Re: Support

[staggerlee]

I am in complete agreement with mansa.

Especially about the clans.  I want to see clans live and die by what the PCS do.

As far as I understand this is sort of the direction Arm2 is moving.  But I do  have a problem, or question, about it.

Basically, what happens if something like the Allanak militia has no pcs? It ceases to exist? The majority of the world is made up of virtual populations, and there aren't enough pcs to keep all clans thriving at all times.  The population shifts around.  Taken to the extreme, if the mud was run this way Tuluk wouldn't even exist anymore.

Losing some of the dues ex machina might not hurt, but players don't adequately represent the game world. I  don't want to lose all continuity and history just so that people can take a bigger role in running clans.

[Bebop]

I am in complete agreement with mansa.

Especially about the clans.  I want to see clans live and die by what the PCS do.

As far as I understand this is sort of the direction Arm2 is moving.  But I do  have a problem, or question, about it.

Basically, what happens if something like the Allanak militia has no pcs? It ceases to exist? The majority of the world is made up of virtual populations, and there aren't enough pcs to keep all clans thriving at all times.  The population shifts around.  Taken to the extreme, if the mud was run this way Tuluk wouldn't even exist anymore.

Losing some of the dues ex machina might not hurt, but players don't adequately represent the game world. I  don't want to lose all continuity and history just so that people can take a bigger role in running clans.

From what I gather the two city states will not exist in the new version of the game.  But I see your concern.  I think the main point I was trying to make is I want to see PCs in the leadership position of the House role.  Currently nobility or merchant house family still have someone above them.  They can not determine ultimately the direction of the merchant house, noble house or even the government those roles require IMM involvement.

[Lizzie]

There are code issues and playability issues with that though Bebop. If the leader of the clan (the actual leader, not just the leader of a unit or the leader of 'that group of aides/hunters/whatevers') dies or the character retires, who is in charge, until the new PC leader is decided on? It is common now to have this as a problem with the "lesser" groups, imagine the problem escalated significantly if the clan was led at the very top by a PC as the rule rather than the exception.

Who will pay the people at the bottom, if the person at the top was the only one with bank access and is now dead/retired? Someone can be promoted, but by who? If there is one "big deal" leader, and two "second in command" underlings, who decides which of the two underlings gets to be in charge? If it's a military organization they could duke it out. But what if they're silk-stitchers? Would they have a quilting contest? What if the only people "under" the guy who's dead/retired are so low-ranking that none of them would qualify to be in charge? What if player-wise, they have not proven they can be trusted to handle the RP responsibilities of authority over other PCs yet?

I would much rather see either an NPC or VNPC that can be turned into an NPC as a leader, OR an IMM's avatar who exists to keep things moving (or to shut things down as the case may be). I would much rather see it all roleplayed out, than just >Someone promotes you to The Guy Running Things, when the guy running things gets whacked. And if that means there needs to be a "perma-NPC-leader" I'm fine with that.

[Cegar]

If a leader of a PC clan dies and leaves no heirs or workable structure, then their legacy is kaput.

[Cegar]

If a leader of a PC clan dies and leaves no heirs or workable structure, then their legacy is kaput.

Double post and proud of it!

[Dalmeth]

Basically, what happens if something like the Allanak militia has no pcs? It ceases to exist? The majority of the world is made up of virtual populations, and there aren't enough pcs to keep all clans thriving at all times.  The population shifts around.  Taken to the extreme, if the mud was run this way Tuluk wouldn't even exist anymore.

This is a valid concern, and I tend to think a less formal system addresses it.  For instance, in Basal, you have the Watchers.  This is actually a social class, not just a role.  So, no matter what, you are going to have Watchers around, either PC or NPC.  Now, while their might be ranks within the Watchers, what if a Watcher wanted to collect specific people around him?  He could form a family and start collecting other Watchers within this family.  This is where a player clan is formed.  Whereto from there?  Well, the possibilities are endless.  They could be a group of dedicated raiders, or they could decide to profit off of their position and start importing illegal goods into Basal.  Now, they could all die in a raid, or they could eventually get caught, and the clan would be disbanded.  However, the position of Watcher will still remain.  Even if all the Watchers were killed, you'd probably have someone, either a upper-tier PC or NPC raise more, and there would be some base documentation to decide what in general a Watcher is supposed to be.  Now th cycle can begin all over again.

I tend to think that this sort of situation requires certain conditions.  Long-term loyalty is too much in demand for the current incarnation of Arm.  If you have a high-ranking position in one of the Merchant Houses, you're in it for life.  There is also no "tour of duty" for those in the armies of either city-state.  This system frowns on multiple commitments.  So, if a soldier is dissatisfied in one organization, he's stuck with it.  What I would like to see is a system that reduces the stigma (for example : most people of authority who leave an organization are hunted down and killed) of moving between organizations.  The system even prohibits the formation of distinct units within official organizations.  For instance, if a sergeant in the Militia wanted a well-defined unit and have it specialize in fast, mobile combat, he couldn't really pull it off.  Not only would he not be able to distinguish any soldiers as a part of his unit, seeing as how all soldiers are generally considered just within the Militia, free to be taken for any duty, but the politics involved in such a distinction would discourage it.

Ideally, I'd like an informal system when it comes to the basic administrative offices of the villages.   Just think of running a mercenary unit that is in high demand by all the villages of the Known World.  You would be constantly getting offers from various officials, and you could choose whoever made the highest bid.  Now, moving from contract to contract on a whim is generally a bad idea, but doesn't it give the game such an edge knowing that you could if the price was right?

[mansa]

If a leader of a PC clan dies and leaves no heirs or workable structure, then their legacy is kaput.

Isn't that like real life?

[mansa]

I agree that allowing the playerbase to decide clan structure and everything involved with it is a very tough situation.

How do you keep a social constructed society running?  How do you make sure that the people from Tier 5 act like people from Tier 5?

It's very hard to do, and keep it consistent!

I have examples of role-play from EVE and WoW, but those games are very 'point and click' environments, where they don't reach the quality levels of Armageddon.

However, I don't want a situation where an Immortal Avatar for House Oash gives 100,000 coins to a Junior Noble for doing nothing, and a Different Immortal Avatar for House Borsail gives 10,000 coisn to a Junior Noble.

And this interaction between NPC leaders and their employees differences happen.  Even now.  I want to eliminate it.  Or change it.

[Cegar]

If a leader of a PC clan dies and leaves no heirs or workable structure, then their legacy is kaput.

Isn't that like real life?

Yes. I am in favor of a system like that.

Damn Canadian logic.

[Bebop]

Yes exactly, I'm in favor of that as well.

The objective should not be:  Let's keep the clans running.

The objective should be:  Let the clans run themselves.

If the leader did not have the hindsight to write out an heir and will or no one is available let the underlings fight over it until a leader is decided or let the clan die with the leader.  Ultimately the way the PC leads will effect the clan.  That is the point.

The clan will have to develope an internal structure that will make or break it.  Sure at this point in the game clans have different inner workings but I feel much of it is forced into the same box.  You have a PC leader with ____ amount of power that confers with the IMMs.  The clans well being and status isn't ebbing and flowing IG and determined by the PCs a lot of it still relies on an IMM and lets face it no Junior or even Senior Agent of Kadius has a major effect over whether or not Kadius will continue to be successful.  In fact I have found PCs doing outright idiotic things that does not effect their status or the status of their House whatsoever.  Same thing with the good things they do.

Also, I am hoping that this kind of attitude by letting the PCs make or ultimately BREAK their clan will give people a more realistic feel.  They will be MUCH more wary of their actions and poor leaders will feel the effects.  As well, maybe we can do away with this "long lived equals a good character" feel to PCs.

[LoD]

As far as I understand this is sort of the direction Arm2 is moving.  But I do  have a problem, or question, about it.

Basically, what happens if something like the Allanak militia has no pcs? It ceases to exist? The majority of the world is made up of virtual populations, and there aren't enough pcs to keep all clans thriving at all times.  The population shifts around.  Taken to the extreme, if the mud was run this way Tuluk wouldn't even exist anymore.

We may need to define what we're talking about here, because the arguments seem to walking a fine line between two sentiments:

:arrow: All clans/organizations should be PC-led.
:arrow: PC-led clans should succeed/fail based on their own merit.

I agree with the latter statement, but to believe that the game world is going to allow players to make every single decision is unrealistic. We have to remember that even our long-lived characters are often flash in the pans compared to the average lifespan of NPC/VNPC characters in the game world.  There are a great many organizations that require some degree of moderation and automation in order to provide players with the environment that even -allows- them to create a clan.  Shopkeepers, soldiers, stable hands, cooks, servants, bodyguards, rich folk, poor folk, thieves, crazies, and a whole layer cake of humanity that is held together by NPC/VNPC glue.

My hope is that Armageddon 2 is able to strike this balance and allow PC's to manage and run their own organizations/clans while simultaneously creating a stable and consistent game world that isn't changing governments every other month.  Each settlement and civilization in Armageddon 2 is going to have documentation, culture, and organizations created prior to we players ever stepping foot into the game.  There are not enough players to properly RP every level of that system, which then requires that "filler" to make sure it's still represented.

What I feel would work best is a fairly solid and stable framework provided in each settlement, with players supplying most of the "meat" in the middle.  The government, government organizations, and basic day-to-day operations should remain fairly consistent from one PC to the next.  The dominant trading company, mercenary outfit, or band of raiders might change as the players ebb and flow between settlements, but the foundation for each should be slow to change.

One of the things I always appreciated about the Great Merchant Houses and Noble Houses was I could always count on them being there.  Learning the general personalities and quirks of each created a comfortable atmosphere for we players, who did not have relearn another name, another symbol, another set of values, and another sub-culture every time we created a character.

If we can have that level of consistency and stability while simultaneously providing players with a system that allows them to succeed/fail predominantly on their actions, then I feel that'd be the best solution.

-LoD

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I'm down with this, but I don't think a clan should die until the last member is dead. The leader of that clan would simply elect a hiarchy, for example:

Code Select Expand


>will
You must enter a list of names, seperated by commas, to use this command.

>will arron, hithon, mansa, jhunter, halaster, fathi
Your will currently contains the names of:
Venomz
Arron
Hithon
Jhunter
Halaster
Fathi

>help will
This command allows you to decide where clan leadership will fall upon your death. The first name you enter will be the PC in your clan who will become leader upon your death, or, if you and that PC both die, then the second name will become the leader. Obviously, it's not smart to let anyone know your will.


[Gimfalisette]

One of the things I always appreciated about the Great Merchant Houses and Noble Houses was I could always count on them being there.

While I overall agree, I will say that there is one major feature of the current large, stable, NPC-run organizations that I do NOT want to see brought into 2.ARM: And that is monopoly.

I am really irritated by the fact that even if one of the GMHs totally sucks, PC-wise, for a hugely long time, there's absolutely nothing that can be done to move power out of their hands or even to have that type of business fulfilled elsewhere. They can have a complete strangehold on business virtually, while also not supporting that business in the PC reality. And this aspect of our current structures just really needs to be done away with.

[Bebop]

I'm down with this, but I don't think a clan should die until the last member is dead. The leader of that clan would simply elect a hiarchy, for example:

Code Select Expand


>will
You must enter a list of names, seperated by commas, to use this command.

>will arron, hithon, mansa, jhunter, halaster, fathi
Your will currently contains the names of:
Venomz
Arron
Hithon
Jhunter
Halaster
Fathi

>help will
This command allows you to decide where clan leadership will fall upon your death. The first name you enter will be the PC in your clan who will become leader upon your death, or, if you and that PC both die, then the second name will become the leader. Obviously, it's not smart to let anyone know your will.


That should be up to the leader.  If we just create the same heirarchy for every clan we are getting into the same situation as before which becomes coded monopoly instead of PC interaction.  A written will that can be stolen or manipulated by I 'trusted' employee opens up so much more than this same coded clan situation.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Bebop, I agree, to a point. But the problem is that in code, the clan has to exist, and if it doesn't have coded values to fall back on, it will cease to exist with player access. That's what the 'will command' is about.

[brytta.leofa]

But the problem is that in code, the clan has to exist

To ponder: does it?  Or can we do everything with more mundane mechanisms, like (for instance) issuing keys?

What all does "clan code" have to accomplish?
- NPCs recognize clan members
-

[Medena]

If a leader of a PC clan dies and leaves no heirs or workable structure, then their legacy is kaput.

Isn't that like real life?

No, it isn't.  If the CEO of ... uh, what's an American department store for an example ... let's say Macy's dies the whole thing doesn't fall apart because Macy's has more than the 5 PC's that a merchant house clan might have in the game.

I'm with the folks who support having small player-run clans be feasible -- the ones whose numbers actually would be represented by the number of PC's in them --  but would still like to see some structure/continuity coming from the imms for the big ones.

[LoD]

What all does "clan code" have to accomplish?
- NPCs recognize clan members
-

The ability to recruit people into a clan.
The ability to promote/demote people within the given clan.
Ranks that carry with them specific privileges/permissions.
The ability to share banking rights on multiple levels.
The ability for clanned NPC's to recognize your presence/commands.
The ability to specify a successor or multiple successors.

There's a reason why not one single player-created clan/organization has existed without eventually converting to an NPC/VNPC system of management.  The PC's responsible for leading, motivating, and managing the clan have moved on to new roles, and eventually there was no one willing or able to pick up the reins.

I've started many clans, some which were coded and some which were not, and while some of them are preserved through written histories or documentation, none of them have survived as more than a rare IC reference or a "Oh, I remember those guys.".  I really don't want the entire new game to be a collection of those temporary and fleeting ideas.  There should be some permanent and semi-permanent organizations that anchor us to the game and allow us to feel that sense of familiarity and stability that facilitate game play.

They don't have to be monopolizing, swollen, unstoppable mega-clans with little to no chance of being shaped or led by a PC.  They just need to be created in such a way that allows PC's to make a real impact while being stable enough to survive frequent and predictable PC death. This is the challenge that the Imms will have to face in creating a new game world that provides automation and ease of use for players wanting to create clans/organizations while simultaneously maintaining a consistent and stable environment.

-LoD

[Belenos]

There's a reason why not one single player-created clan/organization has existed without eventually converting to an NPC/VNPC system of management.  The PC's responsible for leading, motivating, and managing the clan have moved on to new roles, and eventually there was no one willing or able to pick up the reins.

QFT.  One good example of this is the T'zai Byn.  It was player created, but there have been many times it would have died off had some of the above stated rules been held strictly.  One thing I've noticed from this side of the curtain is that the majority of people try to include themselves in where they think the action is, or is going to be. Clan membership fluctuates wildly because of this.  There are also many people who will only join up with an active clan.

You also have to take into account the fuzzy stuff as well.  If the last person in the clan only logs in for five minutes every two weeks or so, is the clan dead?  I'm also concerned that a small group of players could effectively dominate much of the mud if appropriate balances are not in place.  I would like each character/player to have an equal chance at influencing the world without having to be concerned about ooc cliques.

That being said I'm very much for having player driven clans.  The devil is in the details.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

The best solution would be to make the highest ranking NPC someone who's rank you could assume, but if you died, would take up the mantle of Highest Ranking member again.

[Mood]

I'd like to see a lot of the current clan code affected by uniforms and insignia, instead of magical knowledge in the heads of NPCs - steal a Byn aba and patch? You should be able to slip into the compound. Wearing the uniform of the commander of your clan? The NPCs should treat you as such, unless they are animated, and have a reason to know you're not the commander.

[Rindan]

I'd like to see a lot of the current clan code affected by uniforms and insignia, instead of magical knowledge in the heads of NPCs - steal a Byn aba and patch? You should be able to slip into the compound. Wearing the uniform of the commander of your clan? The NPCs should treat you as such, unless they are animated, and have a reason to know you're not the commander.

It really all depends upon the size of the clan.  If you try and slip into my mercenary squad of 20 with a uniform, you will get strung up instantly.  Try slipping into a Byn compound with 400 other mercenaries, and you might stand a chance.

I could see in 2.Arm clans getting classified based upon virtual size.  For a small band, uniforms are unneeded and won't get you very far.  For a group that is 500 people big, a low level grunt uniform might very well get you past the gate.  Of course, this can all already be done with a touch of staff intervention.  I doubt that a staff member would object... you probably will just find it much harder to do something stupid, like loot all the lockers in front of a guard.

[flurry]

I'm highly skeptical of wholly pc-run clans if that model was a replacement for the type of clans we have now.  If it were merely supported in addition to more traditional clans (for lack of a better term), that's totally fine with me.

The problem with clans where pc's hold all the power and responsibility is that OOC issues interfere in IC unrealistic ways.  People have different playtimes.  Real life gets busy.  Who minds the shop when the pc's are logged out?  What if those npc's get killed?

I'm concerned about a clan model where the clan's stability assumes a consistent pc presence without accounting for ooc turbulence. I've had a character lose an apartment full of stuff because real life got busy when I wasn't expecting it to, and I got out of my usual IC routine.  That sucked, but at least it was one character who could bounce back over time.  I'd hate to think these clans would just vanish because someone went on vacation or had a crazy week at work.

[Bebop]

It's Zalanthas, things aren't supposed to last long.  I like PC run ONLY clans.  With NPCs as they get bigger sure.  But if you don't have anyone in your clan to help it going to the point that you have an Estate, that's to bad.  You should live your life with an heir to the company in mind if you ask me.  I don't want to fall into the same rut of clans/houses just BEING there regardless of what the PCs do.

[Goldberry]

Belenos made some great points.  Realism is the goal, but it seems to me that you have to assume that people will fuck up, quit, turn ooc, or just flake out.  This is why I would support a certain number of established clans.  Practicality. 

But it would be cool to see guidelines in place for PC run clans to graduate to "established", the founding PC taking on the role of the founder until death or an NPC system is requested/set up...that could make things very interesting.  Likewise, certain guidelines for the abolition of clans that have been inactive for an extensive amount of time or have been ICly brought down by another organization.