World policy update -- Discussion

[Dorganath]

Hello all,

I thought I'd open a discussion thread related to the policy posts I made last night, in case anyone has any questions.  The post can be found here, for convenience:

http://forums.layonara.com/layonara-server/284450-world-policy-update-sept-19-2011-a.html

Ask questions and discuss matters here, in order to keep the other thread clean, please. If appropriate, I'll update that post accordingly based on whatever discussion happens here.

[Guardian 452]

1. Regarding character submission (sort of). Is the amount of characters per RL person remaining at 6?

*ponders asking about 3 Berry pie also*

[Dorganath]

1. Regarding character submission (sort of). Is the amount of characters per RL person remaining at 6?

For the time-being, yes.

*ponders asking about 3 Berry pie also*

*snickers*

[gilshem ironstone]

The "Lore Publication Fork" is a term I have a hard time understanding the implications of.  Does this mean that what happens on the NWN server will not be reflected in the development of the MMO post-Briardusk?

[Dremora]

Curious as to the "clean slate" statement.
Previously I was deemed unfit to play evil due to a recent breach of the rules, wondering if this still stands and I need to wait the 2 months since I last submitted a evil character for approval (may not actually go with that character sub in light of some LORE concerning dark elves, regardless of whats said).

[Rowana]

Curious as to the "clean slate" statement.
Previously I was deemed unfit to play evil due to a recent breach of the rules, wondering if this still stands and I need to wait the 2 months since I last submitted a evil character for approval (may not actually go with that character sub in light of some LORE concerning dark elves, regardless of whats said).

To answer blanketedly, to all people: Clean Slate is exactly that. Past transgressions are off the table of consideration as of last night. That does not however assure anyone of achieving anything if their present behaviors are not up to par for whatever it is they may be applying for.

In your particular case, Dremora, you still need to fulfill whatever was asked of you at the time of your application for evil.

~row

[Shiokara]

Really digging these changes. New CA rules will help new players get in-game faster because both what's available to new players, and what's expected of them, is lessened. These seem like changes that will make it easier for everyone all around.

The "Lore Publication Fork" is a term I have a hard time understanding the implications of. Does this mean that what happens on the NWN server will not be reflected in the development of the MMO post-Briardusk?
-Gilshem Ironstone

The way I see it is that the "Lore Publication Fork" is neither an admission that what happens on the NWN server will not be reflected in the development of the MMO, nor does it mean that players can no longer affect the world lore. I could be wrong, though.

What it seems to me the "Lore Publication Fork" is, is the freedom for the team to decide which actions/stories will carry on to the MMO's lore. This frees up players who might want to go down in infamy or fame, who might be concerned about exactly which stories transfer. It also frees up the DMs who could now plan quests with the full knowledge that there's no distant Lore target which they have to worry about hitting.

I really like the idea that these quests do not necessarily qualify for character development. I don't know if it's a possibility, but I think it'd be a lot of fun to attend a quest that was technically on another image of the Layonara thread frequency.

Also, congratulations Gilshem for CA Team Lead. Not sure if this is a new change or what, but that's still pretty cool.

[Dorganath]

The way I see it is that the "Lore Publication Fork" is neither an admission that what happens on the NWN server will not be reflected in the development of the MMO, nor does it mean that players can no longer affect the world lore. I could be wrong, though.

What it seems to me the "Lore Publication Fork" is, is the freedom for the team to decide which actions/stories will carry on to the MMO's lore. This frees up players who might want to go down in infamy or fame, who might be concerned about exactly which stories transfer. It also frees up the DMs who could now plan quests with the full knowledge that there's no distant Lore target which they have to worry about hitting.

I really like the idea that these quests do not necessarily qualify for character development. I don't know if it's a possibility, but I think it'd be a lot of fun to attend a quest that was technically on another image of the Layonara thread frequency.

Actually, Shiokara, this is a very good synopsis of what it means.

Also, congratulations Gilshem for CA Team Lead. Not sure if this is a new change or what, but that's still pretty cool.

Definitely. Well-earned and well-deserved!

[Shiokara]

If a player who has been the subject of one or more Player Watch List posts in the past has a new incident worthy of the Player Watch List, such incidents will be considered new, and past incidents will not be taken into account. Repeated incidents after this point will, of course, be handled as we have in the past, with each thread serving as a historical record for

Emphasis is my own.

Pulling this over from the other thread not because I have a question or anything, but I think something may've got cut off at the end of the last sentence in that block of text.

[Dorganath]

Bah! Fixed.  Thanks.

[davidhoff]

I was suprised to find out that clerics are not allowed as a class for new players when I read CrisP's submission.  I know it's in the last update, but I guess I skimmed over it.  That said, I think cleric's should be available to new players.  It's a basic class and a very popular one for players trying to learn new worlds, because they are a good allaround class and have death/neg energy protections and others.  I understand the reason to limit them is to get new players in the world with a basic class so you can learn the lore, etc., but I still think clerics should be allowed *shrugs*.  I think it would be kinda wierd/upsetting if I was searching for a new world to join and found out I couldn't play a cleric at first.  Just my thoughts.

As a shout out to CrisP if you're reading this...you could start your new character out as a fighter or something and go 5-7 levels and then resubmit (before reaching lvl 7 is easiest) to multiclass with cleric after 2 weeks of play or you could just save this character and resubmit it after you've played a new character for two weeks.

[Alatriel]

We understand that it might sound different, but as part of trying to answer the age-old cry for getting players into the game faster, this was a necessary change.  There is nothing saying that new players can't submit divinely gifted characters, just that they can't do it first.  Part of this is that there are a lot of dogmatic differences in Layonara compared to other worlds that follow Forgotten Realms lore.  This gives new players a chance to get in game and experience the world a bit before stepping into a character that, because of their divine gifts, makes their rp a bit more challenging.  This is by no means trying to make things harder on new players, but the exact opposite.  Rather than spending days going back and forth trying to get the dogma right before even stepping into the world, we would like to see new players get in the game and walk around, perhaps encountering some of the other characters within that faith, or discussing with other players so that they can have more of a grasp on what they're doing and hopefully make them more comfortable.  

I don't know how many others have started a character with a specific set of guidelines or rules that they thought they mostly understood just to get in game and have others talk about something that they are supposed to know about and making them (probably not on purpose) feel uncomfortable and awkward.  This way they can actually go in and see a bit of the world first, and get a better level of comfort.

Deity relations and devout behavior are important, and it makes it more difficult when you start off, but you don't even know where your temple is.

We understand that this is a new policy, and with all policies, we ask you to please give it a chance.

~Alatriel

[Dezza]

I was suprised to find out that clerics are not allowed as a class for new players when I read CrisP's submission.  I know it's in the last update, but I guess I skimmed over it.  That said, I think cleric's should be available to new players.  It's a basic class and a very popular one for players trying to learn new worlds, because they are a good allaround class and have death/neg energy protections and others.  I understand the reason to limit them is to get new players in the world with a basic class so you can learn the lore, etc., but I still think clerics should be allowed *shrugs*.  I think it would be kinda wierd/upsetting if I was searching for a new world to join and found out I couldn't play a cleric at first.  Just my thoughts.

As a shout out to CrisP if you're reading this...you could start your new character out as a fighter or something and go 5-7 levels and then resubmit (before reaching lvl 7 is easiest) to multiclass with cleric after 2 weeks of play or you could just save this character and resubmit it after you've played a new character for two weeks.

As you may realise by now Clerics in Layonara are most certainly not ordinary in any way. Divine classes in particular are held to high scrutiny under the Layonara Diety system. There is a huge amount of time and vested interest in the faiths therefore we want these being adhered to in a Lore adherent, mature and responsible manner. Thus they are not available on first arrival to Layonara.

[davidhoff]

I know clerics and other divine based classes take some serious devotion and a well understood knowledge about lore..I hope my post did not suggest otherwise.  It may serve well to have the new players wait a bit before trying to create/play a cleric.  I guess it just struck me as a shock that a cleric could not be selected by a new player, and I was afraid the policy might scare off new players who are used to being able to have the whole spectrum to choose from.  That was my main concern, but I do see the reasoning behind it.

[Zoogmunch]

I have to say I agree with the policy but I'm in need of some help.


My level 11 orc shamen/cleric follows that party pooper Pyrtechon but I'm not sure I'd ever manage to get to the temple in my current form even if I wanted to. Is there a nice enclave of fellow fire lovers out there with their own alter I can borrow from time to time?

I can flame the sambuca? do toasted sandwichs and you'll certainly save on those heating bills!


Zoog

[miltonyorkcastle]

.... if you can't find other Pyrtechonites (so very few have been submitted as characters, and even fewer still are active), here are a few other ideas, Zoog:

- Hire a mercenary who knows the way to the Pyrtechonite temple to lead your character there and perhaps protect him along the way. I think you know a few who might be willing and able...
- Have your character set up his own shrine somewhere, which you could pursue with a CDQ series (a shrine, mind you, not a temple, as the latter is pushing into WLDQ territory).

[Nehetsrev]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but something I was told waaaay back when Lyle was pursuing a certain course of character development, was that Pyretechonites generally do not make shrines or temples (doing so goes against their dogma of destruction).  When they did create a temple or shrine (or anything else really), they usually had to kill and destroy to some large degree, and even sacrifice themselves sometimes.  Maybe the lore has changed a little since then though, so this info may no longer apply.
 
 If I were playing a Pyretechonite, I'd think the preferable way for my character to honour (and/or attempt to commune with) his/her god would be through acts of destruction, rather than visiting some temple somewhere.
 
 Just my two cents... maybe it'll spark some creative role-play, maybe not.

[geloooo]

I remember this one scenario back then with Ni'haer and a certain powerful priestess...

[INDENT][INDENT][INDENT]Two lithe figures converse under the gaze of the two moons, one male and the other female. The female makes a swooping motion with her hands and a globe of darkness envelops them both.

"This is my temple." she says.
[/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT][/FONT]
The destruction around you is your temple, the body of your victim is your altar.
I was feeling a bit creative and inspired so I wanted to share this bit. My two cents.

[Frendh]

Player A is seen repeatedly luring or using terrain features to trick creature AI or is otherwise abusing creature AI to disproportionately lower the challenge posed by a creature or set of creatures.

I think this has been gone over several times before. I have lured a lot to avoid taking the hit of a whole spawn at once. I have seen most players I have played with recently do it whenever it becomes risky taking on the whole spawn at once. I know saying "most players" is easy, but I am not going to name names. People can step up if they feel like it.

I guess my question is, is it no luring at all? Since there are different types of luring. Also, if you have prepared an ambush spot luring is nearly a must.

Or is the keyword 'disproportionately'? Taking on half a spawn, or anything lower, would be very disproportionate.

Then there is the tactic I have been using to circumvent the whole luring thing and still only fight parts of the spawn. It is to let the spawn wander and spread out and return later. This I consider completely legit. But since my opinion have been wrong in the past I thought I should bring it up.

[Chongo]

People can step up if they feel like it.

I'll step up.  I think this shouldn't be the focus of the thread, so hopefully it isn't dwelled on.  I've seen most people lure, including the majority of the DM and development staff.  But there is a line in the sand that I think everyone can inherently feel.

So, stepping up - this is my line, and regardless of what anyone says, I'm sticking with it.  It's the way the server was built, and it's mechanically fair in my mind.

- Use terrain features, but once you notice you've dumbfounded AI, stop and try a more fair approach.  Maybe not in that exact instance (since you shouldn't be required to die because you've cornered yourself with the decision of shoddy AI vs. unnecessary death), but the next time don't repeat it.  Sure, archers should find cliffs to shoot from.  Casters too.  But if the creature AI has fizzed out so it's standing still, or doing the frenetic pacing back and forth... try something different next time because you've broken the game.
- Ambushes are great.  Send a guy in and lure creatures back to an ambush.
- Bottlenecks are great.  Ambush them into a bottleneck.  It's their darn fault for not being smart enough to craft bows to fire back at you, and it's not AI stopping them, it's their overly wide cousin that's taking up all the room in the bottleneck.
- Picking off stragglers is fair game.  If a straggler comes to you alone, you shouldn't feel inclined to fire an arrow at the mob past the trees just because you're worried about luring rules.
- Taking chunks at a time is fair game to me.  Technically (in fantasy reality) - if you engaged a trolloc screecher in that 500 foot stretch of forest glade, all 24 that have spawned would hear you.  The game wasn't designed for this - I personally didn't design areas for this.  If you try to say this isn't fair, then prepare to go in and redesign about 500 spawns.  Where the idea of 'chunks' gets sticky is when you toe the visual line.  Here's a perfect example of the wrong, and it's me doing it.  I'm at the goblin boss spawn in the redlights.  I am inching backwards to pull the boss, and only the boss, but not the elite and shaman standing two inches behind him.  They are literally two in game inches apart.  After that battle, I felt dirty about it.  And you know that you've crossed that line... so you think about it, you say 'shucks, not cool', and you don't repeat the practice.  On the other side of that line though, is standing in the woods east of corax, looking at 12 giants, than your party of two who happen to be the only folks online, and letting 3 or 4 giants come at you at a time.  This doesn't feel dirty to me.  You're handling the CR range at twice the number of creatures as there are members in your party - the spawns aren't protecting CNR or beneficial passage, and it is a design issue that does not account for low player numbers, and their ability to play the game as intended.


What I think a lot of people don't realize is the basis for spawn and creature development.  They were calculated to challenge a fair group of same CR.  Well... but... this is not static.  When was it calculated?  What was the estimated fair group size and composition?  This isn't just a dynamic between EST and GMT group sizes, it's server size and composition evaluations that are in many cases a half decade apart.  And you don't blame the player group that is on average only half as large and strong as 5 years ago.  You look at it objectively, and do the math on the disparate composition basis.  Without doing so, you could, to the extreme, effectively make your game unplayable.  For luring and such - I think it comes down to what the fair fight feels like it should be.  I don't think it's 16 giants versus 3 PC's of the same CR.  Perhaps you find the instance where you have 6 PC's.  And yes, the dynamic should change in your head.  But I don't think anyone should ever bark at you for initiating a fair challenge versus the available playerbase.  And everyone can feel that line pretty well in my opinion.