MU Soapbox

    • Register
    • Login
    • Search
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Muxify
    • Mustard
    1. Home
    2. Lotherio
    3. Posts
    • Profile
    • Following 6
    • Followers 5
    • Topics 41
    • Posts 1243
    • Best 575
    • Controversial 3
    • Groups 1

    Posts made by Lotherio

    • RE: Pokemon Go

      @SG said in Pokemon Go:

      I've been playing on and off, but get frustrated by how arbitrary the capturing is. Like, now that I'm level 9, most of them get away, or the pokeball just flies through the pokemon and I 'miss'. Or some stupid zubat keeps breaking out and I have to try again.

      Then I'll but it down for a week or so, and remember that I have it and then just get annoyed again. Is there actually any rhyme or reason to how you capture those things? It seems like some RNG in the background just seems to randomize what happens.

      UG!

      Put your finger on the ball like you're going to flick it, but spin it around. The ball will start to glow, this will help with more difficult captures. Its a curve ball, so it will curve in the air.

      posted in Tastes Less Game'y
      Lotherio
      Lotherio
    • RE: Historical MU*s

      @ThatGuyThere said in Historical MU*s:

      @Lotherio
      Yeah the Louisiana purchase area was French, then Spanish for a shot while then Napoleon strong armed it back to France shortly before selling it to us.
      We also butted heads a lot with Spain over Florida before we got it and Cuba, so while Spanish American conflict is pretty prevalent in the era you are seeking the actual war didn't happen til later.

      No, I meant Mexican American war, 1846-1848. I said Spanish for the wrong reasons.

      posted in Adver-tis-ments
      Lotherio
      Lotherio
    • RE: Historical MU*s

      Yes, Mexican American War, 1847. My slip up was thinking of the Spanish occupation of St Lious at the time prior (up to 1802'ish?). It was '46-'48, the war, 1850s was more battles with native Americans.

      posted in Adver-tis-ments
      Lotherio
      Lotherio
    • RE: Historical MU*s

      I checked out Grimwood. would be nice to see an increase in activity there.

      And as a tangent but historical related. It seems all westerns end up being ~1860 near or post civil war. I would like to see other western genres at some point, such at 1840s around the Spanish American War, set in an area that is contested. Or anything pre 1840s along those lines. Like St. Lious late 1700s, up to the exchange of land from Spanish to American control.

      posted in Adver-tis-ments
      Lotherio
      Lotherio
    • RE: Historical MU*s

      @sthanheykel said in Historical MU*s:

      I've been wondering whether there are new Historical MU*s hanging around there or maybe someone willing to put a project forward should he find any support from the community. Recently I've found and joined Grimwood MUSH, which is set in the Wild West, it's a very small place, but both the staff and players I've encountered have proportioned great RP and I look forward to spend more time with them.

      Is there any other historical MU*s active or starting out there? Also, is Chicago MUSH down? Their website seems full of spam nowadays.

      Chicago's website got spammy near its end (the end of high traffic going there), someone joined and started spamming and no one ever removed their membership. It was still up last I checked, just still the same 2-3 hold outs playing along.

      posted in Adver-tis-ments
      Lotherio
      Lotherio
    • Story Teller Circle - multi-genre shared system

      Allright, been chewing at the idea. In the 'what I'd like to see' thread at one point, I mentioned using some modular d6 type system to run a mu* that allowed multiple genres/games/campaigns to run at one site. I'm sort of settling on this as an idea, an update to OGR/Gateway/MUSH/other social places for OTT style gaming (not a new idea in itself). Looking at systems that can be used for various genres. Just polling for opinions, but here is the idea.

      The concept to play is, one would log on, creating a player bit initially. From here you can enter various modular CGs for the various themes and make a char. It creates a puppet. By using the command to go IC in a certain genre/game is linking to the puppet where that sort of becomes the interface. Nothing would change for the players, they'd still look and see and examine and such the same. Past game for reference, Battletech 3065's pods and playing the battle scenarios. Once 'ic' you see via the puppet until you go OOC and disconnect from said puppet.

      The inverse side, a Story Teller's could decide on a new genre, work with staff to get going with an ST bit that can set up a CGen by selecting elements that should go into CG or changing attribute names, adding ideas for skills, etc., as well as a quota to build a mini grid like other social mu*s. Then, its up to them to toss up a wiki for the game.

      Staff would have two purposes, knowing the system and enough of the code to help STs get up and going. All mu*s already have built in verying degrees of powers and flags that haven't been overly utilized of late (judges, royalty, staff, wizards, etc.), as well as the ability to add in new flags to control the access to various global command objects.

      The idea is that some genres are sort of niche and come and go with interest, such as western, modern social, Victorian, historical, etc. Its more like they crop up, folks join and then either feel its played out or that they don't have enough control in from current staff and interest declines. Mine goes back and forth, some days I feel like Space adventure, sometimes historical, sometimes L&L. Even occasionally, something wuxia and I've yet to find one that suits my interests (oddly the old Dragonfist released right at the end of TSR's days hit the spot for me).

      I'm considering game systems that may work well in the environment. I'm turning towards WEG d6, or D6 Adventure/Open D6. Simply due to ease of use. Its not ridiculous on the crunchy side but there is enough of a threat level that folks can die; without it coming down to mistake death, PC makes big mistake, or GM puts a ridiculous challenge out on accident, that is. And if not the WEG d6, there is 6d6 core which as an interesting structure to it. Its meant more to play of ccg's and doesn't do quite well (like the TSR story teller system that tried to use cards to tell a story during RP), but its modular instance of using abilities and traits and items to build a dice poll (max 6d6, 1d6 per object added to the pool) sounded interesting.

      Personally: some place I can run occasional campaigns that I like (including a port over of the supers place now even), and one I could find another game/campaign/setting to just play in without checking out new places.

      posted in Mildly Constructive
      Lotherio
      Lotherio
    • RE: Making a MU* of your own

      @surreality said in Making a MU* of your own:

      It's also worth mention -- and maybe this is just me thinking too much in 'what I wanna do' terms here -- that I think games continue to be fleshed out more and more the longer they exist.

      For example, I want this process to become a part of the game itself, in the current project. I want people to be able to develop unique areas and territories. I'm looking at a variety of means of encouraging this, too, not just before the doors open, but as an active and ongoing process, as a part of normal game operation and play. (Worldwide grid. There's room for this to happen. That choice alone has changed more than a few dynamics from square one, and giving people the freedom to create spaces of their own to whatever extent is a huge one.)

      I like the idea of building these things into the game itself -- not just before it's open. I've seen various takes on this, but the amount of it that's most common is still somewhat limited.

      Tangent alert: In part, I think people hate on building more than they once did; I 'grew up on' games where you could build a wee sprawl of your own as a territory and develop and encourage play there much more than the typically hyper-restricted and limited stuff I see a lot of in recent years. I also know how much people actively enjoyed that, and it was partly because they were contributing something to the larger reality of the game, but also because it was something that was uniquely theirs.

      Way belated and perhaps off topic now.

      But this was the process behind Redemption. The fantasy world meets post-apoc future tech world place from nearly a decade ago. It was three main staff, then 6 folks were recruited as faction heads/IC leaders, taken from various places based on how well they could gather a play circle together. The idea was the would control liquid factions that could change, leadership, name, philosophy, they could take over other factions, incorporate other area, etc. etc.

      It jumped off to a good start, with two of the three main area factions getting a lot of theme developed by the faction head and a few of the players joining those circles. It started development in December/January of and by that summer it was open for beta (wasn't just invite/word of mouth, still developing) with 120~ chars on a given day come August, top alts were 2-3 I believe. By September was the major crash and the slow decline over the next few years

      A few things to take from what we learned, or should have learned, from this. Yes, player input was valuable, it allowed staff to focus on things like the code, the meta, and the larger picture, while players could readily develop as they played along.

      It came down to choosing good players at the time that would attract a few players to play with them, and that were active enough that folks would want to join those factions because of the activity. The concept was solid and everyone wanted to play along to see where it went.

      The problem, some faction heads were besties with staff (always an issue, alas), and they admitted they wouldn't give up anything, such as allow their char to die, or the IC reigns to pass into other players hands, or their 'territory' to change. This came up in the first staff head/faction head meeting. This drove away two major faction heads when they realized there was nothing to play if it would remain status quo.

      I do miss the places players could contribute though, by adding to the grid, or coding objects. I remember the big problem back then, especially related to WoD, was the use of puppets and spying.

      It would be good to see another project like this, however.

      posted in Mildly Constructive
      Lotherio
      Lotherio
    • RE: Making a MU* of your own

      @Thenomain said in Making a MU* of your own:

      @Lotherio said in Making a MU* of your own:

      [let] players contribute

      Emphasis mine. I think this is the key of all keys. Though I was personally disappointed when Haunted Memories locked the sphere information wiki pages from editing, I also noticed that the clarity and usefulness of that information also dropped steadily, in part because the administration gave themselves much more to do, but also because the players were no longer involved in world-building.

      Hey staffers, you don't have to let players do whatever, but if they can say, "This Dairy Queen was the source of Dream Nettle Twisters," then this only adds to the depth of the world. That depth makes things a whole lot harder to keep track of, but you already have players who are keeping track of it for you and all you have to do is let the players tell you when it's causing a problem before stepping in.

      It's not a utopia, but dang is it compelling.

      Double this. Said elsewhere, Staff needs to be active, provide direction, but really the world doesn't come to life until players make their mark on it. Really, it doesn't. Otherwise its just a glorified meta story the staff have devised that players can just put in their witty repartee.

      But when players help build it up, add groups, add locations, add flavor, it just helps. @Thenomain mentions the DQ there, but even more. If a certain sewer becomes a meeting spot, or it leads to some underground location? If a certain small level group exists in the city and kidnaps children for black market? If a new holiday is added where some entity collects souls? Most places put a good deal of the latter bits into staff request realm. But really, if it doesn't break world, folks should have some access.

      If I can, and people need it, I like to set up templates on wiki (whatever is being used) to allow folks to add plots, events, groups, locations, etc. with ease, much like most places put up character templates. More power to the people.

      posted in Mildly Constructive
      Lotherio
      Lotherio
    • RE: Making a MU* of your own

      @Thenomain said in Making a MU* of your own:

      You know, this just occurred to me.

      All of the games I know that were more successful than their kin kind of had one thing in common:

      • People were playing on them when they were being built.

      Not staff, but players. Hey y'all, come on by, let's socialize and talk about the game and play a little. Sure, you build this, you build that, etc.

      Many of them were migration games. "Hey people I know I'm making this game over there because I love this game but I want to do something new so come check it out." Many of them were like that, the more I think about it, but I believe all of them were never soft-opened, were never carefully constructed then opened, they were just ... open.

      Something I'm going to be thinking about.

      Word of mouth and sense of community are better than tossing up random ads all over the place?

      Inviting people you know you trust, letting them invite their friends?

      Starting when enough is working but before its all done gives live feed back during the process. Also lets players contribute to establishing the game by asking FAQ questions that lets them feel something of theirs is part of the world?

      posted in Mildly Constructive
      Lotherio
      Lotherio
    • RE: Chrome help

      Check security, make sure your not blocking the site somehow. Change your security to always allow the site if you trust it?

      posted in Tastes Less Game'y
      Lotherio
      Lotherio
    • RE: Making a MU* of your own

      @surreality said in Making a MU* of your own:

      • What type of roleplaying do you want going on?

      This, condensed to this:

      • What type of RP do you want

      ... Is the answer to every thread.

      If it doesn't quite match the place you're not sure about due to (insert reason!), you may want to find another place.

      If you're building a place, it better have the type of RP you want or you'll lose interest faster; such as helping code for someone else, if you don't like the RP, you'll leave. Inversely, word to the wise for those finding others to code for them, if they are not interested in that type of RP, the coder will probably not stay until the job is finished.

      ! - OOC drama, IC conflict, staff control, squickyness, he said/she said, crossover, make up a reaso

      posted in Mildly Constructive
      Lotherio
      Lotherio
    • RE: Client suggestions

      I think every client, for entry level, is about the same to learn (how do you connect, where do you put the address components, interface is really the same once you're in, you type and hit enter). I would throw my vote to potato for the dual window for someone new. Because typing a pose and fielding pages or wanting to talk on a chan can be a headache until they master cut/paste short key. I recall way back when it being slightly aggravating to have a pose and someone demanding a response from me, that was on telnet, but still.

      posted in Mildly Constructive
      Lotherio
      Lotherio
    • RE: How Many Alts Would An Alt User Alt If An Alt User Could Use Alts

      @surreality said in How Many Alts Would An Alt User Alt If An Alt User Could Use Alts:

      @Lotherio I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the terminology, just that what people have been talking about here re: 1 alt? They are talking about one login only. They are specifically referencing games that in your terminology would be described as 'no alts permitted' as per the explicit policy on those games.

      That works for me, not arguing that, just supporting the confusion @Sunny expressed in main and alt and the confusion that could abound.

      posted in Mildly Constructive
      Lotherio
      Lotherio
    • RE: How Many Alts Would An Alt User Alt If An Alt User Could Use Alts

      @surreality said in How Many Alts Would An Alt User Alt If An Alt User Could Use Alts:

      @Lotherio Generally, games that talk about a 1 alt policy don't mean you get two characters, they mean you get one and only one. (Which is only really relevant in this convo in the sense that the folks talking about 1 alt have been talking about one login/character only so far as I can tell.)

      Nah, I'm still in the boat on my side. You get one char, if you get an alternative, you get 2 chars, one doesn't have to be a main. I do get it, if a place says you get three alts, it means three characters, its part of the lexicon, but if I see a policy say you get alternatives, it implies more than one ... something to alternate.

      posted in Mildly Constructive
      Lotherio
      Lotherio
    • RE: How Many Alts Would An Alt User Alt If An Alt User Could Use Alts

      @Sunny said in How Many Alts Would An Alt User Alt If An Alt User Could Use Alts:

      Whatever. I am clearly so off base in my viewpoints that I'm not really sure why I am even bothering anymore. Peace out.

      I downvoted this, cause upvoting this makes it seem like I agree with you, get out the door, but no .. you're not off base. I agree with you, a 1 alt policy means 2 chars to me, not one character.

      posted in Mildly Constructive
      Lotherio
      Lotherio
    • RE: Making a MU* of your own

      @saosmash said in Making a MU* of your own:

      d.) advertise actively both on games that allow ad sharing, communities like this one, and if your game is fandom-based, in the fandom where the fans live.

      Know your game, you don't have to actively advertise, you can go after a core (@Thenomain's 10 active players) through friends, or by selective adversiting to assure you get what you need. I have a small supers Mu* right now, it has about 10 active players, gets a few more that sporadically log in and out, check up, catch up, and such, and I only put out 3 ads initially. Any others that have appeared are from folks posting it at other places to put an ad on mine, staff haven't done anything more than that. Its growth seems to be every 2-3 weeks, a new one or two friends come by to check it out and stay. I run something every couple of weeks as staff, folks run their own things between. Its not edge of your seat, omg need to log in or I'll miss something, its casual so anyone can log in and do things when they have time.

      Just advertise at similar themed Mu*s ad boards, collect some folks and play with them, or invite friends to play.

      posted in Mildly Constructive
      Lotherio
      Lotherio
    • RE: There's Nothing to Do Here

      @Thenomain said in There's Nothing to Do Here:

      @Lotherio

      1. @Sunny is right, because
      2. Staff sets the tone.
      1. Players participate (not wait).
      posted in Mildly Constructive
      Lotherio
      Lotherio
    • RE: There's Nothing to Do Here

      @Wolfs said in There's Nothing to Do Here:

      Enter the problem: a hierarchy that breaks down. There's only so much staff can do, and there's only so much one player can do. Ideally, I think people benefit most from a setup that goes something like this:

      @Wolfs, that was a lot of information, and in the end sounds centric to your situation and possibly a mix of on-line time and, in part, the want to make the big splash with some meta versus being able to run own plots that are big enough splash for you. I've been doing this since the 80s (online RP, multiple-user format), and I can have just as much fun looking for someone's lost cat today as I always have, without having to make the big splash. Its the same rinse and repeat, but a big factor for me is interpersonal relationships between characters. It never always plays out the same. Whether cat is found at the nice old ladies house who turns into a plot hook as someone's contact for more adventure, or some monster ate it, or some kid has sort of adopted it, or it was run over by a car. Its the same hook start, but so many ways for it to end and the biggest difference is when its with a different set of people.

      Hierarchy by its very nature means it will break down at some point (or has more potential to break down with so many layers). Business analysis, in comparing hierarchy (top down, structure, layers, lots of management) to flat (web passed, few central decision makers, more anonymity), communication alone is a big disadvantage to hierarchy, that and the various departments (spheres/factions) will tend to rival one another (which sounds good on a mush, political rivalry, but I mean on an OOC level, facheads will compete to get things from staff, favoring their faction above the others, a smaller faction will lose out in the long run).

      An analysis of the two types as relates to a Mu* would be interesting. Here is a good overview (http://smallbusiness.chron.com/flat-vs-hierarchical-organizational-structure-724.html). Not all advantages are as good as they seem, take hierarchical specialists, they make specialists, the disadvantage to this is if the specialist isn't paid more they leave the organization. Doesn't quite apply to Mu* (unless, RP-staff that specializes goes off to create their own mu*?). I see flat as more advantageous to Mu* though. Flat, folks have the ability to do more, make more decisions.

      I do agree staff needs to be active, but the moment total reliance for something to happen rests on staff, the players will end up 'nothing to do here'. I know some people joke about the dead place, that only has three active log ins, in the same loctions. Its dead to them, boring. The funny part is, its usually those three people still running stories and having fun. They are doing something.

      posted in Mildly Constructive
      Lotherio
      Lotherio
    • RE: There's Nothing to Do Here

      @saosmash said in There's Nothing to Do Here:

      But do staffers really get in the way of player initiative?

      Yes. Via policy and enforcing it. There are a lot of ways that limit player initiative to go out and do something. After my lots and lots of years of gaming, I tend to ignore it to give people at my time of day something to do with me and so that I have things to do.

      Take a place that says, we encourage player run plots! ... all you have to do is write up a summary, of likely PCs to be involved, needed NPCs, locations on the grid, rewards you expect to receive, and the name of your first born child.

      Staff has gotten in the way of player initiative, because now, instead of starting the mystery of the desert man plot that just came to them, they have to think of all those things necessary to submit a plot application.

      In part, as @Arkandel pointed out, I'm assuming in general this isn't such a barrier though (otherwise that is an issue ... staff need to be more involved, or need to lower the barrier).

      posted in Mildly Constructive
      Lotherio
      Lotherio
    • RE: How Many Alts Would An Alt User Alt If An Alt User Could Use Alts

      @saosmash said in How Many Alts Would An Alt User Alt If An Alt User Could Use Alts:

      I see no reason whatsoever to limit people who have the time and attention to spend on a character and aren't creating problems.

      This.

      Alt policy needs to correlate with activity policy. When will a character be reaped?

      Activity is a reason to applaud one alt. What is considered active? Are players that can only play once in a two week cycle discouraged from play there, do they miss out on lots of important development by only being on once every two weeks? Usually I see other places say, if you haven't logged in within x timeframe, nuked.

      That may be confusing, but its leading to ... if all the players that only play once a week only need to log on once a week ... why couldn't someone play someone different every day of the week?

      I can only handle one or two chars these days. I'm only curious why a limit to some is better?

      posted in Mildly Constructive
      Lotherio
      Lotherio
    • 1
    • 2
    • 53
    • 54
    • 55
    • 56
    • 57
    • 62
    • 63
    • 55 / 63