sponsored role unstorage opinion

[Lotion]

Players should sometimes be allowed to unstore their characters they are required to store when playing a sponsored role.

I postulate:
1) There are situations in which it is inappropriate to unstore a player's character after they play sponsored roles
2) The situations described in postulate one are the most important part of the reason why players are not allowed to unstore characters they stored before playing sponsored roles
3) There are situations where it is not inappropriate to unsture a player's character after they play sponsored roles
4) It is possible to determine the difference between the situations described in postulates one and three
5) In situations described in postulate three players should be allowed to unstore

[Dar]

Am I daft? I don't understand this post.

[Lotion]

Am I daft? I don't understand this post.

Yes.

[Dar]

Okey.

[Aruven]

I used to have issues storing a character to take a sponsored role.

I don't mind the sacrifice now because by the time I am done in any sponsored role I usually have no reason to go back to the previous role.|

These reasons are numerous but the main ones are: (Involved PC players are dead and gone by then, the supporting arcs for said plot are likewise gone, I have no desire to pick up a new role whilst after over 100 characters I still have many ideas to try out and one life to live)

I am not attached  to this idea one way or another, and in some ways I can see an actual downside. If people knew they could sacrifice their current arc immediately to take on a role, and then get dropped back into a character in the long frozen stats and position, it would create and leave a series of gaps in the game frequently. Potentially.

[betweenford]

Some people die or store a week into a sponsored role, so............................ let them go back to their char

[X-D]

As I was saying in the other thread.

The option to unstore should be in place in most cases.

I also said that odds are, if somebody managed to hold the role for say a year or more they would not want to unstore anyway. Basically what you were saying Aruven.

Now I do not know how much having a possible option to unstore a PC might affect leader role call interest.
I mean, it seems to me every time one that would interest me comes up, I am actually having enough fun with my PC that I simply don't want to stop playing them.

So anyway.

Situations where I think there would be issue on unstoring....
Um.....
Hhhmmm....
Nope, I cannot think of a single one.

The only things I can think of are easily fixed, Like, 3 RL years went by...Hey, if somebody wants to play a much older PC, we are allowed sdesc/mdesc changes anyway.

[Lotion]

I used to have issues storing a character to take a sponsored role.

I don't mind the sacrifice now because by the time I am done in any sponsored role I usually have no reason to go back to the previous role.|

These reasons are numerous but the main ones are: (Involved PC players are dead and gone by then, the supporting arcs for said plot are likewise gone, I have no desire to pick up a new role whilst after over 100 characters I still have many ideas to try out and one life to live)

I am not attached  to this idea one way or another, and in some ways I can see an actual downside. If people knew they could sacrifice their current arc immediately to take on a role, and then get dropped back into a character in the long frozen stats and position, it would create and leave a series of gaps in the game frequently. Potentially.

People randomly die and store all the time. I don't see how this would be different.

[Hestia]

Devil's Advocate time again (notice I'm not giving opinion at all, just tossing a potential wrench in the idea, to see what you do with it without making your idea more complex):

You know you can store your tribal. Your tribal is involved in all kinds of fun stuff, with some awesome other players from different tribes and clans. If your tribemates die, you'll still have fun with everyone else, so it's all good.

You roll up a Byn Sergeant with option to unstore your tribal.

You find out after your first 2 days that there's a contract to destroy that tribe.

The tribe your character would unstore in, and be subsequently hunted down and killed for.

Go.

[FamousAmos]

I see your point Hestia,

But I think the benefits outweigh the risk. Besides, if staff thinks there is potentially a risk of metagaming, then this could always be discussed by with the player in question before and/or after (un)storage.

More times than not I've seen PC's of special apps either die or store again so soon, because its just not a fitting concept for them, or simply have bad luck.

[triste]

I have made the same argument as Hestia when we discussed this with temp raider roles, but in this case I am less alarmed by this risk because you wouldn't be able to switch back and forth multiple times.

If we made a list of costs/benefits here, I think the potential benefit of this proposal outweighs the cost. Many great players probably miss out on roles because they are committed to their current PC. It also sucks to store for a role and immediately die as FamousAmos just mentioned.

[X-D]

So, saying that possible somebody would not act IC because it could affect later play?

You realize that is always the case with every PC in the game right?

So, I am playing a byn sarge and we are contracted to go wipe out this tribe. And it is a tribe I planned on playing in with my next PC. No difference.
Or it is a tribe I really loved playing in the past and expect to in the future....same thing again.

But aside from things like this having very low odds of happening...this is a point where I think I would trust the person to play the PC they currently have.

[betweenford]

Devil's Advocate time again (notice I'm not giving opinion at all, just tossing a potential wrench in the idea, to see what you do with it without making your idea more complex):

You know you can store your tribal. Your tribal is involved in all kinds of fun stuff, with some awesome other players from different tribes and clans. If your tribemates die, you'll still have fun with everyone else, so it's all good.

You roll up a Byn Sergeant with option to unstore your tribal.

You find out after your first 2 days that there's a contract to destroy that tribe.

The tribe your character would unstore in, and be subsequently hunted down and killed for.

Go.

kill

[Hestia]

Good discussion on this, but no solution.

Perhaps this would be a solution:

If a person apps for a role that the staff -knows- will involve the person's current character, we can just deny the app in favor of someone else's app.  Your app was great, but we've chosen to go with a different player's app.

[Jihelu]

If the positions are just extremely opposed and there's a chance there could just be like, an open discussion on it.

"We just want you to know that because this role is so opposed to your current character we can't offer you unstorage should your sponsored role die"

There, I did it. Playing a Crimson Wind raider and apping in a Sergeant in the Arm? Sorry, too conflicted. You can app it in but you probably won't be allowed to unstore should you die.

I'll take my check in the mail.

[creeper386]

Truthfully, not being "done" with my current character has always prevented me from applying for special roles.

If there was an option to unstore ... Especially if I had some time IC to sort out a few things before storing my character, I'd try applying for special roles. Otherwise. Either I'd to be ready to store my character or already dead when a role goes out and ... Well that so far has never lined up.

[Delirium]

To play devil's advocate to devil's advocate... how is playing a crimson wind raider after an AoD role any different than unstoring a crimson wind raider after getting burned out by an AoD role (since we're using that example)? Heck, I personally almost always play an area or allegiance entirely different from or opposed to the one I previously played when I roll up a new character, so I'm not sure how that's even different from the unstorage example. There will be things you the player know that you simply have to not carry over, and at some point staff has to just trust players that they will do that.

That said, to compromise, perhaps the option to unstore could be made available primarily to those who are not in a high-profile or clanned role, so that if you're playing an indie hunter you really enjoy, and you realize that playing Noble Floofypants just isn't fun, you have that reassurance that you can go back to playing that character you previously had.

Take it on a case by case basis, and TRUST players -- if they prove unworthy of that trust, THEN punish them. But don't pre-emptively decide that they're going to be abusive unless they've given you real reason to believe that.

[Jihelu]

I agree with Delirium. I hear a lot of, from staff and players, of not trying to do things because 'people will ruin it' type mentality.

[Taahir]

Good discussion on this, but no solution.

Perhaps this would be a solution:

If a person apps for a role that the staff -knows- will involve the person's current character, we can just deny the app in favor of someone else's app.  Your app was great, but we've chosen to go with a different player's app.

Or you could just let the player know that unstoring their current PC isn't an option for them if they get that specific role.

[Tranquil]

A vast majority of arguments both from players and staff on this forum is, "you can't trust the players".

I personally detest that argument. Putting a layman's answer on every situation is a good way to turn away any suggestion, and I think is very ignorant, as things like this are very situation by situation.

I do think unstoring should be far, far more common and actually considered. Most times when I store roles for a sponsored role and that sponsored role wasn't to my liking, I'm sort-of tossed to the wind as for ideas. Leads me to not have a stable character for a while, and leads to my enjoyment of the game going down-hill. Each time, I always regret storing that character. There are still some characters that I'd love to come back to, but I know won't be able to.

[Dar]

Assassinate a Noble with one character and be put in charge of investigation of the nobles murder with your next? It's happened before and hopefully was played well enough

[Dan]

I think storage for sponsored roles should always leave the door open for unstorage.

Following the death/storage of your sponsored role, you should be able to request unstorage of the previously stored PC with your assessed justification of how it will not impact your play.  Barring conflicting interests, it should be granted.

[X-D]

Hestia's example(s) Seem only based on the idea that Players are saying YOU SHOULD ALWAYS HAVE THE UNSTORE OPTION.

Which is not the case. Players only say, These should be an option to unstore. That is not at all the same thing at all.

Currently there is no option to unstore. You take a role, you store, you never get that PC back. We are only saying that in some or many cases that option should be there.

And keep in mind, the other word is "Option". This does not mean anybody is saying you should always get that PC back after. What they are saying is that the window should be open that when the role is over, the player and staff will talk a bit on the -option-. If it is viable, what have you.

Dan has the right of it.

Tranquil...So far I have only seen one argument that is on the "can't trust players" side...and that is from a staffer...Well, I guess you are correct though...as it seems to be the only arguments against.


I also doubt the option would even be used as often as some thing. I see leader roles go for years. I doubt if the guy who played some kadian for 30 months is going to take the option to unstore that human miscreant who is now 55 years old. Though...Even if they did...so what?

But what it would do is make somebody, who has a 300 hour PC not have to worry so much if they make an AOD sarge and some RPT wipes him out in a week and having to start over with a 0 hour PC.

[Evilone]

I don't like it for the potential for abuse. It's essentially allowing a stat check for a character, and then if you don't like it, you can return to a more favorable character in a week or so, or few weeks. In that time, you could also be destroying other PCs with no kind of repercussions because you will just be going back to your old character. Or you could be supporting people your previous PC was allies with, and then when you return you are even better off. One thing I hate already is people who hurt other PC's, and then dissapear (store) within a time that doesn't allow you to resolve the issue. I've had thousands of sid and items stolen from me in that manner, and it's lame.

You either have the option, or you don't because there will be players who will be bitter and jealous and cry favoritism by staff if their option is declined.

And for those reasons, I'm out.

[Dar]

Your GDB handle is very very apt, Evilone. Yikes.

[Jihelu]

Your entire complaint is putting the sole classification on: People are going to abuse the game for better stats.

All I can think of is: Maybe our stat system is fucking bad?

On another note: If staff sees someone roll up a character for a spec app and they then notice that the player suicides and unstores their old character upon getting stats...I think that would be obvious. Especially if its repeated behavior.

[Evilone]

Your entire complaint is putting the sole classification on: People are going to abuse the game for better stats.

In that time, you could also be destroying other PCs with no kind of repercussions because you will just be going back to your old character. Or you could be supporting people your previous PC was allies with, and then when you return you are even better off. One thing I hate already is people who hurt other PC's, and then disappear (store) within a time that doesn't allow you to resolve the issue. I've had thousands of sid and items stolen from me in that manner, and it's lame.

Umm... I'll just mention this again as my entire complaint was not just based on abusing the game for better stats, I want to make that clear.

[Gentleboy]

Here. Comes. My. Controversial Opinion!

I think, if you want a role bad enough, you are willing to throw away what you got for something.

Sure, the mindset of "if I don't get it, I get to have fun with my current" is wonderful! That's how I've always felt. And ironically, it's always my favorite characters I've had to store for the roles I have gotten.

Staff wants people who are long-term. We the players want long-term leaders who care.

I feel like having a character to fall back on will just... take something away. "Bah, if I die, I can always go back to playing so-and-so."

Maybe I'm wrong. But, I'm just a balls to the walls type of wild and crazy dude.

I mourn over those characters I love/loved. But, it's hard to get back into the mindset exactly of a character who I have moved passed.

[X-D]

Gentleboy: I think you are missing the point to the discussion. While the points you make are valid, the only reason this is being brought up is because of a lack of people even applying to these roles. And staff wondering why there appears to be a lack of interest and what can be done to help that.
From the other thread, The reasons given that there was less interest is. Leaders are work, Just got off one and need a break and risk. This thread is one to talk about fixing the "risk". Reason. If we had a slew of people who "really wanted the role" This thread would likely not exist.

Evilone: The stat check argument holds little water, If somebody is going to stat suicide, they will even without a "backup" PC. And as all the people for the idea have said, Getting the stored PC back would be something you had to still ask staff to do. And since it would be a special request, it would be rather easy for staff to look things over and go Nah...here is why. which covers all your arguments. While likely adding some unfavorable account notes. Not something I think anybody would do.

Now for me, this entire thread means little, Since I do not app for leader role calls. Though where it does is when there have been other types of role calls that I might have but for the... "Dammit, I am only two months into this PC...Oh well, maybe next time." Of course next time never lines up.

[ShaiHulud]

I haven't played a noble since the days when Tor Academy was open. I like playing characters that are martially inclined.
That aside, I think Nobles need more to do than what is currently offered. Even then, my martial Tor Noble running an academy of excellence, would never be as tough as a two year bynner. It is hard to be a mentor/scholar/leader without the skill. Granted, some like playing the 'theme' and not needing to have the skillset or ability. I don't.  Let Borsail actually be involved with...Getting slaves. Let Oash, be in control of gemmed gicks to scare all. Let Tor, be the best at war and fighting..Let, Jal, run the runs.

This is in response to storage for a sponsored, then finding out it is not the fun you had hoped.

[Gentleboy]

 Topic: sponsored role unstorage opinion is the name of the thread with the OP's idea being written out. No discussion prompts were made. There is no direction to the thread beyond the title and the flow chart. If you wish to talk about leadership, there is a thread on that. This is specifically for the thoughts on sponsored role unstorage opinion.

That's the topic. I was putting in my sponsored role unstorage opinion.

[ShaiHulud]

Topic: sponsored role unstorage opinion is the name of the thread with the OP's idea being written out. No discussion prompts were made. There is no direction to the thread beyond the title and the flow chart. If you wish to talk about leadership, there is a thread on that. This is specifically for the thoughts on sponsored role unstorage opinion.

That's the topic. I was putting in my sponsored role unstorage opinion.

So sorry, then. Guess I got lost. Carry on.

[Gentleboy]

Topic: sponsored role unstorage opinion is the name of the thread with the OP's idea being written out. No discussion prompts were made. There is no direction to the thread beyond the title and the flow chart. If you wish to talk about leadership, there is a thread on that. This is specifically for the thoughts on sponsored role unstorage opinion.

That's the topic. I was putting in my sponsored role unstorage opinion.

So sorry, then. Guess I got lost. Carry on.

omg, this wasn't towards you. We posted at the same time. Your opinion is valid. And good. Ugh. Embarrassed.

[Dan]

I'll also add the anecdotal evidence of it not being a bad thing... I've had at least two, possible three unstorage requests granted. One was Arad, my Expansion Division character turned Lyksaen combat slave. The other was a Templar (either Weringa or Drydek, can't remember which).

There were other factors, granted, a) agreed upon beforehand, b) real life didn't allow me to keep playing a Templar at the time and I was in a better position to play one when a different role call came out. I requested I return with my old character and provided a suitable cover story (took a virtual reputation hit, grew a beard, good to go).

Storage and then later unstorage of a Templar is about as bad as it could get with regards to possible issues. Never ran into any, but also not the type of person to abuse any sort of OOC situation, so take it for what you will. The bottom line being, it made sense at the time and fit the context of what I needed and what the game needed.

[Usiku]

For me, it's basically around what Gentle wrote. From staff side and from a player side (e.g. knowing how I myself would have been affected by knowing I had a beloved and stored character that I could unstore)... it's about commitment. Sponsored roles take a lot of work to set up, from the role call, to getting the character set up, to supporting them during the first few weeks while they settle in and figure it out. Then they usually have a lot of other PCs and stories relying on them.

How does having a stored character you know you like consciously or even subconsciously effect how you play your sponsored role? Will you take more risks because you know if they die, well, you have a back up? If things slow down or get a bit boring/awkward/stale are you more or less likely to make an effort to ride it out or shake it up to try make the character fun again or will you just bow out and go back to your old, stored PC? I can't speak for other players, but I know that would effect me.

From the staff side, obviously we want someone who is super excited to play the role and is going to give it 100% rather than someone who is like, "Hrm, well I think I'd like to try it, but also I'm not sure and I'd like my old character as back up in case I don't."

As for problems with sponsored roles and leadership apps, there are only problems with a few very select clans. We still get a ton of apps for the other ones.

The conflict of interest isn't something I had actually thought about before, but I guess it's a potential issue. There is a big difference between, "Oh I might play in that clan/area later." and having a character that you love and are invested in who you are planning to unstore. Hestia's scenario was a good one, because with the wiping out a tribe, you would essentially remove your PCs option for unstoring.. so.. how would you feel if you had to kill your own PC? I don't think it's really about a lack of trust, but more a lack of desire to knowingly create difficult and conflicting situations for players and staff to have to untangle.

[X-D]

how would you feel if you had to kill your own PC?

Shit would be great...specially if staff actually fielded the PC and gave good accounting.

(e.g. knowing how I myself would have been affected by knowing I had a beloved and stored character that I could unstore)

Would anybody actually store a "beloved" Pc for a sponsered role? I know I would not...even if I might be able to get them back. Lets see...store a great PC for one that even if I like it, I will not like it as much...Nah.

How does having a stored character you know you like consciously or even subconsciously effect how you play your sponsored role? Will you take more risks because you know if they die, well, you have a back up? If things slow down or get a bit boring/awkward/stale are you more or less likely to make an effort to ride it out or shake it up to try make the character fun again or will you just bow out and go back to your old, stored PC? I can't speak for other players, but I know that would effect me.

This sort of question has been asked a few times in this thread. And honestly, I do not understand it.

And why, because I think that totally depends on the player and having a stored PC to go back to simply does not matter in the equation. People who get bored easily #1 Will store/suicide/bow out no matter what. People that do not...won't. People that take risks do and people that do not don't. One thing I have noticed is that players that don't take risks still cannot do it even if they make a PC TO take risks with. And people that take risks...always take risks, even when they say they are going to be careful this time.

Either way, the lone against arguments still all boil down to "Don't trust the players." Which I find to be a bit telling. Along with the mindset that no rules would be in place. Like it would be a coded thing, sponsered role dies and you log back into old PC. The unstoring should in no way be "assured."

I do not think it is "beloved PC" that stops the people on the fence during role calls.

It is, Huh, I have an idea for that role call...But it is a role with some hazard, and I already have 560 hours on this pc which is still fun and if something happens to the sponsered role I have to start at 0 hours on something else...Meh, play this one out.

Or at least that has been me on the ones that have looked interesting.

I can only think of one role that would get me to store(without the possibility of unstore) even a 10 day PC for sure (would never happen although it is actually rather mundane) And maybe another that would make me have to debate with myself.

Maybe another two where if unstore was an option I would jump for.

/end current spate of rambling.

[zealus]

To chime in,
I have, several times now, chosen not to appply for a sponsored role due to having to store my current PC.
While it's hard to start the PC up again after being gone for a bit (life tends to randomly make me time warp a few months at times, so yeah, been there), I think it would be fun if and when the sponsored role is outside of my PC's sphere. If it's too related, staff would, in my opinion, get the final say if and when unstoring is an option.

[Usiku]

The unstoring should in no way be "assured."

I'm not sure how that would be helpful to players. Usually what they want to know is.. will I be able to unstore my PC after the sponsored role. The answer they want, in order to take that leap of storing, is "Yes" not "Maybe". Most want the assurance that they will be able to unstore. Telling somone "maybe" isn't going to be enough for most people to be comfortable with storing. Also telling them, "maybe", having them store, play the role, the role dies and they want to now unstore.. and for whatever reason that "maybe" is now a "no" when they try to unstore - that would create some bad feelings all round and makes the staff who had to deliver that message responsible for the feelings of loss around that now 'gone-for-good' PC.

I honestly don't feel like the storage/unstorage policies are anything to do with trust, not in my mind. It seems more like a decision that has come out of not wanting to create more difficult and complicated solutions. Keep it simple, you have one living PC at a time. It's simple, it's binary, there are no difficult judgement calls that need to be made in realms of shades of grey etc.

The options around storage/unstorage have changed to be even stricter than they used to be, and I can only guess this has come from lessons learned and difficulties that unstorage options must have created in the past. I don't actually know for sure though.

[Nao]

The unstoring should in no way be "assured."

I'm not sure how that would be helpful to players. Usually what they want to know is.. will I be able to unstore my PC after the sponsored role. The answer they want, in order to take that leap of storing, is "Yes" not "Maybe". Most want the assurance that they will be able to unstore. Telling somone "maybe" isn't going to be enough for most people to be comfortable with storing. Also telling them, "maybe", having them store, play the role, the role dies and they want to now unstore.. and for whatever reason that "maybe" is now a "no" when they try to unstore - that would create some bad feelings all round and makes the staff who had to deliver that message responsible for the feelings of loss around that now 'gone-for-good' PC.

No. I'm not sure where you're getting that idea. There are multiple people in this thread who are saying 'I would be fine with an on a case by case option' already who are not asking for guarantees.

Right now, we don't even have that option if we're playing some nobody PC on the other end of the known. Yes, I still like my PCs even if they're nobodies, I already put many hours of my life into them and I'm a bit attached to them. I'd be perfectly fine with being told "no, there's too much of a conflict of interest here" if that ended up being the case. Right now, I don't apply for interesting roles because it's absolutely, 100% guaranteed that I'll lose my current PC for a role that I might end up hating because it doesn't turn out as expected. I would be much more likely to send in an app if going back to my old PC was at least up for discussion, in case that the role just doesn't work out. Right now it's not even an option if there is no plot entanglement, overlap or connection whatsoever between the two PCs. With Tuluk open to play again, that's going to be pretty common.

If someone is being told 'Yes, you can absolutely unstore' and that is withdrawn later, that's a problem. But if it's clearly communicated from the start that it's a maybe situation and might be blocked due to conflict of interest or other reasons? I would be completely fine with that and I'm sure many other players would be, too.

[X-D]

The options around storage/unstorage have changed to be even stricter than they used to be, and I can only guess this has come from lessons learned and difficulties that unstorage options must have created in the past. I don't actually know for sure though.

While true, also, not by much. Also, when it became a bit stricter was also during a time of the staff in charge at the time giving the reason for many changes from closing Tuluk and other things as "Staff work load" So...yeah.

I honestly don't feel like the storage/unstorage policies are anything to do with trust, not in my mind. It seems more like a decision that has come out of not wanting to create more difficult and complicated solutions. Keep it simple, you have one living playable PC at a time. It's simple, it's binary, there are no difficult judgement calls that need to be made in realms of shades of grey etc.

How so? A stored PC is not playable (though considered alive) and the "one living playable PC at a time" is not a hard and fast rule either...Um, gladiators....

I'm not sure how that would be helpful to players. Usually what they want to know is.. will I be able to unstore my PC after the sponsored role. The answer they want, in order to take that leap of storing, is "Yes" not "Maybe". Most want the assurance that they will be able to unstore. Telling somone "maybe" isn't going to be enough for most people to be comfortable with storing. Also telling them, "maybe", having them store, play the role, the role dies and they want to now unstore.. and for whatever reason that "maybe" is now a "no" when they try to unstore - that would create some bad feelings all round and makes the staff who had to deliver that message responsible for the feelings of loss around that now 'gone-for-good' PC.

This one is simple...it is called "clear rules".
I mean really. If somebody has an issue on an unstore denial if it is clearly stated in the possible unstorage rules and the denial also fits those rules...well, that is on them.

And the rules need not be that hard.
Templar role, no unstore.
Noble role No unstore if same city.
If same clan...Nope.
Add one or two more and for them to be some possible unstated ones that are on a case by case basis.
Like if you are playing a mid to high rank guild PC and app a AoD sarge...while that might not be a stated rule, Staff would only need warn them that there is no unstorage option there.
There need not be any "shades of grey."

will I be able to unstore my PC after the sponsored role. The answer they want, in order to take that leap of storing, is "Yes" not "Maybe". Most want the assurance that they will be able to unstore.

Also, what are you basing that on? Have you asked?

Man, I wish polls could still be made.

[betweenford]

To play devil's advocate to devil's advocate... how is playing a crimson wind raider after an AoD role any different than unstoring a crimson wind raider after getting burned out by an AoD role (since we're using that example)? Heck, I personally almost always play an area or allegiance entirely different from or opposed to the one I previously played when I roll up a new character, so I'm not sure how that's even different from the unstorage example. There will be things you the player know that you simply have to not carry over, and at some point staff has to just trust players that they will do that.

That said, to compromise, perhaps the option to unstore could be made available primarily to those who are not in a high-profile or clanned role, so that if you're playing an indie hunter you really enjoy, and you realize that playing Noble Floofypants just isn't fun, you have that reassurance that you can go back to playing that character you previously had.

Take it on a case by case basis, and TRUST players -- if they prove unworthy of that trust, THEN punish them. But don't pre-emptively decide that they're going to be abusive unless they've given you real reason to believe that.

+1.

Personally every time something is brought up tangentially related to secondary chars, unstoring, or unconventional roles and the response is either "that would be boring" or "we cant trust players to..." its just disheartening, especially if someone put alot of thought into a concept.

And as touched on by Nao like... I like all my characters, most people are decently attached to their characters, even if going into a role would be fun, losing a character to play like a a GMH merchant or something and potentially dying in a week to elves and losing two characters with no chance to go back to the first is just lame.

[Jihelu]

I'd kill a man to unstore one of my old PC's and he's probably a good 10 or so years older.

[Lotion]

Staff wants people who are long-term. We the players want long-term leaders who care.

Lots of long-term players self select to not apply for leadership positions because they are happy to continue playing their long-term characters.

[Lotion]

the only reason this is being brought up is because of a lack of people even applying to these roles.

Incorrect. The reason this is being brought up (I brought this up and I can say the reason) is because multiple times in recent memory staff has told me I cannot unstore my current character after being required to store it for the sponsored role.

[Lotion]

The unstoring should in no way be "assured."

I'm not sure how that would be helpful to players. Usually what they want to know is.. will I be able to unstore my PC after the sponsored role. The answer they want, in order to take that leap of storing, is "Yes" not "Maybe". Most want the assurance that they will be able to unstore. Telling somone "maybe" isn't going to be enough for most people to be comfortable with storing. Also telling them, "maybe", having them store, play the role, the role dies and they want to now unstore.. and for whatever reason that "maybe" is now a "no" when they try to unstore - that would create some bad feelings all round and makes the staff who had to deliver that message responsible for the feelings of loss around that now 'gone-for-good' PC.

I honestly don't feel like the storage/unstorage policies are anything to do with trust, not in my mind. It seems more like a decision that has come out of not wanting to create more difficult and complicated solutions. Keep it simple, you have one living PC at a time. It's simple, it's binary, there are no difficult judgement calls that need to be made in realms of shades of grey etc.

The options around storage/unstorage have changed to be even stricter than they used to be, and I can only guess this has come from lessons learned and difficulties that unstorage options must have created in the past. I don't actually know for sure though.

A maybe is better than what we have now. I'd absolutely take a maybe or perhaps if the character was young or used karma which has not regen'd permission to reuse the concept or quicker regeneration of karma to prevent a "karma jail" scenario if the sponsored toon get yeeted too fast.

[Nao]

the only reason this is being brought up is because of a lack of people even applying to these roles.

Incorrect. The reason this is being brought up (I brought this up and I can say the reason) is because multiple times in recent memory staff has told me I cannot unstore my current character after being required to store it for the sponsored role.

It was also brought up in the leadership thread as a reason why players don't apply for roles by at least five different people.

[X-D]

Nao beat me to it.

Not to mention Lotion, your thread title is

Re: sponsored role unstorage opinion

Which does normally mean, In response to something somewhere else.

And and your reason for posting coincides anyway...So...Meh.

Me, I just think it is the simplest method.

[Shabago]

A little surprised one major factor hasn't been mentioned thus far.

How completely jarring it is. Presumably, the PC you're storing has friends, acquaintances, a romantic interest or some goals and plots. You take on a role and survive, say, a year. Almost a decade of IG time. Then you unstore.

Best friend Amos: "....Thought you were dead seven years ago!" (Jarring)
Lover Amosa: "You were dead, I moved on. This is weird." (Jarring)
How're those plots and goals coming along? "Well, haven't budged in eight years." (No IC sense)
General player-base/acquaintances: "So, what happened?" *shrug* "I went and sailed the silt sea for eight years?" (Jarring)

---

So, let's say the counter argument here (feel free to add your own, but one I'd expect): "Set a 3 month time limit."
- Barely enough time to get 'advanced' on the leadership role.
- Mind play at 2.5 months - 'God, what if I die at 3 months and a day?! Or, in a bored patch - Time to play loose and against character behaviour.
- Store leadership. Unstore previous, die inside a week, regret, demotivating.
- Staffing time - unstore (Admin/Producer level), work out a reasonable or agreeable explanation as to where this character was for over a year IG (Storyteller level/Admin level), new role call (story teller) new leader set up (storyteller + admin).
- Out of the characters 'skin' and need to relearn them, their quirks (basically a new character again)

---

What are the benefits to this?

So far I've seen:

1) More people may apply.
2) Not having to restart at base skill levels with a new char -> major feedback in Halaster's thread: "The grind".

[Jihelu]

Does this mean we should assume everyone we don't see for any length of time is dead as well then?

People store normally ALL the time, I send Kadian merchant money to make a MC. He stores. Should I expect my MC done now? I don't see this as jarring as it is when people store regularly.

Hell, I got banned once and from what I could tell no one told my employer or acquaintances that I had been banned and I was eventually unstored....and I had to just deal with being MIA for months.

[Shabago]

Does this mean we should assume everyone we don't see for any length of time is dead as well then?

People store normally ALL the time, I send Kadian merchant money to make a MC. He stores. Should I expect my MC done now? I don't see this as jarring as it is when people store regularly.

Hell, I got banned once and from what I could tell no one told my employer or acquaintances that I had been banned and I was eventually unstored....and I had to just deal with being MIA for months.

1) That's ... pretty standard, constantly. Yep. Player doesn't log in for a RL week, default assumption is they're dead, or we're being asked if they're dead/stored by various people they interacted with.

2) Correct. And they don't come back to be twice as jarring. - Why are you paying for unfinished goods? Haven't seen that a practice in game. If you did and they submitted it? I tend to finish them anyway.

3) We either did, or should have. Yours is fringe case and not standard. Plus, not stored. Not Leadership.

[Delirium]

After reading this whole thread I'm fully understanding why it might be seen as a can of worms to offer unstorage. BUT.

If the player can come up with and propagate a reason for their character wandering off into the sunset, and they're known to be responsible, and they behave responsibly while in their new role, I still think it should be an option on the table. Perhaps their old character gave their lover a tearful goodbye and told them to move on, and tied up all other example ties-- which lets the stories progress. I think part of the issue around storage is the iron curtain of communication where players are discouraged from giving a reason for their absence and alerting other players of them (through staff-approved channels).

If it weren't for unstorage, we would never have seen Faithful Lord Elithan's golden years, or had Sergeant Nora of Kurac's return to glory.

Perhaps let's focus less on negative "what ifs" and more on offering opportunities to build and contribute to the ongoing stories of the game.

[X-D]

Oooh, legit reasons.

Alright.

How completely jarring it is. Presumably, the PC you're storing has friends, acquaintances, a romantic interest or some goals and plots. You take on a role and survive, say, a year. Almost a decade of IG time. Then you unstore.

Best friend Amos: "....Thought you were dead seven years ago!" (Jarring)
Lover Amosa: "You were dead, I moved on. This is weird." (Jarring)
How're those plots and goals coming along? "Well, haven't budged in eight years." (No IC sense)
General player-base/acquaintances: "So, what happened?" *shrug* "I went and sailed the silt sea for eight years?" (Jarring)

How is this any different then when somebody takes a break for 3 months to a couple years. Happens all the time. I have done it a few times. Only one PC did I not play. And not because of it might bother somebody else...but because he was too old. Not that long ago I was playing a Byn sarge and see this PC sparring others, Had no idea who it was. Checked the GDB and that RUNNER had taken a 3 RL year break. Played it off NP.

But, Let us go with it anyway. Firstly. How many PCs that were around when you stored AND interacted with would realistically still be around?
Don't forget the sdesc/mdesc change.
Play it "as" a new PC. I mean after all, How is it any more jarring then when a brand new 30 year old PC pops into the gaj with a military back story and no skills? Which happens how many times a week?

Will do the rest of these in reverse.

- Out of the characters 'skin' and need to relearn them, their quirks (basically a new character again)

I do not see that as a bad thing...likely to renew interest even more or maybe they will store/suicide.

- Staffing time - unstore (Admin/Producer level), work out a reasonable or agreeable explanation as to where this character was for over a year IG (Storyteller level/Admin level), new role call (story teller) new leader set up (storyteller + admin).

I always have issue with when "staff workload" Is brought up. And how many admin/producers are there
now? Besides...How often do you honestly think you would be doing this...1-2 times a year...maybe? It took longer to post here then to unstore somebody, unless they actually had been stored long enough to need sdesc/desc change.

The new role call part you already have anyway, moot point.

Next ones altogether.

So, let's say the counter argument here (feel free to add your own, but one I'd expect): "Set a 3 month time limit."
- Barely enough time to get 'advanced' on the leadership role.
- Mind play at 2.5 months - 'God, what if I die at 3 months and a day?! Or, in a bored patch - Time to play loose and against character behaviour.
- Store leadership. Unstore previous, die inside a week, regret, demotivating.

Simple answer, Don't set a time limit.
That deals with the first couple issues.
Last issue, Shit happens. I would openly laugh at somebody who had that happen. But again, it is something that can happen with any PC no matter how old. I have known people to type N instead of L N and kill off a loved 6 month PC. They were pretty demotivated.

And as stated before, Have rules, Accepable play/reasons etc to get unstored and unacceptable even amounting to loss of trust and that karma point. (if really bad)

So far I've seen:

1) More people may apply.
2) Not having to restart at base skill levels with a new char -> major feedback in Halaster's thread: "The grind".

I would be perfectly willing to consider other ways to deal with these things as I think they are valid, at least to the point of filling a role call, Not so much at other times.

But I will give #3 Player retention.

It might not be a huge % but over the years I have seen many people get off a leader role and since they had no PC decided to take a break. Sometimes that break is a week, sometimes a year and sometimes forever. Usually when it was an early death, though they liked the role, the fact that they stored to play this and it was a month or whatever does bother people.

But the people who had that sponsered role for like a year+ are far more likely to take that break and never return. Having that PC waiting could mitigate that some.

[Lotion]

A little surprised one major factor hasn't been mentioned thus far.

How completely jarring it is. Presumably, the PC you're storing has friends, acquaintances, a romantic interest or some goals and plots. You take on a role and survive, say, a year. Almost a decade of IG time. Then you unstore.

Best friend Amos: "....Thought you were dead seven years ago!" (Jarring)
Lover Amosa: "You were dead, I moved on. This is weird." (Jarring)
How're those plots and goals coming along? "Well, haven't budged in eight years." (No IC sense)
General player-base/acquaintances: "So, what happened?" *shrug* "I went and sailed the silt sea for eight years?" (Jarring)

---

So, let's say the counter argument here (feel free to add your own, but one I'd expect): "Set a 3 month time limit."
- Barely enough time to get 'advanced' on the leadership role.
- Mind play at 2.5 months - 'God, what if I die at 3 months and a day?! Or, in a bored patch - Time to play loose and against character behaviour.
- Store leadership. Unstore previous, die inside a week, regret, demotivating.
- Staffing time - unstore (Admin/Producer level), work out a reasonable or agreeable explanation as to where this character was for over a year IG (Storyteller level/Admin level), new role call (story teller) new leader set up (storyteller + admin).
- Out of the characters 'skin' and need to relearn them, their quirks (basically a new character again)

---

What are the benefits to this?

So far I've seen:

1) More people may apply.
2) Not having to restart at base skill levels with a new char -> major feedback in Halaster's thread: "The grind".

You make good points against the argument that there should be a three month time limit, that would not be a good solution to the supposed problem. You also provide a good example of when unstorage is inappropriate(i.e. after a super long loved character). After playing a good leader that really sticks like that there aren't many players that would want to unstore their previous character.

I don't think a cut and dry rule could be easily made and that it would possibly have to be a judgement call every time which seems to be the sort of policy staff has recently been trying to move away from.

Perhaps allowing unstorage isn't the solution, but instead creating a system where storing an existing character for a sponsored role does not feel so expensive. I will perhaps ruminate on this idea and make another opinion post or maybe get bored and not...

[Delirium]

What about... going in a completely different direction, and discarding the untorage option in favor of an "app in for a sponsored role whenever" option?

Why not have continually open rolecall for all clans which accept those sorts of positions? With a maximum of 1-3 currently active sponsored characters per clan, depending on the clan itself and how many "leaders" and "lackeys" it can support. In that vein, let people app in lackeys as well as leaders, too. That way, when people do lose their long-lived or beloved characters, and they are open to the idea of playing a sponsored role, they can just app in, whether or not there is an actual call for it. Then, if there is room, or if there is a similar position open they might like, there we go!

Almost every single clan could benefit from this. It would mean more coverage, and more overlap, both in playtimes and in ensuring there is less of a gap when one of the characters needs to take a break or ends up dying, as one is wont to do in Zalanthas.

If there is a specific, urgent need, we could still have rolecalls, but otherwise, why not shift the policy toward having every clan that is open, be open for role applications at any point? Decide on the max amount of positions, both leader and lackey, and let it roll.

I bet that would see a lot more people being willing to give it a shot, since it's no longer giving up a character, but gaining one.

[Taahir]

A little surprised one major factor hasn't been mentioned thus far.

How completely jarring it is. Presumably, the PC you're storing has friends, acquaintances, a romantic interest or some goals and plots. You take on a role and survive, say, a year. Almost a decade of IG time. Then you unstore.

Best friend Amos: "....Thought you were dead seven years ago!" (Jarring)
Lover Amosa: "You were dead, I moved on. This is weird." (Jarring)
How're those plots and goals coming along? "Well, haven't budged in eight years." (No IC sense)
General player-base/acquaintances: "So, what happened?" *shrug* "I went and sailed the silt sea for eight years?" (Jarring)

That happens all the time already, when people return after absences or just play for an hour every few weeks. It's annoying, but we generally shrug it off and move on. It doesn't have the same negative impact on the game as the current lack of consistent and available leadership PCs - not even close.

The impact also lessens if the sponsored PC lives longer - if that PC ends up living for a RL year, the vast majority of PCs that interacted with your old PC will be dead.

[Jihelu]

To everyone who replied to Shabago after me: I mostly agree with all of you.

[Veselka]

What about... going in a completely different direction, and discarding the untorage option in favor of an "app in for a sponsored role whenever" option?

Why not have continually open rolecall for all clans which accept those sorts of positions? With a maximum of 1-3 currently active sponsored characters per clan, depending on the clan itself and how many "leaders" and "lackeys" it can support. In that vein, let people app in lackeys as well as leaders, too. That way, when people do lose their long-lived or beloved characters, and they are open to the idea of playing a sponsored role, they can just app in, whether or not there is an actual call for it. Then, if there is room, or if there is a similar position open they might like, there we go!

Almost every single clan could benefit from this. It would mean more coverage, and more overlap, both in playtimes and in ensuring there is less of a gap when one of the characters needs to take a break or ends up dying, as one is wont to do in Zalanthas.

If there is a specific, urgent need, we could still have rolecalls, but otherwise, why not shift the policy toward having every clan that is open, be open for role applications at any point? Decide on the max amount of positions, both leader and lackey, and let it roll.

I bet that would see a lot more people being willing to give it a shot, since it's no longer giving up a character, but gaining one.

I think this is one of the better suggestions I've seen.

In so doing -- People aren't giving up a PC they may already be enjoying immensely in order to jump into a sponsored leadership role. Their PC dies, or they're bored of the concept and store it. Then they look on the GDB and see:

-T'zai Byn accepting: 1 Sergeant, 1 Trooper
-House Oash, House Rennik, House Jal, House Tor: Accepting 1 Junior Noble
-House Winrothol, House Tenneshi, House Dasari: Accepting 1 Surif Noble
-Sun King's Legion: Accepting 1 Corporal (Life-Sworn)
-House Kurac: Accepting 1 Merchant, 1 Agent.

Then I can think to myself...

Hmm, actually a GMH role sounds good to me right now, how about I apply.

Staff can look over my application just as they would during a role call. Except you also don't need to wait 2 weeks to find out if you got it.

They accept, set up the time for setup and so on, and then the ticker on the GDB posting goes down to:

-House Kurac: Accepting 1 Merchant

It would require some upkeep (!) which can obviously be annoying and a time suck. But I can't imagine it's more of a time suck than writing up elaborate Role Call requests, monitoring a slew of applications, deciding who and who isn't qualified or so on, choosing someone, then contacting them for acceptance, setting them up, getting them in game, etc.

If we as players could more easily decide WHEN we apply for Sponsored Leadership Roles, and they were more open in a revolving capacity...You might see more people applying overall.

[Nao]

What about... going in a completely different direction, and discarding the untorage option in favor of an "app in for a sponsored role whenever" option?

Why not have continually open rolecall for all clans which accept those sorts of positions? With a maximum of 1-3 currently active sponsored characters per clan, depending on the clan itself and how many "leaders" and "lackeys" it can support. In that vein, let people app in lackeys as well as leaders, too. That way, when people do lose their long-lived or beloved characters, and they are open to the idea of playing a sponsored role, they can just app in, whether or not there is an actual call for it. Then, if there is room, or if there is a similar position open they might like, there we go!

Almost every single clan could benefit from this. It would mean more coverage, and more overlap, both in playtimes and in ensuring there is less of a gap when one of the characters needs to take a break or ends up dying, as one is wont to do in Zalanthas.

If there is a specific, urgent need, we could still have rolecalls, but otherwise, why not shift the policy toward having every clan that is open, be open for role applications at any point? Decide on the max amount of positions, both leader and lackey, and let it roll.

I bet that would see a lot more people being willing to give it a shot, since it's no longer giving up a character, but gaining one.

This is a great idea.

[Usiku]

-T'zai Byn accepting: 1 Sergeant, 1 Trooper
-House Oash, House Rennik, House Jal, House Tor: Accepting 1 Junior Noble
-House Winrothol, House Tenneshi, House Dasari: Accepting 1 Surif Noble
-Sun King's Legion: Accepting 1 Corporal (Life-Sworn)
-House Kurac: Accepting 1 Merchant, 1 Agent.

This one is making me scratch my head a bit. While it isn't presented exactly like that, the sentiment is the same. If there isn't an active role call going for a leadership position.. it's because it's full.. to whatever max. We generally keep those roles full. The exact same thing would happen and those slots would fill up straight away?

That said, if you really want to play something, it's worth dropping in a question because we might be able to find a way to work it in.

And for anything other than leadership roles.. then obviously those are open all the time anyway, you just go join a clan.

[Dar]

---

What are the benefits to this?

So far I've seen:

1) More people may apply.
2) Not having to restart at base skill levels with a new char -> major feedback in Halaster's thread: "The grind".

How many times I passed on a role I would've liked to play, just because I didn't want to completely lose my current character. With this option a possibility, I can try my luck apping and things might end up great and fun. Greatest benefit of all.

I wonder how many years did Kija just ... Exist, because he didn't want to end the character. Despite the player wanting to play everywhere else, but Tablelands. 


The jarring part is easy and happens all the time. People go on breaks. Characters do not get auto stored if they go on a break.

If a character joined a clan and then ascended up to a leadership role, then decided he needed to go on a one year break. Are you saying you are going to store him?  He's not a sponsored role.

Plenty of IG explanations.  Transfer. Got moved to Red Storm to work the shop there after getting drunk and calling Senior Agent Bubba an inbred idiot.

It's not like their storage will be sudden. They'll have room and time to close up loose threads.  And it won't be so jarring if they are back next week.

Welp, someone else called Bubba an inbred idiot and he forgot all about me.

[Delirium]

-T'zai Byn accepting: 1 Sergeant, 1 Trooper
-House Oash, House Rennik, House Jal, House Tor: Accepting 1 Junior Noble
-House Winrothol, House Tenneshi, House Dasari: Accepting 1 Surif Noble
-Sun King's Legion: Accepting 1 Corporal (Life-Sworn)
-House Kurac: Accepting 1 Merchant, 1 Agent.

This one is making me scratch my head a bit. While it isn't presented exactly like that, the sentiment is the same. If there isn't an active role call going for a leadership position.. it's because it's full.. to whatever max. We generally keep those roles full. The exact same thing would happen and those slots would fill up straight away?

That said, if you really want to play something, it's worth dropping in a question because we might be able to find a way to work it in.

And for anything other than leadership roles.. then obviously those are open all the time anyway, you just go join a clan.

I see what you mean, but my suggestion is to loosen it up a bit and let someone app in even if there is already a leader (where it makes sense). Obviously for roles where There Can Be Only One, that doesn't make sense, but perhaps then they could app in as a subordinate (aide, private, etc). The app process would screen the issues mentioned earlier with responsibility and suitability for the clan. So what if there are two, three Salarri merchants? So what if there's two Sath nobles? Let it happen. Let there be overlap, especially if they're on different timezones.

There is the possibility of the game ending up a bit top-heavy, but considering the difficulty in acquiring people for leadership/sponsored roles currently, I suspect it would more swing toward an equilibrium. Plus, you can always decide on caps per clan. My suggestion boils down to widening those caps and letting there be multiples, that can be apped for whether or not there's a current merchant/dealer/noble in that particular clan. The more the merrier and as long as staff is screening the process I see few downsides.

Edit to add:
Tangentially, one of the biggest issues with sponsored roles is being able to cling to playing the character and not getting swamped under by the Paperwork and the Responsibility. Having overlap may very well help with that so that you're not the sole point of contact, or if you've got someone who apped in as a trusted member of the clan, you have someone you KNOW you can delegate to. Ideally, anyway. Wil it always work out like that? Probably not. But I feel like it's worth a try and it could definitely help. I remember a few times when playing a leader, and numbers were low in my area but demand for my time was high, my clan staff recruited in a trusted "aide" sort of position for me and it was an enormous help in being able to delegate responsibilities.

[Nao]

It could also help with continuity (the existing leader can fill you in about plots) and avoid these gaps where there is no leader at all. Right now, it seems to take weeks and sometimes over a month to get a new PC into the game, from the point where the old one stopped logging in or died. These gaps kill activity when minions move on, store, or leave the game altogether. Then the new leader has to start from scratch again and it takes more time until they can get things up and running. This is if they stick around.

I would love to see staff hiring a bit more than technically needed to account for the unavoidable attrition and avoid these gaps where there are no leadership PCs in the clan. That would ideally mean having more than one slot for most roles.

[Brokkr]

why it might be seen as a can of worms to offer unstorage

One of the issues I see is that sometimes you think you are opening a can of worms and it ends up being a can of sand worms.

Someone said "maybe" would be okay. Except it isn't, because it isn't something very clear where expectations are the same from the get-go for both Player and Staff, with something (a character) that Players often have emotional attachment to. Which still might be just a can of worms, as most players are mature, reasonable, emotionally and mentally stable. The can of sandworms is that it is only most, and so with things like this that are likely emotionally charged (at least in my experience) it is best to have some very clear, upfront guidelines.

[X-D]

I do not think anybody has argued against that being a thing.

I know I have put up possible solutions. Long as the rules are up front.

Yes, You can get unstored...
BUT, here are exceptions.
List of exceptions:

Role call comes.
Go check unstore rules and compare to current PC. Current PC fits, Apply.
Current PC seems to fit but maybe something questionable. Put in request.
Staff says good to go, put in app, Staff says no, this does not fly. Decide to keep PC or App anyway knowing not going to unstore.

Leave a final bit in the rules that some IG events could prevent unstoring...such as world changing events, Tribe wiped out, Allanak sliding into the silt sea...etc.

Really not that hard.

[Brokkr]

What are the exceptions?

Don't toss work over the wall, saying it is easy.  Do the work.

[X-D]

Huh, I had already listed most of them a page or two back. But, Recap and refine.

1: If applying for a templar role. No unstore.
(reason) Templars have too great ability to be involved in world ranging and world changing events.

2A: Cannot have a PC of the same city if applying to noble role. (in other words, you have a nakki PC and apply for a noble of the same city, cannot unstore.
(reason) Nobles have quite a bit of reach inside a city.
2B: Same rules when applying to militia/legion officers and for the same reasons.

3: Must be unclanned (tribes do not count as clans)
(reason) I simply think it is unfair and problematic to be taking up that slot, even virtually. Also I think it makes coming back far less "jarring" and allows for an easier going away story.

(edit)
4: Cannot unstore limited roles, IE: Sorcerer, Psi and staff would know if there is others.

That covers most exceptions I can think of along with the reasons.

I think in most cases PCs not falling into the exceptions should be fine. Tribes not counting as clans...could be changed or refined. I just think that a tribal could just be like, Going on spirit journey, taking time off to raise my family etc. And since they are not IG recruited anyway...

And of course have the caveat about world events. As while the PC is stored it will be assumed they are living in normal home, be that a camp, the rinth etc. Unless otherwise approved by staff. But that approval would be rare or just do not offer it.

[Alesan]

It sounds like the solution may have to be making leadership roles more appealing than your current long-term character.

[Inks]

I'm against it, for sure. If it doesn't work out you will know too much oocly that your pc can use. And most roles don't allow dwarves, lotion, so not sure why this is an issue for you.

[X-D]

If it doesn't work out you will know too much oocly that your pc can use.

You realize that is the case for any PC past your very first right?

[Lotion]

It sounds like the solution may have to be making leadership roles more appealing than your current long-term character.

The goal should be to make the benefits of accepting a leadership role outweigh the costs for people who are playing long-term characters.

[Alesan]

It sounds like the solution may have to be making leadership roles more appealing than your current long-term character.

The goal should be to make the benefits of accepting a leadership role outweigh the costs for people who are playing long-term characters.

Yep. And staff are shooting down unstorage at every turn. So... what then?

[Jihelu]

It sounds like the solution may have to be making leadership roles more appealing than your current long-term character.

The goal should be to make the benefits of accepting a leadership role outweigh the costs for people who are playing long-term characters.

Yep. And staff are shooting down unstorage at every turn. So... what then?

I guess things stay the same and we get another post, that I think we also got for one of the last rolecalls, of staff wondering why only like one person applied

[Shabago]

Are we?

Brokkr asked for a take on how a player would view such rules.

I've asked for tangible benefits and listed cons/issues to arise, for consideration.

Who said no?

[Jihelu]

Are we?

Brokkr asked for a take on how a player would view such rules.

I've asked for tangible benefits and listed cons/issues to arise, for consideration.

Who said no?

I think every staffer comment being something akin to 'devil's advocate' and 'provide all the benefits for me' makes me think staff doesn't want to engage in a discussion and more wants to shut down dissenting opinions.

I reread all the replies from staffers and I didn't get an impression from any of the replies that staff has anything on their mind but complaints about the idea.
Does ANYONE on staff side agree with this? Are we only allowed to see the staff discussion, on our end, when it's 'HMMM have you considered why this idea won't work at all'?

[creeper386]

To me, I think the argument that this would lead to people only "half" in on playing a leadership role is kind of moot. A player is saying, hey I want to play these roles, but I also don't want to give up my current character, and the assumption is they would then be willing to give up on this leadership role easier because of that?

If I get a leadership role, and it ends up not working out, it's going to not work out rather or not I have another PC waiting. It's going to be an issue of the role perhaps not fitting my preferences in a way I didn't anticipate.

In terms of tying up loose ends, if there is some time between getting accepted and actually storing where a character can make arrangements, I think that solves a lot of issues. I rarely don't go without some sort of virtual presence to explain logging out or being gone for a RL week or more anyways. A planned trip into virtual space can make this much less jarring. We see this all the time anyways, "Ooh, Merchant So and So is working at the family estate for a few months."

[Hestia]

Are we?

Brokkr asked for a take on how a player would view such rules.

I've asked for tangible benefits and listed cons/issues to arise, for consideration.

Who said no?

I think every staffer comment being something akin to 'devil's advocate' and 'provide all the benefits for me' makes me think staff doesn't want to engage in a discussion and more wants to shut down dissenting opinions.

I reread all the replies from staffers and I didn't get an impression from any of the replies that staff has anything on their mind but complaints about the idea.
Does ANYONE on staff side agree with this? Are we only allowed to see the staff discussion, on our end, when it's 'HMMM have you considered why this idea won't work at all'?

I feel this is somewhat misinterpreted. When I play devil's advocate, I do to y'all exactly what Brokkr does to me whenever I bring up what I believe is a great idea in staffland.

At first I thought "oh great, someone who's going to shoot down everything and question everything." And then I realized - he's helping me refine an idea until it can either stand on its own, or should be replaced with something else.  Poking holes in ideas is part of brainstorming. It happens in every professional think tank.

You get an idea, you rip it to shreds. Or try, at least. If it can't be ripped, it's probably a good idea. If it can be ripped, then you find out how to prevent that tear from happening in the first place. And then rebuild. And do it over and over again until you have an idea that will work. Not one that will do, that can be fixed if you forgot something important, but that works out of the box.

We miss stuff all the time but the process of shredding ideas is how you get the best ones to rise, and the worst ones to be set aside - and no more time wasted on them.

I'm personally "for" the idea of unstoring under certain circumstances.  But in order to come up with a solid "hey let's put this in a nice neat suggestion and submit it officially to the staff as a request" idea, you need to find out FIRST if it can be easily ripped apart.

So I play devil's advocate and come up with what I believe is a weak spot that y'all need to consider.

That's all it is.

[Jihelu]

There's a difference between 'building an idea up' and 'constantly tear the idea down'.

You can do the latter and still show support.

"Devil's Advocate time again (notice I'm not giving opinion at all, just tossing a potential wrench in the idea, to see what you do with it without making your idea more complex):

You know you can store your tribal. Your tribal is involved in all kinds of fun stuff, with some awesome other players from different tribes and clans. If your tribemates die, you'll still have fun with everyone else, so it's all good.

You roll up a Byn Sergeant with option to unstore your tribal.

You find out after your first 2 days that there's a contract to destroy that tribe.

The tribe your character would unstore in, and be subsequently hunted down and killed for.

Go.
"

Nothing about your original post gives me an inclination you 'like' this idea. All it is is a critique. Critique is good but even my most ass-hole-y college professor would leave positive feedback or encouragement in critique, not 'Your ideas are bad, here's a flaw. Bye'
Is it really hard to say 'Sorry if my tone seemed overly negative, I actually support part of the idea.'? I can say it. I'm sorry if it seems I wholly believe staff hated the idea but I was given that impression.

[Alesan]

Right. Maybe I was quick in projecting my assumption of staff stance, but that's exactly what it felt like to me. Staff having no interest in the idea, and shooting it down for all the reasons stated.

[X-D]

I was going to say, Though some staff have offered opinion...admin/producer etc have been asking questions on the matter, which I considered conversation not "shooting down."

In fact, Brokkr directly asked what such rules should look like.

[Gentleboy]

I also shot down the idea, but I'm not staff.

Some staff have agreed earlier in the post. Like Ushiku (I think) and maybe halaster sometimes.

I am a big fan of devil's advocacy, because we get to think and problem solve together.

No one should be accused of anything. It's just a thread on a forum. With the word opinion in the title.

Before a rule or idea can be put in place, it's smart to see how to looks from all angles.

[Usiku]

Hestia nailed it. Or at least her stance mirrors my own. I would, personally, honestly, like to see unstorage still be viable option. But being exposed to the potential pitfalls (and genuinely wary of them since we would be the ones facing them) means those are what come to mind first. But yeah, that is generally how we work. We don't beat around the bush much. We pose ideas and pick them apart as much as we can until they turn into ideas that hopefully can't be picked apart. For important stuff anyway.

If someone can pose a way that this could work and avoid those pitfalls, I would be more comfortable with the concept. So far, however, while good arguments have been made, none of them have managed to eliminate my fears, which is namely the additional potential friction caused by something that would require staff discretion in the interpretation of any grey areas. That when those 'nos' inevitably come unexpected, that there will be disappointment and the perceived loss of a character will be on whatever staff had to deliver the message. But that is just me, personally, and not any kind of official position at all.

[Halaster]

I actually am not that opposed to the idea, my main issues are basically what Brokkr said.  Plus we start running the risk of being accused of favoritism if the rules are not rock-solid and very plain and obvious.  X-D's suggestions aren't bad, and look like a good first pass.

If you check out https://www.armageddon.org/help/view/Storage you'll see that we used to be more open with unstorage but specific incidents led staff to change that.

I'm just one opinion, but I would personally be OK if we eased up a bit and gave it another go, see what happens.

[X-D]

Usiku,

I have posted on such ways to lower the possibility of hitting those pitfalls two times now. Once total spitball and once more refined. And specifically tailored towards removing "grey areas".

X-D's suggestions aren't bad, and look like a good first pass.

Thanks, and that is exactly what it is, a first pass. Something that may need to be tightened and streamlined along with making everything clear and hopefully without making it more restrictive.

And to be clear, I think the Onus should be on the player. Staff should be able to point at the rules and basically not have to do anything else.

[Usiku]

And I read them! Like Hal said, they are good suggestions.. and I can see where you're going with the idea. I'm just trying to be honest though, and it's not enough to make me personally feel like it wouldn't be too risky still. That said, my personal opinion and feelings aren't really a factor here anyway. I'm just joining in the debate.   

[mansa]

If I were to change unstorage, I would give it a blanket 60 day period to revert / change your mind.

I would have some case where
a) your new character killed off your stored character's enemy / interacted with your stored character's primary opponents.
b) your new character directly played in the sphere of where your stored character was primarily revolved around
c) your new character died, and you have a decision to make - unstore your old character or make a new character and give up that opportunity of unstorage.

And I would start with that, and see if the world can handle that change.

Since the unstorage is NOT automatic, you still need to go through the request tool process, and staff could do a brief investigation (WORK) to see if you've broken any rules. 

However, that investigation for staff needs some polish, because they'll need to know what they are looking for.

[Brokkr]

There is guidance on the IDB to try to typically not post your personal opinion to the GDB, as it can (and has in the past) get interpreted as Staff Policy.  So an expectation, for example of Hestia, to soften their devil's advocacy by way of explaining their opinion runs counter to some of the guidelines developed for posting to the GDB.  We perhaps adhere to these guidelines in a softer way than we previously have, but they are still there in the background.

I am currently neutral on the proposal.  I can see the benefits it could have, but I am also aware of some of the incidents that led us to be more strict in this area.  I am looking for two things.  First, a reasoned approach to the issue that isn't just a statement of opinion (hint: "belief" or "should" is fine for getting a pulse on player opinion, but lousy in designing a solution).  Second, some ideas on how it should work.  As we've seen between X-D's and Mansa's posts, there can be different paradigms for how proposed restrictions could function.

[X-D]

If I were to change unstorage, I would give it a blanket 60 day period to revert / change your mind.

This was the way I thought about it at first. In the other thread.

But then, on both threads, staff and players did give the argument.
Well, it has been 53 days.....I have to decide.
And.
Well, lets go with it! Day 63 types N instead of L N. &#%%@$$!!!!!

Which got me to wondering what exactly a time limit of less then say, 2 years solves?

And I cannot think of any while it does give at least the 2 problems above.

And honestly, If somebody plays Malik'daMerchant Salarr for 18 months and finally gets bored, I honestly have no problem with them taking back the PC they had before, should they want to.

AND

Having a time limit does nothing to change the need of solid rules to even qualify for unstorage to begin with. Those would need to be hammered out first, And they need be simple, short and black and white as possible.

[mansa]

If I were to change unstorage, I would give it a blanket 60 day period to revert / change your mind.

This was the way I thought about it at first. In the other thread.

But then, on both threads, staff and players did give the argument.
Well, it has been 53 days.....I have to decide.
And.
Well, lets go with it! Day 63 types N instead of L N. &#%%@$$!!!!!

Which got me to wondering what exactly a time limit of less then say, 2 years solves?

And I cannot think of any while it does give at least the 2 problems above.

And honestly, If somebody plays Malik'daMerchant Salarr for 18 months and finally gets bored, I honestly have no problem with them taking back the PC they had before, should they want to.

AND

Having a time limit does nothing to change the need of solid rules to even qualify for unstorage to begin with. Those would need to be hammered out first, And they need be simple, short and black and white as possible.

The time limit is arbitrary BUT

it also is a nice introductory policy for the current rule of 'No'.

it gives staff a rule that they can then use to tell players 'No'.

it also gives players a chance to try something else, and taste the grass on the other side.

it also tries to help prevent players from that 'favoritism' feeling - where anyone can get an unstorage as long as they follow the new rules.

it also allows players to jump back into their old character and into the old skin 'relatively recently' in order for them to:
a) roleplay their characterizations correctly
b) remember who their friends and enemies were/are
c) you can use the excuse "i was gone for a year, and now i'm back."
d) more than 60 days can have a dramatic shift in power characters and the game should still have characters alive that remember you within the 60 day bracket.

[X-D]

I am going to wait for others to maybe chime in on most of that. But Here are two.

it also gives players a chance to try something else, and taste the grass on the other side.

What does that mean or what is it referring to?

it also tries to help prevent players from that 'favoritism' feeling - where anyone can get an unstorage as long as they follow the new rules.

You do realize we are only talking about sponsored roles right? I mean, that right there stops it from being "anyone".

I mean, I do not keep track, but I bet the average number of sponsored role calls a year is under 20.

But working off that number, How many people do you think would actually want to be unstored after it?
Assuming it went for 6, 8, 10 months? My bet is less then 50%.

[mansa]

it also gives players a chance to try something else, and taste the grass on the other side.

What does that mean or what is it referring to?

It's referring to the colloquialism of "The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence".  It's meant to allow players to store, for whatever reason they want to, and to experience another character or "the other side of the world", or whatever reason they want to come up with why they wanted to store in the first place.

It's basically to say - "Okay, you've decided to store a character and make another character.   Go and experience it!"

it also tries to help prevent players from that 'favoritism' feeling - where anyone can get an unstorage as long as they follow the new rules.

You do realize we are only talking about sponsored roles right? I mean, that right there stops it from being "anyone".

I mean, I do not keep track, but I bet the average number of sponsored role calls a year is under 20.

But working off that number, How many people do you think would actually want to be unstored after it?
Assuming it went for 6, 8, 10 months? My bet is less then 50%.

Oh, if I had my way, I would allow unstorage to be for everyone.  We're changing the rules for storage, right?  "If I had a magic wand I would change it to ..." sort of thing discussion. 

I would want it be available all the time for any reason.

[X-D]

Um...No...Look at the subject line.

I would be dead set against unstorage for any reason other then you had to store to take on a role call.

And to be clear on that, Hopefully nobody is taking on a role call to check and see if the grass is greener.

Most of the time it certainly is not.

"If I had a magic wand I would change it to ..." sort of thing discussion.

No again, A serious option to help improve the number of role call apps while making the player feel better about going out for them.

Staff says basically only certain types of roles get low apps. But I think that improved app numbers for any sponsored role is a good thing. And on that other thread, a good number of people stated perm storage as a large reason they do not app them.

On that thread and this one players and staff alike have asked for ideas on helping to improve those numbers. This is about the only idea that seems to have any merit IMO.

Is it going to happen, likely not...But it certainly will not happen if only talking "If I had a magick wand."

Heh.

[Reiloth]

I thought it might be helpful to point out that 'Unstorage' was possible in the past and may lead to interesting futures for PCs down the road, although this would be a pretty exceptional example of it.

My Legion Sergeant/Hlum Noble/Surif Noble Ranak was stored at my request due to I think burnout with the leadership position and my RL responsibilities. The dates are interesting:

Ranak: Start date of Sat Feb 23 13:52:32 2008

Aziz: Start date of Sun May 25 15:38:09 2008 (So this would be around the time I stored Ranak)

Aziz: Last login date of Mon Jul 14 15:45:31 2008 (This would be when I stored Aziz, to go back to Ranak)

Ranak: Last login date of Thu Jun 18 01:40:46 2009



So! What to take away from this.

As a player, for whatever reason, I asked Staff if I could take a break from the role that they had just approved of me getting. I started in February 2008, and then stored in May of 2008. I asked to play a more low key role. Aziz was a sort of Major Domo Assassin for House Oash. I ended up getting more able to play for whatever reason, and asked if I could unstore Ranak in around July of 2008, so 2 or so months after I had stored. Staff agreed, but said that was final -- I had to play Ranak to the end or store him for good.

What happened after that?

-Ranak stuck it out as a Legion Sergeant, probably as one of the more memorable ones besides a latter-day Sergeant Aldren.
-Ranak applied himself vigorously as an entrant to the Grey Hunt.
-Ranak was granted the Hlum Title (with Muk Utep in the audience!)
-Ranak married into House Lyksae
-I then stored Ranak after going through a really bad RL time, and didn't have the heart to play him anymore while my life was falling apart.

SO! I got an extra year out of playing Ranak, and some really crazy shit happened with him.

This all happened because I was honest with Staff about being burned out and not having the time for a leadership role, but asking if I could have a chance to come back and play him the circumstances were right.

I'm not sure how to apply this as anything more than anecdote. It was possible in the past, and with some strong communication, it allowed me as a Player to not feel chained to a Sponsored Role simply because I got it and already went through the Setup process. It allowed Staff (I think) to have some flexibility, but also likely put them in the lurch in the short term. It allowed me to play out the story of that PC at a later date.

Overall -- I think any sort of Storage/Unstorage should be well documented and all parties agree on the terms for the storage and the later unstorage, what makes it possible, what makes it impossible, and if there's any sort of time limit on it (3 RL months?)

Part of this is that a sponsored role lasting over a year back in 2008 I think seemed really crazy and like a long time for a sponsored role. Now it seems like not only par for the course, but expected that you'll have a sponsored leader for well over a year. I feel like at some point the timeline for 'getting things done' was pushed back, or the world got a little less crazy dangerous? At the same time that I say that though, Allanak goes through Blue Robes like nobody's business, and that's not necessarily from storage, it's also from straight up violence and death.

So...! I dunno. Just some more info.