Let's Discuss Seanchan Side

... sit down, kick back and relax, and talk about anything that doesn't belong on one of the other forums.
Ryzom
Posts: 220
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2018 12:52 am

Re: Let's Discuss Seanchan Side

Post by Ryzom » Tue Aug 11, 2020 10:53 am

It was for the meme, Tusty.

Also assuming that I am doing anything other than be serious is a good thing

Elysia
Posts: 8144
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2015 1:29 pm

Re: Let's Discuss Seanchan Side

Post by Elysia » Tue Aug 11, 2020 11:53 am

isabel wrote:
Tue Aug 11, 2020 10:47 am
Has that worked in practice though? how many clans have been revived because the player can't transfer their char? :p
There's been increased activity in some of those clans. Although it's obviously hard to tell whether that is because those players remained or outside factors. It can't have made it worse, though.
isabel wrote:
Tue Aug 11, 2020 10:47 am
like spam a crapton to a whole other part of the map?
Why do you think we implemented tons of new ways to travel the map? I get it, some players would like to be able to 'tell guardian send me to pk', but that's not how the world works.

tekela
Posts: 80
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2017 12:29 pm

Re: Let's Discuss Seanchan Side

Post by tekela » Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:13 pm

Elysia wrote:
Tue Aug 11, 2020 9:14 am

1. Seanchan started as restricted.
2. Seanchan became a stattable, open race. Seanchan flourished.
3. Seanchan died. Imms would constantly see one guy log on, narrate something, find himself on alone, log off and alt to LS or DS. A few mins later, someone else would repeat the same trick. Seandar access was removed, since there were no players anyway.
4. Seanchan were reverted to humans because while we wanted the current coding solution, we didn't have access to coding. So we did the next best thing and reverted Seanchan to humans.
5. Surprise! We got access to coding, so we did what the original idea had been and keep SS as LS wrt globals, 5/15 min rule and whatnot, but as a separate race. Having them as a separate race allows for good things like k seanchan/ k human which helps south-west pk and it helps with reducing mobol lag because we can use a coded aggro seanchan flag on mobs.

1 and 2 are essentially the same, as they both pertain to starting up the race.

3 is obviously different.
It just up and died between 2 and 3? I remember supporting the change. And then several players quit the game in general after that change and I reassessed my attitude about it. I get the temptation to completely shirk any responsibility (I highly doubt you had final say over the change at the time, so I'm not saying you were personally responsible), but let's be real: the change alienated a good amount of players who never really seemed to come back.
It seems to me you perceive 4 and 5 as different iterations, but they're really two sides of the same coin - the only difference being the immortals' ability and access to tools to set the groundwork. The plan was always 5, but not expecting coding access, 4 was the only feasible alternative, so we went with that.
I don't think perceiving 4 and 5 as completely different iterations because they were completely different things, despite intent and plans and such, is unreasonable. Seanchan were humans. Several remained human. Now they are some bizarre cross-race hybrid and after 'k wanted' is implemented, they will basically be same-siders who are purple. Neat.

Seanchan right now is exactly where we want them. It's good that there is some south-west pk, although more of it would be nice. However, that will likely take more players, which may or may not happen.
Unless there is some built in requirement for Discord VOIPing while mudding, trying to play/play against a separate side with the same channels is probably more effort than it's worth. It promotes pretty bad PK unless you like running around alone or like sending tells a lot. Sort of shits on the whole coordinated army thing.
TONS of things on this game are best-we-can-do-until-we-can-do-better things.
I've been around long enough to understand this -- that doesn't make very different iterations of something "the same thing" or the end point fundamentally better than an interim solution that works out.
Elysia wrote:
Tue Aug 11, 2020 9:42 am
Because it lead to dead clans getting deader, while a fair amount of requests were just to move a char into a bonused clan.
Oh cool, what if we're going from a clan that is deemed on par with WB/Gaidin/Fades in that we don't get a prac bonus to some other LS clan that must be, definitively, less bonused in comparison!? :D

If this is truly your vision for what SS is supposed to be, an army that can't communicate effectively and a sort of "eh, it's there" faction of basically same-siders, it's definitely not what a lot of us signed up for or invested time/effort into. In that case, the best thing might be at the micro-level: respect Imms' work/efforts and leave it however you want it and respect the work of the players and let them do something else with their characters without losing the core things earned with the obscene hours of playtime required to get those things. Might not even end up being a lot of work since most people who invested lost interest a long time ago and don't care!

Sarryn
Posts: 568
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 7:30 pm

Re: Let's Discuss Seanchan Side

Post by Sarryn » Tue Aug 11, 2020 1:00 pm

Never understood why we can’t switch clans with everything intact. I mean it’s not like theres not hoops. You have to get past like 5-10 oldbies who legit don’t play at all but still no vote people. 5-10 people who legit play once a month. Etc etc. The players will and have done are incredible job of ladder pulling in wotmud. So it’s not like anyone can just join wherever. I mean even if you already had a char in that clan it’s a good chance you won’t get in. You can continue to try on other chars for months. But yeah wait I’m being dumb and making excuses as to why someone wouldn’t want to try for months on a simple dead ass text based game to get something. (Wonder why the mud has lost appeal to so many)

Rules upon rules, changes needed never made, frat boy like bonuses clans, incredible amounts of wasted time for no reward, non lenient things such as the above mentioned ordeal. It’s always been amusing the question of wotmud a downfall. Imms and players have snowballed this one. Can’t comprehend how many more players would log in if things were done better. All in all we appreciate the work you do. Do we agree with it all, not always. But the players are probably the real problem here given it’s mostly player run clans. Not that I’m assuming imms would be great at that aspect. As there players to.

Elysia
Posts: 8144
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2015 1:29 pm

Re: Let's Discuss Seanchan Side

Post by Elysia » Tue Aug 11, 2020 1:16 pm

tekela wrote:
Tue Aug 11, 2020 12:13 pm
It just up and died between 2 and 3? I remember supporting the change. And then several players quit the game in general after that change and I reassessed my attitude about it. I get the temptation to completely shirk any responsibility (I highly doubt you had final say over the change at the time, so I'm not saying you were personally responsible), but let's be real: the change alienated a good amount of players who never really seemed to come back.
It died at some point between that, yes. People seem to get their timelines so massively warped around this. It's not like imms were hating on SS and wanting to get rid of them, that's a 'leet' north player type of notion. Personally, I'd say that in 2008 SS activity died down, to the point of south-west pk no longer being viable. After that time I was forced to learn north pk from a LS perspective, so that's why it stands out to me.

The years after that we saw zero activity around SS zones. We had a nifty little thing that says how much activity zones see and if zones across the continent, THR, Almoth etc. come up as 0 all the time, along with the aforementioned log on, see no one, log off... That's why that decision was made.

As for alienating players... this may sound harsh, but it's not like they were playing or had been in the time before that change, otherwise that decision would never have been made. Plus a number of players have returned in recent years, but they mostly play LS now.

Meren
Posts: 286
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:45 pm

Re: Let's Discuss Seanchan Side

Post by Meren » Tue Aug 11, 2020 1:43 pm

Sarryn wrote:
Tue Aug 11, 2020 1:00 pm
Never understood why we can’t switch clans with everything intact. I mean it’s not like theres not hoops. You have to get past like 5-10 oldbies who legit don’t play at all but still no vote people. 5-10 people who legit play once a month. Etc etc. The players will and have done are incredible job of ladder pulling in wotmud. So it’s not like anyone can just join wherever. I mean even if you already had a char in that clan it’s a good chance you won’t get in. You can continue to try on other chars for months. But yeah wait I’m being dumb and making excuses as to why someone wouldn’t want to try for months on a simple dead ass text based game to get something. (Wonder why the mud has lost appeal to so many)

Rules upon rules, changes needed never made, frat boy like bonuses clans, incredible amounts of wasted time for no reward, non lenient things such as the above mentioned ordeal. It’s always been amusing the question of wotmud a downfall. Imms and players have snowballed this one. Can’t comprehend how many more players would log in if things were done better. All in all we appreciate the work you do. Do we agree with it all, not always. But the players are probably the real problem here given it’s mostly player run clans. Not that I’m assuming imms would be great at that aspect. As there players to.
Agree completely. I attempted to play Seanchan more this year. Between Malak and myself we had regular activity, and I guess people logging on because we'd always be there. But when you're kept out of (dead) clans for "reasons", it sours you on not just the clan, but the side.

Otherwise, Seanchan have nothing to work toward. Due to pride and ego, no lightside clan will ever swear the oaths. Everyone is a hero and can never be defeated.

Finally, "new" EF, though far more bookish, is a small numbers pk killer. You lose there and you're bogged down in aggroes and no-rides extremely fast. And the main square is only scannable from the non-pk directions.

Taziar
Posts: 961
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 10:28 pm

Re: Let's Discuss Seanchan Side

Post by Taziar » Tue Aug 11, 2020 2:22 pm

Good talk

Tusty
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue May 05, 2020 3:42 pm

Re: Let's Discuss Seanchan Side

Post by Tusty » Tue Aug 11, 2020 4:01 pm

Remove player decision in the clanning process. Make it a set mobol that dispenses a set of tasks. Then any player can join any clan. The more bonused the clan, the harder the clanning tasks.
Should a player be a problem the council votes to declan.
Poof! All of WoT’s problems are solved. Well most of them 😛

Sarryn
Posts: 568
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 7:30 pm

Re: Let's Discuss Seanchan Side

Post by Sarryn » Tue Aug 11, 2020 4:13 pm

I couldn’t imagine how many more players would still be kicking around if only someone listened to this brilliant (or just logical) conclusion we have come to tusty... gee if only things that needed changed like this were so simple to do or should I say concede to. Remove the human part of the equation (aka the wickedness and pettiness) and let there be rejoicing

Elysia
Posts: 8144
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2015 1:29 pm

Re: Let's Discuss Seanchan Side

Post by Elysia » Tue Aug 11, 2020 4:33 pm

Locking this on request of topic starter.

Locked