Now and then, some post or comment strikes a cord in me that gets me searching through older threads about the policies that are in place for Arm 1. I think it's beneficial for both players and staff to review some of this periodically, and discuss it from a players perspective (with staff feedback hopefully), even if it does seem like the same old arguments keep cropping up. (Perhaps it's more relevant -because- the same arguments keep resurfacing.) I'll mention beforehand that I know there are similar posts like this somewhere in the GDB, but I wasn't able to pinpoint them. Some of them I might even have started, but it's worth taking another look at I believe, in light of new insight that I've gained as a player, as well as old and new policies that have been added and the impacts these have had on the game since.
Here are two quotes from this thread (http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,40740.msg587368.html#msg587368) that brought up the subject for me in the first place. I've bolded the portions that I wanted to focus on in particular.
Quote from: wizturboAll bickering and snark-tossing aside... I can't help but feel that I agree with some of the sentiment floating around on the GDB about restrictive policies. This OOC Coordination policy I honestly could care less about, it seems relatively minor. It's the greater topic of restrictive policies that concerns me. Equally concerning is the defensive attitude that the public facing members of the staff seem to take whenever people challenge the status quo by suggesting a change.
After a few years away, I come back and find Armageddon has changed.
* No new clans or organizations can be officially formed.
* Slave roles are no longer available. If enslaved, the PC is force stored even if they'd like to play out the role.
* Some cool organizations are gone. I'd elaborate more, but it may be viewed as IC sensitive.
* Every sponsered role (and nearly every clan) seems to be mundane only. To the point that I don't even find myself wondering OOCly if any sponsered PC's are secretly anything but mundane. A feeling I often had in the old days and miss greatly.
* The overall 'rank' that PC's can attain seems to be artifically capped, so ascension to things like senior templar, senior merchant house, or noble positions don't seem possible any longer.
The list goes on and on. And to me, it's a real shame. One of the beauties of a MUD is that it's small enough to be monitored closely for abuse, and simple enough to be modified and changed with relative ease versus something that has a graphical component. These policies don't seem to be embracing the strengths of a MUD.
I can tell that each of these decisions were made with care, and were implemented with the absolute best of intentions at reducing abuse or making things easier on staff. I don't doubt that each change had good reasons behind it. I just wonder if the cure is worse than the disease. I wonder if padding the sharp corners of the playground that is Zalanthas ends up making the playground less fun as a result. It might cut down on whining from those who occasionally get snagged by these 'sharp corners', but in my experience the only time people stop whining about a game is when they no longer play it.
Quote from: ZoltanI mostly like the way things are now. Certain things that happened years ago that don't happen now struck me as fucktarded, so I'm glad for those changes. Having free reign in a clan as a leader is pretty cool too. But like anyone, I have a few gripes of my own.
First, systematically here, things seem to take a little longer to boil on the large-scale without staff animated NPCs urging quests to happen. Sometimes I wish more blatant things would happen just to keep things moving. Then again, it's sort of a two-way street, which leads to my next little gripe...
I'm ever a proponent of Keeping It Real with a character and not being a 'tard just for the sake of a little excitement, but it seems to me that IG the status quo is god. Due to how long it can take to get serious things going, I think that many players are hesitant to endanger their plots or their characters. Then again, some characters strike me as being powerful just for the sake of it, or to keep walking in place. You combine this with the staff's hesitancy to provide a really firm nudge into excitement, and yeah, things can sometimes feel staid. Some of this could be a matter of perception, though, because often super-plots need to be super-sekret, so take that for what it's worth. Still, time and time again, I feel like I've seen so many powerful PCs just maintaining formation. But yeah, hard to blame people considering their playing someone realistically, and all this time has been put into it.
Which brings me to my other relatively little gripe: the grind. The grind has outright killed at least one of my good characters, that is, they became utterly unfun to play. Now, this can be mitigated by doing a spec app, sure, but that requires a damn good concept with a damn good reason for being in the game. Still, I don't like the idea of anyone (including myself) with a chunk of karma getting to just jump in the game as a moderately-skilled (make that super-skilled, in relation to the dozens of other noobs) warrior/assassin/Krathi/whatever. Then again, sometimes I do get a little wistful thinking what it may be like to jump immediately into an old, survivable desert wanderer, or into a mage THAT CAN ACTUALLY BE A MAGE at the start of play. But I tend to view this gripe as more of a personal feeling towards the game than the game's fault. It's really a matter of my own patience, but judging by the amount of people bemoaning, I suppose it's a real issue for the playerbase.
From this, what I wanted to focus on in this thread was the perceived difficulty and resulting stagnation that players seem to have when playing the game. There are a couple major factors that contribute to this, being:
The perceived restrictiveness of current policies on players and the general impact (positive or negative) these policies have on the game.==> As wizturbo noted:
* No new clans or organizations can be officially formed.
* Slave roles are no longer available. If enslaved, the PC is force stored even if they'd like to play out the role.
* Some cool organizations are gone.
[possible imbalance in representation of IG organizations as a result] * Every sponsored role (and nearly every clan) seems to be mundane only. To the point that I don't even find myself wondering OOCly if any sponsered PC's are secretly anything but mundane. A feeling I often had in the old days and miss greatly.
* The overall 'rank' that PC's can attain seems to be artificially capped, so ascension to things like senior templar, senior merchant house, or noble positions don't seem possible any longer.
==> Individually, I'm sure each had good reasons why the staff put the policies in place (or through certain decisions, it's turned out in the perceived manner) but as a whole, I'd argue that it makes for an almost suffocating environment to play in. Sure, there are plenty of things that players can do despite these, but perhaps we can figure out a way to decrease the amount of hard-set restrictions in favor of more general (yet effective) policies that can take the constraining feel out of them.
The difficulty of getting large-scale plots up and running, and maintaining them as PCs.==> Another factor that I believe has been contributing to a general constrictive feel has been the difficulty of getting larger plots started, or the relative lack of broad, world-spanning plots that PCs can jump into. I know for certain there are many active plots that effect the game world currently, but they don't seem to tie in with each other (and the world) in a way, and if they do appear to tie into the broader spectrum, they seem almost forced. I think this has a large part to do with the current player-driven focus in plots (rather than a staff-driven one). It's already been argued that the player-driven focus has certainly been better in various ways to the previous staff-driven focus, but I still think that there is room for improvement in how it is handled by staff. Without a general overview and the lack of input from on high, the plots that start from the ground up are almost impossible to converge with a general theme. A result of the shift in focus has been a web of plots with no center or context with the broader picture. And if leaders want to try tie everything together into plots that fit, it's nearly impossible without having the knowledge that is accessible to staff.
==> I'll conclude with this one example. In both Allanak and Tuluk, there's been some major shifts in the environment since the player-driven HRPT that spawned it. In the aftermath, it's generated a lot of plots, and a lot of things have happened to affect the game since then. Yet, as much as players are involved in these plots, the higher ups (Muk Utep and Tektolnes, Black Robes, High Templars, and overall House reactions) seem desperately lacking. What kinds of reactions are they having, what kinds of decisions are being made in Senate meetings, what kind of reactions are city-states having to famine?
All these questions have to be considered when a leader PC wants to decide which plot to focus on, but due to the relative lack of power/influence that they have (PC Nobles and Templars start from the bottom of their House/Templarate, as well as merchant family members) and the lack of scope, what plots they do wish to start seem almost forced, and so minuscule in effect compared with the kinds of reactions that would REALLY be happening. It's like a stone being expected to create a wave on a lake. Sure it'll make a splash, and smaller ripples, but without guidance from a more powerful source (a boat's motor, let's say) there's only so much that stones (even together) can do to a lake.
Together, these two subjects can probably generate their own threads, but for now, I wanted to hear if players (and staff) had any thoughts.
Off the bat, I can already think of one possible solution for the apparent stagnation. I'm sure there are many arguments for and against it that can be made.
It's based from this argument that I'm sure the staff will probably mention (or has in the past): A lot of things that are not possible in Arm 1 will be possible in Arm 2.
If that's the case, I say let's stir the waters a bit by test-running some features that can be used with Arm 2 NOW, in Arm 1, instead of later. Instead of PCs being restricted to a cap, and advancement in their House or organization being near impossible (or take several RL years), let advancement be much easier, and thrust PC leaders into responsibilities that will allow them to rise in rank much quicker, (or die/fail much easier). Put more tools into the hands of players to use, and give tools to higher karma (and staff sponsored) players that will empower them to make waves instead of small ripples.
[added] The situation IG is much more dire. I'm almost certain newer leader characters will have a much greater opportunity now IG than before, and have the chance to rise much quicker through the ranks and gain influence than before. Let's make use of that.
Personally, I don't see this "stagnation" people are griping about. In the last year or so the world has undergone some pretty significant changes.
Furthermore, people keep bringing up restrictive policy changes with absolutely no regard for their context. The staff didn't implement them because they're lazy and want to do less work. They did it as part of a fairly dramatic shift in how they facilitate our play. They've been spending much more time on player-spawned and player-driven plots. They've been spending time on low-level animations and interactions. They've been supporting small, frequent, player-scheduled RPTs. They've been trying to keep things fun and dynamic for everyone, rather than disproportionately catering to a small few (slaves, overly niche/isolated clans, senior-level nobles/templars).
Some of us have lost areas/concepts that we like to play in, sure. However, I think just about all of us have experienced a corresponding increase in support for player-driven plots.
The problem is that the staff have been doing this for years, and they're adept at influencing the world with an invisible hand. As the computer-god-galaxy from Futurama said, "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."
If I seem less than verbose, it's because we had a discussion about this sort of thing not a few months ago; I'll be linking and quoting heavily.
Quote from: Semper on March 03, 2011, 10:54:56 AM
From this, what I wanted to focus on in this thread was the perceived difficulty and resulting stagnation that players seem to have when playing the game. There are a couple major factors that contribute to this, being:
The perceived restrictiveness of current policies on players and the general impact (positive or negative) these policies have on the game. As wizturbo noted:
==> * No new clans or organizations can be officially formed.
It is bandied about a lot, but it isn't really (http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,35095.msg580310.html#msg580310) true.
Quote from: Nyr, several weeks agoThis has (more or less) always meant "no new clans," and if there was a review between the original post in 2004 and the quoted post referring to an earlier post in 2008, it doesn't really matter at this point in time. We've created some occasional new clans to fill gaps, and closed some occasional clans due to them either not fitting in the game world or to open room for another clan. There were no city-elf clans that were accessible to all manner of mundane PCs; we added two of those (thanks to Shaloonsh). The Council was created and dissolved with IC actions. The "expansion division" (awesome though it was) was created and dissolved IC and wasn't its own clan, it was within another clan. The Atrium was created before this, and is "closed" now because it's, ah, closed. The Haruch Kemad was something something IC. Halflings were something something IC. House Nenyuk is closed for OOC reasons.
Feel free to make new clans, but there's no guarantee that we'll support it with coded stuff or a forum (and more than likely, we probably will not).
Quote
* Slave roles are no longer available. If enslaved, the PC is force stored even if they'd like to play out the role.
Unless there's a call for a sponsored slave role, yes.
Quote
* Some cool organizations are gone. [possible imbalance in representation of IG organizations as a result]
Some cool organizations are here. What is the point to this one?
Quote
* Every sponsored role (and nearly every clan) seems to be mundane only. To the point that I don't even find myself wondering OOCly if any sponsered PC's are secretly anything but mundane. A feeling I often had in the old days and miss greatly.
I don't know that this is altogether true, but...I also don't know what sort of response could be expected on this; it's just a nostalgic opinion.
Quote
* The overall 'rank' that PC's can attain seems to be artificially capped, so ascension to things like senior templar, senior merchant house, or noble positions don't seem possible any longer.
==> Individually, I'm sure each had good reasons why the staff put the policies in place (or through certain decisions, it's turned out in the perceived manner) but as a whole, I'd argue that it makes for an almost suffocating environment to play in. Sure, there are plenty of things that players can do despite these, but perhaps we can figure out a way to decrease the amount of hard-set restrictions in favor of more general (yet effective) policies that can take the constraining feel out of them.
Discussed
here and
later in that same thread a few months ago; what more do you wish to bring to the table? For reference, here's the major points I made then:
Quote from: Nyr on October 15, 2010, 10:10:52 AM
A starter PC isn't going to become a noble unless there's a Grey Hunt. A starter PC isn't ever going to become a templar. A PC can try to hamstring an entire city-state. PCs have done this before. A PC could start as a templar or noble and work their way up. A PC could start as a GMH family member and work their way up. There's a point of diminishing returns, when promoting someone past a certain point means an excessive amount of staff work that we will not engage in (instead of providing assistance or fleshing out the world around that PC, we'd end up having to have a countering force of equal rank attempting to thwart their PCs, so that the rest of the gameworld is represented) and an excessive amount of changes to playing style that most players wouldn't subject themselves to (GMH Heads aren't scary if they show up at the Retreat every day to drink with their buddies). At that point, we usually will engage in dialogue with the player about storage and their PC turning NPC/vNPC as part of the clan. This has been done several times.
Quote from: Nyr on October 15, 2010, 02:09:24 PM
Quote from: Riev on October 15, 2010, 01:49:54 PM
Quote from: Nyr on October 15, 2010, 10:10:52 AM
A PC could start as a templar or noble and work their way up. A PC could start as a GMH family member and work their way up.
I was wondering if you could provide possible examples of how a Templar or a Noble can work their way up, now that it has been decided that High Templars and Red Robes are not something to be played by PCs, due to the rarity that regular plays would see or interact with these roles? I'm not disagreeing with any particular point or trying to be caustic (though apparently every sentence I type is taken as such) but I would really like to know where a noble could go, in Tuluk. Where would a really long lived, influential templar in Allanak go? If there is no vertical ascension, it must be sideways, but what is the same level as a templar? Another templar?
Not all templars are equal, nor are all nobles. There are lateral opportunities/commendations/rewards/awards for all sponsored roles that don't necessarily mean a promotion to the next level. Each noble house has factions inside it; each templarate organization has various duties--and even in GMHs, there are always things to do. Take your pick.
Quote from: Nyr on October 15, 2010, 04:08:32 PM
Quote from: Kryos on October 15, 2010, 03:21:11 PM
As for limits on PC status, my response is, let the PCs accomplish what the PC accomplishes. If the PC in game recruits a horde and has PC wielded power to accomplish goals and change the world, shouldn't the staff be excited to help them, rather then feel obligated to remove them for the sake of ease?
We let them accomplish what they accomplish. We don't prevent PCs from recruiting a horde (in the case of sponsored roles, they do have a cap on direct hirelings, but that's for game balance). We don't prevent PCs from accumulating social/political power and wielding it. We don't prevent PCs from accomplishing goals and changing the world. Experience has taught us that past a certain point, there are diminishing returns in rank. Higher ranks shouldn't be seen often. In many cases, they affect so much that they may as well be staff members. Due to the constraints on the PC and notedly volunteer staff, we do what we can to facilitate the needs of people without having them at those higher ranks. We're excited to help people accomplish goals, though--just not so excited to be obligated (not feel, be--it's a definite obligation) to do things and react to things at the whim of a PC rather than to assist them.
Quote
If someone does enough to threaten a city
This is unrelated. We won't store someone for being a badass sorcerer/defiler/whatever, or a bender of unspeakable power, or for being a Thrain Ironsword.
Quote
rise to the top of their order/house/whatever, its "good on them" not, "better make you an NPC" if you want the game to be truly player driven.
That's a hypothetical you nor I could prove or disprove. Experience has taught us that your scenario--tried several times--does not work, not for staff, nor for the representation of the gameworld. We have more to think about than the pleasure of the players that get leadership roles--we have the gameworld and the experience in mind. We've made the decision--and not lightly--to look at other alternatives so that PCs aren't pigeonholed into roles that limit and restrict their own RP (and so that staff aren't stuck following behind that person with a dustpan and broom, ready to pick up the pieces).
Go. Do. Be. Discussing the finer points of staff policy and how this prevents you from going, doing, and being...this is cathartic. However, understand that you (the collective you, those of you that take issue with any staff policy in regards to this or related issues) are pointing out problems you have with the extreme cases that are usually never achieved.
Quote
The difficulty of getting large-scale plots up and running, and maintaining them as PCs.
==> Another factor that I believe has been contributing to a general constrictive feel has been the difficulty of getting larger plots started, or the relative lack of broad, world-spanning plots that PCs can jump into. I know for certain there are many active plots that effect the game world currently, but they don't seem to tie in with each other (and the world) in a way, and if they do appear to tie into the broader spectrum, they seem almost forced. I think this has a large part to do with the current player-driven focus in plots (rather than a staff-driven one). It's already been argued that the player-driven focus has certainly been better in various ways to the previous staff-driven focus, but I still think that there is room for improvement in how it is handled by staff. Without a general overview and the lack of input from on high, the plots that start from the ground up are almost impossible to converge with a general theme. A result of the shift in focus has been a web of plots with no center or context with the broader picture. And if leaders want to try tie everything together into plots that fit, it's nearly impossible without having the knowledge that is accessible to staff.
So what do you suggest? What is your beef here? I don't get it, I'm sorry.
Quote
==> I'll conclude with this one example. In both Allanak and Tuluk, there's been some major shifts in the environment since the player-driven HRPT that spawned it. In the aftermath, it's generated a lot of plots, and a lot of things have happened to affect the game since then. Yet, as much as players are involved in these plots, the higher ups (Muk Utep and Tektolnes, Black Robes, High Templars, and overall House reactions) seem desperately lacking. What kinds of reactions are they having, what kinds of decisions are being made in Senate meetings, what kind of reactions are city-states having to famine?
They're having those reactions. How would you like these reactions manifested? What are you suggesting?
Quote
All these questions have to be considered when a leader PC wants to decide which plot to focus on, but due to the relative lack of power/influence that they have (PC Nobles and Templars start from the bottom of their House/Templarate, as well as merchant family members) and the lack of scope, what plots they do wish to start seem almost forced, and so minuscule in effect compared with the kinds of reactions that would REALLY be happening. It's like a stone being expected to create a wave on a lake. Sure it'll make a splash, and smaller ripples, but without guidance from a more powerful source (a boat's motor, let's say) there's only so much that stones (even together) can do to a lake.
If you feel that way, then you feel that way. I'd disagree that sponsored leaders are as weak as you say they are, or even player leaders that grow into the role.
Thanks for the reply so soon, Nyr. Don't get me wrong, I wanted (and even asked) for staff input. I think getting some more player input might clear up some of the concerns that I had though. If I'm the only one that hold these views, so much the better that I learn and understand that after reading what the other players have to say. I know not everyone will agree, and people will have different views depending on what perspective they're coming from. For example, I know many newer players and those not often in leader roles [and even those currently in those roles] may not have the same views as I do presently.
I'll hope to reply and elaborate a bit more on the points you've made. I think the mix-up was my lack of detail in explaining the points written. It's not so much the specifics I mention that I wanted to focus on, but the broader picture.
The examples I used might be made clearer when I mentioned this:
QuoteIndividually, I'm sure each had good reasons why the staff put the policies in place (or through certain decisions, it's turned out in the perceived manner) but as a whole, I'd argue that it makes for an almost suffocating environment to play in. Sure, there are plenty of things that players can do despite these, but perhaps we can figure out a way to decrease the amount of hard-set restrictions in favor of more general (yet effective) policies that can take the constraining feel out of them.
I'm not saying these policies should be removed, but I think something could be done to loosen some of the restraints placed on players while still maintaining the theme of why the policies were made in the first place, allowing players to work with it in a way that will allow the greatest enjoyment for players considering the work staff has to put in to the effort. Maybe this is just a personal hope? If neither staff nor player feels similarly, you can disregard this part this from the post.
Quote from: NyrSo what do you suggest? What is your beef here? I don't get it, I'm sorry.
Quote==> I'll conclude with this one example. In both Allanak and Tuluk, there's been some major shifts in the environment since the player-driven HRPT that spawned it. In the aftermath, it's generated a lot of plots, and a lot of things have happened to affect the game since then. Yet, as much as players are involved in these plots, the higher ups (Muk Utep and Tektolnes, Black Robes, High Templars, and overall House reactions) seem desperately lacking. What kinds of reactions are they having, what kinds of decisions are being made in Senate meetings, what kind of reactions are city-states having to famine?
They're having those reactions. How would you like these reactions manifested? What are you suggesting?
That's the thing. How do PCs know what those reactions are, and what are the visible manifestations of that in the city/game? Two farms have been destroyed, has there been a Senate meeting in Allanak that discussed what to do about it? What does the Templarate/Nobility feel about a new mountain spawned next to the city, and have they done anything about it?
How does the PCs fit into those larger schemes? The reactions might trickle down from on high, but from what I've seen, nothing of the sort has happened. I might also include the situation in Tuluk or other parts of the world, but I don't have enough IG knowledge to make a relevant point on those.
Quote from: Semper on March 03, 2011, 12:29:02 PM
I'm not saying these policies should be removed, but I think something could be done to loosen some of the restraints placed on players while still maintaining the theme of why the policies were made in the first place, allowing players to work with it in a way that will allow the greatest enjoyment for players considering the work staff has to put in to the effort. Maybe this is just a personal hope? If neither staff nor player feels similarly, you can disregard part this from the post.
A majority of players do not come close to this at all, though. When they get there they
can approach staff about what to do.
Quote
That's the thing. How do PCs know what those reactions are, and what are the visible manifestations of that in the city/game? Two farms have been destroyed, has there been a Senate meeting in Allanak that discussed what to do about it? What does the Templarate/Nobility feel about a new mountain spawned next to the city, and have they done anything about it? How does the PCs fit into those larger schemes? The reactions might trickle down from on high, but from what I've seen, nothing of the sort has happened. I might also include the situation in Tuluk or other parts of the world, but I don't have enough IG knowledge to make a relevant point on those.
Should all reactions be available to all PCs without them asking for it? A lot of rumors are posted on the IC boards, and not all of them are posted by players. Should every PC know about a Senate meeting? Sure, the Senate keeps meeting virtually, so if you are curious and it is pertinent to your own role, why not ask? It is possible, though, that the Senate doesn't give a rat's ass because they're selfish and insulated from calamity, like politicians from real life. Why not ask the templarate or nobility in-game? You can at least ask the PCs. You can put in a request. You can wish up for an animation if it's pertinent to the situation. As for how PCs fit into these larger schemes, ask
yourself that question if it applies to you, and then work with it. It's the same thing I do with my own characters now. If stuff affects my PC, my PC has an opinion on it and will act if necessary, pestering whomever to get goals accomplished (if I've set goals) or to destroy someone else's plans (if they have them and I want to do so). Whatever role you have, your reactions to the world are important, for they can set off other reactions.
For an Allanaki commoner in the period right after the gith war: How does this affect me? Well, I hate gith now for what they did to my city. I want to go train up to hunt down the rest of those bastards. I also think it's a good opportunity to flex some muscle and start an indie information-gathering empire--there's a lot of turmoil and I think in the confusion I can probably make some good deals.
For a Tuluki noble right after the occupation began: How does this affect me? Dirty fucking southerners, all of them. I'll get some people gathered around me to do my bidding and then I'll have them silently kill a few occupation aides--not leaders, you know, because that would be obvious. Go for the throat of the second-in-command. Also, my ass chafes in this sandcloth, I'd love some silks. I'll have someone steal some for me.
Quote from: Nyr on March 03, 2011, 11:33:07 AM
If I seem less than verbose, it's because we had a discussion about this sort of thing not a few months ago; I'll be linking and quoting heavily.
(Lots of linking and stuff to follow)
When I posted that list my intention was not to discuss each bullet point. It was more along the lines of creating data points for a graph to show a trend of restrictive policy changes. These restrictive policies were put in place with the best intentions, but I'm not sure they're playing to the strength of a MUD environment, nor are they fostering a fun and creative atmosphere for players.
As an example (and this is just an example, I don't really want to debate it as a separate topic):
"...an excessive amount of changes to playing style that most players wouldn't subject themselves to (GMH Heads aren't scary if they show up at the Retreat every day to drink with their buddies). At that point, we usually will engage in dialogue with the player about storage and their PC turning NPC/vNPC as part of the clan. This has been done several times."
The policy change was obviously made with the best intentions. Few would argue that having a senior noble sitting around at the Red's drinking with their buddies is appropriate. But at the same time, by making them an NPC/vNPC you've eliminated the existence of such people from the game world (i.e. we never see Red Robes or Senior Nobles anymore), and taking the carrot away from leaders to be ambitious and try and become one. Some of the terminology players OOCly use to describe eras within the game world "the Amos days..." are pointing to senior templar and nobles roles, there's probably a reason for that.
To me, this is just one example of how putting even a perfectly reasonable restriction in place is also taking away some of the awe and energy from the game. With enough changes like this, stacked up together, I think the atmosphere of Armageddon is adversely affected.
I'm pretty happy with the current set of policies. The only one I'd like to see changed is the slave role restrictions. I think I'd make a pretty good slave.
The problem is PC slaves kept running away or storing, right? It was making too much work for staff, and people were doing stupid stuff with their slaves. In the old days, I had one character that was enslaved. After it happened, I carried on for about three or four more weeks, and then I got bored. The character ended with about fifty days played total, and maybe five of those as a slave. I feel bad about it in retrospect, because it wasn't long after that the slave restrictions came along. From that experience I can say that being enslaved is a huge life changing experience for a PC, and it makes perfect sense that a PC not born into slavery is likely to make a run for it, especially if they are a person accustomed to making their own rules and going where they wish. Also, there never were many slaves around to begin with, and so I think a lot of players are not sure how their commoner ought to treat the slave PC. Basically, I think my character got treated by almost everyone as an unskilled labor slave when in fact they were nothing of the sort.
Maybe it would work if the players of appropriate PCs were allowed to recruit slave roles on the Player Announcements forum? Maybe they'd have to put in a request to recruit a slave first? If done this way, we can be sure that the player of the slave is keen on trying to role, and also the PC can be crafted as a slave from birth so that they are properly indoctrinated into their role in society, and so there would not be a good IC reason to make a run for it.
The problem with any voluntary polling is that you're not usually going to get the view of the middle, you're usually only going to get responses that are on one end of the spectrum or the other (totally dissatisfied or totally satisfied, and willing to tell you why.)
I'm pretty happy with the current set of staff policies, but I really wasn't until recently. Most of the past couple months, I have been having a very positive experience in the game. I will share some things that have helped me get there, from the moderately negative attitude I had about nine months to a year ago.
- I started focusing on the things I can do and want to do, rather than the things I can't do but want to do anyway.
- I started being really open and truthful in my communication with staff. I started telling them if something was bothering me about my character's situation and why. This went against the advice of some GDB feelings and some of the people I was OOCly talking to about nonspecific stuff at the time when I was dissatisfied. They said doing this would lead to being perceived as a whiner, being disfavored, having staff know about what you're trying to do and working against you, etc etc. I have found this to be exactly the opposite of true.
- In terms of anything plotty I wanted to do, I made sure the staff knew about it far, far in advance, and tried not to get butthurt if they told me that my idea wasn't feasible given the current IC or OOC environment. I stopped letting myself get really vested in ideas and concepts that I personally thought were really cool BEFORE getting them approved, and switched the excitement/planning stage to AFTER an idea had been approved.
- I started being realistic about my expectations of both 1) the amount of work I need to put in to get anything reflected in the game world, and 2) the amount of work staff would have to put in to support what I want to have reflected in the game world, and started adjusting my expectations of what is really feasible accordingly.
- I cut off most OOC communication with most people except for chatting with some people from time to time about non-Armageddon related things. ZOMG there's a lot of negative energy out there just waiting to upset your chi if you let it. For every negative perspective I got on something, I tried to separate the opinion from the facts, and look at the facts objectively. Usually this led me to believe that stuff in these stories must be getting left out. I compared this to how people operate when telling stories in the real world and realized that basing my perspective off of just one side of someone's story is stupid.
- I started thinking more realistically about the game world and about what my PC would know. Who is she, that she would know what the higher ups in society and in the game world are thinking? Is one person really going to be able to overturn X system that has been in places for ### years? How important is my Jane PC anyway? Adjusted expectations accordingly.
- I decided to treat the staff like rational people deserving of the benefit of the doubt on the policies. I realized that rational people don't usually make policies for no good reason. I remembered that the staff has access to a lot more information about stuff going on both with players and in the game world that I don't. Then I went back to my first point.
I wholly agree with valeria, and all of her points are fantastic. A number of them are how I've been handling myself in game for a while now, and I absolutely love it.
That said, I have one major qualm with the current policies, and it's the only actual problem that I really have with the game. Everything else I can get behind, I can understand, and even if I don't like it, I understand just how and why those policies are in effect. But in short...
Forced storage sucks.
In 99.9% of cases, there's a more or interesting solution to a PC being forcibly stored. There're a handful of reasons that, as I understand it, will cause a PC to get forcibly stored.
Inactivity.
I understand that when someone's in a position of leadership and they go AWOL for 3 weeks, someone needs to be brought in that is more active. It sucks for whoever's playing the PC, but forcibly storing them without giving them the option to later unstore is a just bad juju, and breeds resentment. Can I think of any solution to this kind of issue that's not as effective? No.
Being Enslaved.
If a player is enslaved, I believe they should have a choice. If they find the slavery to be entirely too boring to them, then let them store, just like anyone would do if they joined Clan XYZ with no people in it at their time of play and grew bored, or if they had a magicker they were playing that they just lost interest in. The players themselves - both enslaver and slave - should understand the consequences of doing so, and that a slave PC will likely have a lot of downtime and boredom. If one noble PC owns a slave and is inattentive to them, unable to provide even some basic interaction, their superiors should have them sell it to another PC who -could- take care of such. Barring all that, a 'slave area' such as the Allanaki mines or the cotton fields of Tuluk, with the addition of a bunkhouse and some basic supplies, would make a great place for slave PCs to be left to their own devices amongst one another. (read: interaction)
Getting "Too Powerful"
I understand that ever notch higher on the totem pole a PC climbs, it creates more of a workload for the staff to cater to them. My question is: why? In most cases, if a player is playing an Agent due for advancement to Senior Agent, they've done plenty to earn it both ICly and OOCly -- and in such a situation, they should know precisely what kind of plots and works they should be pursuing, and what kind they shouldn't.
In the past, it's my understanding that Senior Agents, High/Red Templars, superpowerful IC Something magickers/defilers and the like have been stored because one, there's no real counterbalance to them in the game, and two, it's hard for the staff to find reasons to decline their movements/plots/ideas/etc.
For number one: good. They're powerful. That's how Armageddon is--it's harsh. A noble's orders taking forever because he pissed off the now-head of the Southern Branch of Kadius back when she was just a junior merchant reeks of Armageddon to me. A High Jihaen Templar taking issue with your lowly elf and picking on them incessantly, behind closed doors, is entirely Armageddon to me. A Red Robe pitting his two Blue Robe underlings against one another in tasks is just about as Armageddon as it comes.
For number two: Most players who get into those positions of power should be adult and mature enough to understand that staff holds the final say. They should be able to stomach the staff replying in an email, "No, you can't settle a new merchant colony deep in the Canyons of Waste, despite having the authority, power, and resources to do so, because it's a lot of work for no real return on our part, and would only further split the playerbase." Or, "no, a new tavern in Tuluk is not something your High Templar should fund, because we as staff don't think it's a very good idea to introduce." And if all else fails, and they still pursue? Just set it up for failure. That's more fun than being told no or being stored long before you get to that point.
Gross Ignorance of the Docs.
Tuluki nobles boffing commoners. Kadians going into the 'Rinth regularly without very good reasoning. Militia PCs killing off NPCs because of their crimcode immunity. There's a better solution than force-storage: kill them. Kill them with their NPC bosses. Hire PCs to kill them. Get rumours out about how they died. Force-storage is so inconclusive and lame. Death is satisfying and closes that door forever.
Inactivity storage -- we do ask first, usually. We can't kill a leader PC who doesn't log in (and won't). If they're not playing, they're not playing, so we can't wait on them forever to reply to our questioning before the storage does have to happen. Giving them the option to later unstore? That's between them and their staff. I don't support anything to make that a policy; it is a case-by-case sort of thing as it is now.
Slavery policy -- It's been debated by staff and not lightly. It may not be perfect the way it is, but it is what it is, for now. I can understand why some people would want it, though.
Getting too powerful -- Yeah, the upward mobility at the extreme end (read: long-lived and decent characters) of some sponsored roles is a suck, and we realize that, but the alternative is also a suck. Both of your points about how we could deal with this situation point to "just let it happen," and we've done that before...that's how we got here. I don't think we've force-stored super-powerful IC something-or-others, at least not for that reason.
Gross ignorance of the docs -- I have stored Tuluki nobles for boffing commoners. The very specific situation in question was such that it was definitely appropriate to do that, not just for IC reasons but for OOC reasons. Inconclusive and lame, sure, I'll buy that. However, I wouldn't store a Kadian going off to the 'rinth. I wouldn't think I'd store a militia PC killing NPCs. Dealing with some things IC seems appropriate. Dealing with others is not. I would not support anything to make this a policy; a lot of it is case-by-case determination.
Over the past year, the forced storages we've done have been few and far between.
Quote from: Nyr on March 03, 2011, 03:32:47 PM
Inactivity storage -- we do ask first, usually.
I must have been outside that usually range.
Quote from: Nyr on March 03, 2011, 03:32:47 PM
Giving them the option to later unstore? That's between them and their staff.
Interesting!
Quote from: Jdr on March 03, 2011, 04:03:07 PM
Quote from: Nyr on March 03, 2011, 03:32:47 PM
Inactivity storage -- we do ask first, usually.
I must have been outside that usually range.
Quote from: Nyr on March 03, 2011, 03:32:47 PM
Giving them the option to later unstore? That's between them and their staff.
Interesting!
Yes, your situation was outside of that "usually" range as indicated by the e-mail sent at the time.
I don't really like to "get in the muck" these days on the GDB but I politely wanted to offer some suggestions because plotlines (to me) are the most engaging/addicting/entertaining part of the game and then I'll step away again.
1) Suggestion - Incubate
Give plotlines a chance to develop. Don't focus heavily on PK, take your licks, and play out your character. Make skills inconsequential and level them up as opportunities come, which they will. I'm not saying skills are unimportant, I'm just saying get in there and RP, be your character and the skills will come. Don't worry about the grind. I am the sort that I'd rather have an interesting and engaging character than live forever. Should your character try to survive? Undoubtedly, but don't be afraid to get in there and start plotlines. Roleplay out your character's weaknesses and don't be afraid to engage other players. Instead of looking at someone and saying to yourself oh that's a breed or a gemmed, I shouldn't talk to them, don't just ignore them interact. Take the opportunity to turn your nose up or find someone way to make a profit off of them. Exploit other's to your advantage socially and politically. I encourage everyone to put combat on the back burner, because I assure you - you do not have to have combat abilities to do something extremely harsh, memorable or badass.
2) Gross Ignorance of the Documentation
As far as the ignorance of the documentation I will concede that lately I have seen an upswing of this as well as some manipulation of the game codedly. I am pretty sure that is because we have seen an increase of new players while many senior players have drifted off. I encourage everyone to read the documentation and don't think of things in terms of can I do this codedly? Think: how can I do this realistically, and how can I use the code to convey the realism. I know it's cliche but be the change you want to see. Send people kudos when you feel they've done something right to encourage them to keep it up. I have been playing almost six years now, and I only just recently would consider myself not a newbie. The learning curve on this game is steep. Likewise, if you truly feel a character is doing something that isn't legit you can always send a complaint. If some one makes an errant IG decision make them pay for it IG. Again though, incubate and if you make them pay - execute that payback right if you can.
One thing I would like to take the time to say is: Please use proper capitalization and punctuation in your emotes. There is nothing more immersion breaking then seeing someone type up what they are doing or saying like they're in a chatroom. I'm not saying you have to have perfect spelling or even use conventional grammar to convey what you're saying but please at least capitalize and punctuate your sentences.
3) Leadership
I have said this before and I will say this again - please do not take a leadership position if you are not on regularly. Breaks are understandable, I am talking the majority of the time. Even a poor leader, that tries and is on regularly is better than no leader at all. Leaders are very important to maintain plots and the flow of the game by giving people employment and interaction options. I have seen a lack of IG leadership in game right now, and I think it is contributing to the stagnation of plotlines. Even if it's just a Kadian being available to buy a gift for a friend, or a Salarri to get a job from a or a Byn Sergeant to hire a bunch of folks and have their unit fill up a tavern on a Detal, a good leader is so important in encouraging others to log in and begin engaging one another. I know the IMMs have had a bunch of ads out there lately for PC leaders which is why I am directing this to the players and not the IMMs. Get out there and engage one another. Also, don't be afraid to play a leader with their own set of weaknesses. Being a leader does not mean you have to be flawless. A good leader to me is just active and willing to engage others.
4) Imms Running Plots
As far as IMMs running plots I love this too but they really can't be expected to do city changing events every week and month. I love Imm interaction myself but you have to also remember that sometimes people do not actually want this. What they really mean is - hey staff - run MY plots. And then when they don't get just what they want out of the interaction they get pissy and accuse them of vandalizing their situation. (I used to be among these ranks unfortunately.) However, I have come to enjoy utter lack of control in my character and random events, even unfortunate ones because I think it's important to appreciate that part of the game. Part of life is not having control over all circumstances, the same way you have random encounters in D and D. While some people enjoy some encounters others rage about them. Really everything can not be expected out of the IMMs which is why I really encourage people to be the change they want to see and try to rely on the IMMs as little as possible. When you take personal accountability and creative license over your IG situation amazing things can happen.
5) Slavery
Slavery is really not that big of a deal. The IMMs have said that requests for slaves can still be made by Houses apparently and honestly, if you can enslave someone you can force store them because you could have killed them if you had the ability to confine them to slavery. Slavery doesn't mean go be a sexy aide, go be a slave could mean go chip rocks all day. Obviously, there's no way that the IMMs can turn a character over to NPC or VNPCs which is why storage comes into play. There is a reason for this and honestly, I don't mind the rule at all. Slavery really shouldn't be THAT big of a portion of all RP honestly, and it actually saves your characters from just being randomly enslaved here and there by higher up PCs that could just enslave people on a whim. I remember when Borsail could take out groups and actually go out and enslave people in the desert. Oh, bam you're enslaved. And of course that would leave two options, keep someone confined which is basically like storing them cause they have to be locked up, or oh yeah letting them roam the city, at that point I'm sure if they don't want to be enslaved they won't just leave. ::) My very first character was guilty of this. An elf grabs me, drags me to Tuluk and sells me. What do I do? Walk back to Nak. There were a lot of practicality issues with the whole set up and I really don't think it's that big of a deal and haven't really been effected by the changes at all. There weren't a lot of slaves before anyway.
Anyway, that's my piece. *bow*
If slavers go out and catch a random guy in the desert and try to make him a slave, he is not going to be a slave fit to be trusted to walk alone in the city and still come home at night. It makes IC sense for the enslaved character to try to run, and the player may not be interested in playing such a restricted role. So, this should still be tantamount to PK, and slavers should recognize it as such. In these cases, the character should still be force-stored, and it is explained as the character lives out their life in bonds, probably with a whip to make them behave.
But how about making slave roles more easy to come by? These PCs could be slaves from birth, and they could be trusted similarly to a lifesworn servant (perhaps moreso, due to their indoctrination), but their social standing would be different. Plenty of players can stick with playing a lifesworn servant for a period of time. I know I have.
We could even write up a list of slave roleplay expectations, and people who want to play a slave will be expected to read and obey it. It could be said that slaves believe in their lot in life just as strongly as the nobles believe in theirs.
The only thing i really delved into here was the emphasis on PC's reaching a cap. I never liked that idea. A templar wants to go for black robe? Well shit. Do it. precentor? Fuck yeah. Glass ceilings are a turn off in the end.
Nobody in the game gets too powerful. (Okay that might be, questionable.)
But for the most part, nobody is above a good assassination. If you have an influential character that moves shit, press on. I never got sad or irritated if an e-mail said "Nah we're not... down with that." You move on and compromise or go back to the drawing board for plots. My feeling is, if you can have 8 karma characters just juicing up in the wastelands, and coming into the city-states when they're pissed and whacking off a lower-level templar or noble, there is no reason the latter two cannot be high ranking and influential.
Somebody said recently that higher level interactions seem to be severely lacking. I would agree, in a sense. The game isn't 'dull' because of it, but its a huge angle of the political RP I feel like someone just kind of sweeped under the rug. I miss seeing PC nobles and the like with some serious juice.
Disclaimer: Not beefing :P Just adding my two sids.
Honestly, I think I would feel pretty accomplished if my PC attained such a high rank that staff decided I should store. You must have accomplished something pretty sick.
That sounds like a great goal!
QuoteThe only thing i really delved into here was the emphasis on PC's reaching a cap. I never liked that idea. A templar wants to go for black robe? Well shit. Do it. precentor? Fuck yeah. Glass ceilings are a turn off in the end.
I so completely agree with this. There shouldn't realistically be an end to how high a pc can rise in their organization if a higher position exists that is realistically attainable. Stopping their rise for no reason other than to prevent a pc from rising to a higher position to me seems to be a good way to kill the drive of a motivated player.
I feel grateful we had the discussion last fall about plots. I am ok with "no," but far more OK when I feel like my thoughts have at least been entertained.
OK, warning, I'm getting out my whip and that dead horse will be beaten.
I don't care if the staff comes up with plots, or picks up player plots, but the big overarching stories with attendant HRPTs, death, carnage, and fireworks a couple times a year are still on my wish list.
I get that I've gotten the answer. I'm not complaining, just lobbying.
editted...grumpy.
I am okay with not rising in rank so long as everyone else PC-wise stays the same rank too (as in, they suffer the same limitations). However, it seems to be staff inclination (in my experience) to ignore the good you do and tear you a new asshole for the bad.
I think having someone like me playing a black-robe would be absolutely disastrous for the game.
Quote from: Synthesis on March 04, 2011, 02:54:45 PM
I think having someone like me playing a black-robe would be absolutely disastrous for the game.
Seconded.
Probably wouldn't be much fun for the black robe's player either. A black robe really wouldn't be able to do ANYTHING without live staff support, save perhaps meet with underlings (red robes).
I mean, seriously, how the heck do you envision things working with them? Supreme Lord Walik the Black strolls into the Gaj to see what's going on? Goes out riding with the PC militia for a larf? Meets with Junior Merchant Jilla Kadius to buy silk toilet paper? Stops for a game of Giant's Fist on the way back?
The day Tektolnes got SO WASTED on spice and booze and decided to promote Lord Templar Amos Jal to the Black, because he's a really cool guy, y'know?
If I were a Black robe I would do research to make icy pops (honey-flavored, cactus-flavored, japuaar flavored) and then become a city hero.
From the south, a male voice shouts, "Give it up for the new Giant's Fist champion of Allanak: Lord Templar Walik the Black!"
"With a throw of... err... how many cords away is Tuluk?"
Quote from: Marauder Moe on March 04, 2011, 03:11:29 PM
Probably wouldn't be much fun for the black robe's player either. A black robe really wouldn't be able to do ANYTHING without live staff support, save perhaps meet with underlings (red robes).
I mean, seriously, how the heck do you envision things working with them? Supreme Lord Walik the Black strolls into the Gaj to see what's going on? Goes out riding with the PC militia for a larf? Meets with Junior Merchant Jilla Kadius to buy silk toilet paper? Stops for a game of Giant's Fist on the way back?
Hah, i get the idea, hence the prospect of a role like that, we'll take a black robe in this instance, would require different RP. Not an ass load of staff interactions, but a lot of tolerance for solo RP. High level meetings with high class people, plotting your reds to make your blue robes squabble and get shit done. Keeping four fingers around the noble throats. It wouldn't be awful. Writing, reading, research. A lot of paths to go on.
Quote from: Aruven on March 04, 2011, 05:35:18 PM
Quote from: Marauder Moe on March 04, 2011, 03:11:29 PM
Probably wouldn't be much fun for the black robe's player either. A black robe really wouldn't be able to do ANYTHING without live staff support, save perhaps meet with underlings (red robes).
I mean, seriously, how the heck do you envision things working with them? Supreme Lord Walik the Black strolls into the Gaj to see what's going on? Goes out riding with the PC militia for a larf? Meets with Junior Merchant Jilla Kadius to buy silk toilet paper? Stops for a game of Giant's Fist on the way back?
Hah, i get the idea, hence the prospect of a role like that, we'll take a black robe in this instance, would require different RP. Not an ass load of staff interactions, but a lot of tolerance for solo RP. High level meetings with high class people, plotting your reds to make your blue robes squabble and get shit done. Keeping four fingers around the noble throats. It wouldn't be awful. Writing, reading, research. A lot of paths to go on.
Maybe let the player use some of the staff tools? They'd pretty much become part of the staff if they ever got that high...
Quote from: Aruven on March 04, 2011, 05:35:18 PM
Quote from: Marauder Moe on March 04, 2011, 03:11:29 PM
Probably wouldn't be much fun for the black robe's player either. A black robe really wouldn't be able to do ANYTHING without live staff support, save perhaps meet with underlings (red robes).
I mean, seriously, how the heck do you envision things working with them? Supreme Lord Walik the Black strolls into the Gaj to see what's going on? Goes out riding with the PC militia for a larf? Meets with Junior Merchant Jilla Kadius to buy silk toilet paper? Stops for a game of Giant's Fist on the way back?
Hah, i get the idea, hence the prospect of a role like that, we'll take a black robe in this instance, would require different RP. Not an ass load of staff interactions, but a lot of tolerance for solo RP. High level meetings with high class people, plotting your reds to make your blue robes squabble and get shit done. Keeping four fingers around the noble throats. It wouldn't be awful. Writing, reading, research. A lot of paths to go on.
High level meetings with what high class people? What blues and reds do you mean? What noble throats?
Yes, it would be awful. Everyone you expect to interact with in your hypothetical scenario is an npc of vnpc.
Quote from: Nyr on March 04, 2011, 06:17:17 PM
Quote from: Aruven on March 04, 2011, 05:35:18 PM
Quote from: Marauder Moe on March 04, 2011, 03:11:29 PM
Probably wouldn't be much fun for the black robe's player either. A black robe really wouldn't be able to do ANYTHING without live staff support, save perhaps meet with underlings (red robes).
I mean, seriously, how the heck do you envision things working with them? Supreme Lord Walik the Black strolls into the Gaj to see what's going on? Goes out riding with the PC militia for a larf? Meets with Junior Merchant Jilla Kadius to buy silk toilet paper? Stops for a game of Giant's Fist on the way back?
Hah, i get the idea, hence the prospect of a role like that, we'll take a black robe in this instance, would require different RP. Not an ass load of staff interactions, but a lot of tolerance for solo RP. High level meetings with high class people, plotting your reds to make your blue robes squabble and get shit done. Keeping four fingers around the noble throats. It wouldn't be awful. Writing, reading, research. A lot of paths to go on.
High level meetings with what high class people? What blues and reds do you mean? What noble throats?
Yes, it would be awful. Everyone you expect to interact with in your hypothetical scenario is an npc of vnpc.
Hmm. I wasn't meaning to come off like special app a black robe. i was trying to point out that a higher level can be done, like a red. Nobles that roleplayed senators would be cool too. I've -seen- it, but not in a long, long time.
The higher levels you refer to would not interact regularly with anything but other higher level folks and occasionally their subordinates. Blue robes are subordinate to reds. Senior nobles are subordinate to senators.
"Control vast aspects of Allanak! Interact with no one! Become an Allanaki senator!"
If you want to do that just apply for a staff position.
I know I'm preaching to the choir but I like posting :). For realism purposes, the playerbase has to be a pyramid with an incredibly wide base and an incredibly thin top, power wise, and that "top" from a PC standpoint today may equal one red robe templar, at the maximum. Its just the spread. If we ever get to 250 players logging in at once on a regular basis, I could see it viable for more higher level roles being opened, as the lower ends would be covered and there would be enough "more interesting" stuff that higher ups would have to deal with.
We won't get more players, though, because whenever someone new complains about something we tell them to piss off, newb.
To be fair, they can be pretty annoying with their gripes, but is antagonizing them really necessary? We all go through our little bitch-fits and get over it after a character death.
QuoteNo new clans or organizations can be officially formed.
Nyr Comments (http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,40747.msg587442.html#msg587442)
Yes, there have been new clans and they're pretty cool. But that's staff related, and player-related is something very different. The player-created clan and subclan that you mentioned both had boards. I think that boards and places really show staff love. I'm not saying that every random player should be able to make a boarded clan and if it did ever happen it should be very hard and rarely occur. I would like to have the possibility, however. If an unofficial clan can bring things to the game, provide interaction, enrich play and has been able to keep itself established for a significant amount of time then I think it would be nice to have just even the possibility of being a real clan. I think the requirements for this should be very steep, and very hard, and it should rarely, rarely happen... But I think the potential of it happening is awesome.
QuoteSlave roles are no longer available. If enslaved, the PC is force stored even if they'd like to play out the role.
I'm just curious how long you can be a slave before you get stored. IE, can you have a couple of RL days to plot escape and potentially go out trying to escape?
QuoteEvery sponsored role (and nearly every clan) seems to be mundane only. To the point that I don't even find myself wondering OOCly if any sponsered PC's are secretly anything but mundane. A feeling I often had in the old days and miss greatly.
Nyr Comments (http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,40747.msg587442.html#msg587442)
I don't care so much about sponsored roles not being magickers. It's the "nearly every clan" bit that bothers me. I don't know what's currently going on, but some more leadership from those that work with magickers (gemmed) or some under-the-table hiring might be neat, if it's not already happening. Maybe it is, and if it is, that's awesome. Rock on.
QuoteThe overall 'rank' that PC's can attain seems to be artifically capped, so ascension to things like senior templar, senior merchant house, or noble positions don't seem possible any longer.
Nyr Comments (http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,40747.msg587442.html#msg587442)
Right off the bat I'm just going to say that I'm a little under informed in this area. However, I think that more awards, or awards handed out more often would be cool. What about ranks that weren't as powerful/stepped up as they are now? Something that recognizes an older successful PC with a rank designation without making it so they have to be incredibly rare or overpowered. I think that would be neat.
I've never read that all sponsored roles MUST be mundane. I mean sure, there's been a couple, but there's never been some official written rule that says 'You are not allowed to be transmundane' for every single sponsored app. They tend to specifically comment that they want a mundane character only, which means there's no written rule.
Edited: Also, a few years back I felt pretty damn special for being in not particularly important roles like sergeant. Maybe it was the players, maybe it was the staff. All I know is, for whatever reason today's middleman leadership roles feel like they have lost their lustre.
Going back to the org. post -- maybe more time and energy should be invested in "making ripples"?
Take a look at micro-lending. Micro lending does work -- an investment of twenty-five or a hundred dollars can change lives! However, the circumstances must be right: if applied to multi-million dollar companies or included in communities with HUGE economies, loaning $25 or $200 dollars just won't make much impact.
And I kind of get the impression that in the game we have all these low, middle-management leadership PCs trying to impact things WAY too large for them. And there in lies the frustration: trying to make ripples in the ocean. Better, I think, for the truly powerful in the clans (and staff) to allow for some small shallow ponds, where middle-management level
PCs actually CAN make a difference.
The GMH shouldn't really be noticing if some low-level workers decide they need to rumble with another GMH low-level workers. The Templars of the city shouldn't really be bothered if some Private or lower-rank soldier wants to intimidate some other low-level citizen for coins to buy a drink. No one should really take notice of a petty thief or burglar who has no real criminal connections, just trying to eek out a living.
I just think if small, petty plots were giving the attention and backing some of the larger plots did, or at least allowed to exist w/o drawing attention, PCs would feel like they were more able to start and carry out a tiny little plot. Not everything has to be blown up and carried out to "World Changing" status, to be a successful plot.
Quote from: Nyr on March 03, 2011, 11:33:07 AM
This is unrelated. We won't store someone for being a badass sorcerer/defiler/whatever, or a bender of unspeakable power, or for being a Thrain Ironsword.
I've had a differing experience.
Just saying.
There are two policy decisions in particular that I don't entirely agree with:
The "glass ceiling": I can understand why the game doesn't need PC black-robes, Precentors, heads of Houses, and other people of extreme power and seclusion. I can also understand, to an extent, the desire to keep players away from lower promotions, like red-robe or mid-level senior positions - because if there's only one person in a certain group that deserves it, they will become more powerful than the others that don't yet. What I don't understand is why it was allowed in the past, and why it was taken away after it was seemingly successful.
Veteran players may remember - and remember well - characters like Samos, Serilla, Elithan, etc. who were all promoted just one step up from where they started, and still seemed to contribute greatly to goings-on while maintaining their position well ICly. Perhaps players of those long-gone characters could chime in on their own experiences. While rewards for characters that deserve them are great, it seems that they are not given out often, if at all. I would wager that this is one of the reasons why some people, likely Achiever-types, in long-lived sponsored roles store - because after a point there are less places to go, less things to do, and it feels more and more like they're not being noticed for what they are managing to do.
When it gets to the point where the players most qualified to play sponsored roles are also among the least interested, because there is more of a reward in playing "normal" roles, it becomes a problem that seems really hard to fix. Right now I wouldn't say it is so bad, but I think steps could be taken to prevent roles from seeming unappealing. Rewards are a good start; giving out more responsibilities, more things to be able to do, is good too, maybe even better.
PC Slavery: I know it's been beaten to death in the past; I just wish a solution was found besides the one we currently have. It doesn't currently make sense to request that the enslaved store their PC, because then it comes off as a punishment on the enslaved, rather than the slaver technically taking advantage of the rule. I thought it might be a good idea to make all PCs that start out free, and become enslaved, to be able to earn their freedom eventually. Make it so that players of slavers are reprimanded (at the least) if they don't give players of the enslaved terms that they could achieve to gain their freedom once more, and give it relatively little staff oversight. I imagine all it would take is the staff member being informed of the terms, and remembering in some way to check back every once in a while to see if the terms have been met. It would add a minimal amount of burden to clan staff.
Or in more general terms, put requirements on the slaver, rather than the enslaved.
Quote from: musashi on March 06, 2011, 10:38:10 AM
Quote from: Nyr on March 03, 2011, 11:33:07 AM
This is unrelated. We won't store someone for being a badass sorcerer/defiler/whatever, or a bender of unspeakable power, or for being a Thrain Ironsword.
I've had a differing experience.
Just saying.
Yes. Your experience was very different due to your roleplayed situation, and you should be quite aware of that as well. Any scenario in which your character is forced to make hard choices due to the way you have roleplayed/used code in the past won't necessarily end with a result you want.
Quote from: Taven on March 05, 2011, 11:16:35 PMI think the requirements for this should be very steep, and very hard, and it should rarely, rarely happen...
That is the case already.
Quote
QuoteSlave roles are no longer available. If enslaved, the PC is force stored even if they'd like to play out the role.
I'm just curious how long you can be a slave before you get stored. IE, can you have a couple of RL days to plot escape and potentially go out trying to escape?
Talk it out with the relevant staff at the time.
Quote
QuoteThe overall 'rank' that PC's can attain seems to be artifically capped, so ascension to things like senior templar, senior merchant house, or noble positions don't seem possible any longer.
Nyr Comments (http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,40747.msg587442.html#msg587442)
Right off the bat I'm just going to say that I'm a little under informed in this area. However, I think that more awards, or awards handed out more often would be cool. What about ranks that weren't as powerful/stepped up as they are now? Something that recognizes an older successful PC with a rank designation without making it so they have to be incredibly rare or overpowered. I think that would be neat.
Yes, this is exactly what I was talking about.
Going off of what Cutthroat said:
Glass Ceiling: I think if not an IC promotion, than an OOC one.
Either something akin to a "horizontal promotion" where the PC is given a 'special' title and task (more power in their own plot, more power over their subordinate PCs)
OR
Pick one or two clans which play centers around higher-level PCs.
As for slavery:
One: slavery belongs in game! Having only employees simply helps to confuse the "Capitalistic" vibe the game gives off (Capitalism meaning Wealth over Blood).
Two, what Cutthroat suggested is actually historically true. Often, in accent societies, slavery would be a temporary thing: even the Bible suggests the master must free the slave after 7 years! Or, the slave can choose to become life-long.
All we'd really need to do is to tweek the Docs: squeeze in a slave which functions more like an indentured servant. Could we possibly start a slavery thread in the player collaboration for like a month? Then present a good, logical, Zan-based idea to Staff?
What's the point of taking a slave if you're going to let them eventually be free anyway? I don't see what the appeal to play a slave is for people, except for the one or two clearly special slaves I've played with (and one I -owned-) in the past. Sure, it can be interesting, but your average slave's life is the complete opposite of interesting.
As to the glass ceiling thing, I've always just viewed it as an endgame sort of thing for my PCs. There's just some things the game can't properly simulate. I knew that Byn lieutenant was as high as one of my characters was going to get, but it didn't stop him from actively moving towards a second promotion to captain. I just knew that if he ever swung it, that meant my PC got the equivalent of a happy ending. Really, the reward is being able to play a powerful character at all. Sponsored roles enable their player to immediately jump in and Do Fun Shit. That is an extremely cool aspect of these roles. If I ever ran out of Fun Stuff, I would store, and happily. Let someone else take up the reins and have their chance. So many of us are easy-going about hitting a wall with our "normal" characters, finding the mantis head and moving on. Why should it be any different for sponsored roles? They're there to fill out that lower-part-of-the-uppercrust aspect of the game (in many cases), and to make the setting functional. If your character "graduates", let go: you've just won Armageddon. And I'm going to guess that getting to that point was extremely fun, too.
And, I'm probably going to catch some hate for this, but I just have to say it: am I the -only- one who ever felt weird about being in daily contact with a red robe templar?
Quote from: Nyr on March 06, 2011, 11:29:00 AM
Yes. Your experience was very different due to your roleplayed situation, and you should be quite aware of that as well. Any scenario in which your character is forced to make hard choices due to the way you have roleplayed/used code in the past won't necessarily end with a result you want.
I feel like the subtext of that could be taken to believe you're insinuating that I was either ignoring documentation (ie RP'ing poorly), or abusing code. That's probably not your intent, granted, but just for the sake of clarity, I want to point out that we both know neither of those was the case.
When I say I've had a differing experience, I'm just saying that based on personal experience, staff will in fact, force store you if your sorcerer/defiler/whatever gets too "badass".
It would appear that one does not have to be in a clan for staff to decide that they are becoming something too powerful to remain in everyday play.
Quote from: Cutthroat on March 06, 2011, 11:19:44 AM
There are two policy decisions in particular that I don't entirely agree with:
The "glass ceiling": I can understand why the game doesn't need PC black-robes, Precentors, heads of Houses, and other people of extreme power and seclusion. I can also understand, to an extent, the desire to keep players away from lower promotions, like red-robe or mid-level senior positions - because if there's only one person in a certain group that deserves it, they will become more powerful than the others that don't yet. What I don't understand is why it was allowed in the past, and why it was taken away after it was seemingly successful.
Veteran players may remember - and remember well - characters like Samos, Serilla, Elithan, etc. who were all promoted just one step up from where they started, and still seemed to contribute greatly to goings-on while maintaining their position well ICly. Perhaps players of those long-gone characters could chime in on their own experiences. While rewards for characters that deserve them are great, it seems that they are not given out often, if at all. I would wager that this is one of the reasons why some people, likely Achiever-types, in long-lived sponsored roles store - because after a point there are less places to go, less things to do, and it feels more and more like they're not being noticed for what they are managing to do.
Veteran staffers remember them well and did not have problems with the players.
That one-step-up promotion surely doesn't work in Allanak. I've reviewed several e-mails between staff and the player of Samos as well as other players where even the player OF the Red Robe is saying that there are plenty of OOC and even IC misunderstandings about the vast gulf between the average person (even Privates) and the role of a Red Robe. I'll reiterate once more: it doesn't work. Could we make another fake rank between Blue Robe and Red Robe? Maybe. Could we do what we already do, and provide lateral promotions/moves/etc like I've mentioned before? Yep.
The one-step-up promotion barely worked in Tuluk, for similar reasons.
Quote from: musashi on March 06, 2011, 11:47:48 AM
Quote from: Nyr on March 06, 2011, 11:29:00 AM
Yes. Your experience was very different due to your roleplayed situation, and you should be quite aware of that as well. Any scenario in which your character is forced to make hard choices due to the way you have roleplayed/used code in the past won't necessarily end with a result you want.
I feel like the subtext of that could be taken to believe you're insinuating that I was either ignoring documentation (ie RP'ing poorly), or abusing code. That's probably not your intent, granted, but just for the sake of clarity, I want to point out that we both know neither of those was the case.
When I say I've had a differing experience, I'm just saying that based on personal experience, staff will in fact, force store you if your sorcerer/defiler/whatever gets too "badass".
It would appear that one does not have to be in a clan for staff to decide that they are becoming something too powerful to remain in everyday play.
That is not what I was saying. Your roleplay was fine. The roleplay of your character, however, did not match your character's actual coded pursuits. We animated the gameworld and communicated with you to create a plot around that discrepancy. You took it as a personal offense. I see you still take it as one, and that is unfortunate.
I did, yes, and I still think it was handled poorly overall, at least in the way it was conveyed to me as a player, but that's all water under the bridge at this point.
I'm not posting with a sense of animosity. My point is just to say that given what you said here:
Quote from: Nyr on March 03, 2011, 11:33:07 AM
This is unrelated. We won't store someone for being a badass sorcerer/defiler/whatever, or a bender of unspeakable power, or for being a Thrain Ironsword.
It struck me as slightly incorrect. Because it does seem related, at least from where I'm sitting; because a character can be stored for becoming a sorcerer/defiler/whatever of unspeakable power. They get told that their character is growing so strong that they are turning into [left out so as not to share IC info] ... and those aren't playable by PC's, just like red robes, senior nobles, ect.
I don't see the problem with that.
Just because your PC was a badass whatever doesn't mean your PC faced storage for that reason.
I don't see a problem with it either, insofar as to say that those things should not be being played by PC's anymore than black robes should.
All I'm saying is that the "this is unrelated" part of what Nyr said seems incorrect, because the glass ceiling does exist for badass, powerful whatever's as well. They will reach a point where staff will decide that by whatever reason or circumstance, they are so uber that they turn into a different kind of thing, and that thing cannot be played by players, so they're forced into storage.
Much like how a templar/noble getting getting too powerful in the political sense would become such a different kind of character that they couldn't be played by players, ending in the same result.
Does that make sense?
Quote from: Nyr on March 06, 2011, 11:56:47 AM
Quote from: Cutthroat on March 06, 2011, 11:19:44 AM
There are two policy decisions in particular that I don't entirely agree with:
The "glass ceiling": I can understand why the game doesn't need PC black-robes, Precentors, heads of Houses, and other people of extreme power and seclusion. I can also understand, to an extent, the desire to keep players away from lower promotions, like red-robe or mid-level senior positions - because if there's only one person in a certain group that deserves it, they will become more powerful than the others that don't yet. What I don't understand is why it was allowed in the past, and why it was taken away after it was seemingly successful.
Veteran players may remember - and remember well - characters like Samos, Serilla, Elithan, etc. who were all promoted just one step up from where they started, and still seemed to contribute greatly to goings-on while maintaining their position well ICly. Perhaps players of those long-gone characters could chime in on their own experiences. While rewards for characters that deserve them are great, it seems that they are not given out often, if at all. I would wager that this is one of the reasons why some people, likely Achiever-types, in long-lived sponsored roles store - because after a point there are less places to go, less things to do, and it feels more and more like they're not being noticed for what they are managing to do.
Veteran staffers remember them well and did not have problems with the players.
That one-step-up promotion surely doesn't work in Allanak. I've reviewed several e-mails between staff and the player of Samos as well as other players where even the player OF the Red Robe is saying that there are plenty of OOC and even IC misunderstandings about the vast gulf between the average person (even Privates) and the role of a Red Robe. I'll reiterate once more: it doesn't work. Could we make another fake rank between Blue Robe and Red Robe? Maybe. Could we do what we already do, and provide lateral promotions/moves/etc like I've mentioned before? Yep.
The one-step-up promotion barely worked in Tuluk, for similar reasons.
Thanks, Nyr. That bit about the separation between the rankings makes sense. I think what I'm trying to say is that
1) those lateral promotions don't seem to be done often enough to have the same rewarding effect as an upward promotion, and
2) it seems that there is only so much lateral movement one can do, that by the time a particular PC has "widened" as far as possible, there is little left to achieve.
Of course that's just my perception and it could be vastly different in practice, or could have been different during differing times. But my feeling is that if the game is solely going to focus upon allowing PCs to expand on their level without moving up, then staff need to let players and their PCs know what they achieve, when they achieve it, what else they could achieve, and especially let them know when there is nothing formal left to achieve.
Quote from: musashi on March 06, 2011, 12:21:21 PM
I don't see a problem with it either, insofar as to say that those things should not be being played by PC's anymore than black robes should.
All I'm saying is that the "this is unrelated" part of what Nyr said seems incorrect, because the glass ceiling does exist for badass, powerful whatever's as well. They get so uber that they turn into a different kind of thing, and that thing cannot be played by players, so they're forced into storage; just like a templar getting promoted too high would become such a different kind of character that they couldn't be played by players, and hence, would wind up in the same boat.
That make sense?
You're attributing a quote I made about something else to a different situation. I was parsing out a section from a full post here:
Quote from: Kryos on October 15, 2010, 03:21:11 PM
If someone does enough to threaten a city, rise to the top of their order/house/whatever, its "good on them" not, "better make you an NPC" if you want the game to be truly player driven.
If someone does enough to threaten a city, we won't push for storage for that reason. It is unrelated to that argument.
Ah, my mistake.
I was taking your statement to be in reference to the glass ceiling on PC power levels, being discussed in this thread.
I quoted several things I wrote from 4-5 months ago about something similar. Within the things I wrote, some were non sequitur. That was one of them, a side-note about people threatening cities.
It is possible that we'd force-store someone solely because they were a super-powered sorcerer, psionicist, or elementalist? I suppose saying "never" is silly because there are always caveats, and players do their best to point out places where we say "never" or "always." It's unlikely. I can't name a single case in the past 3-4 years where any of the above guilds were stored solely for that reason.
A brief check over past Red Robes shows that only one was a non-staffer. Same with Senators.
One thing i will definately agree with is thus:
Why are all the sponsored roles Mundane only? They should be more like " if you app with a non-mundane guild, you need to provide an extra paragraph of information. It will be very uncommon none mundanes will be selected"
I can sort of see the GMH needing mundanes, but seriusly, Nobles? These could work for any class, and a psychic or magicker noble concept would be cool. It would even add some extra blackmail skull and dagger to it.
Not to step on toes with a reply to that, but I assume that is because of the leg-up that sponsored roles already have politically to start out with. It was once this way and spiraled into "too many" sponsored roles being hidden nilazi/psionist bad asses. Nobles/GMH family already have a shitload of superior tools available to them.
Plus, nobles and GMH family members are put into the game specifically to employ people and start plots. We don't want to encourage them to shut themselves off from the world and spam-cast.
Quote from: Nyr on March 06, 2011, 01:33:55 PM
A brief check over past Red Robes shows that only one was a non-staffer. Same with Senators.
Yet not until there was a policy saying Red Robes are a no-fly-zone has anyone complained that the rank is unattainable and felt limited, despite only one non-staffer in nearly twenty years ever achieving the rank. The fact is this is a philosophical concern, not a practical one. People don't like to know that their PC's have a glass ceiling, whether they'll ever achieve these lofty ranks or not. It's the knowledge that their achievements are limited in scope that rubs people the wrong way. Take away the policy, let there be the possibility again, and no matter how difficult and challenging it is to attain it there will always be that carrot out there for Templar's that maybe
they would be the one to make it.
The same goes for every other unlikely scenario. A commoner becoming a Templar, why couldn't this be
possible no matter how unlikely? Using a RL example, technically any Catholic could become the Pope. It will never ever happen, and a cardinal will almost certainly be chosen, but the concept that it's technically
possible means something in itself.
On the up side, your pc doesn't know about the limitation. You can still -want- to be a senator icly. You can still work for it.
Quote from: Fredd on March 06, 2011, 01:58:07 PM
I can sort of see the GMH needing mundanes, but seriusly, Nobles? These could work for any class, and a psychic or magicker noble concept would be cool. It would even add some extra blackmail skull and dagger to it.
There are a few IC reasons as to why this is somewhat unlikely as well.
Quote from: Barzalene on March 06, 2011, 03:36:18 PM
On the up side, your pc doesn't know about the limitation. You can still -want- to be a senator icly. You can still work for it.
On the downside, it's rather dull to work at something you know will never happen for a lot of people. Seeing their actions matter is a -huge- draw for people.
We never said a commoner could not become a Templar. We also have not laid out where exactly the glass ceilings are. There are some roles that are still achievable, some are not. The glass ceiling is the term players have given it. I prefer to think of it as plexiglass, yes there is something of a cap in place, it does have flex. If a situation arose that allowed for a promotion, and someone was in place to take it, it might bend.
Quote from: Nyr on October 15, 2010, 10:10:52 AM
A starter PC isn't going to become a noble unless there's a Grey Hunt. A starter PC isn't ever going to become a templar. A PC can try to hamstring an entire city-state. PCs have done this before. A PC could start as a templar or noble and work their way up. A PC could start as a GMH family member and work their way up.
I think this is where that notion came from Adhira.
Nyr lies then :) Well he doesn't lie, it's probably true that one will never become a Templar, but they can try, and it may happen. It's not written in stone.
Quote from: Adhira on March 06, 2011, 04:30:30 PM
We never said a commoner could not become a Templar. We also have not laid out where exactly the glass ceilings are. There are some roles that are still achievable, some are not. The glass ceiling is the term players have given it. I prefer to think of it as plexiglass, yes there is something of a cap in place, it does have flex. If a situation arose that allowed for a promotion, and someone was in place to take it, it might bend.
It -might- bend. And what exactly would this "might bend" be determined by? I have a problem with this as it also helps to create issues between players and staff possibly ending with disgruntled players or irritable staffers.
"It bends for this guy but not for this guy, huh must be some favoritism going on."
It shouldn't "might bend" for some and not for others, it should either be attainable by -anyone- in that situation or it should not be attainable for anyone.
There shouldn't be the chance that there will be two pcs in the same position to rise above this "plexiglass ceiling" one played by one person, another by a different person and one is allowed to break through where the other is not.
Ok... good point. Let's go back to it being inflexible then. Until such a time we say it is not.
Quote from: jhunter on March 06, 2011, 04:41:14 PM
... it should either be attainable by -anyone- in that situation or it should not be attainable for anyone. ...
I don't think you're ever going to have two PCs in exactly the same situation.
But even with that consideration aside, the entire game is run based on staff discretion. Staff is always going to have to make tough choices about whether it makes sense in the game world for something to happen or not, probably based on all the information they have access to that we don't. They especially when it comes to the more powerful roles, or else we wouldn't even have or need role calls.
I cant, for the life of me, see how a commoner could become a noble.
Quote from: Fredd on March 06, 2011, 06:17:29 PM
I cant, for the life of me, see how a commoner could become a noble.
Grey hunt in Tuluk would be known to any Tuluki. You win you're a Hlum, the back-of-the-bus nobility.
I'm sure if you use your imagination and watch Gattaca you could think of other ways too.
Quote from: wizturbo on March 06, 2011, 03:19:33 PM
Yet not until there was a policy saying Red Robes are a no-fly-zone has anyone complained that the rank is unattainable and felt limited, despite only one non-staffer in nearly twenty years ever achieving the rank. The fact is this is a philosophical concern, not a practical one. People don't like to know that their PC's have a glass ceiling, whether they'll ever achieve these lofty ranks or not. It's the knowledge that their achievements are limited in scope that rubs people the wrong way. Take away the policy, let there be the possibility again, and no matter how difficult and challenging it is to attain it there will always be that carrot out there for Templar's that maybe they would be the one to make it.
So it's not that there
is a glass ceiling--it's that you
know there's a glass ceiling? Because of this kind of argument, this is not the first time that I've wondered whether it's a better policy for us to just not announce anything in the way of policy and just keep everything staff-side. You can't be unhappy about staff policies if you don't know what they are, after all...
Quote from: Marc on March 06, 2011, 06:19:24 PM
Quote from: Fredd on March 06, 2011, 06:17:29 PM
I cant, for the life of me, see how a commoner could become a noble.
Grey hunt in Tuluk would be known to any Tuluki. You win you're a Hlum, the back-of-the-bus nobility.
I'm sure if you use your imagination and watch Gattaca you could think of other ways too.
Well, i knew about Hlum. But they wouldn't be made into a Templar.
Gattaca you say? I shall watch this for charie concepts.
Quote from: Fredd on March 06, 2011, 06:17:29 PM
I cant, for the life of me, see how a commoner could become a noble.
Besides the Grey Hunt to rise to nobility, there isn't really any documented way to change castes (besides entering the slave caste). In fact more things in the documentation point to the idea that most people will stay within their caste. Of course the staff will say "a commoner could become a templar" but the general rule seems to be "if your PC earns X, your PC gets X". So logically, if your PC manages to earn entry into the templarate then they will get it. The question of how a commoner would go about it is something you'd have to figure out while playing, and the question of probability has already been answered for you.
Since lateral promotions seem to be the most likely it's probably a good idea for the discussion to focus on that aspect.
Quote from: Nyr on March 06, 2011, 06:20:33 PM
Quote from: wizturbo on March 06, 2011, 03:19:33 PM
Yet not until there was a policy saying Red Robes are a no-fly-zone has anyone complained that the rank is unattainable and felt limited, despite only one non-staffer in nearly twenty years ever achieving the rank. The fact is this is a philosophical concern, not a practical one. People don't like to know that their PC's have a glass ceiling, whether they'll ever achieve these lofty ranks or not. It's the knowledge that their achievements are limited in scope that rubs people the wrong way. Take away the policy, let there be the possibility again, and no matter how difficult and challenging it is to attain it there will always be that carrot out there for Templar's that maybe they would be the one to make it.
So it's not that there is a glass ceiling--it's that you know there's a glass ceiling? Because of this kind of argument, this is not the first time that I've wondered whether it's a better policy for us to just not announce anything in the way of policy and just keep everything staff-side. You can't be unhappy about staff policies if you don't know what they are, after all...
This. So long as ANYTHING is possible ANY character concept can be played and played to the hilt. It's probably true you can do the same while knowing certain things are not possible, I think it is easier to suspend belief and work towards something when you, the player, believes it possible.
And I think Adhira -IS- saying anything is possible if the circumstances are right. So long as we, the players, never get a response like "That's a cool idea to build your fast food restaurant on Caravan, but I dont think this is the right time for the player base" but instead "Yep, go for it!" and then have everything fail miserably to some In-game party, whether it be templars, elves, weather, dragonfire.
People will try and fail, which is so much better than never trying at all.
Caveat: We, the players, need to stop 'needing' tangible results at every step. It is SOOOOOOOOOO nice to see progress (a description change on a construction project or an npc because we trained a goat), but it's just not gonna be possible in every case. Set your goals as things that can be accomplished without staff. You want to raise an army of dwarves to take over Allanak? Start with the PC population, then stockpiling war supplies or whatever. Dont jump right to getting order'able unit mobs loaded and dont take failure as a personal insult.
Much of this thread I have not really agreed with the posters, on both sides.
I don't see gaining rank as all that important and it seems to me it is not impossible, just much harder then it has been in the past.
You all know I do not agree with the no slaves rule, but as others have said, that has been beat to death anyway.
But one thing I think should be worked on is how staff helps or hinders plot advancement. Often I see staff doing things under the guise of making the world act in a realistic manner but using unrealistic happenings.
And sadly the players, at that point have no recourse and usually will give up.
I have seen, and or been involved in several of them, where the players will work on something for real life months, interacting with staff, supplying logs etc. And yes, staff will put roadblocks in place, this is fine as long as they make sense then the players go on for more real life months of work but then, a setback that makes no sense at all, at that point they go, Meh, fuck it, staff does not want this to happen.
I am not sure how to fix that perception other then maybe staff thinking the roadblock through more or even going, hey, these guys have done everything and passed all the reasonable blocks, let us just let it get done.
And before anybody reads too much into this post, I am not talking about any of my PCs personal advancement quests, all of them got just as hard as I expected them to. :)
What he said.
That, and more. But I can't express more for several reasons, only one (and probably the least) of which is that some of the details are too currently IC for an explanation to make any sense.
Quote from: jhunter on March 06, 2011, 04:41:14 PM
It shouldn't "might bend" for some and not for others, it should either be attainable by -anyone- in that situation or it should not be attainable for anyone.
I completely disagree with this. The game has a karma system and account notes for a reason. If a player has shown themselves to be a problem, they should not be given certain roles where they could become abusive. This applies to special apps, sponsered roles, karma guilds...I don't see why it shouldn't apply for positions attainable through IC actions.
Quote from: Nyr on March 06, 2011, 06:20:33 PM
So it's not that there is a glass ceiling--it's that you know there's a glass ceiling? Because of this kind of argument, this is not the first time that I've wondered whether it's a better policy for us to just not announce anything in the way of policy and just keep everything staff-side. You can't be unhappy about staff policies if you don't know what they are, after all...
Strangely...yes...that's what I mean Nyr. The beauty of not telling the players internal policies is that you can also change them regularly without any hoopla surrounding it. No announcements are required, no whining on the forums about the change, no expectations are altered. You can even 'bend' them on a case by case basis as well, if certain conditions make that worth while.
< Derail that I meant to post elsewhere. >
God damnit, I so knew Malenthis was an avatar. :-\
The idea that something is impossible, or that advancement can only go so far, or that we'll be force-stored for any reason, is a huge turn-off for players. Marauder Moe brings up an excellent point however, that it would be extremely boring as a top tier leadership position. Though I believe these positions should still be achievable, if rarely so, it should be just as rare for these positions to be force-stored. Isn't it enough already that slaves are now automatically stored?
I used to love playing leader positions but stopped altogether a while ago, because I felt like I was being "blocked" at every turn. It can't just be a coincidence that other players seem to be feeling this same sort of conflict when it comes to leadership positions, and from what it sounds like, this isn't anything new. Should leadership positions be more strictly structured so that leaders know exactly what they can or can't achieve? Should leadership positions be more flexible, to allow less "roadblocks" and more creation (or destruction) via working with staff?
I don't think there's an overall solution that will fix this. It simply seems like the way the game is structured, not every position can be plausibly played. Not everything can be achieved, or created, or destructed without some kind of major staff involvement. This said, the more boundaries are put in place, the more players will try to break them down. Simply put, the players of Armageddon want to have the idea that anything we imagine is possible, and that we can change the world, even if just a little.
Similar thread on this topic...
http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,37062.0.html (http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,37062.0.html)
Quote from: wizturbo on March 06, 2011, 07:46:11 PM
Quote from: jhunter on March 06, 2011, 04:41:14 PM
It shouldn't "might bend" for some and not for others, it should either be attainable by -anyone- in that situation or it should not be attainable for anyone.
I completely disagree with this. The game has a karma system and account notes for a reason. If a player has shown themselves to be a problem, they should not be given certain roles where they could become abusive. This applies to special apps, sponsered roles, karma guilds...I don't see why it shouldn't apply for positions attainable through IC actions.
If they're abusing anything or not playing realistically then their character likely wouldn't be in a position for advancement anyway so that point is moot. My point is, they shouldn't be able to go: "I like this person and their style so I'll let things bend for them." or "No real reason they shouldn't be able to but, it's up to me and I really don't care for this person so I'm not gonna bend on it and I'll opt to keep the "ceiling" in place. The staff are not flawless superbeings. They're human and as such are just as prone to abuse their power and make unfair, biased decisions when it comes to such things regarding players.
I'm not speaking of a particlar situation where I have been denied advancement in such situations but merely pointing out the problems that leaving a "flexible ceiling" that's completely up to the staffer at the time can cause.
I say, to prevent such things, have a known cap set for everyone in regards to advancement, or have no such cap exist for anyone.
I have my doubts about whether most players are creative and/or interesting and/or knowledgeable enough to be running amok creating world-changing plots and running world-changing characters in the world I enjoy playing in. Not that I don't enjoy playing with you...I just don't trust you.
Quote
If they're abusing anything or not playing realistically then their character likely wouldn't be in a position for advancement anyway so that point is moot. My point is, they shouldn't be able to go: "I like this person and their style so I'll let things bend for them." or "No real reason they shouldn't be able to but, it's up to me and I really don't care for this person so I'm not gonna bend on it and I'll opt to keep the "ceiling" in place. The staff are not flawless superbeings. They're human and as such are just as prone to abuse their power and make unfair, biased decisions when it comes to such things regarding players.
This was not what I was saying at all. I said if the situation arose that we could support it, then it may be considered. I did not say: if I like the person and feel like promoting them. We try very hard to make sure that our bias does not play a part and in fact that is why we have in place the current policy of playing things at the lower level.
Right, that is understandable, Adhira.
Looking from the position of a player, it looks a lot like favoritism.
Quote from: Sam on March 07, 2011, 01:09:43 PM
Right, that is understandable, Adhira.
Looking from the position of a player, it looks a lot like favoritism.
Yeah, that's what I'm saying. I wasn't saying that's what exactly is going on. I was saying from the player's perspective it -could- be and that causes problems.
Forced storage? That's new, why not just uh, be traditional and kill the PC?
I feel confused when the topic of "if you get to x level of power (Templar/Noble aside) you get stored" comes into play. As the Defiler/Sorcerer bit comes into play, I guess what I want to know is, if the character is played strictly to their biography, are they going to get stored when that last magickal skill hits "master" level, or are/will there be some extenuating circumstance that forces it because the player did something -really- bad that they shouldn't have done?
Meaning, is it level of power that forces storage, or a major break in the character that isn't supported ICly?
As I understand it, staff might, for whatever reason, make a plot for the player that results in their character being forced stored for whatever justification they feel like giving.
So I think it's more than there are extenuating circumstances, but they don't have to be that the player did anything wrong. It happens when staff decides it's going to happen.
I'd prefer a staffers input.
Then post in ask the staff.
Quote from: musashi on March 10, 2011, 08:43:23 AM
As I understand it, staff might, for whatever reason, make a plot for the player that results in their character being forced stored for whatever justification they feel like giving.
So I think it's more than there are extenuating circumstances, but they don't have to be that the player did anything wrong. It happens when staff decides it's going to happen.
You understand it improperly.
This is why I would like some clarification on the issue, because I'm seeing too much... debate on the matter, I guess?
Quote from: Nyr on March 10, 2011, 09:02:21 AM
You understand it improperly.
Feel free to clarify. Or not. *shrug*
Quote from: Saellyn on March 10, 2011, 09:06:24 AM
This is why I would like some clarification on the issue, because I'm seeing too much... debate on the matter, I guess?
Only one player is suggesting otherwise because they do not like how it turned out for them. I'm not going to go full-on-Vanth on this one, but I am tired of seeing this harped about, so here's the deal.
If a player (for whatever reason) decides that they want to play a role in which they practice the abilities of their elementalist daily, yet at the same time, they roleplay such that they do not want to have said elemental powers (daily), at some point, it is possible that the gameworld may force your character to make a decision one way or another due to the cognitive dissonance involved as well as greater factors involving the element in question. I won't get more particular than that because of stuff not ever player needs to know about except to discover IC, but the situation itself
is about a year old. It's one thing if the player is playing a role strictly to their biography, quite another if they were codedly doing one thing and roleplaying something else--and over a long period of time, at that.
edit to add: it's about a year old, not over a year old, oops. close though.
Oh. Thanks. So it basically -is- extenuating circumstances that are relatively exclusive to a certain person.
Quote from: Saellyn on March 10, 2011, 09:16:15 AM
Oh. Thanks. So it basically -is- extenuating circumstances that are relatively exclusive to a certain person.
It
was a unique situation that I've not seen before, so yes, that's most likely accurate.
I meant that as a general catch-all "Staff will store your uberpowerful char if/when something ridiculous comes up".
Quote from: Nyr on March 10, 2011, 09:13:20 AM
Only one player is suggesting otherwise because they do not like how it turned out for them. I'm not going to go full-on-Vanth on this one, but I am tired of seeing this harped about, so here's the deal.
Perhaps you're not aware Nyr, but I'm not the only person to have had a character forced stored for an extenuating circumstance that seemed a little dodgy from a player's perspective. To date 4 other people have PM'd me to express similar experiences. Obviously I'm not going to name them because if they wanted that known they'd post for themselves.
I'm sure all of our milage varies. I'm sure we all had unique circumstances. But the one common denominator was that our PC's had been around for a bit, had become fairly powerful, and then been railroaded into storage.
I can't speak to anyone's experience save my own, but since you brought it up, let me add a few things to your explanation so you can see how it looks from the other person's perspective.
If a player (for whatever reason) decides that they want to play a role in which they practice the abilities of their elementalist daily, yet at the same time, they roleplay such that they do not want to have said elemental powers (daily), at some point, it is possible that the gameworld may
force you into storage without the option of a choice to be made, rather than forcing you to make a choice. And it will do this in spite of the fact that your reasoning and justification for the duality was meticulously detailed in the frequent character updates that you sent in, although you received no feedback about any of it save for when you were informed of the now inevitable end of the line. I won't get more particular than that because of stuff not every player needs to know about except to discover IC, but the situation itself
is about a year old. It's one thing if the player is playing a role strictly to their biography, quite another if they were
playing a role strictly to their biography and also in reaction to IC events and they keep staff in the loop about it all via emails and further biography updates.But in any case, ok. Staff will not store your character simply for being codedly powerful. I'll take your word for it.
EDIT to add: Make that 6 players aside from me. This post apparently got the attention of two more.
Okay.
Quote from: musashi on March 10, 2011, 10:02:50 AM
Quote from: Nyr on March 10, 2011, 09:13:20 AM
Only one player is suggesting otherwise because they do not like how it turned out for them. I'm not going to go full-on-Vanth on this one, but I am tired of seeing this harped about, so here's the deal.
Perhaps you're not aware Nyr, but I'm not the only person to have had a character forced stored for an extenuating circumstance that seemed a little dodgy from a player's perspective. To date 4 other people have PM'd me to express similar experiences. Obviously I'm not going to name them because if they wanted that known they'd post for themselves.
Send in a request containing each one, and I'll show you the story you're missing behind each one. I'll post it publicly here if it is deemed old enough. They can chime in here if they'd like, too.
Quote
I'm sure all of our milage varies. I'm sure we all had unique circumstances. But the one common denominator was that our PC's had been around for a bit, had become fairly powerful, and then been railroaded into storage.
Pretty much untrue and baseless, but a very convenient argument when you can't post the details here, no?
Quote from: musashi on March 10, 2011, 10:02:50 AM
I can't speak to anyone's experience save my own, but since you brought it up, let me add a few things to your explanation so you can see how it looks from the other person's perspective.
You can't even speak to your
own experience without bitterness or with any objectivity.
You brought up the situation, not me. You have had this chip on your shoulder for almost a year. I'm sorry you've taken it personally, but there's nothing else to discuss about it. It's documented objectively how I put it, and we went over this about a year ago.
You
did have a few options open to you as we brought the world to life around you; forced storage was
not the only one available. As one of your immediate responses to us being involved was for you to max out a new spell in a few hours, we
did make a determination that it would be more difficult for you to proceed in a manner that would be to your immediate liking (i.e., not death, or not storage). In the end, you didn't even get force-stored, you suicided your PC, which was understandable given the events at the time. It was a tragic scenario and overall, great roleplay--for the whole. What brought up the virtual response? Your roleplay and your coded pursuits did not match each other, and the virtual world reacted accordingly. This doesn't mean you roleplayed badly, it just means that there were greater consequences to your actions than you expected. I'm sorry you disagree with how the virtual world reacted, but it's not exactly your place to determine that.
I can't even come up with a slightly analogous scenario for this because of how specific your situation was. You were hardly railroaded, though; you had choices.
... So in the situation he was RPing one thing but codedly doing another thing, basically?
Roleplaying something diametrically opposite to coded skill pursuit, yes. Cognitive dissonance is fine in many roles; roleplaying it is very difficult. In some very specific instances, this can get you into weird situations in the virtual world.
Finally, musashi, this was resolved in a staff complaint about 10 months ago. You stated your opinions then. I already knew how you felt about the matter before you detailed your post that pretty much restated that complaint. Other staffers have been and were involved in the whole situation from start to finish. I see you still don't agree with the situation, and probably won't ever agree that this was appropriate. At some point, you'll need to let go. Recognize that sometimes, your character will not have a happy ending. This is shown in three of the top four rules for the game.
Quote from: Nyr on March 10, 2011, 10:32:51 AM
Send in a request containing each one, and I'll show you the story you're missing behind each one. I'll post it publicly here if it is deemed old enough. They can chime in here if they'd like, too.
I'll ask them. If they say it's alright I'll put their name in a request and send it to you.
But you don't have to show me, personally, the story behind each one. I already told you I'll take your word for it that there were extenuating circumstances in every case. I wasn't being sarcastic when I wrote that. Seriously, I'm taking your word for it.
But the other people might appreciate it if you shared your side of things with them on their particular situation. Whether it's handled privately or if they want to throw it up on the GDB, that's between you and them; I just wanted to make you aware that I am not the only player, as you said.
Quote
I'm sure all of our milage varies. I'm sure we all had unique circumstances. But the one common denominator was that our PC's had been around for a bit, had become fairly powerful, and then been railroaded into storage.
Again, I'll take your word for it that it's correlation and not causation.
Quote
You can't even speak to your own experience without bitterness or with any objectivity. You brought up the situation, not me. You have had this chip on your shoulder for almost a year. I'm sorry you've taken it personally, but there's nothing else to discuss about it. It's documented objectively how I put it, and we went over this about a year ago.
Nyr, seriously ... I am not bitter. I apologized to you via email for the snarkier things that I said to/about you during our correspondence back when this was all fresh. I was frustrated and angry at the time. My bad. I'm not anymore.
Quote
You did have a few options open to you as we brought the world to life around you; forced storage was not the only one available.
To be fair, you did tell me up front that even if my character managed to get out of the situation alive and with the goal he wanted (ie not being a magicker anymore) that he was still going to be stored. The choices were: Become [IC thing I'll leave out] and store. Stop the transformation and become mundane and store, or suicide.
QuoteAs one of your immediate responses to us being involved was for you to max out a new spell in a few hours, we did make a determination that it would be more difficult for you to proceed in a manner that would be to your immediate liking (i.e., not death, or not storage).
It's not as if I immediately spamcast his new spell till it maxed out. He trained it via a daily schedule that staff knew about and gave the go ahead for.
It increased quickly because I was in between college semesters, with a lot of hours in a day to play.
Now that I think about it, that spell got taken back down from mon to wek by you when you had to fix something code-wise. I asked then if I was training it too fast. You told me not to worry about it.
Quote
In the end, you didn't even get force-stored, you suicided your PC, which was understandable given the events at the time.
I asked if I could suicide given the situation, and you told me that was alright, yes. But that's kind of a semantic point when the end result is the same.
QuoteIt was a tragic scenario and overall, great roleplay--for the whole. What brought up the virtual response? Your roleplay and your coded pursuits did not match each other, and the virtual world reacted accordingly. This doesn't mean you roleplayed badly, it just means that there were greater consequences to your actions than you expected. I'm sorry you disagree with how the virtual world reacted, but it's not exactly your place to determine that.
I can't even come up with a slightly analogous scenario for this because of how specific your situation was. You were hardly railroaded, though; you had choices.
It was a good run, and I enjoyed it despite getting upset at the end. I'm over it. Really.
The whole reason that we are even talking about this again, is because you said this was an incorrect understanding.
Quote from: musashi on March 10, 2011, 08:43:23 AM
As I understand it, staff might, for whatever reason, make a plot for the player that results in their character being forced stored for whatever justification they feel like giving.
So I think it's more than there are extenuating circumstances, but they don't have to be that the player did anything wrong. It happens when staff decides it's going to happen.
I was replying to this question
Quote from: Saellyn on March 10, 2011, 08:11:34 AM
I guess what I want to know is, if the character is played strictly to their biography, are they going to get stored when that last magickal skill hits "master" level, or are/will there be some extenuating circumstance that forces it because the player did something -really- bad that they shouldn't have done?
Meaning, is it level of power that forces storage, or a major break in the character that isn't supported ICly?
I was saying that it's neither A or B. Staff will not store you just for being powerful. But you also don't have to have done anything wrong either. It's an extenuating circumstances kind of thing that might result from a plot, and we don't get to decide how the virtual world reacts, so this kind of thing happens when staff decides it should happen. I mean isn't that ... basically what you just said?
You'll have to forgive me: usually, when people talk to me about situations in which they feel staff have wronged them in the past, they aren't bringing them back up because they have changed their mind over time on them, or have let things go, or have new perspective on the scenario, etc. I actually didn't read your e-mailed review of the situation until just now when you mentioned it (it was apparently sent earlier this week). We use the request tool for a lot more now so there's less of a need to check e-mails for direct e-mail contact. I appreciate the e-mail. So with all that said, I'm sorry for attributing your posts here to butthurt!
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSXax3Eo75u4ubHnWuTkRZYkAlRXeKqLQVBtJsV0SVE0O2vs6R5)
Everyone's happy again.
Quote from: musashi on March 10, 2011, 12:48:46 PM
Quote
I'm sure all of our milage varies. I'm sure we all had unique circumstances. But the one common denominator was that our PC's had been around for a bit, had become fairly powerful, and then been railroaded into storage.
Again, I'll take your word for it that it's correlation and not causation.
Your original assertion is false. The only correlation here is "if you play a character for a long time, they may be codedly/politically powerful," not "powerful characters get force-stored". The fact that you're airing out these anonymous people's dirty laundry on the GDB implies some belligerence. All of this could have been stated plainly enough through the request tool, and it wouldn't have led to any details of your magicking character being posted. Don't pull a Glen Beck-ish "I'm just asking questions" sort of thing on Nyr. I have no reason to doubt that you aren't actually butthurt over what happened, but the nature, wording and leaning of these posts are passive-aggressive.
It all smacks of this staff vs. players crap that gets my goat sometimes when I speak to other players. It's not some vast conspiracy. The staff administrate the game and try to maintain some semblance of gameworld integrity. Sometimes concepts and plotlines can't work out due to that. And that's not even going into rule-breakers and the like. (Er, this paragraph isn't directed at you, Musashi, just venting.)
I'd just like to say one thing regarding forced storage: When it happens, does it really dramatically improve the situation for the playerbase overall? Has the force stored person caused harm to the game in a way that could not be resolved in any other way?
To elaborate and to build on the core point I see in Musashi's posts - I also have the impression that it is possible to have a character force stored without really having done anything wrong. That is what players disagree with so strongly.
Lacking a better example, let's pick up the situation described in Nyr's and Musashi's posts. An elementalist becomes horribly codedly powerful despite their background describing opposite goals. Was any serious harm done to the game or to other players? Was the stored character causing a significant extra workload for staff? I don't need an answer on these, I'm just putting the questions out there. Maybe this was the case, but the reasons were not explained clearly enough to the force stored PC's player? I also had a PC force stored years ago and quit for a year+ afterwards because staff did not tell me the true reason why it had to happen - I was only told 'We can see you don't enjoy this role', which was not true. I did enjoy the role, though not so much the interactions with the PC superior above me. I would not have emoragequit for a year if I had known the true reason behind the storage - which made a lot of sense.
Unlike some other games, we have a mature and intelligent community here. I believe that any player would accept forced storage without resentment if they were told that their character's continued existence would have been a serious threat to the game overall, to staff time or to the fun of uninvolved (not contributing to the problematic behavior) players. If none of these are true, then I don't understand why forced storage is ever necessary.
Zoltan ... if you ever compare me to Glenn Beck again ... I will come to your house. And I will cut you. >:(
Nyr, thanks.
If there was some passive-aggressive leanings in there as Zoltan suggested, it was probably because in the back of my head I was going "... What the f&#k is this dude's problem? I mailed him a few days ago about this!" Knowing you hadn't read it, yeah ... I can see why you jumped on me.
As for sending in a request with the names of the other folks. I'll PM them and tell them if they want to talk about it with you they should drop you a request and reference this thread as the reason. Or they can just post here if they're following it. Edit: Actually maybe not ... since that might stretch out the already somewhat looooong derail. The request tool's probably best.
Look, over there!
> hide
For what it's worth, any new players who are wondering, force storage is not actually as common as this thread might suggest.
It's possible to play your PC for RL years, amass plenty of wealth and power, and not get stored.
Or maybe I've just been lucky a time or two--or I got myself killed off before anyone could suggest storing. :-X
Quote from: Zoltan on March 10, 2011, 01:21:32 PMbut the nature, wording and leaning of these posts are passive-aggressive.
I went back to review why I'd think it was passive aggressive and I have to agree: it wasn't really spelled out that well. It did look to be passive aggressive.
Quote from: musashi on March 10, 2011, 08:43:23 AM
As I understand it, staff might, for whatever reason, make a plot for the player that results in their character being forced stored for whatever justification they feel like giving.
QuoteI'll take your word for it.
These tend to make us on staff go "someone seems butthurt."
Anyway, there are 4 to 6 players out there that believe they were railroaded into storage because...they've been around for a while and became fairly powerful...that's not why they were stored. You're pointing out a singular common denominator that you have seen (they were around for a while and become powerful). I can name several other reasons people have gotten force stored over the past 3-4 years:
templar role, inactive: stored
noble role, inactive: stored
GMH role, inactive: stored
T-noble role, kanking commoners and not reporting it in staff reports: stored
tribal role, going against documentation after warnings: stored
delf role, going against documentation after warnings: stored
templar role, red robe, somewhat inactive, discussed with player and eventually went towards storage: stored
noble role, promoted past certain point (with their understanding in advance): stored
GMH role, being generally douchey to staff and annoying to deal with: stored
magicker role, not reporting to staff after warnings, PKing high-profile folks without reports: stored
These are just roles I know about from working around or working directly with them in which the storage was ultimately decided by staff hands, not those of the player. This doesn't include absolutely ridiculous situations.
Quote from: Akaramu on March 10, 2011, 01:43:05 PM
I'd just like to say one thing regarding forced storage: When it happens, does it really dramatically improve the situation for the playerbase overall?
In all of the above cases, I can unequivocally say "yes," but in some of the cases, it matters also how it affects staff.
Quote from: Akaramu on March 10, 2011, 01:43:05 PM
Lacking a better example, let's pick up the situation described in Nyr's and Musashi's posts.
Actually, that points out something by itself. Why can't you find a better example than a very specific instance regarding magick and the gameworld?
Quote from: Akaramu on March 10, 2011, 01:43:05 PM
Lacking a better example, let's pick up the situation described in Nyr's and Musashi's posts. An elementalist becomes horribly codedly powerful despite their background describing opposite goals. Was any serious harm done to the game or to other players? Was the stored character causing a significant extra workload for staff?
I wasn't involved in this situation in any way. But from what I understand from the back and forth, it wasn't about the PC's coded power, etc, even though the problem has been phrased in that way. It was that X-thing would have happened ICly, and the staff was trying to enforce the game world on the player. And then the character suicided, because the player felt they were going to be force-stored. (I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem like the actual storage ever did happen.) And it seems like there may have been misunderstandings on both sides. But overall, I'm all for the staff enforcing IC consequences on characters, whether they're codedly powerful or not. When the staff does stop enforcing IC 'reality' on players it DOES hurt the game and other players. Speaking as a player.
Quote from: Akaramu on March 10, 2011, 01:43:05 PM
Maybe this was the case, but the reasons were not explained clearly enough to the force stored PC's player? I also had a PC force stored years ago and quit for a year+ afterwards because staff did not tell me the true reason why it had to happen - I was only told 'We can see you don't enjoy this role', which was not true. ...
I have noticed a huge, huge improvement in player/staff communication lately. And I'm only talking about within the last year. About a year ago, I was extremely frustrated with staff, because I was getting told 'no' on some things I wanted to do and from my perspective it looked like it was an OOC 'no.' Come to find out later, it really was an IC no and because other events were happening elsewhere in the game world that were in opposition to what I was wanting to do, and so on. It just wasn't clear to me that it was X House telling me 'we won't support you in this' instead of the STAFF telling me 'we won't support you in this,' which makes all the difference in the world. I have NOT noticed that much lately. All of my communications lately have been very straight forward. I think probably in a response to better efforts on both sides, after that thread between players and a bunch of staff (especially Talia, I miss Talia :'() about better communication.
Quote from: Synthesis on March 10, 2011, 02:11:05 PM
As someone who's just been force-stored, I'm really getting a kick out of these replies....
Quote from: Nyr on March 10, 2011, 02:14:20 PM
This doesn't include absolutely ridiculous situations.
Quote from: Synthesis on March 10, 2011, 02:20:51 PM
Quote from: Nyr on March 10, 2011, 02:19:25 PM
Quote from: Synthesis on March 10, 2011, 02:11:05 PM
As someone who's just been force-stored, I'm really getting a kick out of these replies....
Quote from: Nyr on March 10, 2011, 02:14:20 PM
This doesn't include absolutely ridiculous situations.
I agree. It's pretty ridiculous that I was stored. Let's get that resolved, eh?
Check your e-mail, and don't be a douche. Thanks!
Um, is this a derail?
Quote from: Nyr on March 10, 2011, 02:14:20 PM
Quote from: Akaramu on March 10, 2011, 01:43:05 PM
Lacking a better example, let's pick up the situation described in Nyr's and Musashi's posts.
Actually, that points out something by itself. Why can't you find a better example than a very specific instance regarding magick and the gameworld?
I was lacking a better example because I didn't want to invent something, and didn't want to refer to other specific situations that had not already been brought up on the GDB. That one seemed like the best example because it had been brought up for discussion already. I'd rather not decide by myself whether or not anything else is okay for public discussion or not.
Yeah, I agree that player staff communication has improved a lot over the last few years. The request tool played an important part in it.
Anyway, I didn't mean to be negative or anything, just felt like voicing my thoughts on the matter. I'm currently enjoying the game very much, am having positive experiences with staff and don't have any real grudges, so now that I brought my thoughts to the table I'll just get back to playing. :)
Quote from: Synthesis on March 10, 2011, 02:11:05 PM
As someone who's just been force-stored, I'm really getting a kick out of these replies....
For the record, your storage had nothing to do with the power level of your character and you know that well. You were even told up front that it was a temporary storage pending an answer from you.
We are not (all) evil heartless bastards. We are trying to run a smooth game. When something is not right and we have nothing to go on, we will store someone to get an answer so that the wrong doesn't continue without explanation.
It's a derail because now I'm trying to ponder ridiculous and hopefully amusing reasons to force-store someone.
...
I doubt any of them would actually make sense. :)
Quote from: Morgenes on March 10, 2011, 02:34:29 PM
We are not (all) evil heartless bastards. We are trying to run a smooth game. When something is not right and we have nothing to go on, we will store someone to get an answer so that the wrong doesn't continue without explanation.
See i knew there was a some small reason that made me think that you were the staff member that least deserved a kick to the nuts, dare i say, perhaps i even liked you a bit once upon a time. I just couldn't remember after all these years. ;)
Another cookie is in the mail, expect it in 2-3 weeks.
Stale as always though. :-[
nom nom nom nom nom...cookies.
Oh...to keep this topical...I agree with all our current policies.
Quote from: Barzalene on March 10, 2011, 02:32:40 PM
Um, is this a derail?
Technically, I'd call this whole thread a repeat derail. It happens every few months. I'll lock it after a day or so once the Zoidberg wears off.
Quote from: Akaramu on March 10, 2011, 02:33:05 PM
I was lacking a better example because I didn't want to invent something, and didn't want to refer to other specific situations that had not already been brought up on the GDB. That one seemed like the best example because it had been brought up for discussion already. I'd rather not decide by myself whether or not anything else is okay for public discussion or not.
It's not a very good example, though, given that it is a unique situation (by definition, unique situations have no comparison). I listed a whole plethora of reasons people have gotten their roles force-stored. Yes: because of one unique situation and maybe one or two other different (but to each other, incomparable) situations over the past 20 years (or however long we've had the storage ability), there is a infinitesimal chance you will be stored without doing anything wrong (or against the expectations of the role you've taken).
Live in fear!
Quote from: musashi on March 10, 2011, 01:51:50 PM
Zoltan ... if you ever compare me to Glenn Beck again ... I will come to your house. And I will cut you. >:(
Yeah, looking back, perhaps I was a little extreme. :-*
So now my question is this
Is it a staff policy to let Zoidberg decide when to lock threads?
(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTlcrhbMMT-WgPmNPIug9y4mCqg9NtMnZ8N-AGcgLYekmWZI5U6lw)