High UE Conflict & Combat
Extending from XOOC conversations

(I am going to use "should" here a lot)

I believe that High UE characters should be mentors for others. They should suggest avenues to other characters that they believe will result in those other characters coming out on top. They should be willing to step in and tip the scales in favor of those other characters with the knowledge / belief that their involvement will result in a "win" for their character. The whole time, they should be willing to accept a loss if things do not work out as planned.

In my mind, high UE conflict should have some element of, "Holy shit, you can do THAT?!" involved. Where the High UE character is introducing a game mechanic that they, plus N+1 other characters can hopefully leverage to come out on top.

The other side of that should be another High UE character(s) opposing or providing a counter-balance to that play. "Good on you for attempting THAT. Welcome to Fail!"

All in all, I feel like High UE characters should be exposing fair right side of the curve type game mechanics. High UE character + cyber / nanos + gear = stupidly unlikely result. And even if they fail, everyone else who was involved and of aware of what was going on has an OOC moment of, "Wow… I didn't know THAT was possible."

Opinion of One here... but if you're Max UE and you aren't showing off your rules lawyering, min-max munchin mechanics that you spent 3+ getting into the place where you can lean into those... WTF are you really doing?

I do feel like people over-egg this a little bit. If you DO win in that engagement, guess what? You've got whatever good gear your opponent had. More people dying at a high level would sink more money into nanogenics as well, which would help the issue staff seems to think we have with lack of money sinks.

Honestly my biggest issue with high-level combat is that I don't want to fucking minmax. I think minmaxing is sad and boring and I don't really want to play my roleplaying game as someone who is only meaningfully able to interact with the world through violence. But that puts you at a serious disadvantage compared to the people who DO want to meaningfully interact with the world through violence.

But obviously there's ways to mitigate that.

However it must be said, this is a great positive not just for the game overall but for the players involved. Some players build a great amount of anxiety over what they might lose, but that fear is infinitely greater than the loss itself. So when that loss comes for them they will be confronted with the choice of either embracing building a new collection of potential losses (AKA "The Climb Is All There Is") or choosing to eschew the that entirely and doing something else that they were surely be happier with.

There is no unhappier player than one who is trapped by what they have and still always fearful for its loss, and liberating them (voluntarily or otherwise) from that stasis so they can either move on with their character, or reroll, or play something else, is often doing them a favour (even if they may not feel that way in the immediate aftermath). Along with the benefits it has to the game as a whole by keeping things churning and changing. Really thank goodness that players quit or abandon characters or jobs as they do, because otherwise the game would be incredibly static because of how difficult it is to force the issue otherwise.

Deep down most players already know what they want to do, and will do it once given permission or validation or an excuse to embrace it. Not that applications of violence are always the correct way to bring people to decision points, but I've definitely have had some intense conversations spanning months that would have been much for effective in the form of a bullet.

And not to make excuses for what can be manipulative behaviour, but I try to have grace for players when characters say things like 'I'm going to leave the city if' because the players are usually having a lot of complex emotions and trying to put into words a lot of contradictory feelings and frustrations; usually more about themselves and their place in the game than the person they're directed at. When these words have been directed at me it's pretty much always been, I believe, someone subconsciously saying 'I need this decision made for me'.

I don't think everyone has to go along with that necessarily and it's valid to feel uncomfortable about being put into that position and have it framed that way, but for players who don't mind being the villain it can be an opportunity to unburden someone else where they might have had a hard time taking on the responsibility otherwise.

I do think that the game loves a good antagonist. Though sometimes they love them a little too much. It can be a problem with in small community. I know we all try and act like the game's a big world but we can never escape from the fact that, for all practical intents and purposes, it's a very small one for our characters. News spreads and SO MANY PCs are waiting for a hook. A reason to act. Go antag and you just gave so many people the joy of acting against you.

It's a mixed blessing but you just have to try and plan for this happening as best as you can. But there are things you can do to try and limit the conflict, especially more long standing ones. I have found that slowly ramping up the conflict gives me more time to try and make the moves to convince a lot of other PCs to sideline themselves. If I go zero to all out, it can be a lot harder and you end up playing damage control while under siege.

One thing I found, and maybe this has changed given the new landscape of the game, but my high UE characters felt so much more capable of handling conflict, even when the target's many friends decided to try and get involved. Just the rep was enough to convince some to limit their role to indirect efforts. Propper skill/stat investment can help your PC to make a break for it to live and antag another day. Especially if you prioritize the act of antagonizing more than the possible payout.

Regarding gear and fear of loss… I do feel players get too used to running 'full kit' all the time. That they rush to hard to get to this point and refuse to engage in conflict without it. Many other PvP games have the concept of 'only rock what you can afford to lose'. I think many should consider this when playing Sindome. If they do, they will be able to handle losses far more easily. Personally, the only real fear I have from loss is DCD!

So don't worry about getting the one perfect set. Get the two great sets instead. Or the perfect set and a moderate backup set. Heck, some organizations used to ensure that you would always have that moderate backup set. Maybe they still do. Even without this, PCs should be planning for their next loss. This is a lesson I feel is more important than anything most greeters teach. You are going to lose eventually, possibly even your life. Prepare for it. Mentally, financially, materially. If you plan for it you are less likely going to feel like life has ended.

Lastly, I would encourage players to consider two scenarios. In one you get your perfect kit then do nothing for years so you don't lose it. In the other, you go out and lose that kit and spend half a year replacing it. Did losing that perfect kit really hurt your game in terms of story and RP and 'down time' more than protecting it at all costs did?

I mentioned this on xooc as one of many reasons why people are scared of dying on an OOC level. It goes a bit deeper than that, and I don't think that it's necessarily true that it's seen in a positive light. I think the player culture once valued risk takers more than they do now and admired people who have died a lot but are still around. 'Legendary' characters had people talking about how many times they've vatted like it's impressive. Now it is commonly used as an insult.

That isn't to say insulting people shouldn't be a thing, it's just an observation of the prevailing player culture where death and therefore failure is now seen as shameful. I have seen this even extend to some NPC interactions, but I think the staff have done a great job in reminding some people that it's not the end of the world if they die.

While we can talk at lengths about taking risks and how important it is to do x, y, or z, if players don't feel seen for having done something that got them killed when they could have just stayed in their apartment, they will stay in their apartment next time. We can OOCly tell people they're playing wrong all we want, but it's up to us to actually make an environment that encourages the behavior we want to see.

This thread also has combat in the title, which is why there's focus on it.

High UE conflict is more silent than it used to be

One can argue that unless you're on staff you don't see anything but I can also point to the removal of the cargo system as a damning indication that High UE characters are not doing anything either. The system was designed with car combat specifically in mind. Car combat is Big Boy Club only in terms of investment. So the entire idea was that the Big Boy Club would fight amongst each other with thrilling car combat? Sounds like they did nothing and just reaped the benefits of free income. Yeah I can understand why it got the axe.

That must by why people who ICly say "You do nothing." are preemptively and OOCly slammed around here so hard. I sense projection.

High UE characters are often unwilling to engage in direct conflict.

Which I don't understand. You have access to a skill that nobody else gets to use. Heavy Weapons. You don't get to play with those unless you're in the Big Boy Club. You probably don't even know where to FIND one unless you're in the Big Boy Club. But no, apparently some are just allergic to fun. Like, High UE characters are often part of organizations that will happily write off tens of thousands of chy worth of ammo and pay mechanic characters to fix their vehicles if it means they come out on top. All this possible extra RP and delightful carnage, but NOPE! Shroud with a katana it is.

If the ability to walk into a place and wield a flamethrower against your sworn enemies somehow doesn't entertain you as much as Ganger Hour used to… I don't know what to say. Perhaps you should reroll.

People are unwilling to engage in combat unless they believe they are guaranteed to win.

I can definitely see this. I myself am guilty of it. Why bother engaging in combat with my rivals when the design philosophy of Sindome protects High UE characters from being swung up on? Every design choice that is sold as protecting the new player from being swung down upon actually helps the people swinging down. Inability to kill sleepers, no kicking in doors, and any form of ranged combat being laughably buggy or non functional all tip the combat deeply in the favor of Big Boy Club. So why bother?

Please note, I'm not accusing anyone on staff of consciously protecting anybody or whatever whoever. I am saying that the certain design philosophies of what is allowed to happen in PVP warfare is very prohibitive against the little guy, while being in favor of Solo Swingdown. These are often advertised as being for the lowbie's protection.

And yes, I am in favor of occasionally waking up to a white void of death. It'll be easier for me to forget the details of who killed me if I legitimately don't know.

Speaking of vatting out, I'm going to point out that the number of deaths that a person has acquired has turned into a mark of dishonor because it is usually associated with said character being a dumbass of some kind. That they somehow "deserved" to be vatted eleven times in eight months.

And I'll also argue that some of these may have been first time players to Sindome, not knowing the subtle nuances that come from playing previous characters. They haven't learned yet that you live longer by keeping your head down, and they're still drinking the kool-aide at the door saying this game is all about taking risks and running in the red til the check comes to pay. So they take risks, and get vatted. They may be wildly heralded as dumb ass risks, but they still took risks. And they're derided for this.

Being an antagonist is extremely polarizing.

I don't think so. I think being a bad villain is polarizing. It's like knowing when to take the boot off the throat determines whether you're an expert Dom filming a bondage scene or a stupid wanker filming a snuff video. Someone who makes perming someone feel special, not yet another shroud with a ceramic katana. If you have the money and manpower to have me dragged before you to kill me at your leisure, I want a monologue damnit. If I did decide to permanently remove a character from the game, I would want to give the player some form of closure instead of an ending like the Sopranos.

Also, if OOC comments about your actions are causing you bleed, @xsilence OOC-Chat. Free your mind. That's what I did day one. Haven't regretted it in the slightest.

I point towards the new shitberg thread on whether to change, remove, or keep shitbergs for the same reason; people don't fight over it enough, that's not to say the game doesn't have enough low UE conflict (which is the target of shitberg competition) but rather that this specific system doesn't seem to create any conflict to speak of from the eyes of the staff.

When it comes to the different kinds of conflict a player can take part in, in the dome world, there are largely very many different kinds or varieties you can choose to participate in. There is an active kind of conflict where you can go out and physically cause violence or advance a plot that way. There's also several entire other layers of interacting with the world at large and pushing plot, namely hiring other players to do work for you, collecting data on your would be foes and enemies. Seeding spies into various other factions and organizations. Things such as this and i'm sure a lot of others. Just because you don't see that one slick solo or that one powerful organized crime player out stabbing people in the streets and yelling about it does not mean conflict isn't happening.

Players at an endgame level have a lot of tools in their metaphorical toolbox, and a lot of them don't boil down to steamrolling people with their endgame kit or stepping on people's necks face to face. A lot of old UE characters had their time in the spotlight to be out doing things like that, and so often times it's healthy and encouraging to be someone who can direct others to help push their plot directive forward, and involve a bunch of different people for a fun, interesting experience. Sure, it is possible to sneak around and ice people like that, but that is in essence…. only really fun for one person.

Another point of contention I would address is that it takes a lot of time, effort, planning and coordination for there to be good and thematically fun scenes to be made, and that can take a while. While there may not be people getting stabbed every day by certain factions or players or cliques, there is certainly a lot of fun conflict roleplay that involves others going on.

I am unsure where the notion of high end players not engaging in conflict comes from, other than a lack of knowledge about what is going on as a whole.

I feel it's important to not perpetuate a misery simulator. If you are going to make someone lose or be an asshole, it's important to strive to have it be fun for both parties, and most also of note, do it because it would be funny.

I cannot speak for everyone, but if you feel as if there isn't enough conflict at the top end or if you are a player who feels as if higher end people are not getting involved enough, seek these players out and see why that is thematically and in characterly. There could be good reasons, or maybe (and usually) they are willing to help out if it's reasonable and fun. We are all here to have a good time.

"High UE conflict is more silent than it used to be. Just because people aren't brain-yelling on SIC doesn't mean there isn't conflict. This is the most important thing to remind yourself: unless you are on staff, you don't see everything."

No, we don't see everything but if you are a high or max UE character in a role of prominence within an organization then we need to be seeing more. I totally get the merits and satisfaction of operating in the shadows, but too much quiet conflict essentially robs the community at large of roleplay. Actions by the bigger players are what the rest of us can react to, discuss, and divide over. It brings life into the background of the world and reminds us of the higher stakes games going on that we might eventually get to have a hand in, and I genuinely feel like that's an important element of the IC world that no longer really exists.

All the stories my PC has been told of past conflicts and wars and the memorable names responsible are kind of the only thing keeping that chaotic dream alive. Those individuals got their hands dirty and made sure everyone knew about it, which indirectly let them also be part of the story, and for a long time now we're just not getting that.

Syndicates are the Official Big Boys Club. Nobody but people staff likes are allowed in the Official Big Boys Club. Even have an official vote to prove they like them or not. They get the super special privilege of saying they're part of organized crime.

That also excludes literally every other character's background from saying they worked for the Yakuza, Mafia, etc. Nobody is allowed to enter game having worked for any of these organizations, regardless of how long they've played. No Yakuza accountant coming in from Japan. No Mafia thug transferring in to lay low for a bit.

You get all of this and are told essentially to do your own thing with nearly unlimited funds compared to everyone else and zero oversight as long as the staff likes what you're doing. Everyone else wanting to be part of some form of criminal element has to be a ganger, a terrorist, or be told "Sorry, you must be this many UE to ride". If you're going to partition off the entire world of organized crime, you better be doing something to show for it.

Like, I could understand Syndicates being super exclusionary if they really were secret societies. The Order of the Black Flame. The Ministry of Red Masques. The Dark, but not incoherent lunatics. Some other dumb bullshit that make them stay in secret slowly pulling strings in a manipulative dance against each other. Kinda like what the Syndies are supposedly doing now. But instead you take criminal organizations and put them at a tier higher than Corps. Why? What makes a junior Syndicate greater than a senior corpie?

How are Syndicates different from other Megacorps? They do crime? How is that any different from any of the Megacorps that air it live on television? The only thing that's really illegal is guns and well, please note the thread how gun mechanics are treated as a joke.

So what even is organized crime when we can't even define what crime they organize around? What even separates them from each other? What does the Mafia do that the Tongs do differently? How does a player form a Syndicate that is recognized in the eyes of Withmore? Just fill out the paperwork?

From my understanding there is little to no actual structure given for how the different Syndicates should act. Just that they should drive plot as player GMs. Sorry, but I legitimately haven't seen much evidence of any type of organized crime underworld plots being ran. I know nobody sees everything, but in terms of reminding others that they exist, I don't really hear anything resembling what I expect to hear. So if they're claiming to be pulling strings they have to remember to occasionally bait the plot hook.

The public didn't know exactly what Al Capone was doing with his criminal empire, but they knew that his criminal empire existed and was doing crime. I don't see that here.

I also think there's only so much to be expected of other players who are not ourselves, and setting expectations we don't have to meet is easy, manifesting them when our time arrives is a different story and often more complicated than it appeared.

Asking for high-UE characters to be more public invariably means asking for high-UE characters to be more tyrannical. The game is in a constant pendulum swing between complaining about about supersolos bullying people and supersolos not doing enough.

If you wish for syndicates to fight eachother more, they are going to antagonize lowbies more as well, which has been universally decried in the past 3-4 years. Robbing people and stomping through the every day lives of normal people is how syndicates were so public before, and so rich before.

It sounds great to say that high UE conflict is going to be…

- Only between equally matched opponents with backing

- Either opponent will take the loss gracefully

- Nobody else will suffer but the high-UE characters involved

- Any antagonism will be empathetic and fun for the victim as well

- Very publicly known, but not public enough that innocents are getting hurt

- This all happens with much more frequency than it is right now

But is that realistic? The game has never ticked all the boxes, ever, and it never will.

I started playing Sindome as it was kicking off. That character hasn't been dead for 5 years, so I cannot get too specific. I will share what I can.

My character was loosely affiliated with Chinatown. Mark Gray influenced what my character ended up doing. He was looking for NEW ways to hurt the opposition. That one person's vision for how to wage conflict shaped my character's 5 year life arc. My character went down a rabbit hole that by and large most people just used skillsofts for and called it a day.

My character got vatted. A lot. As a lowbie, he was affiliated simply from working in a syndicate controlled club. I saw a lot of red text for what seemed like no real reason. Eventually I came to understand that my character was dying because he was a pawn in a game larger than he was. A game played by long term, very established characters.

While a lot of people decry those times as the bad old days, I think that the MOO was a better place to play a few years ago. It was more vibrant. There was more going on. There was a real sense of danger and fear of loss.

I don't suggest that we need full on syndicate war 24/7. That would be too much. But maybe once every other year. And in the in between years, the corporate equivalent of that. Or even a hybrid of that, where corporations are using syndicates (and gangs) as proxies to fight each other.

My sense is that a large percentage of those syndicate war antagonists are not playing anymore. They took with them knowledge of "how" to play. Not just combat mechanics, but social mechanics. Like others have said. Vatting associates. Blowing up clubs. Destroying resources. There were many facets of "What is possible on Sindome" that were laid bare on a regular basis. EMPs. Drugs "nobody" sees on the regular. Stakeouts. Frag grenades.

And throughout it all, people were still out there roleplaying. There were often half a dozen characters in any given club. There was an attitude among the belligerents that they would keep "their" club open, no matter what. Even if they had to wear Xo3 and have an MK23 equipped because nobody knew who was going to come through the front door.

One thing that has been overlooked is how inflated the economy was compared to now. I think the first time my character sold a (big ticket item) to a ganger, the payout was ~25,000c. Drugs were similarly inflated in price. My sense is that made it possible to re-gear fairly quickly.

The reason syndicate slots are specifically so rare is because they're age gated, have a very low max membership cap per individual faction, have only 3 (used to be 4) factions that exist in that role, and require very specific archetypes to get into. You're not gonna see a non-combat enforcer, or an architect who can't plan for shit.

A lot of work also goes into even trying to get affiliated with syndicates, and even more to get into them from my experience. It's a drag, a slog, it can take a long time. It's not "staff like me" it's "Staff have made me work my ass off and prove I can act as a player GM to earn the facilitation to be a player GM with some support."

Locking the topic and removing posts. You are free to have an open discourse focusing on the primary topic, but if it gets into the IC realm again, we will shut it down again. Thank you.