alleys
Clueless newb
Posts: 87
|
Post by alleys on Apr 26, 2015 12:33:04 GMT -5
If an elf tricks your PC to eat the poisoned cake and your PC dies, that's OK. Then so, if a noble tricks your Byn sergeant to a %100 deathly quest, and you die without knowing anything, that's fair game too.
I think It's all about IMMs giving a choice or not. If you lose your PC without any choice to you or your PC leader, then that's bad storytelling. If given and you/your leader accepted freely, then.. It sucks but, shit happens and should happen.
PS. This is a great post --> armageddonmud.boards.net/post/18281 I agree, there should be more locations on game-world where danger&reward curve is valid. Even then, there should be some chance that after going there 10 times, at 11th there should be some extremely dangerous event that would kill you instantly. But then again, someone might call it bad IMM interaction. I'd call it adding up some reality. It's better to not feel safe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2015 12:48:14 GMT -5
Well, so little happens in the game, that I think players will sign up for basically most RPTs, especially if they seem predominately staff-sponsored. There is just so little going on that, when an imm offers a plot, the players are very quick to accept it.
What if the staff had made a deadly RPT whose outcome for survivors would have resulted in something that changed them as a clan in ways more than having to cope with dead friends?
Some treasure or something, a discovery, anything that would have added weight to the utter deadliness of it all.
|
|
jkarr
GDB Superstar
Posts: 2,070
|
Post by jkarr on Apr 26, 2015 12:52:58 GMT -5
Well, so little happens in the game, that I think players will sign up for basically most RPTs, especially if they seem predominately staff-sponsored. There is just so little going on that, when an imm offers a plot, the players are very quick to accept it. What if the staff had made a deadly RPT whose outcome for survivors would have resulted in something that changed them as a clan in ways more than having to cope with dead friends? Some treasure or something, a discovery, anything that would have added weight to the utter deadliness of it all. wut this aint 99 |
|
|
|
Post by lyse on Apr 26, 2015 13:43:03 GMT -5
When did staff cull an org with an rpt?
|
|
delerak
GDB Superstar
PK'ed by jcarter
"When you want to fool the world, tell the truth." - Otto Von Bismarck
Posts: 1,670
|
Post by delerak on Apr 26, 2015 16:31:06 GMT -5
Well if you consider any RPT that involves combat and the staff a bunch of times.
The red fang rpt didn't just cull them it was the answer to closing the clan which was going to happen anyway. The recent Byn rpt regardless of what your personal views are was specifically designed to kill off a huge amount of Byn if you don't see that you're blind.
It's kind of a running gag for the staff over at Arm to have mass-death RPTs. I personally think its a terrible practice.
|
|
|
|
Post by BitterFlashback on Apr 26, 2015 16:54:12 GMT -5
I firmly believe that there are cases when the staff is perfectly justified in making an RPT they 'know' will result in player deaths That wasn't the question, as Jeshin mentioned. The question is about if the staff should design an RPT with the goal of reducing the population somewhere, not where deaths might be a consequence.
Jeshin that might be what you meant by your post in another thread but that isn't what was posted in this poll. You're grasping at straws and moving the goalpost. I explained in the first post that elaborates on the poll question, "This can apply to culling clans, cities, or just people known to associate together." Jeshin isn't moving anything; you're pretending the post explaining the poll question doesn't exist and blatantly putting up a straw man.
I voted for the 3rd option because this is a really weird poll. ... "Do I believe that staff is culling the player base with RPTs?" Huh, no. I specifically said that wasn't the question being asked in the first post, then emphasized that point by saying the question doesn't even have to be considered in regard to Arm's staff. Why are you complaining it was asked?
I'm not the one getting nitpicky. I'm the guy trying to say the original question I posed was purely a litmus test for someone to say, yes I believe staff can/should create RPTs to kill characters for OOC considerations (such as wanting to disperse a clan). I don't get why that makes me the bad guy? it doesnt ppl are just finding ways to dodge ur baseline question so they can avoid contradicting themselves if/when their tune changes when a scenario like that pops up QFT
Right but I didn't make the poll, someone else did based on my question. There's a character limit, so I asked the question broadly and narrowed down the meaning of it in the first post. Then people promptly ignored the explanation and started responding to whatever they decided the question meant. To be fair, it's not quite the same as your question, because yours was limited to clans and mine was any known grouping of people, including clans. Kronibas there is nothing wrong with staff closing a clan and running an RPT to wind that clan down. The specific issue is when staffers target static clans like the byn, merchant houses, or noble houses and kill off those members for OOC considerations. At least to me. Exactly. That's why I specifically excluded closing a clan/city RPTs from consideration for this question.
Son, I am disappoint. I want a 'this place sucks Jeshin AND Malken are on it' option. There's no special privilege for making polls. You could literally make this poll right now in a new thread. Could I get, "BFB is a tedious bastard" on there as an option, please?
I voted yes because this game should have "oh shit" moments. This game is hard and should be. Their should also be very real reasons that make sense both ways for it to happen (not everyone will agree with that logic though, but just make sure the "everyone" isn't really everyone...). To be clear, a vote of "Yes" means you're saying you want the staff to decide to throw an RPT at a group of people for the purpose of spreading their players out, not voting for RPts to be dangerous and have high death counts as a consequence. Is shaking players out of a clan/city by killing them what you think you're voting in favor of?
If an elf tricks your PC to eat the poisoned cake and your PC dies, that's OK. Then so, if a noble tricks your Byn sergeant to a %100 deathly quest, and you die without knowing anything, that's fair game too. Right, but what if the noble is a staff-animated NPC, you can't choose to turn the quest down, and the entire purpose of the quest is to knock your clan down from 20 PCs to 4 because staffers are whining about all the players being in one clan instead of theirs? That's what I was asking if you thought was acceptable.
When did staff cull an org with an rpt? I could name some examples, but this poll isn't supposed to be about if it's happened or limited to Arm's staff. |
|
|
|
Post by BitterFlashback on Apr 26, 2015 16:56:19 GMT -5
I'm reposting the OP explaining the poll question since it seems to have been thoroughly ignored. Jeshin asked this question in another thread but it got swallowed up in the discussion, so I am asking it here. Do you believe it is appropriate/acceptable for staff to create RPTs for the purpose of culling the playerbase? This can apply to culling clans, cities, or just people known to associate together. This question does not apply to RPTs where the purpose is to shut the clan or city down; obviously people should expect to die in one of those. It should also be noted I'm not asking if any of you think this has ever happened. I am solely asking if you think the act of getting a bunch of players online at the same time so you can target a group is appropriate and acceptable staff behavior. It doesn't even have to be a question about Arm's staff. In any case, please post an explanation if you vote. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2015 17:11:36 GMT -5
bilbo iz opun mynd ya
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2015 17:17:18 GMT -5
Here's my problem with that question. Staff isn't going to run a RPT for just one reason, ever. Could killing off large portions of PC's be a large reason why they're doing the RPT, sure, but it's never going to be the only reason.
Personally I don't think it's okay for staff to run an RPT for SOLE reason of trying to balance the player-base. I think fun for the players should be the first goal of any staff-run RPT. I also think that fun and death go hand in hand on Armageddon, so I generally like it when more people are dying at RPT's. Therefore I think it's possible for staff to run an RPT for the express purpose of killing players, and still enjoy myself immensely... So I guess it doesn't really matter to me either way what staff's motivations are as long as they're also thinking about the fun of others during the event.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2015 17:23:24 GMT -5
rgs is acshul rgs or fake rgs? must no
|
|
Jeshin
GDB Superstar
Posts: 1,516 
|
Post by Jeshin on Apr 26, 2015 17:35:36 GMT -5
I'm not sure why staff have to kill during RPTs to make them fun and I'm not sure why that murder has to be a PC. To me and my PC killing off an NPC (that I care about) is just as effective as offing a PC and unless the dying PC player has a love of dying (some do, not kidding or being sarcastic, see RGS posts) than it also provides a better experience for all players who participated.
So the statement that staff can OOCly be like we are 100% going to kill some bitches in this RPT to make it serious and fun for the participants can be accomplished with out the need to arbitrarily kill players as a way to inform other players the gravity of the situation they are in. That isn't to say that RPTs just killing someone because they're stupid or incredibly unlucky isn't okay. I believe that is an aspect, but I also believe that staff should try and minimize that. Why?
Players already kill each other or die to NPCs at a pretty prodigious rate. You could be OOCly knowledgable enough to survive barring bad luck but bad luck happens a lot. Seriously there is a reason that longer lived PCs basically start ICly going, I'm not going to remember this guys name until 3-4 IG months later because odds are he's going to die. People die in ARM a lot. You don't need to artifically boost it when you have vnpc/npc victims that can be given emotional investment and then killed off as needed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2015 17:40:03 GMT -5
The one and only, though I suppose the only way to prove that would be to admit it on my GDB account. It's should be pretty obvious who I am through posting style though. It was flattering to have someone else steal my name, but I'd like to think it was obvious they weren't me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2015 17:40:31 GMT -5
new dat wuznt u but wnted 2 mak shur ths was u is al.
|
|
jkarr
GDB Superstar
Posts: 2,070
|
Post by jkarr on Apr 26, 2015 17:40:47 GMT -5
Personally I don't think it's okay for staff to run an RPT for SOLE reason of trying to balance the player-base. good, question answered, next |
|
|
|
Post by BitterFlashback on Apr 26, 2015 17:42:57 GMT -5
Here's my problem with that question. Staff isn't going to run a RPT for just one reason, ever. Could killing off large portions of PC's be a large reason why they're doing the RPT, sure, but it's never going to be the only reason. The question is more focused on if you find it acceptable or appropriate to have an RPT being done with the specific goal of reducing a group's/area's population. The existence of other reasons they write into the RPT for that clan or other clans isn't important to the question. I also need to stress again I used the word "staff" because this question is not specific to Armageddon, despite the interpretations of recent events there leading to the question being asked. If it helps you answer the question, let's treat it as a what-if for a MUD we're planning to make. BitterGunslingerMUD Alpha is on the horizon and we're trying to decide how we're going to handle our playerbase. Someone mentions there's always a risk one clan may eat the whole player base if we don't cap it. So we make a policy that you can't join a clan you had a previous character in within one month of that character's death. Then someone points out that if the clan leaders are good enough, they can probably keep most of their hapless noobs alive for a while. So then we wind up talking about if we'd ever design a non-optional quest that is intended to wipe out most of the clan, knowing our policy would force all of the slain to try something new. You're asked if you think that is appropriate. What would you answer? |
|
