Armageddon General Discussion Board

General => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sanvean on March 16, 2004, 05:41:58 PM

Poll
Question: Should sorcerer/psionicist/void elementalist be made special app only?
Option 1: Yes, that seems fair. votes: 51
Option 2: No, that's unfair, they should stay as they are. votes: 36
Option 3: Door 3. votes: 24
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Sanvean on March 16, 2004, 05:41:58 PM
Recently the staff has been discussing making sorcerers, psionicists, and void elementalists special-application only. This is because we've noticed a problem where a few players with those options tend to make the characters of one of those guilds over and over, which means that players who have never run one get turned down when they special app for one.

It seems unfair to let this handful of people keep monopolizing the guilds, particularly when good and interesting apps get sent in, but get denied because players A, B, and C keep making their sorcerer over and over again.

Originally, we had removed those options from ex-staff but still let them special app those characters, since they seemed to be the biggest culprits here, but they have (understandably, I think) raised objections to that strategy.

If we do this, the end effect is opening up the guilds for more people than previously, but I worry about the dampening effect of removing them from the karma tree. What do you think? Is this a fair approach? Is there another approach you'd suggest? Bear in mind that suggesting to people who are running the same restricted guild over and over that they try a different one has not been very successful.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Pungee on March 16, 2004, 05:58:06 PM
How about a burn out timer? Set a character counter flag on an account so that if they do a sorcerer and then die, they can't make another sorcerer until they've played another character. While there are ways to abuse it, hopefully you won't have to worry too heavily since they're such a high karma class, and it would also be easy to catch. For example, someone who typically runs 20-50 day characters opens up a ranger or a warrior and dies in the first day every time is obviously just trying to get Sorcerer re-opened for him/her. You could nail them, reduce karma, and then that took care of that problem. This would Ensure that you don't get Sorc-Repeaters or any karma abusers.  8)
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Werd on March 16, 2004, 05:59:37 PM
Edit:^^^Damn, beat me by 1 min :evil:, but yeah what he said.

I voted option 3, while I agree that it is unfair if certain people monopolize certain roles, I still think it would be nice to keep them on the karma list. Instead of making them spec app only, deny the people who are hogging that character type the ability to make that character type for awhile. I'd say take away the karma required to play the role they are monopolizing for a few months, and monitor their characters to make sure they don't unrealistically kill them off just because they think the time may be up and want to make another sorcerer or what have you.

But on second thought, the karma required for these roles are so high that this probably won't apply to the majority of players, because as I understand it, it takes quite awhile to accumulate enough karma to play those roles. So change my vote to option 1 if you don't like my suggestion.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: moab on March 16, 2004, 06:17:45 PM
Speaking as a player with Sorc in his karma tree, I have to say that a burn-out timer as Pungee suggested is a good idea.

After someone's sorcerer dies perhaps make them wait six RL months before being able to submit another.  Same with Void Mage and Psi.

If that isn't acceptible or doable for some reason, removing Sorc and Psi from the karma tree seems reasonable if only to open a dialog between staff and player in regards to the character's personality and background.

One of things that is missing from non-Special Aps is the chance to really develop the character with staff input.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Callisto on March 16, 2004, 06:28:16 PM
Just from what I know, most players will never have a hope in hell of gaining a karma tree that high, so this isn't exactly going to have a major effect on people.

I'd say make it special application only and ensure a rotation type of system, so everyone (Barring the twinkishly inclined) has a chance to play some of the more unique roles available.

I'd remove void elemental and replace it will mul in this arrangement, since a mul seems like a far more difficult role then an elemental, but that's just my opinion.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Dracul on March 16, 2004, 06:36:12 PM
I wish I could play one....
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: samsara on March 16, 2004, 06:44:38 PM
The people who play them probably tend to play long lived characters, thereby keeping the "desired" number of slots filled. If you've truly got too many people with the karma to play them, it may be time to relook at current karma levels both at the account and class/race level. However if they've earned the right, they should be allowed to play them. Perhaps you should decide on a small number of each of these classes that are always open to special app. And as special apps die, allow another.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: jhunter on March 16, 2004, 06:54:42 PM
I'm confused, are you saying that if someone special apps one of these classes that they will be turned down because someone else who has the karma to do it on their own is currently playing one?
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: samsara on March 16, 2004, 07:01:22 PM
I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that is exactly it. They only want a certain amount of these races/classes in the game at a time. They are extremely powerful both in terms of individual abilities as well as their potential to change the flavor/balance of the game. In some ways it's like special apping a templar. Even if your story and character design is great, they may not need one at the current time.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: jhunter on March 16, 2004, 07:09:12 PM
I guess I can understand that, for me making it a special app means I will never play one even though I'd like to...I personally prefer not to special app anything.
I don't care to go through the trouble of it with the chance it will be turned down...rather just make a char with the options I have knowing that I can accomplish that and it get approved without having to ask to be treated specially.

I don't know for certain, but considering things that are special apps I'll bet they get turned down more often than not...-especially- when things other than your playing ability and character design are involved in the decision.

Going through the normal process of creating a char I've never had one turned down, I'd much rather be playing again as soon as I can than waiting around for some special app to get approved which odds are, it won't.

That's just my opinion of it.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Pantoufle on March 16, 2004, 07:14:00 PM
Quote from: "Sanvean"Bear in mind that suggesting to people who are running the same restricted guild over and over that they try a different one has not been very successful.

Why not?  If someone on staff said "Look man, you gotta quit making Nilazis over and over.  That shit's getting old real fast!"  I think I'd have to pause and reflect a moment.  Are they just blatantly shrugging their shoulders and making yet another Nilazi/Sorcer/Psi immediately after they lose the previous one or what?  Rather than limiting everyone from the option, why not just take certain people's karma away?
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: EvilRoeSlade on March 16, 2004, 07:14:43 PM
Here's a suggestion.  It's something that I saw on another Mud.

Instead of having Karma levels, we have Karma points.  Every special class and race costs a certain amount of points (perhaps correspending to their level).  When you choose one of those races, you spend those points and you don't get them back until the staff decides to give you more.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Dracul on March 16, 2004, 07:17:25 PM
Why not be simply harsh when approving the characters as regular apps? I mean there seems to be no need towards classifying it as special. Just go a little more deny happy when you are approving the sorcerer named Muad Dib rather than the desert elf name dMuad Dib.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Anonymous on March 16, 2004, 07:18:33 PM
Quote from: "EvilRoeSlade"Here's a suggestion.  It's something that I saw on another Mud.

Instead of having Karma levels, we have Karma points.  Every special class and race costs a certain amount of points (perhaps correspending to their level).  When you choose one of those races, you spend those points and you don't get them back until the staff decides to give you more.

I've seen this done somewhere.  There was also a thread from that same mud trying to find a way to alleviate the burden it put on the staff since it was a continual process.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Cuusardo on March 16, 2004, 07:18:46 PM
Why wouldn't the staff reject the applications from people who keep making those same types of characters over and over again to leave spots for the people who special app?
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: jhunter on March 16, 2004, 07:19:27 PM
Actually now...as a player, knowing that there is for certain, an imm controlled limit to the number of these things bums me out because it's OOC information I hadn't known before.

It made it easier for me to have that fear as a player to go along with my pc's fears that someone may be a mindbender/sorceror or whatever...

...now, as a player I will no longer have as much of that fear to go along with my pc's, because I know there can only be a certain amount actually active in the game at one time.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: EvilRoeSlade on March 16, 2004, 07:22:00 PM
Then perhaps limit it to sorceror, psionicist, and void elementalist.

Those Karma options would be designated as one use only.  For example, if you have void elementalist karma and then play a void elementalist, then you no longer have void elementalist karma.  You have to wait until a staff member decides to give it to you again.  A special application would effectively be an appeal to get this temporary karma.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: John on March 16, 2004, 07:23:33 PM
I made a long post outlining why they should remain Karma-level, but then I realised what I was really suggesting was a special app process. I still say hand out the Karma but also require people to go through a "quicker app process" when trying to app for their char. The reason you should keep it as a Karma level, is because the only thing stopping me from special apping a Void/Sorc/Psionist is because I think one day I just might be able to get enough Karma for it myself.

Giving out Karma for any role basically says to players "we think your good enough to play this role."

So requiring a quicker special app process for people who have Sorc/Void/Psionist Karma would let you consider if they're playing those type of roles too much (among other criteria), but it also lets the player skip the slower process of normal special apps (which no offense to Naephet, but according to everyone I've spoken to it takes a fair while).

The difference between the current system and a quicker special app process along with Karma levels, is that it gives you a perfectly valid reason to say "nope, been playing that type of role too much", which the informal "maybe you could stop playing those roles for a while" doesn't let you have.

Giving out those Karma levels, gives the player more support to have the role then people who don't have the Karma level, which should make them happier about having to basically special app the role (along with a speeded up special app process), but it doesn't completely gurantee them the role.

Just my 2 'sid
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Callisto on March 16, 2004, 07:23:46 PM
That'd kind of suck, in much the same way Hitler was kind of a jerk, ERS.

Some of us don't see a lot of karma action as it is, if we lose our karma every time we want to play something other then the standard options, we are going to end up with a desert elf every couple of years, nevermind something higher.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Anonymous on March 16, 2004, 07:24:02 PM
I can imagine this is a problem, and I wouldn't mind seeing them become special application only.

Alternatively, perhaps only have those options show up in a player with the requisite karma's skill list if the number of active Sorcs/Psis or Nilazis is under a certain number.

Or, option number three would be to make those options awardable like karma, but have a single use before they are removed from your options.
So, player X is given a Sorc option, he plays and dies, and is not given the option for a while until someone on staff feels that it is deserved again and there isn't a glut of Sorcs.  Ditto for the other guilds.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Cenghiz on March 16, 2004, 07:28:27 PM
Sanvean, I hope I'm going fine with newly given karma, not abusing it. (Please notify me whenever I do, I don't want to lose karma, I liked it.) I would say "remove them from the karma tree!" just because I would like to apply for a void elementalist after trying the desert elf and the vivaduan but...
That would be too unfair for the high karma players. Maybe you should just reject their applications with the reason "Play sumtin' else, dude!".
Or give my character +5000 spell resistance and let me go hunt them eh?  :twisted: Then you would quickly accept a few special apps before they can apply for another and tell them that the quota was full, then wander away whistling a merry tune.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: EvilRoeSlade on March 16, 2004, 07:29:09 PM
Quote from: "Callisto"That'd kind of suck, in much the same way Hitler was kind of a jerk, ERS.

Notice my amendment.  Just do it for sorceror, nilazi, mindbender.  It wouldn't effect someone like you at all.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: John on March 16, 2004, 07:33:45 PM
I like ERS's second proposal (Sorc/Psionist/Voids are for one time use only). It cuts down on the need to special app, and if you keep track of when the player last had a (Sorc/Psionist/Void) and hand it out once more based on that (as well as their roleplay) they won't constantly get the karma level again.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: samsara on March 16, 2004, 07:37:46 PM
After further consideration, it seems most other things that there is a need to limit by number are all special app. Karma takes care of the trust issue. Special app allows you to take a one time pass on the trust question. Templars, nobles, family members, and assorted others are all special apps. If sorcerors/psis/voids need to be limited too, this is the current mechanism to do it. Don't start mutating karma into something it wasn't meant to do unless you revamp it as a whole.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Sanvean on March 16, 2004, 07:40:23 PM
QuoteI'm confused, are you saying that if someone special apps one of these classes that they will be turned down because someone else who has the karma to do it on their own is currently playing one?

That's it exactly. We try not to have 50+ sorcerers running around at any given time. As far as muls go - those I'm not so concerned about, since I'm comfortable with a substantially larger number of muls in the game than I am, for example, psis.

I don't want to create a system that adds to the overall workload, i.e. requires that staff spend much time tracking who played a void elementalist and how many characters ago it was. Similarly, I'm trying to avoid a system that requires a coder changing the current account system.

I know that the current special app process is slow - so if we did this, we'd need to figure out a way to get a quicker turnaround, in that case. (imo)
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: EvilRoeSlade on March 16, 2004, 07:41:42 PM
Quote from: "samsara"Don't start mutating karma into something it wasn't meant to do unless you revamp it as a whole.

Why not?  Just because the karma system was originally intended for a different purpose than this, doesn't mean it can't be adapted to a new purpose.

My proposal (my second one mind you, not even I like my first proposal), in my opinion is better than limiting it to special application.  The special application process is time-consuming and very intimidating.  I've never done it, and I want to avoid doing it if at all possible.

I'm sure there are other players that don't want to use the special application process.  Hell, they've posted on this board.  So why not create a system that allows for giving them an invitation of sorts to play with an option they might not have the audacity to ask for?
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Callisto on March 16, 2004, 07:43:01 PM
Quote from: "EvilRoeSlade"Notice my amendment.  Just do it for sorceror, nilazi, mindbender.  It wouldn't effect someone like you at all.

I guess I didn't.

That would be a good solution though.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: EvilRoeSlade on March 16, 2004, 07:43:07 PM
Quote from: "Sanvean"I'm trying to avoid a system that requires a coder changing the current account system.

Consider this.  My proposal doesn't need a change in code.  Sanvean, you could just instruct your staff to remove the karma option for sorceror, nilazi, and psionicist every time they approved such an application.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Cenghiz on March 16, 2004, 07:45:44 PM
Or.... They're with high karma, aren't they? That means they have huge respect to the game environment and other players. Maybe just asking them to play other roles next time would be enough. They're the trusted ones. Probably they'll do what you told them to.
I don't think a player with high karma would ignore this. No coded reigns needed for them. They've proven themselves.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: EvilRoeSlade on March 16, 2004, 07:46:46 PM
Sanvean already said that asking them to play other roles has failed.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Travel Cake on March 16, 2004, 07:46:57 PM
Quote from: "EvilRoeSlade"Then perhaps limit it to sorceror, psionicist, and void elementalist.

Those Karma options would be designated as one use only.  For example, if you have void elementalist karma and then play a void elementalist, then you no longer have void elementalist karma.  You have to wait until a staff member decides to give it to you again.  A special application would effectively be an appeal to get this temporary karma.

I like that idea.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Travel Cake on March 16, 2004, 07:48:53 PM
Quote from: "Callisto"That'd kind of suck, in much the same way Hitler was kind of a jerk, ERS.

Some of us don't see a lot of karma action as it is, if we lose our karma every time we want to play something other then the standard options, we are going to end up with a desert elf every couple of years, nevermind something higher.

I think he meant only those three karma classes, not the whole system.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: samsara on March 16, 2004, 07:51:25 PM
QuoteConsider this. My proposal doesn't need a change in code. Sanvean, you could just instruct your staff to remove the karma option for sorceror, nilazi, and psionicist every time they approved such an application.

How would this be different from special apps. The only way they'll get the option back is to special app and have an immortal add the option back. Unless what you really mean is that an immortal drops their karma to below that classes level when they get approved which means they need to earn more karma before the option appears again. Which I disagree with because this karma isn't removed because they've done something untrustworthy. Which would blur the meaning of karma, how it's earned,  and how it's lost.

*edit*
Ah reading your last post may have shed some light on me understanding what you were saying. So you can earn it by karma the first time you play it, then special app if you ever want to play it again.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: John on March 16, 2004, 07:53:20 PM
Quote from: "Sanvean"I don't want to create a system that adds to the overall workload, i.e. requires that staff spend much time tracking who played a void elementalist and how many characters ago it was. Similarly, I'm trying to avoid a system that requires a coder changing the current account system.
Then I'd suggest making it through the special app process along with dishing out the Karma level. You'd still need a *approved by <Imm name>* at the start of any (Void/Sorc/Psionist) backgrounds, but it would still be a good gauge for players to determine how suitable the staff think they would be in such a role.

I can understand Ex-Staff would resent having to special app those roles, considering they were trusted enough to be staff, in theory they should be trusted enough to not need to special app once they leave their staff position. But I can't see any way to get around that.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: jhunter on March 16, 2004, 07:55:01 PM
QuoteQuote:
I'm confused, are you saying that if someone special apps one of these classes that they will be turned down because someone else who has the karma to do it on their own is currently playing one?


That's it exactly. We try not to have 50+ sorcerers running around at any given time. As far as muls go - those I'm not so concerned about, since I'm comfortable with a substantially larger number of muls in the game than I am, for example, psis.

I don't want to create a system that adds to the overall workload, i.e. requires that staff spend much time tracking who played a void elementalist and how many characters ago it was. Similarly, I'm trying to avoid a system that requires a coder changing the current account system.

I know that the current special app process is slow - so if we did this, we'd need to figure out a way to get a quicker turnaround, in that case. (imo)


So let me see...the karma system was put in place to only allow those who've shown they can handle such roles play them...and to limit the number of those in the game, is that correct?

Seems to me that allowing people to special app roles they do not have the karma to play goes entirely against that system that was put in place.

I say, just make special apps for roles the player doesn't have the karma for off limits.


The way it is now...people special app roles they don't have the karma for and sometimes get it, allowing them to get around the karma system that was put in place.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Quirk on March 16, 2004, 08:02:34 PM
It would seem to me that if there is a particular small group of players with high karma who're taking advantage of their karma to monopolise the high-karma guilds, they are the problem and they should surely be penalised rather than those who handle their karma responsibly? I have to confess that having finally reached a karma level where this would affect me, I'd be saddened to have to put in a special app each time I wanted to play a certain class (that has admittedly only recently become available to me). I've not had the best of experiences in getting special apps returned swiftly or indeed at all, though admittedly I've apped very rarely, and I know others who are similarly loath to app often. In the end, the roles will end up going to those who have the temerity and the patience to keep sending in special applications and be kept out of the hands of those who only play what they have karma for, even if they have quite a lot of karma.

Karma is, I'd assume, there for a reason. It's obviously desirable to have the roles most damaging if abused in the hands of those who have proven themselves not to be abusive. Given this, it would seem logical that an app by someone with karma, assuming it's distributed well, would be a far safer bet than a special app from someone who has yet to prove themselves. However, if people who have that trust make only high-karma characters, and keep making only high-karma characters after being asked politely to branch out further, it would seem to me to be a strong argument against them keeping the karma.

Quirk
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: jhunter on March 16, 2004, 08:08:53 PM
I agree with Quirk, it is probably more of an issue with those who have the karma being somewhat abusive with it.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: John on March 16, 2004, 08:11:14 PM
Is it abusive to only play humans?
Is it abusive to only play dwarves?
Is it abusive to only play desert elves?
It is abusive to only play rukkians?
Is it abusive to only play Sorcerers?

I'm curious as to what people think.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Bestatte on March 16, 2004, 08:14:30 PM
I don't know that it's abuse, as much as it's overuse judging by Sanvean's initial post. It's not that they're playing these high-karma roles badly or inappropriately. It's more that they're playing them over and over again and preventing other people from holding the spots available.

To that end, I'd agree with the general consensus that we not get rid of the karma points for these roles, but instead keep an eye out for over-use by players and when a sorc/nilaz/mindbender app comes along by someone who's done nothing else for the past 3 or 4 characters, reject it and suggest they try something else this time around.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Lazloth on March 16, 2004, 08:15:48 PM
I like none of the suggestions proposed.

Possible alternative (not that I'm necessarily advocating) in autogen would be having the options disabled if the pool is full (read from some config file or what-have-you.)
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: jhunter on March 16, 2004, 08:16:14 PM
I'm not saying abuse as in playing the roles poorly...I'm saying abusing the fact that they have the karma for it.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Zhaira on March 16, 2004, 08:24:06 PM
Quote from: "Lazloth"I like none of the suggestions proposed.

Possible alternative (not that I'm necessarily advocating) in autogen would be having the options disabled if the pool is full (read from some config file or what-have-you.)

This would not really work, as there are people who make something and then stop playing.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Lazloth on March 16, 2004, 08:28:07 PM
Quote from: "Zhaira"This would not really work, as there are people who make something and then stop playing.
*shrug* Retire them.

When I came back to game after one hiatus, I was asked to retire my character and did so willingly.  Different factors at play, certainly.

Certain roles, imho, should be terminated due to excessive inactivity.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Lirs on March 16, 2004, 08:28:38 PM
I don't particularly like the idea of taking karma away once a class has been played once, karma isn't the easiest thing to come by and quite frankly if you manage to get karma at that level I would expect it to have been well-earned.

However, I do agree that if some players are constantly creating the same class characters, especially after having been asked to consider other options, then it is a form of abuse.  I would expect someone deserving of that level of karma to also have some sense of responsibility in choosing what they play and not overplay a certain class.  I'd like to see the system remain the same and hope that after this discussion on the GDB those players at fault might reconsider their playing choices in the future, if not, then I think their karma should be reassessed.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Anonymous on March 16, 2004, 08:29:36 PM
Quote from: "Lazloth"I like none of the suggestions proposed.

Possible alternative (not that I'm necessarily advocating) in autogen would be having the options disabled if the pool is full (read from some config file or what-have-you.)

Quote from: "CRW earlier in the conversation"Alternatively, perhaps only have those options show up in a player with the requisite karma's guild list if the number of active Sorcs/Psis or Nilazis is under a certain number.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Carnage on March 16, 2004, 08:47:03 PM
I personally don't care for any of the options. I don't like the idea of Nilazis, psionicists, and sorcerers all being limitted, but I also don't like the idea of people with 8 karma monopolizing playing them.

In my opinion, just let the karma and application system work. If someone is out of hand and playing 20 sorcerers in a row, drop them an e-mail suggesting a different type of character or whatever. I'd like to see something more personal introduced before a "We have this many people playing this class, sorry" or making certain classes just limitted to special apping. It defeats the purpose of karma.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: jhunter on March 16, 2004, 08:51:10 PM
QuoteIt defeats the purpose of karma.

As does allowing people to special app for karma options.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: adgohan on March 16, 2004, 09:14:18 PM
First of all, if the staff and ex-immortals are the ones playing sorcerers and psionicists over and over again, it is A) Easy to regulate and B) Not quite right. Presumably, it should be players attaining 8 karma and being able to play psionicists and sorcerers.

If you were going to make them special applications, then yes, the special application process would need to be re-vamped and there would have to be more immortals on it. There should also be a cap on sorcerers and psionicist in game as there is (or supposed to be) on elementalists.

A little bit on Nilazians. I don't really think they should be included in this, because granted they are the highest elementalists for a reason and have some extremely powerful spells, they are not near the power of sorcerers and psionicists. Nilazians should definitely have a cap on them, but I do not believe they should be removed from the karma list entirely. They are still limited, still elementalists. Sorcerers especially are rediculously powerful, and I would consider them as special app only.

Realistically, if ex-staff and staff are causing the problems because they're playing sorcerers/psionicist over and over again, that should be looked into. I like the idea (which is simple to code) of a timeout that Pungee suggested, maybe a time in between when you can play a sorcerer (1-2 characters that also have some sort of basis on days played so people don't suicide two characters to play a sorcerer again)

The players should have the options, or should have a way of advanced special applications to approve it, we do not want to limit sorcerers and psionicists in the game to absolute zero, but I understand at the same time the immortal staff doesn't want twenty sorcerers running around.

Save the issue with people playing sorcerers and psionicist over and over again, I think the current system is fine. The karma system has been revamped several times, but I believe making psionicists and sorcerers specifically special app would exclusively allow staff access to the roles while players may be left behind. There should be a simple way to address this, perhaps something aforementioned.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Forest Junkie on March 16, 2004, 09:16:43 PM
Agreed, Pungee and adgohan.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: spawnloser on March 16, 2004, 09:30:49 PM
It has been said, but I will say it again slightly differently: If the staff believes that overplaying those roles is wrong, and tells someone that has that karma level that they believe it is wrong...and they keep doing it, they are breaking the trust that the staff have in them that allowed them to get to 7-8 karma in the first place.  Give them one warning, and if they don't stop, penalize them on karma so they can't do it anymore.

Personally, I'm with the people that say they would prefer not to special app anything and would like to wait until they have the karma for it.  I would like to see every playable option on the karma chart and leave that at that.  Penalize the people that are doing what the staff says is abusive.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Anonymous on March 16, 2004, 09:31:00 PM
Quote from: "Carnage"In my opinion, just let the karma and application system work. If someone is out of hand and playing 20 sorcerers in a row, drop them an e-mail suggesting a different type of character or whatever. I'd like to see something more personal introduced before a "We have this many people playing this class, sorry" or making certain classes just limitted to special apping. It defeats the purpose of karma.

I was thinking something along the same lines.  Reject applications for Sorcs/Psis and Nilazis for those who keep making them with a note.  It probably ends up being less total work than having every application for one of those three guilds go through the special application process.

I don't think it's something someone should be punished for, per se, since for some people the lure of the possibility of the next Sorc being the sorc is probably pretty tempting.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Seeker on March 16, 2004, 09:31:24 PM
In a perfect world, all players will soon earn eight Karma.  If we attract, develop and maintain excellent players there will be more and more players with the option to play the highest Karma rank classes.  And that is a great thing.

Too many Sorcerors at one time, though, is a -bad- thing.  The world-story suffers if there are three hidden Psi's in a tavern of twenty PCs.  Even with just bad timing, that is possible if Karma is the only factor in who gets to choose those classes, and we have a bunch of good players.

If it impractical to refuse standard applications from player's with the necessary Karma to play those classes, or too difficult to limit the appearance of those classes in some semi-automated fashion during chargen, or unsatisfactory to modify the Karma system in some fashion at the top end, then removing them from the Karma tree to preserve the genre is the only remaining option I see.


Seeker



We want excellent players.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: spawnloser on March 16, 2004, 09:34:49 PM
QuoteReject applications for Sorcs/Psis and Nilazis for those who keep making them with a note.  It probably ends up being less total work than having every application for one of those three guilds go through the special application process.
While I first thought this would work, Sanvean said she would prefer something that did NOT involve the staff having to go research what the person has played recently when working the application queues.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: crymerci on March 16, 2004, 09:40:12 PM
Originally I had voted to take them off the karma ladder, and I still think that would be the simplest solution, but perhaps it is more of a quick fix since it would increase the special app queue.

Here's an alternative idea I had: continue having Storytellers approve all other apps, but make these highest classes require Highlord+ approval, when they are normally apped by someone with the karma. All special apps (including these classes) would still go through Naephet, but his workload would not be increased by this, except as one of several who can approve these high-karma folks.  Yes, it would increase Highlord+ workload, but it would be spread amongst more people. If it takes two weeks to get your sorc/psi app approved instead of 24 hours, then so be it.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: spawnloser on March 16, 2004, 09:48:28 PM
I do kinda like that one, crymerci...if you have to wait three days for a normally app'ed sorcerer, maybe you'll app something else instead?
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: mansa on March 16, 2004, 10:01:32 PM
Quote from: "Pungee"How about a burn out timer? Set a character counter flag on an account so that if they do a sorcerer and then die, they can't make another sorcerer until they've played another character. While there are ways to abuse it, hopefully you won't have to worry too heavily since they're such a high karma class, and it would also be easy to catch. For example, someone who typically runs 20-50 day characters opens up a ranger or a warrior and dies in the first day every time is obviously just trying to get Sorcerer re-opened for him/her. You could nail them, reduce karma, and then that took care of that problem. This would Ensure that you don't get Sorc-Repeaters or any karma abusers.  8)


Wow.  The first reply, and I agree with it.  I skimmed over all the other responses and I didn't bother to read most of it, since I agreed with the very first response.  A timer.

Play a level 8 karma guild, and wait 365 days until you can play another.
Play a level 7 karma guild, and wait 182 days until you can play another.
Play a level 6 karma guild, and wait 91 days until you can play another.
Play a level 5 karma guild, and wait 45 days until you can play another.
Play a level 4 karma guild, and wait 22 days until you can play another.
Play a level 3 karma guild, and wait 11 days until you can play another.

This 'timer' should be visible on the player's account, perhaps in parentheses or something, beside the guild option.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Travel Cake on March 16, 2004, 10:02:42 PM
I like Crymerci's idea.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: EvilRoeSlade on March 16, 2004, 10:06:33 PM
Quote from: "crymerci"Here's an alternative idea I had: continue having Storytellers approve all other apps, but make these highest classes require Highlord+ approval, when they are normally apped by someone with the karma. All special apps (including these classes) would still go through Naephet, but his workload would not be increased by this, except as one of several who can approve these high-karma folks. Yes, it would increase Highlord+ workload, but it would be spread amongst more people. If it takes two weeks to get your sorc/psi app approved instead of 24 hours, then so be it.

Great idea.  Lets just punish everybody that such a change would effect instead of limiting it to those who are responsible.  The trouble is, there are some of us, such as Quirk and myself who temper ourselves to actually waiting until we have a good concept for such a character instead of just selecting the most powerful of our options each and every time.
I've never played a void elementalist, sorceror, or psionicist, but I've had the option for at least one of the above for quite some time.  I don't want to have to lose something that is mine by privilege just because of irresponsible actions taken by people that I've never met.

The above idea is a bad one because it deals with the problem arbitrarily instead of responsibly.

Quote from: "crymerciOriginally I had voted to take them off the karma ladder, and I still think that would be the simplest solution, but perhaps it is more of a quick fix since it would increase the special app queue.

As is this.

Quote from: "CRW"Reject applications for Sorcs/Psis and Nilazis for those who keep making them with a note. It probably ends up being less total work than having every application for one of those three guilds go through the special application process.

This is one of the few responsible solutions.

Because of this.

Quote from: "John"Is it abusive to only play humans?
Is it abusive to only play dwarves?
Is it abusive to only play desert elves?
It is abusive to only play rukkians?
Is it abusive to only play Sorcerers?

No it isn't abusive to only play only one of something.  Yet, for certain roles it appears a mechanism has become necessary to nudge along those (and only those) who won't play anything else.

It is however abusive to blatantly disregard advice from a staff member.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Pungee on March 16, 2004, 10:14:39 PM
Remind me again how it's abusive to prefer playing Humans to Elves?
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: EvilRoeSlade on March 16, 2004, 10:17:16 PM
Quote from: "Pungee"Remind me again how it's abusive to prefer playing Humans to Elves?

What post are you referring to?  I don't see anything like that.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: crymerci on March 16, 2004, 10:35:04 PM
Frankly, I don't think it's punitive, even to those who are not hogging the roles. Why shouldn't the highest karma classes require a little extra thought before approval? I think these apps should be closely looked at, even if you have the karma. We're not talking about however long a regular special app takes.  I put the two weeks out there as sort of an outside idea for how long it might take.  I figure a Highlord+ can probably find the time on a Saturday to research what they need to. And in case they need to consult, or look some more stuff up, or ponder, it might take as much as another week.

But then again, I'm not staff, and I don't know how long it would take.

Still, you have to go through a in involved and sometimes lengthy app process to play nobles, templars, merchant family, and other "special" roles not covered by the karma system.  Why not the same for psi/sorc? If you can't wait a week or two, you're probably not well suited to these classes anyway, because they require patience.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Krath on March 16, 2004, 11:19:00 PM
I agree with Cymerci's Idea. However, I do believe that if that staff sends you an email saying you should stop playing a certain type of character because you are playing it too much and you do not listen, take your fucking karma away. That is what I would do, shit. As far as Nilazis go, I dont think their should be a cap on them, just the Psions and Sorcs.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: EvilRoeSlade on March 17, 2004, 12:11:26 AM
Quote from: "crymerci"Frankly, I don't think it's punitive, even to those who are not hogging the roles.

It's clearly punitive, no matter what the intention is.  It's not exactly a boon to anybody, is it?

Quote from: "crymerci"Why shouldn't the highest karma classes require a little extra thought before approval?

To your question, a question.  Why should they require extra thought before approval?  It wouldn't necessarily be a little extra thought either.  You'd apparently be fine with the process taking an extra two weeks (how long it would take in practice, I have no idea).  That's not acceptable to me.

Quote from: "crymerci"I think these apps should be closely looked at, even if you have the karma.

What need is there for this that isn't already covered in the normal process of application?

You're offering a solution to a problem that you've percieved in your imagination.  What we need is a way to control players who are out of control in their selection of certain roles.  What we don't need is a way to put EVERY sorceror application under extra scrutiny.  So your belief that these applications need to be put under extra scrutiny is as it happens, irrelevent.  That would be a fine proposition if we were faced with, for example, players that were walking into the Trader's and fireballing everybody they could before the crime code sent them into oblivion, but thats not the case.  Isn't it a bit presumptuous to offer a solution where no problem exists?

Quote from: "crymerci"We're not talking about however long a regular special app takes.  I put the two weeks out there as sort of an outside idea for how long it might take.  I figure a Highlord+ can probably find the time on a Saturday to research what they need to. And in case they need to consult, or look some more stuff up, or ponder, it might take as much as another week.

But then again, I'm not staff, and I don't know how long it would take.

Oh, okay!  You figure that a Highlord can probably find the time on a Saturday to take on this extra load of work.  The problem with that is that you aren't a Highlord.  I think that the staff has made it clear that the solution we need is one that involves minimal effort on that part.

Read the last part of that quote, because its the wisest portion of your post.

Quote from: "crymerci"Still, you have to go through a in involved and sometimes lengthy app process to play nobles, templars, merchant family, and other "special" roles not covered by the karma system.  Why not the same for psi/sorc? If you can't wait a week or two, you're probably not well suited to these classes anyway, because they require patience.

Once more I find myself inclined to reveal personal experience.  I applied for a templar, got accepted the next day, and began playing the day after that.  Which I'm fine with.  If I had to wait two weeks, then I would have been upset and irritated.  The staff's time is valuable yes, but mine is too.

I am not a patient person.  I enjoy doing things, not waiting to do them.  Despite that, my clan immortals reported that my play was exceptional and I would be welcome back in the future.  Fancy that.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: crymerci on March 17, 2004, 12:46:00 AM
We'll just have to agree to disagree.  Look how easy that was, and I didn't have to even be a jerk about it.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: JollyGreenGiant on March 17, 2004, 12:52:16 AM
How about simply designating two caps, one a total cap, and one a karma-app cap?

For example, let's say we cap the total number of sorcerors at 3, and the number of karma-application sorcerors at 2.  That leaves 1 slot always available for special app'ed sorcerors, but doesn't restrict it to 1 if there should happen to be more slots available.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Zacharai on March 17, 2004, 01:43:46 AM
Quote from: "JollyGreenGiant"How about simply designating two caps, one a total cap, and one a karma-app cap?

Nope, because someone will have a sorcerer 'active', but never play, and thus edge out someone else who has both a great idea and an excellent background from getting the position.  As far as the timer goes, it's kinda stupid.  There's not that many players who are knowledgable and skilled enough to play a sorcerer.  Thin them out too much and you have the opposite problem.

In short, I completely agree with the idea that those three classes should be special app.  A caveat: virtually anyone with the karma to get those positions should be trusted enough to choose them on their own -- that kind of karma means the staff has faith in your decisions.  On the other hand, to regulate these -very- powerful classes, the staff has the right to approve.

The last special app character I applied for was approved by both Brix and San in mere hours.  I was down by one karma point, and one imm at least had been amused by a previous character, so no problems.  I get the sense that many players are scared of special apps - they'd just like to get in the game playing.  For high-karma positions like these, the staff SHOULD look it over.  If you're a high-karma person, very reliable, IC all the time, a driving force in Zalanthas, you'll have no problems.  If you have trouble keeping characters alive for more than a few days, no way in hell should you take one of these classes.  Of course, you won't, but that's beside the point.

I have no problem letting the staff regulate these positions.  If the same reliable person keeps sticking to one clan, as a warrior that's no big deal.  As a sorcerer, or psi, or nilazian, that is.  Diversification is a good thing, even if I don't practice it much myself.

--Zach

P.S.  Interesting quote:
Quote from: "spawnloser"I do kinda like that one, crymerci...if you have to wait three days for a normally app'ed sorcerer, maybe you'll app something else instead?
If you get upset waiting a week for a response about one of these classes, you're obviously not cut out for the responsibility and patience required.  These are characters that should live for 50+ days, do important things, and perhaps be leaders to the few who know their capabilities.  Any long-lived character has significant amounts of downtime, and I believe that any good nilazian, psi, or sorc should be long-lived.  If you can't handle the wait, you can't handle the downtime, and thus it all works out in the end.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: jhunter on March 17, 2004, 01:53:41 AM
Quotespawnloser wrote:
I do kinda like that one, crymerci...if you have to wait three days for a normally app'ed sorcerer, maybe you'll app something else instead?

If you get upset waiting a week for a response about one of these classes, you're obviously not cut out for the responsibility and patience required. These are characters that should live for 50+ days, do important things, and perhaps be leaders to the few who know their capabilities. Any long-lived character has significant amounts of downtime, and I believe that any good nilazian, psi, or sorc should be long-lived. If you can't handle the wait, you can't handle the downtime, and thus it all works out in the end.

I think the point is...we're all here to -play- the game.

Personally I wouldn't app for any character if I had to wait that long for it either, because of the simple fact...that I want to be playing the game.

There are some people who would rather earn the right to play those things if they choose..than ask to be given special treatment by special apps to play them.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Anonymous on March 17, 2004, 02:07:47 AM
Quote from: "jhunter"There are some people who would rather earn the right to play those things if they choose..than ask to be given special treatment by special apps to play them.
I view nobles and templars as special application positions. One of the big differences is they're special application only. I have never seen myself as asking for special treatment instead of earning the right to play those roles when I send in an application to play a noble or templar.

People will eventually stop seeing special applications for Nilazi, Psionists and Sorcerers as asking for special treatment instead of earning the right to play them.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Angela Christine on March 17, 2004, 05:13:19 AM
I don't know, none of the options seem much better than the others.  I guess if someone is playing too many of something, and they've been asked to mix it up a little, then a note should go on the account saying they've been asked to stop playing nilazi after nilazi.  Then if they keep doing it, remove the class they are obsessed with from their options for a while.  In the end that seems like the least effort and most fair option, because it will effect the people with the problem behavior, but not everyone else.  On the other hand, these are long-term players that generally do a good job, so you don't want to drive them away.  I've never had karma removed, but I imagine it would be an unpleasant experience.

You could turn the "fantasy" dial a couple notches closer to "high," then an excess of these kinds of characters wouldn't be a huge problem.  The Sorcerers wouldn't only have to worry about city-sponsered lynch mobs, they'd also have to worry about the machinations of rival small-time sorcerers.

In most World of Darkness MUSHes I've checked out it seems like half the PCs are "special" in one way or another.  Not just the "supers" like Vampires, werewolves, risen, wraiths, mages, fey, etc., but also what they call mortal+ characters, people who are basically normal, except that they can see dead people, or their cousin is a werewolf, or they have some minor psychic ability.  These characters should make up a tiny part of the population.  In a city with 2 million people you would expect no more than 20 vampires, but in a typical MUSH all 20 of those vampires will be PCs, and there are not going to be 2 million "normal" mortal PCs balancing them out.  There might be 100-200 mortal PCs, especially if the game allows mulit-playing, but many of them will have taken supernatural merits and flaws to make themselves special.  There may be more vampires than genuine vanilla human PCs who honestly don't know that monsters are real.

I'm not suggesting that Armageddon move that far, because after a while it gets silly.  But allowing a few more supernatural characters to exist might be the easiest answer.  If someone puts in a good, well planed app for a sorcerer, go ahead and let 'em play it even if there are already 10 active sorcerers.  The more sorcerers there are active, then the more likely that some of them will screw up, and so the more vigilant the anti-sorcerer forces will become.  it is a self-adjusting system.

What is the worst that could happen?  Everyone creates sorcerers, and then this becomes a Magick the Gathering mud.  :twisted:

Quote from: "Zacharai"If you have trouble keeping characters alive for more than a few days, no way in hell should you take one of these classes.  

Just out of curiosity, why not?  Do these characters start out monsterously powerful?  I don't have that kind of Karma, but I doubt it.  If a Psionicist gets approved and dies a week later, so what?  They aren't hogging a slot for long, so it isn't like a flash in the pan charcter prevents other, longer-lived characters from being played.  Ok, a sorcerer might leave some disturbing traces of ash around before they kick the bucket, but they aren't going to seriously disrupt the story line.  

Sure, it would be nice if they lived a long time and did important stuff, but you can say that about any character.  I don't see any intrinsic reason why a Nilazi should live longer than a Burglar or Ranger.  The docs make it seem like a Sorcerer or Psi can be detected by the High Templars and God-Kings inside the cities, even when they aren't doing anything particularily significant.  To me, that says that if I was going to play a Psi or Sorc, then I shouldn't base them out of a major city, or my character may be "discovered" and revealed by powerful NPCs or VNPCs.  Basing yourself out of a small town isn't any better, in most of the small settlements there is no "safe" place to cast.  You can get yourself a Secret hideout, that seems the most logical thing to do even if you occasionally risk visits to a village or city to get supplies, but wilderness hideouts are innately dangerous to any newbie.  If you are in a known wilderness quit room you could have company litterally materialize without warning.  Travelling to and from the hideout is dangerous too: one scrab or gortok can kill an unarmored newbie ranger  or warrior in a couple hits, and likely can take out a non-combat class even faster.  Sure, eventually that won't be an issue, but most characters die in the newbie phase with less that 5 or 10 days played.  

I have no idea how people play this classes if they ever use any of their coded abilities.  And if they aren't using those abilities there is no reason for them to have chosen a high Karma class in the first place, instead they could just play deranged burglars who think they are or want to be sorcerers.  It is flat out illegal and/or an abomination to be a Sorcerer or Psionicist in virtually every culture in the known world.  (I'm not sure about Nilazi, it isn't clear if they are tollerated in Allanak or not.)  Some of the small towns have a don't ask/don't tell policy, and as long as you don't flaunt your abilities inside the village they'll leave you alone, but I think if defiler ash started showing up a few miles away from the village even the laid back places would organize a lynch mob.  Living in the wilderness is a virtual death sentance for any newbie, regardless of class.  I'm surprised that -any- of them ever live long enough to be a threat to anyone.  Keeping one alive seems like a nearly impossible challenge, keeping one alive and integrated into a society would be mind-bogglingly difficult.

I figure the first time I try a new guild, race, or location it is a test drive.  I take the character out for a spin and see what they can do.  Until I know what skills the character starts with, it is very difficult to form a life plan.  I once wanted to try a spear hunter rather than a bow hunter, so I picked a guild I thought started with throw, and I was right.  Unfortunately that guild did -not- get skinning, and I was very surprised because I hadn't been playing long and I sort of expected that they would.  Due to my subguild I could tan hides and work the leather, but without the skinning skill I hardly ever managed to get any hides.  The concept was unplayable as I had envisioned it, because the guild/subguild combination I chose didn't get one lousy skill.  It is easier to get "listen" than it is to get "skin."  My point is that when someone is planning a character in a guild they haven't played before, they may guess incorrectly about what that character will plausibly be able to do to make a living, and that mistake can easily lead to an untimely death.  "Oops, my newbie psi can't do X after all, so I guess I'll have to fall back on gathering salt to earn a few coins.  Oh look, a scrab.  Arrrgh!  Gurgle . . . Ack!  Ouch!"

Ahem.


AC
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Boggis on March 17, 2004, 06:00:58 AM
I think the simplest option is for the Staff to have a quick extra look at apps for sorcerers, etc. when they come in from players with the karma points for these roles. I would guess that its a fairly simple procedure to look over the history of what roles they have been playing before and if the person is playing too many of the same high-end role simply refuse the app, tell them to try something else for a while and give others a chance. I know somebody said that Sanvean didn't want to have to look back over previous roles but how many people have that high level of karma really? I wouldn't think it would be a heavy burden.

I don't think a timer would be much fun for anybody as accidents can easily happen, especially the first time you play any character. Suddenly losing the chance to play the role for a while would be a bit of a kick in the teeth, especially seeing as you've earned the right to play such a role by earning all that karma.

So, when sorcerer / psi / nilazi apps from high karma players are being examined just have a quick peek over what they've played before and factor that into the decision on whether they get approved or rejected. We're not talking indepth checks here - just a 30 second look over what they've been playing the past few roles. I think such players have earned the rights to play such roles, just not excessively so that other players can't get their foot in the door. Also, this means they're not being punished which is generally an unpleasant thing for the Staff to have to do I'm sure - just they're told that particular door is shut for a while to them. If this reduces the amount of high karma apps coming in then this would leave more room for special apps from players who don't have the karma for the roles but have an interesting idea nevertheless.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Twilight on March 17, 2004, 06:28:32 AM
I am a big fan of having some restraint when playing the karma classes.  I love magickers, and would be happy to exclusively play them.  In fact, I would prefer it.  But I make myself play at least one mundane character between magickers.  I have access to one of the guilds in question.  I have played three characters from that guild in the last three years or so, and had quite a few characters over that time.  I look forward to someday hopefully seeing the last two class options show up on my list.  I feel I have been fairly responsible in not only playing the characters I play, in the game, but also in choosing which guilds/races to play, and I will continue to be.

I have this feeling that the problem is not me (gosh I hope!), or the system.

Quotewe've noticed a problem where a few players

Sanvean has said it herself.  The problem is a few players.  The solution should target those few players.  If you have asked them not to play those select guilds so often, and they have not complied, personally I don't feel they are not living up to the responsibility of high karma, as part of this is an OOC level of responsibility.  I feel somewhat strongly about this, as someone who doesn't always play that next character as the guild they really, really want to even though they can, because I feel people should abide by the spirit behind the karma system (to reduce numbers of certain guilds/races) if they have a significant amount of it.  Just choosing high karma guilds over and over, or for that matter any karma guild over and over, just doesn't show a lot of support for the system.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Quirk on March 17, 2004, 07:25:52 AM
Quote from: "Anonymous"People will eventually stop seeing special applications for Nilazi, Psionists and Sorcerers as asking for special treatment instead of earning the right to play them.

And this would be a bad thing, just as it would be if we took away karma altogether and replaced it with special apps.

Those who clamour the loudest for the roles are not always those who will play the roles the best. Frequently the opposite is the case.

Quirk
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: spawnloser on March 17, 2004, 09:32:32 AM
Quote from: "Zacharai"If you get upset waiting a week for a response about one of these classes, you're obviously not cut out for the responsibility and patience required.  These are characters that should live for 50+ days, do important things, and perhaps be leaders to the few who know their capabilities.  Any long-lived character has significant amounts of downtime, and I believe that any good nilazian, psi, or sorc should be long-lived.  If you can't handle the wait, you can't handle the downtime, and thus it all works out in the end.
Why should any one character last longer than another?  Anyone could be unlucky and get eaten by something stupid a few hours out.  I know of one sorcerer character that didn't do much other than get a job and live a relatively normal life...still pursuing his sorcery, but otherwise normal, run of the mill dude.  Why does one class or karma option make the character any more important?  I wonder this.

Now...after further debate and discussion...the options put up that have been discussed and my thoughts on them.

Timer: Low maintenance, still allows people that have earned the trust to play them.  Maybe Mansa's timetable could be reworked...I don't see any issue with someone that only plays d.elves.  Some people just are good at it and like it.  Good for them.  Let them do it.  Other karma-required races?  Half-giant I don't see much of a problem with...I would keep a timer on mul.  The lower echelons of magicker?  I don't have a problem with.  I'd say anything 5+ karma could use a timer.  Anything under isn't a big deal and people could still be getting used to the magick system and want to learn.  By the time anyone has gotten to 5+ karma, if they're playing magickers, they should know how the system works.

Special app process, in its varied forms: The Highlord+ system, after some thought, I don't like.  Just doing it as a normal special app, I don't like.  Both require too much work for the staff.

Karma loss: I don't like the karma points system, as that would require a lot of maintaining on the staff's part.  However, I do like the idea of  checking what people have played in the past and if all they play are nilazis, tell them to cut it out and put a note on the account that they were told to not keep playing the same shit...and if they don't cut it out, they are obviously not trustworthy and responsible enough to have the karma.  Strip it and put a note on the account that this happened and why.

Which do I like the most?  Asking them to stop, and if they don't, stop them with karma loss.  Simplest and easiest and as AC said, target only the people doing this.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Carnage on March 18, 2004, 08:41:25 PM
http://www.zalanthas.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1472

I want something like I suggested. Let me know that there's a lot of Nilazi in the game so I don't end up being the two hundreth.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: EvilRoeSlade on March 18, 2004, 08:53:20 PM
Quote from: "spawnloser"Karma loss: I don't like the karma points system, as that would require a lot of maintaining on the staff's part.  However, I do like the idea of  checking what people have played in the past and if all they play are nilazis, tell them to cut it out and put a note on the account that they were told to not keep playing the same shit...and if they don't cut it out, they are obviously not trustworthy and responsible enough to have the karma.  Strip it and put a note on the account that this happened and why.

Yes, yes.  Nobody likes that solution, myself included.  Can we forget I mentioned it now?

But I still wonder what you think about having sorceror/psionicist/nilazi karma automatically removed after the option is used, making the players that have previously gained such karma levels have to wait a while until the staff remembers them and gives them their karma back.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: spawnloser on March 18, 2004, 09:11:35 PM
Oh, I forgot about that one, ERS.  Since you asked, though...

The auto-strip of nilazi/psi/sorc karma solution seems kinda harsh, to me.  It seems to suggest that once you've earned the right yo play a nilazi, and you play it...all of a sudden you're not trusted enough any more to play another one?  Also, under this solution, when you play any of these guilds, you can't play any of the other three when the karma get's stripped.  Let's pretend someone gets there 7th karma...and they get all excited...they wait...they get their 8th, and they're so excited they nearly pee themself...now, they want to try out these new options they have.  Suddenly they have to choose between the options, knowing that they will likely have to wait a little while before they get back up to 7 or 8 karma again to be able to play another of any of these guilds.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: EvilRoeSlade on March 18, 2004, 09:38:18 PM
You misunderstand.  If they played a psionicist, a psionicist is the only option that they'd lose.

Anyway, the purpose isn't to punish them, just to make sure that they have to wait a while before playing those certain guilds.  I purposely leave it up to the staff to decide how long they want them to wait.

At any rate, the timer option would also be an effective solution.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Jacques on March 19, 2004, 10:29:02 AM
After having read all of the above in one sitting, my brain is slowly leaking out of my ears - seems just TALKING about psionicists is enough to melt my mind. However, I want to point out something that I don't recall being discussed, and then offer a variant of the Highlord+ option that seems to me to be a possible workaround for this.

It is possible to have a LOT of karma from playing simple roles, and playing them well. I know for myself there are a lot of the mid-level karma options that I have no real interest in playing. The problem will be if someone like this gains a bunch of karma and then gets ambitious and decides "I've always wanted to play a mindbender..." (You laugh, but the thought has crossed MY mind more than once). OK, he has no idea how to do this, and after a confusing 6 or 10 hours, dies due to a horribly foolish mistake. People are now saying that he can't try again for a RL year? That seems unfair to me. Sure, maybe not two in a row, but if he goes out, plays something else for a month or two, and then wants to try again, I don't see why he shouldn't be able to.

For myself, I would prefer the following solution. The next time that new staff applications are taken, make one of the staff members (new or old) a chronicler for high-karma roles - that would be their primary job on staff. Any application, special or regular, for a role requiring 6 or greater karma will go through this staff member. The person's job will then be to look at an out of game record (text file, database, spreadsheet - whatever) of people who have played these roles, when their last app was, and determine if the person is "overdoing it." Make a policy - maybe no more than two roles from the 6+ list in a row - after that, you have to play something else for a while, to give others a chance. The position would be similar to that of a clan imm, and since it is all being done by a single person, it would be a lot easier, communication-wise. You could list in the documentation somewhere: "All applications for these classes must also be forwarded to KickAssGuildApprover@zalanthas.org or they will not be considered."

This way, there would be an out of game record for this, so that whoever is in charge of it can review things without having to access a person's account on Arm unless they wanted to. The "chronicler" would simply check to see if the account had played a bunch of high-karma roles recently, and send either a "This person has played a lot of these - ask them to play something else for a character or two." or a "If this person has enough karma, or you think her special app is all right, she's fine."  Once the new role is approved, an email gets sent to the chronicler, who puts it into the record with the date of the app and what guild it was. A quick comparison of this record with the list of characters associated with an account could tell you how many in a row someone had played.

Is it work? Absolutely. But it wouldn't necessarily be a LOT of work - just something that the person would have to look at a couple times per week. If you're applying for a high-karma role, you can wait a few days, after all. It would mean people with the karma could play a Void Elementalist, and then a Psionicist if they wanted, but would stop people from playing 4 Sorcerors in a row.

Just my couple of 'sid on this topic.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: X-D on March 20, 2004, 04:55:06 AM
First, I'm against taking them off the karma list, I like the idea of earning them, I like seeing them on my list of choices, specialy for the first time, I HATE special apps and basicly avoid them at all cost.

The timer idea I kinda like, except I do not like the set time based on karma of char.

Why? because odds are quite high that the first char or even the first few somebody gets on a new karma level will die quickly.

Instead, How about a simple timer that starts when the char has X number of hours played, say, 12-24, the timer starts and if the char dies then you cannot make another char of that karma (psi/sorc/nilazi only) for X times number of hours played.

I know Sanvean said that she would prefer if coding was not an issue, but this should be pretty simple, and -should- work quite well to limit number of chars of a type in game and take care of the problem of people taking sorc or psi or nilazi over and over again. Say, give nilazi a multiple of 5 sorc a multiple of 10 and psi a multiple of 20.

Personaly I think it would work well enough to maybe even cut down on the special apping of said classes.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: spawnloser on March 20, 2004, 11:29:03 AM
If we're going to do a timer for those karma roles, it should be a timer that is based off of play time...if your nilazi was played for 30 days, you will have to play another role(s) for 30 days of play time...same for psionicist/sorc...maybe twice as much.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Bestatte on March 20, 2004, 11:39:38 AM
I'd rather let the staff decide on a case by case basis, rather than come up with some arbitrary numbers or days or timers. If a 30-day nilazian was being played badly, twinking on occasion, not taking his surroundings into consideration, spam-crafting feather earrings while he waited for his mana to regen or -whatever- - then why should he be given a 30-day wait time before he can play another one? He should have nilaz taken from him and suggestion made to try something less stressful/boring/whatever until he proves himself worthy of the class again.

Or if a 2-day nilazian did an AWESOME job interacting, RPing, getting things moving, getting deep into his character from the get-go, why penalize him a 30-day wait period if he got unlucky with a backfiring spell or whatever happens to those types when something goes wrong?

In short, keep it simple. Let the staff decide who gets what, and when.  If they feel nilaz/sorc/mindbender should be special app, I say let them do it without complaint for awhile. If it turns out to be a failed experiment, they'll bring back the old system or try something else.

Edited to add one point I feel is -very- important:

Please, if the staff does make the change to special app, I urge the staff to add more people who can review and approve them. Putting all special apps into one person's hands is already daunting I would think. Adding more would tip over the line into ridiculous.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Akaramu on March 20, 2004, 11:56:37 AM
Quote from: "Bestatte"Please, if the staff does make the change to special app, I urge the staff to add more people who can review and approve them. Putting all special apps into one person's hands is already daunting I would think. Adding more would tip over the line into ridiculous.

I'm with Bestatte there. If there were more staff member viewing / rejecting / commenting on special apps I'd be a very happy player. It is quite disheartening to wait months for a "This wontnt work" response. Or get none at all. It would be great if we could get the "this wontnt work" after a week or two for EVERY serious special app. If there were some added comments about why it wontnt work, I'd be even happier. I've had an app pending for about a month now, I have no idea if I will ever get an answer.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: flurry on March 20, 2004, 12:24:49 PM
I voted for make them special app, but as an alternative I'd prefer something simpler than some of the other suggestions on this thread.   Just make it a policy that one can't play two void elementalists in a row, two psis in a row, or two sorcerers in a row.   Don't worry about coding this or having people remove options and add them back in later.  Don't worry about having immortals keep careful tab of who played what when.  Karma 8 people are supposed to be ubertrustworthy, so just tell them that's the policy.   If any of them can't follow that, or somehow abuse that policy, they shouldn't be at 8 karma.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: spawnloser on March 20, 2004, 12:37:09 PM
You see, Bestatte, Sanvean wants something that will cause the least amount of work for staff.  Having the staff have to decide on a case by case basis is probably adding a bunch of work.  I'd rather just remove the karma from people.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Carnage on March 20, 2004, 01:42:40 PM
Quote from: "spawnloser"You see, Bestatte, Sanvean wants something that will cause the least amount of work for staff.  Having the staff have to decide on a case by case basis is probably adding a bunch of work.  I'd rather just remove the karma from people.

Usually the solution that involves the least amount of work is the worst one.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: spawnloser on March 20, 2004, 02:13:40 PM
Why is that, Carnage?  Too much work for too little gain is a waste of time.  How would you suggest dealing with the problem without punishing anyone else?
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Forest Junkie on March 20, 2004, 02:16:56 PM
Quote from: "spawnloser"Why is that, Carnage?  Too much work for too little gain is a waste of time.  How would you suggest dealing with the problem without punishing anyone else?

How about I answer this for him.

SET A TIMER AS PUNGEE THE PENGUIN SUGGESTED. THIS RULES OUT ALL POSSIBILITIES OF CHEATING, HORDING ROLES AVAILABLE, AND ALL THAT SHIT.

Conclusion, others will have a chance to play high karma roles, no one has to lose karma, everyone will be happy, since everyone shall get equal playing time, so, more than likely, there shall not be incessant whining in the sand box.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: spawnloser on March 20, 2004, 02:22:24 PM
How do you know that a timer would be the easiest method to code (because it would take code).  Skipping code issues and having the staff take care of it rules out cheating too, or are you saying that you think the staff cheats?  Why should people that are abusing the system not lose karma?
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Forest Junkie on March 20, 2004, 02:27:40 PM
Quote from: "spawnloser"Skipping code issues and having the staff take care of it rules out cheating too, or are you saying that you think the staff cheats?  Why should people that are abusing the system not lose karma?

What the hell, how do you come up with this shit? I never once inferred the staff cheats, but if you want to get anal, go read Sanveans original post. She stated retired staff are ones who have been noted to do horde roles.

Again, no one said they are ABUSING the system. People said they were not moving on to new things. There is a difference. It's not like they killed someone, they just play high karma pcs too damn much. They shouldn't be PUNISHED for using their karma. They should be LIMITED, to give others with karma a chance to play them.

What's easier, in your mind:

Setting a one-time clock, that handles ALL accounts, or watching each and every player seperately to make sure they do not take every sorc role available. Not only would the timer be easier on STAFF after it was implemented, it would be FAIR AND BALANCED.

P.S. Just like Fox.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: spawnloser on March 20, 2004, 02:37:25 PM
I inferred nothing.  I asked a question, FJ.  You're reading in to what I'm saying too much.  If the staff says, "You are playing this role again and again, cut it out," and the person told this doens't cut it out, they are abusing it.  They deserve karma loss.  If the staff isn't cheating, this solves the problem.

As far as timer vs karma loss, how is an arbitrary clock that doesn't take into account that someone made a character and was getting used to what it could do...testing things, and then goes to make a character that is more realistic and will have a truer impact on the world with what they could and should do instead of bumbling around like a Half-Giant with a nuke...and now they can't do that because this arbitrary number has been assigned that can't see all of the variables, just one.  It's not like people that are playing those roles are going to die terribly often.  Most of them have been around for a while and have a good feel for how the mud works, in general, so we shouldn't be seeing the apps that would need this additional twenty seconds scrutiny.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Carnage on March 20, 2004, 03:11:40 PM
Quote from: "spawnloser"Why is that, Carnage?  Too much work for too little gain is a waste of time.  How would you suggest dealing with the problem without punishing anyone else?

I've said it before. Put in a system that allows players to see something like "There are many Nilazi in the game" "There are a few psionicists in the game" "Some sorcerers are in the game". Let players moderate and decide before bringing down some iron-fisted enforcement.

On the other hand, you could just tell players that constantly make these roles and ask them to take a break from them every now and then. Sure, it takes work, but it's better than basically taking away two levels of karma from the tree.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: spawnloser on March 20, 2004, 03:20:59 PM
I'm not saying to take away those two levels...I'm saying to take it away from the people that don't listen to the staff, obviously meaning that the staff can not trust them, so they don't deserve the karma.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Unicorn on March 20, 2004, 03:38:38 PM
Quote from: "flurry"Just make it a policy that one can't play two void elementalists in a row, two psis in a row, or two sorcerers in a row.   Don't worry about coding this or having people remove options and add them back in later.  Don't worry about having immortals keep careful tab of who played what when.  Karma 8 people are supposed to be ubertrustworthy, so just tell them that's the policy.

I quoted this just in case this excellent suggestion got lost in the furor of other "debate".  I think it is elegant in its very simplicity.  :) IF someone doesn't follow it then let some karma loss ensue just as it would for not following other important policies.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: creeper386 on March 20, 2004, 04:00:23 PM
See, I don't think there is really a problem with people even playing alot of high karma level things all in a row. Now, if it's to the point of being bad for the MUD ...  Yes perhaps then the staff should ask someone to play something else for abit, but I wouldn't want to see anything like it coded so you can't play them, or even a policy that you CAN NOT play this more then once in a row.

Heck, I'll probably never have the karma to play them but if I gained that much karma although I probably wouldn't play the same thing over and over again, I'd be alittle miffed if I was told outright something like that. To me it's an insult to those that play right aren't trusted now because someone else can't play fairly.

Whats next? Special App or some code that stops you from playing muls, or magickers more then once in a row? Perhaps we should just institute code to keep anyone from playing the same race/class/subclass twice in a row and that'd fix everything.  :roll:  

Creeper
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: flurry on March 20, 2004, 04:29:44 PM
Quote from: "creeper386"Heck, I'll probably never have the karma to play them but if I gained that much karma although I probably wouldn't play the same thing over and over again, I'd be alittle miffed if I was told outright something like that. To me it's an insult to those that play right aren't trusted now because someone else can't play fairly.

Well I don't think it's so much an issue of people playing fairly.  They're just playing what they want to play and what they have the karma to play.   The problem, as I understand it, is that the karma 8+ people are accounting for more void/psi/sorcs than the Immortals feel is a healthy number.   So that has two possible negative consequences that I see -

(a) it will be that much harder, if not impossible, for special apps for those roles to be approved,

and also (which I haven't seen mentioned)
(b) it will be that much harder, if not impossible, to get bumped up to 8 karma.  

So something does have to give it seems like.

P.S.  Sanvean said that asking people to play something else for a bit hasn't worked.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: jhunter on March 20, 2004, 06:48:21 PM
I don't think it's right that the people with the karma to play them are playing them to the exclusion to anything else...seems like there's only one reason they would do so...

I also don't think it's right even to allow people to special app for things they don't have the karma to...those with the karma should get priority and I don't think that should change either.

I think the best over all  solution is to just flat out deny an app for the karma options in question with the reasoning that they are doing it too damned much...which is the fact of the matter or we wouldn't be discussing this now.

I know this has already been suggested and I think it the best route to take personally.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: spawnloser on March 21, 2004, 11:02:01 AM
jhunter, something it seems to me that you have not thought of, what is the point of special apping if you can just make the character anyway due to your karma level?
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Forest Junkie on March 21, 2004, 02:21:31 PM
Quote from: "spawnloser"jhunter, something it seems to me that you have not thought of, what is the point of special apping if you can just make the character anyway due to your karma level?

That's just it, I think he's trying to say special apping has no purpose, and should therefore be eliminated.

That would be slightly drastic, though, and a bit unfair to players who wish to be given a chance to prove they can do something.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: jhunter on March 21, 2004, 05:20:35 PM
Quotejhunter, something it seems to me that you have not thought of, what is the point of special apping if you can just make the character anyway due to your karma level?


Man. that's about an insulting question...that would be the main objection to making people who already have the karma have to special app them...whatever gave you the idea that I -don't- know this...seems like the -most obvious- aspect of this entire discussion.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: jhunter on March 21, 2004, 05:29:32 PM
Yes, Forest Junkie that's exactly what I am saying.

As for players special apping to be given the chance to prove they can do something...isn't that like begging for karma?

I mean...if you were trusted enough by the imms to have such a role...wouldn't you have the karma to make it yourself?
Title: Special Apps
Post by: Bhagharva on March 21, 2004, 05:40:57 PM
Special Apps allow us to work with a player to flesh out the ideas, so the player isn't assuming things they shouldn't, or being told something they should know ICly. Almost everyone that takes the time and thought to work on an application and send it gets accepted after making enough changes to suit a role that is available. For example;

I don't want to see any more magicker applications for desert elf roles in SLK and ATV until I fill the open roles. Even though you may have the karma.. I don't need yet another player who does not understand the ways and customs of a clan but has the karma to play it to be able to barge in.  Then in ignorance, break the atmostphere of the tribe and disrupt RP sessions, all because they didn't take time to learn about the clan they are in. Special apped clans and guilds require more than average knowledge of the game world. Certain players have karma but are not worldly, certain players are worldly but do not have karma.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Cenghiz on March 21, 2004, 06:07:15 PM
I had 0 level karma till I applied for a magicker, then Sanvean decided that I already should get the karma, then gave the karma instead.
Imms are no cyborgs, AFAIK. They can't watch every person at every corner, especially if you're playing at noon, when it's only 5 am EST. Some people are not watched when they twink, go kill scrabs every day buffing up backstab on them; some people couldn't be watched when they acted like a damned level 17 karma. I think people must have the right to apply for a role which is one or two levels higher than their karma is.
That's my two silver coins, and I won't give any of them to you.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: jhunter on March 21, 2004, 06:10:03 PM
Bhagharva,
Right...but -you- are requesting the apps, that's a big difference.
You are looking for something specific to fills some roles...that's understandable.

It's not the same as someone special app'ing for something neither being requested for, nor do they have the karma to play, IMHO.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: crymerci on March 21, 2004, 06:45:51 PM
The karma system is great...but it's not perfect.

Maybe you've never really distinguished yourself as a Rukkian or a half-giant, but you'd make an outstanding mul.  Maybe the first time you ever heard about their internal struggle you knew you'd love to play one someday. But in the meantime you're stuck in roles which are enjoyable and competently-played, but which may never catapult you to mul karma.

This is the sort of case that the special application system was designed for. It's not there to disregard the karma system, but rather to make up for the imperfections in it.

Given that it is an impefect system, I think it works remarkably well. And I sincerely doubt that anyone with only level 1 karma is getting granted psion special apps (for example). But I don't think it's unreasonable to aim a level or three above what you have, if you have a really good concept and a good record.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Forest Junkie on March 21, 2004, 06:56:14 PM
Quote from: "crymerci"This is the sort of case that the special application system was designed for. It's not there to disregard the karma system, but rather to make up for the imperfections in it.

Yeah, I agree.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: spawnloser on March 21, 2004, 07:00:55 PM
Quote from: "jhunter"Man. that's about an insulting question...that would be the main objection to making people who already have the karma have to special app them...whatever gave you the idea that I -don't- know this...seems like the -most obvious- aspect of this entire discussion.
That's not an insulting question.  You weren't clear.  If you meant what FJ afterwards said he thought you did, why not say it outright?  I don't expect much of anything from anyone, so when you say something that suggests that you had possibly just not thought of something, I'll speak up...maybe you were tired, who knows?

If they get rid of those karma levels and make everyone have to special app for all of those roles, that's the way it is.  People don't have enough karma to play a halfling or mantis.  Those karma levels don't exist.  If they did that to nilazi/sorc/psi, the karma levels wouldn't exist so there is no point to that arguement.  It is a drastic solution, granted.  I've already stated what I think they should do.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: slipshod on March 21, 2004, 07:29:36 PM
I think that making those guilds special app. only is an EXCELLENT A-1 super idea.  I vote an emphatic YES.

Actually, I always assumed that they sort of were special app. anyway... even if you have the karma to play one, I never imagined that people would be doing so without running it by the staff first... for one of the very reasons Sanvean mentioned - to make sure that there aren't already too many of that type in an area.

anyhoo, I read the question, and I voted.  I skipped over the 8 pages of replies, so I might be repeating something someone else said.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: jhunter on March 21, 2004, 08:21:51 PM
Couldn't have been that unclear...you were the only one who stated obviously that you didn't understand bud.
*shrugs*
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: a dull black gem on March 22, 2004, 11:41:31 PM
I personally think things should be kept as they are.  If I have the karma for a nilazi and I want to play one, I should be able to apply for one normally and not have to go through a special app. process.  Frankly special apps are a pain in the ass, for both the players and I'd guess the staff.  They definitly have their place, for templars, nobles, players who don't have the karma but deserve a shot.  But as it is, we have one poor guy getting spamed with apps every day on top of his other staff responsibilities.  Why dump just that much more on him?  And I would rather not take another imm from somewhere else and have them focusing on review special apps too, insted of adding to the world in a more visable way.

However, it's not cool for players with high karma monopolizing a class.  But I think the best solution to this is in the normal app. reviewing process.  Why not just have the account system add 10 simple lines of text onto the apps the imms will be reviewing? It should list
the last 10 characters that account had made, their guilds and races, their playing time and the RL dates they were made and died.  If it looks like a player is playing a high karma role too much simply deny their app for their next high karma role.  Let them know they were denied because in the staffs opinion they should trying something else for a while.  First of all, they can't just shrug it off, because they are being forced to do something else.  If they keep applying for the high karma role they will keep being rejected.  And secondly, I would hope that any player with that much karma would understand the staffs decision and be thankful the staff was looking out for the good of the game world.

That way if I haven't played a nilazi for a while and I feel the urge I can without spending a month or two making a special app, yet my character concept is of course still checked by an imm.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Ix Machina on March 22, 2004, 11:56:15 PM
I just wanted to state, in response to special applications being a pain in the ass: No way.

At least not for me. I can't ever remember receiving an application and thinking 'Oh great, another stupid special app.' Even when I haven't been looking for them.

I would rather make the room in my clan for someone who sent me a special application (and get back to them quickly) because then I could see that they really were interested in the clan and playing in it, that they took the time to think out a character beforehand, and I could always go through and help them fill in the blanks and give them a better picture of the kind of pc that would ease into it better.

Much for the same reasons Bhag said... I never (and even as a player) thought of special applications as a pain in the ass for any pc (mine or others).

If anything, they make a spectacular sounding board.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: EvilRoeSlade on March 23, 2004, 12:51:51 AM
Ix Machina:  Specially applying for a role out of your Karma league is and always has been different than applying for a role in the clan, and you have not served in the position of reviewing the former.

I speak of specially applying strictly in the former sense and I think everybody else here does as well.  I don't begrudge the staff for purposely making it low priority, nor do I think that Naephet is a horrible person for not replying to special apps sooner.  But special application is merely a small system to help support the larger system of Karma.  I think upsetting that balance would be a big mistake.

However, I see the need to place limits on roles.  That is necessary, and the only problem currently is that the staff only moderates roles with special applications and doesn't play a hand in all roles in general.  There are a lot more options than turning to special application, and I heartily encourage that they be explored and experimented with.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Oxidised Lizard on March 29, 2004, 01:47:00 PM
I think sorcer/psi/void should definitely be kept as a karma level.  As has been said before, it is easy enough to deny a regular app if the player is playing too many of these characters.  And it is also easy enough to send a quick e-mail to the player to tell him/her of the problem.  If the problem persists (unlikely) the karma could be removed for that player.
Title: Question for y'all
Post by: Blue_Static on March 29, 2004, 11:39:32 PM
tell me if this sounds stupid. But why not just make it harder to get approved for a role such as this, Just make sure that all app,s for these
types of char,s would have to have a great idea to go with
Title: Let it be special app..
Post by: on March 30, 2004, 01:24:25 PM
I say let it be special app. But then again I don't feel the pain of those with high karma.

I like the ideas along the line of temporarily reducing their karma down once thay have played on of those roles. Once they have played a set number of hours as a different
kind of pc it gets set back. Maybe a day as another type of PC at least. And since they are trusted players, hopefully they won't immediately suicide after the time limit.