Clan bonuses via code?

[Bogre]

Well, not quite. You're proposing a system where everyone who rightfully earns a skill bump, clan or not, gets a skill bump. Great! That's exactly the system we have today.

Not really - I think our current system is more of 'if you app into a special app role, you get a skill bump' or maybe rarely the 2% of people who 'submit a lot of logs, get a small skill boost'. Goal would be to have characters progress with earned roleplay and progress, though.

Tying it to karma I think just serves to bump players or characters who spend karma already and start out ahead. Having no-karma characters get perks at a slightly higher rate would be better.

Say:
0-1 Karma char: Slight bump at 3 months played.
2 Karma: Eligible for bump at 4 months.
3 Karma char: Eligible for bump at 6 months.

There's a number of ways to think about optimizing or automating a system like that. Otherwise, having it as prestige to senior clan membership or long-term indie play on a case by case basis is fine.

[Armaddict]

To be honest, I am still not a fan of many of these suggestions. I just don't think invisible bumps to skills, stats or abilities makes any sense based on clan affiliation.

I'd much rather see a more diverse 'perk' system to diversify characters on an individual basis rather than a collective clan-based one on the front-end of character creation and then at long-lived intervals.

• You want to not take a penalty for being ganged up on in combat? That's a three karma no-gang perk which can only be applied to x, y, z classes and must be explained in your background (available at character generation only).



• You want to regenerate stamina regardless of sitting, standing, etc. That's a one karma perk which can only be applied to x, y, z classes and must be explained in your background (available at character generation only).


• You want to be able to throw an extra room of distance? That's a two karma perk which can only be applied to x, y races with master throw (available to current character only).

Now, once you have regenerated your karma sufficiently and can justify why you might be eligible for an additional perk over a long enough play period, you can submit justification to the staff for another one or two.  I think the addition of various beneficial perks could add diversity to characters based on their individual experiences, rather then the clan-based allegiances.  I'm sure we could come up with a laundry list of beneficial perks like this which could be selected for karma as it accumulates (limit of whatever number of perks, or total of like 5 spent karma or something).

It's a nice thing that's been discussed a lot of times before specifically in reference to character diversification and creation.  Unfortunately, that's not really what this thread is about and it's kind of derailed.  This thread was specifically about clans.  It doesn't have to be skill bumps (that largely started because the Tors saw a chance to talk about the Tor problem.  It's not a small problem.  It's -the- problem that you are always fighting as a Tor noble), but it should remain oriented towards 'What coded benefits make sense for clans?'

It's kind of important.  Not because we never talk about what clans need, but because we rarely specifically orient it around coded solutions that would make sense, as opposed to ye old boons of olde.  There is fairly consistent talk about the lack of appeal of clans, how they don't have much to offer, and this thread is an excellent place for clan-oriented ideas to get tossed around.

It's not about the indies.  If there were a mass migration away from independent play to shove into clans, we'd either have overtuned the clans, or we'd need to show indies love.  It's not about equality across characters.  It's not even about characters.  It's about clans, and what benefits we can have them grant to those within beyond the things that have, ultimately, been either gotten rid of, or made far less valuable.

100% on board with this. TOOT TOOT sign me up, I'm on this train. Sheesh, I'll start updating my guild picker to pretend a system like this exists because oh boy do I want it.

You confuse me.  You argue for pages about how boons shouldn't be given based off of clans because of no roleplay involved, leading to constant debate about how clan roleplay -is- the roleplay...but you jump right on to boons that come from spending karma.  I'm guessing that you're going to say something about the roleplay leading up to spending the karma, or the background...but those are exactly what we said came from the clan role as well.

[triste]

Armaddict, much respect. I will only respond to your direct reply to me since I am walking on a thin rope here with staff.

You confuse me.

Anyone arguing that rank should confer a skill boost has a world view divorced from reality insofar as it can be seen:

Joan of Arc was a peasant girl who came to lead an army in a war by the sheer strength of her message.

Napoleon was a leader who conquered masses of modern Europe because he led by living in the trenches with his soldiers.

Julius Caesar let people take credit for his victories as a consul for years knowing his inherit merit would get him his rightful reign.

I am being succinct because I am on a tight rope -- but for engaging, exciting roleplay, we need a game world where merit begets rank, and not some inverse situation that is a perversion of reality.

[SpyGuy]

Rank alone is the wrong metric for bonuses because it doesn't reflect time spent in a clan or learned IC knowledge.  I've had a fairly new trooper (maybe 5 days played?) promoted to Sergeant because well, everyone above me died.  I've also seen PC leaders hand out 2 promotions to PCs in the span of an IC year or two.  Nothing wrong with either of those examples but why would a PC suddenly get a skill bump just because the people above them died or their boss liked them and fast tracked promotions?

I like the ideas of more ways to spend karma on mundanes though I think it might feel a little lame to new players.

[Dan]

It's about clans, and what benefits we can have them grant to those within beyond the things that have, ultimately, been either gotten rid of, or made far less valuable.

From my perspective clans already receive a major bonus through regular pay, lack of needing to even care about food and water anymore, political and martial backing through other clan mates, shelter and consistent training opportunities.  I'm probably missing a few, but that's my point.  These benefits make sense to me and they are fairly substantial when compounded together.

What doesn't make sense to me is adding some other boon to a player for being in clan X, simply for enlisting and sticking around a while.  It does not sync with the reality of how you have a billion possible motivations, levels of involvement, and actions of the characters in these differing clans.  People don't learn effectively by proximity alone, and if Clan X is supposed to excel at guarding then the individual characters should practice that and they will then be better than everyone else in game who don't do that as a regular activity.

...it should remain oriented towards 'What coded benefits make sense for clans?'

I think we already satisfy this objective realistically with my first point.

[Armaddict]

It's about clans, and what benefits we can have them grant to those within beyond the things that have, ultimately, been either gotten rid of, or made far less valuable.

From my perspective clans already receive a major bonus through regular pay, lack of needing to even care about food and water anymore, political and martial backing through other clan mates, shelter and consistent training opportunities.  I'm probably missing a few, but that's my point.  These benefits make sense to me and they are fairly substantial when compounded together.

What doesn't make sense to me is adding some other boon to a player for being in clan X, simply for enlisting and sticking around a while.  It does not sync with the reality of how you have a billion possible motivations, levels of involvement, and actions of the characters in these differing clans.  People don't learn effectively by proximity alone, and if Clan X is supposed to excel at guarding then the individual characters should practice that and they will then be better than everyone else in game who don't do that as a regular activity.

...it should remain oriented towards 'What coded benefits make sense for clans?'

I think we already satisfy this objective realistically with my first point.

Food, water, political power...those are exactly the things that I said have apparently lost value.  As noted in parts of the Allanak thread and a few other clan threads over the past little while, people are not very into clans, with a major component of that being that they don't offer much, particularly in exchange for the limitations they usually (and sensibly) place on the character.

Hunting is easier and less risky than it's ever been before.  Water costs coin, but coin is relatively easy to the point that most people also have their own apartments (which also covers personal storage space, another thing that used to be a big boon of joining clans even if it was just for a footlocker).  Political power is not exactly measurable but the prevalence of minion intrigue is down due to clan 'half closures', which makes for less means of growing that power and less opportunity to use it.

'Rank' is being tossed around here, and I'm not certain I really understand it, because you guys make it sound like I'm conferring a journeyman level up to master level bonus but only for lieutenants.  Small bonuses, well selected, are in the same arena as racial stat bonuses.  Class bonuses.  The only difference is that a clan bonus doesn't kick in until you actually settle into a clan culture.  As argued in the 3-4 straight pages on the topic, it demonstrates the clan culture and mentality about different roles of their clan members and what's expected of them.

For example:  A Samurai vs a Spartan.  They both begin rigorous training at a young age.  They both maintain fitness.  They both take some time to start getting into the meat of their methods and emphasis.  The culture surrounding them and the role they're expected to fill by those in the same culture shape the way they emphasize and the way they work.  Can this be emphasized by play alone?  By different methods of training?  Certainly.  Does the culture surrounding them provide its own contribution?  Also certainly.  And the fact is that the code's mechanics make for only using code to emphasize it often coming up short--as noted, the elite reach 'elite' status much more rarely, and cultural styles even outside of clans are often not reinforced by what actually comes to be.

There were ideas to give clans different methods of training, for the simple reason that some don't have access to the 'constant influx of activity' that other clans do.  Those were all good ideas.  The only reason I keep on talking about this one in particular is because whenever people argue about it, the arguments are generally either in bad faith or rejecting key shortcomings of the game.  In this case...yeah, it would be great if most Tor Scorpions hit a level that made most other military forces in awe of their teamwork and discipline and skill as a unit.  But they don't.  It's a notable exception when their soldiers get to that level precisely because the code rewards Byn-systems, not Tor-systems.  Hence...why people want to address that point.

Getting through the recruit period of a clan to its point of 'career mode' is where you've been around long enough to start seeing how things are expected from you, and gotten the emphasis through the time you've spent with your peers.  Funnily, that addresses your point of how people don't learn by proximity -alone-.  It isn't alone.  It's by proximity to all their duties, exposures, training...and yes, that's right, the roleplay...of an entire clan's purpose.

I don't see how that interferes with any other motivations or character nuances or diversity.  It doesn't force you to do anything.  It doesn't tell you can't do anything else.  It just reinforces a group culture's influence on character emphasis and role, and makes a small reflection on that in the character's ability to act in that role.

More specifically:

What doesn't make sense to me is adding some other boon to a player for being in clan X, simply for enlisting and sticking around a while.

I believe it is more meaningful, and more sensible, and of greater worth...than a different idea that says you should be able to put something in your background and get a far larger boon than anyone suggested in this thread for it.  That was your idea.  Basing it on clan is addressing certain problems instead of just a desire for features, and confers far less of an advantage to any character...but it does make clan members acting together more capable at doing certain tasks in certain ways than they would be through their often-spotty training regimes due to less players (again, often because code supports Byn-style, not house-style, training).

Joan of Arc was a peasant girl who came to lead an army in a war by the sheer strength of her message.

Napoleon was a leader who conquered masses of modern Europe because he led by living in the trenches with his soldiers.

Julius Caesar let people take credit for his victories as a consul for years knowing his inherit merit would get him his rightful reign.

I appreciate the sentiment, but none of those are talking about clan culture, style, role, or ability.  You're talking about qualities of leadership, and how leaders come from humble or different beginnings.  I'm talking about how Joan of Arc led an army with french soldiers who fought in certain ways so that when she made an order, they already knew their method of carrying it out.  I'm talking about Napolean saying 'form ranks and prepare for cannon bombardment before advance' knowing just a little better than their adversary how this battleplan would play out, because their entire method of war had evolved around it.  I'm talking about Julius Caesar having decades of Roman Army methodology at his disposal, so that the -moment- someone enlisted, they started being grilled about using their shield to protect the right side of the soldier to his left, and to fall back directly when wounded so that the man behind him could take his place.

The leaders are not the ones who are focused on.  The tribe, the clan, the army, the group is.  They emphasize certain points, the mere fact you're in the group means you're automatically molded to behave in those ways, right from the beginning, and once you're established as part of that group...it's because you can act in those methods.

[triste]

the mere fact you're in the group means you're automatically molded to behave in those ways

This simply isn't true. One of Joan of Arc's most famous quotes was something like "I prefer to lead with the banner rather than the sword." Napoleon was... tiny. Julius Caesar was stabbed to death, insta-gibbed PvP killed. He probs didn't get a single dodge in. So why are we asking for a cartoonish system where Joan of Arc would get +5 to her slashing skill cap, Napoleon would get +10 to his bash skill cap, and Caesar would get +10 to dodge and parry because "he's a military leader and stuff." Why are we asking for cartoonish bumps to parry, bash, dodge, whatever for people in military organizations when the reality is rank didn't and doesn't magically give people "skill boosts."

I care about realistic and riveting plots and that's why I can't. Stop. Posting here. But if people like me and Dan end up being vastly outnumbered in our stance c'est la vie.

[triste]

Here is one more anecdote and food for thought, briefly.

My dad was an intelligence officer during Vietnam. He also got a bunch of medals as a Marines marksman. He taught me to shoot a gun starting when I was eight years old. I am an extremely good shot with a gun, every time I go shooting people ask to take down my targets and examine them because I punch out holes around the bullseye. Every time I do a shooting game at a theme park, I get the high score for that week or month or however long it is between resets. It's stupid but true.

It's equally valid for me to have a "skill boost to shooting" as it was for my father to get that skill boost from his time in the Marines. If anything, I would have more of a skill boost because he started me off so young.

The world is full of people like Vasily Zaytsev and Annie Oakley and they are equally impressive and beautiful. I like to see both types of concepts in game.

[mansa]

...But if people like me and Dan end up being vastly outnumbered in our stance c'est la vie.

It's not about being outnumbered.  It's not about winning.

The intent of https://gdb.armageddon.org is to have a text-based forum in the media of long form essays to convey and discuss ideas.  There is no "most liked post" or "most voted on option in a poll".


To reiterate, this conversation is about coded benefits to characters for being long-term members of clans, for the intent of making long-term investment into a clan more attractive to the playerbase.
Conversations have shifted from having special items that allow for special bonuses, to unlocking different spells or casting echos, to having tattoos that give bonuses, and so on.

...
My dad was an intelligence officer during Vietnam. He also got a bunch of medals as a Marines marksman. He taught me to shoot a gun starting when I was eight years old. I am an extremely good shot with a gun, every time I go shooting people ask to take down my targets and examine them because I punch out holes around the bullseye. Every time I do a shooting game at a theme park, I get the high score for that week or month or however long it is between resets. It's stupid but true.

It's equally valid for me to have a "skill boost to shooting" as it was for my father to get that skill boost from his time in the Marines. If anything, I would have more of a skill boost because he started me off so young.

This story has nothing to do with being part of a job/group/organization and being in that organization for a long while, and receiving some perk for doing so.  This is a story, I guess, about how character's backgrounds don't match their starting skills, which is a conversation for another thread.

[triste]

...
My dad was an intelligence officer during Vietnam. He also got a bunch of medals as a Marines marksman. He taught me to shoot a gun starting when I was eight years old. I am an extremely good shot with a gun, every time I go shooting people ask to take down my targets and examine them because I punch out holes around the bullseye. Every time I do a shooting game at a theme park, I get the high score for that week or month or however long it is between resets. It's stupid but true.

It's equally valid for me to have a "skill boost to shooting" as it was for my father to get that skill boost from his time in the Marines. If anything, I would have more of a skill boost because he started me off so young.

This story has nothing to do with being part of a job/group/organization and being in that organization for a long while, and receiving some perk for doing so.  This is a story, I guess, about how character's backgrounds don't match their starting skills, which is a conversation for another thread.

It's completely on topic. We have a group of people positing that "people get skills as a result of their surrounding circumstances." I am merely reminding people that surrounding circumstances that lead to marksmanship aren't only military organizations as you are positing. Yes, my anecdote shows how people acquire skills outside of formal "job/group/organization" contexts all the time. It is human nature to learn constantly. My counter point is on topic despite what you're saying in bold: I am questioning the very merit doling out "official" skill bumps for "official" jobs and depriving equally valid concepts of the bonuses they deserve as a result of equally valid roleplay.

And we had three or so other people post recently that the notion of rank based skill bumps is fraught, I am just backing up their points. We're all on topic here.

[Armaddict]

So why are we asking for a cartoonish system where Joan of Arc would get +5 to her slashing skill cap, Napoleon would get +10 to his bash skill cap, and Caesar would get +10 to dodge and parry because "he's a military leader and stuff."

We aren't.  That is literally what an entire paragraph talked about.  You are talking about leaders.  I am talking about people in clans, who have been in that clan for some period of time enough to become immersed in how that clan does things.

I am talking about the soldiers of people in Napoleon's clan.  I am talking about the soldiers in Joan of Arc's clan.  I am talking about the soldiers in Caesar's clan.  I am talking about 'Military of Rome' clan.  The 'French Army' clan.  They have strengths, and they have weaknesses, and they have emphasis, and those leaders use those emphasis in how they do things.  Joan of Arc's quote is literally about how she wants to inspire her army, it has nothing to do with how her army fights.

[mansa]

...And we had three or so other people post recently that the notion of rank based skill bumps is fraught, I am just backing up their points.

Again.   This is not about "winning" or "having the most people voting for the option in the poll".

It's completely on topic. We have a group of people positing that "people get skills as a result of their surrounding circumstances." I am merely reminding people that surrounding circumstances that lead to marksmanship aren't only military organizations as you are positing.

The conversation is about people getting perks as a result of their surrounding circumstances... IN A CLAN/JOB role they are currently in.

Yes, my anecdote shows how people acquire skills outside of formal "job/group/organization" contexts all the time.   It is human nature to learn constantly.

That is true, but the conversation is about being IN A CLAN/JOB role they are currently in.

I am questioning the very merit doling out "official" skill bumps for "official" jobs and depriving equally valid concepts of the bonuses they deserve as a result of equally valid roleplay.

Bolded for emphasis.  What?       Who said anything about depriving equally valid concepts?

Perhaps this should be repeated:

What about the gameworld makes you think this should be fair?

Or are you importing RL bias into the game?

[triste]

Yes, my anecdote shows how people acquire skills outside of formal "job/group/organization" contexts all the time.   It is human nature to learn constantly.

That is true, but the conversation is about being IN A CLAN/JOB role they are currently in.

... what if there were a half-elf in the 'rinth who had no "job" job, because see the 'rinth is poor, and doesn't have a lot of "jobs," but it does have gangs. And this 'rinther became really good at sliding their dagger in between peoples' ribs, why you could almost say it was their "job" to shank people...

I am questioning the very merit doling out "official" skill bumps for "official" jobs and depriving equally valid concepts of the bonuses they deserve as a result of equally valid roleplay.

Bolded for emphasis.  What?       Who said anything about depriving equally valid concepts?

... and what if that half-elf 'rinther happened to innovate in how they sharpened their shanks for back-stabbing, and got some admirers. Started some sort of gang, or knife fighting club, and got a reputation for it. Yes, it's this 'rinther's "job" to do one thing in Zalanthas, and that is survive. Maybe the 'rinther gets rich off their pit fighting club, develops a whole new fighting style. But they can't get any clan perks, because it's not a real "CLAN/JOB," interest in pitfighting dies out, everyone would rather get a "real job" with skill boosts. We no longer have awesome player made RPTs in the 'rinth. The 'rinth is dead under your new system because it doesn't have a whole lot of "real jobs," you see.

It's basic extrapolation. In the Sims, you get perks from your "career ladders" and your "jobs." In Zalanthas, only one thing matters: survival. What the hell is a "job," anyway?

[Eluin]

Napoleon was... tiny.

Ok slight sidetrack here but no, Napoleon wasn't tiny. The french inch was bigger than the English inch at that time, and adjusting for average heights going back in time, he was of a respectable average height really. There was actually a cartoonist that caricatured him a bunch at the time that did a lot to push the message of him being comically short (mostly with his later works) with basically wartime propoganda, but it wasn't actually reality.


Back to the subject on hand though. I'm honestly still for no perks or bonuses like this, it all sounds like a lot of coding work and there's a ton of things I'd want over this if possible and the same or less work. It's fun to theorize about, but ehhhh I just don't see anything thus far proposed here being a priority, honestly.

[triste]

Napoleon was... tiny.

Ok slight sidetrack here but no, Napoleon wasn't tiny. The french inch was bigger than the English inch at that time, and adjusting for average heights going back in time, he was of a respectable average height really. There was actually a cartoonist that caricatured him a bunch at the time that did a lot to push the message of him being comically short (mostly with his later works) with basically wartime propoganda, but it wasn't actually reality.


Back to the subject on hand though. I'm honestly still for no perks or bonuses like this, it all sounds like a lot of coding work and there's a ton of things I'd want over this if possible and the same or less work. It's fun to theorize about, but ehhhh I just don't see anything thus far proposed here being a priority, honestly.

Thank you for that correction! Glad it didn't warrant a full page correction, I think my other factoids there are accurate. And yeah, there is nothing wrong with the conclusion of this discussion being that we have a no-op here [which is basically what staff stated]. It's not a contest, but we need everyone to share their opinion so that we have a sense of what the playerbase wants [as accurately as we can measure it]. So thanks for sharing your opinion/insight.

[Aruven]

Yes, my anecdote shows how people acquire skills outside of formal "job/group/organization" contexts all the time.   It is human nature to learn constantly.

That is true, but the conversation is about being IN A CLAN/JOB role they are currently in.

... what if there were a half-elf in the 'rinth who had no "job" job, because see the 'rinth is poor, and doesn't have a lot of "jobs," but it does have gangs. And this 'rinther became really good at sliding their dagger in between peoples' ribs, why you could almost say it was their "job" to shank people...

I am questioning the very merit doling out "official" skill bumps for "official" jobs and depriving equally valid concepts of the bonuses they deserve as a result of equally valid roleplay.

Bolded for emphasis.  What?       Who said anything about depriving equally valid concepts?

... and what if that half-elf 'rinther happened to innovate in how they sharpened their shanks for back-stabbing, and got some admirers. Started some sort of gang, or knife fighting club, and got a reputation for it. Yes, it's this 'rinther's "job" to do one thing in Zalanthas, and that is survive. Maybe the 'rinther gets rich off their pit fighting club, develops a whole new fighting style. But they can't get any clan perks, because it's not a real "CLAN/JOB," interest in pitfighting dies out, everyone would rather get a "real job" with skill boosts. We no longer have awesome player made RPTs in the 'rinth. The 'rinth is dead under your new system because it doesn't have a whole lot of "real jobs," you see.

It's basic extrapolation. In the Sims, you get perks from your "career ladders" and your "jobs." In Zalanthas, only one thing matters: survival. What the hell is a "job," anyway?

Maybe i'm off here, I feel like the concern is that individuals separate from a coded clan are also capable of innovation and unique developments.

The first quote is what I perceive happening when I roll into the game solo. I' an elf in the rinth where there are no 'jobs' so I made sure i'm a miscreant/slipknife or something similar. I put specifics in my background to justify shanking people. Its now my job as this character to shank people. Staff approve my character. The rest of the opportunities are now in my hands as a roleplayer to bring this role to life however I see fit.

The second quote is all in the control of the player to my current game world understanding. You RP, your stats are all now advanced/master, PC players are playing with you because you've generated intrigue. If you've been regularly sending in reports to staff, there's some sort of dialogue going and potentially some support for long-term projects. Maybe not house half-elf of the rinth, shadow masters of serpent backstab style--But staff have in the past and still do as far as I can tell run plot arcs and develop storylines with players that communicate with them and can show evidence of longevity, etc. You might get a skill bump. You may be given decisions in game that lead to or develop skill bumps you did not intend.

I mean i'm pretty sure you can app into the game with a half-elf rinther right now and the only thing in your way of achieving all of that is your own play. There's no barrier stopping that save RP dangers, unless we're considering time as an arguable barrier--It isn't, because clans and individuals would theoretically both be subjected to investments of time.

RP considered, clans are always going to win most arguments save for the preference of the player. Unless there are in-game events and reworks, GMH clans and Noble houses are untouchable and insurmountable to the commoner and their resources. Their resources RP wise come with benefits that don't often, as has been mentioned many times over many pages now, reflect the RP realism or the RP potential they (theoretically) could for a variety of players. This has a lot of variables and many examples have been thrown out to illustrate some of these 'glass ceilings' if you will.

I feel like your insinuation that players desolate or vacate a region of the game because of lack of access to coded skill bumps is a little narrow. I don't have the data to prove the opposite.

[Aruven]

As for the necessity or whatever, i'm just grateful for the participation and people that offered the constructive insights for or against. I know no better way for continuous improvement than dialogue.

[triste]

I feel like your insinuation that players desolate or vacate a region of the game because of lack of access to coded skill bumps is a little narrow. I don't have the data to prove the opposite.

I just want to briefly say I anticipated this criticism coming up. And I don't have the data either, it's impossible to get data on hypotheticals, so it's impossible to say who is right. But I think the jokes that commonly go around about City Elves as a current game design issue helps us predict the game design issues that clan perks would cause. There's a large camp of people who think C-Elves need more code love, and the response is always, "Regardless of code, people should play City Elves because there are intrinsic roleplay merits to it and if you were a good player you wouldn't let code shape your roleplay decisions." But... shall we look at the stats here then? If we care about data? You might not like how it proves my argument. I am willing to bet hard money City Elves are the least played of the starting races. I for one won't damn the player base as a whole for being rational as they assess coded incentives.

[and whenever this comes up, thank you staff for hearing our valid feedback and working actively on C-Elves to address the issue!]

[Aruven]

I feel like your insinuation that players desolate or vacate a region of the game because of lack of access to coded skill bumps is a little narrow. I don't have the data to prove the opposite.

I just want to briefly say I anticipated this criticism coming up. And I don't have the data either, it's impossible to get data on hypotheticals, so it's impossible to say who is right. But I think the jokes that commonly go around about City Elves as a current game design issue helps us predict the game design issues that clan perks would cause. There's a large camp of people who think C-Elves need more code love, and the response is always, "Regardless of code, people should play City Elves because there are intrinsic roleplay merits to it and if you were a good player you wouldn't let code shape your roleplay decisions." But... shall we look at the stats here then? If we care about data? You might not like how it proves my argument. I am willing to bet hard money City Elves are the least played of the starting races. I for one won't damn the player base as a whole for being rational as they assess coded incentives.

[and whenever this comes up, thank you staff for hearing our valid feedback and working actively on C-Elves to address the issue!]

Well lets see here.

You anticipated that making a statement not widely accepted by the audience might have someone comment on it.

You don't have any data (?) BUT you have heard a lot of jokes and hearsay or some such that would lead you to believe there are fundamental flaws with City Elves. You believe this is a relative model to discuss around clan incentives that cause similar game design issues. You feel you are part of a large community of people who share your views on this, and apparently someone has replied that City Elves are still viable RP opportunities that provide unique opportunities. You don't feel this is true (?) You DO (?) have data. I won't like it.

Nothing really directly relating to my response that I made to continue a conversation that you had raised points to discuss in.

Please, go on.

[Narf]

Yes, my anecdote shows how people acquire skills outside of formal "job/group/organization" contexts all the time.   It is human nature to learn constantly.

That is true, but the conversation is about being IN A CLAN/JOB role they are currently in.

... what if there were a half-elf in the 'rinth who had no "job" job, because see the 'rinth is poor, and doesn't have a lot of "jobs," but it does have gangs. And this 'rinther became really good at sliding their dagger in between peoples' ribs, why you could almost say it was their "job" to shank people...

I am questioning the very merit doling out "official" skill bumps for "official" jobs and depriving equally valid concepts of the bonuses they deserve as a result of equally valid roleplay.

Bolded for emphasis.  What?       Who said anything about depriving equally valid concepts?

... and what if that half-elf 'rinther happened to innovate in how they sharpened their shanks for back-stabbing, and got some admirers. Started some sort of gang, or knife fighting club, and got a reputation for it. Yes, it's this 'rinther's "job" to do one thing in Zalanthas, and that is survive. Maybe the 'rinther gets rich off their pit fighting club, develops a whole new fighting style. But they can't get any clan perks, because it's not a real "CLAN/JOB," interest in pitfighting dies out, everyone would rather get a "real job" with skill boosts. We no longer have awesome player made RPTs in the 'rinth. The 'rinth is dead under your new system because it doesn't have a whole lot of "real jobs," you see.

It's basic extrapolation. In the Sims, you get perks from your "career ladders" and your "jobs." In Zalanthas, only one thing matters: survival. What the hell is a "job," anyway?

The way the code currently works, your half-elf would be one of the best backstabbers in the world because they have the coded opportunity to practice more than anyone else in the game.

Whereas a clan of assasins would not be as good because they are in a clan that restricts how they play, and thus how much they codedly practice.

The way the game currently works the poor rinthi psychopath will always be substantially more skilled than the trained elite clanned assasin. Some people see this and similar situations as undesirable, and breaking immersion into the gameworld.

[triste]

Yes, my anecdote shows how people acquire skills outside of formal "job/group/organization" contexts all the time.   It is human nature to learn constantly.

That is true, but the conversation is about being IN A CLAN/JOB role they are currently in.

... what if there were a half-elf in the 'rinth who had no "job" job, because see the 'rinth is poor, and doesn't have a lot of "jobs," but it does have gangs. And this 'rinther became really good at sliding their dagger in between peoples' ribs, why you could almost say it was their "job" to shank people...

I am questioning the very merit doling out "official" skill bumps for "official" jobs and depriving equally valid concepts of the bonuses they deserve as a result of equally valid roleplay.

Bolded for emphasis.  What?       Who said anything about depriving equally valid concepts?

... and what if that half-elf 'rinther happened to innovate in how they sharpened their shanks for back-stabbing, and got some admirers. Started some sort of gang, or knife fighting club, and got a reputation for it. Yes, it's this 'rinther's "job" to do one thing in Zalanthas, and that is survive. Maybe the 'rinther gets rich off their pit fighting club, develops a whole new fighting style. But they can't get any clan perks, because it's not a real "CLAN/JOB," interest in pitfighting dies out, everyone would rather get a "real job" with skill boosts. We no longer have awesome player made RPTs in the 'rinth. The 'rinth is dead under your new system because it doesn't have a whole lot of "real jobs," you see.

It's basic extrapolation. In the Sims, you get perks from your "career ladders" and your "jobs." In Zalanthas, only one thing matters: survival. What the hell is a "job," anyway?

The way the code currently works, your half-elf would be one of the best backstabbers in the world because they have the coded opportunity to practice more than anyone else in the game.

Whereas a clan of assasins would not be as good because they are in a clan that restricts how they play, and thus how much they codedly practice.

The way the game currently works the poor rinthi psychopath will always be substantially more skilled than the trained elite clanned assasin. Some people see this and similar situations as undesirable, and breaking immersion into the gameworld.

As if people in these elite organizations don't sneak off to train in stupid ways just like everybody else. They do, sometimes dying comically as they do so, and this occurs even when they have the benefit of a safe clan hall for stashing all their valuables before they sneak off to train! It's actually pretty amazing. But if we need to compound and add advantages onto the unfair advantages these peeps already have, well--actually--we don't need to give them more advantages. Maybe they can earn and recruit their own training partners just like everyone else has to.

Seriously -- if you add the perks you're asking for, do you think people receiving these perks are going to behave and show they're thankful for the perks by solo roleplaying doing drills?

No, no one's going to do that. They're going to get their perks, and then because no one is online, do what they do today -- sneak off and train in the wastes or in the 'rinth. After all, the skill bumps aren't even usable without training! So essentially all we have is a group of people with arbitrary bonuses doing the same roleplay defying training they did before.

Again, Delirium was right on -- just add an NPC or mechanism for this, and the benefit is earned and there's no room for abuse. I forget if it was Dar or someone else, but someone also rightly stated that mechanisms like this would consolidate roleplay around the main base. And bringing people together to role play is great! Nothing about invisible, rank based skill bumps would map to [1] more roleplay [2] merit, and so forth. It's a fine idea to want bonuses, but don't slam people for poking holes in what might be a badly designed first iteration of the idea (more of a note for people getting creative with their use of question marks in this thread). Together we'll arrive at something that works.

[Armaddict]

As if people in these elite organizations don't sneak off to train in stupid ways just like everybody else.

It isn't just like everybody else.  I will sit in a clan where I'm the only soldier, for RL months, unable to train, until an actual IC opportunity arises for me to get training.  I don't think this is rare, and I don't think the 'jump into the 'rinth to practice' is nearly, even remotely, as common as it used to be.  I make this guess purely anecdotally based off of me playing low-combat-skill-high-stealth-skill 'rinthers...because they do nothing but wander around stealthy to look for people doing things to take advantage of in ways that make sense IC.  I think using this as a reasoning for avoiding action against the reason for the behavior is counterintuitive.

Maybe they can earn and recruit their own training partners just like everyone else has to.

Again, this is covered multiple times in the thread.  There's nothing 'unearned' here, it's just an interaction between the roleplaying setup and the code.

Again, Delirium was right on -- just add an NPC or mechanism for this, and the benefit is earned and there's no room for abuse.

Notice that there was very little discussion about Delerium's idea.  There was no pushback.  There was 'yup' and then we moved on to continuing to discuss the other ideas.  The thread wasn't just 'settled' because some good ideas got put in there.  But people will continue to defend valid ideas when the counter-arguments don't make a lot of sense or require a difference in perspective.  Perspective of the game often leads to unending stalemates on the GDB, and the boon of that is deep discussion and exploration available whenever that topic comes up again, whether by staff or players.  Ins and outs and perspectives are all out in the open.

I'm still uncertain what abuse comes about from it.  But if this discussion results in the solution of clan trainers that inherently have different maximums that they teach, or something like that, then that's also great.  I mean...essentially, that actually makes characters stronger than what small flat skill bumps would do.  It would just be highly preferable for those trainers to be tailored to their clan.  The only downside is that those NPC scripts might require more time and effort.

The way the game currently works the poor rinthi psychopath will always be substantially more skilled than the trained elite clanned assasin. Some people see this and similar situations as undesirable, and breaking immersion into the gameworld.

This pretty much beautifully sums it up.  I wouldn't push it so far as to be immersion breaking.  This isn't an 'OH MY GOD THE TRAVESTY' sort of issue.  I'd actually say it's way more subtle...impacting the relationships between clans and how they regard each other in documentation versus in practice.

[Kyviantre]

Napoleon was... tiny.

Ok slight sidetrack here but no, Napoleon wasn't tiny. The french inch was bigger than the English inch at that time, and adjusting for average heights going back in time, he was of a respectable average height really. There was actually a cartoonist that caricatured him a bunch at the time that did a lot to push the message of him being comically short (mostly with his later works) with basically wartime propoganda, but it wasn't actually reality.

Ha...my history nerd self has been reading down the thread feeling SO indignant that people still believe that nonsense!  Dude was 5ft6 in modern inch units, a little bit below average for mainland Europe these days (modern Franch male average is around 5ft8.5-5ft9, for reference), but average for his time, and in no way particularly 'short'.

Thank you for soothing my indignant inner history nerd, Eluin <3

As if people in these elite organizations don't sneak off to train in stupid ways just like everybody else.

Speak for yourself.  Only time my Tor Scorpion trained was when playtimes and politics allowed for matching the Warlord at the time's schedule.  I am worried that you think 'everyone' does that...because no.  We don't.  And I am concerned if anyone assumes it is okay to do stuff like that because 'everyone does', just perpetuates that fact...maybe join club cool, and don't do that?  It's fun, we have cookies and awesome RP...but we'd like some sort of buff to stop people 'needing' (note: nobody NEEDS to do that, but it does make the RP flavour fall down a bit when you can't codedly get the skills any other way, so pick between twinking and being in the cool club) to do that nonsense.

[triste]

Again, Delirium was right on -- just add an NPC or mechanism for this, and the benefit is earned and there's no room for abuse.

Notice that there was very little discussion about Delerium's idea.  There was no pushback.  There was 'yup' and then we moved on to continuing to discuss the other ideas.

The other ideas are inferior in the opinion of others, who are flat out resisting it. Again, it's not just me. If we all agree that the idea of Joan of Arc getting +5 to slashing is stupid [it is, you glossed over that "Oh she wouldn't get it as the top leader," when every other post by mansa et all describes that she would with this system], drop that idea and focus on Dar/Delirium/Riev's. You need the benefits materialized in game and something that can be interacted with, otherwise it's immersion breaking and silly. Alternatively, keep things as they are today with case-by-case handling so that anyone who convincingly earns a skill bump gets it, whatever their circumstances.

You all keep talking about "real war." In real war, only a small percentage of soldiers are capable of killing a large percentage of people. People always glorify Marines training, or whatever, but it's just a myth when it comes to individual outcomes. I want to be able to play a character like Joker in Full Metal Jacket and mostly suck. I actually played a character like that and got a lot of kudos. Getting "+10 to badassery" wouldn't be funny or help roleplay or do anything good if you want to play something like a true to life concept.

The flexible karma based perk is better in this situation. To use Joker from Full Metal Jacket, maybe I just want a perk that gives me +15 to tool making so I can make weird patches and shit for my helmet. Other people can get their +10 to ranged combat or whatever. Allow people to realize their concepts; it's better than homogeneity.

If anything the reality of war is closer to what Riev or lostinspace mentions and based on technical advents, think phalanxes. The realities of merit, achievement, and learning are nuanced, and not at all like they appear in videogames. I like that Armageddon is sometimes more like a stage with props than a videogame and I'd prefer to keep it that way in this case, and let people manifest and play the concepts they want to play rather than being type cast with "+2 to max damage wow." And yes, it is a game still, and needs to be playable, so maybe add a mechanism to help training and other pain points, but don't add weird stat and skill effects. I might start imagining showers of sparks when I know someone has +10 to dodge, because the mechanism is identical to a tacky MOBA or MMORPG and they love glittery sparks there.

[Brokkr]

Clan perks should still color inside the box.