jkarr
GDB Superstar
Posts: 2,070
|
Post by jkarr on Apr 17, 2015 8:00:06 GMT -5
pcs should never feel some ooc responsibility to 'curtail advancement' of another location or group for the sake of pc game balance RPI MUD players, especially experienced ones should feel ooc responsibility of a lot of things in sake of community and enjoyment. haha nope sorry. ur whole premise is based on equating imm dissatisfaction with pc distribution with player dissatisfaction of the game experience which, as at least a few older players can tell you here, was -not- the case for pcs (whether in or out of luirs) when kurac ruled the ooc known. Then again that's always a choice to be ignorant of player-base and many limitations of a text-based rpg game. um ignorant is expecting players to take to a suggestion like this more willingly by labeling them ignorant if they dont lol |
|
Jeshin
GDB Superstar
Posts: 1,516 
|
Post by Jeshin on Apr 17, 2015 8:00:33 GMT -5
I will agree that players should be -aware- of PC game balance. I would like to think a lot of experienced players are too... For example if everyone is Kurac and your only serious opposition is staff based plots/events than I think overtime (and characters dying) people would transition into a rival of Kurac if not an entire other part of the game altogether. I believe more experienced players do this not for the sake of the game but because they see story potential in being the first to do so.
EDIT - Don't forget the benefit of being in a smaller player populated sphere is that you are a bigger fish in a smaller pond which is something that can be enjoyable because your own mark/preferences/style will influence that areas story/roleplay more.
|
|
alleys
Clueless newb
Posts: 87
|
Post by alleys on Apr 17, 2015 13:46:22 GMT -5
RPI MUD players, especially experienced ones should feel ooc responsibility of a lot of things in sake of community and enjoyment. haha nope sorry. ur whole premise is based on equating imm dissatisfaction with pc distribution with player dissatisfaction of the game experience which, as at least a few older players can tell you here, was -not- the case for pcs (whether in or out of luirs) when kurac ruled the ooc known. Then again that's always a choice to be ignorant of player-base and many limitations of a text-based rpg game. um ignorant is expecting players to take to a suggestion like this more willingly by labeling them ignorant if they dont lol I really don't want to sound like I'm accusing of anybody. There is no side in this kind of matters. How I see, In general RPIs are much more cooperative games then competitive ones. We are on the same boat. If it sinks, every goes down with it. |
|
|
|
Post by sitbackandchillout on Apr 17, 2015 14:14:04 GMT -5
I really don't want to sound like I'm accusing of anybody. There is no side in this kind of matters. How I see, In general RPIs are much more cooperative games then competitive ones. We are on the same boat. If it sinks, every goes down with it. This ^ |
|
|
|
Post by sitbackandchillout on Apr 17, 2015 14:34:49 GMT -5
I will agree that players should be -aware- of PC game balance. I would like to think a lot of experienced players are too... For example if everyone is Kurac and your only serious opposition is staff based plots/events than I think overtime (and characters dying) people would transition into a rival of Kurac if not an entire other part of the game altogether. I believe more experienced players do this not for the sake of the game but because they see story potential in being the first to do so. I agree and would add that we *are* now talking about the sake of the game and I am trying to invite people to start thinking in those terms. People talk much of the decline of the game and in particular about how the staff are responsible for it (which I would not disagree with). What I would disagree with is the idea that the staff are the only ones able to keep the ecosystem in bloom (which is what jkarr seems to be saying). Should we have to shoulder responsibility? No. Do we now see the need to? That is the question I am inviting people to answer. I am saying that we as players are now in a better position than before to have an impact on the aforementioned decline and if we see things from that angle (ie, actively discussing ideas for taking action in response to changes in game) then we can keep the game interesting and provide positive shit for everyone. |
|
|
|
Post by sitbackandchillout on Apr 17, 2015 14:44:27 GMT -5
RPI MUD players, especially experienced ones should feel ooc responsibility of a lot of things in sake of community and enjoyment. haha nope sorry. ur whole premise is based on equating imm dissatisfaction with pc distribution with player dissatisfaction of the game experience which, as at least a few older players can tell you here, was -not- the case for pcs (whether in or out of luirs) when kurac ruled the ooc known. At no point am I trying to say that the players in Kurac at the time were at all dissatisfied. What my premise says is that... Imm dissatisfaction > Imm caps/gassings/changes > player dissatisfaction once Imms have their "say" Which is what happened right? If I'm wrong then I am honestly mistaken and am actually very interested in your take. As I was not there I am always interested in what you have to say on the matter. In fact if you were there then I am *very* interested in what you have to say on these matters. Do you not see the players as having any way to have affected things to have brought a situation about where by the staff didn't feel the need to stick their noses in? Then again that's always a choice to be ignorant of player-base and many limitations of a text-based rpg game. um ignorant is expecting players to take to a suggestion like this more willingly by labeling them ignorant if they dont lol He's not giving the label of ignorant, he's saying that players have the right to simply play the game the way they want to and not consider game balance etc when they chose plots to start/get-involved-in/create-PCs-in-general. He didn't mean to imply those players are ignorant. It *is* however the case that if you don't think in such terms and then the game falls to shit around you then you can have had no way to stop it falling into shit. You are essentially at the mercy of the staff and their benedictions/whims/ideas-of-how-the-game-should-be. If you *do* choose to see things that way then you have at least a chance at keeping things from falling apart, and even one day totally collapsing, which would mean the end of Arm & sadfaces all round. |
|
jkarr
GDB Superstar
Posts: 2,070
|
Post by jkarr on Apr 17, 2015 14:53:04 GMT -5
pretty sure ur name is not spelled a-l-l-e-y-s |
|
|
|
Post by sitbackandchillout on Apr 17, 2015 14:54:37 GMT -5
pretty sure ur name is not spelled a-l-l-e-y-s You're posting in a public forum buddy, you want to have a private conversation start a PM convo. EDIT - Oh, I see. I was taking the frame that Alleys was saying the same shit I was. Which I think he is right? |
|
|
|
Post by sitbackandchillout on Apr 17, 2015 15:09:29 GMT -5
i think ur reinterpretation of the kurac situation as 'abuse' shows why ull have a fundamental disagreement w/some of us here I chose my words poorly in that case, I retract "abuse". I was using extreme language to make a point. Instead what I'm saying is that Kurac got axed because it got too powerful right? If we as players look at things and see that Kurac is getting too powerful we could find a way of repositioning ourselves so as to make things come back "into-balance" (urgh, horrible phrase in this instance but it says what it needs to). If people create new stuff to bring the numbers down instead of the staffing feeling the need to cap then the world benefits. The numbers will come down anyway because staff will do as they please but if they come down on our terms then we maintain momentum and game-health. Capping can be seen as "wounding" the playing environment because it is imposed from the outside, it creates competition for slots instead of having a natural dynamic which would be maintained by having another group do the redistribution. Player intervention is not "wounding" because it has it's effects arise from the game-world and therefore actually create more instead of take away. Also, btw, I am not suggesting that your PC should be ooc thinking "Kurac's getting too big, time to kill me some Kuracies". I'm saying the PLAYER should think about how (s)he creates plots and PCs to INTERACT (corruption/murder/betrayal) with the large Kuracy numbers. |
|
jkarr
GDB Superstar
Posts: 2,070
|
Post by jkarr on Apr 17, 2015 15:12:27 GMT -5
pretty sure ur name is not spelled a-l-l-e-y-s You're posting in a public forum buddy, you want to have a private conversation start a PM convo. lol EDIT - Oh, I see. I was taking the frame that Alleys was saying the same shit I was. Which I think he is right? lol no alleys decided that players didnt like the same situation that the imms didnt like in the first place thats all |
|
jkarr
GDB Superstar
Posts: 2,070
|
Post by jkarr on Apr 17, 2015 15:29:55 GMT -5
i think ur reinterpretation of the kurac situation as 'abuse' shows why ull have a fundamental disagreement w/some of us here I chose my words poorly in that case, I retract "abuse". I was using extreme language to make a point. Instead what I'm saying is that Kurac got axed because it got too powerful right? If we as players look at things and see that Kurac is getting too powerful we could find a way of repositioning ourselves so as to make things come back "into-balance" (urgh, horrible phrase in this instance but it says what it needs to). If people create new stuff to bring the numbers down instead of the staffing feeling the need to cap then the world benefits. The numbers will come down anyway because staff will do as they please but if they come down on our terms then we maintain momentum and game-health. Capping can be seen as "wounding" the playing environment because it is imposed from the outside, it creates competition for slots instead of having a natural dynamic which would be maintained by having another group do the redistribution. Player intervention is not "wounding" because it has it's effects arise from the game-world and therefore actually create more instead of take away. Also, btw, I am not suggesting that your PC should be ooc thinking "Kurac's getting too big, time to kill me some Kuracies". I'm saying the PLAYER should think about how (s)he creates plots and PCs to INTERACT (corruption/murder/betrayal) with the large Kuracy numbers. no i get u perfectly just dont think theres any need for players to be scrambling to fix shit if theres nothing broke with it ie they are enjoying it even if its to just beat imms to the punch because all ur doing then is organically enforcing the same clan/regional caps they were going for in the 1st place |
|
Lizzie
Clueless newb
Posts: 199
|
Post by Lizzie on Apr 17, 2015 15:30:03 GMT -5
Disappointing. I wanted to play an Assassin/Bard in tuluk just so I could fuck up the next Luirsfest by poisoning all the drinks.  |
|
|
|
Post by sitbackandchillout on Apr 17, 2015 15:39:34 GMT -5
I chose my words poorly in that case, I retract "abuse". I was using extreme language to make a point. Instead what I'm saying is that Kurac got axed because it got too powerful right? If we as players look at things and see that Kurac is getting too powerful we could find a way of repositioning ourselves so as to make things come back "into-balance" (urgh, horrible phrase in this instance but it says what it needs to). If people create new stuff to bring the numbers down instead of the staffing feeling the need to cap then the world benefits. The numbers will come down anyway because staff will do as they please but if they come down on our terms then we maintain momentum and game-health. Capping can be seen as "wounding" the playing environment because it is imposed from the outside, it creates competition for slots instead of having a natural dynamic which would be maintained by having another group do the redistribution. Player intervention is not "wounding" because it has it's effects arise from the game-world and therefore actually create more instead of take away. Also, btw, I am not suggesting that your PC should be ooc thinking "Kurac's getting too big, time to kill me some Kuracies". I'm saying the PLAYER should think about how (s)he creates plots and PCs to INTERACT (corruption/murder/betrayal) with the large Kuracy numbers. no i get u perfectly just dont think theres any need for players to be scrambling to fix shit if theres nothing broke with it ie they are enjoying it even if its to just beat imms to the punch because all ur doing then is organically enforcing the same clan/regional caps they were going for in the 1st place I agree with you. What actually happened to Kurac after the cap? What I'm suggesting is that the cap being put in place had a longer-lasting negative effect on Kurac playability than any introduction of conflict by the players. Also it is possible that staff didn't *really* have an issue with player numbers (necessarily) but rather IG Kurac power and their only way to impact the IG power of Kurac was to ham-fistedly cap their numbers. Kuracs power could have been undermined by plots and players instead. Because throughout all this we're using player numbers to represent "balance" but really it's the IG POWER which is the important thing in the staffs eyes(I think?). World's got to match the docs and when it doesn't they see themselves as having a "right" to step in and make it so. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2015 16:04:23 GMT -5
RE: you must think of yourself OOCly, we're all in the same boat, etc.
That is a nice ideal to have - it's a nice concept. But when thinking of community, sorry, but the vast majority or interactions that I've had the staff for three years involved rude nitpicking, OOC bullshit, spiteful behavior, and all of that.
You can't possibly expect players to see themselves as part of a "community" who acts for the "greater good" when the people in charge are treating players like shit, can you?
Sorry, it's a nice thought, but community-oriented stuff is a two way street; you can't demand that players think of themselves in that context when they are constantly being shat on/harassed/all of that.
|
|
jkarr
GDB Superstar
Posts: 2,070
|
Post by jkarr on Apr 17, 2015 16:11:44 GMT -5
no i get u perfectly just dont think theres any need for players to be scrambling to fix shit if theres nothing broke with it ie they are enjoying it even if its to just beat imms to the punch because all ur doing then is organically enforcing the same clan/regional caps they were going for in the 1st place I agree with you. What actually happened to Kurac after the cap? What I'm suggesting is that the cap being put in place had a longer-lasting negative effect on Kurac playability than any introduction of conflict by the players. Also it is possible that staff didn't *really* have an issue with player numbers (necessarily) but rather IG Kurac power and their only way to impact the IG power of Kurac was to ham-fistedly cap their numbers. Kuracs power could have been undermined by plots and players instead. Because throughout all this we're using player numbers to represent "balance" but really it's the IG POWER which is the important thing in the staffs eyes(I think?). World's got to match the docs and when it doesn't they see themselves as having a "right" to step in and make it so. thats where the imms get to choke on their own rhetoric because if theyre sticking to the 'pcs only represent a 'tiny fraction' of the coded and virtual numbers and power in the game' bit then they have no room to bitch over any of the fluctuating pc concentrations if they want more pc dispersal then its on them to find more creative and realistic ig ways of attracting pcs to other places than destroying cities, making ooc clan caps, and crippling the ic autonomy of 'trusted' leader (and otherwise) pcs in a feeble and clumsy attempt at damage control for a non-problem ('balanced' pc dispersal) |
|
