Feedback on experiences. Leveling. Turnover. Consistency.

[Hazard]

There's no way to "enforce" it, I suppose, but I just wish so hard people would stop making factions and alliances OOCly.

Too many factions start with already having members, or members that WILL join. It isn't organic. These OOC connections mean that no matter what you do, these characters won't betray each other or turn on one another. You can't bribe them, you can't persuade them, you can't corrupt (or redeem) them, if it goes against the pre-established group. Mostly this happens with discords, but it can happen without them (and has happened pre-discord, but is far more common now).

We really need some way to stop this from happening because it's toxic af. It is not okay. It shouldn't be defended and excuses shouldn't be made for it. I just want to see it go away. When I play a character I don't have anyone in my ear, I just BE in the world of Arelith and see where it will take that character, and it can be this impossible mountain to climb should I ever get on the bad side of 'a faction' that is connected in such a way.

They will always be together. They will always be loyal to one another. They will always be co-ordinated. Metagaming is cheating, simple as that.

I log in when I have time to play, alone. They log in when they all decide to, together. From the first waking moments of our characters I am put at severe disadvantage. I recruit for my groups/factions organically through face-to-face meetings and message boards, while they just have characters rolled up already sharing a family name/allegiance from level 1 and are explained as "Oh. It's a such and such come to the isle from where-ever." ... Okay. That's fine, as a sometimes thing- but how about we try not to?

Seriously I don't know what the solution is here, I just wish it would stop and the culture would shift back to being more in-game and based on spontaneous RP rather than pre-planned OOC nonsense.

[-XXX-]

Seriously I don't know what the solution is here, I just wish it would stop and the culture would shift back to being more in-game and based on spontaneous RP rather than pre-planned OOC nonsense.

One solution here would be not to have one's character join a clique faction if they can help it.

Cliques have always been a thing. Even before discord there have always been groups of friends/family who liked to play together. Discord just made this more widespread.

Not all OOC clique factions are PvP happy kill squads. Some of them can be pretty cool. Joining one of those can still lead to feeling like a third wheel.
Organically formed factions exist. Even if they aren't nearly as well organized, they can be much more inclusive and spontaneous.

[MissEvelyn]

Here's something for all those OOC factions and groups, cliques, etc to think about:

When you have run your enemy out of all cities, and they're finally gone, what will you be left with?


As it stands right now, we have enough players to sustain the game, because some players merely take their loss and move on. If we allow this OOC cancel nonsense to continue the numbers will eventually decrease.

So I feel like the metagaming rule pretty much no longer exists, because everyone's on discord chatting away.

Back in the days I had multiple player names to prevent metagaming, but alas, now we can only have one player name and so, whatever you do with your characters matters when it comes to all your other characters. This also means how you address other players and their characters.

With that I'd just say: Try to get along with each other, because if people whether friend or enemy leaves, it only serves to degrade the game overall, for everyone.

Why can we only have one player name? People change theirs all the time.

I ~highly~ recommend you do this. One account name per character. Just read this thread if you need a good reason why.

[Eyeliner]

"Please don't create relatives to characters who are current leaders of a settlement" might not be the worst rule (or at least, guideline)

[Hazard]

"Please don't create relatives to characters who are current leaders of a settlement" might not be the worst rule (or at least, guideline)

I think that's a good rule, but the problem (in my experience) is much larger than just settlement leaders.

It's just factions in general. I really want to see less pre-planned group play. I know we like playing with our friends, but this is a roleplay server and metagaming IS against the rules.

Don't we have a rule that 'If it didn't happen in game, it didn't happen.' to prevent people from "passing information" through OOC means to other characters they "live with" or communicate with "off-island"? Yes, we do, last I checked! So, shouldn't the same 'If it didn't happen in game, it didn't happen.' apply to like, Hey. Here's all my buds, we met before coming here? Or hey, let's be unbreakable buds forever we totally just met this isn't cheating.

There's people on this server I absolutely adore and want to RP with on all my characters, but I allow it to happen in game naturally, IF it happens. . . and when it does, I let it take whatever course it takes. When I play my characters and bump into other players I like playing their characters, it doesn't mean our characters are friends. We could be enemies. We could hate each other. We could fall in love, or murder each other, or we could totally avoid each other and think the other is annoying/foolish (in-character). I just expect the same honest RP from everyone else.

I know the DMs are already under heaps of pressure and work-load, but maybe .. they could keep an eye out on groups and their IPs. If they see recurring IPs playing together, or if they see certain players logging on/off in unison, always moving in unison, always knowing where to find one another (without scry), just to check in on them and be like. Hey. What's up with this weird activity? What's going on with this sussy baka behaviour my dudes?

I don't know. This was a very quick rant while I wait for an uber.

[dominantdrowess]

^ I actually like this. But the population isn't really enough to police that in some hours. =/

[Marsi]

This isn't directed at any one poster in particular, just some food for thought -

I've always felt that when someone is complaining about turnover and levelling speed, what they are actually uncomfortable about is the ability for someone, anyone, to quickly become a challenge to a regime, a social structure, or a claimed place.

I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

If the rules of roleplay and engagement are being followed, I don't think it's for to the challenged to conjecture about the "legitimacy" of the challenger -- its motivations, its backstory, its dedication to roleplay, etc -- because I don't think the challenged is ever totally honest with itself about its vested interest in the status quo. I am sure there are many genuine examples of truly vicious and unfun power grabs, but I've never seen an usurpation, however justified or fairly paced, not be denounced with the same language and framing as an unjustified one.

I experienced "slow Arelith", and everything was controlled by these years-old, monarchical dynasties.

The problem is, I think, that there's no higher, more organised, more impersonal system to channel conflict and dispute. Even the most practiced roleplayer feels their autonomy trespassed on when their character is killed, and there's no getting around that.

Honestly, I think the only way forward is through the sailing system. I foresee a future Arelith where the land is for PvE, adventuring, and interpersonal development, and the "seas" -- a grid of abstract areas lacking the asset handling and emotional layering of grounded spaces -- are where players duke it out, at a remove from their avatars.

[-XXX-]

I've always felt that when someone is complaining about turnover and levelling speed, what they are actually uncomfortable about is the ability for someone, anyone, to quickly become a challenge to a regime, a social structure, or a claimed place.

Well, there are some major concerns regarding this:

A) uneven stakes. When you're on the top, there's only one way left to go and when you have nothing to lose, you can only gain.
Fast lvling introduces an uneven dynamic between the time and effort required to build a successful faction and the time and effort dedicated to constantly trying to bring the faction down with an endless line of throwaway characters.
As Edens_Fall alluded earlier, if the only thing I ever do is keep trying to topple something with the mindset of rolling regardless of the outcome, I can never lose.
"I'm OK with leaving only rubble behind, because claiming my conquest would only expose me to potential loss. Let someone else pick up the pieces - I'll come back later."

B) inconsistent RP environment. These characters tend to create dead end storylines because they are gone so fast - no third act, no conclusion to their story, just... TV show canceled after the first season. Which by itself wouldn't have been such a big deal, but the issue is the frequency with wich this takes place.
Similarly introducing these characters into a faction tends to be little more than a drain on the faction's resources.
"K, I'll join just gimme stuff to help me do writs faster. Kthxbai see u never~"

C) they are here just to do their thing. Don't think, engage or interfere, just witness!
...and give kudos ofc.
"Bob has been with us only for 16 days, but during that time he managed to wordlessly speedrun all the writs, dupe and antagonize everyone he's met, then roll quickly before the consequences of his actions could have ever caught up with him. WHAT A LEGEND!"


Ultimately, all aspects of rapid turnover hint at a rather selfish playstyle - these characters tend to take without giving back, try to create fun at someone else's expense without offering to become the butt of the proverbial joke themselves, they try to steal the spotlight but won't be around to let somebody else take it.

[Babylon System is the Vampire]

I think a lot of this thread is just getting into the weeds, which is understandable. We all have our own thoughts and understandings of what's good and what's bad. But I think it really needs to start with two statements, and then have logic applied to both.

Statement 1: Conflict RP with the potential for pvp is essential to the server.

Statement 2: Having the entirety of your game be about logging in and expecting to get hunted by large groups for pvp every time you do is awful.

I don't think anyone can argue that those are both factual statements, and I think the juxtaposition of them both being true is the crux of the issues being discussed in this thread despite the title. Marsi nailed it in the above post, the turnover is not really a bad thing and has nothing to do with the two statements above.

Now I have laid out what I think the solution should be, requiring dms for pvp in certain areas to ensure that it's not as simple as marching into cordor and murdering the guard that got you in pvp a day ago. It doesn't make getting that guard in Cordor impossible, it just means you would need some patience and planning, which reads as storytelling to me but what do I know. This would mean that Jackie the most nefarious palemaster on Arelith could take a day say in sencliff to regroup and try to recruit more to their cause, instead of simply relying on their initial group to be constantly on when they are. Jackie is hunted by paladins/elves/dwarves/Cordorians on the regular after all, and rightfully so, but without that breathing room from time to time what else is Jackie going to do save for make sure his crowd is all on when he is via discord?

Alas, I couldn't sell it. Maybe someone else has a better idea, and that's great. But unless your idea/thoughts accounts for the dilemma of both statements above being true, I'm not sure it's adding anything of value. And ultimately as long as statement one is the one that defines arelith without any consideration for statement two, the only folks who are going to play conflict driven characters are the most efficient and brutal pvpers. But if Statement 2 becomes more important, which in a lot of ways it already has among the player base as there is a litany of folks on the mindset that conflict is bad because it just leads to endless circles of pvp, the server becomes boring.

Good luck space cowboys.



-As a side note, someone mentioned above a timer on folks who log in and get right into pvp, likely because they were called in game via discord. I'm not sure something like that would work for active characters, you want to be able to give people a heads up via discord that a big part of the story line you have been telling with them is about to go down, but there definitely should be some sort of rules about logging in with old super charged level 30s to help your buddies in pvp.

[Algol]

Such behavior is banned I'm pretty sure, as it is a type of bad meta-gaming. But also it's a type of behavior that's not really possible to prove. And everyone has their biases, it's easy to see meta-gaming where there is none of you are on the losing side of a conflict.

[HeyLadyOfDecay]

There's no way to "enforce" it, I suppose, but I just wish so hard people would stop making factions and alliances OOCly.

Nothing wrong with that. I currently run a small faction that has a core starting base of six, And currently expanded through RP to eleven.

Now, this is just a "Let's have fun" faction, And that is what all factions should be, Made for fun.
It becomes trouble when the faction is created for PvP and domination, Or to gain a monopoly.

We already had this limited, But one faction years ago was born out of a "Discord gamer pit" of hundreds of people or a faction could grow so large that it consumes any space for others to develop roleplay.

My first thought on a solution would be a limit of 20 members of a faction, This creates more RP for politics, alliance RP, and circulation. If a player becomes stagnant, Hardly plays, That player occupies a valued spot in a faction and is motivated to continue playing or let go so a fresh new member can join.

Anyway, Just my thoughts.

[Amateur Hour]

There's no way to "enforce" it, I suppose, but I just wish so hard people would stop making factions and alliances OOCly.

...

They will always be together. They will always be loyal to one another. They will always be co-ordinated. Metagaming is cheating, simple as that.

...

I just wish it would stop and the culture would shift back to being more in-game and based on spontaneous RP rather than pre-planned OOC nonsense.

These things do not always go together.

My three longest-active characters were members of families--as in, they came into existence with close relatives already in the archipelago (spouse, a sibling, and a grandson, respectively). But that doesn't mean they'll always be together/loyal/coordinated. Heck, you could make an argument that my character with a sibling betrayed said sibling in the vilest of ways; the one who came with a spouse roleplayed out a divorce in her first real-life month of existence (side note: the process of tracking down a divorce lawyer on Skal was an absolute hoot). Just because characters start out working together does not mean they will stay working together, and roleplaying that breakdown of relationships when that's the direction the plot takes can be some really juicy RP.

It's also just not realistic to insist that every character arrive on Arelith with no connections to anyone else because it very quickly starts to require people to bend over backwards to explain how they grew up in socially isolated bubbles. I had a character who was a priestess of Naralis Analor who lived in Leuthilspar her entire life, who completely coincidentally (seriously, never spoke with the player before this) ran into someone else whose entire family was made of priests of Naralis Analor and lived in Leuthilspar his entire life. Naralis Analor is not a popular god, and Leuthilspar had a population of only 50,000ish people; it's not realistic that they somehow literally never crossed paths until Arelith (though, of course, having crossed paths doesn't mean that they would know the answers to all their account security questions).

My point being--any restrictions you try and put on making characters with preexisting connections to other characters isn't even putting a band-aid on the problem, because the problem isn't the initial relationships. The problem is an unwillingness from the players to allow these relationships to change to something other than complete and total loyalty, which can arise with any start condition.

[TooManyPotatoes]

"Please don't create relatives to characters who are current leaders of a settlement" might not be the worst rule (or at least, guideline)

I think that's a good rule, but the problem (in my experience) is much larger than just settlement leaders.

It's just factions in general. I really want to see less pre-planned group play. I know we like playing with our friends, but this is a roleplay server and metagaming IS against the rules.

Don't we have a rule that 'If it didn't happen in game, it didn't happen.' to prevent people from "passing information" through OOC means to other characters they "live with" or communicate with "off-island"? Yes, we do, last I checked! So, shouldn't the same 'If it didn't happen in game, it didn't happen.' apply to like, Hey. Here's all my buds, we met before coming here? Or hey, let's be unbreakable buds forever we totally just met this isn't cheating.

I think this is more the root of the perceived problem. You can surely make relatives of other characters but the issue comes when they have this very intimate shared history that confirms unshakeable loyalty between them.

I've been playing as settlement leader of Brogendenstein for about 10 months now and at last count the clan was basically 3 players including myself (all of whom I had no ooc ties to when I made my character). If the goal of the above proposed rule is to address these long standing unshakeable power bases in settlement then its not likely to have much of any impact.

I honestly think the best way I could go about having my character lose power is by accepting a bunch of clan members from players I don't know well and watch them destroy my characters reputation.

[Ork]

Do it.

[TooManyPotatoes]

Do it.

Oops! Gave away my exit strategy.

[Party in the forest at midnight]

B) inconsistent RP environment. These characters tend to create dead end storylines because they are gone so fast - no third act, no conclusion to their story, just... TV show canceled after the first season. Which by itself wouldn't have been such a big deal, but the issue is the frequency with wich this takes place.
Similarly introducing these characters into a faction tends to be little more than a drain on the faction's resources.

This one hits me the most. I go to invest in new characters and try to include them in what I'm doing, and then the player goes and rolls them. There are some people I'm hesitant to invest in or involve in anything because they roll after a month or two. They're done with their character before I am. It doesn't matter how good their RP is, and some of them are quite good at RP. I personally don't want to include people in plans if they're not going to be around long enough to see them through.

[Xerah]

I highly recommend everyone make new characters with new accounts names and not with other people, in different locations, with different races. Once in a while is fine, but I really don't think everyone needs to always be playing with the same people. The more you shoehorn yourself into playing the same things, the more static of a storyteller you become and you create this US VS THEM narrative that really only exists in your head a lot of the time.

Even with that, I to tend to end up interacting with some of the same people over and over again probably just because play styles (and times) are similar and we get along with our RP styles. It's always a nice time when that happens.

And, also, I don't feel as bad when I end a character that I'm not feeling or just lack time to play.

[TurningLeaf]

I really want to see less pre-planned group play. I know we like playing with our friends, but this is a roleplay server and metagaming IS against the rules.

I'd like to see more, because it's efficient, it works, and many people need to plan their leisure time. Just like a PnP session and, well, every single MMO game.

[Spriggan Bride]

I really want to see less pre-planned group play. I know we like playing with our friends, but this is a roleplay server and metagaming IS against the rules.

I'd like to see more, because it's efficient, it works, and many people need to plan their leisure time. Just like a PnP session and, well, every single MMO game.

It's very difficult to be an adult with time constraints and not do some kind of OOC planning. I'm not talking about gang-up PVP I mean asking others when to set a time for a big settlement or faction moot or a decent sized raid to an epic dungeon. Or even just tracking someone down for crafting or RP purposes when you don't have similar times to play.

If the community and DMs want adults with time constraints to be able to play here, which I hope they do because adults bring some maturity to the game, they need to accept that some OOC planning is going to have to happen. Pre-arranged outcomes are bad and gang up PVP is bad but trying to find when someone is on so you can set up mentor/student RP is very very good.

[Xerah]

There's a world of difference between

I play from 9pm to 11pm every weekday and on the weekends, I meet up for some scheduled events

VS

Me and my friends all log on at the same time and move around as a unit

The second one is the issue and what was being referred to.