Knock knock

[Khm]

Hi, how have you been?
As everyone has noticed the activity within the server has decreased greatly the past 2 weeks, especially criminal activity. The HQ would like to hear everyone's point of view and opinion regarding this, highlight the existing problems and suggest solutions that will not require coding (there are already scripts that are being created currently to help freshen things up regarding player to player interactions), what's making you not join? What do you want to see so you join the server and play?

However I'd like to advise everyone to refrain from attacking anyone and/or any useless comments that do not belong to this thread. Everyone is free to give an opinion whether you're active or inactive or banned.

[TheGreasyChopper]

Group name: Angels of Death Motorcycle Club
Group topic URL: http://www.argonathrpg.eu/index.php?topic=58424.0
What's your idea? A Change to how Group Conflict/Wars work:

Our organization has had only one large “war” against another group and that was a few years ago and it was the one with the Lost MC. This is when I realized that wars and group conflict can be a great time and fun for both sides participating.

Before I give out the suggestion I will explain how that one worked out. We were friendly for a while, pretty good OOC(Replace with “outside RP” if you do not understand the IC/OOC concept) wise. Then there was some hostile interaction with their members and ours, which lead to a declaration of war.

Before anything started happening IG, we sat down with their leaders and talked. We agreed that we shall not attack each other if we greatly outnumber them(i.e 1 Lost MC member IG and 5 AOD). We agreed that most of our conflicts will be brawls/drive-bys without actually killing any characters off. Should it come to a CK(Killing off a character officially), both sides agree to that. Whenever someone was CKed, he had to stay away from the war.

Things were going down IG, both groups had casualties, but in the meanwhile we all had fun and posted screenshots of the scenarios, even planning out attacks and coordinating them with the “enemy” OOCly.

So, to my suggestion – A re-work on how wars work. This will require both group leader and member dedication as well as assistance from the administration.

If a group decides to wage war on another one, they will need to have approval for the conflict from ARUN/Administration. They will need to submit an application in some sort. Explain who their group is, who the other group is and what lead to the conflict. An example in the spoiler(Completely made up)

Spoiler for Hiden:

Group name: The Running Dogs MC
Name of group you have conflict with: The Clericuzio Family
What is the cause of the war: John Doezio from the Clericuzio has been asking business owners that are under Running Dogs protection to pay tax.

Other groups involved(State RP reason for them being involved): No other groups involved.

How long will you need to continue the war/conflict: 3 weeks(Agreed by both sides)
Condition for victory on first group side: John Doezio being Character Killed
Condition for victory on second group: Business owners agree to take Clericuzio family as protectors of their business and stepping away from the Running Dogs

Condition for peace: John Doezio apologizes/steps down and stays away from the Running Dogs businesses

This way, if the war is approved by the responsible figures, the group can engage in conflict from the day the war is approved until the deadline set/approved(By both ARUN and other party for example)
Should any actions be taken before or after that, administrative punishment for DM/Rulebreaking should be taken onto the breaking party.

Another thing is the “Other groups involved”, if you want your friends and buddies to take part of the war, they need to be impacted in one way or another. If Family A wants to take in Family B into their war, Family B must have had an interaction with the opposing party. Whenever the conflict is being approved, the “allies” should be taken into consideration.

In order to avoid group leaders calling in their allies and /g inviting them to help out, perhaps a “ROSTER” can be included in the “War Application”, listing down group members who will partake in the conflict. This way people who were inactive and simply head IG to join the war will not be allowed to. And also group leaders cannot invite their allies in their own group for the sake of group conflict.

And lastly, the reason for the war has to be something serious and RPed(Perhaps ask for Screenshots/Proof). Things like “They attacked our weedfield” or “They kill my member in shootout” shouldn’t be allowed. There has to be a proper RP reason. A conflict between a member of group A and a member of group B shouldn’t be allowed to escalate into a war between groups, as technically it is between two people and not one person and the group or the opposite.

I would be willing to write up some examples for applications if anything is not clear enough.

Give brief detail on your idea and how will it benefit the server and other groups: In a way this will  cut down on any hostilities and "Aggressive RP" as I call it. Shootouts and kidnappings will be reduced and will provide more free space and encourage peaceful interactions. In my eyes, Argo has had enough wars that are ongoing for years with no clear goal or end in sight. This way if group A wins, group B agrees to the conditions set and loses something (i.e. warring over a group HQ).

[Lonewolf]

I think being a criminal is not challenging at all and it's rather easy, making the players to just gather some millions, buying everything they want and then...nothing else to do.

[Khm]

Spoiler for Hiden:

Group name: Angels of Death Motorcycle Club
Group topic URL: http://www.argonathrpg.eu/index.php?topic=58424.0
What's your idea? A Change to how Group Conflict/Wars work:

Our organization has had only one large “war” against another group and that was a few years ago and it was the one with the Lost MC. This is when I realized that wars and group conflict can be a great time and fun for both sides participating.

Before I give out the suggestion I will explain how that one worked out. We were friendly for a while, pretty good OOC(Replace with “outside RP” if you do not understand the IC/OOC concept) wise. Then there was some hostile interaction with their members and ours, which lead to a declaration of war.

Before anything started happening IG, we sat down with their leaders and talked. We agreed that we shall not attack each other if we greatly outnumber them(i.e 1 Lost MC member IG and 5 AOD). We agreed that most of our conflicts will be brawls/drive-bys without actually killing any characters off. Should it come to a CK(Killing off a character officially), both sides agree to that. Whenever someone was CKed, he had to stay away from the war.

Things were going down IG, both groups had casualties, but in the meanwhile we all had fun and posted screenshots of the scenarios, even planning out attacks and coordinating them with the “enemy” OOCly.

So, to my suggestion – A re-work on how wars work. This will require both group leader and member dedication as well as assistance from the administration.

If a group decides to wage war on another one, they will need to have approval for the conflict from ARUN/Administration. They will need to submit an application in some sort. Explain who their group is, who the other group is and what lead to the conflict. An example in the spoiler(Completely made up)

Spoiler for Hiden:

Group name: The Running Dogs MC
Name of group you have conflict with: The Clericuzio Family
What is the cause of the war: John Doezio from the Clericuzio has been asking business owners that are under Running Dogs protection to pay tax.

Other groups involved(State RP reason for them being involved): No other groups involved.

How long will you need to continue the war/conflict: 3 weeks(Agreed by both sides)
Condition for victory on first group side: John Doezio being Character Killed
Condition for victory on second group: Business owners agree to take Clericuzio family as protectors of their business and stepping away from the Running Dogs

Condition for peace: John Doezio apologizes/steps down and stays away from the Running Dogs businesses

This way, if the war is approved by the responsible figures, the group can engage in conflict from the day the war is approved until the deadline set/approved(By both ARUN and other party for example)
Should any actions be taken before or after that, administrative punishment for DM/Rulebreaking should be taken onto the breaking party.

Another thing is the “Other groups involved”, if you want your friends and buddies to take part of the war, they need to be impacted in one way or another. If Family A wants to take in Family B into their war, Family B must have had an interaction with the opposing party. Whenever the conflict is being approved, the “allies” should be taken into consideration.

In order to avoid group leaders calling in their allies and /g inviting them to help out, perhaps a “ROSTER” can be included in the “War Application”, listing down group members who will partake in the conflict. This way people who were inactive and simply head IG to join the war will not be allowed to. And also group leaders cannot invite their allies in their own group for the sake of group conflict.

And lastly, the reason for the war has to be something serious and RPed(Perhaps ask for Screenshots/Proof). Things like “They attacked our weedfield” or “They kill my member in shootout” shouldn’t be allowed. There has to be a proper RP reason. A conflict between a member of group A and a member of group B shouldn’t be allowed to escalate into a war between groups, as technically it is between two people and not one person and the group or the opposite.

I would be willing to write up some examples for applications if anything is not clear enough.

Give brief detail on your idea and how will it benefit the server and other groups: In a way this will  cut down on any hostilities and "Aggressive RP" as I call it. Shootouts and kidnappings will be reduced and will provide more free space and encourage peaceful interactions. In my eyes, Argo has had enough wars that are ongoing for years with no clear goal or end in sight. This way if group A wins, group B agrees to the conditions set and loses something (i.e. warring over a group HQ).

We aren't experiencing problems with group wars right now.

I think being a criminal is not challenging at all and it's rather easy, making the players to just gather some millions, buying everything they want and then...nothing else to do.

I agree about that, weed, meth, crafting weapons all have little to no risk at all which makes things boring when they are done repeatedly, what do you think that should be done to put in more challenge for criminals other than having to worry about other criminals and law enforcement.

[Stefos]

Spoiler for Hiden:

Group name: Angels of Death Motorcycle Club
Group topic URL: http://www.argonathrpg.eu/index.php?topic=58424.0
What's your idea? A Change to how Group Conflict/Wars work:

Our organization has had only one large “war” against another group and that was a few years ago and it was the one with the Lost MC. This is when I realized that wars and group conflict can be a great time and fun for both sides participating.

Before I give out the suggestion I will explain how that one worked out. We were friendly for a while, pretty good OOC(Replace with “outside RP” if you do not understand the IC/OOC concept) wise. Then there was some hostile interaction with their members and ours, which lead to a declaration of war.

Before anything started happening IG, we sat down with their leaders and talked. We agreed that we shall not attack each other if we greatly outnumber them(i.e 1 Lost MC member IG and 5 AOD). We agreed that most of our conflicts will be brawls/drive-bys without actually killing any characters off. Should it come to a CK(Killing off a character officially), both sides agree to that. Whenever someone was CKed, he had to stay away from the war.

Things were going down IG, both groups had casualties, but in the meanwhile we all had fun and posted screenshots of the scenarios, even planning out attacks and coordinating them with the “enemy” OOCly.

So, to my suggestion – A re-work on how wars work. This will require both group leader and member dedication as well as assistance from the administration.

If a group decides to wage war on another one, they will need to have approval for the conflict from ARUN/Administration. They will need to submit an application in some sort. Explain who their group is, who the other group is and what lead to the conflict. An example in the spoiler(Completely made up)

Spoiler for Hiden:

Group name: The Running Dogs MC
Name of group you have conflict with: The Clericuzio Family
What is the cause of the war: John Doezio from the Clericuzio has been asking business owners that are under Running Dogs protection to pay tax.

Other groups involved(State RP reason for them being involved): No other groups involved.

How long will you need to continue the war/conflict: 3 weeks(Agreed by both sides)
Condition for victory on first group side: John Doezio being Character Killed
Condition for victory on second group: Business owners agree to take Clericuzio family as protectors of their business and stepping away from the Running Dogs

Condition for peace: John Doezio apologizes/steps down and stays away from the Running Dogs businesses

This way, if the war is approved by the responsible figures, the group can engage in conflict from the day the war is approved until the deadline set/approved(By both ARUN and other party for example)
Should any actions be taken before or after that, administrative punishment for DM/Rulebreaking should be taken onto the breaking party.

Another thing is the “Other groups involved”, if you want your friends and buddies to take part of the war, they need to be impacted in one way or another. If Family A wants to take in Family B into their war, Family B must have had an interaction with the opposing party. Whenever the conflict is being approved, the “allies” should be taken into consideration.

In order to avoid group leaders calling in their allies and /g inviting them to help out, perhaps a “ROSTER” can be included in the “War Application”, listing down group members who will partake in the conflict. This way people who were inactive and simply head IG to join the war will not be allowed to. And also group leaders cannot invite their allies in their own group for the sake of group conflict.

And lastly, the reason for the war has to be something serious and RPed(Perhaps ask for Screenshots/Proof). Things like “They attacked our weedfield” or “They kill my member in shootout” shouldn’t be allowed. There has to be a proper RP reason. A conflict between a member of group A and a member of group B shouldn’t be allowed to escalate into a war between groups, as technically it is between two people and not one person and the group or the opposite.

I would be willing to write up some examples for applications if anything is not clear enough.

Give brief detail on your idea and how will it benefit the server and other groups: In a way this will  cut down on any hostilities and "Aggressive RP" as I call it. Shootouts and kidnappings will be reduced and will provide more free space and encourage peaceful interactions. In my eyes, Argo has had enough wars that are ongoing for years with no clear goal or end in sight. This way if group A wins, group B agrees to the conditions set and loses something (i.e. warring over a group HQ).

We aren't experiencing problems with group wars right now.

I think being a criminal is not challenging at all and it's rather easy, making the players to just gather some millions, buying everything they want and then...nothing else to do.

I agree about that, weed, meth, crafting weapons all have little to no risk at all which makes things boring when they are done repeatedly, what do you think that should be done to put in more challenge for criminals other than having to worry about other criminals and law enforcement.

Maybe introduce things that were meant to be introduced a long time ago already?
And actually take suggestions in mind rather than just saying "yes" and throwing it in the bin?

[Khm]

Maybe introduce things that were meant to be introduced a long time ago already?
And actually take suggestions in mind rather than just saying "yes" and throwing it in the bin?

Would have been helpful if you stated these "things". Nothing is thrown in the bin.

[Nathan]

Thank you for the opportunity for a civilized talk.

I think there is a root problem that I feel leadership is failing to address. We don't have active ownership on the server. Our leadership feels like a black box that never responds to anything. Players get frustrated because they feel they aren't heard and therefore there is no motivation to login because nothing seems to change. We're essentially in a Sisyphean torment.

This is a good first step but I fear is too late.

[Khm]

Thank you for the opportunity for a civilized talk.

I think there is a root problem that I feel leadership is failing to address. We don't have active ownership on the server. Our leadership feels like a black box that never responds to anything. Players get frustrated because they feel they aren't heard and therefore there is no motivation to login because nothing seems to change. We're essentially in a Sisyphean torment.

This is a good first step but I fear is too late.

We do not need the owners to improve the state of SA:MP at the moment.
This is a good chance for everyone to be heard too to put everything on the table and choose the right cards to get us out of the current state we are in. But again, things that do not involve script changes.

[Sawyer]

If a group decides to wage war on another one, they will need to have approval for the conflict from ARUN/Administration. They will need to submit an application in some sort. Explain who their group is, who the other group is and what lead to the conflict. An example in the spoiler(Completely made up)

Spoiler for Hiden:

Group name: The Running Dogs MC
Name of group you have conflict with: The Clericuzio Family
What is the cause of the war: John Doezio from the Clericuzio has been asking business owners that are under Running Dogs protection to pay tax.

Other groups involved(State RP reason for them being involved): No other groups involved.

How long will you need to continue the war/conflict: 3 weeks(Agreed by both sides)
Condition for victory on first group side: John Doezio being Character Killed
Condition for victory on second group: Business owners agree to take Clericuzio family as protectors of their business and stepping away from the Running Dogs

Condition for peace: John Doezio apologizes/steps down and stays away from the Running Dogs businesses

Spoiler for Hiden:

Give brief detail on your idea and how will it benefit the server and other groups: In a way this will  cut down on any hostilities and "Aggressive RP" as I call it. Shootouts and kidnappings will be reduced and will provide more free space and encourage peaceful interactions. In my eyes, Argo has had enough wars that are ongoing for years with no clear goal or end in sight. This way if group A wins, group B agrees to the conditions set and loses something (i.e. warring over a group HQ).

While I have voiced my hatred about generally toxic IC and OOC wars that always become personal, the vision behind this suggestion seems a little bit off to me, all things considering.

From what I've seen from all over the years, a war is meant to be somewhat toxic and salty in order for it to be healthy and interesting. The whole written down on paper proposal makes it stale for my eyes. It loses the point. Yes we have obviously taken it to a whole new level in Argonath where an in-game difference becomes a real life one but hey, taking it to a completely different standard where every single move has to be agreed from both sides is.. I don't know.. weird.

I've experienced some healthy rivalries with SLP and FLA, Cripz with Ballas, Marlen vs Corleone / Sforza, FLA vs SAPD, NBA vs Wilson Gang, Stracci vs whole server at one point and Soprano vs Gvardia (scratch that one out -sarcasm alert-). I can't imagine the boring outcome of 'hey let's all have a skype group chat and agree what the terms are'. As long as there is no mass DMing or any other form of rule breaking, a war should not be somewhat scripted. Not to mention that demands from both sides are going to come short and most likely the whole terms and proposals will end in disagreement.

In conclusion, I feel like your suggestion or ARUN's or whoever filled in that one, has obvious flaws. There are solid points about communication and equality OOC but 'agreements' for terms or approvals for conflicts is obviously a meh.


What I'd like to see is factions ruling by example. There's a fair amount of players that do not know how to kill their time into the server. Can we have i9 and Frank Hawk back in action, please? 

[Lonewolf]

Thank you for the opportunity for a civilized talk.

I think there is a root problem that I feel leadership is failing to address. We don't have active ownership on the server. Our leadership feels like a black box that never responds to anything. Players get frustrated because they feel they aren't heard and therefore there is no motivation to login because nothing seems to change. We're essentially in a Sisyphean torment.

This is a good first step but I fear is too late.

If you are reffering to Gandalf, and whoever else owns the community, I don't see it as a problem. Every division has it's leaders that can do almost whatever they want with the server, to make it enjoyable. You don't need the community leaders to run the server.

[Khm]

What I'd like to see is factions ruling by example. There's a fair amount of players that do not know how to kill their time into the server. Can we have i9 and Frank Hawk back in action, please? 

I'd like to see them back one more time aswell. Could even bring the GSF vs i9 rivalry back, that was fun back in the day.

[Stivi]

There is no way for me to answer the question unless I ignore your advice on not naming anyone. How do I proceed?

[Khm]

There is no way for me to answer the question unless I ignore your advice on not naming anyone. How do I proceed?

PM.

[Stivi]

There is no way for me to answer the question unless I ignore your advice on not naming anyone. How do I proceed?

PM.

You're not the first manager to say this, nothing has happened. Certainly not the manager I'd like to handle this privately with either. I also don't like that we can't name people. How else are we making anyone responsible then? By banning them? "verbally warning"? "I talked to him" ??

[Khm]

There is no way for me to answer the question unless I ignore your advice on not naming anyone. How do I proceed?

PM.

You're not the first manager to say this, nothing has happened. Certainly not the manager I'd like to handle this privately with either. I also don't like that we can't name people. How else are we making anyone responsible then? By banning them? "verbally warning"? "I talked to him" ??

Putting the responsibility on someone isn't going to solve anything either, we're just going to fight on who's responsible and bring out more stories of the past and solve literally nothing.