Why are we never the squeaky wheel?

[Beltane]

Re: naming rules...

 

I am an RPer first and a gamer second. I started playing MMOs for the RP opportunities (and also fell in love with MMO gameplay, but that's irrelevent).

 

But naming rules are a TERRIBLE idea.

 

I remember joining a Star Wars MUSH years back and creating a character with the first name Lexi. A day later I was banned for "not having a Star Wars name" (even though the main character is named Luke).

 

In TOR, my character's name is Alexandria Beltane. Both of those words are real life words. While most people wouldn't bat an eye, someone else could see my alt named Beltane and be disgusted for naming my character after a seasonal festival instead of some made up Star Warsy-sounding gibberish name.

 

Furthermore, someone named Pixiesticks might just get involved in RP if they're exposed to it instead of met with an elitist wall. I have actually RPed with people who had silly names but went by a serious name IC. Pixiesticks could go by Pix IC, for example.

[Revelationjp]

Re: naming rules...

 

I am an RPer first and a gamer second. I started playing MMOs for the RP opportunities (and also fell in love with MMO gameplay, but that's irrelevent).

 

But naming rules are a TERRIBLE idea.

 

I remember joining a Star Wars MUSH years back and creating a character with the first name Lexi. A day later I was banned for "not having a Star Wars name" (even though the main character is named Luke).

 

In TOR, my character's name is Alexandria Beltane. Both of those words are real life words. While most people wouldn't bat an eye, someone else could see my alt named Beltane and be disgusted for naming my character after a seasonal festival instead of some made up Star Warsy-sounding gibberish name.

 

Furthermore, someone named Pixiesticks might just get involved in RP if they're exposed to it instead of met with an elitist wall. I have actually RPed with people who had silly names but went by a serious name IC. Pixiesticks could go by Pix IC, for example.

QFT

 

I was going to say that the person earlier who said that we as a community don't often know what we want is right. To me, lack of chat bubbles is my biggest impediment to rp. Others think it's sitting in chairs, which is something i could care less about. Someone earlier went on walloftext rant about naming that made me want to call him out as an rp nerd, and i am one! Personally I think naming rules and their enforcement are one of the biggest community killers ever invented. Just in this one thread there's been about a dozen different ideas, and for everyone who agrees with one there's someone who doesn't. So how can we expect the devs to put any credence in our requests if we ourselves can't agree on what we want. It's not a matter of being loudest, but having a well thought out and reasonable list of requests. I'd say let's put together our list of top 5. Start a new thread, let it run it's course, and make a list a top5 most reasonable and easily implemented fixes for the rp community.

[Zavia]

Consensus certainly makes it easier for the devs to look at something and go, "We should add this," though. Especially when they're trying to predict what improvements will provide the best return on their investment.

 

I agree full consensus does make it easier on the devs, but again it is not a necessity.

 

 

When it comes to pure mechanics, BioWare is going to do what the development team feels is best for the game; they'll rebalance and tweak things in order to maintain their vision of fun and fairness. In these cases, community consensus plays a smaller role. It's less about agreement than about bringing problems to BW's attention. The devs may even go against the majority opinion in order to implement fixes that they feel are necessary for the long-term health of the game; we've seen this before in other games, where some changes are quite poorly received by the playerbase.

 

I'm talking content not mechanics, as I mentioned before. Balancing is part of mechanics. Anything of that sort usually does come before content as it should. That is not at issue.

 

When it's a pure quality-of-life addition, especially one with the potential for adverse side effects, I suspect that even PvPers are going to need to reach a certain level of agreement before the devs will look at adding it in.

 

What adverse affects are you referring to as far as RP issues go, and where was it established by anything other than an opinion in this thread that there would be a potential for adverse side effects from anything relating to RP content or policies? If you're referring to opinion than your opinion carries as much weight as mine or anyone elses on this or any other issue.

 

 

Insofar as we're discussing pure content/QoL additions as opposed to something sticky like RP server moderation, I'd argue that consensus may be "louder" and therefore more audible to the developer's ear, or perhaps it's simply that consensus in the RP community tends to supply the devs with proof of a certain critical mass of opinion, above which they're more willing to consider adding things that they see as appealing to a sizable number of players.

 

I do think that when it comes to issues like additions to RP server rules and enforcement, consensus is going to play a much larger role (assuming, of course, that the devs are A)willing to consider such changes but are B) nevertheless satisfied with the status quo).

 

 

I do not dispute that, as was established in the beginning of this response. Just as a reminder this is where this part of the discussion began:

 

Originally Posted by SelinaH

This. We often can't even agree amongst ourselves what we want. The devs are going to place additions where they'll have the most player impact. Most of the time, that's PvE game mechanics, and to a lesser extent PvP.

 

And if you go by the opinion of some posters, who believe that anyone who doesn't agree with them isn't a "real" RPer, the RP community's actually a hell of a lot smaller than it looks.

 

 

With my response:

 

I don't agree with most of what you wrote at all, and would throw this in the myth column. These are excuses we need to get rid of. I do agree that devs add content that has what they think is the best impact for their community. But they also add content that is directed at particular playstyles and they do it all the time. Why shouldn't RP be included in that?

 

And as has already been mentioned PvPers constantly go back and forth on what is "true" PvP. Some advocate for FFA, some advocate for partial loot, XP loss, coin, item loot, no item loot, safe zones, no safe zones, level based PvP where you can't attack someone within so many levels, no immunity after death, immunity after death... the list goes on and on, and that's just PvPers, but they still manage to make themselves heard. Developers say OK we think we hear this so will add it like so.

 

And I'm not raising my fist and saying Bioware why have you failed us! I'm just discussion this phenomenon where RPers have become their worst enemy by not speaking up for themselves in MMOs.

 

 

Devs are fully capable of looking at hot topic threads and seeing there is an issue. The issue they conclude as important may not be what the thread is asking to be addressed. So you can have a thread with the topic "I want a pony for my RP" and the thread goes for 1000+ pages with different people saying things like "no pony, we need bunnies!", or "no bunnies we need chairs!", or "not chairs we need weebles!" and on and on with some agreeing with the pony, others agreeing with the weebles, and others saying nope we don't need squat but a stick figure and a blank screen.

 

The devs or CM read that thread and say hmm... ok the general theme here is not that all these RPers want ponies because clearly they do not, but that personal pets would be good content for this group.

 

There was no consensus but anyone tasked with looking for issues players are concerned about, or that they want should have no problem identifying such a thread and the themem without everyone in the thread saying YES, we all agree!

 

Let's take PvP as another example. Someone starts a thread saying "FFA PvP or this game will suck!". The thread goes through another 1000 or so responses with PvPers saying no FFA, partial loot, or no FFA and perma-death, or "1 item drops" or "just coin drops!" and on and on. The consensus is not that the game needs FFA PvP, because again, there obviously is no consensus for that statement. From the theme of the thread the devs can see that PvP is a hot topic so they go back and decide if they want to implement it and how, and then present that to the players.

 

Not everyone will be happy, no doubt, but you cannot make everyone happy in MMOs and should not even try, but why does that seem to be a requirement some of you are throwing out as excuses (consensus) for asking for RP content, or for policies that will help manage RP servers? From my perspective, you're railing against non-existent issues.

[kaoticdrake]

All I'm asking for is not to have to look at Lord Rainbow'Dash talking about the Mariners game in /general.

 

"All you're asking for"? See I have a problem with that thought. See from my perspective, what you're asking for is that people who are looking to RP casually be punished for talking about real life events. I get where you're coming from on the names, but on the same note I know people in and old tabletop group I had with names that I scoffed at. I don't usually scoff by the way.

 

In any case, if you want a more strictly regulated naming policy I get that. If you want people moderated and told they can't talk about the Mariners game, I think you should back down. This is a GAME. That people PAY FOR. You are not the only person paying to play this game, nor are you in the majority on the RP servers. As you have proven by saying that you only ever see "spam" in the general chat. Let me stress my main point. YOU ARE NOT THE ONLY PERSON PLAYING THE GAME. So, you may believe that talking about the Mariners never ending losing streak in general chat, which to me is essentially the general/off topic part of the forums, is a big blasphemy on an RP server. You are the minority.

 

As for the OP saying that the RP community here is bending over and taking it... it's complete and utter nonsense that you believe that.

 

Here is my evidence:

- Character Customization Thread: Discusses the greater customization of player characters and the ability to change your appearance after you've created your character. Hairstyles, scars, etc. BIOWARE HAS SAID THEY'RE BRINGING IT TO THE GAME.

- Guild Ships: The ability to get together with people who you're in a guild with. Which provides the ability for Guild specific organized fun. This works for the benefit of PvE PvP and RP because then you can easily organize events. BIOWARE HAS SAID THEY'RE BRINGING IT TO THE GAME.

- Sitting: Sure it's not major, and it's not amazing but it helps out RP. BIOWARE HAS SAID THEY'RE BRINGING IT TO THE GAME.

- Chat Bubbles: Everyone wants them, they allow for close visual chat that means you don't have to read through the mass of text if lots of people are online in any one given area. BIOWARE HAS SAID THEY'RE BRINGING IT TO THE GAME.

 

Those four things are proof that Bioware listens to players in the RP community because honestly 3 of the 4 are purely something that RP would ask for. I hope that the community continues to function as well as it is and that they continue to move forward making requests that are reasonable in a manner that is reasonable. Including the occasional insult to Bioware's intelligence for not originally instituting something that is so basic that to be without it is mind numbing: chat bubbles are a prime example.

[SelinaH]

The devs or CM read that thread and say hmm... ok the general theme here is not that all these RPers want ponies because clearly they do not, but that personal pets would be good content for this group.

 

And if a sufficient number of players were indeed clamoring for "pets," despite some disagreement about the type of pet, and with a negligible amount of opposition to the idea of implementing the addition per se, that would indeed be considered consensus. (I don't think anyone in this thread has claimed that agreement needs to reach 100% or even close to 100% of affected players.) But even here, unless the devs have the time and inclination to add multiple *types* of pets (in other words, if limited resources dictate only a single implementation, and the devs have no preexisting preference due to difficulty, lore considerations, et cetera), the addition with the most support is most likely to go in.

 

What adverse affects are you referring to as far as RP issues go, and where was it established by anything other than an opinion in this thread that there would be a potential for adverse side effects from anything relating to RP content or policies? If you're referring to opinion than your opinion carries as much weight as mine or anyone elses on this or any other issue.

 

Not everyone will be happy, no doubt, but you cannot make everyone happy in MMOs and should not even try, but why does that seem to be a requirement some of you are throwing out as excuses (consensus) for asking for RP content, or for policies that will help manage RP servers? From my perspective, you're railing against non-existent issues.

 

I'm not going to get into this here, to avoid derailing the thread. Suffice it to say that there have been numerous scenarios posited in the other threads where well-intentioned RPers playing in good faith would, under the more restrictive naming and moderation policies suggested by a certain contingent of the community, find their personal playstyles to be unacceptably and unnecessarily limited. In these circumstances, I don't think the views of a narrow cross-section of the RP playerbase should be sufficient to convince the devs to remove freedoms that already exist under the current system.