Portals

Slyph 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)

I usually don't respond to the newsgroup items, but this time I feel I
must. I completely agree with Slyph, in all she said in her post, but most
particualarly the above.

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

baffette wrote:

 >
 >I usually don't respond to the newsgroup items, but this time I feel I
 >must. I completely agree with Slyph, in all she said in her post, but most
 >particualarly the above.
 >
 >

I don't agree at all with Slyph on this. And I don't think many do. I'm
sorry, Slyph. This solution is like taking a sledgehammer to kill an ant.

Clan Lord HAS to evolve. Things have to change over time, else the game
will stagnate and die. One of the leading reasons we've been slowly
losing people is that things have not been changing. There has been no
evolution in the past couple of years. And I think some people,
including some PM members, have gotten too used to that fact. They've
come to see the world as a static place, and they've become so sure of
exactly how they think the world ought to work, they have even come to
the conclusion that they know the world better than anyone else. Sorry,
Baff, I respect you a whole bunch, but when you started to appeal a few
messages back to this idea that somehow you know better than others what
Joe's intent for the game must be, I had to laugh. I suspect Joe would
be amused too.

We've been waiting for a long time for some changes. We all pretty much
knew that at some point the mirror needed to open. Otherwise, why the
hell is it there? Why's it on the manual cover? Why's it on the friggin'
ICON with a hand sticking out of it, suggesting that you can pass
through it? Is the icon a lie? Now that a story is evolving with the
mirror and the portals, some seem so alarmed that they are willing to do
just about anything to stop it. "Stop the portals! Stop the
teleportation stones!" What's next? Close the mirror? Bring back the
white name tags under the monsters? For crying out loud, paint me blue
and call me Thoom Classic (TM).

Now that the GMs have started to take steps to bring about the necessary
evolution of the game, some people who are all too satisified with
playing the game the same way over and over again are uncomfortable.

If you want Clan Lord to stick around, then the game environment must
evolve. Sometimes you're going to hate the changes, sometimes you going
to like them. Some serious complaints have arisen in the past 18 months
that travelling distances in-game is becoming an issue in terms of
length of on-time playing time. I think there's some merit to these
complaints, and while I can't do an off the top of my head comparison,
from what I hear, many other MMORPGs use portals or teleportation to
address these issues. As the world grows larger in Clan Lord, the
problem will have to be addressed.

I urge the GMs not to let themselves be bullied by players who insist
that they know Clan Lord best. And I trust the GMs more than I trust PM
to chart the future of Clan Lord, frankly. I would not trust any such
clan or group attempting to dictate in this way.

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

Para wrote:

 >
 > Clan Lord HAS to evolve. Things have to change over time, else the
 > game will stagnate and die. One of the leading reasons we've been
 > slowly losing people is that things have not been changing. There has
 > been no evolution in the past couple of years.

Let me qualify this, because it's inaccurate. There HAS been some
evolution over the past couple of years, but not as much as I think
players as well as GMs would have liked. I think what we've seen with
the mirrors and the portals has been an effort to stir up the pot and
bring into the game some more evolution, and I think it's a worthwhile
endeavor.

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

In article <3OFlb.107414$gv5.35516@fed1read05>, Para <Para DeleteThis @nospam.net>
wrote:

 > I urge the GMs not to let themselves be bullied by players who insist
 > that they know Clan Lord best. And I trust the GMs more than I trust
 > PM to chart the future of Clan Lord, frankly. I would not trust any
 > such clan or group attempting to dictate in this way.
 >
 > HWC Para

The notion that people who oppose the portals are merely trying
to keep things as they are, are "all too satisified with playing
the game the same way over and over again," is meaningless
hyperbole. Dismissing another's view because you're convinced
that person acts as if she "know[s] the world better than anyone
else," is another groundless tactic. The only thing one can
reasonably extract from the oppostion to the portals is that the
portals are opposed, for reasons that are actually listed.

I tried to listen to what you had to say, Para, and respect that
you and others feel differently from me. I've voiced my opinion
and look forward to reading others's opinions, but painting me as
a bully, however, is uncalled for, if you meant me (your previous
post is a bit unclear). I didn't bully anyone on this issue; I
merely disagree.

I'd like to know, though, just what these steps are that "GM's
have started to take to bring about the necessary evolution of the
game." The mind reels with the loftiness and bright future of
that phrase.

-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 

Slyph wrote:

 >
 >
 > The notion that people who oppose the portals are merely trying
 > to keep things as they are, are "all too satisified with playing
 > the game the same way over and over again," is meaningless
 > hyperbole.

I don't think so, and I'll explain why.

 > Dismissing another's view because you're convinced
 > that person acts as if she "know[s] the world better than anyone
 > else," is another groundless tactic.

No, I don't agree. Here's the quotation from Baff:

  >Unbiased:
  >Group B doesn't want the portals used in a way that bypasses the intended
  >challenges of an area.
  >Biased:Group B wishes to preserve that sense of daring adventure as
illustrated in
  >the story that Joe wrote (in the CL manual).

If my tactic is groundless, then this is no less so. The question is
this: who is determining the "intended challenges of an area? Why should
I now believe that the members of group B (players) have legitimate
claim to determine the intended challenges of an area? That's what a lot
of this comes down to. I do not subscribe to the notion that players
have legitimate claims to determine this.

 > The only thing one can
 > reasonably extract from the oppostion to the portals is that the
 > portals are opposed, for reasons that are actually listed.
 >
 >
See above. I can only go with what is argued. Everything I have read
suggests that the above, group B, (pick your poison, biased or unbiased)
is saying they think they know that these intended challenges are.


 > I tried to listen to what you had to say, Para, and respect that
 > you and others feel differently from me. I've voiced my opinion
 > and look forward to reading others's opinions, but painting me as
 > a bully, however, is uncalled for, if you meant me (your previous
 > post is a bit unclear). I didn't bully anyone on this issue; I
 > merely disagree.
 >
 >
Actually, Slyph, I don't see you as a bully. I don't think your actions
or words here indicate that. See below about the bullying.

 > I'd like to know, though, just what these steps are that "GM's
 > have started to take to bring about the necessary evolution of the
 > game." The mind reels with the loftiness and bright future of
 > that phrase.
 >
 >
Quite simple. SOME CHANGES. NEW THINGS. Things that might make the world
different. Hell, even a war over the portal sounds fantastic. I'll be
perfectly honest. Brutally, here. If PM just said "look, we don't like
the portals because they might jeopardize our position in Puddleby and
others might be going out to the foothills as often as we do," I CAN
RESPECT THAT. That's nice clean fun IC bullying. That's fun stuff,
that's in-game fun. Like Yor and Klur say in the recent exchange on TMN,
"Let's joust, friend." Bring it on. Let's see what happens. What I am
so very, very uncomfortable with this talk about turning off the
portals, and with this OOC talk that defines the problem in terms of
players saying they know what the best challenges are for certain areas.
Let the GMs work on that stuff.

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

In article <cHGlb.107542$gv5.14794@fed1read05>, Para <Para RemoveThis @nospam.net>
wrote:

 > What I am so very, very uncomfortable with this talk about turning
 > off the portals, and with this OOC talk that defines the problem in
 > terms of players saying they know what the best challenges are for
 > certain areas. Let the GMs work on that stuff.
 >
 >
 > HWC Para

Thanks for taking time to clarify all that. Please be careful
about whom you're discussing in your arguments; that wasn't clear,
previously.

I disagree with the above: I have out of character concerns
regarding the portals that have nothing to do with Slyph's
in-character concerns; it's impossible for me to express these
concerns through my character. I and others will continue to give
GM's feedback; GM's will continue to use or ignore this feedback.
It's a pleasant arrangement, and I'm glad for it.

-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, Para wrote:
 >
 > "Stop the portals!"
 >

Perhaps the "Portals" completely unique qualities have been fully embraced.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Portals 

In article <3F97227A.C7B3037E DeleteThis @aol.com>, baffette <baffette DeleteThis @aol.com>
wrote:

 > Slyph 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)
 >
 > I usually don't respond to the newsgroup items, but this time I feel I
 > must. I completely agree with Slyph, in all she said in her post, but most
 > particualarly the above.
 >
 > Baffette
 >

I agree with both of you.

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

In article <3OFlb.107414$gv5.35516@fed1read05>, Para <Para.RemoveThis@nospam.net>
wrote:

 > I urge the GMs not to let themselves be bullied by players who insist
 > that they know Clan Lord best. And I trust the GMs more than I trust
 > [a group of players] to chart the future of Clan Lord, frankly.

<G> Can I quote you on that?

Helpful "oh wait, I just did" GM :D

(I'm just kidding around. Your statement is funny, when presented in a
forum that's rife with "you don't know what you're talking about" and
"if you'd ever play the game, you'd know that...", etc :)

--
You have to remove stuff from my e-mail to reply, it's not difficult.
Everything here is my personal opinion, do with it what you will.

"[T]he idea of a game with people nicer than in CL makes me wanna puke."
-Michael<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Portals 

In article <cHGlb.107542$gv5.14794@fed1read05>, Para <Para.DeleteThis@nospam.net>
wrote:

 > who is determining the "intended challenges of an area? Why should
 > I now believe that the members of group B (players) have legitimate
 > claim to determine the intended challenges of an area? That's what a lot
 > of this comes down to. I do not subscribe to the notion that players
 > have legitimate claims to determine this. [implied: the GMs do]

Ignoring the current deal with the portals, it just occurred to me that
a lot of this debate sounds a little like the stereotype of old people
griping about "kids these days..."

"Back when *I* was 3rd circle, we didn't have portals. Whe had to Walk
to places, and PF our way through difficult passages..."

"You had PF?! Why, when *I* was your age, we didn't have PF. We cut
down trees just to get into orga territoriy for the privledge of having
the healers rod 12,000 lightning bolts at once."

"You had HEALERS?! Why, when *I* was a noob (like you), we had to crawl
on our bellies and bite the monsters in the ankles with our teeth..."

"You had TEETH?!..."

Etc.

---

It's funny that I noticed this, because I'm a strong proponent of "it
feels good to overcome a challenge, and it sucks if you work & work &
work to overcome a challenge and then it's just handed on a silver
platter to the next guy." So, in that respect, I can see where Klur is
coming from.

However, things DO change -- horses become common, then cars, then
telephones, then television, then COLOR-TV ("you had COLOR?! Why, when
*I* was a kid...")

....And it's not as if it's a simple matter to put the other end of the
portal deep into the outback/foothills/wherever.

So, while I sympathise (deeply!) with the "yeah, kids these days have it
easy" crowd, I also think it's sort-of important that progress happen.

---

So, maybe the portals were too big of a step all at once. Maybe what
was needed was something smaller, and the portals would be a good idea
later. Maybe they just needed a little hobbling -- like what if 1 end
couldn't leave the cloud? (That's just an example -- there are a
zillion things that could be done to make them "less useful than now,
but still useful.")

Anyway, I was just thinking about that, and thought I'd share... :)

--
You have to remove stuff from my e-mail to reply, it's not difficult.
Everything here is my personal opinion, do with it what you will.

"[T]he idea of a game with people nicer than in CL makes me wanna puke."
-Michael<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Portals 

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

 > Before I comment (if I comment), I'm going to try and summarize your
 > points.
[If I understand him correctly, Watson is clarifying player text,
which I have snipped.]

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

I'll comment (hey, I'm not that way! <G>)

While this is an easy 1st reaction, I'm not certain on this one.
Sometimes I agree, and sometimes I don't. It's more complicated
that it seems.

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

Agreed.

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

Not sure if I agree with either sentence, here. Again, it's
more complicated than it seems.

 > 4) Some places should be "special".

Agreed.

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

Agreed. (See #2, though.)

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

Agreed (#2).

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

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

That's what I read Slyph to say. I'm not sure if I agree
or not. I think not, but there are strong arguments both
ways.

--
You have to remove stuff from my e-mail to reply, it's not difficult.
Everything here is my personal opinion, do with it what you will.

"[T]he idea of a game with people nicer than in CL makes me wanna puke."
-Michael<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Portals 

In article <slyph-710C9B.21312922102003 RemoveThis @news.spiralewb.com>,
Slyph <slyph RemoveThis @fake.address> wrote:

 > In article <hidden-7765E0.19114622102003@localhost>,
 > Hidden <hidden RemoveThis @noDASHop.com> wrote:
 >
  > > In article <ab72f927.0310221605.4749e6e0 RemoveThis @posting.google.com>,
  > > watsongm RemoveThis @moopenguin.org (Watson GM) wrote:
   > > > 4) Some places should be "special".
  > >
  > > BUT there should be FAR more "regular" places than special ones.
 >
 > Yes, yes, please add this to item 4, Watson. I should have
 > mentioned that. Thanks, Hidden.

Understood by all, I believe.

--
You have to remove stuff from my e-mail to reply, it's not difficult.
Everything here is my personal opinion, do with it what you will.

"[T]he idea of a game with people nicer than in CL makes me wanna puke."
-Michael<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: Portals 

Slyph <slyph.TakeThisOut@fake.address> wrote in message news:<slyph-EF5CC9.12172622102003.TakeThisOut@news.spiralewb.com>...
 > Remove the portals. Their design, while good in intent, are
 > providing far more harm than good.

While I agree with much of what Slyph said, I disagree with her
conclusion, for now. I see the problem with the portals as a social
problem, not a technical one. Yes, I do recognize that's a minority
opinion, but I wanted to remind the gods that that minority opinion
exists.

For me, if the social problem is solved, that's more good than their
harm.

On the other hand, if the social problem is irresolvable, then I'll
agree that they're more harm than their good, and that a technical fix
is a good idea. Although I don't know if "removing the portals" is
the appropriate technical fix. I'd want to consider the alternatives
(brainstorming, for example, that passing through a portal inhibits
that person reusing the same portal for a long time (hours? days?
zodiacs?) (IC reason, some kind of spiritual rejection?) or maybe that
the inhibition buildup is proportional to the "distance" travelled,
and maybe reduced by experience gained, to handle the library
character issue, or maybe that use destablizes the portals, so that
with frequent use they just teleport themselves to a completely
different place, or that they aren't movable at all but wander or
teleport themselves on their own, I haven't thought these through,
just brainstorming).

I guess I'm also part of an even smaller minority that still hopes,
for now, the social problem is solvable. Just reminding the gods
there's at least one.

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