I know this has been brought up before, but I'm firmly of the belief that one should be able to store one's own character. I'm well aware of the possible abuses of this, so here's my proposal:
- Each account may self-store once every one or two months to prevent frequent "lol these stats suck" storages.
- Staff can flag an account to disable self-storage for situations such as IC leadership (in which case one can still store, but only through staff) or abuse of self-storage privileges.
- One can still send in a request for storage if one cannot self-store for one of the above reasons (the timer or a no-store flag) and the process will work similarly.
This will avoid long waits for storage--there was a time when I had to wait four days to store a 2-day-old, low-ranking character in order to take a sponsored leadership role--and decrease the volume of requests the staff receives for storage, thus lightening staff workloads, if only a little.
I dig that. Maybe add a timer. Say, you have to be 5 days old to be able to use that ability.
Honestly...
I'm all for this.
Brandon
*thumbs down*
I don't think storing should be any more casual. I like that you have to explain yourself before you can do it. Prove to the staff and to yourself that you're not just upset over something that happened in-game, or that you're not just stuck in a temporary rut.
I suspect that there are more characters that would need to be marked "no self-store" than there are storage requests. Also, a character's importance to plots changes over time and possibly without staff really noticing unless they're investigating that character.
As for storing before a sponsored role, even if you had been able to store automatically you still probably would have had to wait 4 days for the staffer to do your sponsored role setup.
what if you could enter your next char's app AND request storage at the SAME TIME. This way both have to still be imm approved but delay is reduced all around. Also the IMM checking your store request gets the added benefit of seeing what you're making next, reducing the "aww my stats suck" component.
Quote from: Agent_137 on March 17, 2009, 10:48:42 PM
what if you could enter your next char's app AND request storage at the SAME TIME. This way both have to still be imm approved but delay is reduced all around. Also the IMM checking your store request gets the added benefit of seeing what you're making next, reducing the "aww my stats suck" component.
I can dig it.
Quote from: Marauder Moe on March 17, 2009, 10:33:39 PM
*thumbs down*
I don't think storing should be any more casual. I like that you have to explain yourself before you can do it. Prove to the staff and to yourself that you're not just upset over something that happened in-game, or that you're not just stuck in a temporary rut.
Not true.
Brandon
Quote from: Marauder Moe on March 17, 2009, 10:33:39 PM
I don't think storing should be any more casual. I like that you have to explain yourself before you can do it. Prove to the staff and to yourself that you're not just upset over something that happened in-game, or that you're not just stuck in a temporary rut.
I wasn't aware that you have to explain yourself presently, but if you did, it could just lead people to stop playing altogether, especially since someone who is about to store is already at low ebb in terms of enthusiasm. Who wants to be hassled about retiring a character that's no longer enjoyable or interesting?
Quote from: Salt Merchant on March 17, 2009, 11:37:04 PM
Quote from: Marauder Moe on March 17, 2009, 10:33:39 PM
I don't think storing should be any more casual. I like that you have to explain yourself before you can do it. Prove to the staff and to yourself that you're not just upset over something that happened in-game, or that you're not just stuck in a temporary rut.
I wasn't aware that you have to explain yourself presently, but if you did, it could just lead people to stop playing altogether, especially since someone who is about to store is already at low ebb in terms of enthusiasm. Who wants to be hassled about retiring a character that's no longer enjoyable or interesting?
Not to mention that, if one REALLY wanted to, one could just commit pc suicide.....there are places. ::)
>Think oh, what's through these groves?
A small halfling has arrived from the north.
Welcome to armageddon!
Quote from: BuNutzCola on March 18, 2009, 01:11:32 AM
>Think oh, what's through these groves?
A small halfling has arrived from the north.
Welcome to armageddon!
Unrelated, but a year or so ago I had a Tuluki ranger/forester. After, maybe, three hours of play, I had him out cutting some wood in the Grey Forest and he got attacked by a cilops. He defeated the cilops, but was poisoned and had no mount, and ran out of move near the edge of the forest. He was lying there, slowly dying, for something like a half an hour, and I got tired of emoting his writhing in pain, and eventually his various states of unconsciousness as his hit points slowly dwindled.
So, I wished up for a quick death, since death was pretty well inevitable. I saw an ooc for consent for brutal dismemberment and accepted, and woke up in time to be brutally dismembered by an animated NPC halfling. It was awesome, and whoever that Imm was animating the halfling gets applause from me.
Just go swimming in the silt sea. >>
If you're lucky you might get to meet a silt horror.
nomnomnomnomnom.
(man, that was the best animated npc EVER)
I am in no way advocating suicide...at all.
Quote from: Agent_137 on March 17, 2009, 10:48:42 PM
what if you could enter your next char's app AND request storage at the SAME TIME. This way both have to still be imm approved but delay is reduced all around. Also the IMM checking your store request gets the added benefit of seeing what you're making next, reducing the "aww my stats suck" component.
Only HL+ can store characters, though.
Quote from: Nyr on March 18, 2009, 02:47:20 PM
Quote from: Agent_137 on March 17, 2009, 10:48:42 PM
what if you could enter your next char's app AND request storage at the SAME TIME. This way both have to still be imm approved but delay is reduced all around. Also the IMM checking your store request gets the added benefit of seeing what you're making next, reducing the "aww my stats suck" component.
Only HL+ can store characters, though.
Thanks for chiming in, Nyr! But i don't see how that's a big blocker to this idea.
Just mark the App as "deferred to HL." if the char is still alive. I'm sure you have that as a flag already, right? And if an HL OKs the store, then the char is no longer alive and the deferred flag goes away. it could be done a few different ways if you don't like this particular implementation.
(granted, it does complicate things more than just allowing self storage in certain situations, but if HL's are the only ones that can store a char, is any sort of self storage completely out of the question?)
I'm going to be honest here. If the storage option was easier, I wouldn't kill off so many of my characters. I just hit a point where I'm done with one character, and ready for a new one. And if people think this isn't proper playing, well, that's too bad, because that's how I enjoy this game.
Storage should be an option for the player to do without staff permission, and there should be -no- limitations on it.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on March 18, 2009, 03:26:50 PM
Storage should be an option for the player to do without staff permission, and there should be -no- limitations on it.
I do agree with this. Is there
any case in which we'd rather someone (a) stopped playing or (b) suicided a character, instead of storing? And when there are loose ends to be tied up, does it matter whether the PC in question is actually stored or not?
As far as impetuous storing goes...that's ultimately got to be up to the player. You could, I suppose, give people the option to unstore by request until they create a new PC; I imagine that storage cancellations are rather rarer than storage itself.
I agree that making storage easier would be good... but I disagree with there not being SOME control by staff. If characters could be flagged as NO_PLAYER_STORE if they are involved in plots and if staff have the option to remove the option entirely from people that abuse storage simply because they don't like their stats... under these conditions, I would support players being able to store their own characters.
Quote from: spawnloser on March 18, 2009, 03:53:35 PM
I agree that making storage easier would be good... but I disagree with there not being SOME control by staff. If characters could be flagged as NO_PLAYER_STORE if they are involved in plots and if staff have the option to remove the option entirely from people that abuse storage simply because they don't like their stats... under these conditions, I would support players being able to store their own characters.
People who don't like their stats enough to store, commit suicide. And someone who couldn't store because their character was involved in plots would just not log in, or commit suicide.
Limit folks to one character application per day or somethin'.
Except during HRPTs. ;)
Now that I'm cool with.
While I personally as a staff member am certainly willing to entertain the idea of self storage, and talk about the pros, cons, and issues regarding it, I'm going to address a sentiment I see from time to time regarding the game and the players relationships (including staff) to it.
This isn't your run of the mill arcade game, video game, or even MMPORG.
Every player puts time, thought, and effort into the game.
Any player can walk away from the game anytime they so desire.
No player is required to pay monetarily to play this game.
However, out of respect for your fellow players(staff included) efforts, respect for the game, and desire to continue to be a place of such unique entertainment every one of us agrees to follow policies, rules, guidelines, and behavior. Many of these are documented, but some are implied by the processes surrounding them.
I know that the real world often centers a bit around "I", but in Armageddon, the focus is on "us" because "us" makes the game.
When one gets to the point that they no longer enjoy Armageddon, they have the option to leave, and although the game is "lessened" by that choice, we move on because we have "us" to be concerned with.
However it's not okay, ever, to disrespect your fellow players (and staff), the game, and their efforts by instead choosing to no longer play within the boundaries.
Instead they can be discussed, and if needed changed or updated, but always with the above in mind.
Can you better describe what you mean when you say "instead choosing to no longer play within the boundaries".
Is it to to with character realism, in that no person on Zalanthas should want to commit suicide? Because that is easily overcome, realistically, with in the bounds of a character.
Quote from: Naiona on May 15, 2006, 06:16:32 PM
We want you to act in an in-character manner at all times while you are playing Armageddon. That means that purposefully doing something that your character knows will result in their certain death without a very good in-character reason for doing so is poor play. There are reasons a Zalathan might suicide, but they are unusual. If you are want to get rid of a character for OOC reasons, please request storage over suicide.
Quote from: jalden on September 11, 2008, 04:14:07 PM
Do Zalanthans think there is an afterlife?
What would the average Allanaki commoner believe happens after he/she dies? Would they believe anything different from a Tuluki or Noble?
thanks,
Quote from: Cavaticus on September 11, 2008, 05:23:53 PM
Nothing. When you die, you're dead. This is one of the reasons why suicide is anathema to Zalanthans.
There may be localized exceptions, of course, but that's the general idea among most folks.
I guess I'm saying that accidents happen all the time. Characters do stupid things that get them killed all the time. And it's pretty easy to mold a characters pre-made flaws or quirks to make suicide realistic.
But even this isn't my point. The point is that people will suicide, no matter the rules or reasoning. Or they will just quit playing. Allowing them to store on their own is the only solution I can see.
[I didn't mean to suggest that "(b) suicide" is an acceptable option, but rather that storage is highly preferable to it.]
Staff folks, are you aware of instances in which a storage request has been denied? Or of cases in which the player's starting a new character immediately would have been harmful; i.e. the request was granted but the delay was helpful?
I am not personally aware of a situation where a storage opportunity has been denied. We don't say, sorry you have to play that character or don't play at all. We have in the past, put a storage request on hold, while we work with the player to have them tie up loose ends or resolve things that "in the middle" in game before storage. Sometimes these resolutions happen in game, the player doing them, sometimes we assist. As I inferred in the post above, we expect that one have enough respect in ones fellow players and the game to do this. We expect that since we're playing a mature, community based and community reliant game that we all will have some degree of patience. The staff benefit, the story and game benefit, and the other players who play in that story benefit. Armageddon is a game that requires maturity, responsibility, and respect, and yet, somehow even with those scary words (for some folks), it's still a game; one that is deep, immersive, engaging, interactive and most of all, fun.
Characters in leadership positions should not be allowed to store unless cleared by their immortal heading the clan/tribe first.
Other than that, I'd support this.
Quote from: Eloran on March 18, 2009, 06:00:09 PM
Characters in leadership positions should not be allowed to store unless cleared by their immortal heading the clan/tribe first.
Other than that, I'd support this.
Indeed, I'd like there to be a no_self_store flag that staff can place on an account for reasons such as IC leadership, vital plot importance, or abuse of the self storage feature.
The second aspect of that gives me pause, slightly, because if you find yourself flagged unable to self-store, and you haven't abused it nor are you in an IC leadership position, you'll have a pretty good idea that the staff, for some reason, consider you ICly important. It's possible that one can be important to a plot without realizing it.
70+ characters. 1 stored.
Why do we need this feature, again?
If anything, people who store lots (currently) should be looked at more critically. For the rest of us, would this feature matter?
To put some of this in numbers, since we started using the request tool for storages (2007ish) there have been almost 11,000 storage requests. Approximately 40% of ALL of these are resolved within a day.
Of all 11,000 storage requests, FIVE have been for unclanned characters. Of those 4/5 were resolved within 5 hours.
clan datetime_requested datetime_resolved elapsed
0 2007-05-21 02:17:45 2007-05-22 19:56:04 41:38:19
0 2007-06-30 16:46:10 2007-06-30 21:50:06 05:03:56
0 2007-08-31 21:30:22 2007-09-01 01:09:20 03:38:58
0 2008-10-29 05:07:15 2008-10-29 10:23:27 05:16:12
0 2009-02-11 15:08:18 2009-02-11 15:08:46 00:00:28
I really don't think the process we have in place is that cumbersome. Also if I were to code something like this I would only allow it for non-clanned characters and with some of the time-elapsed, and staff override limits discussed above. Given that there have been five of these in the last three years, I don't think the development time is worth it.
Quote from: Morgenes on March 19, 2009, 12:18:14 AM
To put some of this in numbers, since we started using the request tool for storages (2007ish) there have been almost 11,000 storage requests. Approximately 40% of ALL of these are resolved within a day.
Of all 11,000 storage requests, FIVE have been for unclanned characters. Of those 4/5 were resolved within 5 hours.
clan datetime_requested datetime_resolved elapsed
0 2007-05-21 02:17:45 2007-05-22 19:56:04 41:38:19
0 2007-06-30 16:46:10 2007-06-30 21:50:06 05:03:56
0 2007-08-31 21:30:22 2007-09-01 01:09:20 03:38:58
0 2008-10-29 05:07:15 2008-10-29 10:23:27 05:16:12
0 2009-02-11 15:08:18 2009-02-11 15:08:46 00:00:28
I really don't think the process we have in place is that cumbersome. Also if I were to code something like this I would only allow it for non-clanned characters and with some of the time-elapsed, and staff override limits discussed above. Given that there have been five of these in the last three years, I don't think the development time is worth it.
Wow. Only five?
Two of those have been me.
Wow.
I need to redo the numbers, I missed a piece of the query, reposting soon.
Quote from: Twilight on March 18, 2009, 11:43:58 PM
70+ characters. 1 stored. ... If anything, people who store lots (currently) should be looked at more critically.
No more critically than those who kill off tens of characters per year, I do hope. Neither is necessarily bad. Contrariwise, neither is a great bet for being counted on to hold down a long-lived role. ;)
(And, sure, it sounds like we're arguing over what's more ideology--who should have the control over storage?--than a real, practical issue.)
Numbers were wrong, that was for all requests.
There have been 1270 character storage requests, of those 624 were filled within 24 hours (about 50%).
There have been 60 storage requests without a clan, 45 (75%) of the time these were resolved within 24 hours. 52 (87%) were resolved within 2 days, only one took longer than three days.
I'm still not convinced (with the arguably more reasonable numbers) that this is necessary.
I don't disagree, brytta.leofa
Fortunately, I am averaging at or under 7 characters a year. Less if you count the time from before the account system.
While not necessarily bad, I personally find storing to be distasteful. For myself and others.
Quote from: Twilight on March 19, 2009, 12:46:46 AM
While not necessarily bad, I personally find storing to be distasteful. For myself and others.
Can you explain why? I'm genuinely curious.
Quote from: RogueGunslinger on March 18, 2009, 03:55:25 PM
Quote from: spawnloser on March 18, 2009, 03:53:35 PM
I agree that making storage easier would be good... but I disagree with there not being SOME control by staff. If characters could be flagged as NO_PLAYER_STORE if they are involved in plots and if staff have the option to remove the option entirely from people that abuse storage simply because they don't like their stats... under these conditions, I would support players being able to store their own characters.
People who don't like their stats enough to store, commit suicide. And someone who couldn't store because their character was involved in plots would just not log in, or commit suicide.
...and I'm sure that the staff notices this and makes the appropriate account notes about a player that does this sort of thing.
Quote from: spawnloser on March 19, 2009, 03:31:41 AM
...and I'm sure that the staff notices this and makes the appropriate account notes about a player that does this sort of thing.
I'd certainly hope so. But I
assume this does little to keep them from doing so though.
Quote from: Twilight on March 18, 2009, 11:43:58 PM
70+ characters. 1 stored.
Why do we need this feature, again?
If anything, people who store lots (currently) should be looked at more critically. For the rest of us, would this feature matter?
Wow. Because everyone does exactly what you do. /me rolls his eyes
Morgenes paints a pretty clear picture though. If you can't wait a day for your storage, than you're an impatient little bastard.
I'm an impatient little bastard. And so are most of the people I've met in life.
Pfft.. just write your next character's stuff in Notepad while you're waiting for the imms to store. Doesn't take long.
I like what SMuz has to say about it.
My thoughts are that a lot of these storages occur because of very poorly thought out character concepts. I know for some newer chars this is more acceptable, but for longer time players I think you would have more fun with a well planned out concept and stats really isn't that big of a deal. If they are to you than perhaps you're playing for the wrong reasons. My problem with this idea is that every character does take a certain amount of work. If we make it easier for the players to store (and in some cases we're talking about people who probably didn't think up a char in advance) then you have someone tossing up a paragraph of stock desc, stock background and then storing when they don't like their stats, or don't like their situation, maybe within a day all the while staff have to actually put work fourth. I think self storage would create overhead and further encourage the throwaway pc who gets dumped over stats and never really had a concept in the first place.
Everyone always acts so elitist, like "If you do this, you aren't playing by the right standards." and I feel like its a very harsh way of putting things.
I've had "stock" characters turn into things I never could have imagined. I've -never- stored a character, I usually just go out and decide to fight something big and end up getting reeled to death. I am BAD when it comes to that, but I have that disease where you constantly re-make DnD characters because you get another idea on something that would be really cool to do, and so you never get past Act I of Neverwinter Nights.
What was I talking about?
Quote from: Riev on March 19, 2009, 12:36:55 PM
Everyone always acts so elitist, like "If you do this, you aren't playing by the right standards." and I feel like its a very harsh way of putting things.
I've had "stock" characters turn into things I never could have imagined. I've -never- stored a character, I usually just go out and decide to fight something big and end up getting reeled to death. I am BAD when it comes to that, but I have that disease where you constantly re-make DnD characters because you get another idea on something that would be really cool to do, and so you never get past Act I of Neverwinter Nights.
What was I talking about?
My life story.
Looking through my account notes, I've had maybe too many stores.
Usually it happens early in a character's life when I have problems breaking into a clan, or just really getting anywhere other than tavern sitting. I eventually come up with a concept I'd rather play instead and then store.
All of my stores have been for spec apps or sponsored roles, I believe.
One was because I couldn't play him "properly" anymore due to a RL restriction on time.
Quote from: SmashedTregil on March 17, 2009, 10:17:10 PM
I dig that. Maybe add a timer. Say, you have to be 5 days old to be able to use that ability.
5 days?!?DAMMIT!
5 days old?
Or 5 days played? The latter would be ridiculous.
Since returning Im still having trouble remembering to use the request tool.
But of all the "wish" storage requests I've had, I've never had one take over 30 minutes.
http://www.armageddon.org/request
. Character related
.. Storage
Quote from: Maso on March 23, 2009, 05:02:33 PM
5 days old?
Or 5 days played? The latter would be ridiculous.
5 days old. By the time you hit 5 days played, odds are you've made atleast ten conscious choices to ... not die.