A Tier System for Multiple Characters

[Synthesis]

(I decided to repost this as a new topic, to avoid the clutter of the other thread.)

Here's a more complete idea:  tiers of stored characters, based on how interested you are in continuing to play them.

Tier 1:  This would be the current character you're most interested in playing.  This is probably a "newbie" PC who is working his way up through the ranks, or skilling up, or whatever.  When you created this character, you didn't have a good idea how active your area of the game was, or whether you'd be interested in continually roleplaying around the other PCs in the area.  Maybe you have "buyer's remorse," or maybe you don't.

Tier 2:  This is your "old standby" PC.  He's a Trooper or a Corporal and moderately-very skilled.  The thrill and excitement is gone, but his story is incomplete and you're still moderately interested in playing him.

Tier 3:  This is the RPT-only or flavor-role, stop-gap PC you log in with when you're waiting for a Tier 1 application to be approved.  This could be either a skilled veteran whose role in Armageddon's overall storyline will be no more than "unambitious House employee until he dies or retires," or the street-sweeper or prostitute that nobody really wants as a long-term character, but wouldn't mind playing for a RL day or two.

Rules:

1) Designating characters as Tier 1, 2, or 3 takes place via the Request Tool.

2) Switching between Tier 1 and Tier 2 characters imposes a 2 RL week minimum playtime restriction.  I.e. after you switch, you have to play that character for at least two weeks before you can switch back.  (This is primarily to prevent wanton switching.)

3) Tier 3 characters can only be played by three means:  a) Staff approval, to take part in a specific, scheduled event (to accommodate RPT-ready roles); b) one login allowed per RL month (to accommodate flavor roles) or c) becomes your default character option when your current Tier 1 character unexpectedly kicks the bucket.  In the case of (c), you can choose to switch to your current Tier 2 character instead of submitting another app.  However, the Tier 3 character remains Tier 3...this is a permanent designation.

4) If you have no Tier 2 character (either because your Tier 1 died and your old Tier 2 was moved up to Tier 1, or because you never had a second character at all), your next submitted character application is by default moved into the Tier 2 slot.  You can begin playing this character at any time by switching between Tier 1 and Tier 2 via the request tool.

5) The Staff may demand (and other players may petition the Staff thusly) that a certain character be played for a certain period of time, in order for certain IC events to run their course.  Examples include being wanted by a city-state, being fired from a clan, and participating in upper-class political events.  When such demands are made, the Staff will make it clear ahead of time the prescribed time-limit.  For example, one RL month to evade capture for bounties, or one RL evening to take part in a Senate meeting.

6) Abuse of these privileges will result in their being removed from your account, and in the permanent storage of your Tier 2 and Tier 3 characters.  At the time of removal, a Staff member will ask you which character (Tier 1 or Tier 2) you want to play, and the others will be permanently stored.  I imagine this would go along with loss of karma and temporary banning, in accordance with previously established rules regarding cheating.  Abuse is defined as sharing IC information between characters or using alternate characters to the advantage of your current Tier 1 character.  Examples of abuse include, but are not limited to:  spying with alternate characters, and using that information to plot with a Tier 1 character; using an alternate character to kill NPCs or PCs that are hostile to your Tier 1 character; griefing with a character and then switching to an alternate character to avoid IC consequences.

[mansa]

I can see this being a successful addition.

[RogueGunslinger]

I'm a fan of this.

[netflix]

I have to give a thumbs down. I've been on other RPIs that allow, to varying degrees, multiple characters. It never turns out well. There really is no way to guarantee that a conflict of interest will -never- pop up between various characters, be it directly or indirectly.

Even if you have one char that never leaves Tuluk, and another that never leaves Nak, there's still that chance that your Tuluki's char's best friend ends up in Nak in a life or death situation that your Nak character has a chance to influence. I'm not even talking about outright cheating, here. I'm talking about just subconscious influences on your decision making process.

It -will- happen. Maybe not with everyone, but it still will. Just as how you may find yourself being more friendly/meaner then usual toward one of your recently dead characters friends/enemies, this would both magnify and prolong that. The deeper you get into your new char, the easier it can be to fend off these things. But -continuing- to have influence of two active characters, it would simply continue.

Even if it's just an RPT only role... how many people can -really- say that what your throw away RPT secondary character does through thought an RPT would -never- be influenced by your existing, primary character? As far as I know, we don't have any robots playing PCs, so this would be a "no one".

[Agent_137]

i like the tier 3 idea, but feel tier 2 would require too much oversight to prevent OOC carry-over of current information, be bad for the folks you play each of those characters with because you disappear for two weeks every month, and be confusing for you too.

you need to  make tier 2 much more restrictive to swap to. Two weeks is just ridiculous. (i suggested 6 months in the other thread.)

btw lol at splitting the thread. this thread is basically the idea but with the addition of tier 3. (which i do like)

p.s.

With two week swap offs you could even have your characters share the same fucking apartment! You'd need a go-between buddy to actually own the apartment, but it'd still be VERY easy to do.

p.s.s
stuff like this:

5. ... When such demands are made, the Staff will make it clear ahead of time the prescribed time-limit.

will never and should never happen.

[Winterless]

Like *thumbs up*

[Thunkkin]

Bureaucratic nightmare.

[Cutthroat]

I wouldn't mind keeping a Tier 1 and a Tier 3 character as you define it. Tier 3 seems to fit things like staff's call for gladiators April of last year perfectly: RPT-only special characters for that your Tier 1 character can't be a part of or watch. I'm not sure that I would like for players to be able to log into these outside of RPTs, even if only once a month, because that can still be used to check up on other areas for information that your first character could possibly use, even if only unconsciously.

The Tier 2 idea can work if the time you must wait to switch between Tier 1 and 2 is very long. Otherwise, this undoubtedly will increase staff workload, and may even cause cases of confusion during enforcement or otherwise cause a roleplaying quandry:
- Imagine if a Tier 1 and Tier 2 character of a single player make a common enemy (which isn't outside the realm of possibility, so long as there is a very mobile trouble-maker to make enemies with). The Tier 2 character kills that enemy. Will this be understood as IC action, or misconstrued as a way to help a Tier 1 character?
- A Tier 2 character is in Arm of the Dragon, and that player's Tier 1 character is in the Sun Legions. A Tuluki templar tells a Tier 1 character that his unit will go out to the Red Desert in a month. Player gets bored and switches to his Tier 2 character. An Allanaki templar tells the Tier 2 character that his unit will ambush a Sun Legions unit out on the Red Desert in a month. Will the player participate in the destruction of his main PC's clan, or try to switch over as fast as possible to help defend it?

Another concern of mine is how this would work with sponsored roles. Staff apparently try to keep a certain number of nobles, templars, and Merchant House members in the cities so that they stay active. What tier would they fall into? And if a player chose to switch away from their sponsored role to another character, would staff hold their spot for them (potentially slowing things down for other leaders and players in that area) or replace them?

[jstorrie]

No thanks.

[Synthesis]

How about with a 1-month mandatory minimum playing time before switching between Tier 1/2 characters?

What about a mandatory 3-5 day waiting period before you could even log in with the second, after the switch?

The combination of these two would make it a serious decision whether to switch or not.

As far as bureaucratic workload is concerned, I'm not going to comment because a) I don't know how long it takes to resolve investigations of cheating, b) I don't know how burdened the staff are already, and c) nobody knows how many more cheating investigations would need to be launched if something like this went into effect.

The idea is to arrange it such that a) if your clan dies, or you get non-terminally bored with a character or b) you create a new character and the zone you created in is DOA, you can jump into a new character or back to an old character without the possibility of losing a significant amount of invested time.

Also, keep in mind that the average character lifespan is something like...two, two-and-a-half weeks (according to Gimf's last estimate).  Most characters aren't currently surviving long enough to even have the chance to jump to a reserve character.

[Agent_137]

i don't think the average person needs this solution. the pain is with long-lived characters. Not 1 month old characters. I don't even think being able to temp-store a character more than once is a good idea. It would be a serious departure from this MUD to turn it into multiplay-lite.

If you've had more than 5 characters in the last year, I don't think you really need a solution like this. I've only heard long-life players complain of burn-out. How many short-lifers out there have the same problem?

[Synthesis]

i don't think the average person needs this solution. the pain is with long-lived characters. Not 1 month old characters. I don't even think being able to temp-store a character more than once is a good idea. It would be a serious departure from this MUD to turn it into multiplay-lite.

If you've had more than 5 characters in the last year, I don't think you really need a solution like this. I've only heard long-life players complain of burn-out. How many short-lifers out there have the same problem?

This would help with medium-term characters, also.

For example, if you rolled up a pickpocket in the 'rinth, but it turns out the 'rinth is completely dead.  You'd play the pickpocket for a month, then you could switch back to your previous character.  A month later, you could try the pickpocket out again, if you so chose.  Or you could store the pickpocket and roll up another app.--after a month, you could play this one...or you could play it immediately if your Tier 1 character unexpectedly died.

But no, the Tier 1/2 switching wouldn't be of any use to people who can't keep a character alive for a solid month, except that it would give them a pre-approved character app slot, so they could immediately start playing the game again after dying, without waiting 4-24 hours for a new app. to be approved.  The Tier 3 option would still be useful, however.

[janeshephard]

I'm not a big fan of this at all.

There are so many problems with it:

* Less playtime on current characters.
* More room for abuse, despite added staff time toward managing this.
* Complex systems never integrate well. Small incremental changes do.

Let's start with a throw-away arena account everyone gets. Roll your arena mul, what have you, and play during scheduled RPTs. From there, see what else can be done.

My 2 'sids.

[Delstro]

I don't like it.
As a Bynn Sargeant, I'd have to bend over backwards even more now to keep my followers not only alive, but interested. If this tier system would be implemented, I could foresee this happening a lot. I could see this pretty much shutting down entire houses because everyone wants to be apart of the clique going on in Allanak (or Tuluk, this is a detail, don't get hung up on it.)

How annoying would it be to have an entire crew of hunter/crafters that disappear for a month to go do something more interesting, come back for a month, and then leave for three months and then come back for four months?

I do not like it.
I could never be sure of when my followers were going to be around, so I would get tired of being around. I would also catch on fast when my lead crafter disappears for a while and a Bynn Sargeant is only around when my follower is stored. Even if it wasn't true, perception is just as deadly as reality some times.

[Akaramu]

Delstro summed up my feelings well.

[Synthesis]

If your clan or house isn't interesting enough to keep people playing in it with the tier 1/2 system in place, why would you want to FORCE people to stay around in it?  That strikes me as...a little rude.  If someone doesn't enjoy playing around you, I don't think you have an inherent right to their continued presence in your clan.  I don't think the game benefits by having bored players sitting around doing nothing.

I mean, seriously.  Some of you people are acting as if the game is fundamentally based on people being bored most of the time.  Worst-case scenarios are worst-case.  If things really got that bad, the Staff could simply change things back to the current system.

As far as players disappearing for a month at a time...so what?  How often do you -ever- have a character consistently logging in for an entire month, anyway?  If someone really wants to basically run two characters by logging in with each for a month at a time...why is this a bad thing?  You can't adapt to the fact that they're going to be a vNPC every other month?

I think this could easily be handled responsibly, by responsible players.  For example, if there's something major about to go down in your Tier 1 clan...it would be responsible not to switch to your Tier 2 until that major event is finished.  But...if there isn't anything major happening, I don't think it's in anyone's interest to keep people bored while they're sitting around waiting.

And yes, as a Byn Sergeant, you should have to bend over backwards to keep players interested.  It's essentially part of your job description when you accept that responsibility.  On the bright side, with a Tier 3 in place, you would at least possibly have more Troopers showing up for RPTs, instead of rolling out with three n00bs and a prayer.

[zanthalandreams]

I don't really like it, even though the average longevity of my characters tends to be around two or so RL years.   I don't like it for the same reason I don't like undying NPCs camping out in leadership roles.   I want the old to move aside for the new, if the role is getting stale.  If you live that long and are still in an insignificant role, then . . well. . .I don't see how having another PC to refresh into will enrich the game for you (but more importantly for me.)   

[Synthesis]

The rules would probably have to be modified for PCs in limited-availability leadership positions.

[zanthalandreams]

I'm talking about any kind of leadership role. . . or any role above recruit cannon fodder.  I guarantee you, even some upjumped Corporal has someone under him waiting on him to die so they can do a better job.   

[Akaramu]

How often do you -ever- have a character consistently logging in for an entire month, anyway?

All the time. The same is true for some of the others I end up playing with fairly often. The long-term plots can be beautiful, the most interesting PC I've ran into lately, with the most interesting plots, had been played consistently for some 8 months.

[spawnloser]

I keep looking through this and I keep not liking it.

I would be okay with this if the only idea was to improve the world.  I don't see this improving the world but simply giving a means for some people to enjoy the game more while other people think the game is being not improved but the opposite.  If we could change this so that it would only improve the game, and by that, I think a good measure is how much it improves OTHER people's enjoyment.

For example, I would be okay with something like this if we had a primary character and two or three flavor characters, characters that are just cogs in the machine that are around not to be key hunters or officers or magicker lazor cannons, but the peons and the cannon fodder.  They're only brought out for RPTs and only when asked by the staff.  I think that'd be cool.

[Synthesis]

The discussion is pretty much being dominated by worst-case scenarios, at this point.  That's how things on the GDB go, I guess.

[roughneck]

I would like to see a multi-character system in place for certain role only.  Roles such as gladiators, low skill gith (there for enjoyable, animated pc fodder, not pc murder) and perhaps noble and gmh slave guards or hunters.  Roles that can be difficult or impossible to devote a full time play to but would benefit the game by having someone fill the role here and there.  It would keep people from getting bored and limit abuse because the character your playing has a well-defined role very much separate from your main character.

[Akaramu]

Yes, it would definitely be nice for slave roles.

[Is Friday]

So long as this idea is implemented with heavy monitoring, only granted to higher karma players, and only allows people to play very limited roles such as slaves/gladiator-types, I wouldn't have a problem with this. I'm very paranoid about an easy way to switch characters, however.

[Thunkkin]

I would support restricted flavor roles as "second" characters.  These would only be granted to players with proven high play times and trustworthiness.  They would be advertised like any other sponsored role.  While it shouldn't be a requirement that a player be in a noble/templar/Merchant House role to get one of these spots, it should generally be understood that they exist for people who are in valuable, long-term roles and positions.

Their purpose would be:
1) To provide very dedicated players in stressful roles with a change of pace to counteract burnout.  Amos the Ranger who gets to ride all over the known and hunt anything he pleases, go anywhere he pleases, and do whatever he pleases does NOT need a secondary character.  Talia the Chosen, who can't go outside the city, can't sleep with anyone other than the handful of other noble PCs, and can't use any of her skills ICly but yet facilitates a huge amount of politics and fun for her minions should be allowed a break from time to time.
2) To provide "flavor" in game that ought to exist but often doesn't because certain flavor roles are difficult to either play non-stop for a long time or because they appeal to a smaller segment of the player base.  Examples:  slave, gladiator, old Bynner, street-sweeper, tavern wench, etc.

How the roles would work:
1) The roles should only be played a few hours per week.  If you stop playing your noble entirely and instead are spending 15 hours per day on your street-sweeper, this may be a sign that it's time to store the noble and let someone else have a chance in that role.
2) The roles would not be allowed to make significant decisions, engage in politics, or engage in significant combat.  Flavor is key.  Log in with your crusty Byn codger, stump around the barracks, yell at some recruits, pick your fleas, and then log out and spend the rest of your evening doing political intrigue.

In my opinion, most people don't need a secondary character.  Also, consider the consequences of staff rotations and keeping track of who is playing what in how many different clans and when and who is making sure their needs are met, etc.  Consider the restrictions on special apps that were added recently in order to cut down on staff time AND improve the time it took to respond to patient players.  It seems to me that too much switching between characters would have the cumulative effect of slowing down responses and staff interaction, since they would constantly have to check with other immortals:  "Say, Malik in CLAN X also plays Bobbo in CLAN Y with his mate Spippi who also plays Grogo in CLAN Z.  Malik wants to form an alliane with CLAN Z.  Can we get the staff members from all three together for a quick chat to make sure nothing improper is going on?" 

Now multiply that by the 250 accounts that we have logging in each week.  Responses on certain issues would slow to a crawl.

[mansa]

If you could automate it.

Basically, from what I've gathered, there are some players that have had their characters stored for a temporary time, and there are some players that were told no.  It seems to depends on the player, the character, the clan, the storylines, etc.

That's unfair.

An automated, flat rule for all players in the game is fair.



There's obviously a need in the playerbase for a break from their current characters.  But the 'retirement' of a loved character isn't what some people want.  They want to be able to use the character they've spent all their time and energy on crafting so very uniquely.
There have been some secondary characters that players have done in the past, (aka Gladiator PCs), so the Immortals know that there's a need for a break in their characters.

[zanthalandreams]

I usually agree with ya, mansa.  But fairness?   

[mansa]

I usually agree with ya, mansa.  But fairness?  

Fairness in dealing with players who play their characters, yes.

Fairness about characters themselves?  No.

We're talking about the players here, and their enjoyment of the game.

I'm not trying to derail but if you're really about the enjoyment of the game why propose limits on karma with time periods?

There's a major difference between creating a character and destroying a character.  We're talking about time invested into a role that people don't want to waste.  Starting a new role doesn't have any time investment in it.

[janeshephard]

We're talking about the players here, and their enjoyment of the game.

I'm not trying to derail but if you're really about the enjoyment of the game why propose limits on karma with time periods?

I don't think this is about enjoyment. This is about players not wanting to retire for good and having a system in place where they can store/unstore at will. I think it's a bad idea and I outlined why. If you're bored, store and move to a new character.

[Delstro]

The discussion is pretty much being dominated by worst-case scenarios, at this point.  That's how things on the GDB go, I guess.

Worst case scenario?
I attempted to not use a worst case scenario. My point was to illustrate how I had to be MORE interesting than the latest and greatest. My leadership PC of 15 IG years is probably going to be less exciting than a similar PC that is new. Why? Because the new guy is usually more of a mover and shaker than the oldie.

My leader PC of 15 years would have to be better than every awesome idea that you think up to have a semi-dependable crew of PCs. This is difficult for me to play long lived PCS, simply because I come up with a new fantastic idea every week or so. I bet it would be the same for plenty of others.

What about those people that play the same types of PCs over and over? Now, they will have another PC that is much like the others. This will, no doubt, cause more of their PCs to be the same and interact via 3rd parties.

I just don't see any reason to have this. If you tire of playing a long lived PC, store and move on. It is selfish of you not to open the role if your only reason for staying is, "They havn't died yet."

[Delstro]

I do support the gladiator roles, however.

[MarshallDFX]

The discussion is pretty much being dominated by worst-case scenarios, at this point.  That's how things on the GDB go, I guess.

If you tire of playing a long lived PC, store and move on. It is selfish of you not to open the role if your only reason for staying is, "They havn't died yet."

Just chiming in to mention that long lived PCs may not be leadership roles, or in any way important enough for that to make sense.

[X-D]

It is pretty rare for a long lived PC to not be in some sort of leadership position.

Course we might define long lived and leadership position differently.

[Agent_137]

uh yea, from the beginning i never imagined some one holding an actual sponsored role shut because their character was on sabbatical. If anything, I think imms should aggressively retire folks who hold sponsored roles, rarely play, and have no good excuse for doing so.

(good excuses: wife is 9 months pregnant, on deployment, etc. Bad excuses: bought a new pc game, just can't get into the role, there's an assassin chasing my character.)

[Delstro]

The discussion is pretty much being dominated by worst-case scenarios, at this point.  That's how things on the GDB go, I guess.

If you tire of playing a long lived PC, store and move on. It is selfish of you not to open the role if your only reason for staying is, "They havn't died yet."

Just chiming in to mention that long lived PCs may not be leadership roles, or in any way important enough for that to make sense.

I think we would disagree on the importance of this idea for any non-leader type role.

[janeshephard]

uh yea, from the beginning i never imagined some one holding an actual sponsored role shut because their character was on sabbatical. If anything, I think imms should aggressively retire folks who hold sponsored roles, rarely play, and have no good excuse for doing so.

(good excuses: wife is 9 months pregnant, on deployment, etc. Bad excuses: bought a new pc game, just can't get into the role, there's an assassin chasing my character.)

Why I sympathize, even if your wife is pregnant or you're out on deployment, you shouldn't be wasting peoples time. You should retire yourself and let other people take up the role.

[Flawed]

uh yea, from the beginning i never imagined some one holding an actual sponsored role shut because their character was on sabbatical. If anything, I think imms should aggressively retire folks who hold sponsored roles, rarely play, and have no good excuse for doing so.

(good excuses: wife is 9 months pregnant, on deployment, etc. Bad excuses: bought a new pc game, just can't get into the role, there's an assassin chasing my character.)

Why I sympathize, even if your wife is pregnant or you're out on deployment, you shouldn't be wasting peoples time. You should retire yourself and let other people take up the role.

I feel the opposite.

The players who rp very best in sponsored leadership roles usually don't apply for those roles often. So if once in a blue moon, they do decide to take it up, not only will I wait for them, I'd happily wait for months just so they would come back, rather than get stuck with someone completely new. That is not to say all new ones are bad. But a lot of times, they are. Sometimes, after a big whatever happened icly, instead of roll with it as a challenge, they store out of frustration or die to stupidity. Guess who will be stuck there cleaning up? While some people stated in the past that they enjoy the big bang effects and its excitment, I guess I just have different playing styles. I enjoy consistency and continuity. Nothing is worse than feeling your clan docs have flipped meanings every time a new leader comes with a new interpretation.

I feel, personally, any PC with 50 playing days or over can be called long lived. I feel the tiered system would be useful if there is a 'timer' restriction of some sorts on it, such as you can only swap characters once every 6 or 12 months irl or something, and only when you have acquired so many playing days?

[janeshephard]

I feel the opposite.

The players who rp very best in sponsored leadership roles usually don't apply for those roles often. So if once in a blue moon, they do decide to take it up, not only will I wait for them, I'd happily wait for months just so they would come back, rather than get stuck with someone completely new. That is not to say all new ones are bad. But a lot of times, they are. Sometimes, after a big whatever happened icly, instead of roll with it as a challenge, they store out of frustration or die to stupidity. Guess who will be stuck there cleaning up? While some people stated in the past that they enjoy the big bang effects and its excitment, I guess I just have different playing styles. I enjoy consistency and continuity. Nothing is worse than feeling your clan docs have flipped meanings every time a new leader comes with a new interpretation.

So you put plots on hold, clans on hold, for six months because you'd rather wait for someone who doesn't have time to play anymore? You realize how many newbs will walk into that clan and think "oh, this game's dead. no one plays it." It's very detrimental to the game when leaders disappear for a while.

[Flawed]

So you put plots on hold, clans on hold, for six months because you'd rather wait for someone who doesn't have time to play anymore? You realize how many newbs will walk into that clan and think "oh, this game's dead. no one plays it." It's very detrimental to the game when leaders disappear for a while.

Personally, there are always more plots. Starting plots are easy. Having big plots are not difficult. The difficulty is in having good plots instead of suicide missions or boring ones which I sit yawning and decided to go to a lecture instead.

Most clans such as militia or noble houses are not newbie friendly. And they are discouraged from hiring newbies. Last time I was in one, which is less than a year ago, the doc seemed to say the newbies are encouraged to take a sponsored stint in Byn or atrium first. Of course, the doc was quite out of date.

Also, most clans have more than one leader in a city, if not two, then three. If one leader A goes AWOL, there is leader B. If the leader B sucks so bad the clan is dead without leader A, then maybe there is a reason the leaderA was burnt out, and so deserve the much needed rest or break to take care of their irl state of mind or neglected work.

Maybe another restriction is needed, so that both leaders won't go take a break at the same time? Staff approval? I dunno.

[Agent_137]

i'm increasingly of the opinion that temporary storage is handled just fine as is on a case by case basis. If you want it, ask for it and give a good reason. Any sort of automated system would still have to have each case checked by an immortal so what's the difference? We already have a request for retirement option in the Request Tool.

[X-D]

Most Some clans such as militia or noble houses are not newbie friendly. And they are discouraged from hiring newbies

Sorry, had to fix that for you. Militia is of course not for newbs...for coded reasons.

All the rest are pretty easy to get into for a newb and most leader PCs do hire a certain % of new player PCs. This is of course assuming they have a few vet PCs to balance it out.

I really don't like the idea of a tiered storage system myself. But I do wish it was a bit simpler to get a PC out of storage. At least for clans that cannot do IG recruitment. And maybe the sponsered roles. Not much worse then being the only PC in your tribe for 3 months or more. And templar noble burnout is also pretty high. I don't have a problem with the idea that you can store a noble, they get a new one and you cannot unstore till there is an opening again.

[jriley]

*thums up*

[mansa]

My point was to illustrate how I had to be MORE interesting than the latest and greatest. My leadership PC of 15 IG years is probably going to be less exciting than a similar PC that is new. Why? Because the new guy is usually more of a mover and shaker than the oldie.

This is a problem.  It's an END GAME problem for characters.  It's like when characters reach level 60 and then realize they can't do anything else.  What do you do when your character reaches level 60?  Do you force retire?  Or do you attempt to actually create something?

I just don't see any reason to have this. If you tire of playing a long lived PC, store and move on. It is selfish of you not to open the role if your only reason for staying is, "They havn't died yet."

You are missing an incredible point of view, as to why people play the game.  It's the living story of someone, with their ups and downs, that some players want to live through.  They don't want to play someone who gets to point A and stops.  (Aka, Become a Byn Lieutenant)
They want to play someone as a real live being, with their flaws, their faults, their ups, and their downs.  It's the story behind them.  They want to live their character.  They want to roleplay.  That's why they don't want to stop playing.

They want to see their characters grow old and die.

uh yea, from the beginning i never imagined some one holding an actual sponsored role shut because their character was on sabbatical. If anything, I think imms should aggressively retire folks who hold sponsored roles, rarely play, and have no good excuse for doing so.

(good excuses: wife is 9 months pregnant, on deployment, etc. Bad excuses: bought a new pc game, just can't get into the role, there's an assassin chasing my character.)

This idea is flawed and incorrect because:

A) You can have multiple people inside a leadership position inside a clan.

B) Having two leaders inside a clan isn't a bad thing.  In fact, it is often a good thing.

C) There isn't a finite playerbase, though it may be smaller than other infinites.  Multiple clan leaders will happen as people perk their own intrest in various things.  The game is flux, right?  People play what they want to play.

D) Retirement of characters has dreadful terrible side-effects that have not been mentioned.  When you retire a character from an admin point of view, instead of the player point of view, the player usually stops playing forever.

Why I sympathize, even if your wife is pregnant or you're out on deployment, you shouldn't be wasting peoples time. You should retire yourself and let other people take up the role.

The idea that some people are taking up space within a clan is flawed.  This doesn't exist.  If you think this, you are deciding to stab yourself in the eyes.  That's including from an administration point of view.

It literally is the worst possible position to take up in order to promote your game / product.

So you put plots on hold, clans on hold, for six months because you'd rather wait for someone who doesn't have time to play anymore? You realize how many newbs will walk into that clan and think "oh, this game's dead. no one plays it." It's very detrimental to the game when leaders disappear for a while.

Hire another one.  Hire another one.  Hire another one.  Retiring someone kills plots dead in its tracks.  Hiring another one allows for the possibility for it to be continued at some point.

i'm increasingly of the opinion that temporary storage is handled just fine as is on a case by case basis. If you want it, ask for it and give a good reason. Any sort of automated system would still have to have each case checked by an immortal so what's the difference? We already have a request for retirement option in the Request Tool.

Automated systems aren't checked all the time.  They are there so they don't have to be checked.

Case by case systems boggle down administration.  They are unfair to everybody.  They are subject to the whims of the emotional state of the person checking, which is obviously flawed.

[Armaddict]

Pretty surprised the idea has been entertained this far.

[Majikal]

Pretty surprised the idea has been entertained this far.

For all the fear of abuse people have with most topics concerning skills, chatrooms and whatnot, I'm greatly surprised myself. Multiplaying? Not a window fora hundred new problems? Yeah right.

[janeshephard]

The idea that some people are taking up space within a clan is flawed.  This doesn't exist.  If you think this, you are deciding to stab yourself in the eyes.  That's including from an administration point of view.

You must be smoking some good spice Leaders who are absent and play very little don't benefit their clan. Period. It's not a flawed. It's very sound reasoning. I find many of your thoughts on this topic incoherent. And this isn't a personal attack.

[mansa]

The idea that some people are taking up space within a clan is flawed.  This doesn't exist.  If you think this, you are deciding to stab yourself in the eyes.  That's including from an administration point of view.

You must be smoking some good spice Leaders who are absent and play very little don't benefit their clan. Period. It's not a flawed. It's very sound reasoning. I find many of your thoughts on this topic incoherent. And this isn't a personal attack.

Hire another leader, if you think the clan is failing.  Don't retire someone.  That's the major point of topic I'm trying to say.

[Cutthroat]

Reading mansa's point, it seems to me a better thing to do when you are bored with your leader PC is to find some way to make things enjoyable IG, preferably by generating some kind of plot, not by taking an extended break with a new PC, only to come back to have to try and catch up even more.

[maxid]

Hire another leader, if you think the clan is failing.  Don't retire someone.  That's the major point of topic I'm trying to say.

Mansa makes an excellent point.  Clans should, often, have more than one leader at a time.  It increases the number of plots, and it increases the leader-to-nonleader face time, which is especially important, for getting newbies into roles.

[Intrepid]

I don't think the multi-tier system should be implemented.

Mainly, the reason being has nothing to do with abuse or staff time so much as the idea that if you stick with a pc and get into the habit of doing so, you can often open up avenues you normally would not have access to had you switched back and forth.  Sometimes, being the first person in an area lures other people to that area.  Sometimes being around when your clan leader is not makes you shine and opens up opportunities.  Sometimes being in a situation where everyone is hunting you can lead to surprises that you would not have experienced had you just stuck it out.

Also, I've had situations where I "lost my page in the story" as it pertained to a pc due to inactivity.  I think we would see more of this issue if pcs switched back and forth.  A lot can change in a short time on Arm.