The World of Layonara
The Layonara Community => General Discussion => Topic started by: Dorganath on December 06, 2006, 08:46:24 PM
-
Dear Layonara Community:
Some questions have arisen lately regarding the Disputes, Grievances and Requests for Reimbursement system...questions which I have addressed to some degree in a post in that particular sub-forum. The information in that post is important enough, I believe, to sticky and lock so that people can reference it, but I personally also believe that some may wish to comment constructively, or perhaps less-so, on what I have written. As such, please give this thread a read:
http://www.layonaraonline.com/forums/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=32672&posts=1 (http://thread-view.asp?tid=32672&posts=1)
And then, if desired, discuss below.
My only request is that everyone keeps the discussion civil and on-topic.
-
I've always said it's Leanthars sandbox, I play with the toys he provides and I treat them nicely, lest I be asked to leave the sandbox. I think the grievance system is at best a juggling act, and I think it shows to some great degree how much Leanthar and the GM team care about the community for them to implement and maintain a system like that.
Vyris
-
I can't see what people's problems are *shrugs* No system will work for everyone 100% of the time.
The system you have decided upon is clearly defined and it's requirements unambiguous. Surely that is all we can reasonably request?
And .... what Vyris said.
-
I'm going to be a lot less long-winded than you on this Dorg, but I've been here practically forever. Let me tell you, this system is no better and no worse than dealing with a GM in an individual basis. This system, unlike the previous method which was to bug a GM personally, is atleast consistant. It is the best way without someone entirely devoted to following every single person that ventures out of Hlint. It's stern, but consistantly fair.
I'll use a simple metaphor to illustrate my post-midnight ramble. Think of trying to return something without proper paper documentation to prove you actually bought it. Even if they know you bought it, and even if you bought it an hour previous to returning it, chances are you're not getting a new one. Or at best store credit.
Needless to say I've had a bad shopping experience today.
-
Not to play Devil's Advocate here. But maybe it is time for a new system other then the Soul Strand one in it's current form? That is really the heart of the matter here I think.
See this is one of the odd cases where everyone can be wrong, and right at the same time. There are to many factors going back and forth here to ever try and say what is fair. Even more so is you have to balance community fairness with individual fairness. Bioware has a bug, people will abuse it, it leads to perceptions of favoritisim, etc, etc.
All I could think of to replace it with, and please this is just an individual idea lets not turn it into a 'Heres why your wrong' debate, is take it out of a automated process like the Soul Strand system is now. And say such things happen only in CDQ's, and GM Quest. Completely flip the situation from being 'I was alone when this happend and dont have a witness.' To 'There is no doubt a GM saw it, other players saw it, and we all know what happend.' I know it comes with it's own problems, and reworkings. But having a firm trust in the staff I feel is a lot more valuable then a game mechanic. And it will have just as many flaws and drawbacks as any other system I'm sure, I just think if trust is the main issue here, this would be one possible alternative.
But like I said. It's just an idea I'd throw out there. I'm sure people have lots of their own.
-
That was very well written Dorg.
People are always going to be hurt when they're telling the truth and there's no way to prove it. Especially when their percieved efforts are on the line.
There is one question I have on this. What if the said player can irrefutably prove wrongful death in the touchy event of a DT or perm'ing their character? Is it a matter of the burden of investigation (which very well could bog the team down to a standstill if restrictions weren't placed), or maybe that pretty much anything can be fabricated mirroring the event in a selfmade module (I honestly don't know if this can be done, but it seems fairly likely)?
I had a very good talk with Rev today regarding the system, and she cleared up a lot (blue ribbon for PR efforts), but I did want to ask that one question.
-
Very well written Dorg.
Thank you for taking the time to type that out in such a nice, concise manner.
~KK
-
Honestly I think 3 non GM/WL witnesses are even more valid than a single GM/WL witness. No matter what somebody's trust level or position is, they are still ultimately human and not infallible; still subject to either lapses in observation or favoritism. Large scale numbers of cooperative witnesses on the other hand require that 3 people must be wrong for a report to be wrong, rather than just one. This is nothing new, it is merely human nature; how many police officers would truthfully give their family members or close friends a parking ticket? Active screenshots on the other hand, which clearly show evidence of a string of events are even more accurate than human observance, especially if they show the sequence of events, interpersonal strife, a games mechanics breakdown of events in the dicerolls box, etc etc. They have as many witnesses as the people who view them after the matter, and therefore should be publicly posted to the grievance post for maximum witnessing.
For example, if one sees a screenshot of a dead wizard by a monster without trueseeing and the sequence of events shows the following... "Player X casts invisibility, Now entering PVP area (server transition msg), Monster X without trueseeing kills Player X" Then it's fairly obvious that some form of bug is going on. Conversely, when Player X runs into Player Y who flagrantly breaks server rules, and a big stack of screenshots is produced showing Player Y in the action and effectively admitting to the infractions, then the hard evidence of documentation should always supercede the opinions of people in positions and the communal debates of character held in the restricted GM forums. The trick however is documentation, and being very timely and consistant about it. Take so many screenshots that if you printed them out and collated them, you could animate the scene by flipping through the pages.
That being said, the policy of needing a GM or WL for a soul strand reimbursement does pose a confounding variable to the nature of the process itself. It indicates that one must either be a friend of a GM or WL, being in their own party to have a valid witness, or that for some reason the GM/WL must be at least familiar and interested with the character in question to warrant being in just the right place at the right time. Furthermore, as GMs and WLs tend to have higher level characters than most, (not a symptom of favoritism I might add, but one of sheer logic: long term players earn more trust and responsibilities than others) they tend to have a limited range of available groupies to chose from, usually other GMs and WLs. As such, the potential for "self-reporting" a reimbursement elevates once everybody is in the same party and there are multiple GMs/WLs witnessing eachother. The party dynamics of being grouped indeed indicates that they have a same goal. Therefore an extra line might be wise to the rule that the GM/WL witnessing a soul strand foul should probably not be in the same party when it happens. GMs presiding in GM mode on the other hand are at least more apt to being XP impartial.
It's an interesting debate, but until the human role of witness is replaced by infallible computer AIs without agenda, then it will be subject to the pitfalls of human nature. As one who hardly ever gets Soul Strands for any reason, I of course would prefer that ALL Soul Strand reimbursements be stricken for whatever reason at all, including bugs. It's an annoying and tedious process that not only saps incredible amounts of time, effort and sanity for the Grievance officers, but also creates widescale animosity when biased observations are made that some people are reimbursed more than others. To say that ALL such observations of unbalanced justice are unfounded due to the nature of the offender's trust level or hierarchal position however is faulty as well... otherwise ALL politicians would never lie and ALL police officers would be 100% law abiding. We know this not to be the case, and that all systems involving human interaction are simply as faulted as the humans contained therein.
In closing, the claws of fate are always impartial, and soul strand reimbursement should probably not be allowed at all based upon witness alone, but solely on empirical data to be judged on a case by case basis; screenshots and server logs. Besides, the Hall of Heroes is empty enough as it is; we adventurers need to realize that death is simply another part of life, and move on with it.
-
As a response to AbnerMojo's post:
The SS system is something quite unique to Layonara and should, in my opinion, still be here. It's something that makes (most :P ) people respect death. When the Soul Mother was on vacantion, the number of deaths shoot through the roof. People went to places that they simply dared not with the current system as death was... well... nothing, really. Death was just a respawn and a few hours wait in Hlint, nothing more than that.
As a response to lonnarin's post:
I both agree and disagree with you. Three independent witnesses is normally indeed "worth" more than one single witness. BUT, think about it for a little bit longer. Most people tend to party together with people who they do know rather well and the accounts might in fact be biased (one see what one wants to see). Trust on the internet is something rather tricky and that's why a GM/WL witness is required. To put it simply, generally, I put a bigger trust on a player I haven't met before if he or she is a GM/WL than if he or she isn't.
Having the SS Reimbursement rules stricken to "Only reimburseable due to GM actions - i.e. unintentional events happening on quests; GM crashing, GM accidently poking with the kill wand, GM spawning creatures that he felt afterwards was way to strong for the party to handle, etc." might be a thought as that would cleanly kill the biggest part of the favouritsm view for the moment.
-
O.K. Weeblie, but whats more important? A system where there is more room for trust between staffers and community members? Or limiting the amount of times a player can risk their character taking reckless actions without consequence? In my expierience as a PnP DM, absolute charcter death is a bit to important an event to leave up to a game mechanic. And is an area that needs to be looked over by rational human judgement. But thats just my opinion. And as for playing with out respect for death, well thats an issue of bad roleplay. And should be addressed as such. In that a player be warned, then if it continures, not be allowed to come back.
-
I'm digressing slightly here I know but please bare with me!
You know....It's just character death....
And before the screams of "I worked hard on my character" and "I care about my character"...So do I!
But when push comes to shove....It's just a character.
I've been playing PnP for over 12 years now and I've lost many characters and each one hurt! I have a folder of 'dead' characters..
In fact I've actually killed characters over their principles....That's right...I've know they would permanently die and done it anyway because it was what was IC to do!
Here's an example:
DM: You know charging that machine gun nest is gonna kill her right? Your not suppose to charge the %*$£%^ thing!
ME: She has a martyr complex...you know that!
DM: Yeah, I know....I gave it you! And I know it's IC for here but she is gonna die for good!!
Me: I know that!!
DM: *sighs* Go on then
*character charges machine gun nest and dies horribly*
DM: Hand me your character sheet *DM takes it and writes DEAD across it handing it back*
DM: Right...go role up the new one in the other room and for heavens sake stop crying woman!!! Your make me feel bad!
I'd like to point out I had played that character weekly for two years.
Now....Every place like Layo NEEDS a permanent death system or things just get silly. I think that the DM's truely do the best they can to work with Bioware's buggyness and be as fair as possible. Layo isn't PnP....Not all deaths can be only quest based otherwise there is no risk to playing your characters and the decisions you make outside of quests....We have a system...It works as best it can...Can we please give the Team a break for doing their best?
Also why don't people stop taking every DT as an omen of dread and instead see it as one step forward towards there next RPing challenge on Layo?
-
Bring back part of the old death system where each death is a loss of xp. That is an immediate consequence for a death. The reason why some players push the limits is because the reward outweighs the consequence (the POSSIBILITY of a loss of a soul strand) Hit the player where is hurts...xp. Of course, the Soul Mother could then retire.
-
AbnerMojo - 12/7/2006 9:30 AM
O.K. Weeblie, but whats more important? A system where there is more room for trust between staffers and community members? Or limiting the amount of times a player can risk their character taking reckless actions without consequence? In my expierience as a PnP DM, absolute charcter death is a bit to important an event to leave up to a game mechanic. And is an area that needs to be looked over by rational human judgement. But thats just my opinion. And as for playing with out respect for death, well thats an issue of bad roleplay. And should be addressed as such. In that a player be warned, then if it continures, not be allowed to come back.
Just pointed out that in my opinion, removing the system should definitely be at the bottom of the "solutions" list. Removing the option of reimburse SS at all is definitely more prefered in my view.
twidget658 - 12/7/2006 11:02 AM
Bring back part of the old death system where each death is a loss of xp. That is an immediate consequence for a death. The reason why some players push the limits is because the reward outweighs the consequence (the POSSIBILITY of a loss of a soul strand) Hit the player where is hurts...xp. Of course, the Soul Mother could then retire.
I can already see people starting to run for cover. At least after what I have heard from people who did experience it before (1+ million XP loss kind of hurts)... :)
And... Agree with you, DMOE.
-
here, I'll be a bad guy:
remove the disputes. your character died. its a game.
If one of my characters die tomorra, you know what I'll do?
SUBMIT A NEW ONE I don't want the loss of xp, I like the chance of death. I know, time, energy: but most of us, if not all, have two characters. if not? make a second or third, an if you die, too bad.
-
My view:
Players need to be able to give the DM's the benefit of the doubt. The admin and staff allow the server to run smoothly. When the players start to distrust the DMs, the server starts to fall apart and turn ugly.
On the other hand I think the DMs need to give a bit more leway when handling disputes etc. It is far to easy to die from -massive- lag spikes, bioware bugs and such. One can have a lag free day then have a lag spike death because someone with 50 containers filled with stacked items enters the server.
I would love to see more spontaneous quests. My first quest on this server was a spontaneous one. And it went somewhat badly as the DM spawned a creature (amongst other things) ontop of a bunch of low levels that was able to kill my character outright with a single spell. It happens, the DM felt bad that it went unexpectedly and that he/she misjudged things, but it continued on and I was given life again under the pretence that I wasn't 'quite dead yet'. It was fun, we all enjoyed it, I learned something and so did the DM.
On the otherhand, DMs need to trust the players more and not pressume each is trying to cheat or abuse the system.
-
I think the disputes forum, and in fact the char submissions and other forums, have one overwhelming thing that makes them work and worth keeping: Transparency.
Perhaps people have not played on other PWs where such openness in the process of disputes does not exist. The division between players and GMs grows exponentially when people are left to guess on motives, etc. The disputes forum here is, in my opinion, one of the bits of brilliance that keeps Layonara community solid. It maintains a perspective on your own grievance as it relates to others, and displays the consistency of the team's response.
We may not always agree with the answer to a grievance. We may not always like the resolution of a dispute. We can, though, see the rationalization and thoughts behind each and every one. Be thankful for that.
-
i have played on other PW before
one of the hardest to level by the way so much so that it constantly got either great reviews by the people who loved it or the lowest reviews for those that couldnt stand to lose the xp they had fought so hard to gain
i speak of this because they dont allow people to get to over 12th level without visible rp that gives back to the world
they dont have such a massive realm as layo only one server to police
you have factions that are application as are Prc and any ecl race
each dm controls a noble house which also has a faction
sometimes these factions get along
sometimes they dont
but there is a siphon that they use that makes it so you dont earn one single xp in the game unless you prove your not there to grind
you have to give back to the world or you will simply be at that wall that has no way over
low magic low levels but phenomenal rp abound because you learn to not need levels to play
that 2nd level thief may mug you if you go into that alley
but hes a theif thats what you risk
you may lose anything you have gathered and prize if you fall or are beatendown as they have a mode for
you can be jumped and beaten up and your gold taken
or your items taken
the bank charges fees to get your coins back
you may run into an evil person yes they exist there and he may not like your god so he will kill you
and all this happens there from 1st to 12th level there may be one 15th or 14th and they are captain of the guards or house commander as such
the system here is great
so you lose a strand if you roll badly
yes there are bugs and you die
but you dont lose your equipment
and yes you risk permanent death after a time
this isnt something that is about favorites
this is about the perception of the game we love to play
afterall its still a game
L and the team have created this incredible world for us to roam around in and yes in time be 40th level if we play smart and put in the time just as in PnP
we have so much potential for what can be accomplished that to let petty interpersonal ego clashes interfere would be the worst possible solution
just go out and have fun,sometimes yes dying is part of the fun
and if you lose what you have mourn a bit
but then grab a drink and your quill and put your next vision onto a submission and the world shall continue to evolve around us all
-
First, thanks for everyone's comments.
I'm not really going to comment or elaborate on anything at this time except to point out two things:
1) This is not about Soul Strand loss/reimbursements but about the process of reimbursements in general. Please do not focus on that one singular aspect as you discuss this.
2) For those of you who may have perhaps not been here quite as long, as was mentioned in the post, we're on our third iteration of the policies for reimbursements. Previous ones were far more lenient in terms of witnessing (i.e. 3 supporting statements, etc.). We put a lot more trust in our player base and that trust was rewarded by a choking of the system through requests which were largely a matter of player error, a misunderstanding of the rules in general or just "let's see if this works" kinds of things. It was taking far too much time, and people abused the process. Perhaps yes, this was one of those instances where a few spoiled it for the many, but sometimes that happens.
Anyway, carry on. :)
-
I'm surprised the topic moved from the way disputes are handled to suggesting to abolish the soulstrand-system. Crazy suggestion in my opinion and I don't see how it relates to the fairness of disputes, other than cutting down disputes by 50 % and carving out something that makes Layonara and the way you consider your PC's longevity special.
Now, on the fairness of GM's and WL's being present, I never saw something wrong with this system in place. But Lonnarin did make an interesting point.
The way it is now, statements of the GM or WL, present at the occurence that led to a dispute, are given more credit than screenshots.
On the one hand, I know logs can be faked, but if for example three people supply screenshots of a death through invis bug, one should give them the benefit of the doubt if another case was approved based on the word of a WL or GM.
My point is, if a screenshot gives an accurate overview of what happened, and what happened would fall under one of the reimburseable DT's it should be approved whether or not a GM or WL was present. Invisbugs for example are as clean as a whistle if you have a screenshot of what happened.
Because of the way the system works right now the fact that you were accompanied by a GM or WL when it happened, makes the invis bug reimburseable. While having several screenshots clearly depicting what happened does not.
They are both the same bugs and in both cases you can be absolutely certain it happened. Yet, having a GM or WL along suddenly makes it reimburseable.
Because of this, I'd suggest limiting it to only GM's who are logged on through the DM Client and are not playing one of their PC's.
When they are logged on with their avatar, there is a clear difference between them and the averadge player. And it also removes the problem where some players never adventure with GM's or WL's and others do it continuously.
EDITED: Rephrased
-
I thought that was well written and clear, Dorganath. As for some of the points raised here. Hmm. Transparency, as Pen and Popper said it is the teams biggest asset in handling disputes. I personally read almost everything *yes my job is dull* on the forums and can say while I don't always agree 100% with the decisions, I see the policy, I see the thought process or reasoning behind it and as long as that continues, its fine by me. As for Soul Strands and perming, as is real life, The fear of loss is what makes life real. Same applies to this game. My opinion, but without the fear of real loss, I don't think the rp would be nearly as good.
-
I think Twidget Has a good Idea .
Ive always liked the old death system . Where you die you take an xp hit.
-
Speaking SOLEY for MYSELF...
I would like to state that it is just as easy to forge a logfile as it is to forge a screenshot.
I personally place very little weight on either unless *I* took the screenshots/logfiles myself *or* I implicitly trust the person(s) who did.
I guess it's a good thing I have nothing to do with the disputes and grievances directly. *grins*
Anyways, sorry for the interjection. Just felt the need to voice a personal and non-Layonaran-representitive opinion.
-
@ OneSTB I don't think many people know how to fake it ... though I do know it's more than possible
First let me state that i think the despute prosses should exist with only the GM's when they're in GM mode or with extreme lienecy like before, and i'd vote for the only in GM mode option. Next that spontanious quests (which i thought i had been on two of) should still exist because they enhance the community without having to sign up, and that RP xp should be able to be given by GM's when they're in GM mode.
the trust issue, if we can't trust the GM's to run spontanious quests and reward for good RP then how could we trust them for disputes. Granted ill be the first to say that I don't trust the team yet. But for now i give them the benefit of the doubt as i don't know the team yet either. the few members i have met seem to be good people and the two spontanious (spontainious for me at least) small quests i was on were done well.
I know that GM's will go to their friends first most likely if they're running a quest and need someone to "spear head" it. It's only natural they know their friends and trust them to play well, rp well (probably), and over all would choose someone they thought would do a good job for what they needed rather than a random player/character they don't know.
That said if GM's have spare time they'll probably go check on their friends also just to see whats happening. Though (from personal experience) they may also feel like checking on some new characters just to see whats up and how they play. (i blame this all on human curiosity. Some GM's will like that mode best but most will probably enjoy playing just as much or more.
when they're in player mode i have to agree with what Lonnarin said about GM's and WL's traveling with other high level characters for the most part. Though most of them probably have a second lower level character. they will still have the people they travel with. I don't believe that this is favoritism.
My character will travel with almost anyone (except goblins) but others are more picky. some people will never travel with a paladin ... some paladins probably won't travel with me after a while. it's the way it is it's not favoritism to travel with the people you travel with. Yes it CAN incur a benefit but it won't always. yes you have more of an opportunity to get your death back or whatever if there is glitch. But it was RP that placed the ussual GM in your party. (or not if there isn't one) the reason it is GM's and WL's only that can approve recompsation is because L, the big guy in charge, can trust those people.
Sure i don't trust them all, and some of you probably don't either, but it's not our world. And since L made the world I trust him.
Feel free to respond in anyway you want. I'm new and am not aiming this at anyone just contributing my two copper pieces to the general server discussion taking place.
-
This last post reminded me of something else...
It's a falacy that all characters of GMs and WLs are high levels and are thus somehow excluding the vast majority of characters on the server from being in groups with them.
I can think of several instances where GMs and/or WLs have other low- and mid-level characters, myself included.
It doesn't matter what "suit" a GM player has on...that player is still a GM. And a WL player is still a WL, regardless of which character he or she may be playing at the time.
By granting GM or WL status, we're not saying we trust a particular character more, we're saying we trust a particular player more. As such, I am really quite mystified at why it would make a difference.
But hey...if the community wants the policy to become even more restrictive, I'm sure we can accommodate that.
-
well said Dorg!
There is no reason to change the dispute system as it is now. What you are missing is that this system gives you options to "protect" your PC from bug or lag related issues. We all know who the WLs and GMs PCs are. If you are planning on going somewhere deadly try to get a WL or GM PC to go with you. This way if a system issue causes you some kind of loss you have a trusted wittness. Keeping that trusted list as large as possible is best for all.
If a change to the SS system is being looked at I suggest this:
1. remove the SS replacment option from the disputes forum.
2. Increase the number of SS(s) to 15 to make up for any bug, lag, or techinical issues (keep the SMD at level21)
3. State this clearly in the death system wirte up.
OR
1. same as above
2. Move SMD to 20th level
3. same as above
-
I think the system works well in order to keep things civil and sensible in the world. Its what makes people go "Ohh..we better stay careful" or "lets better not go there." And I think it is a fair system. In my opinion, if you give more trust to the players like what it is suggested there is *always* going to be a few percentage that is going to abuse it. Its whether the team wants to accept that percentage of abusers or not.
I look through the various disputes and grievances column, and I don't think the system has a problem. BUT having said that I think there is a consensus from the community that if a request is *denied* that the team do not believe the player, and so the player then attempts to try and justify themselves and then it causes all these problems, where in actual fact, the team is denying it because they need to make sure everything is consistent by keeping to the rules (because that could bring across a whole set of other problems).
Leanthar has pointed this out being consistent in a reimbursement, but I think this post should be stickied or something so that the community understands the teams stance on denied requests.
On a more lighter note, its just a game. And characters are inevitably going to die. When I received a few DT for my first character I was feeling a sense of loss too. So I thought make a new one and another, until now I have 4 in total. If one of my characters perms I think "Oh well, make a new character" or if my character dies and is in that reflective state then I just pull out another character. Problem solved.
_________________________
Edit: This post mainly focuses on SS Returns.
-
first off @ Dorg
You make an exellent point. It is the player not the character trusted. My thoughts were if they were in GM mode it would lead to less bias ness. I personally don't have a problem with it i just think it MIGHT resolve the problems you stated others might have
Next i realize that all GM's probably don't have high level characters. And that WL's and GM's probably have at least have a second character It's just that It seems to become GM you would need to have been here for a while and be at least semi active... so a better chance of having a high level character. And WL's from what i read have to have one Char at least lev 20??
This was just an explaination of my reasoning you make an exellent point
@Jrizz
I like your idea much better than my own. and whole heartedly support it. If the SS # were between 10-15 i'd still agree
Edit to make readable
-
The problem with the SS (and keep in mind this thread is not about SS's) is that I had initially set it up for 5 DT's, then 7 DT's and now it is at 10 DT's (took about 1 year to get to 10 DT's and it has been there for 3.5 years now). I will not go any higher with the exception of giving 5 more with the Soul Mother Defense.
-
SMD is a great way of adding longevity to a PC. But the XP needed between 20 and 21 has proven to be a deadly hump to get over. Not all people (players) can make WL status and leapfrog that hump. That is just a fact due to time, effort, and play style but hey someone needs to be lead by the WLs :). SO adding anymore SS(s) is off the table, how about moving SMD to 20th level?
-
Sure! But... um... there's one bad thing, though... You don't get any feats at level 20. :P
Just thinking a little about the fairness of the dispute forum. Actually, it seems that (denied) SS is more or less the only thing making people upset. Lost items and so on have very clear guidelines (player error and/or it's not a unique item = denied) and there are rather few of those request turned away. People also tend to simpy swallow it up if they do get denied, as... well... in 99% of the cases, they are most probably cursing at themselves: "Why did I do that?? How could I be so stupid that I put my Longsword of Whackiness (but not Uniqeness) +10 in the trashcan? Gaaah!" :)
-
jrizz - 12/7/2006 2:19 PM
how about moving SMD to 20th level?
There isn't a feat selection at level 20. Level 18 is the last feat selection level before 21, not counting class bonus feats.
-
In my mind I was writing for that in mind. I'll edit it to reflect that it is written for those SS requests :P
It makes sense that they would put up a fight with SS loss as a pose to the item of wackiness. With a SS at this stage, you can't get it back but with that item you can! :)
Weeblie - 12/8/2006 9:02 AM
Just thinking a little about the fairness of the dispute forum. Actually, it seems that (denied) SS is more or less the only thing making people upset. Lost items and so on have very clear guidelines (player error and/or it's not a unique item = denied) and there are rather few of those request turned away. People also tend to simpy swallow it up if they do get denied, as... well... in 99% of the cases, they are most probably cursing at themselves: "Why did I do that?? How could I be so stupid that I put my Longsword of Whackiness (but not Uniqeness) +10 in the trashcan? Gaaah!" :)
-
Gulnyr - 12/7/2006 12:32 PM
jrizz - 12/7/2006 2:19 PM
how about moving SMD to 20th level?
There isn't a feat selection at level 20. Level 18 is the last feat selection level before 21, not counting class bonus feats.
Well that would make it harder but not impossible.
-
jrizz - 12/7/2006 3:50 PM
Gulnyr - 12/7/2006 12:32 PM
jrizz - 12/7/2006 2:19 PM
how about moving SMD to 20th level?
There isn't a feat selection at level 20. Level 18 is the last feat selection level before 21, not counting class bonus feats.
Well that would make it harder but not impossible.
Thinking more about this, I think Soul Mother Defense really needs to be an epic feat to help maintain what little fear of death our characters have. Making it available earlier would lead to a minor version of the Soul Mother's vacation, so that people would be more likely to take certain risks knowing it will be that much easier to reach the level where the SMD feat is available. Having it beyond the epic XP hump helps keep permanent death a spooky and real possibility.
I don't think the current setup is really 'broken.' Having characters lose all ten soul strands before level 21 isn't so much unfair as unfortunate, so there's really nothing to fix about this particular system. And I don't think making SMD available earlier would have any impact on the perception of the fairness of grievances and disputes, either.
-
Please keep this on topic. If you want to discuss the death system, please create a new thread.
-
I like reading these forums but this thread is becoming quite sizable and frankly I can't believe people go to such lengths to dispute over a computer game.
To avoid being a hypocrit I've had my issues and discussed them accordinly, but I've come around a full circle and it took a break from Layo to realize how rediculous it can get.
I like Lilswanwillos comment:
(((here, I'll be a bad guy:
remove the disputes. your character died. its a game.
If one of my characters die tomorra, you know what I'll do?
SUBMIT A NEW ONE I don't want the loss of xp, I like the chance of death. I know, time, energy: but most of us, if not all, have two characters. if not? make a second or third, an if you die, too bad.))
hahah, that in my opinion is the right attitude to have.
People take this world way too seriously. I feel sorry sometimes for Leanthar having to spend so much time meeting other peoples needs on a world he created HIS way. We need to remember we're guests and stop complaining about technicalities.
Anyway I simply now enjoy my short sessions with a few of the lads from my zones. I think Dezza's already got 3-4 tokens and he's only level 8. you know what we do about it...we laugh! We think it's hilarious how unlucky his character is but in some twisted way it fits neatly into his bio and character development.
Cheers,
Polak76
-
I'll do quick(ish) notes.
* Logs and screenshots are easy to forge. This said, I wouldn't do it, because exploiting the system wouldn't be a very good way to encourage it to work for me when I deserve it, would it?
* There are three reasons I haven't submitted to be a DM. Firstly, I don't know a blasted thing about the toolset. Second, I simply don't have the time to devote. And thirdly, I was immature enough, early in my time here, to have ruined the trust the Team might have otherwise had in me. (For WL, switch the first reason for "I don't have a character high enough level.") I know that roughly half the time I would be devoting would be towards helping out with the disputes and reimbursement requests - face it, there are a LOT of them, and many of them (especially within the past two weeks) have been "Oh, let's see if we can get it reimbursed; reimbursement policy be dratted!" The Invis bug is well-known, as is the GSanc bug, as is the policy on lag-related death and disconnection death. Why waste the Team's time? I wouldn't want my time wasted.
* If Pyyran were to pick up 5 more DTs in his next five deaths, well... That's the way the cookie crumbles. PC death happens, even with your most beloved characters. I'd be pretty devastated, but I'd move on to another character.
* I would personally be opposed, as someone with GOOD SMD rolls, to an XP hit at each death rather than the fear of perma-death. I can't objectively say which reason is stronger (the fear of real death being good, or the fact that I'd lose LOTS of XP), but I do have to say that I'd be opposed to changing the Death System... Just to chip in on that.
* The way disputes are handled now is great. The one or two times I've had reimbursable DTs, things went very well... The two or three DTs I've gotten at least in part from the Lagbeast, I let lie. But... It's not those that love the community more than their characters who clog things up, is it? To remove the reimbursements altogether, for items, XP, gold, and DTs, would, I think, be a mistake. There are enough things that happen that players really don't have control over, that really should be reimbursed, that would slip through the cracks. Perhaps the Team should just be a bit less patient and lenient with those who post for reimbursement?
* Players! The problem lies with us! We're the ones making the reimbursement system bog down! The burden of making things run smoothly doesn't lie nearly as much on the Team as it lies on us. POLICE YOUR OWN ACTIONS.
-
I partially agree with Lilswanwillow and Polak76. Remove disputes over soulstrands. But keep the disputes over items and exp the same or even with more need of evidence. That would cut the time fixing disputes for the GM's. It might upset people at first but it would soon be accepted practice.
-
*gets down near the bottom reads Ed's statment and stands and claps*
Folks lets face it anyone who has been here for any amount of time has suffered a bug. Is there a chance you could die, well yeah is there a chance you could lose something well yeah, is it the end of the world well no. I personally think and a GM is more than welcome to correct me if I am wrong but the biggest issue has to do with simply (and I am guilty of this as well) reading the rules and only making valid reinbursement requests. Rules are Rules and as such to play here you have to follow them. Would I like to have my character be LE yes, but I have to request it and frankly I just don't feel like taking the time to sumit the request so what do I do continue to play my character at the alignment she was approved for. As it has been said before it is not the GM or admin staffs job to play babysitter to us players. If we were to stop wasting so much of thier time with invalid claims and requests we would see more content, have more quests, and hopefully have more fun. Its that simple. Personally I know that the group I like to RP with does not have either a WL or GM in it, so what we still have fun. If we as players run off the GM's then we wont have them and will destroy the place we go to get away from the world or as my wife calls it her sanity time (the time that she gets away from my antics). From personal opinion the best quests are the spontaneous ones where all of a sudden the Celestiral being of pyrotechron shows up as we are leaving Firesteep and kill one of us for attempting to steal their ore. Obviously a GM kill so what I moved on that is what the creature would have done. One of the best times I have had. I guess my request is simple please stop wasting the staffs time so that we all can have those fun times that we came here for.
Gm's(this lumps the admin staff in as well) thanks for the effort and keep up the good work.
-Winddancer-
-
Seriously, everyone...
My point in posting that was not to engage in a discussion of the Soul Strand policy. Even before we had a policy, there were reimbursements, though only Leanthar could authorize one, and he did so at his own sole discretion. That's not really the issue, and focusing in on that one aspect of things really misses the point.
The point was to illustrate the "whys" and "hows" of what we do and how we operate in regards to the reimbursement process, though in truth, it has parallels to everything the GM Team does.
When a person or a group of people operate in a manner in which no one else knows or understands, the result is usually curiosity, and curiosity unfulfilled leads to suspicion. Suspicion gives way to rumor and rumor breeds resentment. The GM Team is very aware that there are some very negative perceptions out there among the community regarding us, the way we do things, and so forth. There's an "us vs. them" mindset that may be caused by a number of things, but in my experience it's primarily caused by misconceptions, misunderstandings or both. The community views us as authority figures to a degree, and I suppose that's accurate in this context. And in that view, there's often a reluctance to bring things up for fear of reprisal or retribution. In such an environment, negative feelings fester and grow, and eventually they erupt in one way or the other.
None of that is healthy for this community, or any community for that matter.
The purpose of my post in the Disputes forum, and the post which started this thread, was to further clarify one aspect of how the GM Team operates and to do so in a way that illustrates and clarifies the transparency for which we strive in the process. And it was my hope that by posting that and explaining that the same rules apply to the GM Team as to the rest of the community...in fact, more rules apply to the GM Team, that people would better understand what it is we do, and not whisper behind the scenes or get caught up in suspicion or unanswered questions, such as the ones that prompted that post in the first place.
Soul Strand reimbursement was mentioned because it was a common and identifyable example and it was also related to the PM that started this, but it was never the real center of the matter. My intent was not to launch a discussion of the Soul Strand system, the reimbursement of unfairly lost Soul Strands or ways to avoid GMs from being perceived as showing favoritism. It was also not intended to solicit ways to relieve the GM Team of this responsibility by making such reimbursements even harder...or perhaps eliminating them completely. Its intent was merely to peel back the virtual curtain, so to speak, and give everyone a good look at what we do and why, so that there can be no such misunderstandings. or at least to reduce the number of misunderstandings.
I'm really not sure how this thread went off on such a tangent, but I'd really prefer to see it steer back toward its true intent.
-
The thread went off tangent Dorg, because , as stated previously, it seems to be at the Core of the Disputes and Greviances section as a whole. As was stated most people are caught up over their disputes having to due with their Soul Strand losage. Now I've tried to stay out of this conversation because its simply not a discussion I want to get caught up in. The system's fine the way it is and if characters have godda die then they godda die (If Rhynn died Id go into hardcore mourning but still).
I just want to state that most of the people seem to have the Soul strand issue in mind, so maybe that means Dorg, that its not the way disputes are handled, but this particular portion of the whole in general that has people in a sort of dispute in and of itself. Perhaps in order to fully understand all sides of the situation , the thread should be allowed to go into that tangent, or a new thread should be made, seeing as the soul strand issue seems to touch closer to the problem's core than the Dispute system itself (Now I've read through this forum but have not replied)...
Thats all I really want to say, I don't want to make any more assumptions or opinions about this one way or another, though I do agree what what's being done for us is of the goodness of L and the GMs and we need to think before we put more burdens on them. Im not accusing anyone or saying Im not guilty of giving someone a hard time now and again, just saying...
-
ok, back on track, RIGHT!
I like the disputes and greiviences, for the most part except the one thats been mentioned. Loss due to dropping, etc. etc. is good. VERY good.
its just the ONE thing...
-
Having worn the hats of player, creator, and community leader on other games I can't think of a better system than this. Clear rules / guidelines and open submissions. Public approvals / denials so all are aware and nothing is behind closed doors. What more can a player want?
-
yep this is how it is. But there is still room for debate in the system such as lag vs exceptional lag. So there will be posts that may be seen by some as "hey you did not read the rules" and to others as "hey it fits as a disputable event".
-
Where normal lag ends and exceptional lag start is very subjective though.
-
Filatus - 12/9/2006 1:52 AM Where normal lag ends and exceptional lag start is very subjective though.
Use Common sense :) (And let's not turn this into a discussion on what is normal and exceptional, but keep it on topic :) thanks )