Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Karmilla Strife]

I have to say one of the worst experiences in my RP history was the opposite of 'faction forgiveness."

I had someone who was an IC and OOC friend invite me to return to a corporation that I had previously had been a member of and some of the corporation held me in very painful regard given my character's history. And it was fair.

It sucked. Trying hard to be a part of something and getting blamed for anything that could or did go wrong at any time. Terrible. It's enough to make me hate that organization and try and shit on anything they ever try to do for the rest of my eve career. Being strictly held accountable can suck worse than anything. And it's perfectly fair what they did. I have to say that 3 years later, all the worst things they said have come true.

Expect that anything you say or do IC will have consequences. People you want to RP with 3 years from now will remember or be reminded, and it will fuck you up. Your old friends will turn on you. New allegiances will form and be discarded faster than any mortal wind can change direction. It's eve... deal with it.

[Esna Pitoojee]

Long wordspew incoming.


Dealing with Esna IC can be rather wierd in this respect. On the one hand, he can very forgiving in some respects - usually if he judges the character in question to be adequately seeking forgiveness for a given act. The magnitude of what they have to do to earn his forgiveness varies by act (for instance, a character who cooperated with the Cartel a bit but did nothing of significance would be able to rather easily earn his tolerance, if not like. A Cartel character who had directly attacked him would have to go through some pretty impressive stuff for Esna to stop regarding them as an enemy).


Unfortunately, I have lately seen a number of situations similar to what Karmilla has described - where a character would join one faction from another, present a valid IC reason and history for doing so, publicly present a valid reason why they would likely be tolerated (if not entirely accepted) - only to essentially be told "nothing you say or do IC is a valid reason for you to be accepted. GTFO." This is incredibly frustrating for me as a player because - over an extended period of time - player desires can change, and when someone goes to the length to design a reasonable history, motive, and rationalization for their faction transfer and/or acceptance only to be stonewalled, it feels incredibly frustrating.

Still wondering if it applies to live events too or not though. Live events completely lack consequences for one's involvement in them. Eventually I can go claim I support the Feds at Colelie the first time and then the Rep the second time and claim "BUT I HAVE CHANGED MY MIND". Totally consequences free.

This, on the other hand, is the opposite end of things (and, IMO, one of the things that bugs me the most about live events). There is literally no negative reinforcement for doing ANYTHING in a live event (or, conversely not doing something). There is no stick to match the carrot, which is barely there to begin with anyhow. Not even a temporary punishment, such as a flagging for the NPC navy of the faction you have engaged or a temporary lockout from their stations.

[Arnulf Ogunkoya]

It would be nice if there was some sort of consequence for actions taken in space, and event for bad mouthing a group on the IGS (past established limits of tolerance for that group).

In addition it would be nice if there could be some recognised benefits to supporting an NPC group besides LP store access (not that this isn't useful). And maybe a recognised mechanic for seeking forgiveness, getting it and having that acknowledged. Apart from access to standings information nothing immediately comes to mind though.

[Gottii]

 This is incredibly frustrating for me as a player because - over an extended period of time - player desires can change, and when someone goes to the length to design a reasonable history, motive, and rationalization for their faction transfer and/or acceptance only to be stonewalled, it feels incredibly frustrating.

This highlights one of the points I think a lot of people gloss over.

A player can easily change roles, characters, factions, whatever.  But this isnt about being able to change sides as a player, its about coming up with believable reasons why people should accept a character changing sides so readily.

In a game where creating alts is easy and basically expected, I think a lot of people make the mistake of thinking a player is someone being wronged when people react negatively to a character trying to switch sides, when the player can do so quite easily.  Just maybe not with the narrative baggage that her former character might have.

There is a huge, huge difference in a player saying "I want to play Amarr, and youre not letting me! (or whatever)"  and a player saying "I want you to accept this specific character as a someone loyal to such and such faction despite their long history to the contrary!"  I think other players are well within their rights to say "well, as a player we would be happy to accept you, just not playing that character".  We arent our characters.  If you really want to play such and such faction, roll up a new toon without the baggage and a background to match.  SPs really are overrated past a certain point, promise.

[BloodBird]

 This is incredibly frustrating for me as a player because - over an extended period of time - player desires can change, and when someone goes to the length to design a reasonable history, motive, and rationalization for their faction transfer and/or acceptance only to be stonewalled, it feels incredibly frustrating.

This highlights one of the points I think a lot of people gloss over.

A player can easily change roles, characters, factions, whatever.  But this isnt about being able to change sides as a player, its about coming up with believable reasons why people should accept a character changing sides so readily.

In a game where creating alts is easy and basically expected, I think a lot of people make the mistake of thinking a player is someone being wronged when people react negatively to a character trying to switch sides, when the player can do so quite easily.  Just maybe not with the narrative baggage that her former character might have.

There is a huge, huge difference in a player saying "I want to play Amarr, and youre not letting me! (or whatever)"  and a player saying "I want you to accept this specific character as a someone loyal to such and such faction despite their long history to the contrary!"  I think other players are well within their rights to say "well, as a player we would be happy to accept you, just not playing that character".  We arent our characters.  If you really want to play such and such faction, roll up a new toon without the baggage and a background to match.  SPs really are overrated past a certain point, promise.

I like the Fed. I like them *allot*. My main toons have remained with the Fed forever, since forever, and will not be leaving for any reason.

So when I wanted to play an Amarr toon, (The Amarrian Empire is awesome too) what to do... well, that's how Jesmine was born. Been there, done that, it was great fun.

The only problem I see with this argument is that not everyone has the funds or time to roll a new toon. While it is true that it would be rather shitty of us to hold PLAYERS accountable for the actions of their toons, it's not to much to ask that people deal with the flak said toons get for their actions. And yet, on the other hand, it's not always easy to deal with one's desire to do something else when your wallet don't allow new characters or the schedule don't allow for much split playtime. I guess this is an issue that has to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

However that is what this forum is for, among other things. If you feel there is an issue with EVE RP or anything, taking it up here is likely a wise option.

[Samira Kernher]

Unfortunately, I have lately seen a number of situations similar to what Karmilla has described - where a character would join one faction from another, present a valid IC reason and history for doing so, publicly present a valid reason why they would likely be tolerated (if not entirely accepted) - only to essentially be told "nothing you say or do IC is a valid reason for you to be accepted. GTFO." This is incredibly frustrating for me as a player because - over an extended period of time - player desires can change, and when someone goes to the length to design a reasonable history, motive, and rationalization for their faction transfer and/or acceptance only to be stonewalled, it feels incredibly frustrating.

There's nothing wrong with them doing that.

What is wrong is when they think that other people should just accept their background rationalization at the drop of a hat, no questions asked. Proving one's self in a new faction should be a long, hard, difficult process, where you endure all loads of bile. It should be a process you do without complaint, because learning how to endure and bear all the shit with discipline and self-composure is part of proving yourself. And this should be done in front of players, not NPCs. Any "proving" you've done in front of NPCs is, as far as I'm concerned, a non-factor. I don't care if you claim you have a whole planet that can vouch for you. If not a single player can, then you've still got a lot of work ahead of you.

If a former Republican, Blooder, EoM, whatever, were to try to join the Empire, Samira would treat them poorly, and be suspicious of them. No matter what their excuse. Until they prove to her, in a way that she can personally witness and verify, that they've changed, she's not going to accept them no matter what they try and claim they've done. The only reason Halete has gotten any acceptance from Samira is because Halete has already been proving her commitment by fighting for PYRE. If she had gone to Samira straight out of Republic militia, Samira would not have been quite so kind. See Ayallah as an example of someone that tried that route.

If Samira were to ever turn against the Empire and support the Republic, I would expect her to be despised, by both sides. I wouldn't expect, and wouldn't want her to be accepted. Hatred and intolerance are much more fun. I love the way people like Havohej act around Samira, or when Amarr treat her like dirt just because she's Minmatar, because conflict is what makes RP interesting. Hugglefest is boring.


All that being said, this should be completely IC, not OOC. It's just a game, and if people seriously judge people based on their OOC faction choices then they're definitely an asshole. I've had that happen to me on another game and it was pretty awful. People on the opposite side aren't your real, personal enemy. They're your opponent in a video game. IC/OOC separation.

[Nicoletta Mithra]

I'm quite convinced that 'is boring' and 'is interesting' are at the very least 2-place predicates. Which means nothing is simply boring or interesting, but it's always 'x is boring to y' or 'x is interesting to z'. Whether conflict is what makes RP interesting depends on the person in question.

Also, there's a difference between stonewalling people and making it hard for them to prove themselves. I don't think that one should be required to endure bile and shit without complaint just because one wants to change ones allegiance, especially not indefinitely and exclusively. It'd be more honest to tell the person in question that they'd better roll a new toon, if they really want to join in that case.

I've also seen people who had themselves a somewhat stained past - just one that's somewhat forgotten already - and who had been given a much more fair chance at redeeming themselves get all over people who did far less than they had. Oh sweet oblivion of forgetfulness.

If one doesn't see that literally stonewalling people is incredibly frustrating, then I don't know what to say, honestly.

[Samira Kernher]

I'm quite convinced that 'is boring' and 'is interesting' are at the very least 2-place predicates. Which means nothing is simply boring or interesting, but it's always 'x is boring to y' or 'x is interesting to z'. Whether conflict is what makes RP interesting depends on the person in question.

Except it's not. Conflict is what is needed for story. Without conflict, there is no story. No one grows, no one develops. There must be a challenge to overcome or there is no point. Ask any other writer this and they will tell you the same.

That conflict doesn't necessarily have to be this kind of conflict, but conflict is needed for there to be a story at all. Therefore one shouldn't seek to avoid it, as long as the conflict is IC.

Also, there's a difference between stonewalling people and making it hard for them to prove themselves. I don't think that one should be required to endure bile and shit without complaint just because one wants to change ones allegiance, especially not indefinitely and exclusively. It'd be more honest to tell the person in question that they'd better roll a new toon, if they really want to join in that case.

Former should be IC. Latter is OOC. Former should not be OOC, and is wrong if it is. If one wants to avoid the former, then they should choose to roll a new toon, yes. If they choose to use their old toon, then they should expect the former.

[Makkal]

I'll point out that not everyone is attempting to RP a story.

[Havohej]

In turn, I'll point out that RP, by its very nature, is a story.  A false narrative.  Try or not, a story we tell - together, each of us writing into it the role of our respective characters.

[Shiori]

[...]
If a former Republican, Blooder, EoM, whatever, were to try to join the Empire, Samira would treat them poorly, and be suspicious of them. No matter what their excuse. Until they prove to her, in a way that she can personally witness and verify, that they've changed, she's not going to accept them no matter what they try and claim they've done. The only reason Halete has gotten any acceptance from Samira is because Halete has already been proving her commitment by fighting for PYRE.
[...]

I think Esna does not disagree with you that a faction switch or "redemption arc" should be easy and/or accepted on face value by everyone involved; I personally think that'd be boring, too. Just that some people seem to think it should be literally impossible, and that that's rather frustrating to deal with as a player.

[Samira Kernher]

It should definitely not be impossible, no. (unless the character fails, of course)

[Katrina Oniseki]

Except it's not. Conflict is what is needed for story. Without conflict, there is no story. No one grows, no one develops. There must be a challenge to overcome or there is no point. Ask any other writer this and they will tell you the same.

That conflict doesn't necessarily have to be this kind of conflict, but conflict is needed for there to be a story at all. Therefore one shouldn't seek to avoid it, as long as the conflict is IC.

That still doesn't mean conflict is what makes RP interesting and hugglefest (what does that even mean?) is boring.

It does mean you feel conflict is what makes RP interesting and hugglefest is boring.

Unless you're suggesting everyone else is just doing it wrong?

[Nicoletta Mithra]

Except it's not. Conflict is what is needed for story. Without conflict, there is no story. No one grows, no one develops. There must be a challenge to overcome or there is no point. Ask any other writer this and they will tell you the same.

That conflict doesn't necessarily have to be this kind of conflict, but conflict is needed for there to be a story at all. Therefore one shouldn't seek to avoid it, as long as the conflict is IC.

That still doesn't mean conflict is what makes RP interesting and hugglefest (what does that even mean?) is boring.

It does mean you feel conflict is what makes RP interesting and hugglefest is boring.

Unless you're suggesting everyone else is just doing it wrong?

Pretty much this.

[Lyn Farel]

Most people seem to agree that changing sides should be a series of trials, personal investment on the behalf of a character. Something that asks for more or less effort depending on their background - an hedonist priest may face less hardship than a freedom fighter seeking redemption...

People are usually unhappy with both of the extremes, either the stonewall where the player trying to switch sides will just get disgusted, or either the giant forgiving hugglefest where the faction blocs will also get disgusted to see everyone getting away with anything.

I also agree that what makes a story a good story is conflict. That's my personal opinion on the matter and most serious writers will also say the same. However, that does not mean that stories always have conflicts or drama (cf comedy). Some people will just enjoy stories with happy things inside, without much conflict. Not my cup of tea, but I am pretty sure we could find a lot of examples of this, without even going into the comedy side.