Maebius

With Chewett joining the corpses, it was decided to re-phrase "revive Spartiatis" to something a bit more generic. "[b]Revive the Dead[/b]" is the new phrase to speak to that tiny hidden orb, by the Gazebo, in order to soak your Heat into it. To vote no, it is a more generic "[b]Corpses Stay Dead[/b]".

Wiiya is Identity. Why wouldn't it be useful?

[quote name='Espartano' timestamp='1339334964' post='114264'] Or donate my coins to anyone who is interested in using them in a revive item (not to cast in me as without my crits will not play anymore) ... So this is a goodbye. [/quote] To get the thread back on topic. I wonder if the player of Spartiatis is truly going away from the realm. We've lost many good players lately. IF it truly is goodbye, I wish you well. I had not met you much, sadly, but I am sad to see you go, and wish it were under better situations. May the lessons of Death here, keep your spirit strong elsewhere.

[quote name='Liberty4life' timestamp='1339441161' post='114386'] wait.... yeah death thingy aint finished yet, true but why nobody pushed that feature in development focus? ya all wanted yoar lovely worthless citizenship label to be sticked on yoar forehead rather than seein broken things fixed and unfinished things done, [/quote] Actually, liberty, that is in my mind precisely why folks like myself were more interested in Citizenship. That feature/functionality does not currently exist to help new players, or old ones, who wish to join a Land. Even with Death being broken, there is the possibility in-game with current "technology" to fix Death. Revival items, or the effort to get one yourself, if you believe there are more Melodic Charms floating around out there. (Note: this is NOT a judgement against those with Revival items that had not used them recently. They exist now, unlike Citizenship tools without going to Council, which seems an odd choice if "land citizens" are to have power over their numbers, as before)

[quote name='Guillak' timestamp='1339448236' post='114411'] [size=2](Going even further from the original topic, sorry)[/size] [i]Council[/i] killed us, back then? You sure about that? Any clue/proof? [/quote] [size=2]Going further off topic. We were also warned that if we didn't st[/size][size=2]op, we'd join your fate. Random "oops, I'm dead" is harder to justify.[/size] Soon as I get done with some tests and projects IRL I plan on doing some more too, but now, as with many others sadly, is a bad time to be as active in the realm as I'd like. or Death, or any other reason.

In this case, I would have to agree with Chewett's posting. While the issue of Death's Lessons are a great way to interact with the general "Flavour" of MagicDuel, when time drags on and the player behind the character effectively "gives up" because it is no longer "fun". Where is the line drawn? I understand that the realm has certain "filters" to allow a particular type of person in. Those who ask the right questions will "win" in a symbolic sense, by doing well by the internal physics of this "game" and it's symbology and Lessons. But if that were purely the case, would some character never enter Marinds Bell at all, from their Story Choices? It makes 'sense' that way on a deeper level, but I wonder if it's not exactly done that way for a more "game stability" reason, and easy of new players integrating in the realm at all. In the same manner, if We force a player to leave, by our own inaction or action, are we helping or hurting the "game" itself by this?

[quote name='ChildOfTheSoul' timestamp='1339410460' post='114336'] Uh... spart just died because no one in the entire realm was willing to save him? I have something like 50 gold in my inventory going nowhere. What kept the decent people in this realm from resurrecting him? Is there something I'm missing here? [/quote] There was [url="http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/12322-a-new-community-project-of-sorts/#entry112214"]a collection[/url], (Grido planned to revive for a 20GC fee, I believe) There was Heat Voting. Seems it was not quite enough to convince those with Revival powers to act. Another soul, lost from the realm, unnecessarily, it seems. Perhaps lessons are learned, for us all.

I wish you well on all your adventures, regardless of Realm.

The way I see it, having alts in other alliances is probably fine, but yes, having two "characters" in the same group is where the line gets crossed. But official Response might be best here, to clarify, then the whole issue can be put to rest.

In light of [url="http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/12441-a-funeral/"]The Funeral Plans[/url], The Heat Clickies for Reviving and/or keeping Spartiatis dead will msot likely de-activate in the very near future. One last chance to put forth your Heat towards the cause! I will keep them active, but remove the button to donate Heat, as I've had a few requests in private to let someone watch it slowly "cool off". May the Spartan's spirit accept his new role, in whatever form that winds up being.... Ash, or Active.

I'd cut it gladly if the rule is changed to prevent it, though. Alts are quite permitted in other aspects of the game, if they are "different characters". Thats' a long standing rule. Having alts in the same alliance, I am firmly against.

dst, it's not about you. (in my words, at least, but this continued defensive bitterness of yours is irritating) It is about the Rule. I am not questioning your alliance or it's validity. I'm asking how the Rule should or should not be changed. That's the discussion here on this forum thread, yes? Do alts count? Maybe they shouldn't. But if not, it is IN GENERAL to address the Alt situation, not specifically directed at you. [size=1]You clowns keep swinging hammers, I may pick different Story Choices... [/size] The rule implies alts are allowed. Is this acceptable? I think so. Discuss.

I disagree. But we are getting a bit off topic. As long as the total "different players" are above 2. The rule seems to imply alts are allowed. Lets discuss changing the rule.

If I may... [quote name='dst' timestamp='1339140820' post='114046'] I have alts because of the 3 people stupid rule. Remove the rule, I remove the alts. ... Until then shut it. You lost. Get over it.[/quote] I did not read Pips comments about your Alliance as a personal attack, dst. Your words about "[i]shut it.you lost. get over it.[/i]" don't really add anything positive to the discussion, no need to be rude is there? This thread is to discuss the RULE itself, the way I see it. You are using alts to maintain the alliance, [u]because[/u] of that rule. That fact is an example of wanting the Ally to remain, and working around what I feel is an outdated rule. I support this. Pips seems to be arguing for the rule, or at least offering examples of the current state of Alliances as non-groups. I don't see anything wrong with using examples to back up an opinion. (If your friends are off in other alliances for any reason, your alliance at this moment [u]still[/u] only has the names it has right now. That's what "broke" the Legend Speakers it seems, and the reason this rule is being discussed.)

One question I have is to possibly explain the exact differences between a Guild, and an Alliance. Both have badges and seem to use Loyalty as a base-mechanic for leadership. While this makes sense as an easy way to impliment them, both types of group seem to have quite different "reasons for being". Add to that what some would call "role-based Alliances" or "Admin alliances", and there's a bit of confusion in my head. In general, I think that when created, all badge-wearing-groups start as active groups. Due to various factors, the membership numbers may drop off, or grow again. Overall, however, once an Alliance "Exists" I think it should remain as long as one person is active in it, which allows for the potential of new growth in the future. Also, seeing an Alliance gives newer players something to look into, and if one catches their eye, pursue membership. (In a similar way of thought, while "make a new Alliance yourself" is always a possibility and a wonderful example of how the realm adapts to it's community... yet it is much more probable that new folks would look to existing ones before trying to get a new one created, and is a much easier task) Even if one member remains, and is active in the realm and can perform the role or duty that the Alliance is based on..., I feel that Alliances should remain. In that case, it could be argued that the intention of that Alliance still echoes around the realm. A bit quieter, yes, but still able to resonate and grow with added people later. Only in rare cases where the original intent of an Alliance is so far removed from overall MD-ness, (a judgement call I think only Mur can make), or has it's members drop out of the realm for many months, should one be disbanded. Manual disbanding from the Leader is otherwise the only real reason I would judge as "acceptable" for removal of an Alliance, if there is still interest in keeping it "alive". The Memory of it remains, if someone is still remembering it and holding it's badge, after all. I understand how "subjective" this all sounds, and don't have a better "measuring stick" to suggest though, myself. If anything, I think that in cases where an Alliance/guild is in danger of being removed, a post could be made by someone with "voice of the council" simply reminding of this rule. If no further activity happens within a specified timeframe (also clarified in The Rule as needed), then it can be removed without further warning. For role-based groups, or "admin alliances" like the Treasure Keepers, I agree they follow slightly different rules. Still, I'd like those rules spelled out a bit better via an update to the current rule. Looking through the Announcements, this seems to be the rule that applies, but is much older than quite a few bigger changes in Land/Realm dynamics. I think this should be updated, or at least clarified. MD of 2009 was apparently a much different place than MD of today. [quote][color="#CCCCCC"]Ann. 1003 - [2009-09-07 13:46:17 - Alpha 9][/color] Alliances and guilds with only two members (or multiple alts of same person resulting in a total of two different people) are requested to work on their guild/alliance structure and expand it with new members (according to their own ways) or undesired actions will be taken. Alliances in this situation: Dimensional Shifters, The Artisans Guild, Shattered Illusions, Kelle'tha Order, Crafters.[/quote] [size=1]Times have changed, and times are strange... Marind I'm coming home....[/size]

I will firmly second these thoughts. Three members is "active enough" for an alliance or guild, I would think, especially considering the current population of MD. Isn't it? (yes, I also understand the numerical similarity to my own current alliance) Perhaps the Speakers were less vocal, but without warning, or apparent just cause, this strikes me as a bit surprising. In the case of the CotE, there were takeovers, and forum chatter, so a lack of "activity" might have been acceptable in the larger scheme of things. (fair perhaps, depending on perspective, or not) This one totally had me doing a double-take. Were there two, or three members? I think that's the important question. If this stands, I expect to see the other Alliances and guilds with only two members "hibernate". Yes, that means any Tribunal ones like SotIS. Yes that means Kelle'thas. (if "activity" is the important point as it seems above) or Underground, or Lair Keepers All of them. (no offense to anyone intended here, just fairness in perception) If the rule applies, it applies.

seems odd, I've heard two other minor reports of this earlier, but had brushed it off as "alt maybe?" or "browser issues" since one of the people also could not use a portal either without rebooting.

I will have to agree here. While the pure mechanics of "an alliance is removed if less than X members" in this case there was a takeover (which is not always a bad thing) but the spirit of the Alliance stays strong, and vocal, and active. Thus, the "alliance" in it's most true sense, still exists. This is especially odd to me if there were petitions to "save it" by the one who has taken over Alliances. That, to me, showed CotE should remain in existence, particularly while other, older, Council requests go un-answered.

The Heat is still there, stable for now, and not quite fading. It seems the Spartan has taken to selling his beloved creatures, perhaps to pay for revival efforts? Seek the ones with power to revive, perhaps. Don't give up the fight for life. I know he'll live again, if the Will of the many outweighs the will of death.

[quote name='SkyArmy' timestamp='1339035631' post='113819'] i love to see every Land Have MP6 [/quote] We almost had that with the Lady Amoran, Azull, and myself, but when one other tried to rise up to Protector, we all started falling. I think the population is such that only a few can be supported, which is unfortunate. If changes to MP6 happens, I'd love to see at least 4 Protectors together at once, for each of the Main Lands. Tribunal doesnt' need too much protecting. (kidding)

I think the confusion is that Lady Amoran K Kol is a woman, thus the term 'HIM' was confusing mister Liberty. I need to do more Helping too, lately. We can trade schedules maybe BFH, since I think you are active when I'm usually asleep.

It will be nice to have another MP6 out there. I think I'm the only one left.

I would agree that Story Mode would be one of the better things to "fix" for new people. So many bugs and odd things there, plus the Story itself seems, as said before, on a Tangent to the rest of the realm in some sections. Granted, this is probably also the LARGEST and most intensive thing to get through. With that in mind, I think Citizenship is the second most important aspect to get resolved. Even if the tools were just given to one person randomly, that would still allow Activity in some way, beyond joining Alliances, which are in a somewhat unbalanced state of flux lately. Shared tools are linked to Land Loyalty now, and I have not seen too many shared tools being given to "new players", who aren't citizens, probably because they aren't citizens. Likewise, allowing some form of basic Citizenship would give newer players a reason to look into what the lands are themselves, rather than simply stay with no homeland because the Allaince/Guild situation may put them off a bit. Viscosity is irritating perhaps to new folks, but it's a fact of hte realm and is yet one morething to "finally get through" in cases like the MDA gates and such. Consider it a mini-quest/challenge of sorts, to visit more places. It reenforces the "patience" aspect of the realm. This is good.