Shattered Kingdoms

Perhaps you can give us a taste of what you have planned for limitations on the tradeskill system in another thread, and I can eat my words with a fork and spoon if they seem to make sense. You've been wrong before. The area guides forum is dead. But, lest that seem like a flame, you've been right before, too. We can agree to disagree on the paradigms when it comes to crafting skills while granting that working on them is definitely a great idea and much anticipated. We can agree to disagree about CRS while acknowledging that it does in fact function in practice as it is. I think the anti-hoarding work has been great, for another positive example. We both base our opinions on our own experiences and values; it's good when they can come together even when they aren't the same.

I like maintaining thread topic momentum in replies when possible, so:

What do you like or think would work with a Main/Alt distinction system in the game?

With regard to main/alt, I think it could be helpful to allow the player to make the distinction and record it in a way that is visible to the staff. I'm not necessarily convinced on any specific actions that the game should enforce based on this distinction, other than that which it already does -- aka your main can join a cabal while alts cannot.

I would also tentatively support some sort of enforced cool-down period between switching characters, although I dislike any feature which actively keeps people out of the game.

You know, for a while, the character I considered to be my "main" wasn't in a cabal while I had an alt who was. I understand the great intentions behind this idea, but I'm not sure if I'd even bother playing alts if this was implemented.

What I'm saying is, a character being in a cabal doesn't make it a player's main. But I'd be disappointed in putting my level 40 character into a cabal; seems it would be ineffective in PK. Meanwhile would my already-GMed main have to get knocked down 20 levels if I wanted to advance with my other character? Maybe I'm not understanding.

That is precisely the idea.

Under the system that seems to be emerging from all the +1'd comments of various people, the idea would be that you could have as many characters as you want. However, only one of these characters -- designated by you as a "Main" character -- would be able to _____________. Ideas on main-only perks include going past a certain level (Achernar suggested mentor, I suggest master, etc,) cabal membership (recognized as something in-place already by Dulrik,) and holding leadership (the pie is sliced different by posters: I say one leadership flag of any kind per main character.)

We haven't talked about what changing mains would look like yet.

I'd see the system as recognizing whether you set your main character based on your e-mail address. If you haven't set one, you could get a verification code texted to you (makes multiplaying harder) to type in on the character you want to flag as a "main." If you already have a main and want a new one, you need to get rid of it. I'd say retire or delete. My reasoning for this is simple: if you play more than one end-game and involved character very well, you're actually going to be a detriment to the game when people are running around looking for any one of several characters you MIGHT be logged in as at any given time.

I believe it is better for leadership and membership slots to appear empty than for them to be practically empty on account of the limited availability caused by people spreading themselves too thinly among characters of end-game and involved natures. It would be better for existing item scarcity and for any potential, future tradeskill system if the number of end-game characters scaled linearly with the number of people playing instead of the amount of free time any one person can put into the game.

I have to agree with the sentiment here. In every game, there are people who try to game the system, and they comprise a relatively small portion of the playerbase. It is all too common to see people who DON'T try and game the system wind up punished due to changes in mechanics/ooc limitations, because of the few bad apples spoiling things for the bunch, and this just degrades the game in question itself, for all the players, because the abusive players will always find a new way to abuse the system. You can't really stop it. You can try, but you're going to wind up punishing a lot more people than deserve it, and making a less enjoyable experience for all involved. Source of my opinion: A year as storytelling staff on a mud that stays top 10 on tms and tmc consistently.

The system wouldn't bar anyone from doing anything in the game. It just directs which characters some things are done on by a player based on the player's choices, and it creates a character landscape with more consistency. One of the consistent criticisms of SK is that characters are forgettable, and this is a meaningful way to approach it.

Yes and no. Limiting the amount of success a character IC can have due to OOC factors won't address the issue of a character being 'forgettable', so much as expressing the character in question uniquely would. Also, if people tend to be as changeable as I, in particular, do, it would be unpleasant and unenjoyable to have to retire your most successful character because you're feeling a different character more and thus playing them more, as would that character being limited just because at a different time you found a different character more enjoyable. Perhaps it's just me, on that.

If SK weren't so RP-oriented and scarcity-based in mechanics, I'd be in your camp.

Right now every indecisive person who keeps two characters equipped and in demand is basically creating a net zero gain for the MUD's landscape when they log into one character and have another personality nowhere to be found.

Obvious troll post. Yikes. You can't be serious.