World Interaction - 1 of 4 (Tribes)

[X-D]

Trying to pack people all together even more? Bad idea I think. Myself, when I join a clan, I'm happy if there is 4-6 active players.

When I join a clan that has more (6-14) It simply gets to be too much.

Same for cities, if I'm playing in nak and I walk into the gaj and see 4-8 pc's then walk to the barrel and see the same numbers, if possible my char will probly try and find an IC reason to move to redstorm or something till the pc numbers in that city subside somewhat.

This is purely a playability issue for me, 5-15 pc's routinely in the same area makes for a rather insane amount of spam on the screen and actually takes me out of the scene, I'm no longer able to immerse myself into my char or the scene. 50 pc's in nak, at peak, don't be silly.

Last I heard, those 4 noble houses require life service.

The problem isn't that there are too many tribal clans, it is that there isn't enough diversity within the cities with too many choices.

I agree as to that being the major problems.

And lets go farther on the life service issue since I really think it has simply gotten out of hand.

First, all tribal clans can be considered life service clans, So, thats at least four I can think of right there.

Now, legions, militia, two more.

All the noble houses, thats another five.

One of the three merchant houses pushes it, and the other two will accept them.

The Byn being the only clan that to my knowledge does not.

So, thats basicly 15 clans, 11 of which require life service, well 12 really since one requires it to get anywhere at all in the clan.

Want more people in clans, reduce the number that require life oath, personally I think it should only be the noble houses, and even then, only certain ones and or certain positions.

I've actually found that life oath causes more silly and basicly OOC problems then it is worth, normaly causing PC suicides/desertions etc. In general dispersing the pc pop either by death or simply making the players make indy chars.

[Maybe42or54]

Noble houses should take life oaths depending on the job.
And Elven tribes need life oaths since they are born into it.

[Morfeus]

All the noble houses, thats another five.

Without going into details, you are wrong in this point.

[mattrious]

This discussion confuses me, the issue at hand was that there are too many tribal clans and not enough PC's to fill them. Spreading the interaction to thin - at least that's the way I interpreted the first post.

I think it's honestly hit and miss - some players move through different roles. Playing a cit type PC and then moving out to playing in a Tribe the next. While others just stick with one or the other. Last night during prime time I saw something like 70+ players on. I am sure a large majority of that was tribals. Why fix something that is not broken? You're in a tribe with no current PC's? Fix it. Make a post, it's that simple. You'll have people looking to play with you in no time, I can promise you that. If you don't feel like doing the leg work to get it up and going  - I am sure I can recommend a great tribe for you to come and play in.  :wink:

As Hot_Dancer also said it's alot of in-game people seeing that a Tribe is active with members - and then when they do hear the infamous *beep*. Think hey, "That might be an interesting group to play with. Let's give it a shot."

Instead of trying to get clans closed down - why not just try to fix your current situation and get more PC's to play with you?

- Matt.

[X-D]

X-D wrote:
All the noble houses, thats another five.


Without going into details, you are wrong in this point.

Stand corrected on that, after posting I remembered at least one that does not "require" the life oath, though, like one merchant house, it is required to advance.

[LoD]

Been there done that quite well. It is too IC to go into details, but even a one two player tribe with the right mix can make for a very interesting experience.

The arguement is not whether quality play exists amidst several tribal clans with 1-3 players, but whether the MUD would be better served by having 2-3 clans with 5-7 active players consistently, than 4+ random tribes with 1-3 active players rotating between a large pool of 8.  (might be Benjarri for 2 months, then they die and make some Seik)

With a 1-2 player tribe, you almost have to seek inter tribal conflict to have any conflict at all, because you don't have anyone else to get that RP from save your partner, and how exciting can that be day in and day out?  With a larger clan of 5-7+ you begin to have a lot of inner tribal conflict that doesn't require as much conflict from other 1-2 player tribes.

As for intertribal conflict, this will still exist.  Simply because players are encouraged to play in one of 2-3 tribal clans doesn't mean they still cannot create and play out smaller ones.  My contention is that the benefits to having 2-3 tribes with a consistent player base of about 5-7 players would do more for the game than having a pool of 8 tribes which player groups of 1-3 pop up now and again.

-LoD

PS - There are other threads coming, and this one is primarily for tribal discussions.  Noble House discussions will probably be more pertinent to one of the other threads.

[X-D]

(moved from other post, LoD posted too damm fast)

Oh, and I happen to somewhat agree on LoD's post, I do think there are simply too many open tribal options, both coded and uncoded. But I really think that playing a Desert elf who is -not- in a coded clan should be a special app. I think that the play of what basicly amounts to indy tribals should be restricted.

[Cuusardo]

It seems some tribes get left high and dry, with times when there is one active PC in the clan.  I'm guessing that this comes and goes, just like with other things in the game.  (Lots of half elven PCs around, or virtually none, for example.)  I could see temporarily shutting down a tribe for a while if it has consistently very low players on average, and reopening it if more people started showing an interest again.  

And as some of you recall, there was indeed one tribe that was closed to players.  Did that really make that big an impact on where the playerbase is located?  It didn't seem to.  I can't say whether this is a permanent thing or n ot, because I don't know.  But, I know that I do miss interacting with PCs from that tribe.  It made for some really fun and interesting times.  I'd miss interaction with any tribe that was suddenly closed.

As far as Tuluk goes, yes, it would make a huge difference in where the playerbase would be.  However, a LOT of roleplay opportunities and plots would be lost.  I for one have always enjoyed the struggle between Tuluk and Allanak.

[Forest Junkie]

With a 1-2 player tribe, you almost have to seek inter tribal conflict to have any conflict at all, because you don't have anyone else to get that RP from save your partner

Wrong. I created a d.elf tribe around a year and a half to two years ago, nearly. In that time many people played in it. Starting out, though, I was the only elf. I created and helped drive several plots, both in the desert and out. When I had another tribemember join me, we hit it off and really fleshed out our documentation. We even went to war with a group of elves who were harassing people. All of this conflict, and there were only two players in my tribe.

Same instance, different story: While playing in a staff supported tribe myself and another member were thrown into a series of insane world changing plots. Again, I repeat: there were only two of us. I had some of the most fun I've ever had on ArmageddonMUD. I never sought any conflict. It came to me.

how exciting can that be day in and day out?

I enjoy this over socializing and tavern hopping. I prefer the sands to the city any day friend. It's exciting to me.

With a larger clan of 5-7+ you begin to have a lot of inner tribal conflict that doesn't require as much conflict from other 1-2 player tribes.

A tribe like Soh Lanah Kah or any of the smaller tribes does not -need- 5-7 players to have inner tribal conflict. If there were that many players in the tribe, or in any tribe, their numbers would not be properly reflecting the true population of the pbase, and in turn would destabilize the world. That's just silly to see only 10 players in the world, with 5 of them being from your tribe. It's that simple. Having too many people in a tribe will not properly reflect their true population to the playerbase. That is unfair to others who live in or around the cities.

You simply can't throw numbers around when discussing tribes. Most don't have a population over one hundred. As I have stated already, having more than 4 active players in a tribe is really too much. You cannot properly display their vnpc population if their pc population is suggesting the tribe is procreating like rabbits.

We'll just have to disagree on this issue. Consolidation is not the key. It worked in the past, but the game has evolved too much in the sense that consolidating the player base will only hurt conflict, and might even cause some players to leave.

[amoeba]

With a 1-2 player tribe, you almost have to seek inter tribal conflict to have any conflict at all, because you don't have anyone else to get that RP from save your partner, and how exciting can that be day in and day out?  With a larger clan of 5-7+ you begin to have a lot of inner tribal conflict that doesn't require as much conflict from other 1-2 player tribes.

All fine and good, but it does not negate my former argument.  Besides, conflict is conflict, be it inter tribal, inner tribal, or tribal vs. outside world.  Inner clan conflict is not inherantly superiour to other types of conflict.

As for intertribal conflict, this will still exist.  Simply because players are encouraged to play in one of 2-3 tribal clans doesn't mean they still cannot create and play out smaller ones.  My contention is that the benefits to having 2-3 tribes with a consistent player base of about 5-7 players would do more for the game than having a pool of 8 tribes which player groups of 1-3 pop up now and again.

Your proposed numbers keep flutuating.  Much of what you are stating here does not make a lot of sense.  One, I think delves should be in an established tribe.  When players start randomly creating thier own little virtual tribes, they lose that sense of continuity and history.  This dillutes the game, and even your base premise.  I remember a time before Bhag clamped down where 4 out of 5 delves were not in an established tribe.  It was chaotic as each one came up with thier own set of tribal rules, 90% of were along the lines of "we raid the piss out of everyone".   Now I'm not saying 8 tribes are essential to function, but 1-2 tribes squeezes options way too tight.  It sees to me with this dissusion  that you are far more interested in creating  inner tribal conflict than anything else.

[LoD]

We'll just have to disagree on this issue. Consolidation is not the key. It worked in the past, but the game has evolved too much in the sense that consolidating the player base will only hurt conflict, and might even cause some players to leave.

You seem to be particularly defensive about your singular clan experience.  I'm not trying to take it away from you.  Small tribal clans will always be possible, all you need are willing players and an approved background.  None of these changes would effect you.

But I will disagree with your notion of the game, because my opinion is that the levels of consistent interaction between tribal-city, city-city and north-south have all devloved.  It's worse, not better.  My suggestion isn't to make your small clan obselete, but to make a select few tribal clans more consistent entities in the gameworld.  This is to improve their ability to interact over the course of many RL years with the rest of the gameworld rather than in spurts when 1-3 -players decide to go ahead and flesh it out for the time being.

-LoD

[Vesperas]

While I havn't actually played a tribal, I think the MUD would be better off served with fewer tribes than it is now.  We simply don't have the playerbase, and personally, I'll never RP a tribal until I hear of an active tribe.  I don't like being on my lonesome.

[X-D]

You simply can't throw numbers around when discussing tribes. Most don't have a population over one hundred

But yet you are throwing numbers out FJ:)

And which ones? Last coded (d-elf) tribe I played in, docs stated several hundreds and the camp room descs backed that up.
And even the human tribes are showing a few hundred to several hundred per camp.

[marko]

My own view about the tribes:  There are too many.

I'd love to see a couple of them destroyed the same way as some of them were created - ie, through player actions and interactions.

I think it's a little extreme to reduce the number to two - but I would like to see a more dynamic existence out in the wilds.  Too many of these tribes have become permanent no matter what the tribe members actually do.

[amoeba]

I'd love to see a couple of them destroyed the same way as some of them were created - ie, through player actions and interactions.

Now that is a damned good idea.

[Jherlen]

I agree with marko. The next time a couple raider-happy d-elves try to attack a group of Kuraci or Salarri or Borsail or whoever, I would love to see their entire tribe get crushed and slaughtered or enslaved and wiped off the game.

Fewer tribes would mean the remaining tribes would be bigger and have more of a noticable presence. Two might be too few, but I think the number we have now is too many. I'd really like to see tribals having more meaningful interaction (read: besides raiding everything) with the rest of the game instead leading a mostly isolated existance out by themselves.

[Forest Junkie]

But yet you are throwing numbers out FJ:)

And which ones? Last coded (d-elf) tribe I played in, docs stated several hundreds and the camp room descs backed that up.
And even the human tribes are showing a few hundred to several hundred per camp.

I gave those numbers to prove my point. Shoot me in the back why don'tcha!  :wink:

SLK have around a couple hunred I believe.
ATV have around a few hundred.
Most player created tribes have a hundred or fewer.

I'd love to see a couple of them destroyed the same way as some of them were created - ie, through player actions and interactions.

I see nothing wrong with that.

[X-D]

marko wrote:
I'd love to see a couple of them destroyed the same way as some of them were created - ie, through player actions and interactions.


I see nothing wrong with that

Me either

[Intrepid]

There is a point about possible consolidation.  Quite a few tribal roles can
be utilized as resources for independent players who want an in-game
source for their pcs, and this works reasonably well.  However, the tribes
least appropriate to remain are the ones mentioned: Blackwing and Tan
Muark.

I won't go into detail about the level of RP in these clans--suffice to say, I
never understood why some of the players felt they were so...legendary,
I guess is the word.  I never felt they were any better or worse than the
great roleplay that was going on elsewhere in the game.

The most important aspect to keep in mind is the fact that these are iso
clans, despite their occasional forays into the rest of the world.  They
could be on a whole different server and no one would notice they were
gone other than a drop in the total player count.

Consolidation can sometimes be necessary...but it should be done
carefully, as you are altering the ic face of the gameworld with an ooc
hand--it has to be done as an improvement.

[LoD]

The most important aspect to keep in mind is the fact that these are iso clans, despite their occasional forays into the rest of the world.  They could be on a whole different server and no one would notice they were gone other than a drop in the total player count.

The Blackwing weren't isolated as much as they were "not in a city".  Their village was approachable, the lands were hunted by non-tribals, the area was travelled semi-frequently by hunters, merchants in wagons, etc...  The presence they held in the Tablelands created a good amount tension, conflict and opportunities for trade because you could bet on the fact that if you were there long enough, you'd get some interaction.

The Tan Muark I'm referring to were not isolated at all.  In fact, they were somewhat dependant upon the goodwill of formed civilizations for their day-to-day safety.  They travelled around the world in a wagon, with all of their members and peoples included.  Now perhaps they did have a camp that far back, but the bulk of their PC's were almost always in a city or village somewhere, performing, selling, swindling, smoking, drinking and otherwise having a good time interacting with everybody and anybody.

If you think that either of these two clans (from this time I describe) could disappear and no one would notice, then I'm sure you we're thinking of the same game.

My point is that when these two clans were operating in-game, there was a lot more consistent tribal interaction than there is today in either city or general travel between them.  These two clans may not be prime candidates now (and I agree), but what they were able to provided to the gameworld in interaction, dependability and consistency was important.

I do like Marko's idea of wiping out some of the exta tribes ICly, but I'd be interested to see how that happens with random tribes of 1-3 people serving as the main participants.

-LoD

[Intrepid]

In all the time I played in the game, I never saw Tan Muark interaction
until after the consolidation.  If they were around as undercover and
secret pcs, then that's not really much of an improvement.

Blackwing, on the other hand, has had a policy of restricting pcs in the
past from wandering and roaming outside their territory.

Without getting into too much detail, the Blackwing interaction you
described was primarily with npcs.  Most of us found, to our chagrin, that
pcs were treated differently when encountered--in some cases, the
situations became ridiculous.

Blackwing and Tan Muark have their own territories and compete with
no one for those territories.  Getting into these places from outside often
requires defeating nearly impossible odds or traversing particularly nasty
terrain.  As a consequence, they are disconnected from the game.  In a
clan where you can spend the vast majority of your time in game never
meeting an out-of-clan pc, you are in fact in an iso clan.

I believe that the Arabet and the Seik in particular offer far more to the
gameworld and a sense of economy and ecosystem than the Tan Muark
and the Blackwing.  The desert elf tribes are ATV and SLK, which should
be just fine for the moment.  Four clans should be more than enough to
represent the tribal pcs on Arm, in my opinion.

[Hot_Dancer]

After, rereading LoD's post: Too many tribes is a viable concern, especially when it appears the staff has trouble keeping up with all of them. I wouldn't bother myself overtly over it though, these things have ways of working themselves out in game.

For a while desert elves basicly had the 'Independent' tag on them. Blackwing were closed and there were very few, if any good tribes to join. A few decent tribes started showing up, and they're still fairly young by Armageddon timelines of play. I think that eventually, a small number (2-3) of these tribes will naturally rise to the top and those hoping to represent the lesser tribes will be of such a small number that it'll be difficult to accuse them of anything past stealing your kank.

I don't have any opinions as to the humans.. and if I was told to predict the future: The Sun Runners and the Soh Lanah Kah will become the two most active, contributive and consistantly player represented desert elf tribes in the future. I think they offer the most diverse, Armageddon loyal types of elf play available between them.

Hot_Dancer

[mansa]

I value the desert elf tribes more than the human tribes.
Just a minor point.

[Delirium]

I don't have any opinions as to the humans.. and if I was told to predict the future: The Sun Runners and the Soh Lanah Kah will become the two most active, contributive and consistantly player represented desert elf tribes in the future. I think they offer the most diverse, Armageddon loyal types of elf play available between them.

I have to agree.  They are also in the same general location, which provides better opportunities for roleplay than, say, between the Silt Wind and the Akei'Ta Var.  Still - the other tribes provide for different experiences that the Sun Runners or the Soh Lanah Kah may not be able to offer.  

It is difficult to rule one out in favor of the other - I would use "do they have reasons to interact with the playerbase" as a very heavy considering factor.  Yes, they are tribals, but yes, you are still playing a game where we are writing a cooperating story; you can write a brilliant chapter all by yourself, but what's the fun of it, if no one else gets to read it or add to it?

As for human tribes, I think the Al'Seik and the Tan Muark have shown the most consistant activity during the time I've been able to observe them.  I would hate to see the Jul Tavan, Anyali, or Arabet be abolished, because they have a colorful history and culture that took some sweat and blood to flesh out.  At the very minimum, four tribal human tribes would be ideal - the Tan Muark, the Al'Seik, the Jul Tavan, and the Arabet.  They all have plenty of reasons to interact with the gameworld's populace.  

The Anyali's customs keep them too separate from the cities, and the Benjari are not coded, and they are very inclusive, so it's unlikely they ever will be represented by more than a rare PC - which lines up with how often they should be seen by the gameworld.

[jhunter]

MMm...I'd like to see some of the elf and human tribal options limited. Then, I'd like to see halfling and gith opened up for play.