Player Governments/ Evil town

Everything about Illarion that fits nowhere else. / Alles über Illarion was inhaltlich in kein anderes Board passt.

Moderator: Gamemasters

Post Reply
User avatar
Evie
Developer
Posts: 1210
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 6:55 pm
Location: on a mana stream

Player Governments/ Evil town

Post by Evie »

This is my thoughts on many topics put into one.

I actually would not be opposed if all towns went back to GM rule and all player leader position were dissolved. Two towns feel like they are managed by the views of a few players forcing everyone that does not fit in those views into Galmair. This is the major issue with player clashing in Galmair.

The idea to make Galmair the 'evil' town has a few problems. Over half of the population of Galmair is people who for RP reasons left the other two realms, and are not 'evil' characters. It is in player character RP to try and make the town a nice place to live (insert your smack on RP kids here). If Galmair were to become the home of evil, the other player lead governments would start a war on Galmair. Rp wise characters will fight this because they don't want war, and if there was war the bickering would start about limited ability to sell stuff at the npcs.

Galmair is basically a huge melting pot of player types, people that normally would not live together, if we were not limited too three towns and the other two towns were not controlled as they are. Right now Galmair is as close to a free town as is in Illarion. To get banned from Galmair a player has to repeatedly attack Galmairians or launch an undead attack on the town. Further boxing Galmair into the 'evil' town is only going to increase the issues we are having with player discontent.

This rambling leads to the major issue I see right now. Player discontent. I know I am one of those evil blue named developers, but I am a player first and foremost. We have to start playing together and remember the person across from us good or evil is a person too and not that pixel character. I would love a challenge of so many rl months without PVP being allowed so people can learn to work through conflict with rp and not click and fight. We have to respect each other, even if we don't respect each others characters. We are a small group this internal bickering is only going to make it smaller.

How do we move forward? As with all things, one step at a time just like real life. This is a game however and it should not be stressful to log in and play even if you want to play a bad guy. It should be fun. Just as a player has a right to not be hounded non stop by evil characters, evil characters need a respite as well. I am not talking physical places but mutual player respect.

PO Evie
User avatar
Tyan Masines
Posts: 448
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:11 pm

Re: Player Governments/ Evil town

Post by Tyan Masines »

Evie wrote:Two towns feel like they are managed by the views of a few players forcing everyone that does not fit in those views into Galmair. This is the major issue with player clashing in Galmair.
All things considered, this might be the right track. In conjunction with what Kamilar wrote about the sandbox in the election review thread, we may be able to specify it further: In some areas, towns are over-bureaucratized. That would be fine for people if this bureaucracy was derived from laws which were clearly passed by NPCs and out there for all to see. Without this, we have a lot of red tape and no real basis for it but the whim of player leaders, which, like you described Evie, may lead to conflict.

The people seem to miss a certain lightness while playing the game, they want this casual, light gameplay back. And that means it being unrealistic from time to time, because it is a game. It does not have to resemble real life institutions. It does not have to be a graphical simulation of the historical Middle Ages, and so on and so forth.


Long story short, what Galmair probably should look like is this, pyramid like:

DON (invincible by game design default, which is fine)

Don's confidants (ppl like Brunsberg etc.) <- GM driven chars which deal with day-to-day matters the Don wouldn't bother with. Players deal with them mostly, Don comes in when passing judgement

Guilds (we practically have none, which is a shame these days) <- Lobby and interest groups of players, lobbying for their style of life (e.g. mercenary work, crafting, families)

New people / Roamers / Hirelings


No interest group ever gets the lead, they are for determining what to build next, e.g. family interest groups might want a larger hospital, crafters a new forge. Things like that. The rest is left to the sandbox.
User avatar
Djironnyma
Posts: 3221
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2002 4:34 pm
Location: Berlin
Contact:

Re: Player Governments/ Evil town

Post by Djironnyma »

Illarion worked for ages without any NPC leaders or engine wise bans. Anyway we had the same situation, we had small towns leaded by strong guilds and we had one town – Trolls Bane – which was the melting pot of everything else and which was unable to build a stable government. Forcing the NPC leaders back will change nearly nothing, i may also remember that the population in Runewick haven’t much changed since the VBU, it’s not like big amount of char leaved the town to Galmair since we had the council.

I believe we may have different perspectives. Our player base is low, in European times it is a bit bigger, in American prime time it is even lower. If I log in the player numbers are more or less the same in the 3 towns, often there are in Cadomyr and Runewick more chars online as in Galmair. But if I look on the online list in the late night, there are less players on but most of them are in Galmair. I believe that hasn’t to do much with IG politics but that players don’t like to live in empty towns with their chars, they want to meet someone to play with so they are joining all one place.

Ruling a town IG has nothing to do with NPCs, Buildings or bans. It’s about uniting chars, about making chars working together. You can have whatever title you want or pass whatever law you want, as long as other chars don’t listen to you, don’t agree with you and don’t work together with you, you can’t rule any town. That simple rule is valid for PC leaders as for NPC leaders. Don’t believe just because your char can’t die and is able to instant kill other chars it is easier to rule a town. A GM/NPC is neither a better not a worse leader as a PC, they make the same mistakes and the same good decisions.

I can’t understand the matter of the bans. Actually we have 4 chars banned, from these 4 chars are 3 also banned in Galmair and all 4 are inactive currently. So please explain me how our bans push criminal/evil chars to Galmair?

Furthermore respecting each other and PVP are not excluding each other. I have a Char more or less unable to fight at all and hunted by more as a hand full chars. Anyway I have the feeling that I can play with the most of them. But it’s a simple truth that there is ever someone who is stronger as you and who is able to punch you in your face, and you have to deal with such people, seek friends, seek allies united you are strong ;) .
User avatar
Tyan Masines
Posts: 448
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:11 pm

Re: Player Governments/ Evil town

Post by Tyan Masines »

Djironnyma wrote:Illarion worked for ages without any NPC leaders or engine wise bans. Anyway we had the same situation, we had small towns leaded by strong guilds and we had one town – Trolls Bane – which was the melting pot of everything else and which was unable to build a stable government. Forcing the NPC leaders back will change nearly nothing, i may also remember that the population in Runewick haven’t much changed since the VBU, it’s not like big amount of char leaved the town to Galmair since we had the council.
I agree with most of your points, but you are missing one important fact; maybe the most important one: The NPC leaders are in charge by default, because they are the ones distributing the gems. There is no "bringing back the NPC leaders" -- they have never been gone in the first place. Making them less influential, however, is watering down the only truth there is (and biggest difference between VBU and Troll's Bane): The faction leaders power derives solely from their ability to distribute gems.

No faction leader offers anything else than gems that could not be offered by a player character, period. Gems are the ultimate way of being a good fighter. The whole game economy, the whole crafting system, everything really, is there to support fighters, nothing else. Thus, we should not ignore the fact that the NPCs are in charge anyways, unless you change the current town system or get rid of gems. And since that is not going to happen, we don't have to pretend that player characters can run towns.

Djironnyma wrote:But if I look on the online list in the late night, there are less players on but most of them are in Galmair. I believe that hasn’t to do much with IG politics but that players don’t like to live in empty towns with their chars, they want to meet someone to play with so they are joining all one place.
This is true. Especially for people who only play one char, or mostly one char. Which is why I think it would be a good idea to open the very strictly guarded town borders a bit, get rid of this premade conflict between town views and principles, and put a stronger focus on cross town guilds so players can actually partake in all town's activities, no matter the time of day. This should be a logical conclusion of a low playerbase.
User avatar
Karrock
Posts: 515
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 6:11 pm

Re: Player Governments/ Evil town

Post by Karrock »

Tyan Masines wrote: The people seem to miss a certain lightness while playing the game, they want this casual, light gameplay back. And that means it being unrealistic from time to time, because it is a game. It does not have to resemble real life institutions. It does not have to be a graphical simulation of the historical Middle Ages, and so on and so forth.
I would like to see graphical simulation of middleages, but it's not possible (small player base). But players, especially in Galmair play like these are modern times. They want democracy and equal laws and rights for everyone. It's boring I think. We have democracy and human rights in real life. I don't see causes to double it IG.SPecial rights to those who have higher positions are good idea if it doesn't break others play. However you're right game is too much realistic I can't imagine what an act my char should do to be known as "evil" person.

About Evil Town: I'm not sure does exist any agreement between players which "evil" should unity "evil" characters. Some would see selves as cruel feudal albarian lords other as undeads masters others different. It's not possible to start new town from so or rebuild older town to a new vision because "evil" is currently not united.

In current situation I advice to avoid hard punishments to those who play evil/bad because except few fanatics others can't live in wilderness.
People should have chance to hide in Galmair if they are opposite to normal way of living.

Let's remake Galmair a little bit to this style -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HURch6uH-KM
User avatar
Juniper Onyx
Master NPC Scripter
Posts: 1557
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:13 am
Location: Columbia, MO USA

Re: Player Governments/ Evil town

Post by Juniper Onyx »

Haha! I loved that video. Galmair used to be like this three years ago, and personally I think the Hemp Necktie Inn is this way now.
Tyan Masines wrote: Gems are the ultimate way of being a good fighter. The whole game economy, the whole crafting system, everything really, is there to support fighters, nothing else.
@Tyan - In my experienced opinion as a dedicated craftsman, I don't believe the whole economy is geared for fighters - maybe 25%. My characters (Mostly Crafters) have bought and sold materials by the thousands to building projects, to help other crafters enhance their powergaming or simply to specialize in crafts. Fighters generally don't buy in bulk. The complexity and greater amount of time it takes to be a crafter compared to a fighter (who can sit in the middle of 8 rats and skill up quickly!) means that crafters tend to specialize in what either makes them happy or what makes them the most coin from NPC's. When almost every fighter wants "Perfect" Armor, weapons or Magic Gems, Fighters just aren't that important to the whole economy. Most of what crafters make and sell are either to other crafters or the NPC's.

When every fighter has 100 skill and the best 'Perfect' armor, of course Gems will be the ultimate way to rise above fellow fighters. It's about who can collect the most. This 'powergaming' of fighter skills and armors is a problem too. If craftsmen want to 'provide' what PC's need, they have to powergame too and roleplay suffers. As much as I enjoy crafting, it's not fun grinding out armors and weapons because you don't offer 'perfect' stuff. The fighters tend to go to whoever has what they want specifically and the rest of us depend on other crafters or NPC's. Fighters just aren't that important to the economy.
Tyan Masines wrote: Which is why I think it would be a good idea to open the very strictly guarded town borders a bit, get rid of this premade conflict between town views and principles, and put a stronger focus on cross town guilds so players can actually partake in all town's activities, no matter the time of day. This should be a logical conclusion of a low playerbase.
I totally agree with this. Where are the guilds?? You know why they don't get started anymore?
Answer - Lack of Dev/GM support and lack of ability to make/build own place. As I said in an earlier post, we had more active groups on Gobaith when they could claim land, build and come together as a group. That's been lost here with everything controlled by three towns. Currently there's a "Society of Farmers" trying to start, but everyone knows they haven't got a chance because GM's won't give them a depot, tools or land their own. Yewdale would be a logical place for this, but Runewick will never part with this either. No support for guilds equals no guilds. Simple.
Karrock wrote: I would like to see graphical simulation of middleages, but it's not possible (small player base). But players, especially in Galmair play like these are modern times. They want democracy and equal laws and rights for everyone. It's boring I think. We have democracy and human rights in real life. I don't see causes to double it IG.SPecial rights to those who have higher positions are good idea if it doesn't break others play. However you're right game is too much realistic I can't imagine what an act my char should do to be known as "evil" person.
I agree with this. All the town governments are 'boring' . However, at least Runewick is 'in character' - Elves are like this. Cadomyr should be about Honor, Nobility, Knightings and have tournaments and such and take orders from the court and Nobility like Military. They at least try to do this. Galmair has been disappointing for me and too modern. Galmair doesn't have to be 'evil' but should definitely have 'shady' underground and aspect of "Money buys all". It should be like "Mos Eisley" with little if any government. Remember the town of Dale in The Hobbit or the town of Bree in the Lord of the Rings? Galmair should be like this - Edgy and corrupt, but not truly 'evil'.

I think 'truly evil' places and characters can only survive if under GM control or protection. Just players doing it will get banned and fade away every time - no support.

Just my two coppers! :wink:
User avatar
Tyan Masines
Posts: 448
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:11 pm

Re: Player Governments/ Evil town

Post by Tyan Masines »

Juniper Onyx wrote:
Tyan Masines wrote: Gems are the ultimate way of being a good fighter. The whole game economy, the whole crafting system, everything really, is there to support fighters, nothing else.
@Tyan - In my experienced opinion as a dedicated craftsman, I don't believe the whole economy is geared for fighters - maybe 25%. My characters (Mostly Crafters) have bought and sold materials by the thousands to building projects, to help other crafters enhance their powergaming or simply to specialize in crafts.
I disagree. What you said would be true if crafters could actually make items like chairs, beds, doors, furniture, etc. But you can't, for building you need a GM and a bunch of raw materials. Thus, there are currently two types of crafts in this game:

1.) Crafts that support fighting (all the items are weapons or armor, things like food are supplements)
2.) Completely redundant crafts (e.g. large parts of goldsmithing, which produce only things of gold value, but no benefit whatsoever; drinks)

I'd rather say it's 75% crafting to support the fighting system and 25% you could call redundant if you're a pessimist, or exchange redundant with 'roleplay only' if you're an optimist.

Building projects, for the most part, appear to be money sinks. In the end, every crafter tries to get to level 100 to pump out those perfect top tier weapons, OR they use the craft to create money for their other endeavors. I, too, do the latter and have been solely doing it to keep buying raw materials from players to keep the economy going. I wont deny it's a working system, but it's a mostly redundant system as well. Sadly, I have no idea how to properly change it. :?



I agree 100% with what you wrote about guilds, although I personally am not a fan of building guild house and believe that a guild's philosophy is more important than pysical places; the game has enough empty space and rooms as it is. If the game then in addition could finally get rid of the discriminatory distribution of gems, by e.g. having Borgate give out gems as well (though less frequent and, say, by -33% of the value donated, since he will NOT take a tax) it might even work. RP explanation: Donate to Borgate -> He invests it in black market, where gems are traded -> Takes 33% as middleman tax.
User avatar
Uhuru
Posts: 924
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 4:56 am
Location: In time out, where else?

Re: Player Governments/ Evil town

Post by Uhuru »

Djironnyma wrote: I believe we may have different perspectives. Our player base is low, in European times it is a bit bigger, in American prime time it is even lower. If I log in the player numbers are more or less the same in the 3 towns, often there are in Cadomyr and Runewick more chars online as in Galmair. But if I look on the online list in the late night, there are less players on but most of them are in Galmair. I believe that hasn’t to do much with IG politics but that players don’t like to live in empty towns with their chars, they want to meet someone to play with so they are joining all one place.
When first coming to VBU, Evie was adamant we join the "Mage" town... Runewick. This was before the PC's took over, long before. We loved the area, the farming and the woods. But had a terrible time with the way it was ruled. We had to move to Galmair. Our characters would not be in Galmair if it wasn't for that... to this day. There is no way our characters could work/live under Bearer rule and I think many characters would agree with that.
Djironnyma wrote: Ruling a town IG has nothing to do with NPCs, Buildings or bans. It’s about uniting chars, about making chars working together. You can have whatever title you want or pass whatever law you want, as long as other chars don’t listen to you, don’t agree with you and don’t work together with you, you can’t rule any town. That simple rule is valid for PC leaders as for NPC leaders. Don’t believe just because your char can’t die and is able to instant kill other chars it is easier to rule a town. A GM/NPC is neither a better not a worse leader as a PC, they make the same mistakes and the same good decisions.
Dji, you say this like it's so obvious and easy. Yet I've tried to put characters into Runewick since you took over ruling only to be shunned and forced out every time. Leaders need to be leading all, not just their chosen few, who they like and trust.
Djironnyma wrote: I can’t understand the matter of the bans. Actually we have 4 chars banned, from these 4 chars are 3 also banned in Galmair and all 4 are inactive currently. So please explain me how our bans push criminal/evil chars to Galmair?
I think this says a lot right here. Those banned are no longer active. This is a HUGE issue.

I do believe Evie is right, many are forced into Galmair because of the leadership of other towns. Monarchy is tough on folks too. Don't think it's not. And characters have to be true to who they are and won't work with Bearers... period. (Many PO's can't anyway.) So we have this melting pot of people in Galmair who all want something different. Now what?

Please get off the talk of gems. This isn't about that.
User avatar
Karrock
Posts: 515
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 6:11 pm

Re: Player Governments/ Evil town

Post by Karrock »

There does not exist any mechanical problems with Bearers. It's their style of playing. Many can consider it's much strict though, but you must to accept it, cause they don't break any rules and they don't forcing other characters to cast away own style of playing like it's going in other towns. Please accept that only town where people are equal is Galmair and please don't copy this system of beliefs to other towns. I personally dislike democracy in this game and my char Titus doesn't feel equal with common people and would not fight for folk votes to get higher rank. There exist only few positions to reach. It's not possible to reach them by everybody, luckily. I think everyone who would have own guild would promote own members. It's obvious.
User avatar
Tyan Masines
Posts: 448
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:11 pm

Re: Player Governments/ Evil town

Post by Tyan Masines »

Uhuru wrote:Please get off the talk of gems. This isn't about that.
Sorry to be this direct -- but this isn't about the Bearers of Fire either. I could write a screed about the Bearers or how the Queen of Cadomyr has been roleplayed as well, but that would be personal. I realize I have problems with how some people play their characters as I think it's hindering cooperation, but I also realize people would claim the same about how I play my characters. We should keep discussions in the General and in the Proposal forum as objective and about game mechanics as possible.

In conclusion, three important, three objective points have been addressed recently, some of which have been part of discussions for long, those are

1.) The role of gems in Illarion's game mechanics (see proposal forum)
2.) The limiting aspects of town administration and overall setup (this thread)
3.) The way characters should get punished for ig crimes (see proposal forum)

Those three points, especially point 1 and 2 though, appear to be intertwined. If we're going to discuss, it's important we leave nothing out.
User avatar
Vern Kron
Posts: 1565
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2007 10:20 pm

Re: Player Governments/ Evil town

Post by Vern Kron »

Fair warning, this might just be a pointless rant.


I haven't been posting about this because I felt like I was too close to the issue to have a voice, but, here we are.

My mentality towards Galmair leadership has been and remains the same:

Galmair is a gang. It's power structure is held together by the Don. The Hand deals with the day to day affairs. The chancellors run different endeavors to make the town/gang run better.

Galmair has some form of code, it just is not precisely explained. The deeper in a person goes into the inner workings with Galmair, the more obvious this becomes.

There are two pillars on which Galmair functions: loyalty and profit.

Loyalty comes from the idea that the town, (when followed by the directives as they are set), does not release people over to others easily. As long as that character is in good standing with the Don, then in theory, there is safety for them in Galmair. This is why my character came into conflict with another a two years ago. An individual was under the protection of the Don. The Don wasn't going to hand over said person. Galmair, as a result, was not going to hand over said person. There was loyalty between the Don, the town, and the leadership. It was not 'good'. It certainly was not 'just'. But each character held to their role well. There was no negative impact on profit.

The other pillar comes from what the Don desires, which is 'profit'. Trade embargos and battles between towns degrade potential for profit. Galmair getting a poor reputation is bad for profit. If you walked into the grocery store, with some knowledge that there is a fifty fifty chance you are going to get mugged, you would not go to that grocery store. Especially when another one is freely available. Actions that disrupt profit, in turn disrupt loyalty with the Don.

When that loyalty began to be threatened, the threat was put down. Was it good? No. Was it just? No. However, it is what a shady town, and it's leadership, would do. There was great external pressure to condemn and outcast the Free Men, and they were not, until it was shown they were being disloyal. Disloyalty, and hurtful for trade, they are on their own.

Eventually, that mentality was challenged on essentially every front.

Also, let's look a little beyond the idea of Galmair as a democracy. It is an merchant/wealth driven oligarchy. Characters buy votes off of others, other towns try to convince citizens to vote certain ways, even to the point of funding the votes. Don't be so pulled into the propaganda presented by Galmair and the chancellors to miss that. My character may have noble intentions, but make no mistake, Galmair is wearing a thick layer of makeup, and it took a really, really, long time to put it on. I am also not opposed as a PO if people wish to remove that.

I tried to build the government in a direction that allotted room for shady behavior, as well as a good face. As a PO and a character of Galmair, I have most likely failed on that front, and for those who suffered for that reason, I apologize. It was prideful to attempt such an endeavor on my own, and foolish to do so without the consent of others.

As for the idea of the melting pot, it is true. Most characters who are in Galmair, atleast from the interactions I have had, say something along the lines of, "I would like to be living in Cadomyr/Runewick, but because of (reason/person/leadership/environment), I am in Galmair instead." Currently the active player base is evenly spread, for the most part. A while back, Galmair was considerably ahead. Part of it was active recruiting done by the town. It wasn't sustainable on any sort of level however, and regulated itself. The flow of characters between towns will be a constant thing, because as one leadership makes a decision, some people will dislike it and leave, and go to where the grass is greener. Even the heavily entrenched will do so, if their own patch becomes dire enough.

When it comes to the bureaucratic side of things, Galmair has a lot of struggling to do. Because of the temporary nature of the position, and the constant fluctuation of individuals, there is always a great deal of uncertainty. As a result, the chancellors will often look to the Don for support, particularly on matters where there is going to be a ton of ooc crap (as displayed by any battle). The Don then makes a decision, and sometimes it goes with the chancellors, but often times, it goes in a direction not discussed or thought possible. The chancellors, on some level, have to go with it. If they cut ties with their decision, they cut ties with the basis of their authority. But on an ooc level, this is not only frustrating, but it feels disrespectful to players. Throwing out wild card decisions, led to a chancellorship that lasted far, far longer than what was probably good for anyone, the IG task of having to essentially babysit four characters, who while from an IG perspective were hard to trust, oocly no one wants to sit around all day waiting to be 'allowed to leave' nor 'having to follow around this group of people because it is my literal job, in a game'. The Don at times it would appear, when the chancellors look for guidance and suggestion, and even in the case of some initiatives, permission, would on some level throw it back against them, making the problems compound. Which led to the chancellors not trusting the Don. The Don soon became a figure head, who only threw clout around to cause more drama, that then discouraged the chancellors to the point that they didn't want to be around either.

I am not saying this as a statement of 'The Don is doing a terrible job', or 'The chancellors suck', or 'The citizens are the root of all problems,' and I am not even saying that 'The real problem exists that criminals are allowed into Galmairian society'. What I am saying is that, on a fundamental level, each and every participant of Galmair, and even those outside of it, have contributed to where it is at today, both in the good and the bad. If you would like to see things change, in a positive way, (be it turning Galmair into a den of villainy, or a shining pillar of free enterprise), this can only be achieved through mutual respect of PO's. I can look through the proposals, and see people on both sides barely contain their contempt for one another. Don't worry, I've done it to. We have to be better. And we have to admit that sometimes, maybe we have a 'great idea', but 100 'great ideas' don't mean anything compared to a good one both sides can work with.


I hope you all have a good day/evening/week/month/year/unit of time you measure your form of existence in, if that is your desire.
User avatar
Uhuru
Posts: 924
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 4:56 am
Location: In time out, where else?

Re: Player Governments/ Evil town

Post by Uhuru »

Tyan Masines wrote:
Uhuru wrote:Please get off the talk of gems. This isn't about that.
Sorry to be this direct -- but this isn't about the Bearers of Fire either. I could write a screed about the Bearers or how the Queen of Cadomyr has been roleplayed as well, but that would be personal. I realize I have problems with how some people play their characters as I think it's hindering cooperation, but I also realize people would claim the same about how I play my characters. We should keep discussions in the General and in the Proposal forum as objective and about game mechanics as possible.
I do understand that everyone has a certain style of play and no rules have been broken. But Dji said it himself in how to lead a town. I was merely responding. I am not trying to bash anyone. I'm sorry if you thought so.
User avatar
Tyan Masines
Posts: 448
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:11 pm

Re: Player Governments/ Evil town

Post by Tyan Masines »

Uhuru wrote:
Tyan Masines wrote:
Uhuru wrote:Please get off the talk of gems. This isn't about that.
Sorry to be this direct -- but this isn't about the Bearers of Fire either. I could write a screed about the Bearers or how the Queen of Cadomyr has been roleplayed as well, but that would be personal. I realize I have problems with how some people play their characters as I think it's hindering cooperation, but I also realize people would claim the same about how I play my characters. We should keep discussions in the General and in the Proposal forum as objective and about game mechanics as possible.
I do understand that everyone has a certain style of play and no rules have been broken. But Dji said it himself in how to lead a town. I was merely responding. I am not trying to bash anyone. I'm sorry if you thought so.
I did not want to imply you were bashing, sorry. :) I just think the rush of proposals which has spawned after Teflon asked for a review of Galmair's chancellor's system has been truly productive so far, and I'd like them to continue being so. It is my hope that we might find issues that can be tackled with comparatively little effort which will have huge beneficial impacts on overall enjoyment of the game -- for everyone, preferably.

Issues involving many people and many points of views often seem to get out of hand, but that's really what it is about; to get many opinions to culminate in a solution. I'd suggest we use this thread as the general discussion and shift more specific and purely objective discussions to the proposals forum. This also gives Devs/GMs/Admins/Society members a chance to review our conclusions without having to dig through tons of text and maybe adjust the game accordingly, if they so wish.
Teflon
Posts: 938
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 12:53 pm

Re: Player Governments/ Evil town

Post by Teflon »

Thank you Vern, pretty insightful post. You summarized Galmair very well in my opinion. I have some questions on the following point though, since I have different perception.
I replied on the topic here in order to keep both topics separated. If anyone likes to reply on it, please also post there:
http://illarion.org/community/forums/vi ... 78#p701478


Regarding evil towns:
Turning Galmair into a true evil town, will not happen. At least not in the near future. This would need far too much presence and supervision and we don't have the man power in the game team (GMs & Devs). Keeping it shady/making it more shady again, is more easier to achieve. As suggested in the other topic about punishments, using the underground as an area where the shady people can live more according to their desire is an option we could imagine to some extent. I don't see right now that they would get all advantages as other town members though like moving important NPCs downwards or even duplicate them. Shady people would stay Galmairians but just not being able to enter the surface of Galmair. If someone of the bad guys tries to use the elevator or the stairs, they would end up immediately in the prison mine for a small job.
They would pay taxes and receive their gems, they would be able to use a secret entrance (supported by the power of Ronagan, which would explain why someone doesn't know about the entrance or how to use it suddenly as soon as they are not temporally banned Galmair citizens anymore) to the underground but there still needs some advantages to make being a "good" guy more attractive. I also have problems to imagine that the underground could be entered by any outlaws. Good guys would always be able to get downstairs.

One more word:
Vern Kron wrote: I tried to build the government in a direction that allotted room for shady behavior, as well as a good face. As a PO and a character of Galmair, I have most likely failed on that front, and for those who suffered for that reason, I apologize. It was prideful to attempt such an endeavor on my own, and foolish to do so without the consent of others.
Juniper Onyx wrote:I think 'truly evil' places and characters can only survive if under GM control or protection. Just players doing it will get banned and fade away every time - no support.
There is no reason to apologise, however, I truly suggest, if you have such plans, actually if you have greater/bigger plan, I suggest to ping a GM and talk about or discuss your ideas and plans with them. First, we can give you feedback on them. Second, we can consider them in our own planing. Third, we can better support you and your rp-experience. Fourth, you will save some frustration in the long run.
I can understand that you don't want to share your plots with other players but you gain nothing from hiding them from the GMs. It is just to your disadvantage if you do so.
Fooser
Posts: 4725
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2002 2:25 pm

Re: Player Governments/ Evil town

Post by Fooser »

Everyone got funneled into Galmair and had to duke it out amongst themselves leading to frustration and dislike festering, and it went on for months because ultimately the devs & GMs are stuck with what exists, so any changes would be very small and generally meaningless.
Post Reply