In a perfect world you have a big playerbase that's engaged and having fun on a well-managed game, but it's rarely a perfect world. I just find that generally speaking quality is better than quantity if you're in a situation where it's likely to be one or the other.
@Three-Eyed-Crow Maybe those policies were written by the old staffers? But out of curiosity, what's so off-putting about it?
This part particularly, which applies to "All Characters," not just FC roles:
2 months of no logs or memoirs of substance on the wiki, but your character is still logging in = Written Warning
3 months of no logs or memoirs of substance on the wiki, but your character is still logging in = Your character will be @newpassworded and the character noted as "available" at staff's discretion. You must wait at least two months if you wish to re-apply for the character (if they haven't been claimed in that time), during which you must be active and contributing with another alt.
Like, that's the game's prerogative if they think that's how they want to run things, but it's my prerogative to find it off-putting. The aforementioned friends who play there did tell me this basically isn't enforced now, but I'm not sure if that's better or worse, since it's still a posted game rule.
Also, what does "of substance" mean?
Clearly I need to get off my ass and make that Witcher game if Fantasy is so in demand.
@Three-Eyed-Crow said:
This part particularly, which applies to "All Characters," not just FC roles:
2 months of no logs or memoirs of substance on the wiki, but your character is still logging in = Written Warning
3 months of no logs or memoirs of substance on the wiki, but your character is still logging in = Your character will be @newpassworded and the character noted as "available" at staff's discretion. You must wait at least two months if you wish to re-apply for the character (if they haven't been claimed in that time), during which you must be active and contributing with another alt.
Like, that's the game's prerogative if they think that's how they want to run things, but it's my prerogative to find it off-putting. The aforementioned friends who play there did tell me this basically isn't enforced now, but I'm not sure if that's better or worse, since it's still a posted game rule.
Also, what does "of substance" mean?
Dunno. Maybe some kind of attempt to avoid folks using entire logs of "<Name> sips his coffee/tea/wine and nods." as proof of their activity or something. Trying to distinguish between just doing stuff and doing stuff with "meaning." It is awfully subjective though.
The rest doesn't seem all that out of line with activity requirements I've seen elsewhere.
@FiranSurvivor said:
Clearly I need to get off my ass and make that Witcher game if Fantasy is so in demand.
Can I create the School of the Naked Mole Rat? (I kid, I kid).
But it's a great setting. If you can get through the "superfolks versus not-superfolks" hurdles it could be a lot of fun.
Yes I killed that Cleric, and I hope she burns in all 9 Hells!
@Bargle Actually playing the game, I didn't find it quite as bad as people make out. The guards all seem to scale with the character so that no matter what you have to whack them 3-5 times with a longsword to kill them.
Have a required ante for scenes with meaning.
Something you'll lose if you don't pull off something.
Make something thats worth being meaningful risky and hard.
People ante often, keep it less often, either because they were boring, or because they walk away from the meaningful scene with less than they came in with.
@SG said:
@Bargle Actually playing the game, I didn't find it quite as bad as people make out. The guards all seem to scale with the character so that no matter what you have to whack them 3-5 times with a longsword to kill them.
Well, gameplay vs. story segregation aside, there's still the part where one guy is taking on 7-10 normal human opponents at once and pretty much slaughtering them all. And it takes a lot more than 3-5 sword whacks to kill a/the Witcher.
Guess it also depends on whether you view the "high level" play to be more accurate to the story versus low-level play. It's a whole different ballgame once you can slap some poison on your sword, drink a few potions to prep up, lead-in with a bomb or two, mind-control two dudes to kill the other dudes, knock the remaining dude over with your force push and execute him on the ground, etc... 
Yes I killed that Cleric, and I hope she burns in all 9 Hells!
Wait, people have an issue with that the super soldier mutant is a super soldier?
@Olsson said:
Wait, people have an issue with that the super soldier mutant is a super soldier?
Not at all! (At least in my case). I just mean the inherent imbalance of a setting where there is a "super class" (or two) who, theme-wise (depending on timeframe), are supposed to be rare and "everyone else." How do you attract players to "everyone else?" Or do you even bother?
Kind of like on Superhero MUs, you rarely see anyone playing the civilian supporting characters unless they are extremely well-developed/critical or someone has a favorite TS partner that they convince to app the "girl/boyfriend" (or more disturbingly and just as frequently someone apps the girl/boyfriend because they want to TS that particular character). You MIGHT see an Alfred Pennyworth and/or Jim Gordon in Gotham, but that'd be like having someone app Zoltan or Dandelion on a Witcher MU.
But there were some fun ideas kicked around in the theoretical Witcher MU* thread concerning those kinds of questions.
I've actually played Alfred Pennyworth, Jim Gordon, Happy Hogan... and likely some others. And it's not that uncommon. At one point on the game I was on, we had an Aunt May.
@Three-Eyed-Crow said:
I've got a couple friends who play on Eternal Crusade and have told me it's better now that several staffers who were (by their accounts) terrible have left.
Is this the original group of staffers that was banned four months ago--
@Crysta said in Current Games:
The head admin of Eternal Crusade has banned about half the staff, so if you left because of them, you can give it another go. We're in a bit of a flux right now because they played most of the plot-driving characters.
--or is it a new group of staffers? Mind you, the problem I had was with the owner (Mycol?), who was the only one doing apps at the time, so I'm not going to be interested unless he has passed the game on to someone else entirely. More generally, though, if two groups of staffers have been shed within six months, then people likely should know that before trying to app in.
@BetterJudgment
The original group of staffers who were banned 4 months ago were the ones my friends told me were crazy people. Now that those people are gone, they submit that the game is better.
I was doing something fantasy WoD for a bit. Magical humanoids, vancian and spontaneous magic, and classes. Got about 1/5 of the through things before uni happened.
@Bargle Dang, I must suck, a lot of the guards could kill me in only a few chops. Especially if they get behind me, one chop is like 50% health gone.
@Three-Eyed-Crow said:
I've got a couple friends who play on Eternal Crusade and have told me it's better now that several staffers who were (by their accounts) terrible have left. That said, I've never really been able to get past the way some of the Policies are worded on the wiki. Particularly the Activity stuff.
http://eternalcrusade.wikidot.com/activity
It's not even that I don't think I'd be able to meet this, I just find it very off-putting.
A lot of those policies were written by the old admins. Not to speak ill of the dead (as the saying goes), but they tended to micromanage a lot of things that, frankly, did not need to be so handled. Things haven't been updated all over the wiki but from what I understand, a comprehensive review of "all that was old" is underway.
@Bargle said:
The summer lull isn't in question. It's the combination of shrinking playerbase plus summer lull. In the two decades I've been part of this hobby, I've generally found that on low-population games, and especially those that seem to be losing rather than gaining players, the summer lull becomes the time when people move on from the game for greener pastures. Some will come back, but others won't, and the population of the game grows smaller still. The death spiral, if you will. Not every time, but a lot of the time.
Even so, better a tiny but active and engaged playerbase that's enjoying themselves than a massive but bored one, in my opinion.
Agreed; that being said, growing is usually better than shrinking. And as noted above, you were on the money with the policies so quoted.
@BetterJudgment said:
@Three-Eyed-Crow said:
I've got a couple friends who play on Eternal Crusade and have told me it's better now that several staffers who were (by their accounts) terrible have left.
Is this the original group of staffers that was banned four months ago--
@Crysta said in Current Games:
The head admin of Eternal Crusade has banned about half the staff, so if you left because of them, you can give it another go. We're in a bit of a flux right now because they played most of the plot-driving characters.
--or is it a new group of staffers? Mind you, the problem I had was with the owner (Mycol?), who was the only one doing apps at the time, so I'm not going to be interested unless he has passed the game on to someone else entirely. More generally, though, if two groups of staffers have been shed within six months, then people likely should know that before trying to app in.
Mycol is still in charge. If you've got a particular issue, let me know in a PM and I can look into things. The last thing I want going on at this game is people walking away with their hands thrown in the air because they felt like they weren't treated fairly.
That wiki really is a turn-off. I'll +1 giving that a good edit if EC wants more players.
I've gotta say, ugh, Fantasy WoD? I so strongly wish for more things that are not WoD.
"... you'll find the story doesnât end how you think, and the most important characters arenât who you expect.â - Penny 40 to Derek, The Magicians S04E07 âThe Side Effectâ
@Ide said:
That wiki really is a turn-off. I'll +1 giving that a good edit if EC wants more players.
What in particular turns you off? I've got some ideas, myself, but I'm curious to hear yours.
In a perfect world you have a big playerbase that's engaged and having fun on a well-managed game, but it's rarely a perfect world. I just find that generally speaking quality is better than quantity if you're in a situation where it's likely to be one or the other.
@Three-Eyed-Crow Maybe those policies were written by the old staffers? But out of curiosity, what's so off-putting about it?
