Best Of

One of the hardest things to remember, on both ends of the spectrum, is that there are real people you are playing with. It is a bit like sports:

- If you are too rough and underhanded, people stop wanting to play because they are bruised and wornout.

I don't agree with the premise that the playerbase shoulders the responsibility of not being "too rough" to make people want to engage. It's the responsibility of the player involved to handle their own emotions. I don't mean for that to sound disrespectful or crass but the community has to have clear ic and ooc expectations to successfully navigate through conflict. If not, the organizational conflict the game depends on degrades to the point where we don't have an engaged and sustainable playerbase, if we have much of one at all. Having said that, leaders who openly discourage all/most organic and meaningful conflict willingly stagnate their organization and other organizations in the game. Put simply, if they're not pro-conflict they shouldn't have a position that has such a significant impact on their organization and the game as a whole. This is not to single out any one player. This is more to call out a harmful trend of behavior.

As for the people who give up and walk away because they aren't catered to, they'll leave and that's fine. If they can't operate within the confines and expectations of the game, that's not a reason to compromise the playing experience of 50 or so people, it's proof that the person in question should play a game that closely aligns with their expectations. Please don't misunderstand me, if abuse is happening I agree with @Faerah that it needs to be dealt with swiftly both out of respect for the person experiencing it, and for the betterment of the community as a whole. I think it's important to point out, though, that not all conflict is abuse, abuse is not healthy conflict. Discouraging healthy conflict is, however, abusive because it prevents potential growth for the individual, the organizations, and the community as a whole all for the sake of a cool kid's comfortability level.

- If you cry foul and try to get the Ref involved every time the other team wins a point or outmaneuvers you, people stop wanting to play with you because the game gets lost in wake of your feelings.

It's not so much that people want to stop engaging with a certain person or group, it's that people are dropping out of the league all together because someone took a shit on the ball and buried it in the field - there isn't a game to play.

...if you want others to come out and play, you need to make it worthwhile for them (to a point), be it being willing to take a few bruises to learn from, or knowing when to restrain yourself.

You learn through experience and trying, and being open to both ends of the critique (and to stop condemning the other party for not being on board with your particular flavour).

I'm not trying to be an ass but I think the community needs to stop registering kneejerk reactions stemming from bruised egos as valid critique.

I'm confused as to why people think my saying "hey maybe ask for consent" is because "wahh losing". Because man, let me tell you something: I don't care about losing. Big deal, unicorns happens. If I cared about losing, I wouldn't play this kind of game, where it's all up to chance and I can't restart. if I only cared about winning, I wouldn't spend time getting involved with other people's rp, or spend time trying to lead a guild or city. Hell, I'd probably learn to code so that I KNOW I'd win. But I don't care.

I think people are speaking generally about things. You, personally, haven't been the center of this conversation. You brought up an example and it was discussed.

For all the talk of "We need to mature", people are AWFULLY against the idea of being mature and making sure the HUMAN on the other side of that game is down with something. It's an embarrassment, to see how much people fight the very basic idea of just making sure it's a good time to start a fight. Like, unicorns, if I deny you a conflict, I promise it isn't because I'm afraid of losing. it's because, as a real life person with other real life unicorns to do, I don't have the mental energy.

I think you're neglecting consideration for the "humans on the other side of the game" that wish to play a game that is immersive and has spontaneous conflict. That is the draw of the game for them. That does not make them "embarrassing." Moreover, calling an idea like "making sure it's a good time to start a fight" "basic" implies that it should be the baseline for all players. Here we disagree. I don't believe that is how an immersive world should function. Finally on this point, if a player wants to deny conflict that's their right. But they should expect to deal with IC consequences to that decision regardless of what their OOC reasoning is.

I'll tell you why order wars aren't done, because they're BORING. They need a serious overhaul because, man, just rebuilding and taking down shrines is boring and we all know it. People complained about Three Widows because, while there was a huge pk element, there was also a HUGE RP element, and getting killed every time you wanted to go talk to an NPC got dull as unicorns, and limiting an event that has such a big impact on lore and rp to being accessible to only pkers is kinda garbage. But, I'm also someone who thinks it's not a huge to do to make sure everyone is having fun. Because, again, everyone is here to enjoy themselves and I'm not going to enjoy myself if I'm making another real, honest to God human have a shitty time.

You say that you are someone who "thinks its not a huge to do to make sure everyone is having fun." That's an interesting statement with a hanging implication that you feel that others do not. So let me unpack it some...

First, you have chosen your own, personal definition of "fun" and are applying it universally. You do not get to define "fun" for other people just as they do not get to define "fun" for you. Second, you have discarded other people's arguments about what would be "fun" for them as "confusing" and "embarrassing." Therefore, why consider that other human on the other side of the game? In fact, you even ask "who cares" at the end of your post which just shows your disregard. Third, you even go as far as to call your position "basic" as though those who disagree with you are inferior because they can't grasp that simple "basic" point.

When broken down and put into the context of the words you've chosen to use... It does not sound as magnanimous, does it?

It's not a problem of "oh raiding sucks", it's a problem of people knowing when to QUIT. And frankly, I don't think a lot of people DO know when to quit. They either take the complaints as "oh it's just people bitching about losing" or, they take it as a sign of their victory, and continue to do it because "oh, who's going to stop me?" If we wanna talk about maturing enough to handle loss, that's fine, but we also need to talk about maturing enough to know when to knock it off.

If the losing side chooses not to surrender, then it is not the fault of the winning side that they do not stop. Going back to the Duiran catapult situation (which addresses @Leana's comment) - Duiran stole a catapult and decided not to give it back despite the raiding that their citizens, presumably, did not enjoy. Yet, there was, in this instance, a clear path to ending the raiding that the players decided not to take because "RP." I'm not sure how else the situation should have gone. Was Spinesreach supposed to keep asking on repeat when it was a good time to raid Duiran to get their catapults returned? Were they supposed to just stop raiding without getting the catapults back?

Either way, I'm done. I don't want this to get heated, all I wanted to say, and said at the start, is that I think the leaders talk will be a great way to start to resolve the lack of conflict. It's not 'spontaneous' but who cares, conflict is conflict

I would wager a guess that the answer to "but who cares?" is... "Many people who play this game."

Ultimately, to answer your question personally... This is an issue I care about because I have seen a lot of people leave the game over it. People that I feel made the game better. People that I feel made the game more complex, dangerous, immersive, and alive. And, there are many that I know with their foot out the door heading toward other games that provide the player-driven conflict and regular content that they seek. I am not a combatant. I barely participated in lessers when they came up. This isn't about me and some desire to ruin other people's "fun." It's about what I think is healthy for the game as a whole, because if all that is left is people who politely ask permission before instigating conflict... My opinion is that would create a very boring and flat game.