excuse.
Further, a wardec costs isk. It requires a 24h lagtime before you can engage in combat. Oddly, there's a 24h lagtime in dropping roles in your corp. Astonishingly: You can make people waste their money and keep following you through dummy corps, or revert to the newbie corp for a week or so.
There are so many ways around the issue that complaining about it when you are warned in advance just strikes me as... I don't know.... unreasonable.
-
Lets strip out the roleplaying aspects of the decision.
What we have here is one corp declaring war on another in terms of the game mechanics. My view is that there is nothing wrong with declaring war on another corporation. People do it all the time with no reason at all, other than the possibility of getting some easy kills in high sec. Not necessarily carebear kills, as 0.0 sec freighters are a nice target for corp.
Now, the argument of the “target player” seems to be that because I give an in character reason for the declaration of war it is suddenly not fair, or is forcing my platstyle on them?
I don’t need to give a reason to declare war. I would like to give a reason to declare war and make it part of my RP but there is no need to.
It would be nice if the other person would RP along with me with the declaration of war, but if they don’t want to its totally within their power to ignore the RP aspect totally and treat the declaration the same as any other war declaration that they may receive from any number of other non RP corps.
-
I personally dont feel that Miz has done anything inappropriate here. Shes making an IC decision for IC reasons. No ones accused her of griefing or metagaming.
RPing with a character, but then dictating to the rest of the EVE RP player base which actions they can and cant respond to, and which actions are appropirate, smacks to me of godmoding a bit. Youre telling people how they should conduct their characters without their consent and limiting their ability to respond independently without your say so. Youre confining and controlling another players legitimate IC choices based on a particular way you personally want to play and define it.
There should be a distinction between limiting someones choices IC through game mechanics (i.e. starships, mercs, violence,etc) versus limiting their choices through OOC means (the above mentioned metagaming, godmoding ,griefing, etc). Like Cia mentioned, I dont think there is such a thing as forcing someone to play the game as presented, marketed and intended (i.e. a dark and violent place where bad things happen). At the end of the day, we're all playing the same video game, and its a violent one where things and people and players blow up.
If you consent to RP, then that IMO should mean consenting to the fact that other players will react to you IC however they view their character would. In a dark, violent place like EVE, those reactions can (and should) include them finding a way to do violence to your character.
-
It seems pretty rare that both sides of any RP conflict mutually agree on every aspect of RP between them. So far the RP gods haven't killed anyone for it. :P