Portals

In article <jeff.ray-0A3CAD.15244321102003.TakeThisOut@ftp2.dfrc.nasa.gov>,
Jeff Ray <jeff.ray.TakeThisOut@dfrc.nasa.gov> wrote:

  > > 3) Provide a focal point where mystics would play a key role.

 > #3 I don't see at all. Please elaborate. (You can't possibly be
 > refering to using an Orga stone to move the portal, can you? I regard
 > that as a bug that needs fixing, not a feature, similar to the dodge of
 > putting fallens on a chain to avoid the teleportation cap.)

If I were to hazard a guess (which is always sketchy due to a very
constrained supply of available brain cells) I would say WatsonGM was
talking about how Mystics usually have some Mentus and hence aren't
"hurt" by the portal and can therefore move it easily (though once your
hurt you don't get more hurt IIRC). Not exactly an exclusive skill to
the mystic class, but hell... that's the only thing I could come up with.

So.. yeah.. what the hell was WatsonGM talking about with #3? :-)

--
Bang a rang!<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Portals 

watsongm.TakeThisOut@moopenguin.org (Watson GM) wrote in message news:<ab72f927.0310211106.1ebe481.TakeThisOut@posting.google.com>...

 > 3) Provide a focal point where mystics would play a key role.

As I suspected, there's an unsolved puzzle here.

 > One major problem I have right now is that none of the "disadvantages"
 > really matter much if the portal gets parked in a safe spot; I see
 > this as a design flaw that needs to be addressed. I see it as much
 > more acceptable to have a portal "in the wilds" of KI than it is to
 > have it in the safe hut there, for instance.
 >
 > Also, I consider it a bug that I have not restricted it from certain
 > highly constrained spots. I am torn on whether or not it is a bug
 > that it can end up in unfortuate spots like the lava pool; my current
 > thinking is that while unfortunate, this is not a "bug". My thinking
 > is subject to change.

If a portal sometimes wanders of its own accord, that might solve both
the "problems" above. Particularly if the wandering wasn't entirely
random, but was biased in those two directions. The wandering could
be blinking out and blinking back in, as if it were teleporting
itself. Consider it portal instability.

Taryn.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Portals 

"Watson GM" <watsongm.RemoveThis@moopenguin.org> wrote in message
news:ab72f927.0310211106.1ebe481@posting.google.com...
 > Callia wrote a while back:
 >
  > > I think it's reasonable to question the intent of the Portals. I think
it's a resonable question to ask > what the GM's had in mind. Now... I
don't expect an answer, but I don't think that saying "We
  > > wanted to add a cool thing and let you players decide what to do with
it" is an answer that will
  > > make the players happy, regardless of how much that might actually the
truth :)
 >
 > I've been lurking for a long time, and thought that it might be
 > getting to be time to chime in.
 >
 > It's a little more complicated than "We wanted to add a cool thing and
 > let you players decide what to do with it", but not by a whole lot.
 > It's more like "Hmm, can we give the players what they are asking for
 > in such a way that it doesn't mess up the whole game?".
 >
 > The "basic idea" was many-fold:
 >
 > 1) Open the damn mirrors without being lame and boring.
 >
 > 2) Provide a tool that, while useful, would not unduely mess up the
 > game.
 >
 > 3) Provide a focal point where mystics would play a key role.
 >
 > 4) Provide opportunities for both cooperation and conflict.
 >
 > Right now, I think I did OK except for #2. I was trying to balance
 > the limitations of the tool (It's dangerous -- one gets paralyzed, it
 > hurts to use it, one don't always know where it leads) with the huge
 > advantages it provides in allowing folks to join a hunt in progress.
 > One major problem I have right now is that none of the "disadvantages"
 > really matter much if the portal gets parked in a safe spot; I see
 > this as a design flaw that needs to be addressed. I see it as much
 > more acceptable to have a portal "in the wilds" of KI than it is to
 > have it in the safe hut there, for instance.
 >
 > Also, I consider it a bug that I have not restricted it from certain
 > highly constrained spots. I am torn on whether or not it is a bug
 > that it can end up in unfortuate spots like the lava pool; my current
 > thinking is that while unfortunate, this is not a "bug". My thinking
 > is subject to change.
 >
 > I didn't anticipate the current level of conflict, but I think that it
 > is not unreasonable. I doubt that I will be able to fix any of the
 > current problems described above in time to affect the outcome of any
 > events that will occur this week.
 >
 > WatsonGM

A stirling piece of work so far on the portals.
Opening the mirrors was good ( might have been nice if there had been a
quest to solve but there's no point in re-hashing that point)

The portals themselves dont mess up the game, i dont think anybody expected
exactly how strong Klur's reaction would be or what lengths he would go to
back up his point of view and certainly turning up to find out what has
happened next in the portals saga is more interesting than hanging around
town looking for something to do.

I dont quite see how mystics play any bigger role in this than anybody else,
unless its because they are (with few exceptions) the only ones with a great
deal of mentus training.

#4 you've done that in spades :)

certainly from my point of view i think putting them in lava or on an island
in the middle of some lava or anywhere else that causes instant or near
instant death is a bad thing, it may not strictly be a bug but its a bit
much.
one change i would really like to see is either a reset to put them both
back in the field where we first found them, or a way to get them out of
restricted areas.

Keeping the portals in more dangerous areas is a good idea IMO, in terms of
getting to an area anyway, it would give an advantage to people who trained
mentus, and would supply the challenge of having to secure the snell before
you could bring the group through.

In terms of (re)joining a hunt the only being able to move it for a few
seconds is a bit of a nightmare, slowing down the whole hunt to a crawl.
perhaps it was not your intention but parking it in a safe area is the only
real way to do that.

But on the other hand being able to move it quickly and easily would only
allow more and more people to mess with the portals, the inability to move
them far or fast is very discouraging to the average portal saboteur.

Mjollnir<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Portals 

 > Right now, I think I did OK except for #2. I was trying to balance
 > the limitations of the tool (It's dangerous -- one gets paralyzed, it
 > hurts to use it, one don't always know where it leads) with the huge
 > advantages it provides in allowing folks to join a hunt in progress.
 > One major problem I have right now is that none of the "disadvantages"
 > really matter much if the portal gets parked in a safe spot; I see
 > this as a design flaw that needs to be addressed. I see it as much
 > more acceptable to have a portal "in the wilds" of KI than it is to
 > have it in the safe hut there, for instance.

It might be nice to let it wander the snell its in rather than have it
fixed. A reasonable idea.

 >
 > Also, I consider it a bug that I have not restricted it from certain
 > highly constrained spots. I am torn on whether or not it is a bug
 > that it can end up in unfortuate spots like the lava pool; my current
 > thinking is that while unfortunate, this is not a "bug". My thinking
 > is subject to change.

All this does is benefits the exiles who DONT want the portal used for
'snell jumping' as i call it. It puts all the balls in their court as
they can mes up a hunt in a few minutes, whereas were stuck with the
portal in the lava until a GM moves it.
 >
 > I didn't anticipate the current level of conflict, but I think that it
 > is not unreasonable. I doubt that I will be able to fix any of the
 > current problems described above in time to affect the outcome of any
 > events that will occur this week.
 >
As i said above it seems that most balls are in the portal disruptors
court rather than in the 'snell jumpers' court, imo. Im open to being
proved wrong though, but i think you find Klur & Malkor have a much
much much easier task to remove the portal from our use than we do of
preventing him. I find that a tad unbalanced, im up for conflict as
its part of the RP, but we really need to have amore balanced solution
here imo.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Portals 

In article <ab72f927.0310211106.1ebe481.TakeThisOut@posting.google.com>,
watsongm.TakeThisOut@moopenguin.org (Watson GM) wrote:

 > Right now, I think I did OK except for #2 [Provide a tool that, while
 > useful, would not unduely mess up the game]. I was trying to
 > balance the limitations of the tool (It's dangerous -- one gets
 > paralyzed, it hurts to use it, one don't always know where it leads)
 > with the huge advantages it provides in allowing folks to join a hunt
 > in progress. One major problem I have right now is that none of the
 > "disadvantages" really matter much if the portal gets parked in a
 > safe spot; I see this as a design flaw that needs to be addressed. I
 > see it as much more acceptable to have a portal "in the wilds" of KI
 > than it is to have it in the safe hut there, for instance.
 >
 > Also, I consider it a bug that I have not restricted it from certain
 > highly constrained spots. I am torn on whether or not it is a bug
 > that it can end up in unfortuate spots like the lava pool; my current
 > thinking is that while unfortunate, this is not a "bug". My thinking
 > is subject to change.
 >
 > I didn't anticipate the current level of conflict, but I think that
 > it is not unreasonable. I doubt that I will be able to fix any of
 > the current problems described above in time to affect the outcome of
 > any events that will occur this week.
 >
 > WatsonGM

The portals are so over-powered, so subject to immediate moving
that they are affecting the game in two important ways. Whole
challenges associated with certain areas can be erased, and players now
have the ability to upset entirely the use of the portals.

It's long been a problem that players at the higher levels have few
challenging places to hunt that are accessable with a small amount of
time. You'll often find Slyph hunting with new people out of boredom; I
rarely have three hours to spend on a hunt. There isn't a week that
goes by where I don't turn down a couple dozen hunt invitations because
of the time requirements. It disappoints me.

While I find this situation unfortunate, I think there should
always be areas that require a lot of time, far from town, difficult to
achieve. They provide a great sense of challenge. They should provide
a sense of the legendary. The portals are hurting these areas. We need
more high level hunting grounds that do not require three or more hours
to hunt.

Some players, rightly seeing that the portals are not merely
providing temporary access to these areas but changing the very
challenge of these areas, are able to do something about it: these
players, in regard to the portals, are now able to utterly upset the use
of the portals by others; players are able to influence the play of Clan
Lord not through reason but through coercion. Now, when so few people
are logging in to play Clan Lord, it's with some surprise I see players
exhibiting such ugliness to other players. In a larger world, where
clans or guilds meant something, where the enemy was numerous and
faceless, where one's clan was numerous and faceless, these portals as
they are would be a lot of fun. Nevertheless, this sort of conflict is
hardly fun for most people in such a small population.

Remove the portals. Their design, while good in intent, are
providing far more harm than good. We need new areas and new players,
not new tools for bypassing challenges nor coercive player conflict in
such a tiny population.

-Mark (PWC Slyph)

--
Slyph's scrolls: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://slyph.puddleby.info/" target="_blank">http://slyph.puddleby.info/</a>
PWC's Journal: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.cheap-date.org/journal/" target="_blank">http://www.cheap-date.org/journal/</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Portals 

Before I comment (if I comment), I'm going to try and summarize your
points.

 > The portals are so over-powered, so subject to immediate moving
 > that they are affecting the game in two important ways. Whole
 > challenges associated with certain areas can be erased, and players now
 > have the ability to upset entirely the use of the portals.

1) The portals can be used to bypass HH and similar barriers. This is
too powerful.

2) The portals can be wedged or stolen fairly easily. This is bad.

 > It's long been a problem that players at the higher levels have few
 > challenging places to hunt that are accessable with a small amount of
 > time. You'll often find Slyph hunting with new people out of boredom; I
 > rarely have three hours to spend on a hunt. There isn't a week that
 > goes by where I don't turn down a couple dozen hunt invitations because
 > of the time requirements. It disappoints me.

3) There aren't enough easy-to-reach places for high level folks to
hunt. This is bad.

 > While I find this situation unfortunate, I think there should
 > always be areas that require a lot of time, far from town, difficult to
 > achieve. They provide a great sense of challenge. They should provide
 > a sense of the legendary. The portals are hurting these areas. We need
 > more high level hunting grounds that do not require three or more hours
 > to hunt.

4) Some places should be "special".

 > Some players, rightly seeing that the portals are not merely
 > providing temporary access to these areas but changing the very
 > challenge of these areas, are able to do something about it: these
 > players, in regard to the portals, are now able to utterly upset the use
 > of the portals by others; players are able to influence the play of Clan
 > Lord not through reason but through coercion. Now, when so few people
 > are logging in to play Clan Lord, it's with some surprise I see players
 > exhibiting such ugliness to other players. In a larger world, where
 > clans or guilds meant something, where the enemy was numerous and
 > faceless, where one's clan was numerous and faceless, these portals as
 > they are would be a lot of fun. Nevertheless, this sort of conflict is
 > hardly fun for most people in such a small population.

5) Certain players want to (and largely can) keep the portals out of
the OO and KI.

6) The resulting conflict is not fun in a "small population" game.

(There was a lot of reading between the lines for these two; here in
particular I may have read you incorrectly. )


 > Remove the portals. Their design, while good in intent, are
 > providing far more harm than good. We need new areas and new players,
 > not new tools for bypassing challenges nor coercive player conflict in
 > such a tiny population.

7) The portals do more harm than good. Remove them.

 > -Mark (PWC Slyph)<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Portals 

In article <ab72f927.0310221605.4749e6e0 DeleteThis @posting.google.com>,
watsongm DeleteThis @moopenguin.org (Watson GM) wrote:

  > > While I find this situation unfortunate, I think there should
  > > always be areas that require a lot of time, far from town, difficult to
  > > achieve. They provide a great sense of challenge. They should provide
  > > a sense of the legendary. The portals are hurting these areas. We need
  > > more high level hunting grounds that do not require three or more hours
  > > to hunt.
 >
 > 4) Some places should be "special".

BUT there should be FAR more "regular" places than special ones.

 > 5) Certain players want to (and largely can) keep the portals out of
 > the OO and KI.
 >
 > 6) The resulting conflict is not fun in a "small population" game.

Bingo.

--
HWC for Hidden <hidden DeleteThis @noDASHop.com> <http://www.oralse.cx/>
"Carpe diem via scrotum."<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Portals 

Hidden wrote:

 >
  >>6) The resulting conflict is not fun in a "small population" game.
  >>
  >>
 >
 >Bingo.
 >
 >

Yeah, bingo is right. I think if there weren't so few of us bumping our
heads against each other over the matter, it would more easily work its
way into the background noise of ordinary life. Also, the resulting
conflict has deep IC/OOC difficulties in the sense that it's been hard
to separate out the IC and the OOC, making resolution and even
articulation of the conflict difficult. I'm not sure what the solution
is here.

HWC Para<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Portals 

In article <slyph-EF5CC9.12172622102003 DeleteThis @news.spiralewb.com>,
Slyph <slyph DeleteThis @fake.address> wrote:

 > I think there should
 > always be areas that require a lot of time, far from town, difficult to
 > achieve. They provide a great sense of challenge. They should provide
 > a sense of the legendary. The portals are hurting these areas. We need
 > more high level hunting grounds that do not require three or more hours
 > to hunt.


There are still and will always be areas that are time intensive and
difficult if thats what YOU or ANYONE else wants. Having some people
bypass those challenges doesn't alter one iota those challenges for
those who desire or require them.

But is there any sense in forcing YOUR idea of what is a challenge and
time consuming onto everyone else? What if I believed that everyone who
doesn't roleplay "properly" when chaining is ruining the game and
insisted that chains were hurting various areas? Should I make huge
outcry and (supposing I could) break every chain I saw used in one of my
"pet" areas? Or similarly, suppose I decided I didn't want any fighter
to train in or take tests in their Guild house? I suppose I could form a
barrier with my friends to keep people out, this is good how? why? I
mean, who needs trainers, they're just shortcuts to more power and its
ruining CL isn't it? Everyone who uses them are just shortcutting all
that wonderful newbie experience and challenge aren't they?

Lets all get real about this. Its a game. It isn't a life. It doesn't
have to ALWAYS require enormous time intensive challenges and even those
that exist needn't be set in stone. Change is the universe. Embrace it.

rhdennis<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Portals 

In article
<rhdennis-21B636.15122022102003 DeleteThis @newssvr23-ext.news.prodigy.com>,
rhdennis <rhdennis DeleteThis @guess.sbcglobal.net> wrote:

 > There are still and will always be areas that are time intensive and
 > difficult if thats what YOU or ANYONE else wants. Having some people
 > bypass those challenges doesn't alter one iota those challenges for
 > those who desire or require them.

Well, that's not what I wrote, now was it. I was speaking of the
sense of challenge, of the repuation an area has for other exiles, when
its challenges cannot be easily bypassed. That sense is altered when an
area becomes easier because of a portal. Feel free to disagree, but
you're inventing meaning in my argument that isn't there. An area will
always pose a challenge for those that do not wish to use a portal; that
I did not dispute.

 > But is there any sense in forcing YOUR idea of what is a challenge and
 > time consuming onto everyone else? What if I believed that everyone who
 > doesn't roleplay "properly" when chaining is ruining the game and
 > insisted that chains were hurting various areas? Should I make huge
 > outcry and (supposing I could) break every chain I saw used in one of my
 > "pet" areas? Or similarly, suppose I decided I didn't want any fighter
 > to train in or take tests in their Guild house? I suppose I could form a
 > barrier with my friends to keep people out, this is good how? why? I
 > mean, who needs trainers, they're just shortcuts to more power and its
 > ruining CL isn't it? Everyone who uses them are just shortcutting all
 > that wonderful newbie experience and challenge aren't they?

I haven't forced my idea of what a challenge is on anyone at all; I
suggest you reread my post. It's only an argument, an opinion. If you
want to discuss this with me, you'll have to refrain from inventing
ridiculous and inaccurate analogies as you did in the previous
paragraph. My argument also spoke against players imposing their view
of the portals on to other players, which you seemed to have missed.

-Mark (PWC Slyph)

--
Slyph's scrolls: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://slyph.puddleby.info/" target="_blank">http://slyph.puddleby.info/</a>
PWC's Journal: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.cheap-date.org/journal/" target="_blank">http://www.cheap-date.org/journal/</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Portals 

In article <ab72f927.0310221605.4749e6e0 DeleteThis @posting.google.com>,
watsongm DeleteThis @moopenguin.org (Watson GM) wrote:

 > Before I comment (if I comment), I'm going to try and summarize your
 > points.
 >
 > 1) The portals can be used to bypass HH and similar barriers. This
 > is too powerful.
 >
 >2) The portals can be wedged or stolen fairly easily. This is bad.
 >
 >3) There aren't enough easy-to-reach places for high level folks to
 >hunt. This is bad.
 >
 >4) Some places should be "special".
 >
 >5) Certain players want to (and largely can) keep the portals out of
 >the OO and KI.
 >
 >6) The resulting conflict is not fun in a "small population" game.
 >
 >7) The portals do more harm than good. Remove them.

You're using specific examples I didn't name, but you understand
me, more or less. Item 5, however, is too specific to capture
what I meant: Players can disrupt the use of the portals by other
players, which I see as coercion.

Thanks for reading.

-Mark (Slyph)

--
Slyph's scrolls: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://slyph.puddleby.info/" target="_blank">http://slyph.puddleby.info/</a>
PWC's Journal: <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.cheap-date.org/journal/" target="_blank">http://www.cheap-date.org/journal/</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Portals 

rhdennis wrote:

 > In article <slyph-EF5CC9.12172622102003 DeleteThis @news.spiralewb.com>,
 > Slyph <slyph DeleteThis @fake.address> wrote:
 >
  > > I think there should
  > > always be areas that require a lot of time, far from town, difficult to
  > > achieve. They provide a great sense of challenge. They should provide
  > > a sense of the legendary. The portals are hurting these areas. We need
  > > more high level hunting grounds that do not require three or more hours
  > > to hunt.
 >
 > There are still and will always be areas that are time intensive and
 > difficult if thats what YOU or ANYONE else wants.

There will always be areas that are NOT time intensive and difficult, so why
would you want to change the difficult time-intensive areas just to fit your
own needs. Play in the areas you enjoy, don't play in the areas that you do
not enjoy.

I don't enjoy the rat towers, but I don't think they should be changed to be
more like the Foothills.


 > Having some people
 > bypass those challenges doesn't alter one iota those challenges for
 > those who desire or require them.

Heh, of course it does.


 > But is there any sense in forcing YOUR idea of what is a challenge and
 > time consuming onto everyone else?

There must be, otherwise why would you keep trying?


 > Lets all get real about this. Its a game. It isn't a life.

Heh, you get as worked up about it as the rest of us.


 > It doesn't have to ALWAYS require enormous time intensive challenges...

Luckily, DT had the foresight to create areas that aren't time intensive
challenges.

Baff<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Portals 

In article <slyph-EF5CC9.12172622102003.RemoveThis@news.spiralewb.com>,
Slyph <slyph.RemoveThis@fake.address> wrote:

 > Remove the portals. Their design, while good in intent, are
 > providing far more harm than good. We need new areas and new players,
 > not new tools for bypassing challenges nor coercive player conflict in
 > such a tiny population.
 >
 > -Mark (PWC Slyph)

Well put. I agree that they should be removed completely. As should the
teleportation stones.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Portals