Armageddon General Discussion Board

Hi folks.

I was looking at  one of the karma threads and more than a few people said that playing a leadership roll was important in gaining karma. I also noticed that playing a leadership role seemed to be FUN for folks (it was for me) and allows the playerbase to  help make Arm more FUN for everyone.

However, sponsored roles are limited. Non- sponsored leadership roles are also limited.  Do people see this as an obstacle?  Does the game need more sponsored roles or non- sponsored leadership roles to give more folks a chance? Are we fine as is?  Down with sponsored roles? Or should we come up with some new alternatives?

What do you all think?

As someone who prefers those characters who themselves rose through the ranks of their clans, and got rather annoyed with how very top heavy Tuluk was, I voted fewer.

I voted "Fine as is." If a clan needs a Sarge and there's a viable option available IG already, it gets filled by that player. If your clan suffers a wipe and all that's left is recruits, and a couple numbskull privates, staff put out for a Sarge.

To me, this seems to be working as it should be.

I think this is based on a faulty assumption.  Leadership does not equal having a sponsored role application accepted.

It also includes rising through the ranks naturally in a clan.  A natural-made Byn Sergeant is just as much a leader (and sometimes treated as more so by peers) than one that apps in.  A natural-made AoD officer is a leader.  Your merchant house PC that starts as a crafter but eventually gets to the junior merchant/junior agent ranks?  Leader.  Your indie hunter who starts working within the minor merchant house system to create a minor merchant house, gathering other PCs under them toward that goal?  She's a leader too.

Quote from: valeria on April 02, 2016, 03:43:16 PM
I think this is based on a faulty assumption.  Leadership does not equal having a sponsored role application accepted.

It also includes rising through the ranks naturally in a clan.  A natural-made Byn Sergeant is just as much a leader (and sometimes treated as more so by peers) than one that apps in.  A natural-made AoD officer is a leader.  Your merchant house PC that starts as a crafter but eventually gets to the junior merchant/junior agent ranks?  Leader.  Your indie hunter who starts working within the minor merchant house system to create a minor merchant house, gathering other PCs under them toward that goal?  She's a leader too.

Not sure what the false assumption is? The initial post mentions non- sponsored roles as well.

Quote from: Norcal on April 02, 2016, 02:46:11 PM
However, sponsored roles are limited. Non- sponsored leadership roles are also limited.  Do people see this as an obstacle?  Does the game need more sponsored roles or non- sponsored leadership roles to give more folks a chance? Are we fine as is?  Down with sponsored roles? Or should we come up with some new alternatives?

Sorry, I didn't explain very well, I'm still drinking my coffee (stupid coffee pot is broken and so very slow, also we got up at 2 pm so there's that).  I should have said "gaining leadership karma does not equal" instead of just "leadership does not equal."  I know you mentioned non-leadership roles, but I'm just not drawing the cause/efffect line between "having more sponsored roles" and "having more leadership karma available."

There's plenty of leadership karma available outside of sponsored roles.  I don't see how adding more sponsored roles would change the karma thing, or in your words give more folks a chance.

I vote no, and not because I don't think people should have opportunities to play a Nooble or Nooblar.

But because there simply isn't enough indians for more chiefs.  We need the dirty low down commoners and gemmers (see what I did there) to inhabit the support roles that those sponsored roles will need.

It's all great and fine if I'm Lord Asmoth Jal, ruler of the salt fields and rolling in coin, but if I can't find anyone to be my aide, or my guard, or my assassin or whatever, what is the point of having me?

As it is, I think there are too many noobles.  I didn't vote less though because that would be a slap at the folks playing the noobles.

I haven't seen a bad noble for a long time, so I don't want to make them think they are doing it wrong or anything, but I think adding more top heavy roles will just dilute the already diluted playerbase to the detriment of the game.

I feel we need more player created roles.  Player merchant houses or whatever they are considered now.  Those add more value than bringing to life someone ELSE with a metal ring in my book.

(Edited for minor IC info, <3 val.)
(Edited to say: Totally fine with that, would prefer if more moderators just pruned instead of going MODERATED THE WHOLE THING! BAM!)

As Valeria pointed out there's tons of leadership roles out there, and now there's even a way for PC's to officially create their own thing - go out and get them!

The number of sponsored roles currently available is fine. I do think that they can stand to see more turn over.

I've never heard anyone complain that they want to play a leadership role but there's no room in the game.  The fact that we occaisionally see role calls for leaders in clans where you can be promoted to one also suggests we have more leadership positions than willing leadership players.

Valeria's statement is correct - the leadership karma point is not tied to sponsored roles.  There are many different kinds of leaders in game, and ways to demonstrate leadership.

Quote from: BadSkeelz on April 02, 2016, 05:27:51 PM
The number of sponsored roles currently available is fine. I do think that they can stand to see more turn over.

Heh heh.