@Kestrel said in The 100: The Mush:
Why are you assuming, if you are assuming, that this is what anti-Ark players actually OOCly intend? (And @Cupcake for that matter.)
I wouldn't say it's an assumption, but nobody seems to be really hiding that the fact that that's what they want to do. From what I've heard(which could be completely incorrect). And if I'm wrong, I have no issue with someone pointing out just how wrong I am.
@Lithium I'm not. I'm only listing my own personal concerns, nothing more than that. I'm not trying to play judge or anything like that.
And I'm more than happy to be proven wrong. Hell, I /want/ to be proven wrong. This is just borne from previous experience, nothing more.
@Cupcake
You can point out as many options as you want, but as long as any of them carry the risk of bringing the RP down, it's not a risk I personally am willing to take. And I will say that your options are not all bad, and really any one of them could work and I'm just being paranoid because I've seen games I like crash and burn because the RP got spread out so thin, things stopped happening and eventually, players drift away and the game dies.
Like I said, there has to come a point for every player when they have to decide what's more important: their character's desires or the well being of the game.
@Cupcake said in The 100: The Mush:
It is entirely possible that a second community will form made up of former Ark inhabitants that have chosen not to live under the new government. There are characters who are devoted to this idea, some who ride the middle, and others who are opposed either just in terms of their choice or as to what everyone should be doing. My own PC is still in "wait and see" mode, since the new laws have not been revealed yet. She doesn't know if they're going to be better or worse than what she's accustomed to.
And if that ends up hurting the game overall? Because then you would have three locations of RP that are now spread out across the grid. The Ark, the Grounder village, and whatever location these anti-Ark characters want. IC decisions or not, there has to come a point where OOC management of the game has to trump IC desires. Especially if everyone sees that the decision to break off has had a negative effect on the game as a whole. It will not only be up to staff to correct this possible outcome, but also on the players to understand that while it might be what their characters want, are they really willing to bring the game down as a whole because of it?
Even if I played a character that was like that(and to some extent, my character is)/I/, being me the player, wouldn't allow my character to go in that direction because when it comes to what I want as a player, I'm willing to sacrafice that desire as a player to make sure that the game keeps operating smoothly and everyone is integrated in what plot development or RP that's out there. Splitting up limits this, regardless of the IC justifications for it. It's small price to pay. For me, at least.
I'm against the idea of the playerbase splitting off. If only because I've seen what happened far too many times when that happens. Players and characters get seperated, hardly ever act with each other and the game stagnates because nobody can ICly get along with each other, even if the players are just fine from a OOC standpoint.
When you split a game, it slows everything else down. The story, the progression, just about everything. This, again, is my opinion and my experience, I'm sure there are those with a different experience to say exactly why I'm wrong. If people want to call it 'railroading' because staff don't want to do something that just because some players may want to but would be detrimental to the game overall? Whatever, call it railroading then. As far as I'm concerned, it's keeping a game going.
@ixokai I don't think that's exactly what I was talking about. I think my point is that I was getting mildly nervous about the increased amount of conflict, to the point of there being too much in order to handle. Not whether or not people were justifying if they were nice or not and all the assumptions to where that leads IC or OOC.
@Three-Eyed-Crow Playing a Grounder is the bee's knees. I like my Grounder more than my Delinquent at this particular moment. I highly suggest this. Besides, could use more of them.
@faraday There isn't I would suppose, but I enjoy being able to RP with everyone if I can find a reason to do so. But there are also times where I just feel burnt out from constantly not agreeing on just about anything.
I'm not saying it's wrong, conflict is a great motivator, I simply wonder when it becomes too much, when it's all that there is. Guess I just like to find a good balance.
While I've been on the game for quite some time(and I really do enjoy it much like others have already said), there is a sinking suspicion that I think some players are using the reasoning of 'well it's conflict' to mask questionable behavior. And while I won't sit here and sling names, there are a few people that are so antagonistic that there's just no dealing with them unless you yourself are an conflict-based character. I've had a few times where I had to sit back and wonder about that.
Likely it's simply because this game, more so than others I've played has been more conflict heavy than others. And it can be daunting, perhaps intimidating to the point where you don't want to deal with it. And overwhelming, a lot of stuff is being thrown at you all the same time that there barely seems to be time to breath. Ironically enough, playing my Grounder alt has been more refreshing, because I can only take so much angst and the "I'm out for only me" mentality.
That all being said, I think the game is great and has a good playerbase and players that don't seem to be absolute jerkwads. But playing a Delinquent can be mentally exhausting at times, especially being around particular alts that seem to just want screw just about everything up. But hey, what game doesn't have that aspect of things?
@surreality said in The 100: The Mush:
@Admiral said in The 100: The Mush:
I looked around at the place and there's two things that I think hurt an otherwise fine game.
1.) Lack of consequences. It's made clear that PCs can't die unless they want to die. In a survival setting like this it invalidates a lot of the risk. Even a super low risk of death from the environment/NPCs/plots/etcetera would help.
Is there a 'you're being deliberately stupid?' clause to that? Like, "I think that Reaper just needs a hug!" should definitely result in some kind of consequence.
But death is certainly not the only consequence someone can face; if it's just death that's off the table and other major consequences are in play, I have a hard time really calling this a problem.
A surprisingly low number of characters actually die on the show for what might be expected in the period of time the game is likely exploring, shortly after landing, after all. And they weren't necessarily all being the smartest tools in the shed about things.
(Not playing there, but have been considering it. Kinda a lot.)
Death can happen in combat. But it's also FS3 combat, so the dice really have to hate you and you have to be out of luck points.
Also it's been stated a couple times that you have to do something really epically, monumentally stupid for staff to decide, 'whelp, you just want to die, I guess' I agree that there should be a greater element of death, but not one to the point where you're wondering how long the alt will last and if you should already be contemplating it's replacement.
Must've missed out on what he was doing. But he did seem pretty trollish.
I don't play PC because I'm a loser. Wish I did but I'm also poor.
Didn't know sticks of RAM could go bad. Not saying that's not what it is, it's just a computer issue I've never heard of.
@Bobotron said in The 100: The Mush:
looks at the wiki
sees that it's actually based on the show, with show-style Grounders rather than the OTHER 100 MUSH that had the book-style Gaians.Interest already much higher.
The called the Grounders as Gaians in the book?
Huh. That only sounds mildly cheesy to me.
Damn, I'm behind. I've only ever played 1st edition.
@somasatori I think I made the same joke myself when the idea to make the game first came up, after having watched the first two seasons.
Still, the handful of us that are there, I've enjoyed it. If I had never heard of the show or book, I would just treat it like a sci-fi original theme. And for me, that's completely my thing.
I don't run the game, I'm just throwing the ad up because I play on it.
The 100: The MUSH
It's been 97 years since the nuclear apocalypse. 97 years that the meager survivors of the human race have lived aboard the Ark, orbiting an irradiated Earth. But life support is failing, and 100 juvenile delinquents, 100 expendable souls, have been sent down to Earth to see if humans can survive on the surface once more.
You are one of those expendables, one of those great hopes, one of those delinquents. You are one of the 100.
We are a MUSH set in a mirror universe of the TV show The 100. Our focus is on survival and exploration -- physical, political, and emotional. As our story progresses, we will open up Grounders and adult Ark personnel for application, but our focus will always be on the Sky People.
Join us at scrozzle.noderunner.net:4002.
Wiki www.the100.wikidot.com
Welcome to the Ground.
I do appreciate the small uptick in people making original theme games. Gives me the slightest bit of hope.
The premise sounds promising, but I would point out that you should probably be prepared for everyone and their dog apping into the nobility, unless you give a good reason to spread out playerbase into something other than just that.
Still I'd probably play it regardless.
I go by the advice that people on Dark Souls tell me all the time.
get gud
(this is a joke)
I haven't touched this in a while. I heard the first robot DLC isn't really worth the 10 bucks in cost. Haven't had a reason to go back recently. So I guess my question right now is if there's any mods on XB1 that we were told were going to be on there.
