Would you leave the game if Tuluk was made off-limits to players?

[Eyeball]

Say some chasm opened up in the north, severing Tuluk from the rest of the Known. This was accompanied by the annoucement that the Tuluki start location has been removed from the Hall of the Kings.

Would you be so disappointed that you'd leave the game?

[MeTekillot]

i would enthusiastically participate in the plotline to destroy tuluk.

[deskoft]

No, please.

[MeTekillot]

i would create the plotline to destroy tuluk. i would start the plotline.

[BadSkeelz]

I chose "leave for at least awhile" because I think the game would lose a large chunk of its flavor if half of the civilization just dropped off the map. Depending on HOW that change was implemented, I might leave permanently. If it was just announced one day, I wouldn't like that at all.

Fortunately this is all pointless hypothetical cause nothing like this is going to happen.

[MeTekillot]

I don't like the phrasing "made unavailable to players". Smells like the sorcerer, red robe, senior noble, slave role changes/policies that I haven't heard very many people enthuse about. Now, say, if we were to start a plotline to destroy Tuluk

[i love toilets]

Tuluk feels more essential to the game than any other one location for me because its the only place with a fully fleshed culture, even though I play in there maybe one for every twenty characters. I picked no, but I'd be outright pissed.

[Inks]

I prefer it to be there although it is unlikely I would play there again the way certain things are.

I think any move that limits the game world a negative one, however.

[Rokal]

I'd not leave, but I don't think its a good idea.

What would replace Tuluk?

What would there be for conflict aside maybe the internal conflict of allanak/whatever the tribes do

the loss of Tuluk as a whole would wipe out a large amount of roleplay possiblties - for everyone in the game world.

[wizturbo]

I think it would be good for the game, but only if it didn't piss off a bunch of people and cause us to lose players...which doesn't seem possible to me.

[Malken]

All of my best mudsex logs were made in Tuluk, so it holds a special place in my heart. I'm a romantic and voted yes.

[RogueGunslinger]

I think it would be good for the game, and I seriously doubt half the people saying they'd permanently leave the game, actually would. I would like it to be an actual plot though, not some sudden axing of a massive portion of the game.

[manonfire]

I think it'd be cool to consolidate the playerbase into a single city-state, if only to see what a bustling, fully functioning city feels like.

I'd also support closing off Allanak to see what Tuluk looks like with 30-40 active players.

[Delirium]

Not my idea, but I like it:

Keep Tuluk in the game, but make it completely NPC only and shut off to players. It's now an NPC threat against the loyal citizens of Allanak.

Tuluki citizens are now all fervently loyal and brainwashed to the point that they would throw themselves off a cliff without hesitation if it was for the good of the city.

NPC bands of Tuluki who are out grebbing or hunting in the southern scrub or eastern grasslands will run from or attack any PC they see because clearly they are not one of THEM.

Merchant Houses can come and go from a new gate opened in the wall of Freil's Rest, but are not permitted in other sectors of the city.

Everyone now plays in Allanak, Red Storm, Luir's, or the Tablelands.

Just as a test. Run it for a year, take that time to really streamline and simplify and tweak Tuluk's documentation. Everything chugging along fine? Clans booming? Keep the status quo. Everyone still bitching about missing their beloved Tuluk? Open it back up.


I've always been part of the "blow up Tuluk" club but the problem with destroying Tuluk is that now there is no check to Allanak's powers. From a game design standpoint there needs to be that check, and that threat. So - the solution is to make Tuluk an NPC, virtual reality instead of a player-character one.

[Dresan]

I think making Tuluk all npc would probably make people want to actually play there for the same reasons people like playing in Redstorm. 

Tuluk's population wasn't huge before the war but it was pretty healthy, sad to see people feel things have degraded so much they want to shut the place down.

[nauta]

I too think it would be good over-all - mostly as someone who plays off-peak often, and as someone who likes Tuluk!  I guess I'm persuaded by delirium-style arguments, and also my limited observations: the mud-wide numbers are pretty low (both staff and player) and it sure would be amazing to have one area (with several smallish sub-areas) hopping than two big areas crawling.

[Barzalene]

I think its an idea worth considering and experimenting with.

My stumbling place is the volume of work that has gone into Tuluk, both from staff and players. That's over a decade of building, tending and accumulated culture that would be lost. I can see how the suggestion will be painful to people. I think that's a real obstacle and not something to minimize. If someone wanted to do away with twelve years of my work I think I might react very defensively.

[Delirium]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs#Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk_cost_fallacy

p.s. I put in countless hours of work into Armageddon 2.0 and I was still glad when the whole idea was scrapped. YMMV.

[Red Ranger]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_costs#Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk_cost_fallacy

p.s. I put in countless hours of work into Armageddon 2.0 and I was still glad when the whole idea was scrapped. YMMV.

I know people who still dislike Tuluk because when "new" Tuluk went into the game with its caste system and new map and new templars etc. it ignored or erased their RP and work from the Rebellion and earlier.

I had voted "no" in the poll but I find Delirium's proposal intriguing.

[Rathustra]

I think making Tuluk all npc would probably make people want to actually play there for the same reasons people like playing in Redstorm. 

Tuluk's population wasn't huge before the war but it was pretty healthy, sad to see people feel things have degraded so much they want to shut the place down.

It also goes against the current improvements in Tuluk's player numbers - which are a direct result of player and staff efforts. Of course it might be a position that's a product of these improvements - a more even spread of players threatening the status-quo expected by 'Nak-only players.

Regardless it isn't an idea I will entertain at all for the next 6-12 months while I'm Northlands admin. Sacrificing the entertainment of one group of players for another group of players holds no appeal to me. Especially as it'd be putting me out of a job.

I also personally believe that the problem isn't so much players playing in too many places but more a core group of players playing exclusively in a single place. There's a lack of exchange in experience which leads to an absence of a feeling of ownership for half of the game. We need less 'Nakki players' and 'Tuluki players' and more 'Armageddon players'. I don't see this ever happening because I strongly believe that players should have the freedom to play every one of their PCs wherever they wish (within reason).

[Delirium]

So... open up Blackwing, Halflings, Akei Ta Var, Gith tribes, Red Fangs, Mantis clutches?

I get that those were closed for different reasons, but the premise is basically the same. It's illogical to shut down one area "for the good of the game" or for "plot reasons" and then refuse to entertain the idea of shutting down another area because "MAH FREEDOMS!"

[Patuk]

A ton of the work involved in Tuluk you mentioned ended up in subtlety stifling public interaction, liratheans making nastiness impossible, and everyone and their mother becoming untouchable because patronage.

You could similarly say that it was just kinda mean to scrap mantis and halflings because gosh all that effort and history and now it is gone. Despite that, I still think bringing either back would be a bad idea.

(Gith, OTOH..)

[Harmless]

Why does my No vote have to be attached to an opinion of whether this is a good idea or not? My vote is No - there are arguments for and against and I am not an expert on either side of it.

[Rathustra]

I'm not the admin of those clans, so I can't really comment. I don't care about freedoms. I staff Armageddon for my own enjoyment.

[nauta]

Why does my No vote have to be attached to an opinion of whether this is a good idea or not? My vote is No - there are arguments for and against and I am not an expert on either side of it.

Good point: "No, but I have no strong feelings about it" seems like a useful addition to the list (although it's not my view: I love having opinions without knowledge of the facts!)  

I also sometimes have this opinion: "No, and I'd leave the game if it weren't implemented / cut off!"  Mostly that's when I solo RP for three hours somewhere other than Tuluk, then I type WHO and I think: They're all up in Tuluk, aren't they - having FUN?  (Of course, e converso, I feel the same way when I'm in Tuluk and this happens.)