Talk:Rules of Leadership

An honest question that is going to sound snarky no matter how I word it, so I'll be blunt: Can one of the admins please explain to me how doubling the price of room changes will create more RP for Hollow? As far as I can see all it will do is mean 'important' players who should be fuelling RP will now have to spend their time gold farming, players who want minor changes for RP they have done will now have to RP less to gold farm, and there will be more limited RP involving changing Hollow at all because now it's beyond the price of anyone who isn't a dedicated statter... I see how this will mean we all gold farm more, but can't see how it'll benefit anyone at all with regards to RP.

Thanks.

Svil.

Alternative ideas to the price increase:

Rooms that are for the city itself, as an example the school in Frostmaw, are 50K. Rooms that are more for one individual player, such as House Stavret in Trist'Oth, should be 100K. That way there's more balance, and normal Rps etc. can go on, but if someone wants a room that isn't as beneficial for everyone who plays in the area, it costs more. And of course, any really personal rooms need to be paid for with credits, and locks etc... all that jazz. This way it seems that RP will still flourish, but also rooms not used specifically for public RP will be more expensive. This, of course, will be entirely at the admin's descretion and arguments will result in some dire consequences! -Svil

• Giving a quick 'n dirty guesstimate of my own farming times, I came up with the rough figure of an hour and a half to clear every gold farming area that I frequent for a rough net result of 15k, give or take minutes either way as I'm distracted, the mobs being up or not, the rare death, and some gold on the drop rates. That means it will take about seven hours just to get the gold for a single room installation, and that's constant gold farming. IE, time I can't use to spend RPing, chatting on the OOC. Of course, I only have 4500 HP, so I would imagine that Thea or Sato could clear in less time, but both of them have work regularly. Sato already has to fork over time from her RP for work.
  
  Now, take into account someone who doesn't like to stat. They now have no chance to install any rooms. Even the heaviest gold given from stipends, it will take ten months just to be able to install a single shop. Where does that make sense? You're sorta stacking the odds, here. Forcing people to stat, gold farm endlessly, and depend on other people to donate gold to the cause, which only spreads the time around. Every farmer explicitly having to farm is less RP all around.
  
  Now, of course, you could say that the entire point is to prevent a city from being a vanity project, but that in itself is silly. There's already a stopgap measure to stop that: the admins. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that every admin that can access Builder is intelligent, and able to recognize patterns. If someone was attempting to turn a city into their personal playground via the use of the City Reconstruction Option that only area leaders have access to, I'm confident to say that it can be spotted. The cited reasoning is about credits, but that isn't the point of the ability for city leaders to alter the city, either. Theoretically, a leader could have simply bought credits and plopped them into the city under the old rules, but which of them actually did? I was under the assumption that that was what the test piloting was for. Credits in large numbers are hard to come by, unless you get lucky with a player. With the notion that rooms can't be installed for personal reasons (going back to the 'admins can make judgements' bit above), using credits typically went to the purely selfish reasons instead (selfish in the strictest definition, mind you. That being personal houses).
  
  The easiest thing to do is simply add a zero onto the stipend, making it much more beneficial. Since the stipend can only be used on the city, and players in a leadership role should be assumed to at least have a modicum of respect for the game and the city they're instigating RP in, shouldn't be automatically assumed they'd attempt to turn the free gold into selfish reasons. Really, though, the real question is: area leaders already get these special rules, why not modify them a little more to make it easier on their life? Give them access to new gold making opportunities, other ways that money can be directly poured into the city without hours of senseless clicking, etc. --Ranok (talk) 03:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that the rules about certain races governing an area will just limit RP, rather than enhance it. What should matter more than what race you pick is your desire to see an area grow, to flourish, to help RP and to ensure others both know the history of the place, and also feel the urge to go there to tell stories.

Limiting it specifically to a race beyond extreme circumstance is a hindrance more than something good, I feel.

As an example I will use: Frostmaw. It is pretty bloody clear that Satoshi's desire to fuel, feed and aid RP is why the area is the most RPed in area in the game; or at least the area with the highest population of players. She is one of the very best area leaders, who has managed, despite its location, to make it fun to RP there - at considerable self sacrifice on her part.

Admins should pick leaders whose obvious intention isn't for self gain, but rather for the good of the whole community. Limiting it to a race means certain areas will not get RPed in, or others will make alts to take them, and then do little with them. It just seems counter-productive to me.

Sure, if there is some kind of conflict as to who should rule an area, the race in question will probably win it. But in general, setting out specific rules like that will not make more RP for Hollow, nor will it make players want to go to other areas that are left without rulership, or ruled by alts that are rarely played.

I feel priority should be given to those who want to make more RP. That's the whole point, isn't it? Make rules that feed and fuel RP. Not ones that will limit them.

-Svilfon.

• Understandable. But we do allow exceptions. There are also invasions/occupations that can happen. It comes down to this: If you were a dwarf, would you listen or want to be ruled by a vampire? I think not. While this *could* drop some RP in some areas, I see it as bringing some realism back into the game that has been sorely missed for some time. With the fast-track alt system now in place, this will hopefully INCREASE the amount of races being played rather than the few that are, in my opinion, over played. --Vuryal (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• As I know the admin are willing to overlook certain restrictions in the name of logical RP, maybe you could add under the Race Restriction bit something about "Below are the race restrictions for each city. Potential leaders of an outside race will be considered on a case by case method, if there is appropriate RP backing."? It might do away with it seeming like a giant NO, and give it more of a, "If you -really- want this, you're going to have to work your butt off for it and prove why you should be able to circumvent the restrictions and have a city of one race obey a leader of another." Give them obstacle courses, instead of walls? =D If that makes sense. -Satoshi (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Sato said basically what I wanted to. Just more eloquently.

• It's a possibility, but if we left the discussion too open it'd make the race rules pretty pointless. Lately we've been trying to make rules -without- exceptions, because as soon as there are exceptions allowed it opens the way for more, and soon it becomes hard to say what is acceptable and what isn't. The custom class/race feature is a good example of this. That isn't to say we will ignore claims made by people not of the approved races, but as area leadership is an important issue to us we have to be very careful about how we proceed with approvals. Right now, this is better than what we had before, which was, "no new leaders, period". It should be noted that we plan on creating npc leaders for the areas currently lacking player leaders so that there isn't just a giant void where a town governor should be. -Redhale, 05:20, 17 August 2012

Perhaps I more see it, Red and Vury, that putting a rule set in stone will just hinder RP. Some areas kinda naturally have to be lead by their own race. Trist'Oth, for instance. There's no way anyone but a drow could rule that city. But not all cities and races are as set in stone. Having a sweeping rule with rare exceptions, though understandable through your reasoning, I just feel will not create more RP. It might, I could well be wrong; I often am. And I also appreciate you guys taking the time to discuss this. I just think if you police this too harshly, the game will suffer more than it will benefit. And it is better, for sure, than no new leadership. I knew new rules would be coming out, and don't think this discussion will change them. I just more hope in future if a player of a race not set out in your list is a good candidate, you will accept them... without them having to wage a war. But you guys know best. And yes, thanks again for replying. -Svil (Also, as a note, the current leadership in place is good. Even in areas that aren't RP busy, most the leaders you guys have are very good and try very hard to promote RP in their area. I just think more people of the right mentality would benefit everyone, rather than more people who pick a certain race and are not as suitable as someone else.)

• Basically here's my 2 cents on the matter. I personally want Area Leaders who are responsible players, with a significant respect for the area and races they wish to lead. As such, I'd think that anyone with a deep seeded respect for a specific culture would, at the very least, take the time to apply for a Fast Tracked alt to create a character which is suitable for leading that area in accordance with existing canon. I know that certain players already have two characters and aren't eligible for a Fast Tracked Alt, but they are always free to get rid of one of those characters to do so. Having said that, if someone is unwilling to get rid of one of thier two characters in order to create one which is suitable for leadership in a specific area, do you really want someone as an Area Leader that has not only one, but two characters they consider -more- important than the area they're trying to lead? I personally do not. All of this bearing in mind, rules generally aren't created because of responsible and respectful players who regularly engage in reasonable RP; the rules often come into effect to prevent those who would take advantage of loopholes and exceptions from selfishly bolstering their own RP with little regard for RP integrity. While hampering RP is not something the Admin strive to do, it -is- part of our duty to maintain some level of RP integrity within the game, so as not to have Hollow descend into some non-sensical world with an utterly rediculous canon. Tiphareth (talk) 14:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I hear you, Tiphareth. Perhaps personally I think having a character that is old and respected as a leader would be better than having a fast tracked alt as a leader. But I get your reasoning, and I don't really disagree. I just see it a touch different, I think. But yeah, like the other two, thanks for taking the time to reply/explain yourself. And also, I don't say any of this because I want to lead anywhere - just to be clear. I don't want to be an area leader. I prefer quiet supporting roles. I'd not want this to come across as being self-serving. :) but yes, thanks. -Svil.

As a side note: simply because a person does not wish to part with one of their slots in order to make a bid for a (potentially fruitless, unless leadership is being handed out to the first person that asks) leadership of an area. A great number of mains have endless RP behind them. And alts are frequently made for an express purpose. Especially the ones that aren't fast tracked. Remember how it used to be. One had to have an express purpose in creating an alt. Furthering a storyline or the like. Therefore, save for the most recent spat of alts, every character had a purpose. Or, obligations. Some people are able to throw those obligations out the window simply to fulfill another purpose, yes. You argue that people unwilling to place the leadership of a city over an alt could be argued to be considered poor fits for ruling. The reverse is also true. Those people may have potentially thrown away obligations simply to fulfill another goal. Not exactly a good fit either, if they'd simply discard and walk away when it got old or boring. I'd think the people that strain to make their character fit into the city, RPing endlessly to make it work would be more valid then a month old character made for no other purpose then to lead. But then, that is simply my two cents on the matter, freely given as always.--Ranok (talk) 10:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)