PlaneShift
Gameplay => Wish list => Topic started by: Jacula on January 23, 2012, 03:21:19 pm
-
Well met,
It has been long since I last visited Planeshift, although I've felt the sentimental urge to do so more than once.
I came here anew with the hope of being able to take part in the community once more, And that which I wish to discuss publicly is the matter of changing the names of characters who are for all intents and purposes dead from an IC [In Character] standpoint.
The reason why I'm raising the issue would be due to a personal predicament, that being my own character being deceased, although OOC [Out of character] very much alive.
I think such an issue to be shared in varying degrees, from characters having concluded in true death to players simply having grown tired of roleplaying them.
There is, afterall a limit on character development one can experience given the duration of which many find themselves here on Planeshift. Not to mention the impact events on a large scale can have.
There is however, a way to counteract such means. That being, allow players to change the name of one, and only one existing character once if they can provide a solid IC reason to do so, as well as a documentation of said characters demise in the forum. [Such as an event, a story or what have you.]
The review of such documentation might sound like a function in need of much effort, yet given the competence of the GM team I'd say a quick skim or an exchange of PM's would be enough to deem if a player's intentions are viable for a name change.
Why not roll a new character?
Most would agree that leveling a new character for a second time to be out of the question. Said leveling being simply for the sake of being able to roleplay as a warrior, mage, craftsman or what have you.
The time spent on repeating the turmoil of grinding may instead be used to contribute to the community in a positive way by roleplaying and creating events.
Something that may once more, simply be counteracted by a name change.
On the earning of skills and stats:
The function would not administer any unfair advantage what so ever, seeing as the stats and skills of a particular character applying for a name change has already been earned once.
The name is hence altered, whereas the numerial attributes of the character stays the same.
On testing:
Given as Planeshift is still a beta, players are relied upon to serve as testers. To my understanding, calculations and measurements are made to balance the game, based particularly on how testers level their characters, taking every relevant variabel into account.
I for one however, consider myself a player before a tester. Thus, I find the concept of starting anew and aquiring whatever skills needed for a new RP character for the sake of testing to be unintresting. As earlier stated, grinding once more consumes time that would be better put towards contributing to the community in a creative sense. More so, most would find themselves without the time to begin with.
Pros:
- A way for roleplay to be reuvinated within Planeshift, bringing forth a fresh start to the roleplaying community.
- Inspiration for the players to establish their new characters through events they could otherwise not IC'ly attend.
- Improved relations with the existing RP portion of the PS community.
- The possible return of many players of old.
- A boost of creativity!
Cons:
-The function having to be tended to by members of the GM team, consuming to me an unknown amount of time. ["gm team additional workload"]
-Players looking to abuse the function?
- "why you and not me" syndrome (we are still quite full of this)"
- risk of favoritism
It is of interest to me how others might perceive this idea, thus I hope to get your opinion on the matter.
Should one time name changes be allowed for existing players, so that they may start anew with their accumulated stats and skills intact, this from an RP perspective?
If so, why, why not?
What is the best way to implement such a function, if at all?
With hope of a relevant discussion on the matter, and best wishes,
- Jacula
-
additional cons:
- gm team additional workload
- "why you and not me" syndrome (we are still quite full of this)
- risk of favoritism
-
Noted.
I am curious however, do you find anything positive about the concept, if not, any constructive points on the matter?
More so, does the positive not outweigh the negative?
-
How does any actor play many parts without changing who they are? Is William Shatner James T. Kirk, T.J. Hooker or Denny Crane? or is he none of these. I believe you could accomplish your goal without GM intervention by putting at the top of your character description: Jacula Whatsisname is playing the role of Jusuppie Gladhander. It is not perfect as it doesn't change your label but you role players are all about the description anyway and it would be no worse that pretending that any character Adam Sandler plays is different than any other.
Another thing is that if you have not been around in a long time there will be quite a few new faces and fewer who remember your previous life. In a way this would allow you to level a wide variety of skills because they add to your acting chops.
Just my two cents.
-
Me personally, just always suck it up and start over. With my latest character I even bothered to start training again even though his eventual RP goal doesn't truly require it. I would just advise weighing your training for what you really need/want and what you can get by without.
For my character, he doesn't need anything beyond normal human limits so there won't be an endless grind for training. It would help though for more stats to be correlated to more concrete concepts. For instance, I can correlate strength to my character's carrying capacity in kilos, but endurance doesn't relate to how many kilometers he can run when unburdened.
-
If the choice is a good roleplayer quitting without name change, or provide new roleplays with the name change, Im in favour of the name change. In this case, I don't even see a good reason why it should be only allowed once and on one character.
If the choice is a bad player wanting to start over, because he is disliked, Im against it.
-
additional cons:
- gm team additional workload
- "why you and not me" syndrome (we are still quite full of this)
- risk of favoritism
Why not provide a software means to do so then so that every account will be allowed to change the name of one character once?
There would then be:
- No gm team additional workload
- No "why you and not me" syndrome (we are still quite full of this)
- No risk of favoritism
As a personal note, a very interesting rp has had to be passed by me because of the risk of perma-death. A name change would have been agreeable to me yet GMs would not support it. So the lack of a name change option has already made me skittish to be involved in one major rp.
- Nova
-
additional cons:
- gm team additional workload
- "why you and not me" syndrome (we are still quite full of this)
- risk of favoritism
The GMs I have met are excellent at arbitrating fairness with good humour. I guess that is why they are GMs.
This sounds like part of the GM job description to me, as dealing with players is never clear cut.
I think with a well thought out reason for a name change, the GM team are more than capable to deal with it.
Their are always exceptions to the rule,
and is meant to be a fun game after all.
-
the post before your declaimed one of the reasons why a software would be a bad idea. one character once? won't change much we will be here in some months discussing the twice :)
additional cons:
- gm team additional workload
- "why you and not me" syndrome (we are still quite full of this)
- risk of favoritism
Why not provide a software means to do so then so that every account will be allowed to change the name of one character once?
There would then be:
- No gm team additional workload
- No "why you and not me" syndrome (we are still quite full of this)
- No risk of favoritism
As a personal note, a very interesting rp has had to be passed by me because of the risk of perma-death. A name change would have been agreeable to me yet GMs would not support it. So the lack of a name change option has already made me skittish to be involved in one major rp.
- Nova
-
If I may make one obvious point. When Jacula ran his events, he included EVERYBODY in his roleplays regardless of their role playing skill. Those of us who were around in '09 know well that these were LARGE SCALE events that lasted weeks at a time.
Yes, there were ONE OR TWO folks MAYBE THREE who didn't like the conflict type RP that he brought, but so what - the MAJORITY of people enjoyed what he brought to the table. I really hope that whoever is in charge will look at this reasonably and not diss him with some generalized rule. If you were around in '09 but didn't follow these events, I suggest you take a look at "The Madness of Jacula" under In Game Roleplay Events, and the continuation that followed. Look at the hit count on these too - probably well into 3-5,000 or so.
As for his request to be able to have a single name change, this really should not be a big deal. It takes only a second to change a name, I know personally, I've done it before.
Whisper Bless,
Rigwyn
-
well if the community would take the reasoning of some people get name changes and others might not yes it would be possible rigwyn. will it?
-
Jacula's idea has my support.
One can argue of course that starting over is an option if you are planning to RP without using mechanics much, but Jacula made good use of both his characters and human skills to spice up his stories and RP fights with PvP elements. High end PvP is not possible without the training, which indeed takes more patience than I would have right now.
-
I know where you are going with the whining factor and with trying to keep things fair and favoritism free... in all honestly, I can't say I know the currrent community well enough to answer that. There will always be someone with a personality disorder that compells them to demand things with the arguemnt, "Well, it was given to X, therefore I'm entitled too." Here in America, we call these folks LAWYERS ;)
Seriously though, not everything is "FAIR" and I think people are fine with it. A few players got GM help with their events ( locked down props, special items placed on the map, etc.. ) and I don't see people crying about that. ( Perhaps you guys got hammered requests afterwards.. I wouldn't know. )
As for fairness, "FAIR" is just a mechanism for winning arguments. The logic, "He has it, therefore I am entitled to" is not realistic, but it wins arguments when people try to adhere to it. The same goes for "PEACE"... PEACE is when two countries fight without weapons - rather they starve and neglect one another until one side gives in.
-
I'm fully supporting Jacula's request. GMs would have to agree such request when they are supporting RP at all... We all remember Jacula's RP capacity, and it's a pleasure to see him around again... Welcome back Jacula...
-
My thanks for the many replies and support thus far.
I would like to point out that said function of a name change should be made available for all of us however. Not myself exclusively.
Surely, there are more role-players finding themselves in the same predicament.
I would not feel justified receiving a name change whereas others might be neglected.
An effort such as this can make all the difference, promoting valuable creative growth within the community.
-
I'm fully supportive of Jacula's idea as well. Leveling is a very time consuming thing, and as an RPer I'd say it'd be so much better if that time could be spent on creating a storyline that the community can enjoy.
Wasn't RP a very important aspect of PlaneShift? :)
-
I'd be fine with the idea if such a thing would be accepted. If that's what some people need to keep going, it's a small thing to grant them.
-
I see no major problem with this. Just make sure people don't 'keep' doing it over and over and on the same character. There should be at least certain restrictions. Also, make sure that it is for RP purposes. Other than that, I see no reason why anyone wouldn't support it.
-
If I'm not mistaken the GMs already have the power to change your name, don't they? When I first joined my character's name was Savador or Salvador or something and one the the GMs or devs sent me a whisper and told me to pick a new one, then changed my name for me.
So I'm assuming if anyone has a legitimate reason to want their name changed (as Jacula does) then it's a simple matter of pleading your case to a GM in-game.
-
This topic actually came up in a conversation I had a while ago, before I saw this thread...glad someone else is thinking of it too.
I hardly train any of my alts at present because, well...it's boring. I'd rather roleplay. I would very much like to change my main's name and make her a different Ynnwn some day. I support name changing, and especially a way to do it without pestering a GM, as I've had currently-sanctioned requests ignored completely before. Not too big a deal for the character whose name I sought to change, but if I wanted to start over, I'd be rather annoyed if that happened again.
-
Just sopeople know this is the current policy re name changes http://www.hydlaaplaza.com/smf/index.php?topic=31960.msg370962#msg370962 (http://www.hydlaaplaza.com/smf/index.php?topic=31960.msg370962#msg370962)
While changing a name is a rather simple thing having a policy that would allow name changes could be time consuming for the GM team if it is going to lead to endless discussions/arguments for example if Player A gets and name change and player B doesn't and then starts an endless argument with the team about why he/she didn't get a name change. Who is going to decide if the person asking for the name change is a "RP'er" or not? If there is a policy to allow name changes it would have to probably be open to everyone to avoid claims of bias or favoritism.
-
Name labels are OOC information signposts. Your character doesn't see them. So what if it says Sean Connery if the description says James Bond? Is it really that important that people do not know that character B is the same actor as Character A? Sure it takes a small amount of effort to separate the person from the part but if you are the Role Player you want to be you will make it easy for people by the way you behave.
I do not really see the need for this except for possibly insecurity or vanity. Still if the decision is taken to allow this it will not bother me. Of course everything is about how I feel about it. ;)
-
There has been a character known to me who had a name change when caught bot mining. You might try that approach Jacula. ::)
- Nova
-
Having read through the thread I've come to make various observations of interest, some of which I'd like to address.
On the added GM workload:
"...this really should not be a big deal. It takes only a second to change a name, I know personally, I've done it before."
Consider the implications of a few seconds effort, or more realistically a few minutes and how significant such effort might be to a player. Would it not be well worth the immersion, increased testing, creativity and role-play it may well bring to the game, possibly for an indefinite duration onward. Even if discussion may follow, as with everything else?
On favoritism, conflict and claiming responsibility:
Something which appears a big issue is the fear of favoritism.
Granted, there is no way of pleasing everyone. Yet is it not in the developers best interest to oblige as many players as possible within reason?
What I find paradoxical is having the tools at hand to grant a great service, yet finding oneself hesitant of doing so, whereas denying the same service appears trivial.
Who is going to judge who is viable for a name change? the GM's are, of course. Are they fallible and human like the rest of us? most definitely.
have they not been chosen however, based on merit and their qualities as objective mediators, and accepted the responsibility which follows?
That is something obliging or denying the consensus would answer in my mind, although PS might not be a democracy.
I too know the irritations that comes with being a GM, yet granting a wish which would bring forth more positive than negative appears not only beneficial, and as a service not only to the players, but ultimately the community itself.
On policy:
Policy should be ever evolving, presuming there is a good reason for it to be. I'd say altering it for the better takes more integrity than upholding it as it is.
Alternatively, allow this function to occur once to begin with, much as an OOC event, such as the ones allowing players to change the names of items in the past.
The variables of this would need to be discussed, but would counteract those not showing the right to claim injustice.
On names as OOC signposts:
Name labels are OOC information signposts. Your character doesn't see them. So what if it says Sean Connery if the description says James Bond?
Granted, the concept of simply using the same name might work. It would more likely lead to massive confusion however, should I myself attempt upon running large scale events or simply indulge in whatever random role-play comes my way.
Such confusion would be derived from the familiarity of the name, and I'm sure that goes for many of those active from around since 09 or earlier.
I for one would like to let the past be the past, and start of fresh from an RP perspective.
An appeal:
Lastly, I'd like to appeal to the GM team in reaching a stance on this matter. It would appear many welcome the idea, and that the stated benefits outweighs the negative. Either granting or negating the wish seems a fair request to make, as it was raised two weeks before this thread was posted.
With that, I hope on a reasonable decision on the matter, and a fresh start beckoning. Let us talk plainly, no matter the stance taken.
With that, I shall take my leave indefinitely from in game once more, and I wish all of you the very best.
-
You are going to take your ball and go home if you don't get to be captain? That is mature.
The team should totally cave every time a celebrated citizen throws a tantrum. I wanna create single named characters again and I'm never coming back unless I can. :P
Oh wait, nobody celebrates me? Dastards.
BTW why is dastardly a word but dastard isn't?
I really hope it is real life considerations that will prevent your return and not just because of this issue. Then again, if it turned out somewhere down the line that the team had quietly made an exception in your case to foster community participation, that wouldn't bother me either.
-
Real life preoccupations would be the reason why I don't have time to roll a character and train it according to it's role once more.
I simply wish to receive a clear response on the matter, whether it be granted or negated. This so that I in turn can plan out what free time I have, as I would like to entertain some form of creative outlet.
And I'll happily share my ball with you Bilbous, fret not :lol:
-
of course you could just go ahead and create your character and not bother with the grinding and the leveling, because, who pays attention to stats when role playing? your player reputation is high enough no one is gonna care if your levels don't match the character. one major issue i see in this game is the growing, gaping disparity between the mechanics and the way we play. it's achingly apparent that the developers aren't players.
if you're worried that, in the course of RP, someone's gonna call you out on not having the appropriate stats, my response is, in the ever so eloquent phrasing of Icerra, "Psshh."
or, have your character enter into the world as a nobody, and earn your reputation the hard, long term way.
-
I for one do enjoy not having to rest my character 6 times before I get to the bronze doors, as well as having mounts at hand, which are handy for both travelling and RP. I also appreciate a character being able to backup their skills in pvp should both parties choose to settle an RP that way.
In other words, a leveled character does have more options RP-wise. Should your RP involve the slaying of [insert name of strong mob] then it'd be handy for the RPer not to die when engaging it.
If I may reference to the way another RP game solved this issue, they required a well-written RP/story in the forums to prove that the character had (perma)died. I think this could work very well for PS and it's RPers as well.
But hey, that's just my opinion. ;)
-
If I may reference to the way another RP game solved this issue, they required a well-written RP/story in the forums to prove that the character had (perma)died.
What a wonderfully simple solution. :thumbup:
- Nova
-
The GM team has been discussing this proposal. The idea of simply changing the character name and leaving everything else the same doesn't have a lot of support. There are already many complaints that death is taken to casually and this proposal would make it so the idea of permadeath could be taken to lightly as well. The idea that does seem to have some support would be to allow a one time name change with a reduction of skills and stats by 1/2. This would put a price on a permadeath, much like the price for a regular death in game, but would also leave things like winch access and mounts in tact so that the new character does have a significant head start over a brand new character.
-
The GM team has been discussing this proposal. The idea of simply changing the character name and leaving everything else the same doesn't have a lot of support. There are already many complaints that death is taken to casually and this proposal would make it so the idea of permadeath could be taken to lightly as well. The idea that does seem to have some support would be to allow a one time name change with a reduction of skills and stats by 1/2. This would put a price on a permadeath, much like the price for a regular death in game, but would also leave things like winch access and mounts in tact so that the new character does have a significant head start over a brand new character.
isn't permadeath taken lightly because, mechanically speaking, there is no permadeath?
-
The idea that does seem to have some support would be to allow a one time name change with a reduction of skills and stats by 1/2. This would put a price on a permadeath, much like the price for a regular death in game, but would also leave things like winch access and mounts in tact so that the new character does have a significant head start over a brand new character.
Well... this could in theory mean that some stats are lower than those of the char right after creation. If the original char creation stats are saved (well... char creation desc is saved, but not sure how much that helps) I'd more recommend to average them and the trained stats. That way, half of the stats that have actually been gained are halved rather than all stats. Sounds fairer to me.
-
With all due respect, the character in this case, would experience permadeath. In doing so, the player is reinforcing the finality of permanent death, not lessening it or sidestepping it as everyone else does.
Bear in mind, that when a well developed character is permakilled, they loose not only their stats, but their hard earned history and the inter-character relationships that thay have formed over time. With the exception of crappy players, this too serves to limit the frequency of permanent death.
How many people actually play out permanent death?
-- Aside from those who are leaving the game, very few. Permanent death is something people talk about but thats about it.
So for role players who are not afraid to play characters who are succeptible to permanent death, they are forced to play untrained characters if they are to play efficiently. This isn't a very good solution either as it prevents people from playing strong evil characters. Some players do expect others to play their stats.
Permanent death is not supposed to inhibit the PLAYER from playing an evil character, rather it should inhibit the character from being reckless.
The idea of a compromise with 1/2 stats or some similar penalty does sound a lot better than nothing at all.
Whisper Bless,
Rigwyn
-
The offered compromise, or more so, it's general concept is something I'd percieve as resonable.
Something I would point to however, is how true death should be heavily considered in the sense of what it entails.
Thereafter, adding a more appropriate debuff to counteract players taking it "lightly", as well as obliging those not sidestepping the finality of their character.
Practically, true death implies a character having reached it's final rest, thus being unable to traverse Dakkru's realm and return to that of the living.
As we all know however, this does not occur mechanically. Unless say, a player is banned, thus impeeding access to an account and the characters within.
Should it occur from a role play perspective however, the player chooses to terminate his or her character within reason, motivated by either a departure from the game, or the sheer realism in doing so. This in light of what has transpired along It's development, and what should be an inevitable limit of the same.
In terminating one's character, as Rigwyn mentioned, much is lost beyond It's stats and skills.
In my case, years of character development in form of massive collaborative events, writing and sheer sentiment is lost to hopefully make way for a fresh start.
Rather than take it lightly, I both understand and accept the concept of true death.
The fear of players such as myself taking death lightly in It's conventional sense seems both illogical and unjustified however, seeing as it is in no way enforced. Beyond that of mechanics. As well as that of what is realistic. Then again, that is a subjective term defined through the eyes of an individual.
If an aim of interest is to minimize an increase in GM workload however, why not make use of the same pattern when providing a function for players acctually accepting the loss and recreation true death brings?
If there has to be a negative in numbers to deter players for making a request for the wrong reasons, Simply cut the stats of the character in question in half upon having provided the name change. much as Dakkru's curse, although a permanent loss, leaving the tediously earned skills intact.
Let that be a helping hand to roleplayers wishing to start anew, and a detering of others looking to abuse said function for OOC reasons.
In my mind, that is a price great enough, and an efficient one to benefit the variables of both player relations as well as the effort and discretion needed to put the function into practice.
-
If you were to embrace the stat halving method I would suggest a floor of 50 below which no stat is reduced.
-
If you were to embrace the stat halving method I would suggest a floor of 50 below which no stat is reduced.
or, if the stats produced at character creation are saved, they should be set as the floor, so that, if no leveling was done, you wouldn't end up with half of an already low set of stats.
-
if you have no leveling done why would you need to rename the character you could just delete it and start a new one.
-
if you play on a mac, you can't delete characters.
-
why not?
-
If the aim is for the player to pay a price, I'd think the sole cut of half one's stats to be reasonable, or simply returning to the amount given past creation. Should logs like that exist.
That is presuming skills which would have RP implications remain, should one like to play a mage, warrior, cook, craftsman or what have you anew.
The idea of the stats themselves dropping below the average players might indeed present a problem in turn, and a heavy cost at that. I would rather have it as such however, than have to repeat the insufferable grinding needed for the skills benefiting the immersion of one's new role.
We've come a long way from nothing, and the GMs discussing the matter is good to hear.
Surely, more discussion will follow to balance the price one should pay so that it would deter only those seeking to abuse it.
-
Surely, more discussion will follow to balance the price one should pay so that it would deter only those seeking to abuse it.
Could someone explain the potential abuse of this request/feature?
Due to the fact that possible abuse is not clear to me, my suggestion would be to take it even further. That is allow a morphing of a character option. It would require that a new name be chosen and once it was then the total amount of added skill points would be available to re-assign to the new morphed character in whichever skills they wish to use in the present incarnation of the character.
- Nova
-
why not?
look into it weltall and tell me. i've been told it's a known issue.
-
Well, this is an interesting topic. One that's been discussed, I believe, multiple times. My insight would be this: Typically people more dedicated to role playing rather than grinding do not care if you role play a character, especially a villain, with more stats than they truly have. Why? Because as a villain, that character is understood to be considerably more at risk of being mobbed to death. Why spend countless hours of grinding (in my case and as I can see, in yours) pointlessly when you can simply indicate, say, in the out of character tab, how powerful your villainous persona actually is? I have yet to have a complaint on doing this with any of my characters, though some have asked for clarification. So long as you are realistic about it and not attempting to role play some sort of mythological adonis who is invulnerable to spell and blade alike, you'd be surprised that the majority of folks truly do not mind, in exchange for a good and entertaining role play. I know that I have participated in battles with many many villains who had not so much as touched a training NPC since their creation, but because of the enjoyment I got from the role play, I was perfectly happy cooperating with however powerful they had implied their character actually was. Alternatively, on the only character of mine that actually has stats, I tend to tone them down considerably as most of the people I participate in role plays with are not quite as powerful, mechanically speaking, and it's really quite boring to depict an invincible character.
Besides, battle scars are in, right? ;D
Also, at the risk of sounding exclusive, if an individual for some reason does end up having issue with it, there is a simple solution: They are not forced to participate in the role play that you are endeavoring to begin. Since this would be the player's decision, and not an outright attempt to keep them from active participation, I see no problem with it, and it is an easy way to come to an agreement.
Again, I've not run into this problem yet, which attests to the relative level of cooperativeness most people have demonstrated on the subject. In simple words, Jacula:
Just give it a try.
Now, to move on to other possibly obnoxious rambling, I'd also add that I see absolutely no issue in having a character renamed after permanent death. People complain about the favoratism. I'd suggest simply having some cap number limit on the name changing, to put an end to that, which would be a simple solution. I see no reason why you can't simply take the minute or two (I know it only takes this length of time because I know of many people who've had their name switched for their out of character natures) to change the name, and then allow the person to begin to role play again, if they're so bent upon keeping the stats. It's a simple solution for a greater role playing goal achieved, and Jacula is hardly the first person to request such a change. Not that my opinion really matters in the long run, but personally, if they are as good at general inclusiveness as it has been indicated, I'd love to see them back in game and starting new, interesting threads of role play. It is my understanding that role play is what this game is centered around, no?
So why not do whatever you can to initiate it?
-
I just deleted one of my characters using a mac. That was a bug that was fixed a long time ago.
-
Could someone explain the potential abuse of this request/feature?
In turn, the arguments I applied where taking only an obfuscated concept of abuse into account. It might be prudent to clarify that I do not have a clear understanding of what type of abuse is acctually to be expected.
More so, how can one expect abuse to occur if GMs providing the function deems and considers the intent of a player before acctually providing it?
Planeshift is afterall what one might consider a small community, where the sheer familiarity of those within might be enough to gauge their motivations of seeking a name change in the first place.
But I digress, as the definition of abuse within this context in best explained by those counteracting it actively.
As far as a change of models, redistributing skills and the like, I see the incentive and possibilities that follow.
However, considering the initial hardline position on the matter, I'd find a simple change of name with a fair "price" to it. If one is needed at all that is, to be resonable.
If there is a fear of acctually deeming which player is viable for a name change however, where as others might not be, then the authority that comes with being a GM is disregarded. I'd see why this might be a threatening concept within a democratic structure, but seeing as it has been pointed out that PS is not, why not simply decide within reason?
Surely, reason dictates where hesitance arises.
-
Note that any policy that is decided on is going to be open to all players equally. There is not going to be any GN desecration about which players are "worthy" or a name change and which aren't. To many people can't take no for an answer so if there was any desecration involved then to much GM time is going to be taken up arguing with players who get turned down or having those players run around shopping their request to every single GM trying to play off one GM against another.
As for the abuse issue what we don't want to see is people very casually deciding that they are bored with their current character and they want to start over and thus do the permadeath and ask for a name change.
We are talking about having a min skill level that we wouldn't lower existing skills below, currently looking at like level 20 so any skill higher than 20 wouldn't be reduced lower than 20 and skill below 20 would be left alone. Note also that if a name change is granted the old first name will be banned so that there will not be the chance of someone changing their mind and recreating their old character.
-
...GN desecration about which players are "worthy" or a name change and which aren't..."
It is not a question of being worthy, more so than simply being viable. Viable implying that a player has a good reason, which I'd personally find to be requesting the service due to realistic role playing circumstances.
Why would a generic power leveler be in need of a name change for example, or even apply if the cost defeats the purpose?
If the player is viable in turn, it is ultimately up to a GM of high enough tier to decide. I am using the word tier as I suppose that certain GMs might be able to change names, where as others can not.
As for the abuse issue what we don't want to see is people very casually deciding that they are bored with their current character and they want to start over and thus do the permadeath and ask for a name change. -
If you decide to only grant this service once per player, for one character only. Clearly stipulating it in official policy that it is a one time offer, I'd find it extremely unlikely that players would request it casually. More so, let's assume one is asking for a name change to preserve a series of hard aquired skills. This wishing to assume the role of a baker, craftsman or what have you.
Inducing such an unresonable debuff to skills would leave the inevitable grinding that follows, more or less defeating requesting it in the first place. True, it would be worse to start anew entirely. Yet the price still appears unbalanced in my mind.
Maybe letting the player choose a skill or two to keep intact would be a good solution, as if choosing a class, only to let them play out their new role without having to mine, gain progression points, and the time consumtion that entails.
With that said, it is good to hear that discussion on the matter is upheld rather than negated. Surely, it can come to benefit all of us once coined as policy.
-
Hey I have an idea, he said somewhat spuriously, how about instead if reducing skill levels you just randomize them so that that max skill in sword suddenly become Argan or body development or something else currently useless or not. Put your name in a hat and out comes someone completely different. Would provide a challenge to the role players it would.
-
Hey I have an idea, he said somewhat spuriously, how about instead if reducing skill levels you just randomize them so that that max skill in sword suddenly become Argan or body development or something else currently useless or not. Put your name in a hat and out comes someone completely different. Would provide a challenge to the role players it would.
::|
Another way to side step the issue of people just casually changing their name might be to grant this only after X hours of use ( if its possible to see that )... ie. only if player for a year or more...
-
As a player reasoning about game mechanics, I clearly dislike the compromise of reducing skills and stats by half. This feels much like a generic tool for "buying" a new character with some discount (~25% ;) ) for the grinding put into an abandoned character. That distracts from the initial request to avoid the grind barrier when there are well documented reasons that a characters story has come to an end. Either it is justified or not to see the progression of a character in terms of a) game mechanics and b) roleplay background as two distinct aspects, which can and will be treated independently in this context. In the past, there have been GM events where player participation was rewarded with special items or other things. Why shouldn't it be possible to award extensive player events with such a simple thing as a name change? Again, one can argue that this has less impact on game mechanics than unique items, given that the existing, trained actor is simply put into a different roleplay context. I think the trigger should come from the side of the GM team, which should be allowed to promote selected storylines by offering the name reset in retrospect. Of course, there should be no guarantee to obtain this sort of commendation, and it should be obvious that GM harassment will be a very counterproductive method to exert influence.
These are just a few thoughts. Maybe they will stimulate some more discussion.
-
Boni, I kind of agree with the separation of player effort and character nomenclature. It takes so long to develop one character that I do not know many who develop more to a significant margin. Sure not all people are like me and develop everything into one character, some train one thing with one and others with secondary character.
Let me suggest a radical idea. Add a function to the character creation page whereby any new character designed starts with all the progression of all existing characters. In other words you would need to set up a pool to which any progression points earned by any character on the account were copied. The new character would then be able to spend these points to develop their new character any way they want.
Under this system the base character would start with 0 in all stats and skills and progression points would then be deducted from the total for each advance alloted. The point pool itself would not be depleted so that additional characters would be possible but the amount available for that particular new character would reduce as points were allotted to it.
This would serve the dual purposes of encouraging players to engage with the mechanics and allowing for more fleshed out temporary role play characters to be present as needed.
-
I see where you're going with that, but it seems a poor way to implement it. For example, training one character to max stats shouldn't mean that you can then create an infinite army of god-like characters.
Maybe if the boost was less extreme: you get 1/3 or 1/4 the pps of your highest character to train each new character. This is enough to give people a boost while making a new character but not so much that making additional super powerful characters isn't easy. It still should require some work on the player's part.
-
well there are only 4 characters on any one account so you exaggerate a bit but a lesser ratio than 1:1 is OK. Did you notice that it was any leveling done with the account that contributed to the points available to new characters? I think that is important as well you could certainly cap the amount available for character generation but if a player wanted to have two or three semi-permanent characters they could all focus on different things and not waste efforts.
-
Let me suggest a radical idea.
This is not only way off topic yet has been covered on countless other threads. To paraphrase the other threads: Ain't goin to happen.
- Nova
-
Funny thing. You could use that same paraphrase for this whole name change discussion but it seems to be being reconsidered. This thread is as much about retaining skills and stats as it is about changing your name. If there was no need to retain the skills and stats then just delete the unwanted character and start over. Sure my post comes at it from a different angle, and one I don't recall exactly seeing before, but it works to the same goal.
Sorry you didn't like it and even sorrier I felt the need to make this reply.
-
Sorry you didn't like it and even sorrier I felt the need to make this reply.
Did not mean it was not appreciated. Just that they are two very different issues. For example the name change ability has my full support while creating alternate character types does not. For that reason it was my feeling that presenting the opposing views on the same thread are bound to muddy the OP's intent.
One thread that has support for your idea would be this one. (http://www.hydlaaplaza.com/smf/index.php?topic=40266.0)
No harm meant, Bilbous and it is my sincere hope that none was taken.
- Nova
-
Presuming, or more so, hoping there to be a GM meeting today [Sunday], let's hope a decision on the matter is made.
-
I'm chiming in a bit late here, but I would like to say: I agree with this proposal. I like to have leveled characters. I currently have 3 or 4 with winch access, and my main has a decent level of skills/stats, all that I find important for *my* experience as a player in RP. I can think of a few situations that would cause me to want to permanently kill her off, and in that case, I wouldn't want to have to start from scratch to get another character up to those levels. That leveling issue is one of the things that has stopped me from killing Tesh off in the past. It's hard enough to level now, and I *know* the tricks of how to grind as fast as possible. I don't have the unlimited time I had when I started playing, and at no more than I can play now, it's not likely I could get another character that high in a year, much less the few months it took me to get Tesh up to an RP-able skill. Ah well, just my little tidbit of support.
And incidentally, Sarva... even starting over with 20 in axe would make me cry.
-
Agreed. For how much time it takes to level a character, a 50% drop is too much. Especially because, for example, if you have a skill at 100 and it gets cut to 50, it takes much much more time to raise a skill from 50 to 100 than from 1 to 50. So even if you're cutting the skill in half, you're only cutting like one fifth of the time out of training. In my opinion a more reasonable penalty would be a 15-25% drop to all skills. This might seem pretty small, but if your skills are high getting that last 15-25% back would take quite a while.
-
In my opinion a more reasonable penalty would be a 15-25% drop to all skills.
My vote would be no penalty at all just a darn good rp reason. To place a grind penalty on someone that wishes the change for RP reasons seems so contrary to the declared goals of this game that it puts said goals in question.
- Nova
-
The concept of this idea seemed to be overall well received at the Developers meeting last Sunday, which is something I found to be a pleasant surprise.
Allegedly, an announcement of added policy should be made within "the next few days", in whatever form the leading consensus decides upon.
-
Edit:
Any official statement or comment on such a claim?