You're arguing about automating rewards. Accordingly...

>>You're suggesting making rewards more automated. Are you
>suggesting that these should be the limits of the rewards? As
>in a person should not get quest forms? When would someone be
>"eligible" for a quest form?<
>
>Pretty sure I answered that in the post previously. If you
>hit the criteria (which could be something like "Has 300 hrs,
>has a set amount of IMM xp, has a role, has not gone OOC") you
>would be able to get one of the pool of quest forms
>available.

This isn't automating the rewards. "You would be able to get one of the pool of quest forms available" is not the same as "you will get one of the quest forms available." The likely aspect of this system would be that quest forms would be more rampant in general for people over 300 hours (which I'm actually really fine with - I love quest forms and seeing quest forms). However, as noted above, if people don't get quest forms, they will bitch because player X got a quest form and not them. Unless you want to make the giving of quest form automated also - if you don't, it's up to the discretion of the imms, which means that quest forms won't be automated. Besides, let's be real here - anyone who played over 100 hours, with a set amount of imm xp, has a role, has not gone ooc is eligible for a quest form (not taking into account rolecontest entry).


>>Note that, in your proposed system, if someone gets a
>"special reward", the same issue would happen once again.
>People will bitch about favoritism, about things being unfair,
>about gamechanging rewards, etc.<
>
>Huh? If people bitched about an automated system that took
>things completely out of the IMMs hands and had the same
>criteria for each player/character...well then, I don't know
>what to tell you. Most intelligent people wouldn't bitch with
>this system (at least I'd hope not). Also, if you notice,
>none of those rewards I proposed were "game-changing".

Sorry, I should've clarified as "special rewards" being "gamechanging" rewards. Your ENTIRE argument is not about minor rewards, but that people are getting really really good rewards too early, and thus, people may feel disgruntled at what's happening. And, as mentioned above, "gamechanging rewards" would not be automated, but would be in the discretion of the imms, hence, the same issue as you initially suggested. On the other hand, if you think we should get rid of "gamechanging rewards" in general, that's something different. You're arguing the standards of providing such rewards.

>>Re: religious perks, what religious perks are there
>currently? And how do you define religious perks? As far as I
>know, it's really tattooes and imm xp right generally,
>possibly cool titles, besides the recent quest form (possibly,
>but to my knowledge, that's the first time it happened -
>Kharnial got his quest form through rolecontest, other people
>got their quest form through longetivity, cabal presence,
>etc.)<
>
>I know one tattoed character that has high avg drowning weapon
>that is owner only. I know of another character that got an
>edge that I didn't even know existed (Vallinane getting that
>edge that turns divine power damage into something that heals
>you via mantle instead of just fire). Now, neither of these
>rewards "break" CF, neither are OP. However, these are
>characters that already get a ton of IMM love because they are
>religious. How is that fair for the dude who writes a
>role/RP's someone who doesn't have an active IMM?

You're right, it's not fair. Then again, those people consciously took the effort to do that role/RP - it's an inherent assumption of the risk. I don't know how you can go around that, honestly. I don't think your system will go around that. I guess more imms could snoop more?

>The goal is to cut out any chances people could claim
>favoritism. Balrahd once said that religious characters get
>more love because they are watched more by the IMMs. I'm fine
>with that, but not on the rewards aspect. Want to make your
>follower feel special? How about interacting with him and
>having him do quests/tasks etc? I loved that #### with Ghrim,
>and could have cared less if I got any reward (I understand I
>may be in the minority in that feeling though...especially
>with all the bitching going on about that SCION quest).

I agree, I don't think people should play for rewards. But people do, because that's the nature of this game. You're suggesting that imms get less discretion on giving the rewards accordingly - unless they remove the rewards system entirely, that concept will still be there.

>>And what's your definition of "imms totatlly focus on what
>they want to do?" I think they are totally focusing on what
>they want to do - interacting with mortals and giving boosts
>here and there for making the game fun for people (in
>general). <
>
>Some IMMs want to code new areas/items. Some IMMs want to
>focus on new races. Some IMMs want to focus on just being
>around the mortals and interacting. All of these things are
>good things. You know what isn't a good thing? Having to
>deal with a pissed off player who is accusing you of
>favoritism when he doesn't know what the #### he's talking
>about. Or having to spend 3 hrs trying to justify why you
>gave that dude the Mitt Romney quest form (able to deflect ALL
>SPELLS!!!).
>
>The focus of the IMMs should be to do work THEY enjoy. If an
>IMM enjoys hooking up his followers, then doesn't that create
>a potential problem with players realizing this and then ONLY
>rolling characters to follow that IMM? Or with players hating
>that IMM and rolling characters specifically to kill those
>characters? I don't understand why there is such a disconnect
>in people feeling like they HAVE to have rewards. You ####ing
>don't. If Enlilth interacts with his followers and gives them
>XP and a title, he doesn't need to do anything else. The
>problem is that I'd imagine there are some IMMs that feel
>pressured into giving rewards because they are worried that
>the player would complain if he didn't get rewards. THAT IS
>WHAT I AM TRYING TO FIX.

Once again, good intent. But speculation (unless you have concrete proof that Imms are obligated to be pressured into giving awards). If they are pressured into giving rewards...well, then, I don't know what to say. Don't give rewards? Grow up? It's a game? Have fun with the game? If you don't like them, don't give rewards? To this point, your automated system may work for "small non-gamechanging rewards", but not to the bigger "gamechanging" rewards, which is the crux of your argument.

>Man, I really need to focus my attention on school/work. I've
>spent over 6 hrs writing responses, reading people's posts,
>etc. I've done what I set out to do. Probably will be my
>last post on the subject.

Yea, likewise. I need to finish this memo.