Character Count

[Vita`]

Even at the height of the adventurer game, when everyone (or more realistically, a very large proportion) shared hunts, roleplayed, interacted with lords, and were responded to bugs where advies became ruler of a realm, the advy game was less social than the noble game. There are *far* less reasons for an advy to talk to others, or receive messages, than a noble due to not being part of noble message groups, realm, duchy, region, position etc. channels, having to pay 5 gold to join a religion/guild, and not being allowed to be an elder. The advy game will *always* be less social than the noble game and its a poor way to have a character start and then have boring silence where you click buttons to advance and then wait for more hours to click buttons again.

I'm not directly opposing your idea; I just recognize how threads start with a simple suggestion and then have 'lets do this', 'lets add this', 'oh, what about this' etc. Considering my suggestion was split from a thread where Tom rejected a host of ideas to increase character limits, I'd like for this thread to stay on point and not devolve into a myriad of alternative suggestions like the original thread. If you believe in the idea, as I'm sure you do, I welcome you to create a new thread for feedback on that suggestion.

In the meantime, Tom, in light of the support for this simple change, can we get an official verdict?

[Jaden]

I am also in support of this idea. More opportunities for new players to explore the game.

[Tom]

I remain unconvinced that increases in character count will do ANYTHING to help our issues. Many players don't even use the full character slots they have available. We would only tilt the playing field even further to the advantage of the addicts.

But what Eirikr posted gave me a thought. I believe if we really wanted to help newbies, then an ability to quickly pack up your things and go elsewhere in case your first realm choice was bad is A LOT more important then having another character slot. And I think it will accomplish what most people are seeking with asking for an additional slot.

[Jaden]

We are just asking you to give back the 3 starting nobles for newer players. Its not like a universal increase in character count for everyone. And if addicts really want to spend more time on the game, let them, we need more people to do stuff anyways.

And giving people the option to pack up easier and faster does not negate this request too. People sometimes just want to have different experiences with their characters. Like playing an infil, a priest, or a warrior with their 3 nobles. Most people dont just break character just to try a different class or a different playing experience.

[Eirikr]

But what Eirikr posted gave me a thought. I believe if we really wanted to help newbies, then an ability to quickly pack up your things and go elsewhere in case your first realm choice was bad is A LOT more important then having another character slot. And I think it will accomplish what most people are seeking with asking for an additional slot.

Glad to help, that sounds like something that might have an effect.

I agree with Jaron that it doesn't address why people believe there needs to be 3 slots for new players, but I still maintain that I'm not sure it even needs addressing. (I'm not against it, I just don't see a reason to support it, either.)

[Buffalkill]

(I'm not against it, I just don't see a reason to support it, either.)

The most compelling reason I see to support it is people want it.

[Eirikr]

The most compelling reason I see to support it is people want it.

People want to eat dessert exclusively, but that's never been reason to list it as an entree option.

In cases like this, neutrality is preferable to me.

[Buffalkill]

People want to eat dessert exclusively, but that's never been reason to list it as an entree option.

In cases like this, neutrality is preferable to me.

Ever been to Baskin Robbins?

[Eirikr]

Ever been to Baskin Robbins?

Yeaaaaars ago. Is it now like DQ where it has actual meals as well, or is it like Cold Stone? Either way, point stands.

EDIT: Though, this is now massively off-topic.

[Gustav Kuriga]

Yeaaaaars ago. Is it now like DQ where it has actual meals as well, or is it like Cold Stone? Either way, point stands.

EDIT: Though, this is now massively off-topic.

This isn't food, its a game. You aren't putting it into your body and hoping nature decides that you have a good metabolism, so it isn't a good analogy...

[Indirik]

Popular support does not always mean that it's a good idea. Look at the eighteenth Amendment.

In this case, I agree that the proposal is a good one. But not because several people on the forums say it's a good idea.

[Eirikr]

This isn't food, its a game. You aren't putting it into your body and hoping nature decides that you have a good metabolism, so it isn't a good analogy...

Popular support does not always mean that it's a good idea. Look at the eighteenth Amendment.

In this case, I agree that the proposal is a good one. But not because several people on the forums say it's a good idea.

Indirik once again saving me the time of coming up with a response to take over for my laziness in coming up with a better initial response! That was my exact point. (Thank you.)

Would you care to elaborate on why you believe it's a good idea? I'm not adverse to changing my mind, I just haven't been convinced so far. (Not that my singular voice matters in the grand scheme.)

[Gustav Kuriga]

Popular support does not always mean that it's a good idea. Look at the eighteenth Amendment.

In this case, I agree that the proposal is a good one. But not because several people on the forums say it's a good idea.

The eighteenth amendment being supported by a majority of Americans (rather than Congress) is a myth. it was a vocal minority that supported it, which is why you see it being voted away in (at least a political sense) a very short time afterwards.

[Indirik]

If by "a very short time" you mean 14 years, then sure. But that's pretty OT.

You don't have a huge number of people here saying it's good. Just a few. I.e. a vocal minority. Which, again, is an OT discussion.

We both agree that this proposal is a good. Which is also OT. By which I mean "on topic". ;)

[Buffalkill]

Stand back everyone, it's a wikipedia fight.


Addendum: And Gustav is right. 14 years is a very short time when speaking about the constitution.