Pinatas, catatonia, and Montgomery Scott (or what matters the most to me in MMOs)
-
This game reminds me (and creates in me) a sense of delight that I have not had since Ultima Online. Thank you, @Prometheus for that, even if nothing else (and there's plenty else!).
What matters most to me in MMOs is continuous improvements on supporting levels of social contracting between players. I often feel the genre has stagnated because current design mechanics never seem to make time for deeper social contracting. What I mean by this is having the ability, in the game, to create, commit, and complete contracts. Specifically, in a many-to-many relation so you get layers of potential for emergent styles of player contracting (e.g., economy, trade, supply chain, governance, reputation, etc).
Another reason I want to see this progress for the genre (industry, frankly) is that PvP consistently fails in the genre due to a lack of formality in social contracting (which provide the means by which emergent and informal cultures and systems can develop in the community). Or, as this article succinctly put it, deliver "deliberate accessibility" as well as checks and balances on enforceability to mitigate the kinds of things this article presents.
As CCP has discovered, that 2012 article was pretty spot on, as this more recent admission reveals.
I've never understood why there seems so much resistance to the notion of effectively bridging the abyss created (in error, I assert) by dividing PvE and PvP in the first place. Creating that false premise that it could ever be possible to have a realistic world without realistic systems of social contracting.
To truly elevate the art and science of the MMO, you have to be willing to break it until it's fixed. (Admittedly, this is what the market has been doing for the last 8 years or so, still, few avail themselves of the lessons because, ultimately, most are still married to the idea that it's impossible to accurately reflect real world systems.)
Tools like SpatialOS and savvy analytics now offer the opportunity to offload much of the heavy lifting, AND there are considerable reams of relevant, recent research to assist in refactoring and improving, well, everything. It remains that the more realistic the algorithm, the more realistic the world, and the more likely that emergent uniqueness needed (on SO many levels!) can arise.
So I guess you'd say what matters most to me in an MMO is how well it supports mutually realistic systems of relation, contract, and enforcement.
I mean, why shouldn't PvP players be lauded for protecting the server? Why shouldn't there be crime statistics telling players the reputation of the areas belonging to certain others? Why shouldn't there be war between nations, religions, and beliefs that mean more than who got points on a leaderboard?
For example, I really liked the way Archeage tried to go about it, but the community has lost something important... a reason to care about the community experience unless it directly benefits their personal experience. We're all just... potential targets now. That's not realism... and it's not fun.
I was going to go back and add in more links, but this is already long and most won't care to read such long, nerdy things anyway, I'll not.
((That'll teach you not to ask me an open ended question!!))
-
Everquest did it the best. Skill pulling and understanding agro ranges was key to being a good puller. I was a good puller but there were some amazing pullers, able to pull and keep key mobs while avoiding pulling an entire room. Quite a bit had to do with class based skills, I was an undead master as a paladin but the rangers and enchanters were the best overall pullers. It took hundreds of hours to get it down. What spells grabbed the most attention, was a thrown weapon or bow better, soothing spells to lower agro range, charm spells, root spells, stuns, all that jazz. It was an art. It was fun! Then they launched EQ2 and proved they had no idea. Brad McQuaid had all the good ideas and mechanics, when he left EQ it was no longer EQ, I was lucky enough to play the game with him for a couple years, he was a cool guy. That is an entirely different story. Anyway..... A solid agro mechanic with reactions based on how and who you attack goes a long way to making a good game great. It allows good players to shine, creates a actual real world skill, thus promoting play, when you learn and overcome it feels better than waffle stomping because of gear.
-
@ekadzati naw, it was a fun opinion. Now, there is a reason the "abyss" between PvP and PvE exists, quite secondary to a lack of social contract - there is "will" - but more on that in a second.
When in a strictly pvp setting, such as Overwatch, Call of Duty, or Team Fortress2, there is an understood contract, that everyone there wants to attack, and accepts the risk of being attacked. This leads to a fairly harmonious environment, because everyone has similar expectations, trash talk and general toxicity aside XD.
There are 2 groups in the PvE-only camp - the ones who do not desire the risk of harm, and those who do not desire to harm others. Or, more bluntly, those who do not have the will to accept a risk of loss, and those who lack the will to inflict loss on others, or have a will that opposes the injury of others. As the seriousness of potential harm rises, both groups more forcefully retreat from such conflicts, or more aggressively petition for it's removal. While your point on authenticity of the experience is valid, and, more to the point, critical to the development of the genre as a whole, this does not negate the fear either group feels, nor does it invalidate those emotions that serve as it's basis. Your improved capacity to acknowledge and mitigate the circumstance through knowledge is an excellent one - but it's a logical construct, not an emotional one, and thus has only a limited effect on someone's gut reaction to the idea of "at any time, anywhere, your life can be taken" - never mind that it's a digital life, and that it isn't actually accurate - most people can't handle that that is equally true in real life, either, so asking them to accept it as part of a past time, when they didn't explicitly sign-up for that risk, isn't easy.
More to the point, the logical case is suppositional, and demonstratively not entirely true. Yes, implementing intelligent systems to properly express risks is valuable - if it works. It should work, there's no reason why it can't, but it isn't in existence yet, and any human can tell you, we can botch almost anything XD so, while this ideal system is potentially possible, no one can put much faith into that possibility until it's actually realized. Secondly, the natural assumption is that people who want to avoid violence will leave an area that is filled with it, or otherwise make useful changes based on the evidence provided.
but we still have people building houses on flood plains, even after they've been flood out to the point of total loss, repeatedly. Maybe it's an issue of resources - can't move - or pride/stubborness - won't move - or even sentimentality; but people make such illogical decisions all the time, and repeat them even when it's been demonstrated that this wasn't the best solution available.
This also ignores certain meta-aspects. For example, if "everyone" knows that location A is a crime-ridden mess, and Location B is safe, everyone will move to location B - not just the non-criminals, but the criminals, too - after all, can't be a thief if there's no one to steal from. Static formations don't respond to fluid dynamics, and the devs in particular can't resolve an issue that organically arises from player actions, except by doing something extreme...like creating Arboreus, in this case - a place that is fundamentally made to make such actions Very Difficult, but rather forcibly makes that abyss of yours reality, instead of just conceptual. And a fair number of people are quite happy to live on that divide, because that it their will. If you are after a social contract, Arboreus is the equivalent of a grumpy old man saying "we don't want your kind around here, git off our property" while waving a shotgun. Yes, there is an implicit contract, but it's not really what you'd call a "sociable one" XD which I find even funnier, because this divorce is made in the name of being more friendly XD just one of those little ironies XD
(full disclosure, I'm going to be on Arboreus, at least initially XD. don't intend to stay there, but it's going to be home base)
A number of your articles commented on the subject of the difference, and breadth, of potential PvP scenarios, which thankfully we should see at least occasionally in Fractured, and the lack of upward growth answers a lot of the issues mentioned, so, over all, I think Fractured will advance PvP in MMOs by a good margin, but until they have successfully implemented everything, and shown the anti-PvP groups that there is more to it than a random ganker hiding in the bushes, taking joy in their suffering, there won't be a lot of faith in that development. (doesn't mean they shouldn't try - just that the devs ought to expect a lot of ambivalence, uncertainty, and hostility - new things are scary)
-
@prometheus
but some mobs with 0 brains is good to have. they're mostly used at the beginning of the game so the player can learn mechanics without fear of failure (death). There are some creatures that just swarm without thinking (hornets, yellow jackets, etc) which is OK to have.
-
@therippyone I suspect you did not fully read that last link, but your opinion is interesting to me in that is presumes that it is far more difficult to render real world systems in a game than reality proves it, particularly given SpatialOS.
Additionally, all the theories from economics to sociology to geolocal specific cases/history have academic research and peer-reviewed study. All of these present whatever statistically relevant (i.e., demonstrable causality) findings they're able to support.
The math exists and is validated. The science exists and is peer-reviewed. The technology now exists and, while still young, will only improve.
By way of example, this item from
and even modify variables on the fly to more accurately reflect causal relationships in real world situations.I know all of this because I was the person who first suggested to them they should get into gaming. City modeling and government sales are great, but slow cycle and not likely to improve. Gaming, on the other hand.... (as we see, they are on it like white on rice now).
Real world systems. In real time simulations. Using real world academic, scientific, and technological data and methods.
It continues to astonish me that companies seeking to realize products that reflect realism completely ignore available academic work (now even including specifically game studies) in favor of an industry preference... dissonance, dis-confirmation bias, et al. I'm happy to see offerings like Fractured and to see Improbable recognizing and reacting to industry need that the industry isn't even willing to acknowledge exist (yet).
You are arguing from a consumer and player's perspective; heavily influenced by previous experiences, heavily bound by its own assumptions on what is and isn't preferred, and projecting that on the market. No judgment here, it's well known this is common on forums (just as the reality of forum posters being exponentially outnumbered by lurkers, and that people will assume agreement in the face of silence when, in fact, the opposite is much more often true).
What I am saying is that, of all, I hope Fractured does NOT represent old design in a new technological shell. That, instead, it provides a world in which realistic systems provide a more realistic experience. A true world simulation that just happens to be a game.
But, to the point (at last, eh?) I'm not speaking merely my opinion when I say change is needed, nor when I say it is now possible; I'm stating that tools like SpatialOS will make our offerings soooo much more interesting. They'll benefit too, of course. There are already huge swaths of industry begging for better data and insight... what better place than in a game world to model such things? (I can even see where data from SpatialOS could be actionable for the creators of Fractured well outside this endeavor.)
I want most to see this level of realism in simulation in MMO offerings.
It is highly unlikely a consumer could come up with a historical gaming scenario that has not been analyzed exhaustively in other academic or scientific contexts.
Finally, finally, finally, the game industry is beginning to realize is that there is a decided benefit (and potentially new lines of revenue) to be had in incorporating academic, scientific data in games via emerging technologies.
So, thank you for the reply, however guileful in derision and dismissal. It remains that I see nothing in your response that in any way negates the work linked... certainly not that effectively rebuts my statements.
/tips hat
-
@ekadzati Okay, first of all, you are entirely correct about me not fully reading the last link - mainly because I missed it entirely. What I get for doing this after work and half asleep. I'll respond more cogently in a bit, once I finish up the latest posted articles from you - but I felt the need, for the sake of honestly, to admit my mistake.
-
@therippyone said in Pinatas, catatonia, and Montgomery Scott (or what matters the most to me in MMOs):
@ekadzati Okay, first of all, you are entirely correct about me not fully reading the last link - mainly because I missed it entirely. What I get for doing this after work and half asleep. I'll respond more cogently in a bit, once I finish up the latest posted articles from you - but I felt the need, for the sake of honestly, to admit my mistake.
@therippyone No worries. Also, for the record, I'm not looking for an argument. I posted initially in response to the question and then, in response to your seemingly dismissive response. I likely will not continue this particular discussion as it seems well established already the we are not likely to find common ground. That said, I would be happy to be proven wrong.... off to my day now, but I'll check in over the next days. Hope your weekend goes well!
Late edit to add - actually, here's a really good overview for the time spent, and it happens to be the GDC 2017 presentation on precisely how/why they're in the industry. I think you'll like what you see.
-
They recently dropped their GDC 2018 reel and, well, you tell me what you see.... (grin)
(Note: They have an SDK for unity as well.)But, personally,
is my favorite because it elegantly demonstrates the ability to create and iterate holistic systems in organic and surprisingly emergent ways.
-
This has long been a problem with various things in gaming. I think a few games, and indeed a few mods to games, have worked hard on breaking that a little... but it hasn't become something mainstream.
Just like with how so many people point at convenience and World of Warcraft as the gold standard for MMOs (while ignoring that many games actually provide a better experience and even new styles of game play by removing some of those conveniences) the majority of gaming is still focused on the 'Make the player feel special by making things easy for almost anyone'.
The end result is that things tend to feel shallow. It's a constant. There isn't anything wrong with shallow, easy things every now and then. The problem is that there isn't much variety in gaming (outside the genre involved). Games developers (and especially publishers) have been chasing success for a long time, rather than pushing to create something worthy of success. My hope is that some of the games coming out, including Fractured, will aim to be worthy of success instead of just chasing trends. That's a big part of why I'm here.
I hope you get the same feeling from the game, and that you enjoy your experiences with some of the new ideas that are slowly emerging from the independent developers that actually innovate!
-
@ekadzati @TheRippyOne
You both have very good points about PvP, PvE, and the mixture of the two. I believe one of the biggest gulfs to many people with PvP is the effective comparison of what one is facing, which is a continual assault that ends only if the other player chooses to give up. Even when winning, some people get tired of the infinitely respawning assault.Where this matters is that most games have had really minimal needs for players, and an economy which either has minimal repair costs aligned to this or which is easy to the point of having hundreds of weapons for such an assault being made in a short time.
Given the choice, many people would rather just avoid the trash-talk, the constant attacks, and the complete lack of any rules which hinder those who want to run such attacks (war-declarations overcoming all the shortcomings in many games, where alt-guilds that are homeless and get supplies from guilds with resources are used to attack everyone and anyone via war-decs on everyone such that they do not face some of the negatives of ganking, for example.)
It's something I hear a lot. Some PvP players want no rules. They constantly push it. That lack of rules is the complete antithesis of a human society. Any such society would have some rules. So for demons, that might make some sense... but in general it turns most people off. The reason why is because they recognize that the people who want to harass others that way have every advantage.
I won't insult people's play preferences, I'm just talking about why it turns people away. It is something I have long felt was going to eventually come to a head in the games industry, as developers look at population counts. I'm of the opinion that variety is king (and games devs need to stop chasing success) but... that also means that both PvE and PvP need to deal with the growing pains they have actively avoided for so long. PvE especially is a tricky subject when combined with PvP. People know all too well that any ability to be a jerk will be used by somebody (even something so simple to avoid as big graphics in the way of something in games). Thus PvP in any PvE gets a huge red flag warning by many. I do believe that rules could mitigate that, but there will always be some who just won't want to deal with it at all.
-
Wow, @Jairone, you put my stance on PvP in MMOs way better than I ever could.
Thank you.
-
@dragomok
I just... happen to have been involved in this a long time, and have slowly managed that clarity.It has taken many games and much thought on the matter to really get the various views pinned down, and there are a good half dozen levels of PvP in games people tend to go for (from full on, to various rules, to absolutely none).
I'm at the odd "I like PvP sometimes, with rules" level. I know well enough that letting people run rampant will ruin anything else, and thus a game... but at the same time I think a little managed conflict via PvP can be good. I'd like to see it matter more to the actual games, though. Too often it's so temporary that it might as well just be instanced.
-
@jairone said in Pinatas, catatonia, and Montgomery Scott (or what matters the most to me in MMOs):
@ekadzati @TheRippyOne
You both have very good points about PvP, PvE, and the mixture of the two. I believe one of the biggest gulfs to many people with PvP is the effective comparison of what one is facing, which is a continual assault that ends only if the other player chooses to give up. Even when winning, some people get tired of the infinitely respawning assault.Where this matters is that most games have had really minimal needs for players, and an economy which either has minimal repair costs aligned to this or which is easy to the point of having hundreds of weapons for such an assault being made in a short time.
Given the choice, many people would rather just avoid the trash-talk, the constant attacks, and the complete lack of any rules which hinder those who want to run such attacks (war-declarations overcoming all the shortcomings in many games, where alt-guilds that are homeless and get supplies from guilds with resources are used to attack everyone and anyone via war-decs on everyone such that they do not face some of the negatives of ganking, for example.)
It's something I hear a lot. Some PvP players want no rules. They constantly push it. That lack of rules is the complete antithesis of a human society. Any such society would have some rules. So for demons, that might make some sense... but in general it turns most people off. The reason why is because they recognize that the people who want to harass others that way have every advantage.
I won't insult people's play preferences, I'm just talking about why it turns people away. It is something I have long felt was going to eventually come to a head in the games industry, as developers look at population counts. I'm of the opinion that variety is king (and games devs need to stop chasing success) but... that also means that both PvE and PvP need to deal with the growing pains they have actively avoided for so long. PvE especially is a tricky subject when combined with PvP. People know all too well that any ability to be a jerk will be used by somebody (even something so simple to avoid as big graphics in the way of something in games). Thus PvP in any PvE gets a huge red flag warning by many. I do believe that rules could mitigate that, but there will always be some who just won't want to deal with it at all.
It is entirely a problem of failing to fully/truly model the system in question so that the types of collective enforcement and interest can even exist.
People think about games from the perspective of "what I like" and "what I dislike" - they chase what they like, avoid what they dislike and, in our real world, look at all the variety that results!
Technology (until now) has never been able to accurately reflect the many, layered simplicities that form all complexity. And companies are loathe spend a single penny that does not have expectation of a return attached to it. So, as you might imagine (and as many have experienced), games have always lacked the ability to deliver on the variables that make collective society and subgrouping of cultures possible.
I believe that is going to fundamentally change now that offerings like SpatialOS are in the mix.
The best part is, unless the industry rejects this opportunity wholesale (which won't be known for a few years yet), it can only get BETTER for game developers, publishers, and of course, players.
It's a great time to be a gamer, here, on the forefront of the next generation (finally!).
-
Perhaps the most fundamental gaming contract is fun. A game, by definition, should provide a certain amount of entertainment; if it doesn't, then folks will look for fun elsewhere.
I say "perhaps", because that doesn't entirely explain why people want to have that fun in a -game-. As I see it, games provide a temporary escape from our reality into another world. (More precisely, games provide escape from -entropy-.)
That is, if reality were enjoyable enough on its own, why play a game?
I conclude that "more realism" does not inherently mean "more fun" (and may well mean a great deal -less- fun, especially if that realism is entropy-simulating mechanics).
Even so, it -is- curious how often gamers cite realism in discussing mechanics.
One reason I've observed is the "uncanny valley". If a game is realistic enough, then anything -not- realistic is jarring. Photorealistic graphics, for instance, not only make sub-par physics stand out, but create an expectation pressure that the physics -should- be just as good.
Abstract games, on the other hand, seem immune to the uncanny valley: I've never heard anyone complain about Chess or Go not being realistic enough.
-
One more thing (to really get to my point
) :@ekadzati said in Pinatas, catatonia, and Montgomery Scott (or what matters the most to me in MMOs):
mean, why shouldn't PvP players be lauded for protecting the server? Why shouldn't there be crime statistics telling players the reputation of the areas belonging to certain others? Why shouldn't there be war between nations, religions, and beliefs that mean more than who got points on a leaderboard?
I like this, but the real world doesn't have an outside model imposing and enforcing contracts. The real world is a free-for-all, with emergent societal rulesets based largely on the fundamental reality of entropy.
And that's the problem: entropy is required to truly model the real world, but realistic entropy means that a MMO based on that model isn't going to be fun for many people, and thus it's (much) less likely have a sustainable population.
Perhaps the simplest example is perma-death: without that danger, breaking societal contracts (griefing) can't ever have the true risk it does in real life, and so the balances are invariably tilted toward the griefers (requiring clumsy ruleset after clumsy ruleset to combat them).
But perma-death is considered hard-core for a reason.
In short, death rules our world, but we rarely include anything like real death in MMOs. For that reason alone, I'm not sure MMOs can ever truly model the societal interactions of the real world.
-
@roccandil said in Pinatas, catatonia, and Montgomery Scott (or what matters the most to me in MMOs):
One more thing (to really get to my point
) :@ekadzati said in Pinatas, catatonia, and Montgomery Scott (or what matters the most to me in MMOs):
mean, why shouldn't PvP players be lauded for protecting the server? Why shouldn't there be crime statistics telling players the reputation of the areas belonging to certain others? Why shouldn't there be war between nations, religions, and beliefs that mean more than who got points on a leaderboard?
I like this, but the real world doesn't have an outside model imposing and enforcing contracts. The real world is a free-for-all, with emergent societal rulesets based largely on the fundamental reality of entropy.
Sorry, this is incorrect. Each of us as human beings live in a world where there are outside models imposing and enforcing contracts.
If you don't think so, try refusing to pay your taxes or any other "illegal" activity that any number of collective, emergent systems of human civilization put in place (varying wildly by any number of variables, around the world).
The real world is a manifold experience engine, whose ultimate objectivity is frustratingly out of human reach. The best we manage is science, with its probability statements and mathematical models (all of which are, themselves, changing over time, as we see just how much we don't know that we thought we did).
All of your statements beyond this original and incorrect assertion are your objections (and the fears that rest behind it) to change on the significant levels offerings like SpatialOS (and others, frankly) make possible.
I'm saying if you model existing models in a game, you'll get realism of those models.... to the extent that players will naturally/intuitively seek them out once they know they exist.
The emergent play choices of the consumer(s) will provide the data on where the real boundary of "how much realism is too much?" rests.
Of course, design choices guide and guard against things based upon the preferences of the developer (whether or not that is based in study or are validated outside the business pitch's seeming efficacy aside - many "known" game designers are known far more for their resistance to innovation in preference to their 'vision' or worse, to some cult of personality from decades ago that lives creepily on the edges of the industry). Those who know what I'm talking about know what I'm talking about.... this industry needs a good shaking up and I'm eager to see if someone is going to FINALLY do it.
Time, as always, will tell.
-
@ekadzati said in Pinatas, catatonia, and Montgomery Scott (or what matters the most to me in MMOs):
Sorry, this is incorrect. Each of us as human beings live in a world where there are outside models imposing and enforcing contracts.
If you don't think so, try refusing to pay your taxes or any other "illegal" activity that any number of collective, emergent systems of human civilization put in place (varying wildly by any number of variables, around the world).Hmm. You appear to have misunderstood what I meant by "outside". From my perspective, the collective, emergent systems of human civilization are not "outside" models imposing and enforcing contracts; they are, well, emergent.
Think "extra-dimensional" as what I was trying to say by "outside", and that might be closer.
Specifically, the world-rules of an MMO are controlled on an extra-dimensional level (from the player's perspective) by the code: players (theoretically) can't access that from within the world.
Within the context of the world rules, however, players -do- have the opportunity to impose and enforce their own social rules.
-
@roccandil said in Pinatas, catatonia, and Montgomery Scott (or what matters the most to me in MMOs):
@ekadzati said in Pinatas, catatonia, and Montgomery Scott (or what matters the most to me in MMOs):
Sorry, this is incorrect. Each of us as human beings live in a world where there are outside models imposing and enforcing contracts.
If you don't think so, try refusing to pay your taxes or any other "illegal" activity that any number of collective, emergent systems of human civilization put in place (varying wildly by any number of variables, around the world).Hmm. You appear to have misunderstood what I meant by "outside". From my perspective, the collective, emergent systems of human civilization are not "outside" models imposing and enforcing contracts; they are, well, emergent.
Think "extra-dimensional" as what I was trying to say by "outside", and that might be closer.
Specifically, the world-rules of an MMO are controlled on an extra-dimensional level (from the player's perspective) by the code: players (theoretically) can't access that from within the world.
Within the context of the world rules, however, players -do- have the opportunity to impose and enforce their own social rules.
It is not impossible to replicate real world systems in video games.
It is not impossible to codify concepts like "rules of engagement" or perhaps the Geneva Accords in a game.
Indeed, any cultural or societal system of consequence can be modeled using simple rules. The emergent behavior comes from people behaving in unexpected ways given the set of rules they are given.
MMO games have never really had that many codified rules and frankly, that's the problem.
But I suspect not for much longer. We'll see.
-
post good. I approve.
-
@ekadzati said in Pinatas, catatonia, and Montgomery Scott (or what matters the most to me in MMOs):
@roccandil said in Pinatas, catatonia, and Montgomery Scott (or what matters the most to me in MMOs):
@ekadzati said in Pinatas, catatonia, and Montgomery Scott (or what matters the most to me in MMOs):
Sorry, this is incorrect. Each of us as human beings live in a world where there are outside models imposing and enforcing contracts.
If you don't think so, try refusing to pay your taxes or any other "illegal" activity that any number of collective, emergent systems of human civilization put in place (varying wildly by any number of variables, around the world).Hmm. You appear to have misunderstood what I meant by "outside". From my perspective, the collective, emergent systems of human civilization are not "outside" models imposing and enforcing contracts; they are, well, emergent.
Think "extra-dimensional" as what I was trying to say by "outside", and that might be closer.
Specifically, the world-rules of an MMO are controlled on an extra-dimensional level (from the player's perspective) by the code: players (theoretically) can't access that from within the world.
Within the context of the world rules, however, players -do- have the opportunity to impose and enforce their own social rules.
It is not impossible to replicate real world systems in video games.
It is not impossible to codify concepts like "rules of engagement" or perhaps the Geneva Accords in a game.
Indeed, any cultural or societal system of consequence can be modeled using simple rules. The emergent behavior comes from people behaving in unexpected ways given the set of rules they are given.
MMO games have never really had that many codified rules and frankly, that's the problem.
But I suspect not for much longer. We'll see.
Sounds like you want to turn models of real-world emergent social behavior into rigid, hard-coded structures.
At least in the case of Fractured, it sounds like it already has rules of engagement based on alignment, and those seem inviolable.
On the other hand, looking at the demon-on-demon free-for-all on Tartaros, I imagine that the players will come up with "rules" (guidelines!) to govern the planet.
Trying to impose hard-coded rules of engagement there would seem counter-productive.
