State of RK

I'm a little curious, cause a number of us have talked about the difficulty of breaking out of the current static groups for RP....

What can we as a group do to try to make some change in that? I love to write RP, and I'll typically write with damn near anyone, so I'm pretty wide open to suggestions on this one.

WhiteSnow wrote:

There is everything one needs to overthrow the people in power. In elections you can participate ? You can revolt, you can rob. Can make an army.

With the way economies are handled and how moderation is handled, no, everything is not.  The fact of the matter is those in power can monopolize and standardize how weapons and meat are distributed, and they can outcast anyone who doesn't go along with them from the get go.  The game has become incredibly unrealistic since there's no counterbalancing to how in real life, people don't die en masse straight out of the cradle nor do they spawn from nothing into something without families or local communities to stand up for their children's initial development.  

Yes, RK is a game, so no, it's not going to be realistic, but a lack of realism has to be balanced on both sides.  Right now, RK's unrealism is unbalanced.  The developers depend on old players to appreciate new players in order to introduce them into the game, but if old players don't care, then new players don't get introduced, so revolutions don't happen.

That leads us back to the original problem of the playerbase being resigned.  Obviously, old players don't want revolutions to happen, so they have a rational strategy not to necessarily introduce new players, but if old players weren't all friends in the game (even if they were friends in real life), then they would be competing to bring new players on their side, and it would be suggested that anyone who opposes introducing all new players is screwing around.  Heck, if they introduced new players this way, then revolutions probably wouldn't be necessary since rivalries would already cover people's ambitions.

Mysterie wrote:

How did this go from the state of RK to the state of Dry and JO's relationship? :p

The point is the ruining of the English speaking world is not merely England's fault.  Clearly, something else is going on with the follow-up to the peace made between the CA and England taking the course that it did.

Quote :

The point is the ruining of the English speaking world is not merely England's fault. Clearly, something else is going on with the follow-up to the peace made between the CA and England taking the course that it did.

I had a whole wonderful reply done, and my computer crashed last night. And at the moment I don't really feel like typing the whole thing out again and adding quotes.... so here is a brief cover of what I was going to say.

A player,

I believe especially with this last statement that your views of what is wrong with the game are very skewed. This game has been dying long before the CA happened. Long before the last war happened.

Your thoughts of power and those who control it may be right for where you are, but they are not the norm in other places, ie Ireland has had a very open view on letting new people do things without being the "in" crowd. We simply as that you don't do stupid shit or shit where you live. Power changes hands easily and it is mostly, "oh you want to be on a list!!!" One time I even believe Evan was on the council in Chonnacht, and he drove ALL of Ireland nuts.

Your view on JO is sadly incorrect. The guy is a very power hungry, power centered character. I had the pleasure of having him and his entire clan accuse me of stealing his army once when he was kicked due to injury. They demanded I give it back, it wasn't fair that I was stealing all the glory that should be JO's. Even accused me of cheating to get it. Also, I was once upon a time in the Campbell forum...

The comment about the CA being like England is again incorrect.

Quote :

Obviously, old players don't want revolutions to happen, so they have a rational strategy not to necessarily introduce new players, but if old players weren't all friends in the game (even if they were friends in real life), then they would be competing to bring new players on their side, and it would be suggested that anyone who opposes introducing all new players is screwing around.

Again, this may be the norm where you are but it is not the case in other places. I haven't seen anyone in Ireland competing to bring new players to their side, in fact most people in Ireland will be very straight with new people : explain the game, explain rp,explain what you "can" do in a game and answer whatever questions they may have. Then we usually get them drunk.

Honestly, most of your issues, and not saying they aren't valid issues, seem to be stemmed from your characters location and perhaps preconceived notions based on that? If what it would take for you to enjoy the game more is to be somewhere that you could follow your own path, speak your mind and not witness the "old boys club" there are places you can find that. Search around till you find a place you like. That was the best thing the devs have done giving us ships.


Oh, and the last comment....you mentioned mods and their falling for the whining about players. There aren't many left that are dumb enough to fall for that. I know personally when I get those messages, I simply reply if you want me to mod them like that, I will begin to do the same with your posts, as it wouldn't be fair otherwise. It usually clears that issue up quickly



>>>>>>>

Kaireth,

I'm like you, I'll write with anyone in most things (there's a few spots that I will stick with a few based on the story line) I think honestly, it's that whole RP snobbish thing. Just look at Aquerons comments (if they're still there) about how pathetic the rp was in the one thread in Glasgow. Most who rp tend to think they are above others and therefore who wants to rp with an inferior. And yea, getting requests to delete posts because they weren't up to par for the writer shocked me when I got the first one. Now I just resist the urge to respond " Stop being such a damn snob, your shit ain't that cool...I have to read all of it."

There used to be an rp school, maybe something like that could help again....or more open rp? Not that closed or invited ones are really that closed. But open does sound more inviting

This is what frustrates me:

Saxonia wrote:

JDW wrote:

Jonkvrouwlinda wrote:

Wasn't there a timelimit (already) for the new mayor to do anything with the town 3d incluiding naming your builder? Or did this got deleted too?

Yes indeed. From day 0 this thing exists. And it's the same in case of revolt. What OP describes (revolt to destroy ramparts) isn't possible.

Why was it possible after the revolt in Mistelbach or Ulm to delete the ramparts immediately by eradicate them????

Not sure if any of you remember JDW, he's very rarely seen because he's a part time programmer on rk. This is from the 'Deletion of Ramparts' thread. He had posted saying they basically could not be deleted after a revolt, and then there's the player here that states that apparently they could and it did happen. Obviously I have no info atm to support if indeed it did happen but tbh...it wouldn't surprise me. Also, as far as I know, ramparts have no real meaning behind them, as in they don't offer any type of ig support in actually protecting a town at this time? So why, absolutely WHY are they even available if they're not fully functional, as with everything with the majority of the IG mechanics. This is what irritates me the most. Started out Church Way when I really got into it and look where it's at now ^^ it's about dead. And science way? Army way? So much left to desire. It's sad IMO. So many promises never to be seen, I'll continue to have 'patience' though.

I can't even go there on the whole behind the scenes RP drama thing, I just can't. Some people have issues, some don't, I'd like to consider myself as one of those who don't because I'll play and RP with just about anyone. Even if it is in support of their charry's hatred or whatever against the 'bad guys'. As long as I'm not getting any ooc hate mail on the side!

That's actually a good example of my main complaint, too, Trinity. I saw that exchange and I'm fairly sure that it was dealt with too hurriedly for good comprehension of the issue in a second language. I'm guessing JDW means ramparts can't be destroyed in a revolt. (Duh.) I don't think he's looking at the fact that whoever is mayor or planner can just delete, and that those positions can be determined by revolting.

You know it crossed my mind that maybe they're just not communicating themselves on the flipside? And maybe that's where and why all this confusion with things being left undone comes from...idk. Any which way you look at it, it sucks for us as players. :/ The times I've come across JDW I've enjoyed, because he really does seem to care, but again it's like a side gig for him and that's a shame.

A Player wrote:

The point is the ruining of the English speaking world is not merely England's fault.  Clearly, something else is going on with the follow-up to the peace made between the CA and England taking the course that it did.

You are right, it is not all England's fault. It is the fault of the development for allowing the game to shrink so much.

When I first created NNGO years ago, there were only 10 of us, but we had a lot of opportunities for expansion because there were 10X the amount of players around. Now, I don't know how anyone could really start a new group or entity, and fresh ideas are something always needed in a game like this. Now, people are forced to comply with old ideas to even suggest anything new.

The game is getting so small, its pretty depressing, and we all know how contagious negativity can be...

Thanks for your posts.

On the topic of making RP more open, I know that was one of the things I wanted to do when I resurrected the RP guild (and failed), and then maddog resurrected it (and failed again, although it did breath for a few months). Maybe if we could get the RP guild moved to forum 1 it would have more traffic, or if we could get mentors/mayors to advertise it's existence to newbies. One problem I've seen there is people look at it, and don't really do anything though. There have only been 6/7 RP's advertised there for people to join since Maddog brought it back.

I might send him a note about things to do to make it more active, now that I think about it, but just having a place for newborns to go to find a list of RP's they can join would increase the amount of newborns that stay, I think.

Then again, I've done 1x1 RP's with newborns and they usually end up quitting anyways, but maybe that's just because I'm a shitty RP partner lol.

If we can get that forum to look a little more active, I'll plug it in my mentor letter. I hate to send people there now when it looks like a tumbleweed should be rolling through any minute. I'll try to drop in tomorrow to help with the activity level.

A Player wrote:

If anything, court sentences need to be made more severe so long-term punishments can be administered.  For example, if you have people in government who commit treason by betraying and intimidating the public to maintain their social status, you probably want to fine them thousands or tens of thousands of pounds and throw them in jail for months if not a year.  The real reason for containing the courts is to prevent this.  It really has nothing to do with excessively punishing small time crooks.  The developers don't want revolutionizing liberation campaigns to take place.  If a group of people manage to grab control of a corrupt government, the developers don't want those people to have the ability to bury corrupt people six feet under.  Corrupt people don't want their corruption over time to go to waste.

But think of the effect of what you suggest in terms of retaining players?  With long term punishment or fines of tens of thousands of pounds, you would end up with players abandoning a character or even the game. While what you suggest may be appropriate for RL - this is, in the end a game. If you make the situation a player finds themself to be in so hopeless in terms of recovery and effectively needing to spend the next few years in a state of abject poverty or inactivity, why would they continue to play. While you may find the punishment system unrealistic, to make it more severe would not help with player retention and may put players off even trying to be corrupt/criminal in the first place.

As has been pointed out already, conflict is the lifeblood of any game and indeed any story. If you effectively eliminate your opponents from the game, then you have no one left to provide the conflict. And after the initial celebration of victory, comes boredom. Eliminating your foe or driving them away from your area of play only works if the defeated players are determined enough to stick around and try again, or if there is a new swell of incoming players to take their place.

Exactly. Here's what would happen...and does happen...

I get a big robbery score...I transfer the money to a friend...

You crush me with fines etc....

I restart and my friend sends me my stuff


Or on a bigger scale...

Bigjack rips off a county....

Transfers everything to a certain person

He's now an upstanding very wealthy player that you respect :-)

A Player wrote:

The fact of the matter is those in power can monopolize and standardize how weapons and meat are distributed, and they can outcast anyone who doesn't go along with them from the get go.

And just how you can monopolize the meat and weaponry distribution ? I dont think its such a big problem to get meat or a weapon for anyone.

Bellz wrote:

I had a whole wonderful reply done, and my computer crashed last night. And at the moment I don't really feel like typing the whole thing out again and adding quotes.... so here is a brief cover of what I was going to say.

A player,

I believe especially with this last statement that your views of what is wrong with the game are very skewed. This game has been dying long before the CA happened. Long before the last war happened.

Your thoughts of power and those who control it may be right for where you are, but they are not the norm in other places, ie Ireland has had a very open view on letting new people do things without being the "in" crowd. We simply as that you don't do stupid shit or shit where you live. Power changes hands easily and it is mostly, "oh you want to be on a list!!!" One time I even believe Evan was on the council in Chonnacht, and he drove ALL of Ireland nuts.

Your view on JO is sadly incorrect. The guy is a very power hungry, power centered character. I had the pleasure of having him and his entire clan accuse me of stealing his army once when he was kicked due to injury. They demanded I give it back, it wasn't fair that I was stealing all the glory that should be JO's. Even accused me of cheating to get it. Also, I was once upon a time in the Campbell forum...

The comment about the CA being like England is again incorrect.

I'm not really familiar with the intricacies of JO's operations, so I'm not commenting on that. Often, people just make wild accusations, but on the other hand, often people only have accusations to make. What I know about JO is that he understands the limits of RK. Yes, he pursues power, but he also understands that power pursuits are really all RK has to offer. He doesn't appreciate people who pursue power through what's beyond RK's limits. He understands the difference between people being friends in the game versus being friends outside of the game, and it's happened quite often in his complicated relations between England and the CA that JO's fought against his friends outside of the game while fighting with those who weren't his friends outside of the game.

As for being part of the "in" crowd, that's a little more complicated. Anyone who knows anything about socializing knows there really isn't such a thing as an "in" crowd. It's an illusion that happens from the complications of communication. Those who are the most complicated to communicate with become the "in" crowd. Also, I'm not talking about people who use big words or talk verbosely here either. I'm talking about people who can sensitively manipulate words to mean what they want in the moment because on an emotional level, others around are charmed or intimidated against making sure words mean what everyone needs over time instead.

The problem with RK is that because people get friendship outside of the game confused with friendship inside of the game, communication gets manipulated according to players' emotions instead of characters'. This makes things complicated on an unfair basis. You can't simply charm or intimidate characters within the game to become part of the "in" crowd, nor can you counter "in" crowd behavior by campaigning for what everyone needs over time instead. The only way you become successful in RK is by cheating by charming or intimidating players' emotions.

Bellz wrote:

Again, this may be the norm where you are but it is not the case in other places. I haven't seen anyone in Ireland competing to bring new players to their side, in fact most people in Ireland will be very straight with new people : explain the game, explain rp,explain what you "can" do in a game and answer whatever questions they may have. Then we usually get them drunk.

Honestly, most of your issues, and not saying they aren't valid issues, seem to be stemmed from your characters location and perhaps preconceived notions based on that? If what it would take for you to enjoy the game more is to be somewhere that you could follow your own path, speak your mind and not witness the "old boys club" there are places you can find that. Search around till you find a place you like. That was the best thing the devs have done giving us ships.


Oh, and the last comment....you mentioned mods and their falling for the whining about players. There aren't many left that are dumb enough to fall for that. I know personally when I get those messages, I simply reply if you want me to mod them like that, I will begin to do the same with your posts, as it wouldn't be fair otherwise. It usually clears that issue up quickly

Exactly. That lack of competition is the problem. Often, new players simply get told how to play effective level 1 or 2 characters, how to participate on the forum, and get hung out with a few times in the tavern.

The problem is this really doesn't help. It basically just trains new players into becoming tools for old players.

It doesn't explain the intricacies of government such as effective resource payments for prestige. It doesn't explain the political relationships of characters on the forum. It doesn't explain university plans in which way we're educating characters in order to make them effective members of society.

The thing about politics (whether in game or in real life) is there's a gray area between how society is generally run regardless of the specific social model at hand AND the specific model at hand. The problem is old players in RK are so insistent about preserving their desired specific social model that they've forgotten how society is generally run. They merely explain the basics, but then leave new players wondering, "Why should I care about all of this? All it's amounting to is me being a tool for old players' desired social models."

New players don't come to RK to simply be tools in roleplaying old players' desired social models. They come to roleplay their own desired social models. When they get treated the way they are, they are instantly discouraged from staying around.

Old players then tell new players that they have to compromise if they want to participate, but that's backwards. Old players are supposed to compromise first because they were here first. Old players then laugh it off because they'll still survive in the game if they don't compromise, so the game ends up dying because it merely consists of old players who are content in simply preserving their old social models while constantly waiting for some new player to be the tools they want.

The same thing applies to moderation as you described. Old players are OK with both sides being moderated like that. Old players know they have reputations that have been built up over time. If threads get moderated collectively like that, then old players will have their reputations chipped away at, but not destroyed. New players, because their reputations are so much smaller, get their reputations destroyed from the smallest chips.

If you want, think of it like an earthquake taking place where a big building and a small building exist. Yea, both buildings get shook equally, but the smaller building gets totally destroyed while the big building just shakes off some rubble. The big building is willing to endure the earthquake ON PURPOSE. Moderators in RK fail to understand this. They don't realize how they're being provoked by old players in order to get rid of new players they don't like.

The game again dies because new players never build up reputations. Only old player reputations stay around.

anto_capone wrote:

You are right, it is not all England's fault. It is the fault of the development for allowing the game to shrink so much.

When I first created NNGO years ago, there were only 10 of us, but we had a lot of opportunities for expansion because there were 10X the amount of players around. Now, I don't know how anyone could really start a new group or entity, and fresh ideas are something always needed in a game like this. Now, people are forced to comply with old ideas to even suggest anything new.

The game is getting so small, its pretty depressing, and we all know how contagious negativity can be...

Thanks for your posts. Smile

EXACTLY.

That's also what convinces me the developers don't have a profitable business model in mind. RK is simply their hobby where they mock fellow roleplayers for the fun of it. They don't care about growing RK. They only care about existing. On top of that, there's little to no motive to actually purchase anything they have to offer. Those who already exist can exist indefinitely without buying what they're selling.

I mean the server expenses alone have to cost more than the revenues they're bringing in from things like plastic surgery and stealth packs, and there's definitely no way the developers could make a living from the game.

Beth wrote:

But think of the effect of what you suggest in terms of retaining players? With long term punishment or fines of tens of thousands of pounds, you would end up with players abandoning a character or even the game. While what you suggest may be appropriate for RL - this is, in the end a game. If you make the situation a player finds themself to be in so hopeless in terms of recovery and effectively needing to spend the next few years in a state of abject poverty or inactivity, why would they continue to play. While you may find the punishment system unrealistic, to make it more severe would not help with player retention and may put players off even trying to be corrupt/criminal in the first place.

As has been pointed out already, conflict is the lifeblood of any game and indeed any story. If you effectively eliminate your opponents from the game, then you have no one left to provide the conflict. And after the initial celebration of victory, comes boredom. Eliminating your foe or driving them away from your area of play only works if the defeated players are determined enough to stick around and try again, or if there is a new swell of incoming players to take their place.

That's not necessarily a bad thing though.

For example, if you have some individuals or small groups of players who have been corrupt over time in discouraging players who trickle in from staying around, and then those individuals or small groups get discouraged from playing because of being severely punished, then that corruption will disappear as well, so the game will open up to larger groups of players.

I do agree, however, that severe punishment needs to have some additions in order to prevent it from getting out of control. For example, we don't need those in power to constantly use severe punishment to prevent anyone and everyone who's incompatible with them from thriving in their society.

One thing I would suggest is a "jailbreak" system while punishments were being enforced over time. For example, if someone gets fined 1000 pounds, that fine could be enforced at a rate of 10 pounds a day over 100 days. However, if the convict gets freed from jail before the sentence is up, then the rest of the sentence wouldn't be enforced. Another thing is if too many convicts were in jail, then it would be difficult to keep them in order. Convicts could work together to force a prison break, and outsiders who tried to help them would have an easier time.

WhiteSnow wrote:

And just how you can monopolize the meat and weaponry distribution ? I dont think its such a big problem to get meat or a weapon for anyone.

Taxes, controlling the iron supply, manipulating corn prices, and manipulating milk prices are some ways you can do it. As long as those in power control a limited supply and dump it on the market, they can prevent alternate suppliers from running profitable ventures. Profit requires both decent price and decent quantity. If you lower price while providing limited quantity, then supply doesn't expand to the point of providing for others beyond who you like.

Quote :

The problem with RK is that because people get friendship outside of the game confused with friendship inside of the game, communication gets manipulated according to players' emotions instead of characters'. This makes things complicated on an unfair basis. You can't simply charm or intimidate characters within the game to become part of the "in" crowd, nor can you counter "in" crowd behavior by campaigning for what everyone needs over time instead. The only way you become successful in RK is by cheating by charming or intimidating players' emotions.

Actually, only those with issue realizing RK is a game have that issue. The rest of us can enjoy the difference quite easily. My character fought against the NNGO for years. Most everyone who is on this forum and I still had great fun chatting on this forum and playing other games. Beths character and mine have never really gotten along. Beth and I have played DDO together and had a blast. People need to begin to realize it is just a game. RK is not an extension of your life, it is make believe. Sadly there are those that can't quite grasp that.

As for the rest of your reply, it again is all dependent on where you play in RK. I've never seen any old player where I am tell another how to play. I have seen many new players flourish, like Tad in Chonnacht for example, went from not much of anyone in power to Duke for quite a few terms and a very well respected character, all because he asked about politics and was encouraged to try regardless of in game power. Actually quite a few in the town of BAL. It was all new players and ones who are not powerful that brought that town back from death. BLR also had a small resurgence of activity and growth from a new group of players who decided they were creating a Bandit land, they had no old players telling them what they could do, they just did it. Was a very awesome thing to see happen, and kind of does prove it seems to be a situation issue of new players being controlled and told how to play.

I do agree with Beth, having such a punishment system in place would destroy any conflict whatsoever and ruin the game. Those who did stick around would become vindictive players. You would see an increase of nasty things on the forum and quite likely an influx of cloning as they tried tried to get revenge. I would never support such a thing in a game as it does nothing to enhance only hinder. And yes, it is a very bad thing.

Trinity wrote:

Started out Church Way when I really got into it and look where it's at now ^^ it's about dead.

I was thinking the other day, that it would be fun to revive churchway as a whole, in the form of a growing military religious group that was trying to spread its influence. It would be historically relevant and present many forum and in game story and playing options. Traditional RK-religion would kick up a stink, because we're all used to RK-religion being unrealistically modern and peaceful, but thinking purely logically, it makes sense.

That sounds fun! I'm totally up for that idea.

actually, that does sound fun. I remember when Hypno's brother burnt down the church in Scotland... there was a HUGE fuss over that. Might even be something Bell would get involved in...if it was promoted to her the right way . =)

I'm in favor of the Crusades

Fuck Muslims :-)











(Lol - don't get all offended, just making a joke. If you are offended, take a breath, take a drink, take your fucking burka off and shove up up your twat)

Fitz_ wrote:

Trinity wrote:

Started out Church Way when I really got into it and look where it's at now ^^ it's about dead.

I was thinking the other day, that it would be fun to revive churchway as a whole, in the form of a growing military religious group that was trying to spread its influence. It would be historically relevant and present many forum and in game story and playing options. Traditional RK-religion would kick up a stink, because we're all used to RK-religion being unrealistically modern and peaceful, but thinking purely logically, it makes sense.

It very well would be Fitz and one I would love to watch grow and read about often

I knew it!!! Give me negative ratings on my post! I don't care!

R

Quote :

take your fucking burka off and shove up up your twat

Cracked me up

I think it's nice that the discussion here is being used as a springboard for new ideas for roleplay and so on, but in the end, discussing player behaviour - how people group together, how old attitudes may impede new players, how some players cannot differentiate between RL and the game - is kinda moot.

In the end, the developers are not moving in the right direction with their current focus on 3D, mini games and costume designing contests. Unless, of course, they are wanting the sort of players who like that kind of thing (nothing wrong with that if that is your thing), but those sort of developments should be the icing on the cake, rather than become the cake itself.

The core game is essentially the same as it was when it launched and there is little incentive or reward to push beyond lvl 3. The percentage of players taking part in RP is less than those who don't. The developers should be looking at ideas for making it worthwhile continuing to play if you are NOT a roleplayer.

And let's face it, even the new 3D which was launched as though it was something amazing, looks really old fashioned. Trying it out the other day, I felt like I was zipping around an old console game from the 1990s.

Roby Lambourne wrote:

Quote :

take your fucking burka off and shove up up your twat

Cracked me up

Thanks. I lmao at this thread to begin with.

I like this thread. It is a good thread.

Was going to drop in to say something but Beth beat me to it. The core issue really are the developer's priorities. The gameplay, which has never been too developed or well thought out in all areas to begin with, is getting very stale and no amount of cosmetics or minigames change that. There's that saying about polishing feces...And whatever few gameplay features which are released are poorly designed or incomplete (medicine way, ramparts).

It's been a long time since I got into any real argument with anyone in RK but if there really is a community/roleplay problem it's probably just because the community is becoming increasingly small. You know what happens if you put people in a small room long enough...RK could become Gilligan's Island.

Oh well. Plenty of other things to spend my money on.