saxifragaceae wrote:
Meissa wrote:
I strongly dislike the term "mandatory GRP."
Nobody forces anyone to participate. There are occasionally changes to the world for various reasons, and we make story lines to help them make sense. Plenty of these stories have been ignored, with the outcomes shoved into the game with little input from players. Like the Black Hand roleplay, again. (Or the zombies, which we specifically built to respond to player input, that could have so easily been a weekend event that didn't result in such a great impact, but I digress.)
<...>
However, being on staff, we are damned if we do and damned if we don't involve the players. There was no greater outcry from the playerbase about the mostly uncontensted removal of the BH than there was for the slow decay of Sith'a'Niel and the political turmoil that plagued Ayamao for almost a year. People complained about both. And they would have complained if we had just ripped up Mortoon or the Bastion with no explanation... So we tried to give one.
If a GRP has world-changing outcomes regardless of player interest or participation, then I'd argue it's mandatory. I understand that staff put a lot of effort into these things even if players don't like the outcomes (and as a writer, I really -get- how much that sucks), but these types of events don't get players interested, then perhaps the approach should be reconsidered.
I might be alone here, but 'd rather see a entirely hands-off approach from the staff than GRPs with plotlines developed by the staff that have lasting impacts on the game (I'm entirely against GRPs at all, to be perfectly honest). I want stories that start out as my own idea and develop organically with other players. That's why I play SKs and not one of the gazillion other RPGs.
Clearly there's a lot of issues at play here regarding why the tribs were removed and why they should/shouldn't be reinstated. But regarding the 2vs10 problem, that seems like more of a general issue of 1) PvP in SKs not being properly incentivized and/or balance issues and/or PvE time sink complaints and 2) people getting involved in PvP when they should really familiarize themselves with werttrew's how to avoid PK post.
The problem with this sentiment isn't that there is a problem with you having it , it's that other people have completely different viewpoints. Sometimes people have both conflicting viewpoints on the same issue of global RPs. I've literally seen people bemoan GRP events, yet repeatedly say their favorite moment in SK was the Leviathan RP or another GRP.
Personally, I'm not the biggest fan ever of GRPs because I think they require a ton of time, and are entirely too high risk for not enough reward. That said, I've really enjoyed some of them over the years, like the Uxmal/Empire war event. I think the truth of the matter is probably somewhere in between. People like GRPs that scratch their particular itch gameplay wise, and don't care for ones that don't, and/or limit their ability to scratch their own itches for a time. It's just incredibly difficult to have a global RP that feels important to participate in unless there is a possibility of bad outcome. Forcing a "no outcome" or "good outcome" situation when people are actively trying to influence a bad outcome seems even more disrespectful to player intent personally. There is a good quote from a show I watch though, "We can talk all day long about looking out for yourself, minding your own business, just trying to survive, but it all boils down to an excuse that isn't worth a damn when the world is burning down around you. Doing nothing is just as bad as doing the wrong thing."
As far as the removed tribunals go, I think the strongest reasoning for bringing them back absolutely boils down to the greater variety of RP it could offer. I think the strongest reasoning against it is the further fractionalization of the current limited players seems very unwise when people already complain about not seeing other people. To me, I think the latter is stronger at the moment than the former, but I also think the more support everyone shows for the idea the more likely it is to happen. While I don't see it being a likely occurrence, if there were four or five people who currently didn't play ready to sign up to fill a new/different/reopened tribunal, that would obviously go a long way towards minimizing the theoretical impact of stretching players out more. Basically, despite it being unlikely, everyone voicing their support for something and backing it up with why is the right way to handle this kind of thing. Better to try and possibly fail than do nothing.
I'm just going to second Meissa's sentiment though, I don't want anyone to get their hopes up because these kinds of decisions really do reside with Dulrik. He's more likely to be swayed by sound, well-thought out, ideas than vague emotion though so I suggest everyone keep that in mind when posting their support in this thread.