A Tier System for Multiple Characters

[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.