sponsored role unstorage opinion

[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.