Posted by Imbrogno(VIP) on October 20, 2000 at 16:40:37:
In Reply to: My answers: posted by Proud Blade(VIP) on October 20, 2000 at 15:56:01:
> I've often wondered what it would be like in the one player/on character model. Regardless of how it would be enforced, couple of (for anyone) questions: > Are you simply saying delete your current character before starting a new one? > Yes. I think I would allow for 1 sub-10th rank character. They could practice their skills up, get their role/desc solidified, etc. in anticipation of a pending deletion of their main character. > What percentage of active characters do you think this would eliminate? > Likely half of the high-level ones, and more of the lower ones. However, the number of people logged in at any one time shouldn't be changed by this. But I suspect you'd see a much higher mean level. Th hero ranks would get packed after a while. I like this. =) There are probably 200 people in the playerbase. The greatest number of characters then would be 200(if you were strictly limited to one character and couldn't have the 1 sub-10th rank that I'd allow for). I agree that the hero ranks would become packed and that's always good for cabal wars. There'd be less lowbies to form groups for retrievals and items would switch hands only after a hard fought battle. It'd be "arena" style warfare at its finest. > What would this do to the diversity of the character types in play? > You would likely see a shift towards empowered classes. More of them, and proportionally less of the rest. See below. I think you'd see more people playing classes that are well-rounded and don't have incredible weaknesses. I can't see anybody making a thief for instance. I agree that there would be more empowered characters(likely shaman and paladins mostly). It would also then be easier to balance classes since it would be easier to tell what class was lacking if nobody is playing it. > Which cabals would suffer most? Gain the most? > Suffer most: The ones who benefit the most from cabal-hoppers: Master, Ragers, Empire, Sylvan. Cabals that involve "high intensity" observation, such as Scarab, would gain, because people would put more effort into each character. I think those that would suffer would be those that tend not to have the in-depth immortal interaction. I hear Master is pretty bad about having "hands-off" imms though I have no first hand experience. Sylvan, Battle, and Scarab, on the other hand, have imms that are always involved and make an effort to interact. I think Troupe, Dawn, and Arbiter would probably suffer as well. Troupe and Dawn because people probably wouldn't want to waste their one character on a cabal that doesn't get involved in a lot of action pk-wise. Arbiter would suffer because burn-out is high in the cabal since it's so labor-intensive and lack-lustre in excitement a lot of the time. > What about the effect on the generally uncaballed? More /less likely to try and join? > I don't predict much of an effect on this. It's hard to say. You could make the argument that they'd be more likely to join since a better balance would probably be evident and joining a cabal is the best way to learn the game better. You could also make the argument that players wouldn't want to be constrained by cabal warfare and politics, deciding rather to keep all options open explore/roleplay/pk-wise. > What would the effect be on empowerment? Tattoos? > I think you would see a higher percentage of both. Roleplaying would be aided by having each player focus on one character. Also, characters would be around often enough to catch the attention of their patron more consistently. If I were an IMM, I'd certainly be more hesitant to empower someone who I know has four or five other characters that will divide their time. I'd rather grab a follower who's going to have an impact if I'm going to take the time for an interview/quest. Agreed on all points. > Would the average player be more or less inclined to delete the character out of boredom? > I'd say less. If you delete, your alternative is to start rolling stats and start again from level one. You can't just jump over to your Rager for some kicks. The person who deletes their hero, rolls a new character, and sees that a quest is going on.... will be sad. Again I agree. > Do the various former/current cabal leaders think they would play more often if that was their only character? > I can't say. As Ingvar, I didn't play anyone else, period. personally, if you are playing a character with "induct" or "interview" as a common responsibility, you should definitely focus more on being around, and that means almost all time on your leader character. I didn't play anybody else when I was playing Polemachus and I didn't play anybody else when I was playing Imbrogno. I think your only choice would be to either play your leader more or log in less. Both of which are good things, the former for the game itself and the latter for your social life and grip on reality. :) > I'm just curious. I try to play my characters serially (and they're all "the third") so this concept wouldn't really affect my style of play. I do wonder what it would be like if the pendulum stopped swinging and the normally caballed players just stuck it out in the same cabal. > I can't say for certain, but I suspect it would be a lot better of a game. Agreed.