City and Guilds - Goals and Consequences

124

Comments

  • RasaniRasani Member Posts: 119 ✭✭✭
    I think that's an important part, consent to story arc.
    I remember distinctly a time in which the Carnifex came to Enorian and demanded a fight with the Templar. Which, cool I love the rival guilds conflict, but they ended up picking a time SMACK DAB in the middle of the constant raids on Enorian from Akara and Trikal. So, by the time this cool, rp driven conflict came around, we were just too freakin' tired and burnt out to do anything. So yeah, the Carnifex tried to go out there and make unicorns happen, but as said, you can only get so far.

    I got a LOT of flack from people, IC and OOC, for not dragging the Templar out to fight. But after the constant raids, nobody wanted to go out, unicorns I didn't even want to go out. It's why I think the leaders channel will be great. You can sit down and go "hey when are you guys open for a conflict" and leave it at that. No real planning, just "hey we wanna fight you, you good for it?"

    And, well, there's also the matter of doing what your guild, as a whole, wants. A guild will die FAST if a leader wants to do something the core group doesn't want, I saw it recently. Even a fantastic guildmaster can only get so far without the consent of their guild, same for cityleader. If the majority says "nah, I don't wanna do that", you have to basically go "unicorns you, I'm doing it anyway", which damages the trust you've built up with people.
    Pazradym
  • EmelleEmelle the Seer Seer's WoodMember Posts: 711 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 10
    I don't believe anyone is forced to participate in much in this game. Circumstances affect your character, sure, but it isn't like any of these stories have a predetermined outcome. This is a collaborative game, we're all writing the story on the fly, it's a player's prerogative to change the direction of the story if they don't like where it's headed.

    And I guess if all else fails and something is truly making your experience miserable as a player, you can address it OOC, although personally I'd only suggest that after IG avenues are exhausted.
    HavenFaerah
  • FaerahFaerah Member Posts: 216 ✭✭✭✭
    @Haven -

    ...That actually brings to mind a question...

    What about the "consent" that is implicit in playing a character in a City that (1) stands for something that others are opposed to and (2) has enemies that wish to do it harm?
    TrikalTozEydis
  • RasaniRasani Member Posts: 119 ✭✭✭
    edited January 10
    lol I don't think letting a guild have some say in the direction the guild goes is "carebear crap". As you said people play to have fun and if one chuckle unicorns leading a guild decides to do whatever they want, it becomes an issue for the guild. Being GM or city leader isn't just an excuse to go Rambo, you're committing to trying to enhance people's fun and rp, at least I think so. 
    I have SEEN GMs take over and do whatever they wanted and I also saw the guild die. I don't think it's too much to say "Hey maybe my guild doesn't want this" or even have consideration for a rival guild before starting a ton of unicorns.
    People straight up STOPPED PLAYING during the Akara raids and I don't think, with that knowledge, it's too much to toss a cursory "Hey is this chill?" At a player who is, ultimately, there to have fun just like you are. 

    Edit: I see it like a game of DnD. Sure, I can technically do whatever I want. But the other players are trying to have fun too and, if I ruin unicorns for them, I won't get to play anymore. 
  • HavenHaven World Burner Flight SchoolMember Posts: 2,226 ✭✭✭✭✭
    @Faerah I'm not entirely sure what you mean by your question. For the most part, unless otherwise notified, I'm of the mind that if you log in you're looking for some kind of interaction and give consent. I have the right to at least try. This is doubly so if you're in a leadership role. This in no way means you have to RP with x or engage with x. Like I said earlier - learn your audience and have fun. Things will fall into place on their own for the most part. For better or for worse, there's a reason "cliques" form.

    @Rasani Lol, sorry. I wasn't referring to you specifically. Back when I was playing there was a strong movement in the community to require consent for meaningful conflict between players and then some. There's no problem with taking into account the whole picture or sending a message to ask or whatever. But by no means should it ever be required or expected - unless of course the action falls outside the scope of the game. Unless you derive enjoyment in that sort of thing - worrying about everyone else all the time more often than not is a fast track ticket to burn out and unnecessary stress.

    There are so many avenues available to players to disengage that there is little reason for people to not at least try.
    ¤ Si vis pacem, para bellum. ¤
    Someone powerful says, "We're going to have to delete you."
    havenbanner2
    Zaila
  • RasaniRasani Member Posts: 119 ✭✭✭
    @Faerah I have to be honest, that has little to do with any reason that I'd ask if people want conflict. If you start a fight and then unicorns when you can't win, that's one thing. That's a personal thing. 

    I'm talking about arcs. Let's take something specific. We had a player recently get pulled into long, drawn out drama rp that that player wanted no part in. It involved two cities and a guild just because one player wanted drama. Suddenly, that player has to deal with the fallout of an rp arc they wanted no part in. I don't think asking for consent before rp is too much to ask for.

    Let's venture back to the Templar Carnifex thing. Nobody left that happy. Carnifex didn't get the fight they wanted and I had to deal with getting flack for not forcing people to PK after dealing with endless hours of raiding. Literally nobody is the winner. Communication between leaders, even a simple "when are you open as an org for conflict" could've made that into an awesome rp. You may run into orgs that don't want conflict, sure, but then you look for it with orgs that do. And this doesn't even have to be an all the time thing, things will happen spur of the moment. But man alive, that moment always stuck with me because I would've loved more conflict, but it was just the timing, something that is easily avoided with "hey when are you free for this"

    if a guild or city shies away from conflicts they will either be left behind in rp arcs or eventually the leaders will be replaced. And honestly, that's fine. Conflict is the driving force behind a game like this, but it's not even about "let's not hurt anyone's feelings" which again if things move into ooc harassment you should talk to admin, it's about making sure people are READY for conflict so that each party gets the MOST out of their time. Because there's no way anyone is having fun just hearing "no thanks" because of bad timing.
    Emelle
  • IrruelIrruel Member Posts: 650 ✭✭✭✭
    Firstly, I agree that players hate losing, a bit too much for unscripted conflicts. This has been a problem for a Long Time.
    I also concede that there have been times when player-initiated conflicts have been poo-pooed.

    There have also been player-initiated things, specifically GMs thowing their characters on the line to have fun and initiate change. Go back quite a few years and consider Hadoryu's Paladins as an example. Hadoryu gambled his character's reputation and hard work, and something good came of it. If he was not as respected as he was, it probably would have turned out very differently.

    It's not always guaranteed to succeed of course, but it doesn't always need to be that drastic either.

    Moving on from that though, I'll go back to my little metagame joke. I couldn't explain it at the time as I was typing on my phone, but I was thinking of other things from the past when I wrote it.

    In a guild in Achaea, our GM was friendly with and order that had a number of strong PVPers. Our GM wanted us to learn to enjoy conflict so he had an ooc chat with his friends, and the order attacked, and we were essentially griefed into submission. It was fun though, because they did actually restrain themselves. Our GM let them know if it was going too far and they made a point of giving us a chance. When it started to get old, the conflict ended.

    There is a leaders channel now. I don't know exactly how it is supposed to be used, but I'm sure Oleis wouldn't object to two org leaders planning a conflict, laying a few ground rules, and then during the conflict having a daily chat just to make sure both sides are still having fun.


    "Hey Toz, I want to have a small scale conflict where my guild tries to free your dogs. You guys can retaliate by, I dunno, burning our library or something, and we'll try to end it in about a week. We'll keep all teams at 3 or less fighters. What do you think?"
    RasaniSibatti
  • RasaniRasani Member Posts: 119 ✭✭✭
    edited January 11
    Basically, yeah. We've been ENCOURAGED to plan conflict with each other on leaders. Sure, it would be cool to be able to do anything my character and rp demands on a whim, however I also know that, as a human being, I can't force a damn thing to happen. Sure, it wasn't amazing rp to say 'no, we're tired after a raid', but after being raided for 5 hours straight? Yeah, we were tired and in a game people play, again for fun, I'm not going to demand that they go forward and fight more after being forced to do so for five hours. It, again, goes back to DnD. If my players don't want to deal with the hassle of a combat heavy mission that day, I adapt.
    Again, never suggested that spontaneous rp was bad, just stating a fact that Hey, there might be more conflict, something everyone keeps pushing for, if we stop being so afraid to plan stuff with each other.

    Edit: And, as an aside? It wasn't 'oh you're weak' that I mean by flack. That's something that Templar always hear from Carnifex and, well, who cares? We don't seek their approval. It was being told, OOC, that I was killing conflict because we didn't feel like fighting after dealing with a raid for 5 hours.
  • IrruelIrruel Member Posts: 650 ✭✭✭✭
    Well, sometimes people just need to listen to the other person and then, you know, refrain from being a jerk.
  • IrruelIrruel Member Posts: 650 ✭✭✭✭
    The word 'jerk' was directed at someone not understanding that another person might just be feeling tired and drained.

    Not at someone wanting spontaneous conflict. It's fine to want it. And even to instigate it.

    Just be more understanding if someone doesn't feel like a fight. If you don't actually care, then don't ask, just attack. That's perfectly acceptable. Everything in character.

    If you do ask the person oocly though, then you need to accept their response and be more understanding. The moment you ask, it isn't spontaneous anymore, is it? It's organised oocly, through a negotiation. Instead of accusing them of stifling conflict, suggest postponing until the next day.



    Incidentally, I used the word jerk. In Australia, that's about as soft an insult as exists. I've called my boss a jerk and just got a chuckle in return. But apologies if it offended.


    HavenFaerahXenia
  • HavenHaven World Burner Flight SchoolMember Posts: 2,226 ✭✭✭✭✭
    In truth, I get what you're saying. I respect that decision. All I'm saying and I believe Faerah as well is that at the end of the day it's your prerogative to want to plan and ask for consent. It should in no way, however, be required or expected of you to do so.

    There was a discussion on this a few years ago but I maintain that it's not a leader's or any player's job to worry about the overall health of the game.

    Edit: Aha! Found it http://forums.aetolia.com/discussion/comment/30384/#Comment_30384
    ¤ Si vis pacem, para bellum. ¤
    Someone powerful says, "We're going to have to delete you."
    havenbanner2
    Faerah
  • FaerahFaerah Member Posts: 216 ✭✭✭✭
    Irruel said:

    The word 'jerk' was directed at someone not understanding that another person might just be feeling tired and drained.

    When I played Achaea, there was a group of Ashtani who raided Shallam on a regular basis. I had developed a rapport with a few of them were I could tell them "hey, we're doing an event right now, can you come back later?" and they would typically say "oh, okay" and do so. My request didn't kill the conflict. It time-shifted it. When I asked @Rasani whether or not the Templars had engaged the Carnifex after they recuperated from the five hours of raiding, I was asking because I wanted to know if she time-shifted the conflict. If a player doesn't time-shift the conflict, they are effectively stopping it from happening.
    Irruel said:

    Not at someone wanting spontaneous conflict. It's fine to want it. And even to instigate it.

    Just be more understanding if someone doesn't feel like a fight. If you don't actually care, then don't ask, just attack. That's perfectly acceptable. Everything in character.

    My point has been that while I agree that it's perfectly acceptable to not ask and keep everything in character, in practice, that is not how the current player base treats it. Instead, they treat it as though seeking spontaneous conflict is absolutely abhorrent and that the other player is a big bully "jerk" for wanting to because how dare they not care about the game play of other people? I suggest that it's a two-way street. A player that stifles and criticizes conflict while prioritizing their own game play over that of people who want conflict in a conflict-driven game do not stand on the higher moral ground. In the end, it is the same selfish drive to play the game "how they want" that drives behavior and choices that negatively impact other players.
    Irruel said:

    If you do ask the person oocly though, then you need to accept their response and be more understanding. The moment you ask, it isn't spontaneous anymore, is it? It's organised oocly, through a negotiation. Instead of accusing them of stifling conflict, suggest postponing until the next day.

    I mean, I'm willing to concede that if someone goes through the exercise of giving their opponent the opportunity to deny their request for conflict that then they should honor a choice to not engage in conflict. But that's because - as I believe we both agreed earlier - a player should not have to ask and should be able to just stir conflict... So why would they give their opponent the option to deny the conflict in the first place if they did not intend to respect their decision on the matter?
    Irruel said:

    Incidentally, I used the word jerk. In Australia, that's about as soft an insult as exists. I've called my boss a jerk and just got a chuckle in return. But apologies if it offended.

    It's pretty hard to offend me because I don't take argument and disagreement personally and don't internalize the opinions of people who have no bearing on my life. People are going to disagree... Sometimes passionately. Such is life.

    I agree that "jerk" is pretty light. I would never tell my boss he's a jerk, but it's light nonetheless. My beef with name-calling is not whether or not the name used is nasty or crude... My problem is that name-calling is a practice used to discredit and belittle people of differing opinions. It undermines their valid positions by characterizing them in a negative light and it stops conversation and discourse from occurring. I know it's the popular rage right now to just label people and toss them aside because, for example, they're jerks so they shouldn't be considered anyway! ...But I am resistant to that trend. I'd rather dig to the root of a person's motivations and understand them.

    To use my example above... Plenty of people can consider those who stifle conflict to be "jerks" too. This isn't the real world where wanting conflict and to beat up on people is "bad." This is a fictional world where conflict is a large part of the point. Accordingly, as I said, I don't think that people who don't want conflict have the higher moral ground here simply because they have "non-action" on their side. Standing against player-driven conflict is, in and of itself, an action. It takes away an element of the game people rightfully expect to exist. Some people might even call those people "bullies" because they make others who want player-driven conflict feel unwelcome. (This is why name-calling undermines discussion! Most of the time, it's a matter of perspective.)

    ...Insert the usual disclaimer that griefers do in fact exist and should be stomped out, collectively, by the community. That's not the kind of player-driven conflict of which I am discussing. Also the obvious OOC harassment should not happen to players. Keep IC things IC. etc. etc.
    TozXenia
  • RhyotRhyot BloodlochMember Posts: 180 ✭✭✭
    So, I've been reading and following the argument about conflict and those who stifle it or promote it. Here's the thing I've noticed about conflict...

    On both hands, people want conflict because it drives their RP experience... BUT at the same time they don't want conflict because they don't want to lose, they don't want it to interrupt their RP (beit mudding, events, or even that cliquey crap that people do with their close friends because they like the control it makes them perceive), or they just feel that its against their RP. No matter what you do, anyone who tries to drive conflict is in a lose/lose situation, and this includes the admins. Because how much flack have admins been given about doing some event or another that didn't go the way the players on one side or another wanted?

    Prime examples: Lanu Du destruction of Enorian (I heard many people complain about how they were mad that Enorian got blown up), Three Widows War (people (non-PKers or non-PKer sympathizers) were all up in arms because it was an open PK event). As for player driven events: city raids, Syssin vs Consanguine war, Tainhelm wars, Order Wars. No matter what is done, people complain.

    Now, personally, alot of these events stop because everyone tries to adhere to the lowest common demoninator, the squeaky wheel, or the outcry of the masses who have lots of friends who can be bribed/convinced to side with the loudmouth. This has been seen on multiple occasions where a player tries to entice conflict and then everyone runs to forums and starts spouting about how much they hate X conflict, and that Y player(s) are doing X conflict, and how the admins would step in and stop the event or that the Y player(s) doing said conflict would stop. Additionally, it has been seen/heard that players will assault Y player(s) in tells and all but beg/demand for the event to stop because the people losing aren't having fun because it goes against THEIR fun.

    We've got a game where people would much prefer to sit there and idle all day, only roleplay with their five friends in their house/haven, or sit there and ignore the rest of the playerbase because they can't do anything without being yelled at by the squeaky wheels or the lowest common denominators. Its why raids aren't done. It's why guild vs guild combat situations aren't done. It's why people don't randomly attack/jump people. It's why Order Wars aren't done. Because NOBODY wants to listen to the unicorns that is spewed when one side starts losing and starts complaining about the ongoing event.

    It's not about being a 'jerk', its not about negotiating with someone to start a conflict. Conflict is, and should be, spontaneous. But why stir up something when all you're going to get is yelled at by a handful of people and all but demanded to stop? Why subject yourself to that pain/torture unless you're a masochist?

    So, we're in a state of stale status quo. Everybody KNOWS they want conflict, but NOBODY wants to do conflict because of how much unicorns they're going to get for it. Until we mature as a PLAYERBASE and move on from being able to cry to mommy/daddy (admins/friends) because we aren't winning and things aren't going our way, until we can stop trying to control everything in our tiny little world and relinquish the fact that we do not, in fact, need to control everything in the game/around us... then, AND ONLY THEN, will we be able to have the conflict systems and events that the playerbase wants.

    Rhoynn
  • RasaniRasani Member Posts: 119 ✭✭✭
    I'm confused as to why people think my saying "hey maybe ask for consent" is because "wahh losing". Because man, let me tell you something: I don't care about losing. Big deal, unicorns happens. If I cared about losing, I wouldn't play this kind of game, where it's all up to chance and I can't restart. if I only cared about winning, I wouldn't spend time getting involved with other people's rp, or spend time trying to lead a guild or city. Hell, I'd probably learn to code so that I KNOW I'd win. But I don't care.

    For all the talk of "We need to mature", people are AWFULLY against the idea of being mature and making sure the HUMAN on the other side of that game is down with something. It's an embarrassment, to see how much people fight the very basic idea of just making sure it's a good time to start a fight. Like, unicorns, if I deny you a conflict, I promise it isn't because I'm afraid of losing. it's because, as a real life person with other real life unicorns to do, I don't have the mental energy.

    I'll tell you why order wars aren't done, because they're BORING. They need a serious overhaul because, man, just rebuilding and taking down shrines is boring and we all know it. People complained about Three Widows because, while there was a huge pk element, there was also a HUGE RP element, and getting killed every time you wanted to go talk to an NPC got dull as unicorns, and limiting an event that has such a big impact on lore and rp to being accessible to only pkers is kinda garbage. But, I'm also someone who thinks it's not a huge to do to make sure everyone is having fun. Because, again, everyone is here to enjoy themselves and I'm not going to enjoy myself if I'm making another real, honest to God human have a shitty time.

    It's not a problem of "oh raiding sucks", it's a problem of people knowing when to QUIT. And frankly, I don't think a lot of people DO know when to quit. They either take the complaints as "oh it's just people bitching about losing" or, they take it as a sign of their victory, and continue to do it because "oh, who's going to stop me?" If we wanna talk about maturing enough to handle loss, that's fine, but we also need to talk about maturing enough to know when to knock it off.

    Either way, I'm done. I don't want this to get heated, all I wanted to say, and said at the start, is that I think the leaders talk will be a great way to start to resolve the lack of conflict. It's not 'spontaneous' but who cares, conflict is conflict
    LeanaMihaketi
  • LeanaLeana Member Posts: 84 ✭✭✭
    Rasani said:


    For all the talk of "We need to mature", people are AWFULLY against the idea of being mature and making sure the HUMAN on the other side of that game is down with something.

    I agree with this 100%. Most of the time, conflict results not in a loss, but in a permanent change to how I play the game. Either one side is too overwhelming and it drops the population (See: Duiran fires) or it's an internal conflict for personal (sometimes OOC) reason that results in a loss of membership to an org.

    I've been victim to an RP conflict where the end result was simply to get rid of me. There was zero effort put forth to actually explore it or create a story. It was simply "You do or are X? We don't like X, stop it or you're gone." And since I didn't have anyone in my corner, GONE is what was given to me.
    Rasani said:


    I'll tell you why order wars aren't done, because they're BORING. They need a serious overhaul because, man, just rebuilding and taking down shrines is boring and we all know it.

    I think they'd be less boring if the Gods were around and fighting each other too.
    Rasani said:


    Because, again, everyone is here to enjoy themselves and I'm not going to enjoy myself if I'm making another real, honest to God human have a shitty time.

    You've been this person to me, at least once. Not as Leana, though.
    Rasani said:


    It's not a problem of "oh raiding sucks", it's a problem of people knowing when to QUIT. And frankly, I don't think a lot of people DO know when to quit.

    I 100% agree with you. The Duiran raids by Trikal and Akara ended the game for me. I wasn't going to come back at all until I heard about Oleis.



    Xenia
  • HavenHaven World Burner Flight SchoolMember Posts: 2,226 ✭✭✭✭✭
    @Rhyot People are always going to complain. Waiting for the playerbase to mature or change isn't the best strategy for growth. There are things that are simply beyond our control and dwelling on them does no one any good. It's why I'm an advocate for taking a leap anyway and see what happens. Keep the story moving and focus on having fun. As I said before, you'll find more often than not things fall into place.

    If you're afraid of getting angry tells, be responsible and start policing your own communications. You don't have to take it. If it escalates and gets to be too much there is the issue and or ignore command for a reason. There are so many avenues to disengage from a situation here - there's almost no reason not to engage other players. The audience is clearly there.

    Sure, we forget ourselves sometimes in the heat of the moment and yes, there's the occasional bad apple but most players who play this game ARE reasonable.
    ¤ Si vis pacem, para bellum. ¤
    Someone powerful says, "We're going to have to delete you."
    havenbanner2
    EmelleAtrapoema
  • RasaniRasani Member Posts: 119 ✭✭✭
    edited January 11
    @Leana If I made you have a shitty time, consider this my apology. That is never my intent and, if it happens in the future, just shoot me a line saying "hey, you're kinda ruining my fun" and I'll stop. I really have no desire to keep anyone from having fun.

    Edit: of course, if my ruining your fun is stopping someone from killing dwarves in tainhelm, I gotta I'm sorry XD
    LeanaTrikal
  • KylanKylan Member Posts: 24 ✭✭
    Sooo.. I had this mentioned to me briefly recently and I've only just got around to reading it over/thinking about it.

    First of all, I appreciate the tact and how constructive @Oleis is being. If the whole Daru/Luminary thing was handled with nearly as much goodwill, I might have felt different about it. (And by different, I mean more than "Indifferent") I am still not sure how I feel about the overarching changes being made - do I think they're positive? Sure. I've spent some time bouncing between games and guilds in Aetolia (I put quite a bit of time into a Carnifex a while back - it's a shame that they're going to be the biggest casualty from this sort of change).

    My own thoughts on Aetolia were basically "Move towards more city-integration" in regards to newbies (After having played Lusternia) and there have been steps taken to combat idling/player accessibility. (Something which Lusternia does poorly)

    Thankfully for myself, I am at the point in Aetolia where getting involved demands more time than I can give (Rewriting a system and all of that) and wanting to *do* something. So I'm in a place where I don't have a particularly strong connection to my city (Aside from occasionally causing trouble) and not feeling strongly enough about any guild to say "-that- is what I want to try!" my concern personally is in attaching guilds so firmly to city means that the identity of a city can be enough of a deterrent for you to join a guild. Sure, you can go without a city, but with the (What I presume is) deeper integration between cities and guilds, you're effectively cutting off a big part of what the game offers mechanically. (Ylem conflict is city-based, presumably a war system will be city-based and so on).

    One question I do have is - are organisational identities going to be reviewed? I'm thinking more about cities as I can see how, for example, Enorian for me as a player is just really.. ehh.. nothing against the current leaders or anyone working on it, but the focus on city Gods is pretty much exactly what -Kylan- would have wanted Enorian to be. As a player, it is not particularly.. thrilling? Before that Enorian was a city of Light with religious zealots (Not just of the Daru variety).

    I suppose what I am driving at is are the city identities going to be broader to allow for different viewpoints in the cities?

    tl;dr - I think it's a positive step. Sorry for Carnifex. What about city as a detraction for guilds and core mechanic engagement?
    Arbre
  • IrruelIrruel Member Posts: 650 ✭✭✭✭
    Kylan said:

    I am still not sure how I feel about the overarching changes being made - do I think they're positive? Sure. I've spent some time bouncing between games and guilds in Aetolia (I put quite a bit of time into a Carnifex a while back - it's a shame that they're going to be the biggest casualty from this sort of change).

    My own thoughts on Aetolia were basically "Move towards more city-integration" in regards to newbies (After having played Lusternia) and there have been steps taken to combat idling/player accessibility. (Something which Lusternia does poorly)
    ....
    I suppose what I am driving at is are the city identities going to be broader to allow for different viewpoints in the cities?
    tl;dr - I think it's a positive step. Sorry for Carnifex. What about city as a detraction for guilds and core mechanic engagement?

    Hullo Kylan. Good to see you're still kicking around muds somewhere.

    Something that confused me at the start of this discussion, is the question of why, in this age of multiclassing, is it even an issue? Why would a templar actually want to join Duiran? Why would a shaman want to join Enorian? If I want Duiran's RP/environment/company, but like the Templar class, then I can join Duiran, and even one of its guilds, and keep using the templar class. There is no need for a Shaman in Enorian. Choose one of the (each different) Enorian guilds, and multiclass shaman. You get your cake and you can eat it. It's a never-ending cake: choose the guild/city RP you like, match it with the class you like, and enjoy the game. So much easier than the old days.

    I'm sure there is the odd situation where someone loves the Daru RP but hates so many people in Enorian they can't be a citizen. The odd outlier like that just needs to be a casualty, in my opinion. Of course, cities must also not be too stifling.

    The Carnifex are a large outlier though. Built over a long period as guild > city, they change hurts them because for so long they existed in two places and made it work well. Moving them to one or the other city unfortunately leaves a hole in the other city. Spinesreach will now lack a 'front line warrior' guild, and while Bloodloch might seem like it suits the Carnifex theme best, Spinesreach isn't a bad match, and in my opinion needs an org like the Carnifex to be a complete city.

Sign In or Register to comment.