Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 42

Thread: No sissy "shades of grey"

  1. #21
    Heh, kinda a naive world-view you've got there. Black and White is always what people try to portray, but it is rarely the reality of the situation.

    Let's take a realistic example for a moment... Iraq.

    Today, Iraq is black.

    Evil doers! Axis of evil! Weapons of mass destruction!

    Let's ignore the fact that the US supplied them with most of their weapons... Why? Because we wanted them to fight off Iran for us, who at the time were potentially detabalizing to US interests in the Gulf.

    Of course, us acting though another country to wage war against someone who is against our interests was always played down... Why? Because it's a very gray matter. Some people think it's right, some think it's wrong.

    Now, getting back to Iraq... Here we are, flip-flopping against them simply because they have now been deemed "dangerous." Funny, that's the same thought we had about Iran back when Iraq was "White." Has Iraq changed since then? Not really. Saddam has gone through no policiy changes...he's always been the same, but we supported him when it was convinient, and go against him when it's in our own interests.

    Let's throw yet another spin on things...many other countries view the US--possibly correctly--as evil for all our subversive influences and military measures in the Gulf simply to maintain our own interests in the region. Certainly, Iran did not threaten the US when we decided to wage a 2nd-hand war on them...no, they were dangerous to our interests. If they had succeeded in their bid to invade Iraq (which was their goal at the time), they would have gained a majority power in the Region. Unfortunately, they weren't on good terms with the US at the time, and thus could not be allowed by us to get that much control.

    Interestingly enough, however, Iran waged war against Iraq for very much the same reasons we are waging war against them now: a buildup of military force suported by a dictatorial and unpridictable ruler. But, despite that, the US defended Iraq and supplied them with military force as well as intelligance.

    ...

    So, tell me... In this little snapshot of a single course of events... Who's the bad guy? Who's the good guy? Who's neither? Who's both? Does it matter?

    "Black" and "White" are idealistic goals that are almost never maintained. Humans do not fall into nice, predictible molds. There are always 100's of possible reasons for any event to take place. Trying to always boil issues down to 2 sides is overly simplistic and often inaccurate.

    Questionaire:
    Do you support Bush's war in Iraq?
    a) Yes
    b) I hate freedom

    Do you support the "War on Terror"?
    a) Yes
    b) Osama is my hero!

    Etc...

    "Simple" questions can often have complex answers. Especially when human dynamics are thrown into the mix.

    The moral of the story?

    Forcing "Black and White" has no place in any situation where you intend to encourage realistic human interaction. Since MMORPG's (and Anarchy Online's marketing material!) in general are, by and large, more based on the community and social nature of its players, forcing a Black and White mold is terribly out of place.

    -Jayde

  2. #22

    Post Ok...

    You're talking apples and oranges. You're talking about a person's opinion. You can have all the greyness you want there.

    What I'm talking about (from every previous post), are actions and their concequences.

    Being an American and loving Iraq is perfectly fine (although many would find it un-American).

    However, if you are an American and KILL an American in the name of Iraq, you're in a world of hurtin'!

    So, I guess my questions to you (the theme of many of my posts here) are these:

    If you're an Omni player, do find it "normal" that the game mechanics allow you to kill your own guards without any consequence at all?

    a) Yes
    b) No

    Does it make sense to you that clanners, who by the nature or their "role", may walk into an Omni city, grab 5 members of their sworn enemy, and go kill stuff together?

    a) No
    b) Yes

    Continues from last question. Don't you think his fellow clanners would call him a traitor?

    a) Yes
    b) No

    We're debating what the consequence should be, and we shouldn't be. I'm asking you if the game mechanics should allow punishment for your actions - regardless of what FC decided the actual punishment was - even if your guy "thought that the guard looked at him the wrong way"?

    Also, bear in mind that we are talking about the players vs the avatars. I have both clan and omni friends, becuase personally (RL personally) they are not my sword enemies.

    There is supposed to be a war going on right now. With very FEW exceptions, clan and omni should be killing each other on site, not hanging out pulling missions. (while I never played it, I hear DAoC did it right - the enemy came up as a mob name...In AO, uou would show up as "Veteran OT Markman"...To ME, that's RP!).

    Provisioner
    Trader: The trader is the most trade-skill oriented of all professions.

  3. #23
    It's not apples and oranges, because you're talking about social values and political stances--not just rules.

    Just because Omni would punish you X way for doing something does not mean it is not an acception RP vehicle!

    Then, take Clans for example.. They are a very loose structure, no centralized gorvernment, therefore no "real" rules. How does this apply to them? Clans, by their very nature, are inconsistant and "gray".

    What if an Omni commander dislikes the war? That's his choice. There may be consequences for it, but it does not make him a Clanner. It makes him inconsistant. And, unfortunately for B&Wers, inconsistancy is the way of human life.

    It does matter if the person descibed would be called a traitor. That's the perrogative of the person doing the calling. What you didn't allow for, however, is the possibility that he may have a GOOD REASON for doing so.

    Maybe two groups of Omni/Clan have come to a cease-fire individually. There may be represcussions for that action, for sure, HOWEVER, it does not change the fact that it is still a valid RP stance.

    You cannot force people to act, play, or react a certain way. If you do, it ceases to be RP.

    You may have changed your focus as you have continuted posting, because I remember that your first post was asking the question of where our "'clear-cut' roles and story line" were.

    My simple answer is: there shouldn't be any such clear-cut and forced defintions, otherwise it just becomes an interactive movie. RP, at its very heart, is the act of carving out a niche in the world you are presented with, and going from there. When you restrict RP with "clear cut roles", it gets very boring, very quickly.

    -Jayde
    Last edited by Jayde; Jan 9th, 2003 at 06:38:10.

  4. #24
    You want to know True evil. I watched greenie omni cops gun down greenie drug dealers outside rhompa last night over an illegal drug deal, and then I watched some omni players attack those same greenies cops and kill 1 while the 3 that were left ran off and zoned shouting "Fall Back!" into a not in use whompa bwahahahaha. Probably the funniest/coolest rp event I've ever seen.

    note:greenie=ark/gm controlled players

  5. #25
    Seems to me the majority of arguements here are about what a PLAYER character SHOULD do when given the CHOICE in a ROLEPLAYING game.

    To all of which I say: Why has this string lasted this long? Last I checked, it was a game of choices. The designer may have boasted a game world of black-and-white, but nevertheless there are plenty of players on it who have been given the ultimate choice to make their own decisions.

    If that decision happens to fall on that neutral grey area, who are any of us to knock it? Go ahead, be ultimate good or ultimate evil. That decision, in and of itself, can be considered "grey" to your local neutral, who's having too much fun RP'ing his/her character through the pains of ultimate goals and decisions on RK.

    You RP the way that's fun for you. Even after reading all of this string, I can't figure for the life of me why everyone's up in arms about the players' rights to make decisions in a game where your right to make decisions is the very backbone of it's concept.
    --The connections that enable us to learn are infinitely more important than our state of knowing.

  6. #26
    The trouble with comparing AO to RL is all about choices, consequences and responsibility.

    In RL, you make choices, from those choices stem consequences, and you'd better be prepared to shoulder responsibility for them or they'll might turn round and bite you...

    In AO, you make choices, from those choices stem consequences, but that's it, and even then the consequences are often at best, minor.

    And lets look at Jayde's example of USA - The Evil Empire... (and yes, the USA is an empire, just of a different sort from what the world has sen before...) This empire has brought us a lot of new technology that has made our life easier and has (partly) promoted democracy and freedom. It has also done exacly the opposite when it has suited it. Does any of that make it Good? Evil? No, just like people, societies are far more complex. Even individual actions are rarely that straightforward.

    (Note, I'm British, and could discuss the previous world superpower, ie the UK and the British Empire, in exactly the same terms).

    And since you brought up laws, even laws are rarely that clean cut, tha's why we have lawyers, judges, jurors, all the rest of the legal system. In the UK at least, judges have the final say in actual sentencing and get quite angry when Government tries to get in on the act.

    Now, its true, a game could have rules built into it so that the 'responsibility' part of the equation was brought into play, but I suspect that would have to be handled with care. Without a Human in the loop (and, lets face it, even with sometimes) all it would likely do is annoy people and result in an exodus of players from the game.

    Now, sure, I'd like to see slightly stricter rules covering somethings (killing samesided NPCs should earn temporary PvPable status for those responsible for example), but in general, at the end of the day, the point of a game is fun...
    "Do not try and catch the hamster... that's impossible. Instead only try to realize the truth... There is no hamster, only a deadbeat rollerat..."

    [Social] Means: I don't think we removed any bosses because of bad pathing...there wouldnt be any left if we did :P

    AO Character Skill Emulator and Character Parser and AO Implant Layout Helper

  7. #27
    As an omni doc, I've spent over a year running around healing people that are injured. Honestly, I just don't feel very evil.
    Heals - they're not just for tradeskills anymore
    Hypos omni doc RK2 <-- stupid enough to have thought that going past level 150 would help her be a better doc
    Phlair omni mp RK2 solo char
    Nerfbat omni enf RK2 awarded the hammer of braveness
    Shadow Ops

  8. #28

    Poor definition

    I personally only do minor RP in AO, although I try to at least stay a little bit in character as a Clanner dedicated to freeing Rubi-Ka from the Omni scourge.

    However the sides are, IMHO, poorly defined, in as much as everyone has access to the same gear, the same credits and all have the same freedoms to do what they say.

    The problem I think is that Omni aren't really employees of Omni-Tek, because they do missions like the Clanners do, make the same creds the Clanners do, and Clanners aren't really poor under dogs, barely scrathing a living from an increasingly hostile planet while trying to fight a multi-stellar uber rich corporation.

    We all even look pretty much the same, because we all wear and use pretty much the same things.

    And while this sameness is a result of things done in the name of balance, I think there may be room for some real differences between the sides.

    So maybe Omnis should have to be like actual employees, and HAVE to do missions every once in a while, or face getting a bad performance review (tokens deleted for failure to complete tasks), non-guilded Omni gets a solo mish, guilded gets a team mish.

    And maybe Clanners should get less tokens and cash for the missions they do (but more xp, because they are going the hard way with only themselves as back up).

    And because this is ANARCHY Online, bringing in courts and similar consequences for attacking your own side is not really good, but there should be some consequences nevertheless.

    One could be to make ALL the guards everywhere named NPC's, and if you kill them fine, they join the rest of us at reclaim

    (in a metaphorical sense probably, although it would be SO funny to see Commander Steel standing in line at the reclaim on patch day, going: 'I hate it when they release new weapons!')

    but they also REMEMBER you! And every time they see you for say 1 week of game time, they're going to aggro you!

    Add in that different guards may get to switch around different locations, and maybe you'd have to ask people if Sergeant Bob is guarding the Omni Ent grid term today, because you and him are currently not friends anymore, and if he is you have to go to Trade instead..

    These are of course just random ideas that will obviously go down in flames, but I think more needs to be done to make Omni, Clan and Neutrals more different in playstyle and 'feel'.

    And I totally agree with Jayde, black & white RP is no good, if for no other reason that if AO was b&w, then Omnis would have a perfect excuse for any amount of griefing and exploiting.

    'What do you mean I can't train a lvl 150 boss onto a team of lvl 30s? I'm evil for crying out loud, and the majority of the player base agrees that training is an evil thing to do! Now I'm gonna sucker them into a 25% zone, get them all flagged, exploit the system so I can gank them, and then camp their reclaim term for 4 hours to see if I can break my old record for reclaim camping kills. And mr la-di-da fancy-pancy ooohh-i-have-a-green-name-and-a-teddy-bear ARK, here is a note from Gaute saying it's all good, because I'm being evil, and this isn't a sissy My-Little-Pony carebear game!'

    And the other side of the coin would be the banishment of Clanners for not tipping for buffs, because Clan Is Per Definition Good, And Therefore Does The Right Thing.

    Then again, RP seems to be a fairly marginal part of life on Rubi-Ka, and I can't imagine FC making changes based on RP reasons, especially when they have a million billion other things to fix first.

    I don't really RP myself much (although the very few times I've teamed with Omnis I have felt intensely uncomfortable), but I give much respect for those who do, it takes a lot of thinking and effort to do it.

    And patience of course...
    Last edited by Revelator; Jan 9th, 2003 at 17:26:29.
    Reverend Revelator Ramagano, Proud Something of Alpha Omega

    Alpha Omega: Fighting For Your Future, Today

    No, I'm not back.

    How embarrassing, after all these years it turns out I CAN'T spell **ncom with an F and a U, talk about egg on my face eh?

  9. #29
    If you want to play a shade of gray personally I see no probelm with that, play your shades of gray and have fun however there should still be consequence to actions even if they are for a RP reason...

    Killing your own Factions guards, wandring NPCs, Shop Keepers, or even ICC Personal should have penalties. This should be a given, you wanna RP and kill somethin go right ahead but be prepared for the penalty that comes with it...

    The penalty should be something that effects the RP aspect of the player versus the actually player.

    I think thats the only thing most of us can agree on.
    Graduate of the Elite Academy

    Viray's Yalm Cleaning Services

    Viray's Taxi Co.

    The moral highground was levelled the very day the first player landed in a backyard, saw a cute leet and said "I wonder what it drops?"

    - Savoy

  10. #30
    I see many broken promises, or rather aims.

    I have always preferred the shades of grey, as I think it is closer to real life. However, stories (both fact and fiction) tend to have definite sides, as it makes it easier for the reader to get involved and really want someone to save the day.

    Although a story seems the best way to see a mmorpg it has the problem of getting people on both sides of the conflict. Omni’s should rp that they are the good guys, taking back control from the evil terrorists. Clanners should feel the good side, freeing Rubi-ka from the oppression of omni-tech. Then there should be people who don’t see either side are good/evil (neutrals). Mercenaries seem like a good example, people who don’t care who wins the war but will try to make a profit either way. Other people may try to make out that they are not a threat to either side, and try to keep out of the conflict.

    I feel that there should be uncertainty as to who the good guys are (who will win in the end), as knowing the ending spoils the plot.

    History is written by the winners, therefore the winners are always good the righteous.



    FC have so far made little effort of making one side officially good (other than preproduction), choosing to show both sides of the conflict. I can’t see this changing much as so much depends on keeping some balance between the sides. At the moment clans have a slight numerical edge most of the time, but nothing to truly overpower them. Making them officially good (end winners) may break the balance too much, then the game would really fall apart.

    The game described by Gaute, sounds great, but is not the reality now. I guess this may change as the story develops (I hope the story develops) but I imagine design changes have been made since then, and what we have now is pretty much what is to come in the shades of grey.



    oh yer, and consequences to actions sounds great, but I would imagine this is very hard to add in game mechanics.

  11. #31

    Post re:

    Essentially, I agree with the first poster,

    Now if someone wants to RP outside the norm they certainly should be able to do so. I do not think the entire game's history and intent, as dictated by the fellow who created it should be ignored though. If you want to do X, fine but recognise and deal with the way the game is suppose to play out. You are an exception, not a rule.

    I am not saying don't RP X, and that the focus should be on the conflict. Some people are drawn to a faction/side for a reason, or because they already have a clear cut developed character idea that fits congruently into the chosen side. On the most simple level my MP would be regarded as an evil omni. Does she see herself that way? No. I can assure you I am quite creative and have done alot with her. Choosing to reject your factions assigned role is sometimes an easy/lazy quick fix to feeling unique.

    IMO the BEST drama occurs between two complimentary opposites, like GvE. That doesn't mean NO grey to me however, but I am debating a written story. Not one that has to plug into a gaming environment.

    Fantasy is going to be more simple than RL, look at how simplistic and trite some of our movies are, however that doesn't reduce our enjoyment if we suspend disbelief and indulge.
    Last edited by Gorgetha; Jan 11th, 2003 at 15:10:14.
    Gorgetha
    *******************
    Priestess of the Unspeakable
    Omni Meta-physicist (RK1 Atlantean)

  12. #32
    Originally posted by Krystanova
    I agree with Jayde. What I remember reading about Anarchy Online in PC Gamer is that this game was supposed to be more wide-open, with the players dictating events in the world. It was SUPPOSED to be possible for people to become powerful leaders, masterful assassins, brilliant scientists, hardened criminals, wold-traveling explorers, rich tradesmen, and so on.
    I feel pretty famous. Most people know me. I work for peace, and have brought it to a few. More and more I speak with every day. Eventually I hope to have many many people in the peaceful organization I work for. On Rubi-Ka, if you beleive it you can acheive it. It may take work, but you can do all the things you are talking about.

    Benjamin "Fixerben" Bacarella - L212 AL10
    Haywood "Brawlking" Jablomy - L220 AL21

  13. #33
    Well there really seems to be two issues being discussed here, roleplay and game mechanics.

    As to roleplay, well I agree with Tarryk. Players are going to roleplay (or not) their characters the way they WANT to and nothing you or Funcom can do will change that.

    Now as to game mechanics. In my opinion players should suffer some kind of penalty if they kill a NPC of their own faction. Other games have been able to do this. In some games you are flagged as a "murderer" which means that anyone may attack you without penalty to themselves. Some games have you "lose faction" which means that the next time you waltz up to a merchant to buy something, instead of selling to you the merchant will tell you to get lost (or even pull out a weapon and try to kill you).

    As to teaming with players of opposite faction....I think this was determined by the simple fact of not originally having enough players to team with. It is possible to forbid cross teaming. EQ does it on some of their servers where if you are say a high elf or wood elf you literally can't team with a dark elf. The question then becomes....is there enough support within the AO player base to support such a change?

  14. #34
    "I understand the power of role-playing, but it is getting rediculous! Where are our "clear-cut" roles and story line?"

    Nothing has been clear cut. Omni-Tek kills clan fighters, so the clanners bomb an apartment complex. Uh....?

    My Adventurer is an Omni-Tek employee. He is a good man, who views the clans as a group of terrorists, and thus far, has only seen Omni as providing well for him.

    My MA is Omni-Tek, a loyal soldier, who will do whatever it takes so that they will win.

    My NT is a clanner, who hates the Omni-Tek corporation, but not the worker, because they are being deceived, and also likes Phillip Ross, as he is doing his best to try for peace between the clans and Omni, while dealing with his superiors at the same time (management sucks).

    And my Doc is Omni. She respects Mr Radiman with every inch of her being, but believes that most members of the clans are out of control, psychotic, terrorists and murderers. She does not necessarily believe that Omni is the greatest place in the world to be, but wants absolutely nothing to do with the clans.


    As a side note.. I still think we should be able to switch to a neutral status. The way I see my characters, my Adv or Doc like Omni-Tek as they are, and will support them.. but if they started seeing Omni do squirrely things in the fight against the clans, buh-bye. At the same time, they hate the clans, so they wouldn't go there... why can't a character say "I want nothing to do with any of you bastards!" and turn their backs on both?!

  15. #35
    Originally posted by Windrunner

    As a side note.. I still think we should be able to switch to a neutral status. The way I see my characters, my Adv or Doc like Omni-Tek as they are, and will support them.. but if they started seeing Omni do squirrely things in the fight against the clans, buh-bye. At the same time, they hate the clans, so they wouldn't go there... why can't a character say "I want nothing to do with any of you bastards!" and turn their backs on both?!
    Ahh, but you can. All it involves is a long, sometimes painful procedure of releaving all your memories and experiences. However I know you would be well received amongst us neutral. We are a very welcoming kind.
    Garret "Necc" Scheer press officer of Desert Winds (MSAS)

    Karma, the world's true equalizer.

    Free Rubi-Ka!

  16. #36
    Which is not feasable for those of us with full time jobs. Still, I appreciate the offer.

    (A quest at least?!)

  17. #37
    Originally posted by Windrunner
    My NT is a clanner, who hates the Omni-Tek corporation, but not the worker, because they are being deceived, and also likes Phillip Ross, as he is doing his best to try for peace between the clans and Omni, while dealing with his superiors at the same time (management sucks).

    And my Doc is Omni. She respects Mr Radiman with every inch of her being, but believes that most members of the clans are out of control, psychotic, terrorists and murderers. She does not necessarily believe that Omni is the greatest place in the world to be, but wants absolutely nothing to do with the clans.
    Ok, First off, when was the last time you heard anything at all from Philip Ross? He is pretty much non-existent at the moment. He hasnt said a word in AGES. And Radiman is gone. He ran away. How do you respect someone like that? He better have a good reason for running too.

    How can you call people that you dont know psychotic, or terrorists and murderers? Your characters have some rather disturbingly single-minded views.

  18. #38
    Originally posted by Benjacrat
    Ok, First off, when was the last time you heard anything at all from Philip Ross? He is pretty much non-existent at the moment. He hasnt said a word in AGES. And Radiman is gone. He ran away. How do you respect someone like that? He better have a good reason for running too.

    How can you call people that you dont know psychotic, or terrorists and murderers? Your characters have some rather disturbingly single-minded views.
    When's the last time we heard anything from anyone? The story has been dead in this game for freaking ever.

    Also, as a side note, I live on RK2. RK1 is too crowded for my tastes. However, Funcom has decided that RK2 is only there to lessen the load on RK1. We are the bastard children. Funcom ignores us, and doesn't allow us any part in the story. Thus, I see what little happens, and make my conclusions from that.

  19. #39
    OOC:

    Gotcha But try not to think that Funcom just has RK2 to lessen the load. They just simply dont have the manpower to run RP on 2 different dimensions at the same time.

    And imagine if you did the same thing on 2 different planets. People would react differently on each planet. Its like Funcom trying to run 2 different games at the same time. With 2 seperate storylines, and 2 different outcomes. You would need 2 full staffs of people to run a game like that. And the only person in the world that could afford that is Bill Gates.

    So dont be so quick to throw accusations that they ignore you. They just dont have the manpower to do what you would like them to do.

    I think I might come to RK2 tonight and see whats going on. Sounds interesting...

  20. #40
    Which does make them look the fool for even creating this game without the manpower to support it...

    ...which makes us look the fool for giving them heaps of money every month, which they don't use for hiring manpower to run their 'bastard child' server.

    ...and then there is RK-3...

    Did the third server even ever get it's own name?
    Bottom line is...Funcom is only interested in what makes their pocket book bigger.
    Garret "Necc" Scheer press officer of Desert Winds (MSAS)

    Karma, the world's true equalizer.

    Free Rubi-Ka!

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •