Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


Sarrius ✭✭✭✭✭


Last Active
Member, Beta Testers
  • Re: Air ships?!?!

    I'll jump on the naysayer train: I think airships, while cool, do not belong in Imperian.

    We don't need more features to ignore, we don't need new conflict generators to ignore. We need greater attention to detail and polish on the mountain of **** we've already got to play with.
  • Re: I HEART

    Good pad thai.
  • Re: Improving Imperian

    Piggybacking off of Ohm and Sanya:

    Unpopular opinion, but I believe cults with entities should provide shard skills and other associated city locked benefits. Lore handwave is that the entity is so in tune with the circle that they can provide those things by force of will. In fact, I think cities should die altogether and sects replace them. I detailed this in the apparitions thread, I think.

    Why do I bring this up? I think it partially solves the city enemy issue.

    I have no opinion on guilds that doesn't end in 'just' delete them. However, I am notorious for finding guilds irrelevant and have since the profession system debuted a long time ago. The moment they stopped gatekeeping class, I stopped caring about them and I was validated by the long decay they experienced.

    Edit: btw Sanya is right, deleting guilds does nothing really. The issue is we played up cities and councils as the last remaining required org for players. We need to consolidate them so all circles are generally in one place and the population is focused. A greater concentration of players means easier exposure to all of them, so nobody feels left out of an event, etc.

    Edit2: also, these orgs are going to combine or reduce or consolidate. Don't fight it. Try to make the most of it during negotiations with Jeremy.
    Post edited by Sarrius on
  • Re: Improving Imperian

    Aodan said:
    Sarrius said:

    More to the point? Sects never should have had the powers they were given. That **** is stupid and was more power creep that we never even tested or thought out. I would be fine with forcing people to 'endure' something they will eventually come around to if it means they can't have special powers if they don't. The same people that want those powers are the people that need new reasons to kill each other and entities are It, if they can only give up their absurd need to control everything, couple with their intense dislike of somebody in a volunteer position for whatever reason.

    No. you can disagree with me all you want on this, but it doesn't change the fact that if the powers aren't removed from everyone then its unfair. I'm not disagreeing that its all power creep, because it is. But its also some of the only FREE power creep in the game. Also, lets address that Entities will give reason to kill people. 'Needing' new reasons to kill people is stretching it, when I know most PKers are looking for whatever excuse they can find, and push it to the max as it is(see: you being booted from Ithaqua and repeatedly killing people, mostly Larkin, for it.) You can't tell me its okay for an Entity to go HAY, I HATE THAT SECT GO KILL THEM. I'm pretty sure it doesn't/won't work that way, when it really comes down to the players(non-entity) and if they want to participate(can correct me on this if I'm really truly wrong). Also I've yet to see an entity promote killing yet, but maybe that's because demonic has assholes who piss entities off then never log in again. -shrug-

    To all of you people claiming you can find conflict without gods or entities?

    Prove it. Do something. Start trouble. Rock the boat. Prove me wrong or stop perpetuating this ridiculous idea that it is acceptable to be a choosy beggar. Be it for RP or PK, back up your claim or stop loudly proclaiming it is a valid one. All I see is a lot of talk while the game remains inert. 

    I mean, I've tried, but this goes back to what you touched on, the entrenched mindset of organization leaders that we all have to play together nicely. As an example I was told multiple times to leave the Celidonians alone by leaders during the last event when trying to get spirits. If I was by myself I ignored that and chased anyone down that I could. I've tried a couple of times and no one bites. I mean, if I can chase noncoms down and murder them during an event and no one seems to care? that again leads back to the leaders of the orgs. Another example, and I really hate to implicate someone, but I went to collect a bounty of a kinsarmarian who was in Celidon. upon entering the room the kinsarmarian was in, I was welcomed by a huge group of people, one of them being a leader. I asked the leader if it was okay to kill a supposed ally within celidon(tension between celidon and kinsarmar were high at that point, but still this person was in their city chatting and all that, buddy buddy with everyone there), to which the leader said sure why not, instead of no, I'mma be mad and stuff. So even with the intentions of trying to 'start trouble' it doesn't really always turn out that way.

    I can tell you it is OK, because so long as you have viable IC justification, you can get away with far more than you seem to think. An entity-attached sect is basically a blank check of IC justification. The real rule of PK justification is 'don't be a douche' and 'use your brain'. Don't let people fool you; the PK rules are far more loose than you all seem to think these days. I got away with massacre of Larkin for several IRL days, repeatedly, because I had IC justification. Did I stop? Yes. When I got bored and the issues he lodged to delay me/implicate me in rule breaking got cleared up, I agreed it was a bit played out and consented to be done. I knew I was going to get my way anyways, which likely contributed, but still..

    No entity is going to promote killing because they have no reason to. There's no stakes. No sects or cults have picked one up yet. They don't have any moves to make or goals of their own yet. I also know that is patently false; I am told Khandava had entity cheerleaders with regards to the Rashirmir event, just like we did in Ithaqua. Ours tried to get us not to be dicks to Antioch, we said no, they shrugged and kept cheering us on. Every org had cheerleader ents, with the exception of Kinsarmar probably.

    As for your mindset point: at what point did you stop and convince yourself that taking total control out of the hands of these stagnant mindsets wasn't the way to handle this issue? As well, starting a fire takes time sometimes if all you've got are sticks to rub together. Entities have the potential to be a can of gasoline and a blowtorch for any number of reasons; the issue seems to be that some players don't like the fact that they could be made to do things instead of stay in their safe spaces.

    They can have their cities. They can have their guilds. They can play politics all they like and lock notables out of their profession lineup. However, I'll be damned if I am going to let you imply that forcing them to relax the deathgrip they have on their circles isn't a viable solution. This game is stagnant and players are at least partially to blame. It is time to stop letting players decide that the game is going nowhere, especially a tiny subset of players. If the car won't move forward with the current drivers, then we need a new driver. Otherwise, I will get out of the car and walk down the road because it will be a faster trip anyways. Worse yet, I will get out of the car, go inside, grab my keys, and drive myself to the destination. Imperian stands to lose a lot by continuing to let this fester.
  • Re: Improving Imperian

    From the @Alvetta post and down, this thread grew shockingly interesting. I think every single post since then has been at least a little constructive. I will say that Alvetta specifically has given me the most rational argument opposed to my mindset and I think the true concern of the anti-entity crowd reveals itself in that post, at least in my eyes:

    Players view cults as their mark on the world. Players view their positions of authority as hard earned and deserving of protection against entity meddling.

    Now, the above is an interesting stance, in my mind. I think it is a valid concern if they don't want an entity coming to ruin the hard work of a leader, especially the cult's original writer or current writer. A cult is an engine for, as @Lartus just got at, player storytelling. This summer, I said much the same as he just did.. cults are the opportunity for a player or group of players to influence Imperian's narrative. Leechtree is a great example of this power in action: the leaders utilized the cult to launder greater narrative advancement for Khandava due to how closely linked the cult was with the core aspect of the Council. It was genius. I did much the same with Hunt and Storms, in smaller ways.

    However, all this being said? I think there's a better way to handle this issue than restricting and abusing the people who willingly volunteer to be an RP entity. Here's my thoughts:

    1. Bar Entities from entering houses. It is clear that houses are a sore subject and continue to be Imperian's safest space. I think they should keep their ability to pop in anywhere else. The caveat I would make to this? Entities can enter the houses of people that have them allied. This goes back to my experience with Xuli and Isra; they had it set up so I could see them online even if they were 'invisible' because we're mutual allies. The support exists.

    2. Encourage greater communication between the entity and the sect or cult they want to join. This goes back, once more, to my experiences from older entities. Some of them didn't know what they were getting themselves in to. It creates a situation of buyer's remorse on either or both ends if there's low communication. This should be on an IC and OOC level. A sect and entity form a partnership and that partnership is strengthened by pre-planning. Everybody has different expectations and being able to air those should make a happier pairing every time one happens.

    3. Define the power dynamic behind a sect or cult with an entity. Is it something every sect picks themselves (I prefer this)? Are there hard and fast rules (this is dumb)? For example, Isra kicked me out of Hunt after I spent ages working on it, writing stories, building it, paying for it, even bashing for it. She had that power. I took it to the forums. I got no real reply or results, aside from a rare time when everybody actually agreed I got screwed. I shrugged and made Storms. In retrospect, was it OK for that to have happened?

    That's it. That's all I'd do based on the feedback given in the last 13 posts. I would not go out of my way to make entities more ignorable. I would not go out of my way to neuter them. I disagree with the notion of not making cities depend on them. People want to crow about IC consequences and it is amusing that the city with the memory most notorious for enforcing those consequences is the one where anti-entity culture is centered. There should be consequences for rejecting a being of divine nature that is often times intended to help you. Before any of you claim entities  aren't divine, the label of God is strictly semantics. Semantics are terrible way to get your point across. Some consequence should come from the fact that you miss out on event hints (like the Legion event earlier) and the other cool stuff they can support.

    I'd like to give everybody my metaphor that I have taken to using lately: a sect is a movie. The player is:

    The director.
    The producer.
    The writing staff, either 99% to 1%

    The entity is:

    The special effects
    The writing staff, from 1% to 99%

    Look at the division of labor. The rest of this metaphor should be clear once you do that. The opposition to this system smacks of projection and, as I said, beggars being choosers. I see the fears for the worst being based on exaggeration and worries of cheating. Are we truly going to ask the son for pay for the crimes of his father?