Author Topic: Sanguis Astroism  (Read 1016390 times)

Bronnen

  • Noble Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 274
    • View Profile
Re: Sanguis Astroism
« Reply #3630: February 04, 2014, 02:39:52 AM »
Chenier, I know you're angry about this, so am I.

I've been on BM for over 8 years now, and this is by far the most despicable, OOC mechanics abuse I have ever seen.

I really don't care how it is dressed up, it was an abuse of the Game Mechanics. I would honestly be fine with it if Jonsu had just dissolved the church or kicked out absolutely everyone that her character didn't like.

The way it's being done now however is an abuse of Mechanics and absolutely not close to what the characters would do, which is a breach of the SMA.

If anything else, Jonsu appointing Alaster though they hate each other and she would have no reason to do so, is a breach of SMA.

However, having said all that. I will still play, though I now refuse to play with those people, I will play with everyone else.

If everyone in the SA places those two people on Ignore lists, the church will return to normal and everyone can just forget t his ever happened.

De-Legro

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 3838
    • View Profile
Re: Sanguis Astroism
« Reply #3631: February 04, 2014, 02:42:56 AM »
    Finally, we wish to make quite clear that the actions taken by Jonsu and Enoch, while very controversial and upsetting, were, to the best of our knowledge and understanding, conducted entirely in-character and according to all the rules of BattleMaster. It would not be at all appropriate for us to intervene in this case, as it would open the door to similar complaints for a wide variety of other unpopular actions.

    There are still a wide variety of ways this can be handled without any drastic or out-of-character measures. Please do your best to work through this crisis in-character.


they try to ferret their way out of beeing unable to say: "Hey... we cant think about EVERYTHING!"

Jonsu and Enoch found a hole in the cheesy game mechanics and used it! Nothing compared to the few clicks they needed to destroy something others took years to build. To restore the former balance will take MONTHS!

I tried to RP my way out of this mess... but this is too much powerplay... they win by abusing game mechanics and we have to RP it back?

Edited to remove offensive material.

The charter tried to establish a game system counter to how the game mechanics operate. Religions and Guilds are designed such that the current holder of the top rank is basically a dictator. Part of that power is to decide on their successor. SA sought to and had agreed to a different system, obviously that only works so long as everyone continues to play by the rules. As has been pointed out some of the greatest take overs in history were due to someone deciding the rules didn't apply to them, and setting up the situation to reflect that.

Would it have been nice if the religion system had more flexibility. No doubt, it would be nice to have many of the feature and additions that people have been plugging away on for years. Does the mechanic working in exactly the way that Tom designed it to make it cheesy, no. It just runs counter to the way SA wanted to run, and unfortunately when you try and force a system to operate counter to the supported game mechanics, there are going to be ways for others to take advantage.

Chenier, I know you're angry about this, so am I.

I've been on BM for over 8 years now, and this is by far the most despicable, OOC mechanics abuse I have ever seen.

I really don't care how it is dressed up, it was an abuse of the Game Mechanics. I would honestly be fine with it if Jonsu had just dissolved the church or kicked out absolutely everyone that her character didn't like.

The way it's being done now however is an abuse of Mechanics and absolutely not close to what the characters would do, which is a breach of the SMA.

If anything else, Jonsu appointing Alaster though they hate each other and she would have no reason to do so, is a breach of SMA.

However, having said all that. I will still play, though I now refuse to play with those people, I will play with everyone else.

If everyone in the SA places those two people on Ignore lists, the church will return to normal and everyone can just forget t his ever happened.

Because enemies, even hated ones have NEVER worked together when it benefits them both. Nope never, could never happen. Just as turning on a long time ally when it proves beneficial never happens.
Previously of the De-Legro Family
Now of representation unknown.

Chenier

  • Exalted Emperor
  • ******
  • Posts: 8120
    • View Profile
Re: Sanguis Astroism
« Reply #3632: February 04, 2014, 02:43:38 AM »
I understand it better than you seem to, Chénier.

It's about reacting like people, not players. It's about having in-character justifications for what you do.

It's NOT about demanding OOC fixes to IC problems.

It's not an IC problem. It's an OOC problem with IC results. Just because a mechanic was long known to be flawed, doesn't mean abusing it is okay. Why does suddenly the fact that people pushed buttons IG automatically legitimize the act? All abuses, prior and future, are the result of IG buttons being clicked on.

The fix isn't even complicated. Remove Jonsu from the game and the situation fixes itself. The seditioners will still be able to form their schism without having recourse to a lame loophole that autoomatically grants them total authority over the temples, treasuries, and followers of most of the continent.
Dit donc camarade soleil / Ne trouves-tu ça pas plutôt con / De donner une journée pareil / À un patron

Feylonis

  • Noble Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 336
    • View Profile
Re: Sanguis Astroism
« Reply #3633: February 04, 2014, 02:44:31 AM »
I've left the game, but I'd just like to point something out regarding "things were done in-character and are okay".

There were many, many issues with Thulsoma, one of which was that-one-game-feature-that-allowed-Thulsoma-to-raise-a-huge-army-despite-being-a-one-region-realm (I forgot, long time ago now). That mechanic was changed because, while it was a valid game mechanic at that time, it was deemed to have been used in a manner that was detrimental to the game.

Precedent, therefore, exists, for changing mechanics when it's shown that they are too troublesome. Of course, Thulsoma wasn't deleted and Morek still had to war with it for a few weeks, but at least the mechanics were changed for the betterment of the game. In the same manner, I do hope the dev team looks into the 'game-able' mechanics that came into play here, so that in the future, Battlemaster players would not be unduly punished by a handful of people who are good at powergaming (especially in an SMA island).

Anaris

  • Administrator
  • Exalted Emperor
  • *
  • Posts: 8525
    • View Profile
Re: Sanguis Astroism
« Reply #3634: February 04, 2014, 02:47:13 AM »
There were many, many issues with Thulsoma, one of which was that-one-game-feature-that-allowed-Thulsoma-to-raise-a-huge-army-despite-being-a-one-region-realm (I forgot, long time ago now). That mechanic was changed because, while it was a valid game mechanic at that time, it was deemed to have been used in a manner that was detrimental to the game.

It was being abused in an obviously exploitative manner that was never what was intended that gained a group of people a clear advantage over everyone else by essentially gaining free gold.

The mechanics in this case were used in exactly the manner they were designed for.

No matter what anyone says here, there was no OOC abuse.
Timothy Collett

"The only thing you can't trade for your heart's desire...is your heart." "You are what you do.  Choose again, and change." "One of these days, someone's gonna plug you, and you're going to die saying, 'What did I say? What did I say?'"  ~ Miles Naismith Vorkosigan

Bronnen

  • Noble Lord
  • ***
  • Posts: 274
    • View Profile
Re: Sanguis Astroism
« Reply #3635: February 04, 2014, 02:47:53 AM »
enemies, even hated ones have NEVER worked together when it benefits them both. Nope never, could never happen. Just as turning on a long time ally when it proves beneficial never happens.

The thing is, they both stated in OOC messages that it was agreed upon OOC, without any IC reasoning whatsoever.

Even if we ignore everything else, that itself is an OOC abuse and a breach of SMA.

Dishman

  • Mighty Duke
  • ****
  • Posts: 513
    • View Profile
Re: Sanguis Astroism
« Reply #3636: February 04, 2014, 02:48:33 AM »
I got kicked before I could start RP about how/why. Now that I see the fallout, I'm not sure if it would make people feel better or fan the flames. It all boils down to the peasants, who actually run the church (mechanics).


Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_IX

This guy literally sold the papacy.

Truth is stranger than fiction. It's funny how religions kind of work from the bottom up, isn't it? Belief is so malleable, and people get away with some ugly stuff if they abuse it.
Eoric the Dim (Perdan), Enoch the Bright (Asylon), Emeric the Dark (Obsidian Islands)

Orobos, The Insatiable Snake (Sandalak)

Chenier

  • Exalted Emperor
  • ******
  • Posts: 8120
    • View Profile
Re: Sanguis Astroism
« Reply #3637: February 04, 2014, 02:49:14 AM »
This act is so blatantly anti-SMA and anti-social contract that I am dismayed anyone can think otherwise.
Dit donc camarade soleil / Ne trouves-tu ça pas plutôt con / De donner une journée pareil / À un patron

Anaris

  • Administrator
  • Exalted Emperor
  • *
  • Posts: 8525
    • View Profile
Re: Sanguis Astroism
« Reply #3638: February 04, 2014, 02:49:24 AM »
Just because a mechanic was long known to be flawed, doesn't mean abusing it is okay.

The only religion mechanic that's been talked about lately that's been "long known to be flawed" is the priest immunity. I think you're getting them mixed up.

All that allowed this to happen was the fundamental mechanics of how all guild and religion ranks have worked since the day they were implemented back in about 2005.
Timothy Collett

"The only thing you can't trade for your heart's desire...is your heart." "You are what you do.  Choose again, and change." "One of these days, someone's gonna plug you, and you're going to die saying, 'What did I say? What did I say?'"  ~ Miles Naismith Vorkosigan

Ohzen

  • Knight
  • **
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
Re: Sanguis Astroism
« Reply #3639: February 04, 2014, 02:49:59 AM »
Villains are needed in this game... it is the spice! But some individuals are only about destroying the fun of others. Griefers. The yhav a right to exist and we even need them in gams like this!

But giving some of them the possibility to be the leader of a community that counts over 100 nobles is simply impossible. In real life changes like this would be made illegitime within seconds.

BM should not be ruled by game mechanics.

Anaris

  • Administrator
  • Exalted Emperor
  • *
  • Posts: 8525
    • View Profile
Re: Sanguis Astroism
« Reply #3640: February 04, 2014, 02:50:24 AM »
This act is so blatantly anti-SMA and anti-social contract that I am dismayed anyone can think otherwise.

This is just simply untrue.
Timothy Collett

"The only thing you can't trade for your heart's desire...is your heart." "You are what you do.  Choose again, and change." "One of these days, someone's gonna plug you, and you're going to die saying, 'What did I say? What did I say?'"  ~ Miles Naismith Vorkosigan

dustole

  • Mighty Duke
  • ****
  • Posts: 715
    • View Profile
Re: Sanguis Astroism
« Reply #3641: February 04, 2014, 02:52:14 AM »
The thing is, they both stated in OOC messages that it was agreed upon OOC, without any IC reasoning whatsoever.

Even if we ignore everything else, that itself is an OOC abuse and a breach of SMA.

And then it was followed with IC actions.   Alaster announced himself as opposed to the heretic Jonsu.     It was talked about OOC because we knew the characters wouldn't buddy up out of the blue like that. 

I wanted assurances that SA wasn't going to be abused.  He gave them to me by making me a Prophet as well.   Neither of us can demote the other one.   I can prevent any tampering Jonsu might wish to do.  Any more button pushing I can undo.   

This is not an OOC abuse or a breach of SMA.   


As far as Enoch and Jonsu.  It peeved me off for sure, but that is all the more I will say on the matter.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2014, 02:54:44 AM by dustole »
Kabrinski Family:  Nathaniel (EC), Franklin (BT), Aletha(DWI)

Chenier

  • Exalted Emperor
  • ******
  • Posts: 8120
    • View Profile
Re: Sanguis Astroism
« Reply #3642: February 04, 2014, 02:52:41 AM »
The only religion mechanic that's been talked about lately that's been "long known to be flawed" is the priest immunity. I think you're getting them mixed up.

All that allowed this to happen was the fundamental mechanics of how all guild and religion ranks have worked since the day they were implemented back in about 2005.

Everything about religion is long known to be flawed.
Dit donc camarade soleil / Ne trouves-tu ça pas plutôt con / De donner une journée pareil / À un patron

Ohzen

  • Knight
  • **
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
Re: Sanguis Astroism
« Reply #3643: February 04, 2014, 02:53:14 AM »
This is just simply untrue.

DEV Team is not always right...

De-Legro

  • Honourable King
  • *****
  • Posts: 3838
    • View Profile
Re: Sanguis Astroism
« Reply #3644: February 04, 2014, 02:53:54 AM »
It's not an IC problem. It's an OOC problem with IC results. Just because a mechanic was long known to be flawed, doesn't mean abusing it is okay. Why does suddenly the fact that people pushed buttons IG automatically legitimize the act? All abuses, prior and future, are the result of IG buttons being clicked on.

The fix isn't even complicated. Remove Jonsu from the game and the situation fixes itself. The seditioners will still be able to form their schism without having recourse to a lame loophole that autoomatically grants them total authority over the temples, treasuries, and followers of most of the continent.

The mechanic is not flawed in that it works in the manner the designer wanted it to. The mechanic is only "flawed" because SA tried to create a structure counter to how the system worked. If they had used a mechanic counter to it intention, then now as before action will be taken by the appropriate team, which is not the Dev's. We don't make decisions about cheating, exploitations or social contract violations. There is group with the Tools needed to investigate and take action.

I've left the game, but I'd just like to point something out regarding "things were done in-character and are okay".

There were many, many issues with Thulsoma, one of which was that-one-game-feature-that-allowed-Thulsoma-to-raise-a-huge-army-despite-being-a-one-region-realm (I forgot, long time ago now). That mechanic was changed because, while it was a valid game mechanic at that time, it was deemed to have been used in a manner that was detrimental to the game.

Precedent, therefore, exists, for changing mechanics when it's shown that they are too troublesome. Of course, Thulsoma wasn't deleted and Morek still had to war with it for a few weeks, but at least the mechanics were changed for the betterment of the game. In the same manner, I do hope the dev team looks into the 'game-able' mechanics that came into play here, so that in the future, Battlemaster players would not be unduly punished by a handful of people who are good at powergaming (especially in an SMA island).

It was changed because it was used in a way that was never intended. The system allowed it, but it was not within the design parameters or the intent of the feature. That is different from deciding the feature was simply detrimental, it is more akin to a bug. But with that said of course we look to refine the mechanics and if something is problem change it. However even if things are changed we don't go back and erase the results that were previously yielded.

No doubt there is scope for discussion in changing the way religions work in order to allow for different forms to be supported by game mechanics.

DEV Team is not always right...

Nor is the mob oddly enough
Previously of the De-Legro Family
Now of representation unknown.