PC Limits General

[Desertman]

(Moved to it's own thread so as not to derail tribe discussion, and because there is not Arm Random Thought place to put this.)

PC limits on clans/tribes/groups etc is an odd concept to me in general.

I understand the premise.

"We want to make sure everyone is having a good time and there are enough PC's to go around for all of the groups.".


If everyone is apparently having such a great time in one group, then let them play in that group.

There....everyone is having a good time.

Keep up the good work as a staffer for a game where the goal is to have fun and make sure the majority of the players are having fun.

What's not a good time?

Being forced into other groups you aren't really very keen on being a part of, or playing alone, because you can't join the group you want to be a part of due to glass ceilings on the OOC front.


I think it would be far better to develop a process for staff to better devote their time to things players are already enjoying, instead of limiting the number of people allowed to enjoy it.

One of those is staffing the game for the players, and the other is, in my opinion, staffing the game for the staff.

If you are an awesome player and you come up with a tribe/group/unit/house/concept that people absolutely love, and the concept fits the theme of the game world, and 37 people think it's so much fun to play in it/with you that 37 people will devote their time to it....then those 37 people should be allowed to enjoy the game how they want....not "how they need to" so that "everyone has a good time". Everyone is having a good time, in said group.


I'm sorry Joe Salarr or whatever can't find any employees because I have them all...but maybe Joe Salarr should try doing something different and interesting....or store Joe Salarr and come play with me where everyone is having a good time.

What's not good for the players? Telling them that "You can't do the fun thing.", because Joe Salarr needs employees in his thing you and nobody else cares about, but, that's the option you are getting.




We need to focus on getting staff support to the players who are making the game fun instead of focusing on limiting the number of players who are allowed to have access to fun.

Like it or not, that's what the current system is.

The goal is that we want as many people to have fun as possible. As a staffer your goal should be, in my opinion, "How do I make sure everyone is being able to have as much fun as possible?".

If someone comes up with a concept/idea/group/tribe/unit that SO MANY PEOPLE are having fun with that it literally is excelling past your "glass ceilings", then why squash that down to a predetermined shitty little box? Why would you take something that so many people are obviously having fun with, and then tell them, "Sorry, you don't get access to the fun.".

Basically you are telling them:

"Look, we know there is this great thing over here that is fun and you want to have fun. BUT, you can't. However, we have these ideas WE THINK ARE GREAT and we want you to be part of OUR IDEAS.....and if you don't like it....too bad....you can be part of OUR IDEAS or don't be part of anything....that's your options, deal with it.".

[Bogre]

I don't think that this is unreasonable. I don't know how common it is for clans to cap, but I think they could stand to edge up a little bit.

I would also favor an expansion of families. I think 4 at any one time is reasonable, but allowing folks to roll into existing families might not be bad - can allow for some continuity. I think you can already write family members in pre game if approved but sometimes thing develop later. 

[Desertman]

allowing folks to roll into existing families might not be bad - can allow for some continuity. I think you can already write family members in pre game if approved but sometimes thing develop later.  

The issue with this is you are now OOC'ly recruiting for your group instead of IC'ly recruiting for your group.

If I were allowed to OOC'ly recruit for my groups.....I could hit the game with more PC's in my group than any other clan on the map, pretty much, and there are other players here who could do even more.

That's an issue.

If I create an IC group and recruit IC'ly from people who don't know I am behind the keyboard but they just love my concept and want to be a part of it....that seems organic and fair....the other, not so much.


(In a way we already have this in place. If you create a MMH and get your own compound/House I'm sure staff wouldn't mind letting some of your past background family "roll into" the game at that point. But really, at that point it's a staff ran clan, and staff ran Houses already do that. They "roll in" existing virtual family constantly.)

[Bogre]

You can't recruit ICly for family / tribe members.

I think PC non family clans should remain IC recruiting.

[Desertman]

You can't recruit ICly for family / tribe members.

Yeah that's what I'm saying.

If I'm allowed to recruit OOC'ly without some pretty serious limits (4 man limits on families, for example) put in place I could in theory hit the sand with my "family" unit with a ton of players in my basket.

This becomes an issue when your "family unit" is now in opposition with other groups who have to recruit IC'ly.....which I've had happen to me....more than once.

I've had to wipe out a couple of 4-Man-Premades with my IC'ly formed groups.

They just show up, hit the ground running with their 4-Man-Premade they got together OOC with, and now I'm having to fight them at four strong from day one, and they did nothing to earn that but recruit OOC'ly.


I don't even want to think about having to deal with them if they are allowed more than four or so people. What a nightmare for the people who actually work IC'ly to get to where they are going.

I think a rule should be put in place that your 4-Man-Premade can't actually just be a jumping off point for starting your own House/business to compete with other actual player-created and IC'ly formed groups, but, that's another discussion/issue.

[Bogre]

Did you read the bit where I said 4 at one time is reasonable? This is about replacements. So it wouldn't be out of the question for a tribe to replace losses. Gives more of an opportunity to become something long standing like the SLK.

I'm pretty sure staff are capable enough to prevent zerging.

[Desertman]

Did you read the bit where I said 4 at one time is reasonable? This is about replacements. So it wouldn't be out of the question for a tribe to replace losses. Gives more of an opportunity to become something long standing like the SLK.

I'm pretty sure staff are capable enough to prevent zerging.

I didn't catch that part. Sure, that seems reasonable, so long as they can't replace someone but once every six months and if all members die the tribe goes away.

(Back in the day when you COULD roll into existing families I had a nightmare situation with this. I assassinated an entire family of three people. I was paid to. Within two RL days, the family was BACK with new family members. They joined the militia to prevent me from getting them. Hehehe. What a shitshow that was.)

[Reiloth]

I don't think the clan cap comes into play as much as you think it does. I've only been tapped once on a leader to stop hiring for a bit.

When you're the biggest fish in the pond, you can unrealistically affect change around you, because you have 'all the PCs' to back you up. Similarly, it doesn't provide efficient conflict when you outmatch every organization 2:1 because of your popularity.

I do agree that if people are having fun, people are having fun, and that's most of the point of a game. But at the expense of other people, sometimes, when you are the only 'gang' around, or the only 'merchant house' that's kicking. It becomes more of a multi-player solo game.

[Reiloth]

I also don't think "Family Units Zerg Other Organizations". I imagine Staff wouldn't approve of a Family Unit designed to 'bring down House Salarr' or 'be at odds with X Y Z organization' from the getgo. At least, if I were on Staff, I wouldn't readily approve such a concept. I think that opposition, as I think Jingo pointed out somewhere, can be fomented OOCly purely by the fact of a new family unit coming into the game. If I were a smarter person, I would write about a psychology of a player in this regard. But i'm not, so I can only speculate really.

I think similar to the player complaint against someone who is OOCly targeting a family group, a player complaint should be filed towards a family member/family that targets an organization in a seemingly OOC fashion. Speculation on both sides really doesn't get anyone anywhere.

[Reiloth]

ALTHOUGH...(3rd post in)...

With Tuluk Closed, I do think Clan Caps need to be softened considerably. As we're all pretty much playing in Allanak. I'm pretty sure they have been? I remember Staff saying that somewhere, around the time of Tuluk closing.

[Desertman]

I don't think the clan cap comes into play as much as you think it does. I've only been tapped once on a leader to stop hiring for a bit.

When you're the biggest fish in the pond, you can unrealistically affect change around you, because you have 'all the PCs' to back you up. Similarly, it doesn't provide efficient conflict when you outmatch every organization 2:1 because of your popularity.

I do agree that if people are having fun, people are having fun, and that's most of the point of a game. But at the expense of other people, sometimes, when you are the only 'gang' around, or the only 'merchant house' that's kicking. It becomes more of a multi-player solo game.

You can't change anything in the game world without staff's approval and backing.

I could have 700+ people in my group and wouldn't be able to change a single thing in the game without staff's approval and backing/support to change it.

That's a flawed argument.

I might be able to win PC to PC conflicts and interactions more regularly, but to actually CHANGE something in the game world....I have to have staff's approval and support first. Otherwise...I can't.

It's not even a concern because unless staff signs off on it, it won't change.




What is the definition of "sufficient conflict" in our game?

My definition is, "Are people enjoying themselves and having a good time with the level of conflict they are experiencing?".

Obviously they are. Obviously THEY LOVE IT.....or I wouldn't have so many people willing to be a part of the level of it I am providing them with etc....

Apparently, the level of conflict in question is exactly where the players want it, and exactly where a lot of players are enjoying it....so...mission accomplished.


If people are enjoying their multi-player solo game....then let them enjoy it. Just because it doesn't fit the mold of what we have predetermined the game SHOULD BE doesn't mean we shouldn't support it. It's what the players obviously want, and we are here to give the players a good time...I don't see the issue.

And if the players stop enjoying it...they will just not be part of said "thing" in the game that was previously attracting them.

So long as it is exactly what a large portion of the playerbase wants though, it should be allowed to run its course.

No character in the game is immortal, and as such, no idea in the game is immortal unless staff chooses to immortalize it. So, let them have their run if they have created something awesome. Let them enjoy their brief moment in the limelight and the fruits of their labors. It won't last forever unless staff decides it should.

[Reiloth]

I think you're high off Ark, dude.

[Desertman]

I think you're high off Ark, dude.

topkek

[Molten Heart]

.

[Dar]

A person starts off a clan in the game without a cap on membership.

The person is awesome, the concept is great, he gets 5-6 people in it that are interested in the concept.

With 6-7 people in the clan, others are attracted to the clan simply because fun people are there and they're good training clan, without hardcore rules like Byn and greater freedom.

The clan grows to 20 people.

Any kind of challenges the Game can provide codedly. Be that powerful animals, costs requirement for mundane items, skill training difficulties, have been summarily overcome. This group has literally won the Single-Player side of Armageddon.

A need for conflict arises to keep things interesting. If that group is merchant/hunter based, then the conflict occurs with a Tribe, or a Merchant House. If the group is criminal/combat based, the conflict occurs with AoD, or other military organization.

Those hard coded clans have the entirety of ... 2 real PCs. They have hundreds and thousands of vnpcs, so the sponsored role leading that clan was right to stand his ground, or even press this new clan, and basically react accordingly in a way that created the conflict in question.

So now we have conflict. A virtual powerful clan of 2 PCs that can literally do nothing and is useful to nobody, and a weak upstart clan of 20 PCs that can literally take over small cities and is connected with "everybody".

... What are you expecting to happen here? Give me your thoughts? Desertman? Railoth? Anybody?

[Reiloth]

A person starts off a clan in the game without a cap on membership.

The person is awesome, the concept is great, he gets 5-6 people in it that are interested in the concept.

With 6-7 people in the clan, others are attracted to the clan simply because fun people are there and they're good training clan, without hardcore rules like Byn and greater freedom.

The clan grows to 20 people.

Any kind of challenges the Game can provide codedly. Be that powerful animals, costs requirement for mundane items, skill training difficulties, have been summarily overcome. This group has literally won the Single-Player side of Armageddon.

A need for conflict arises to keep things interesting. If that group is merchant/hunter based, then the conflict occurs with a Tribe, or a Merchant House. If the group is criminal/combat based, the conflict occurs with AoD, or other military organization.

Those hard coded clans have the entirety of ... 2 real PCs. They have hundreds and thousands of vnpcs, so the sponsored role leading that clan was right to stand his ground, or even press this new clan, and basically react accordingly in a way that created the conflict in question.

So now we have conflict. A virtual powerful clan of 2 PCs that can literally do nothing and is useful to nobody, and a weak upstart clan of 20 PCs that can literally take over small cities and is connected with "everybody".

... What are you expecting to happen here? Give me your thoughts? Desertman? Railoth? Anybody?

That's basically what i'm saying. You become an unrealistically powerful (in the 'Single Person Game' sense) entity, compared to organizations that are and should be more powerful than you. So if your Byn Unit suddenly has 20 people in it, how can the 2PC Salarri Garrison fuck with you? If you want to steam roll them, you can.

[Case]

This is why leader PCs need to teach their clannies that v/NPC factors exist and not solve and conduct all conflicts on the basis of steamrolling the PCs of a group.

[Talia]

This is why leader PCs need to teach their clannies that v/NPC factors exist and not solve and conduct all conflicts on the basis of steamrolling the PCs of a group.

This is a good point, but to be fair, I think it's really difficult for players (even staff) to fully envision the V/NPC world and account for it. And it becomes harder the longer a PC lives and the bigger the group is. Even really good players have difficulty maintaining awareness of the V/NPC world. I try to give players the benefit on the doubt on doing this. That's not to say that the V/NPC world won't push back (it will!), but I just try to keep my mind open about what a hard thing we're asking players to do.

[Reiloth]

This is why leader PCs need to teach their clannies that v/NPC factors exist and not solve and conduct all conflicts on the basis of steamrolling the PCs of a group.

This is a good point, but to be fair, I think it's really difficult for players (even staff) to fully envision the V/NPC world and account for it. And it becomes harder the longer a PC lives and the bigger the group is. Even really good players have difficulty maintaining awareness of the V/NPC world. I try to give players the benefit on the doubt on doing this. That's not to say that the V/NPC world won't push back (it will!), but I just try to keep my mind open about what a hard thing we're asking players to do.

I think it's particularly difficult when a PC leader thinks "Well, I have X Y Z person employed, they'll just take care of whatever they throw at me." Especially when X is a master assassin, Y is a Master Warrior, and Z is a Master Spymaster or Crafter. It becomes murky when the possession of codedly capable PCs is matched against the virtual non-coded presence of virtual NPCs. Yes -- There are bigger, meaner, badder people out there than even your Master (codedly master) PC(s). It takes experience and humility for a leader to realize that, and to keep realizing that as they go along and become longer lived. It's even more difficult to imprint this onto your minions as a leader -- Depending on the humility and experience level of that PC and the person behind it.

I rarely see a mix of both -- Of a leader and their minions 'not getting it'. Typically a leader might not get it, and a minion insinuates what the 'virtual real deal' is, or the other way around. But i've been in clans where it feels like either the leader or lead minions think they can take any problem on, because they have the code to back it up. That is the 'steam rolling' I mention above.

[Jihelu]

I think the Byn compound has a good number of npcs to further the idea of 'We aren't the only ones here'.
Compared to other clans I feel like they have A LOT but it's not overly so.

[Talia]

But i've been in clans where it feels like either the leader or lead minions think they can take any problem on, because they have the code to back it up. That is the 'steam rolling' I mention above.

Yep, agreed. It's kind of a fundamental problem in a world based on code. Code is only part of it, but it *feels* like all of it.