Pwrs And Rpcs

[gremlin]

I ahve ntoiced that a few RPCs go inactive for quite some time or those that ahve been RPCs for a long while do not ahve quests up. I have a suggestion that I think is indeed decent and well thought out.



I honestly believe that those who are not online or do not activly participate in their role should hand their abilities to someone ells who will not abuse their "gifts" like PWRs. What I mean by this is that RPCs should appoint a second in command and give them their abilities in case they were to go inactive or decide to rarely be on to keep their role alive.

Like lets say for example a RPC goes inactive for a while like on vacation, family emergancies, sickness, ECT. With the RPCs Second ahving their abilities they can keep the game moving foward insted of comming to a stand still with that Role while the person is away

Edited July 24, 2009 by gremlin

[Chewett]

but people whome the rpcs may choose as "responsible" may not be responsible in the games view.

They were made rpcs and it is their power. This is like people loggin into other accounts so they could keep the role alive, it is playing someone elses role and it is something that i dont think should be done because that role is their own.

if they dont do something they are removed, i think that this is enought for the moment, you feel that someones role should be prolonged because they dont log in? let it die with them or let them lose it when they do nothing

[gremlin]

If we let their roles die with them so will many other things...like take RJ for example...hes rarely sighted and doesnt even ahve a quest up fort he drachorns...if his role dies so do the drachorns same as with Braiton. Why would we as a comunity want these creatures to become extint and not give everyone the same opertunities that the older players ahve gotten. Also...Why don't the RPC's take a vote on who is responasable in the peoples eyes to be appointed as a second in command?

Edited July 24, 2009 by gremlin

[Windy]

I am going to have to agree with Chewy on this one. The saying goes, "The road to hell is paved with good intensions". There is always the potential for someone to mess it up for the rest of us.

I think that this idea is a good one but a risky one. Have you spoken to Mur about this? This is something that he should take care of, not us.

[Fenrir Greycloth]

I strongly disagree with this. Noone has the right to be second in command of a role. In cases such as Braiton and Alek, these roles were a mistake to begin with. Tonnes of drachorns were dished out to RPCs and the such, and flooded the game with them. I believe Drachorns should be much more limited.

We need new blood for a reason.

[Chewett]

Do not fear if you think that anything important will die away, Mur would not let a creature become extinct just because a rpc is not logging in.

Dracorns once found can be found again. Temporarily lost but they will not be gone.

And on the dracorns not, they are already much to commonplace. They are not for everyone to have, that is their nature and that is why none have been given out so recently. Rj understands this and that is why dracorns have not been given out recently. A PWR might have got his powers and not understood this, and then dracorns would have been common as aramors.

[Nex]

i know that's splitting hairs, but... aramors are amongst the least common creatures [img]http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/public/style_emoticons//blum.gif[/img] commonly available, sure, but not common [img]http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/public/style_emoticons//blum.gif[/img]

that aside he's right of course, such things need responsible regulation. i'd agree though that regulating the distribution can have different faces, such as limiting the number of drachorns per player, or the difficulty of quests to obtain it (in contrast to the frequency), etc.

[Shadowseeker]

Well, people often complain about them being rare...I personally (before turning rpc) acquired several, even to the point of me getting a spare one which I gave away in my quest...So yeah, my answer is they are too common lately, and hus it's wise that RJ gets annoyed whenever someone asks him for one.

I won't claim they are accessible to all, but you are able to do it if you invest the right work and know how to.

[Fenrir Greycloth]

Out of curiousity what makes a PWR? I know they are players with roles, but do they have any responsibilities besides making sure they keep up with their role and help out with the cultivating of the community?

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Drachorns are a pretty terrible example as, yes RJ has no quests up for them, but...

Perhaps it is appropriate as they are too common and he noticed this, how ever...

It is not RJ that made the decision to stop doling out drachorns. Mur made that choice, and it doesn't have a lot to do with RJ. That having been said, I think the solution is simply to have RPCs sponsor quests created by others, which is already happening.

[Liberty4life]

nah fenrir, pwrs doesnt have any responsibilities

[Fenrir Greycloth]

[quote name='Liberty4life' date='26 July 2009 - 12:31 AM' timestamp='1248582705' post='37928']
nah fenrir, pwrs doesnt have any responsibilities
[/quote]

Mmmk. Thank you Lib.

??
Perhaps we should have a list of current pwrs? Is there a way we can search their names in the db or is mur the only ones that can tell us?

[CrazyMike]

PWR is a recognition that the player is doing a good job role playing
The PWRs add color to the game.
There is no need to seek them out unless a player has a role that is associated with the PWR.

[Fenrir Greycloth]

Ahh, true. I just wanted a general idea of how many are out there [img]http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/public/style_emoticons//blum.gif[/img]

[Liberty4life]

that doesnt matters pwr has more meanings than just that what is mentioned, so dont forget about retired rpcs, old pwrs and other legendary players [img]http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/public/style_emoticons//blum.gif[/img] so i guess like 150 pwrs overall, but question is how much of them are playing, 50?

[Shadowseeker]

If you count tag only as pwr as well..probably. Otherwise less, full descrip is rarer.

[Liberty4life]

nah if just tag then i would say like 250 ppl

[Chewett]

By definition of a PWR most people are one as PWR just means a Player with Role

The level of their acknowledgement of the game is however different and can be distinguished by their tags/description.

[Muratus del Mur]

I am trying to make a better integration of pwr to rpc charactes. all the rpc abilities will become available for anyone in exchange of wishpoints, so anyone can become pwr, and pwr will be almost the same as rpc, and the rpc status will be kept as a "nobility" level, rpcs beeing the ones with the voting/decision/rewarding power. Rpcs are selected based on constantly changing reasons that try to group people in such way that will benefit MD (including keeping a much needed tension sometimes). MD as a program is not advanced enough to make such decisions based on a predefined system, and will never evolve if its entirely program based, thats why rpc will be allways selected by humans, be it me, or other rpcs, or random selection of players asked to vote. Trust me, you will never know exactly how to get rpc and the moment you ask for it you are 10 steps back from getting it.

maybe a bit offtopic, but useful to know.

[Liberty4life]

awesome each day i learn new technique how to avoid rpc status, sweeeeet