New Games and Feature Characters...
-
@the-tree-of-woe It's because people aren't always clamoring to RP with Jimmy Olsen, but they are for Wolverine, Batman, Wonder Woman, Spider-Man, and other big names.
That's not to say a Jimmy Olsen player can't be amazing. They'll just have to convince others to RP, while someone playing Batman generally doesn't have to do that work.
-
So deliberations continue. I've spoken with some people and I think these are our goals in regards to alts...
1: Making sure a small group doesn't snatch up all the "choice bits".
2: Encouraging the formation of groups/teams.
3: Encouraging villain applications.What'd I'd hate to see is for someone to app, say, Hal Jordan as their first character then see the Teen Titans making a recruiting post and not be able to join that team because of the 1 alt per player rule. I can, however, see saying "Okay, you've got Hal so you can't app Nightwing or Impulse or Kid Flash but you could app Hawk, Freddy Freeman, or someone like that."
I'm also thinking of allowing 1 "open alt"(anyone you want) and a villain alt that does not conflict with your "open alt". So no apping Sinestro if you have Guy Gardner or Eradicator if you also play Superboy.
These are just things I'm pondering at the moment. My ultimate goal is to uphold the three objectives I listed above and, obviously. promote diversity of characters and RP.
-
Your scenario is pretty much what I was getting at previously. You don't want to lock people out of finding RP with an alt limit, but you also don't want people hogging a key position on every team so your top tier needs to factor that in.
I'd agree that #2 is really important too, though I have no idea how to make it happen. People on comic MUs seem adverse to any kind of slice of life RP, so it can be really hard to get team stuff to happen that isn't 'constantly run monster of the week plots,' which is fine but will quickly burn out the few people who actually do the running. I saw this in the Avengers on UH (I had Thor, Tony TSed all day, Cap played with his own clique, and none of the rest would RP if I didn't run an event for them).
Making villain alts an exception seems fine but villains seem to rarely contribute a lot. Maybe tie them to some STing roles, but again there's only so much you can do for people who won't RP on their own.
-
@bored Tier 1, to me, is any character who has their own comic. Titular characters. Characters whose names you see on the cover of comics to attract people. Those are universally the characters you don't want someone having multiple of. This doesn't work 100% of the time because some really weird and obscure characters got their own titled spin-offs but as a rule of thumb it works. Needs a bit more work to identify Tier 1 rogues and villains because they don't tend to get their own titled spin-offs though.
-
In addition to not allowing more then one FC for some temporary period of time, I'd not allow staff to take any FC's for like... three days or a week or something. Staff have an inherent advantage in getting their favorites since they decide when the game starts. I'm not against staff playing at all, but "staff gets the best characters or special treatment" is a complaint I've seen.
-
@ixokai If you asked me to make a MUSH and then told me my reward when the MUSH finally opens is to not be able to apply for a character at the same time as players, potentially not even getting a chance to try out for a character I really want to play... I wouldn't make the MUSH. That's just a really bad setup.
I agree there needs to be oversight so that staff doesn't first pick all the interesting characters, but surely there's a better way to do it than that.
-
The problem is not staff picking a character.
The problem is Headwiz XYZ takes Batman. His wife takes Catwoman. Their 4 friends take Wonder Woman, Superman, Green Lantern, and the Flash.
All while Headwiz XYZ absolutely knows for a FUCKING FACT none of those people are actually going to play the game much. But it's his wife, their friends, etc, so he lets them anyways.
Oh and then Staffer A wants Nightwing, and his two friends want Batgirl and Zatanna, to play with him.
Staffer B wants Aquaman, and his girlfriend takes Mera.
Wow, suddenly your game is already in the fucking D-List, especially for female characters.
I mean, if you stop at "staff picking characters" in this scenario, you only have Batman, Nightwing, and Aquaman picked. Not exactly the end of the world.
The problem is when all their friends also get first dibs.
And god forbid if they're snatching alts immediately too. Even 'second tier' ones, because they're going to snatch all the 'top' on that tier too.
Edit : I will say, that for whatever reason, Comic MUers make the most RIDICULOUS fucking fuss about NEEDING alts. It's obnoxious, but the sad facts of MUing are "big who list = more players will stick around when they log on to look", and a lot of people will NOT hang around if they aren't allowed to squat on 3, 4, 5 characters. So you're shooting yourself in the foot twice on this one issue if you don't allow alts.
-
@Salty-Secrets Generally works except you need to handle the big teams, too. Many of those characters never have their own (at least ongoing) comics, but its hard to argue that the core rosters don't have big appeal. Also probably anything that's in other media is going to be more popular.
You can split hairs over certain characters of course, and case by case adjustments are possible (particularly if a character goes unplayed for a long time and someone wants to pick it up as an alt). Being reasonable is a thing.
-
@salty-secrets said in New Games and Feature Characters...:
@ixokai If you asked me to make a MUSH and then told me my reward when the MUSH finally opens is to not be able to apply for a character at the same time as players, potentially not even getting a chance to try out for a character I really want to play... I wouldn't make the MUSH. That's just a really bad setup.
I agree there needs to be oversight so that staff doesn't first pick all the interesting characters, but surely there's a better way to do it than that.
You couldn't give players a three day headstart? You'd think that's asking too much of you?
You, as staff, are fundamentally advantaged. The moment it opens you are first past the post, guaranteed. No one else can claim that advantage.
You agree there needs to be oversight, though, but what does that MEAN? What oversight would be okay to you? Game is opening.
What do you do?
-
@tempest said in New Games and Feature Characters...:
Edit : I will say, that for whatever reason, Comic MUers make the most RIDICULOUS fucking fuss about NEEDING alts. It's obnoxious, but the sad facts of MUing are "big who list = more players will stick around when they log on to look", and a lot of people will NOT hang around if they aren't allowed to squat on 3, 4, 5 characters. So you're shooting yourself in the foot twice on this one issue if you don't allow alts.
Crap I clicked wrong but to be clear I think this is stupid and absurd and in no way support it.
-
04:36 AM, Monday July the 9th, 2018
@ixokai upvoted my post and acknowledged I am right about all things.
-
@ixokai said in New Games and Feature Characters...:
You couldn't give players a three day headstart? You'd think that's asking too much of you?
Yes. Staff are players too. A staff is signing up - on a strictly volunteer basis - for months or even years of taking crap from dozens of strangers while simultaneously working their butt off trying to provide said strangers with a fun place to play.
Letting those people play the characters they want to play is a small price to pay for those services.
@tempest said in New Games and Feature Characters...:
The problem is when all their friends also get first dibs.
Staff letting their friends/siblings/spouses camp characters they never intend to play is not only poor planning, but is going to open them up to cries of staff favoritism to friends. That seems like a dicey proposition, and also a very different thing than allowing staff themselves first dibs.
-
@ixokai said in New Games and Feature Characters...:
You, as staff, are fundamentally advantaged. The moment it opens you are first past the post, guaranteed. No one else can claim that advantage.
What kind of advantage is that? What does it put you in position to do?
Nevermind I can hardly imagine the kind of nightmare a game would be where being ahead of others by three days conveys tangible gains. What happens when I decide to take a weekend off?
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
-
@arkandel said in New Games and Feature Characters...:
@ixokai said in New Games and Feature Characters...:
You, as staff, are fundamentally advantaged. The moment it opens you are first past the post, guaranteed. No one else can claim that advantage.
What kind of advantage is that? What does it put you in position to do?
Nevermind I can hardly imagine the kind of nightmare a game would be where being ahead of others by three days conveys tangible gains. What happens when I decide to take a weekend off?
The advantage is having first choice of FCs. Naturally, this applies only to games that actually have FCs such as comics games and those with roster characters.
Think of it as hosts at a party setting out a buffet of chocolates but they and their friends eat all the caramels and nut clusters and leave only the icky raspberry cremes.
-
This post is deleted! -
@tnp Party hosts do get to eat at the same time as guests though.
And staff should get to pick FC at the same time as players.
Your equivalency is false, you talk of an example where staff would have selected their FC and closed them before the game even opened. As long as it's done at the same time players can, with the same application process, where's the injustice?
Staff signed up for months of work before opening and possibly years of work after opening to keep everyone happy, free of charge, at the expense of significant chunks of their free time, what's the harm letting them pick characters at the same time as everyone else?
-
@tnp said in New Games and Feature Characters...:
The advantage is having first choice of FCs. Naturally, this applies only to games that actually have FCs such as comics games and those with roster characters.
Think of it as hosts at a party setting out a buffet of chocolates but they and their friends eat all the caramels and nut clusters and leave only the icky raspberry cremes.
Any game that has a pure FIFO approach to important/critical FCs is asking for trouble. If you're running a DC game then having Superman shouldn't be a function of who gets to type +request FC=I WANT SUPES!!11 faster than everyone else, not if the character is expected to have the canonical impact he would in the comics.
The principle applies to everything else. Imagine if L&L handed the King out to whoever happened to throw in a +job. Madness.
-
@tnp said in New Games and Feature Characters...:
Think of it as hosts at a party setting out a buffet of chocolates but they and their friends eat all the caramels and nut clusters and leave only the icky raspberry cremes.
But I love those raspberry cremes, and I hate nut clusters.
-
So, bringing things back to the app process for a moment, would it be fair to lock PCs and have all players +request a pitch for the character they want to play, put up a notice that Character X closes in 7 days, and then have staff hand out the character based on the most suitable +pitch? I won't lie, it seems archaic to me but would most find that fair?
-
@zombiegenesis If you intend to have closing periods, then you want some way for players to contest closing characters and try to compete for them. What method you use for that is up to you and every method has ups and downs.
Proper applications are seen as archaic and tedious but will get you the best results.
Short pitches are fast and easy to manage but give you a worse idea of who should get the character, and can be prone to people who put no thought into it.
