Improving Imperian

1111112113115117

Comments

  • OwynOwyn USMember Posts: 182 ✭✭✭
    @Galt, first of all the bonuses are pretty significant. Look at Flame or Conquest's shrine network. Not even touching on rituals, that is a huge buff and not acknowledging that is downright silly. Second of all the majority in any org typically dictates what the org does or does not do stance-wise/law-wise/goal-wise. I am not trying to get into which side is the majority in Kinsarmar, I am only disagreeing with your logic and pointing out how from my perspective things have always worked.
    AodanAnetteAlvetta
  • LartusLartus Member Posts: 367 ✭✭✭
    Does anyone else see imperian like a story being written by multiple authors? Where people's actions create ripples through the entire work, big to barely noticeable. I see these entities as part of the playerbase that have a hand in crafting the story. What makes them different from the gods is the fact that they evolve with us. These aren't static npcs created to make props or act like personal genies. They are living breathing characters who just happen to have some unique abilities. If anything I almost want to treat them like us adventurers but with restrictions. In fact, if you see people worship  or play nice or oppose them or be neutral to them. Guess what? All those playstyles are valid interactions. Don't like interaction?  Don't play with them. I honestly think you are potentially missing out. If anyone is afraid that they will miss out, well that's cause and effect. Remember what I said about ripples? Everything has a consequence good and bad. I don't think we should be curbing entities further but rather roleplay a solution to any problem you encounter.  So far, all my interactions with the entities have been really fun and interesting and I hope things work out for the few of you guys.
  • SarriusSarrius Member, Beta Testers Posts: 1,680 ✭✭✭✭✭
    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?


    Message #2062  Sent By: (imperian)      Received On: 1/20/2018/2:59"Antioch has filed a bounty against you. Reason: Raiding Antioch and stealing Bina, being a rightass, and not belonging anywhere near Antioch till he grows up."
    AodanRokasAlvetta
  • WyllWyll Member Posts: 333 ✭✭✭
    Just so everyone knows, I messaged @Jeremy about entities entering homes and that they can't do that anymore.
    You say, "Oh crap."
    You say, "My bottle is empty."
    Jeremy raises an eyebrow questioningly.
    Jeremy slaps you on the cheek.
  • OhmOhm Member Posts: 275 ✭✭✭
    Organization Reduction
     
    pivoting a bit from the current discussion. I see a focus to reduce organizations. However, there is no attempt to reduce/ disband guilds. Since professions they serve no real purpose and serve to fragment playerbases. 

    instead, make cities and cults the main organizations a player can interact through. In old times, power in cities swayed between influential guilds. Now nothing changes. Let the same dynamic be repeated with cults. Let cults vie for influence politically and appoint patrons and such. 

    Disband guilds rather than delete cities


    image
  • SanyaSanya AustraliaMember Posts: 5
    Just reflecting on the 'disband guilds' frontier, Demonic only has a single guild, and they don't seem overly fond of that as a rule. Having a single guild is not something that really fragments a playerbase, so I think it's more a reflection on guilds than a player split. If that's the case, deleting them won't really do anything. 

    That's just my 2c.

    (I do agree on increasing the influence that cults wield, make them more important than highfavours and the occasional person who cares about the background of the cult and RPs with entities)
    AodanSarrius
  • SarriusSarrius Member, Beta Testers Posts: 1,680 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 11
    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
    Message #2062  Sent By: (imperian)      Received On: 1/20/2018/2:59"Antioch has filed a bounty against you. Reason: Raiding Antioch and stealing Bina, being a rightass, and not belonging anywhere near Antioch till he grows up."
    Oystir
  • GaltGalt Member, Beta Testers Posts: 202 ✭✭✭
    My view on orgs, population, stagnancy etc:

    I believe the problem stems from allowing players to control all the orgs. This means that within a circle, there's little to no change or political movement, there's no real drive for roleplay-driven conflict and difference in ideology, etc. This used to be handled by orders - Being god-controlled, they acted as a counterpoint to the player run orgs, but they were also strictly optional. 

    This is part of why I believe that any sect or cult that invites an entity to attach should give up control entirely to that entity - As the system now works, despite protestations - And that the sect shouldn't get to remove them. We need orgs that players can't have control over, that have some influence on every circle, in order to keep things dynamic and stop things from getting stagnant. I think this has more to do with the lack of change and engagement in our cities and councils than anything. I'd also like to see more emphasis put on having an attached entity, such as a reduced number of max rituals learned for sects without it.




    SarriusAodanAlvettaOystir
  • Jeremy SaundersJeremy Saunders Administrator Posts: 1,207 admin
    Good discussion and I have read through most of it. Thank you for being fairly civil to each other.

    Couple things I will point out.

    Entities cannot become like the old Gods. It is the Age of Mortals, so the powers of the divine are different. Otherwise, it is not really a new age. They are more flexible and changing. They are powerful beings, but new to that power and understanding. 

    In my post, I stated I would like them to have more bite. Let me address this a bit.

    Entities need more ways to have "fun" or they will not stick around. Entity fun is generated via character interaction, so we are going to work on creating more ways for them to create that. I would like to be able to expand their ability to act through cult/sect mobs. They need more ways to influence their direct environment. Perhaps them means being able to create mobs from a selected list that can wander out into the world doing different things. Maybe they can slowly create their own areas through their powers that are themed and influenced by personality. I am not sure exactly what we are going to do, and I have not really planned things out beyond some basic brainstorming.

    The current entitiy RP problem is this: Character walk up to an entity and spits on him/her and repeatedly insults him/her. Realistically, a powerful being will probably kill/maim/damage you in some way. This is especially a problem as they cannot really hide out in places that mortals cannot just walk up to them and do things like this. Obviously we do not want to let entities just kill anyone they want on a whim. That is not fun and I have talked about that before, but we do need to have some type of a response for this.

    If we do create a way to deal with this issue, the problem becomes abuse. They are players (just like you) and we would have to define what is "abuse" worthy enough to warrant a smack down. Suddenly we have PK-like rules, complete with players skirting those rules to goad entities into doing things to get them in trouble. Ugh. 

    Politically, they will not get more mechanical power (patronages, voting powers, etc). If entities want something done, they will have to influence mortals to do it. I have seen some requests for players to have some more options in sects, and that may be an option.

    Entities will never get more ways to spy on what players are doing (I think I saw some concerns about that). If they are online, you will see them. If they are in the room with you, you will see them. They can not monitor tells, says, channels, commands, or anything like that. This will never be possible. 

    Before we make any changes to Entities that will effect how they interact with characters, I will give everyone a chance to discuss it a bit. This includes things like mob possession, damaging/killing players, being able to move them, and so on. I want entity interactions to be a fun part of the game otherwise there is no point in having them.

    I hope this addresses some of the comments I saw. I am bracing myself for the onslaught of rage though.

    Note: Entities can no longer pop into homes. Most of the time this happened when they had no idea where you were at. They were popping over to RP or something and got more than expected. I will probably put in a way for them to bypass that if you have allied them. This is a mechanical thing to save them and you from embarrassing situations.

    Note Two: If you have any questions you will get a quicker response by messaging me in the game. 

  • AodanAodan Member Posts: 192 ✭✭✭
    Galt said:
    My view on orgs, population, stagnancy etc:

    I believe the problem stems from allowing players to control all the orgs. This means that within a circle, there's little to no change or political movement, there's no real drive for roleplay-driven conflict and difference in ideology, etc. This used to be handled by orders - Being god-controlled, they acted as a counterpoint to the player run orgs, but they were also strictly optional. 

    This is part of why I believe that any sect or cult that invites an entity to attach should give up control entirely to that entity - As the system now works, despite protestations - And that the sect shouldn't get to remove them. We need orgs that players can't have control over, that have some influence on every circle, in order to keep things dynamic and stop things from getting stagnant. I think this has more to do with the lack of change and engagement in our cities and councils than anything. I'd also like to see more emphasis put on having an attached entity, such as a reduced number of max rituals learned for sects without it.




    this is exactly the only concern I have with entities. being that I started after the gods were already dead, and entities were not around much, I totally disagree with this. the fact that people have this mindset is concerning, and rest assured, they would also probably be the first ones to complain to an admin when they have an entity remove their mechanical advantages. If the bolded part were to become true, mainly 'such as a reduced number of max rituals learned for sects without it.' I can't honestly say that'd I'd be in imperian much longer. because I can go suck up to a god in any of the other IRE game, or even my old MUDs as well, and not having to do that is one of the draws of imperian for me. I'm all for entities attaching to sects, writing up events and RP, and maybe even having some control, but in the end sects are a mechanical advantage, and Entities, at least behind the screens, are human just like us and prone to faults. We have to keep that in mind
    Alvetta
  • SarriusSarrius Member, Beta Testers Posts: 1,680 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 11
    I think placating a minority that rejects the system is a stupid idea and thus disagree with you on principle, @Aodan. Sects were only given independent power from entities because @Jeremy Saunders couldn't convince people to play entities. For real, they couldn't find any volunteers, so he flipped a switch and said 'ok people can make sects without entities now.'

    Why? Because the anti entity mindset was prevalent even then, and IRE players are notorious for being shitty to volunteers anyways. We can't have nice things because we always placate a tiny portion of our community when they shed their tears and clutch their medallions. It's stupid and it truthfully makes me displeased with the state of the game.

    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.

    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. 

    Edit: I also see a hell of a lot of people in rooms not on my mapper, which leads me to believe most players idle in a house. Didn't know that was what passed for conflict or RP these days. Are we really going to placate a group of people that largely AFK all day?
    Message #2062  Sent By: (imperian)      Received On: 1/20/2018/2:59"Antioch has filed a bounty against you. Reason: Raiding Antioch and stealing Bina, being a rightass, and not belonging anywhere near Antioch till he grows up."
  • GaltGalt Member, Beta Testers Posts: 202 ✭✭✭
    edited January 11
    Like Sarrius rightly mentions, you couldn't even have a sect without an entity originally.

    And this does feel like it's about control - players who can't even stand the thought of someone else, especially someone they can't PK, having control over anything their character is involved in. That attitude is not fun for everyone else and when it becomes too dominant in an org, it becomes toxic, irritating, and ultimately bad for that org and for the game as a whole because it permeates everything done in that org. It gets in the way of roleplay, it gets in the way of people doing anything that might upset the status quo and it favours stagnation. This is especially true when a vocal minority begin making the erroneous assumption that because their voice is the most noticeable one, that they must be right.

    If you can't handle other people having sway over your character in a roleplaying game then the problem isn't entities, it isn't sects, it isn't anything mechanical - The problem is you. 
    Aodan
  • AodanAodan Member Posts: 192 ✭✭✭
    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.

  • SarriusSarrius Member, Beta Testers Posts: 1,680 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 11
    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.
    Message #2062  Sent By: (imperian)      Received On: 1/20/2018/2:59"Antioch has filed a bounty against you. Reason: Raiding Antioch and stealing Bina, being a rightass, and not belonging anywhere near Antioch till he grows up."
    Galt
  • AodanAodan Member Posts: 192 ✭✭✭
    Sarrius said:
     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.
    I feel like this is why people think I'm not on the side of entities in this argument. either I suck at writing or you're just reading what I typed wrong. I agree that forcing them to relax the deathgrip is totally viable and wish it would happen. I was just pointing out an example of me trying to do what you asked for an example of. if people are totally missunderstanding me, I guess I should just stop posting and hope something actually goes good.

    just to reiterate, I've never once been mean or hostile to an entity, period. I welcome them, I think they are cool. I didn't much care for the act like a baby/toddler/kid stuff, but it was interesting for a bit. I'm not opposed to entities attaching to sects, I want one for unspeakable myself. I'm NOT(READ: !!!---NOT---!!!opposed to entities having some power to affect things and -some- sway over sects they attach to. I am just WEARY of them having too much power to deny someone powers that are, as you said power creep.
  • OhmOhm Member Posts: 275 ✭✭✭
    Oh, I was just saying guilds as they are serve no real purpose. A majority of the guilds don’t really do anything. no events, no RP.

    It used to be a channel for achieving things, cause political turmoil, drive people to action. Now, they are an obselete mechanic.

    perhaps shift guild credits to cult credits since guilds really don’t deserve any investment as such. It’s a dead mechanic and should be done away with as a mechanic rather than as individual guilds (perhaps I phrased my earlier comment incorrectly)


    image
    Sanya
  • DimitriDimitri Somewhere coldMember Posts: 338 ✭✭✭
    I think there'd be more life to a guild if it was separated from its parent org, still circle bound but not bound to the politics of a larger player org.
    Aodan
  • RokasRokas Member Posts: 85 ✭✭✭
    Ohm said:
    Organization Reduction
     
    instead, make cities and cults the main organizations a player can interact through. In old times, power in cities swayed between influential guilds. Now nothing changes. Let the same dynamic be repeated with cults. Let cults vie for influence politically and appoint patrons and such. 


    Maybe in your org. I agree overall that guilds are holistically dead with little merit, but I view that as a fault of the players. Out of the three Ithaqua guilds, two are dead because leaders ran them into the ground despite attempts from members trying to give mean again. The third was dead until @Ozreas revived it and took it places.

    Really, a lot of the stagnation seems to come from players being unwilling to own up to how their own actions (or inaction) affect the greater whole.

    Personally, I'm on the bandwagon of deleting all orgs. I think tribal/nomadic mechanics would make for a very different experience from other IRE muds.
    SarriusAodan
  • AnetteAnette Member Posts: 814 ✭✭✭
    I am personally responsible for only one person: me, and I do find it somewhat amusing that people are so very quick to ascribe a ton of blame to myself (and others) that doesn't really belong to them.  It's the blame game and that might feel better, to validate yourself that hey, it wasn't you that made this problem, right?  - but at the end of the day it resolves nothing, fixes nothing, and accomplishes nothing.

    People act like trying to be considerate of concerns when they're raised is a zero-sum game.  This has always been the case of any even mildly controversial topic on these forums.  It becomes quickly a tug-of-war, sometimes a civil one, sometimes a not, between different groups.  No concessions are made.  No progress is usually made, and often both groups involved (typically "RP vs PK" but that's not the only dynamic at play) end up feeling sour about the experiences.  And here we are basically taking it out on each other.  It might be civil, but I find the enviornment highly toxic anyways.  To the point where I've begun the process of retiring Anette, so you can pop out the celebratory champaigne and praise the sun, or whatever, but if there's anything I would want to leave Imperian with it's this:

    Over almost ten years I've played Imperian, and I don't leave easily or with a light heart.  I put a lot into this game and there's a lot of things that I helped make.  I'm sure the same is true of a great many people that are conversing here, that investment is no doubt why many of you stay to begin with.  It breaks my bloody heart to see the game in the state it is and I don't have the time and more importantly the willpower, given my state of health, to push this game where it is, and frankly I think my presence is only making things worse, so ultimately that is why I'm leaving.  Y'all that are remaining have got to learn, if you want to get the good times rolling again, that you need to learn to if not like each other, at least tolerate each other a whole lot more.  People whisper in either ear all the time, about how bad the RP lot are and they just oppose all PK, and vice versa, and I find it honestly kind of two faced.  Stop it.  Stop the petty fighting and realize that while you may all have different places you want to go with this game there are very few people who want to *harm* the game; most of you want the game improved, albeit in different ways.  It's not a zero-sum game and the devs can work on more than one thing at once, but if you bicker and fight incessantly you're going to get nowhere.

    Probably the most depressing realization is that if I want this game to possibly get better, I need to leave, but there you have it.  This post is probably a mess that goes everywheres, but I get a bit emotional, sue me.
    image
  • GaltGalt Member, Beta Testers Posts: 202 ✭✭✭
    Being considerate of concerns doesn't mean making any concessions or admitting that those concerns have any validity. 

    All it means is looking at those concerns (That, in some vague and ill defined way, entities will be 'abusive'), and trying to establish whether those concerns have any merit. In this case, yes - There's some validity to the concern, but it is not sufficient to justify hamstringing entities or allowing entire parts of the game to drive entities off and have no interaction with them. The game is not a collection of minor fiefdoms free to dictate which features they allow and which to ban. Organisations can no more forbid entities than they can PK or roleplay.

    If someone dislikes entities and doesn't want anything to do with them, fine. They can ignore them as much as they like. What they cannot do is try to be rid of them on behalf of others, be that by "banning" them from a city, or by being so obnoxious to entities that they quit. As I've said, I'd like to see entities have more power, because I feel that having orgs that players cannot control, and that's key here - that the orgs in question cannot be fully-fledged without an entity, that players can't sidestep the requirement - I believe that would be good for the game. It keeps things from being stagnant.

    OhmAnetteSarriusAodanWyll
  • AodanAodan Member Posts: 192 ✭✭✭
    edited January 12
    Galt said:

    Like I've said before, though - The simple solution to not wanting to be involved with entities is to not talk to them and avoid the sect/cult system.

    None of the bonuses or benefits of sects are so substantial that you need to be part of them to compete and you can ask other people to highfavour you. Most of all, don't try and push entities out of entire cities because you dislike them, as there are likely plenty of people in that city or council who do enjoy interacting with entities.

    You don't get to dictate whether an entire org in the game interacts with entities, just because you as a player don't want to.

    ...

    And this does feel like it's about control - players who can't even stand the thought of someone else, especially someone they can't PK, having control over anything their character is involved in. That attitude is not fun for everyone else and when it becomes too dominant in an org, it becomes toxic, irritating, and ultimately bad for that org and for the game as a whole because it permeates everything done in that org. It gets in the way of roleplay, it gets in the way of people doing anything that might upset the status quo and it favours stagnation. This is especially true when a vocal minority begin making the erroneous assumption that because their voice is the most noticeable one, that they must be right.

    ...

    Being considerate of concerns doesn't mean making any concessions or admitting that those concerns have any validity. 

    Just wanted to point out these few bits here. The first two(bold and italics) seem so contradictory for me. Its okay to go hey you can just not be in a sect/ignore a whole portion of the game, but at the same time say its toxic when the leadership declares they don't want entities(even though they might be the minority in the city and game)? Here's your options Galt to the 'no fun you ruin my RP guize'. you can ignore it and tough it out. you can leave kinsarmar because they no long align with you and your interests(I did this). Or you could, oh wait, what is that? oh right you could challenge these leaders for their position, and if there is a majority of people opposed to these leaders, guess what? they'll get replaced. Thats a lot of **** options my man. none of which you proposed for sects, and admittedly only two of which are even valid for sects(leave or tough it out). that third and final option is the clincher to this in my opinion because it is strongly a RP route that can work just like its a RP route for the leaders of Kinsarmar to go "You know, I'm not feeling entities".

    Now to the strikethrough part. I striked it because lol, thats a terrible thing to say. Its true, for sure, no one has to make concessions. but this is probably the first of the few times I agree with @Anette, you gotta learn to do it, whether you're the majority or the minority. If you don't you end up hemorrhaging players be they minority or majority. Its an almost impossible act to appease everyone, and I honestly believe the admin do there very best to try and do so. Its been seen in many different cases. if you can't make any compromises or concessions, you'll never move forward, and the game will stay where it is.

    Now, I think I've exhausted my opinion on entities, I'm sure the right decision for imperian will be made by our admins. I'm probably going to double post because I have an idea that has NOTHING to do with entities(thank god I'm tired of talking about it.)
    OwynRokasAnette
  • AodanAodan Member Posts: 192 ✭✭✭
    edited January 12
    NEW IDEA

    This may be the wrong section for it, and may end up needing a separate thread but I figured I'd want to get opinions before I even try and think this all out, and would like the admin to weigh in on if this is even valid.

    The Knight types in imperian are a little too similar for me. sure they have their strengths in weaknesses, but when it comes down to it they all end up trying to do the same thing endgame, longsword bleeding. Sure there are vast variations on how people go about this, such as @Pellerin using scimitars for tendoncuts that work well with his team, to what @Ozreas used to to with DK and salves that I seem to be failing to do efficiently(sorry templar, I know so little of you, little black sheep). Anyways, I got thinking about templar and said to myself, you know, a big reason templar isn't a draw for me, besides being a bleeder, most of the time dual wielding longswords, is the fact that... it doesn't fit what I see as the archtype of paladin/templar in the weapons department. when I imagine templar, I don't imagine dual-wielding longswords, I imagine sword and board, mace and board, warhammers. Wait a minute... WARHAMMERS. So I thought about it some more, and thought hey wouldn't it be neat if each knight got a couple of new skills in weaponmastery each knight having a different specialized weapon, just for themselves, that pushes a specific kill route. this may have a bigger scope than adding a few skills, and I wanted to know if it would even be considered, or sounded like something people would want. So far I thought mostly about templar(because they need love) and the classleads(538, 537, 535, and 523) that are attempting to make it where they can push 2 routes of killing. with warhammers, you could make a noncomboable skill that gives a list of afflictions in order, similar to how berserker works. I have no clue what afflictions would work, it could be all the ones listed for the new purposed insta: justice, penance, peace and burning nerves. the move would be called righteous smash, which delivers the affliction and a toxin. a second skill could be added that works on a cooldown or even devotion cost which allows you to boost righteous smash to deliver 2 of the afflictions plus a toxin, effectively giving templars a little more burst affliction pressure, since knights in general are a slow burn on afflictions. Anyways, this would make it so that you can push the redemption kill route hard, and still maintain that you can dual pressure 2 kills for the eventual kill. As for the other 2 knights, I haven't started fully thinking on it yet and I honestly didn't want to put in the effort to think it out if it was something that is impossible to do/implement. the only other thing I thought of is which specialized weapon I would like to see the other 2 knights get, and I only have Deathknight with a greatsword(or repurpose claymores I guess). I would love to hear from all knights especially on this idea.
    DreacorNaruj
  • JacobJacob GeorgiaMember Posts: 1
    "Wonder how Imperian is doing..."
    *pops into forums*
    "Same." -_-

    Gabriel (retiree)
    AodanTheophilusGjarrusSarrius
  • DimitriDimitri Somewhere coldMember Posts: 338 ✭✭✭
    NEW IDEA
    This may be the wrong section for it, and may end up needing a separate thread but I figured I'd want to get opinions before I even try and think this all out, and would like the admin to weigh in on if this is even valid.


    (words involving Templar/Runeguard/Deathknight and warhammer love)



    But seriously though, yeah, it needs some love. Lotta choice in weaponry but in the end, you've only got 3 options depending on your interest and how concerned you are with the efficacy of your class. Longswords are the favourite, followed by battleaxes, and scimitars bring up the rear think that's how it goes... But knight types can use a whole lotta other weapons that just don't get any attention anymore. Claymores used to be enhanceable apparently but it was deemed too powerful I think. DKs should get bonuses/skills for using raw power damage dealers like battleaxes and claymores. Brutish weapons for a brutal class. Templars should be the sword/mace and board and/or the warhammer group. Runeguards get to dual wield the one-handed family of weapons. (But make battleaxes two-handed first, k?) 

    Basically: remove reave and its whole setup line from the general knight skill pool, and have it as a demonic circle only skill and have it work with claymores too, and let DK enhance only those two weapons.

    Someone smarter than me should classlead this.
    Aodan
  • OwynOwyn USMember Posts: 182 ✭✭✭
    @Aodan You should suggest they be morphing or summoned weapons. Just so the poor Knights who do circle-hop don't have to be like, "Great. Now I have to buy yet another weapon."
    Aodan
  • AodanAodan Member Posts: 192 ✭✭✭
    Owyn said:
    @Aodan You should suggest they be morphing or summoned weapons. Just so the poor Knights who do circle-hop don't have to be like, "Great. Now I have to buy yet another weapon."
    I'm totally on board with this. the actual skill to use them could still stick in weaponmastery if we want, and make it so that you have some way to summon or create your weapon via the unique knight skill. I also just want to be able to have souledge for dk honestly
    Image result for soul edge
  • NarujNaruj Member, Beta Testers Posts: 66 ✭✭✭
    Aodan said:
    WARHAMMERS
    I would rather avoid pushing any  knight class into a weapon type that natively does double limb damage, particularly if you are not going to remove its ability to also use toxins.

    What you're suggesting would fit priests much more sharply than knights, but please don't suggest that priests get doublesmite..
    You grabbed my hand and we fell into it
    Like a daydream.. or a fever
    OwynAodan
  • AodanAodan Member Posts: 192 ✭✭✭
    Naruj said:
    Aodan said:
    WARHAMMERS
    I would rather avoid pushing any  knight class into a weapon type that natively does double limb damage, particularly if you are not going to remove its ability to also use toxins.

    What you're suggesting would fit priests much more sharply than knights, but please don't suggest that priests get doublesmite..
    okay well here's the deal. I know nothing about warhammer dealing double limb damage, because they are never used. so then this is a hidden thing for the most part that can, and should be removed if this were to happen. thats why its good to point out these things I suppose
    Owyn
  • OzreasOzreas Member, Beta Testers Posts: 235 ✭✭✭✭
    All blunt weapons do!
    Aodan
  • SeptusSeptus Member, Beta Testers Posts: 750 ✭✭✭✭✭
    So, full disclosure: the templar classleads are mine. I would like to do something similar for Deathknight but Cyr talked himself into it instead and I'm good with that, because Deathknight is a giant mess.

    I have a few concerns with your proposal, @Aodan:

    1. I feel a big part of it is basically another full knight revamp - I don't think this is necessary. Knights are unfinished, not flawed in the current design. The core mechanics are there and just need some love/tuning. I think we have an unfortunate issue to try to fix things that don't need fixing - I think many of the underlying knight mechanics fall into that category. There are some problem children, but by and large the foundation is solid.

    2. I think we'd be far better off deriving the circle flavour from the secondary (necro, devo, runelore), because they're much more easy to thematically link to what you're going for.

    3. I like the weapon types being universal across knights, because at the end of the day this makes things easier to balance. When everyone has the same basic core tools there is a vested interest in those tools being balanced by all parties. I'm going to use totems and vortex as my example (let's just say shaman and be done).

    4. To go back to point one a little bit, most people really don't like relearning their class. I think we saw this with a lot of the class revamps - what you're getting might be objectively better but its still a significant time investment your average player will have wasted. This is why I favour adding things similar to runeflares to the two knights that lack them: this is a simple concept with a lot of design space, and learned mechanics remain mostly relevant with only a minor paradigm shift for the most part.

    If I was doing the Deathknight classleads, I would think about repurposing vivisect. Its the iconic necromancy finisher and is currently a terrible version of cleave because at initial knight release there wasn't really a place for it. I think with some adjustments it could fix up some of the issues Deathknight is facing (and will face with the likely nerf of the teeth enhancement).

    I would 100% stay away from blunt weapons, regardless. Absolutely agree with Naruj on that can of worms.
    Aodan
Sign In or Register to comment.