|
|
Post by lyse on Feb 12, 2015 1:43:25 GMT -5
You know what I'm going to say: fix the freaking storytelling. If more mindless little things happend, smaller story arcs, things that could be resolved in a couple of days or even an evening people would love that. Even things that required players to do their own legwork and discover things on their own.
Tldr; more collaboration between players and staff.
|
|
|
|
Post by Procrastination on Feb 12, 2015 8:07:39 GMT -5
I really like lists. This one does point out quite a few 'general things players want changed in some way'. Though we cannot all agree on the exact way to change them, these are just the issues themselves that we agree are wonky in some way. I really do think most players agree the glass ceiling is a little low for large scale potential to affect the game world.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2015 8:26:08 GMT -5
Yeah, that is another great point that few if any players seem to disagree with.
|
|
Patuk
Shartist
Posts: 552
|
Post by Patuk on Feb 12, 2015 8:50:50 GMT -5
I won't disagree entirely, but which roles exactly do you feel we would need to 'raise' the glass ceiling?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2015 9:55:08 GMT -5
Byn Lieutenant is the one that comes to mind right away.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2015 10:01:03 GMT -5
TBH, red robe or High Templar. I'd limit it to 1 of each at a time, but I don't think it would be harmful to the gameworld provided their pc was of the type to be overly involved with the units of the military under their blue robe/faithful underling's command, and spend most of their time with the military clans, allowing the nobles/templars of a regular stripe more free time to socialize with nobility and/or wheel and deal with GMHs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2015 10:03:51 GMT -5
Right. I agree that players should not be force stored when attaining those kinds of promotions. I understand, though, that some of these 'higher' roles would be really isolating, even more so than junior noble/blue robe templar. I'm not sure how to deal with it without a much larger playerbase, which, let's be honest with ourselves here, is not happening. I've wondered before if some limited multiplaying in these specific cases might help, but then again it'd be tough; since everyone would be reporting every little going-on with you as a red-robe or high templar or whatever, it's pretty likely you'd stumble across some information that would affect your other PC.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2015 10:16:08 GMT -5
Maybe if the north and south weren't supposed to be at war, more or less. As it is, encouraging a single role of that level in each city state would give each of the roles in question an equal pc opposition, allow greater pc latitude in war efforts, and give higher ranking ass to kiss for gmh members, someone they wouldn't be able to outrank socially no matter what, and it would also give a lot of other RP for those in military clans under them.
It would ideally come with a few stipulations along the lines of:
Only 1 per city-state at a time.
Must earn the role IC from regular faithful/templar, will not be a rolecall.
If you're forced to earn it IC, that means you're automatically fairly involved with the military in your city state, to have earned it through working as war ministry/working right with the legions/levies, etc, thus it being preestablished IC.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2015 10:19:57 GMT -5
I read the thread in which...who was it? Adhira? declared there would be no more red robes or anything of that nature. Someone, I think it was FantasyWriter, was complaining about how their policy of taking such things on a "case-by-case basis" could be interpreted as favoritism. The reply kind of seemed to me like "oh, you don't like the way we distribute our toys, huh? Well, now you'll be sorry you ever said that--no toys for anyone!"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2015 10:29:48 GMT -5
It wouldn't be any more favortism (and in fact would be less) than using role calls or inviting pcs to roles without even posting a role call.
After all, the player never knows how many other applications there are or aren't, if someone is invited to put in for it when a call opens up, etc. They're just left thinking they didn't have a good enough application or staff hates them. If you force the promotion to be something earned through in game competence and action, it encourages better adherence to the documentation, creates more roleplay, and allows players to be promoted in a limited fashion, even try and assassinate a red robe in the hopes they can get the role, highlander style, et al.
|
|
|
|
Post by jcarter on Feb 12, 2015 10:33:29 GMT -5
the staff don't want players to be able to have an impact on the game world. i think everyone can agree on that, although I anticipate nyr would retort it with a milquetoast "that's not true, we evaluate these things based on player effort and how they fit in as well as reviewing them on a case-by-case basis" but we all know what that means. it's already jarring enough when staff refuse to change the game world despite IC interaction (i.e. the Guild curtain -> door bitch I constantly bring up). having players be red-robes would make this even more jarring and limited because ICly they should be able to do quite a number of things that aren't codedly supported which would make an effort. staff aren't going to put in the work for this, and it's going to end up being jarring.
in the end, the only perceivable difference is that you're trading in a blue-robe for a red-robe while maintaining the exact same coded power level. you're not going to get any more leeway to effect plots or additional responsibilities.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2015 10:33:42 GMT -5
I just think it's ridiculous that players can suggest the same things over and over (such as the items on the list in the OP) and staff gives vague or unhelpful responses, but because of one person's remark on the GDB, they are willing to make a knee-jerk decision right there to make several roles that players attain to universally unplayable across the board. WTF.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2015 10:34:40 GMT -5
That is a good point, jcarter, but I'm deliberately being kind of idealistic with this thread, sadly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2015 10:37:13 GMT -5
smacks of nyr's post this morning about elves and how it 'goes in one ear and out the other' in the elf running thread, then he himself pulls up half a dozen threads from players who find this problematic, and say exactly what's problematic about it, how, why, etc, and talks about how it's like the PLAYERS aren't listening.
No, they're listening. They just have a thing where the problem doesn't cease to exist because of a vague promise that maybe someday someone will get to a thing.
At least Rathustra's up front about unironically supporting the idea of making city elves npc only roles.
|
|
|
|
Post by sirra on Feb 12, 2015 16:36:41 GMT -5
the staff don't want players to be able to have an impact on the game world. i think everyone can agree on that, although I anticipate nyr would retort it with a milquetoast "that's not true, we evaluate these things based on player effort and how they fit in as well as reviewing them on a case-by-case basis" but we all know what that means. it's already jarring enough when staff refuse to change the game world despite IC interaction (i.e. the Guild curtain -> door bitch I constantly bring up). having players be red-robes would make this even more jarring and limited because ICly they should be able to do quite a number of things that aren't codedly supported which would make an effort. staff aren't going to put in the work for this, and it's going to end up being jarring. in the end, the only perceivable difference is that you're trading in a blue-robe for a red-robe while maintaining the exact same coded power level. you're not going to get any more leeway to effect plots or additional responsibilities. Indeed. Let's be honest - a PC blue robe templar, while the seeming IC font of authority on warehouses, can't even give one to a player without staff approval. Going by Nyr's own post on the board, the PC templar has to inform staff, and then staff decide if the PC is worthy of a warehouse - not based on IC or RP - but based on an evaluation of their 'player trustworthiness and history with the game' and then staff informs the templar PC yea or nay. This, is then considered the IC decision of the templar PC. When someone is able to wrap their mind around the absolute fuckery of all that suggests, then they get much closer to understanding Arm's fundamental problems. Of course it would be the same with a red-robe. |
|
