Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 3.7K All Categories
- 3K The Midnight Age
- 757 Announce posts
- 125 Newbies
- 6 Class Guides
- 804 Harpy's Head Tavern
- 57 Echo Canyon
- 310 Self-Affirmations
- 163 Town Crier
- 135 The Exchange
- 167 Sparring Grounds
- Combat Guides
- 30 Combat Logs
- 188 Idea Box
- 9 Classleads
- 578 Roleplay Logs
- 107 Aetolia Development
- 5 The Void
- 744 Miscellaneous
- 9 Announcements
- 417 OOC Chat
- 217 Tech Talk
- 47 Scripts
Looking for more active discussion? Join our Discord at https://discord.gg/x2s7fY6
Townhall Part 1
Tiur
Producer
Log here: https://hastebin.com/onizifowac.sql
I am exhausted, so I'll post commentary later. Please feel free to summarize and discuss in this thread. Part 2 will be sometime next week.
I am exhausted, so I'll post commentary later. Please feel free to summarize and discuss in this thread. Part 2 will be sometime next week.
6
Comments
That said, I would like to answer a certain allegation within that log, which states that Kalak not dealing with the consequences of his actions. Since I was not in Townhall, thought this would be appropriate avenue to chime in response. Having no city advantages, no advancement in an organization, no ylem support, no guild support and less access to general RP avenues are big enough consequences as they are, on top of that being hunted.
The used term "force Kalak to deal with the consequences of his craptastic behavior" made me cringe a little bit. We play a RP game and if you wish to deal with a rogue Sciomancer, do not go to Divine but go to character first. Otherwise it is a show of not taking responsibility for your actions. Sure though, if you intend to RP "We do not negotiate with rogues! We are so great a city! You are trapped, you are gonna die repeatedly!" then eh, that is your choice. It is not like Kalak does things out of context. And I did give ample opportunities to people for exacting retribution. Some managed to take it, some could not. C'est la vie.
Now it would be quite unfortunate if as a player I was forced to act in a certain way which does not fit to the story of the character I am playing. I am forgoing the $$ investment part but what is more important to me is the time investment part. Some may see it differently, but not only your time is precious and full of RP, I would like to state.
For rogues, it is understandable that behaviour will not be encouraged more then it already is. But some questions, perhaps in case I might miss it next time:
- Will you provide Ylem support to the rogues (i.e. Esterport Pylon) or it will remain as a city-only stuff?
- What do you think about the RP roles of mercenaries, wandering skalds, freeblades, evil mages in towers, barbarians, brigands and such who could be considered as player danger/auxiliaries?
Reason being it because each side conflict with each other. A rogue provides nothing more than a punching bag for both sides, while at the same time, offering up no lore or true RP to the mix. They have no goal other than 'Oh hey, in what way can I be a dick?' or 'Hrm. I'm just going to mind my own business'.
Rogues should face a malus because (As a player) you are disregarding all form of lore to subject your character to whims because you don't want to play nice with cities. That's fine. You get to suffer the consequences and the lack of abilities for it.
But seeing the current attitude within some organizations, it makes being a rogue a better option at the face of obnoxious mentality of "My way or highway" pervading the certain parts of the gameworld mostly caused by a select part of playerbase.
Blanket statements like those are not valid. Because you do not care about someone's RP or stance within the gameworld, that does not mean RP does not exist over there. That does not mean rogues disregard the lore or try to be dicks/harmless. They can add plenty of RP to the mix. Sure they will not join your special snowflake org-event, but they can add a lot under other circumstances.
Now no one asked for full-advantages/equality with cities. But it seems more sound to allow all roles within a game while maintaining the overarching battle.
You say, "Any attention given to the neutral middle, that again, should not exist... I feel that attention has been spent poorly."
You say, "Looking back to my comment on resource allocation."
You say, "Our true uniqueness comes from those conflicts and consequences. If I want to spend my resources best, I emphasize and support that."
You say, "I worry that too much attention to neutral acts as an unspoken encouragement."
You say, "The world has room for neutrality, but it is a waste of resources to incentivise it."
-------------------
I understand that people who I don't RP with still RP. I understand that Yeras still has his RP, I understand that Kanivara still has her RP, I understand that Dzekk/Wylliam/Isia/Eliadon/Aishia/Valingar/Didi all have their own RP. So I do understand that you have RP.
That said, I have played as a Rogue. And I found that it is much more detrimental to the game and growth as a character to BE a rogue because no one wants to associate with you. My ties were influential and shaky at best when I did play a rogue because I went with whoever paid me the most money or whoever gave me the best deal. As a rogue, you have that option, sure. But in doing so, you ARE in fact disregarding lore. Because under normal circumstances, why in the hell would a Vampire want to help out Enorian when vampires as a whole just want to enslave Enorian as live food? Or why would a Templar want to fight alongside vampires when Templars are taught that the shadow side is inherently evil and needs to be cleansed?
In the end, a rogue does nothing except cause frustration to all players because now we're toeing the line of 'Do we really want to approve of this rogue's "neutral" behavior? And how is that going to negatively affect us politically and socially?' You become a variable, an outlier that the majority of the game can't rely on. The only thing we can rely on is that the rogue will either be a threat or harmless.
Now to keep onto topic, I'd say the idea of rogues and neutrality is pretty much shot if you read the subscript from Tiur along with this post. He essentially said that rogues and neutral tendencies are a waste of resources and will not be expanded upon. So take that with whatever grain of salt you'd like. But that's just the way things are.
In a game of strict binary conflict, isn't it the one trying to play both sides that would qualify as a "special snowflake"? :thinking:
This discussion can be moved to a separate thread. The answer has already been given.
To reiterate:Pylons will not become accessible to rogues, they are a benefit and mechanism of cities. Rogues are permitted but not encouraged, and systems will not evolve to make them more favourable.
I'm not going to hurt Rogues. But I'm not going to incentivise them. That means that things like pylons, which are there to push organizational teamwork, are likely not going to be a thing. I don't say rogues have nothing to add to the game... those knowing my history should know I made the first rogue clan, when clans were first made. I understand the mindset!
It's the difference between hindering and encouraging. I have no problem with a post office in Esterport, or a key maker. Those are life things that should be available. But not a pylon, or an org to get blessings under.
Because from some statements, it seemed like there would be actions to take care of rogueness instead of letting them persist. While I would love to have one research tree or at least being able to absorb ylem to aid other cities (i.e gauntlet), ultimately they are of no importance as long as survival chance exist to rogue roles.
And definitely looking forward to Sciomancer revamp!
Aaah...someday.
Cute-Kelli by @Sessizlik.
We fight in the dark to serve the Light.