Besides disagreeing about what's good and bad for the game, there are deeper reasons for the disconnect between players and devs. The primary one is that very few people experience player and dev roles side-to-side. I will explain below.

As players, we want security. We are worried of being screwed by RNG or GM fiat, more than by our own mistakes or inexperience. We want to experiment with the multitude of possible combinations that CF offers, but we also want to plan and execute plans with some predictability.

CF however is designed in such a way that almost nothing is guaranteed. The nature of limited gear means you can't be sure what you will be wearing. The nature of many classes is such that you don't know in advance what abilities you will have. Whether you will have a certain edge, tattoo or cabal power. As a result, the more things are gated by GM approval, the less secure we can be that our next character will "take off".

Ways the game can screw you over are so numerous that you cannot, and should not, have detailed contingency plans. Instead you are encouraged to "roll with the punches", whatever that means. Usually it means discarding most prior expectations or ideally not having any in the first place. Being able to adjust your playstyle is often required, but sadly not all playstyles fit all players.

Staff members--after they've been on staff for some time--usually cease to be able to experience that worry, even if they did as players, and even as they continue playing mortal characters:
1) A mortal character is no longer their only outlet into the world of CF, so there is less concern about possible failures.
2) They learn to look at the story/world as a whole, and appreciate a good dynamic even if it is to the detriment of the character they play. In non-staff players such attitude is an exception rather than the norm.
3) They tend to have more knowledge and thus are able to avoid pitfalls that ordinary players would've seen as unavoidable for not knowing the underlying mechanic. Which, naturally, saves them some grief.
4) As insiders, they are more aware of any upcoming changes that might ruin a "character plan" and have time to adjust and/or come to terms with them even if they don't agree. Players don't have that luxury (case in point: when edges were first nerfed I was playing a bard, and if I knew in advance I could only have those several edges I took first, I would have taken very different ones.)

I speak from experience: becoming an area builder I stopped caring as much for leveling up my characters and began caring about "leveling up" the game world. Although I continued playing mortal characters, any fears or troubles that players may have expressed (losing gear, losing the benefits of a skill recently nerfed) started to feel petty and unimportant--and easily bypassable if they would just try.

Only playing CF and taking on the role of someone who has zero control over gameplay has helped me see my error.

Powers/Changes arbitrarily made:

This has been a problem for awhile with orcs. Granted no one really plays orc so it isn't much of a problem for the majority of the playerbase, so it is ignored.

The two examples that I can think of that affected orcs, but since not many play them, no one cares, but is just something that irks a player like me who rarely complains.

Dulusak was removed from being enslavable. He wasn't a dominate slave, but did have a flail abilities so it would entwine and eyejab occasionally.

So it sucks, but I am a resourceful player and find another flail giant that can be enslaved who can take a few more hits than the average weaker slavers in past. Then out of the blue, that is removed. No mention of it anywhere, except after me trying over 20 times to no avail, I pray about it and it was finally answered that it was made not charmable but no reason given why.

There have been other things changed to weaken orcs, but that still sticks out the most for me.

it's about lack of feedback - see "You should appear to respect the PB" rule.

It's easy to say "it is by design that orcs do not have entwine, because that makes them OP". But it isn't necessary to say so because you do not care about the backlash. And then the backlash happens, and you go "oh you unthankful ####s", and the spiral of disrespect goes further.

P.S. And no, "every explanation is criticized even more, that's why we don't explain" is not the correct answer to this.

1) Right now we have to gamble on whether we get a particular power, piece of gear, edge etc. We want more control over development of our character/build as currently too much of it is gated by GM fiat.

2) Imms cannot understand that desire because they relate to the game differently. Their experience with the game is different. They cannot put themselves in players' shoes even if they play a mort.

PK and "murphy you just want to never die" are complete tangents and have nothing to do with it.

>a particular power

This only applies to a fairly limited set of powers. Paladin virtues, shapeshifter forms, shaman paths, conjurer familiars. Unless I forgot one, all the other class abilities are purely chosen by the player.


>piece of gear

Do you really have a problem with characters not being able to choose exactly what gear they wear from the entire selection of gear available in the game? If this were *not* the case then everybody would be running around with identical "optimal" suits.


> edge etc.

Edges are within the players control *except* for the few that have an imm exp requirement, which is a small minority of them.

Edges: I did not mean that edges are randomly selected but that I have to gamble on having enough points to take the particular set of edges on which my build hinges. It used to not be the case before a lot of the non-gated means to get edges were removed over the years. Not only we get fewer edges these days, but we also don't know how many we'll be able to get.

Powers: there are plenty of examples of people getting booted from cabals by imm fiat, which means you can't really plan your build around having a cabal power. Empire in particular used to be under mortal control, but now has a lot of Immortal meddling in the mix. Oh and a cabal with mortal elective leadership (Nexus) was removed from the game, and replaced with completely imm-controlled Entropy. And Maran is still gated by imm decision too.

Gear, powers & edges: the problem is things often get changed away from under us. Plenty of examples where I counted on something (gear, skill, edge) working one way but it gets changed while I am playing and is now useless or less useful to me.

Or someone counted on being able to get a particular cool ability or power but now suddenly they can't have it without an imm gifting it to them.

Or someone counted on being able to explore a particular area but an immortal decided to cockblock them. Selective bans from hell, lack of immxp to get into ST, that sort of thing.

It is natural that all of the above seem minor to the imms but not so minor to the guy who lost his investment. I already explained why, in the original post.

Before you are able to address the issue, immortals need to agree there is an issue... and they will not, because only non-staff players ever have that kind of "uncertainty problem".

Sorry about the defense defense thing.

But having non leader cabal powers is pretty low risk. And by Low I think in the nearly 2 decades I have been playing I have been booted from cabals like 6 times. Empire was most of them and that’s just the design of empire.

Don’t get me wrong, I have had the hand from up high ruin my chill,sometimes deserved sometimes not. But at the end of the day that particular risk runs really really low. I just don’t think there are systemic problems leading to consistently poor outcomes.

I mean I just deleted a scarab leader. I had physics flip out in an interaction where I very mildly belittled him (like I did all lowbies) what started off as a sarcastic “How impressive” caused him to lose his #### with me and force my hand.

It's just that players tend to overstate it and be overly worried about it. Human nature and all that.

It would be interesting to make detailed analysis regarding how many characters "succeed" and how many are considered flops by their players--and the reasons for such.

In general, I still think the game could use more automated stuff to encourage character progression throughout their lifespan, without depending on immortal attention, or to compensate for negative immortal attention.

Something that failed characters can rely on to recoup their success. Key word being "rely" as opposed to merely "hope". Wishful thinking, but so is starting this whole thread.

>Edges: I did not mean that edges are randomly selected but
>that I have to gamble on having enough points to take the
>particular set of edges on which my build hinges.

This is a more reasonable complaint, but I still think you're exaggerating the extent to which certain builds "hinge" on a single edge. Or, perhaps, exaggerating the number of edges that's the case for. If we're talking about "one or two edges" that a build depends on, then you'll almost always be able to take those 1-2 edges. It may just mean you don't get to take *other* edges.

Unless you're talking about something like, "My build hinges on taking devious versatility twice" in which case, yeah, that's not a given. And I'm okay with that. Think of the 2nd devious like a quest form or third virtue and you're not far off.

This isn't going to happen, but, out of curiosity, would it address your concerns if the exact criteria for each edge were made public?


>Powers: there are plenty of examples of people getting booted
>from cabals by imm fiat, which means you can't really plan
>your build around having a cabal power.

Our perspectives differ here. From where I'm standing, very few people get booted from cabals who don't deserve it. So, to me, if you play your character above-board and do the things that are expected of cabal members then you're good.

The one exception is actually Empire, and it's precisely because players play a more active role. The Emperor isn't given total latitude to be a tyrant, but he's allowed more room to be capricious and "unfair" than other cabal leaders are. See beront's last anathema-happy Emperor.


>Gear, powers & edges: the problem is things often get changed
>away from under us. Plenty of examples where I counted on
>something (gear, skill, edge) working one way but it gets
>changed while I am playing and is now useless or less useful
>to me.

Balance adjustments are a fact of life. There's never going to be a time when something can be adjusted without affecting anyone in the game. Someone will always take a hit. How would you do it differently? Never adjust anything once it goes live? Compensate players whose skill is downgraded?


>Or someone counted on being able to explore a particular area
>but an immortal decided to cockblock them. Selective bans from
>hell, lack of immxp to get into ST, that sort of thing.

Again, my perspective is generally that when someone is banned from a particular exploration area it's not without cause.


>Before you are able to address the issue, immortals need to
>agree there is an issue... and they will not, because only
>non-staff players ever have that kind of "uncertainty
>problem".

I've been a player for way, way longer than I've been on staff, and I anticipate playing mortals again some day. So I'm not sure I'm as far removed from this kind of stuff as you make me out to be.

"This isn't going to happen, but, out of curiosity, would it address your concerns if the exact criteria for each edge were made public?"

Yes. Let me know how many EP I currently have (you don't have to give the secret sauce to how much ep each particular tier in help edgepoint specifics gives) and tell me how much an edge costs. I HATE taking an edge to only find out it completely wiped out my other choices. I would prefer to make a better informed decision if I want 2 or 3 lesser edges than one expensive edge.

order in the edge list tells you that

Kinda, sort of, but not really. If I know I just passed a tier, and discussed and it showed up, I know it will eat most of my ep. But this does nothing for choosing multiple mid level edges that do not have equal ep costs or if I passed multiple tiers in a log in.

Also, I didn't say give me the ep cost in the edge help file it can be done through discuss i.e. just toss the ep in () when discussed. Will the astute make an ep cost list. Sure? But I don't think that breaks the game.

If they really wanted to give control over customization they'd list it in the helpfiles so we can save for an edge. I don't see this as min/maxing, rather as helping you customize more accurately just like you can with thief points/specs/terrains etc...

>Again, my perspective is generally that when someone is banned
>from a particular exploration area it's not without cause.

So why not announce that cause? By not saying "why", which is the case, you are being an asshole, are perceived as such, and are criticized as such.

See rule #1 - "Thou should appear respective to the PB".

>This isn't going to happen, but, out of curiosity, would it address your concerns if the exact criteria for each edge were made public?

Making edge points and edge costs visible so we can plan them would be a step in the right direction.

>Balance adjustments are a fact of life. There's never going to be a time when something can be adjusted without affecting anyone in the game. Someone will always take a hit. How would you do it differently? Never adjust anything once it goes live? Compensate players whose skill is downgraded?

Issue forewarning and wait a month before the change goes live.

Case in point: I had unused EP saved while working on the prereqs when Umiron took away my existing edgepoints. After the announcement I discussed with the guildmaster and the list was gone.

The "recalculation" made my EP go forever into negative after calculating the cost of edges I had already taken--but those were mostly convenience and none of the really necessary ones yet. Forewarning would've prevented this.

Compensating also works. That's what I do in my MUD.

>Again, my perspective is generally that when someone is banned from a particular exploration area it's not without cause.

Tell us the cause, so that we know what we should avoid doing next time.

>I've been a player for way, way longer than I've been on staff, and I anticipate playing mortals again some day. So I'm not sure I'm as far removed from this kind of stuff as you make me out to be.

The longer you remain there, the more removed you will be, unless you take specific effort to prevent that. You cannot take that effort until you accept that the tendency exists.

>Making edge points and edge costs visible so we can plan them
>would be a step in the right direction.

Personally, I wouldn't be opposed to this. But it's also not a big deal to me. I've almost always found myself able to take the edges I "really want".

>Issue forewarning and wait a month before the change goes
>live.

Also not opposed to this. One down side might be that when you're downgrading something because you think it's "overpowered", announcing an upcoming change brings attention to the fact that it's OP and invites people to exploit it as much possible during that month.

>Case in point: I had unused EP saved while working on the
>prereqs when Umiron took away my existing edgepoints.
>After the announcement I discussed with the guildmaster and
>the list was gone.

In that case I'd probably have chosen the nuclear option. Calculate each player's "reward EP" based on the "old" EP formula, their taken edges, and their spare EP. Remove all edges from all players. Recalculate new EP amounts using the new formula and give each player the new amount plus any reward EP they had. Then everybody re-chooses their edges.

>Tell us the cause, so that we know what we should avoid doing
>next time.

Not opposed to this. I suspect the attitude is that players who are banned from areas for reasons of malfeasance aren't "owed" explanations. Because, again, malfeasance. Are most players who get banned from ST and/or the Inferno really in the dark about why they were banned? There are only a handful of reasons.

>Not opposed to this. I suspect the attitude is that players
>who are banned from areas for reasons of malfeasance aren't
>"owed" explanations. Because, again, malfeasance. Are most
>players who get banned from ST and/or the Inferno really in
>the dark about why they were banned? There are only a handful
>of reasons.

If you say "#### you" to the players, the players will return the favor. It's quite simple, isn't it? If you don't feel you "have to" explain your punishment, noone will feel themselves "obliged" to abide by any rules you impose, because "#### you".

It's a double-direction road. Your rules exist only if you are respected as authority, and you can not be respected if you act the way you say.

Did someone ask, point blank, and not get an answer?

I'll grant you that no explanation was provided proactively. It's always been my expectation, though, that if you ask directly you'll get a response, even if it's not at the level of detail you prefer.

Here's how I suspect that exchange typically goes down. Tell me if I'm wrong:

Player notices he's banned from some explore area.
Player emails staff.
Staff responds that the ban was for coordinating trips.
Player: When did I do that, and with whom? What is your proof? Give me exact dates and times!
Staff: Sorry, that data isn't readily available and the ban isn't up for debate.
Player: Why don't you spend an hour compiling my logins and cross-referencing with other players in order to build an airtight case against me?
Staff: Because, honestly, I have better things to do. Remember how you guys complained that not enough changes were going into the game?
Player: My character is ruined! I'm being punished in the absence of incontrovertible proof! Imms suck!

So, basically, we're right back where we started. Player is still unhappy with the staff. I imagine this alternate scenario is pretty rare:

Player notices he's banned from some explore area.
Player emails staff.
Staff responds that the ban was for coordinating trips.
Player: Oh, yeah, I totally did that. Thanks for explaining.
Staff: No problem.

>Did someone ask, point blank, and not get an answer?

Of course. Both privately and on forums. No. Answer. Ever.

We're talking Igos case.

I get it when you have a cheat ring saying you roll this, and I'll roll that... But unless you are involved in said ring, you'd have a tough case to make.

Can we coordinate through notes? Is that ok? If you know you need certain classes and a certain amount of time, it's ludicrous to not allow coordination. Players coordinate events all the time this way..

I am guessing you view chat room or email coordination as off limits.. but I think that is a really fine line. Don't imms organize events though non-game channels?

P.s. I haven't looked at help cheat in some time, nor do I have more than one ooc friend in which to coordinate with.

It also turns into a chicken vs egg arguement though. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if player A respects staff member B when it comes to the rules. Broken rules = punishment.

And up to whatever staff members interpretation of say, whether or not someone has outed their character, or whether or not a character was create strictly to annoy others, or whether or not this use of scripts is botting or acceptable or not, or whether this person should be permabanned for cheating, but this person should be given a pat on the back for reporting it (while also being a part of it).

If you have subjective rules that are subjectively interpreted differently all the time, you don't get to say "Broken rules = punishment" and come off as not being an asshole.

Especially since these are arbitrary rules, some of which clearly cover behavior well outside the game. No game gets to decide what people do when they aren't even playing the game. That's just bat####.

if they are explain. Even if you are arbitrary, if you appear respectful - it's fine by me. And most of the time it's fine by anyone, because human beings are best at adapting.

Thought Boris was more about "punishment = no explanation".

of disrespect. The main problem I stated is that disrespect escalates and leads to people a) leaving, b) not giving a #### about rules anymore.

Punishment does not exist for its own sake, its purpose is to decrease the rule breach that hampers the game. When you apply punishment without having that goal in mind, you are acting as a law enforcement officer who fines you formally without regard for the actual curcumstances of the matter, which results in decrease of respect of law which in turn results in increase in criminal activity.

So punishment becomes a tool to increase breach of rules, not decrease them.

And in general it's unfair for the staff, because players are what they are - emotional ####heads who perform physics style on occasion.

Staff however are held to a different standard. That's unfair. But as a father you don't behave like your child when he cries for titties. You act mature, because that's your social role and responsibility.

Sorry to impose moral obligations on staff, but that's one of the reasons you pick your staff members carefully, isn't it?

Giving the rationale for a punishment does a couple of things:

1) It circumvents the rumor mill, which is probably full of misinformation

2) It prevents anyone arguing that IMMs are being arbitrary or showing favoritism.

3) It deters others from doing the thing you don't want done whether they knew it was a rule violation before the explanation or not.

or if I just have no faith left in our players. In a perfect world, yes these things would be relevant and make an impact. In the internet world and CF's bubble, it doesn't make much difference.

Something that I've actually noticed in my time is that the closest the staff comes to favoritism in terms of punishment is by *not* punishing some of the more habitual/vocal violators because there is a desire to not hear the whine.

You trust the staff because you interact with them as people every day via Imm channel and such. When you only interact with players either as the person punishing them for breaking rules, or as your imm persona playing your character you don't get to interact with them as one person talking to another person.

Not punishing Beront because you don't want to hear him bitch is no better than giving Jalim a legacy on an assassin because you like him (not that either of those have happened necessarily).

Come on over to discord. Join a regular conversation with regular people. Re-establish your faith in CFkind.

Being separate and aloof makes them feel like they aren't one of us, don't care about us, etc. But on the other hand, if they are constantly mixing with mortals then they will be accused of favoritism based on who they chat with most often. They will likely be accused of going back on their word too if they mistakenly say something off the cuff. There are a lot of benefits and negatives to both viewpoints I think that makes it hard to say either is better. Personally, I think I'd lean more towards letting them be slightly more human in interacting with the public side of the game but with a code of ethics in how they should behave when they do. Really though... it's an interesting topic to think about.

>Being separate and aloof makes them feel like they aren't one
>of us, don't care about us, etc. But on the other hand, if
>they are constantly mixing with mortals then they will be
>accused of favoritism based on who they chat with most often.

I would solve this by removing as much manual gate-keeping as
possible... No one cares about your favoritism until you make
Jack Blaguar or purposefully tank someone's lich quest.

This one is hard, but if you want to head this off, you really
have to put in the work to make sure the system is fair and
impartial... Not subject to a person's whim.

As an example, you could write a formula for quest forms:

Character must be 250 hours old. Character must have 20 pk
wins or losses. Character must have role. Character must have
5k non-mob killing XP (explore/obs/imm/role). Character must
not have been brought to ROTD for rules violation.

Then, when you meet the specifications, you get a (random?) quest
form. Or virtue, or whatever, but the point is there is a clear
bar to meet. Whether it is a super duper special reward like a
quest form, or just run of the mill empowerment.

Will people attempt to "game" the system by idling? Or whatever?
Absolutely. But when they fail to meet the prerequisites, they'll
know why they didn't meet the bar and someone else did.

>They will likely be accused of going back on their word too if
>they mistakenly say something off the cuff.

They have this now since an Immortal will state their opinion on
the forum, but the caveat it as their opinion, not staff decision.

I believe this mostly works.

>There are a lot of
>benefits and negatives to both viewpoints I think that makes
>it hard to say either is better. Personally, I think I'd lean
>more towards letting them be slightly more human in
>interacting with the public side of the game but with a code
>of ethics in how they should behave when they do. Really
>though... it's an interesting topic to think about.

I don't think you need much of a code, but yeah.

I'd just end up banning/denying everyone on their for being a cheater. Not terribly helpful imo.

I'm also more than content to engage in rational discussion here on the forum or via email (when my time allows for it that is).

I laughed.

You probably wouldn't. Okay, maybe *you* would. But I bet other imms wouldn't. Maybe.

People aren't really pasting who lists, coordinating to perma, or asking about specific preps(though this one does happen) openly.

That's the point.

Between all those nerfs since 2014 or so, it's good that you started announcing them at all, but if you announced them a month in advance, it would've prevented 75% of the backlash and 90% of ruined effort from players' side.

NT

To a some degree if you include in your role a certain aspect and, actually roleplay towards that aspect, most Imms will be happy to play along and grant you the edge, familiar, or virtue, whatever, if you seriously make an effort to stay on RP to deserve it. It's not guaranteed and requires a lot of effort, time, and luck on finding a willing imm with time. Even when that isn't possible and the randomness comes into being, I think it is part of the games draw for many. There are plenty of classes that don't have gated things such as warriors. Would I be happy to see more that can be chosen on the player side? Sure. But I think it's still fun to have some uncertainty in parts of the game too. In all things, I think balance is extremely important. Having that risk versus reward for PVP, PVE, roleplay, exploration, etc is what drives people in CF and makes it the excellent place it is. Getting things too easily will break the game just as easily as cutting out one of those aspects of the game.

It's not fun when you're the one trying to get forms you like to play or ones you haven't just played. And when you consider how many shifters delete once they get their final(s), you realize that it has less to do with game balance and more to do with wasting 60+ hours with the prospect of wasting 60 more to try again.

If you want long-lived characters, get rid of things that make a lot of people delete their character. Especially when it's a roll of the dice they have no control over.

Low-effort short-lived characters are part of the environment, they're the soil that lets long-lived characters appear, and the rate of long-lived / short-lived is perhaps pretty much constant, we can ask Umiron to perform the research.

You should encourage both, not encourage the earlier and discourage latter.

I have deleted many shapeshifters without roles, as have others, because the forms were redundant or just poor. When I have forms I like or forms that meshed well or fit my play style better, I will play that shifter to 400+ hours.

The characters I delete do not contribute to the game like my long lived ones do. I don't like them, that waste my time and if I tried to follow an IMM or join a cabal before I get my forms, I'm wasting others time as well. There's no reason to have characters delete because of a single roll of the dice at high level besides "it was made like that long ago".

"That's the nature of shapeshifters" is not a reason if it's detrimental to the game or player experience and since so many shifters delete over forms, it clearly creates a bad experience.

It's important part of the game :)

nt

I feel like if shapeshifters were such a drag, people wouldn't be rolling them up so often. I actually was thinking if that mystery of what they might get isn't actually part of what people actually enjoy with shapeshifters. Like gambling it can be addictive perhaps? And yes, having people to level up with is great.

That said, I understand Saagkri's concern too. It's just one of those things though where I think variety makes the game better. Warriors have full control choosing their specialties, along with thieves and some others, whereas shapeshifters have limited control. I'm not really convinced everything should have complete control like he suggests, though. It's fun to have a little randomness, a little mystery, thrown in sometimes.

Variety in forms makes the game better? You could say that about every class if it's true. Yes, warriors get full control over their character build. But, wouldn't it make the game better if they didn't? I know one thing, it would frustrate the hell out of people playing warriors and cause many to throw the character away once they discovered their legacies and/or specs.

Yes, shapeshifters look popular. One reason for this could be that a couple of people play 4 shapeshifters before they can get one that they are willing to play. If they had more control over their forms, you would have fewer shifter chars and they would be longer lived.

As an example, Umiron or Destuvius (I forget which) pointed out that there were 25 hero shapeshifters with 100+ hours in 2018.

20% of those were probably mine. I'd actually be curious how many hero shapeshifters there were that were under 100 hours. There are probably a handful of players that own most of those characters. The reason there are so many is because a high level roll of the dice caused them to abandon their character.

Or at least a break from posting about how much you hate the random form aspect of them. I am sorry that you don't like the way the class is designed but it won't be changed. Good luck on getting your perfect form combo on the next go though!

I don't expect shifters to change. In fact, it seems that the best way to make sure something isn't changed is to bring it up on this board. But, like many people who play CF, I like to express my opinions on ways I think it can be improved and discuss them with people who may see it differently. I don't think I've been rude or taken any indefensible positions while doing so.

I appreciate your advice, though I don't think you have a basis for assuming I need the "perfect form combo". I could give you the same advice. You show at least as much distaste for the playerbase as I do toward random forms. You constantly complain about us bitching and whining. You seem to assume most of us are liars, cheaters and ingrates. Frankly, you seem miserable having to even deal with the players. Perhaps you could use a break as well.

Constructive criticism is a thing. I've played more shifters than you will ever play. If you disagree with my feedback, so be it. You can ignore it or even try to dispute one of my points. There's no need to get so negative.

You forget major pros of shifters. Gear and , skill independence.

You should throw them on the scales when comparing them with warriors.

I wasn't comparing the classes. Only that the same logic could be applied to any other class and you'd have the same frustrations.

As for skill independence, warriors may have more practice time overall, but I always perfect all my controls (and spells they affect), word, shapeshift and be confident in a form before I start a war with anyone competent. I just don't like starting a fight with 50% mana because I failed to enliven 8 times. Also, if you have to switch forms, if you don't have controls masterd, you're asking to die.

As for gear, yes, HP and saves are all you need to worry about. But, that means no progging gear ever, no gear to resist damage types, and your hit/dam and weapon avg. are forever capped unlike a warrior. Also, you can't exploit vulns with weapons obviously or use something hard to parry/dodge. Also, HP gear is mandatory and many times the good stuff is hard to find. If you want to fight a battlerager, be prepared to have 400+ in HP gear and still be prepared to flee.

My fighting shifters are usually in the 1100-1300 HP range with very limited gear. And with ABS/protection/desensitize, it's not a win button against a skilled warrior by any means. Especially if they know how to type 'flee' when not prepared.

I will admit I am a little confused here. As some of these things for
me atleast are more a known quantity:
- Powers
-- You have free choice of this as you can decide what Cabal you join
-- The only thing you dont have a choice over is perhaps getting that
last power in being a leader
-- Yes some powers you ned to wait for (Maran) but I dont see a huge
issue with the process
- Gear
-- Limited gear is a known quanity
- Edges
-- Edges are a known quantity except for a few that need Imm exp, I will
here admit perhaps I have an advantage as I missed the whole period
where edges were a dime a dozen

In alot of cases players can pick Paladin Virtues, Shaman Paths Etc

The main variability and lack of "control" is with shifter forms but
thats been part of the class design forever.

No once again I find this a little confusing:
For me atleast when I make a character certain things are a bonus.
But if you go beyond that with the thought:
"SO my build idea is both humming bird pendants, strange bracers and
this for a third legacy, with a leader weapon and insects"

I think the nail has already been put in the coffin. And the biggest
thing as to why is not whats in the Immortal control (potential
leadership) but other players desire to also hit up those pieces of
equipment mentioned.

I do too think that if you design your build around having hummingbird pendant, mark of the crusader or whatever other powerful item, you are shooting yourself in the foot.

It's when you design around a thing you can reliably get
but now you can't anymore--because it was removed/changed, not because another player stores it.

Goodbye tail of the lizard scrolls.
Goodbye rod of lesser beguiling.

What I find humorous is that your biggest beef about the game (after insulting everyone who has ever supported it) is what CF has always been about. It has always been about figuring out all of the "secrets" for yourself. Then you have IMP's that use their knowledge to produced unbeatable characters and players that publish lists and secrets because they could not get what they wanted right now or else! Or five guys that put together unstoppable groups. Or blah blah blah blah. We simply need to face the fact that the ones most intent on these types of naval gazing conversations need CONTROL and unless they know with specificity what happens when they do X, then they will be unhappy or worse, they are childish. What I would really like from you and others on this board who seem to know what everyone else feels and thinks to take a step back, try not to compare them to a police state and think a bit before venting. I also have C experience, but it was 25 years ago, about the time I found CF and the idea of cleaning up a bunch of hacked code today gives me the shivers. But then I am an old man now, and I really only roll up a character for the fun of it, so what do I know. I mean what would you do if you found the X will kill everyone in the room if you say fart in the code and knew who put it in there? :)
I deny all knowledge of doing something similar in xtrek 30 years ago.

Players have different thresholds for risk. I don’t think you should make any posts about this because you should recognize that you are on the super far extreme risk averse side. As evidenced by the fact you have done multiple defense/defense ahifters(basically advertising that you don’t want to play the game you just don’t want to die).

I read these seasonal threads where players bash the imms for not doing whatever but it’s really not hard to set goals that do not involve imm interventions.

As for the risk of being “screwed” by immteraction even high volume chars don’t get interaction every 20 hours.


Really focus on the aspects of the game that don’t require imms and both you and the rest of the plsyerbase will reap the rewards.

You are confusing me with someone else.

This also has nothing to do with risk in PK.
PK is only about winning or losing a single battle.

I'm talking about the risk of character being an unplayable waste of time. A person who always fights balls to the wall can just as easily get screwed by the build that turns out much weaker than they expected.

What is the involvement of the implementors with the game?

Scarabaeus is occupied with long fantastic projects he does not really have time for
Umiron is a jaded disheartened dude probably busy with some major project of removing gameplay features and giving nothing in return
Valguarnera doesn't have anything to do with the game aside from maintaining the hardware (probably)
Twist is not a coder and therefore does not feel able to influence the decision making making up for other 3 implementors lack of involvement.

There goes your disconnect.

>What is the involvement of the implementors with the game?

>Scarabaeus is occupied with long fantastic projects he does
>not really have time for

I would say accurate on the time part. I generally find Scarabaeus to be one of the most immersive people in the same, and happily take what Scar time I find.

>Umiron is a jaded disheartened dude probably busy with some
>major project of removing gameplay features and giving nothing
>in return

He'd have to speak for himself, but the jaded part sure gets passed around, particularly when all that "keep the game running" stuff you attribute to Valguarnera is this guy. Right now, this is the guy doing 90% of the thankless jobs in CF.

>Valguarnera doesn't have anything to do with the game aside
>from maintaining the hardware (probably)

As far as I am aware, Valguarnera is not an active member of the staff currently. Think like Shokai, here. If he makes appearances, awesome, but definitely not part of the day-to-day.

>Twist is not a coder and therefore does not feel able to
>influence the decision making making up for other 3
>implementors lack of involvement.

Unless I'm mistaken, I was relatively certain Twist knew how to code, but Daevryn and Zulg simply did so far more. Also partially a Scarabaeus case where he is also occupied outside CF. However, in the entire time I've been on C.F., I've never known Twist to be hesitant to make a decision. Some are more committee decisions, but I've never seen him afraid to make a decision.
>
>There goes your disconnect

1. Scar is awesome, always has been. But he doesn't have much time to spend on the game.

2. Umiron does the maintenance, ok. Thanks Umiron. Maintenance does not involve being connected to the playerbase much.

3. Valg isn't involved at all. All right, I was more optimistic than I should've been.

4. Twist himself stated he has never seen the code. Even if he knows how to, he doesn't. Unless he's a convicted liar like jalim :)

>Ways the game can screw you over are so numerous that you
>cannot, and should not, have detailed contingency plans.
>Instead you are encouraged to "roll with the punches",
>whatever that means. Usually it means discarding most prior
>expectations or ideally not having any in the first place.
>Being able to adjust your playstyle is often required, but
>sadly not all playstyles fit all players.

This part, in particular, struck me. As so much of CF is so punishing, I find myself playing "low investment" characters because investing more than what I already am by putting, say 50 hours, into hero'ing a shifter in October to see if I can get a Halloween form feel like a really negative rate return rate on my investment.

To also be told "low investment" characters are bad for the game, or undesirable feels like a big "#### YOU" from staff. Not only does my 50 hours count for nothing, I'm somehow putting a staff member out by not writting a role and being willing to continue to sink hours into something in the hopes that the gatekeepers open gates for me so I can accomplish something I made as a goal.

If I have no reasonable expectation to be able to accomplish something, even as simple as a random chance at a unqiue Halloween form, I'll probably choose to spend my time elsewhere, which is a larger detriment to CF than any "low-investment" character could ever be, because then I'm just not even playing, like now.

I really appreciate your thoughtful opinions.

I IMMed almost two years ago now, after essentially growing up playing this game, on and off, for about 20 years. I was maybe 13 or 14 years old the first time I saw The Skull, and my first character, a felar ranger, was repeatedly destroyed and fulled by an invisible necromancer in Forest of NoWhere.

It pissed me off in a huge way. And intrigued me. And challenged me in a way that other MUDs I tried did not make me feel challenged.

I have played characters with roles and without roles. A couple of my first characters may have been denied for passing #### gear that probably wasn't even limited. (I don't really remember if it was even this MUD, it was so long ago). Some of my characters were PK maniacs. Others were RP maniacs. Others still were explore-centric. Most were a combination of the three. Some were really well-known, but most weren't at all.

But one thing I was always mindful of is that I was playing with other people, and that to others, I was PART of the game, and part of what could make them feel challenged, surprised, happy or frustrated. These feelings are real. There are times when a bad CF session actually ruined my day! Even if I didn't have a role, exactly, it didn't take much "investment" from me to roleplay a little bit, or teach someone something new, or otherwise be part of the tapestry of interesting stuff that keeps CF fresh and fun after all these years. Just try to be a positive part of the game, because by virtue of playing, you are part of it.

Regarding Effort:
The religion that I run is geared toward characters that are much more than just casual. However, I often give other characters rewards like immxp, titles, personal quests, and the like to characters who are obviously low-effort and casual. I even try interacting with many of them, though most appear to just want to be left alone. I certainly wouldn't turn away a role-less character who wanted some interaction.

Low-effort doesn't mean not cool or fun or enriching for CF as a whole. More often than not, they don't hurt anything and are in fact good to have around. Sometimes they even go further - Gillador is a perfect example. He didn't have a role, but he mixed it up in PK a TON, wasn't a complete jerk or a whiner, and handled himself well in roleplay situations. He was fairly well-rewarded with a really nice cabal edge and cabal leadership (which comes with some hefty perks). He also had a fair bit of IMM experience for roleplay and event participation.

High-effort characters have a higher probability of being noticed, and being impressive to and rewarded by someone. And frankly, I think it's fair that more effort should reap more rewards. But that doesn't mean it will. If we read a great role, we will probably watch that character. But if the character doesn't roleplay much and doesn't mix it up in PK, we will probably lose interest quickly. Think of a great role as bait on the hook, and great roleplay as the hook itself. If the hook is shoddy, it won't catch anything.

Regarding Expectations:
There are countless ways CF will screw you over. That's true. Long before I IMMed, I noticed I often fell into the trap of expecting my build will destroy EVERYTHING ELSE. "This character will be insane, and will be great at everything! All I need is the eagle-inscribed staff and I'll be unstoppable!" And then I never get the eagle-inscribed staff and I start to get bitter and think some ####ty Herald is hoarding it and they don't even PK and... that's a dark and un-fun place to be. My error, which I often repeated, was that my goal relied on a lot of very specific circumstances in a game that, by its very nature, is indifferent to my needs. Other players and characters have needs, too. There is an economy of needs, and not everyone can expect to be rich all the time.

So what's the solution to this? Either you can forge ahead with these narrow expectations and be frequently disappointed but occasionally elated, or you can try to let go of many of your expectations and try to enjoy both the highs and lows the best you can. (Encouraging that mindset is actually a major goal of mine behind Rahsael's religion!) You can't expect to login to CF and be The PK God who wrecks everyone else all the time -- because probably 70% of the players in the MUD want to do that!

That doesn't mean you can't have fun, and it doesn't mean you can't be successful. The hunter ranger who killed the beastly AP Sodsob was certainly not decked and I don't even think he had a role. Never really heard of him before or since.

I repeat: A leader-positioned PK God With Role was felled by low-effort, casual, crappily geared and otherwise kind of underpowered combo who proceeded to fade away quietly almost immediately after that.

That's CF for you.

>This part, in particular, struck me. As so much of CF is so
>punishing, I find myself playing "low investment" characters
>because investing more than what I already am by putting, say
>50 hours, into hero'ing a shifter in October to see if I can
>get a Halloween form feel like a really negative rate return
>rate on my investment.

Are unique rewards (like a Halloween form) all you get out of the game? No wonder you're disappointed so often. Not sure what I'm doing differently, but I can spend more than 50 hours getting to hero and enjoy myself all the way up.

>If I have no reasonable expectation to be able to accomplish
>something, even as simple as a random chance at a unqiue
>Halloween form, I'll probably choose to spend my time
>elsewhere

Do you consider a cabal leader position "accomplishing something"? Because, depending on the cabal, that's reasonably accessible.

You can try to discern why certain people like certain aspects of the game all day long. The fact is that a lot of people looked forward to the forms and were very disappointed. The odds are very good that that pool of players will be playing CF less than they would otherwise.

As one of the most prolific CFers, I have reduced my CF time to about 5% of what it was before because of the Halloween form cancellation, how it was handled and the reasoning behind it.

A vast majority of my characters would probably fall under the IMMs definition of under-developed. No role, no cabal, not seeking a tattoo despite the fact that this year, I had 4? chars that were +400 hours each (including one with a Halloween form from last year). So, it didn't make me feel very appreciated in my CF contribution when I heard the decision was meant to reduce the number of characters like mine.

Yeah, I'm not really trying to defend the lack of Halloween forms. People like them, they don't hurt anything, so it seems like it would have been a good idea to put them in the game. I do think some of the reaction to their not happening has been dumb, but whatever. I really suspect it wasn't so much a conscious decision on the part of the staff as it was people just forgetting to do it and/or not having the time. Then the player base freaked out and took it personally.

Couple parting thoughts:

1. From a mechanics perspective the Halloween forms are, by design, not supposed to be "all that".

2. If you want special form then a. have a decent role, b. play it, c. kill some people, d. play for a couple hundred hours and e. don't ask for a quest form, and there's probably better-than-even odds you'll get a quest form. Which, by the way, is almost surely going to be mechanically superior to whatever Halloween form you might have had.

I'm not really a fan of the shapeshifter class, but the opportunity to receive a quest form is one of the only things that tempts me to play one. And that "perk" is available all the time; not just in October.

It's not really about how players should behave, it's about basic, statistically confirmed rules of the game development:

1. Do not appear to disrespect the PB (even if you don't give a #### about them, really). That's mainly about the self-control and not something you do.

2. Do not remove features without giving something in return. This one is like written in the books everywhere, yet everyone ignores it because they know better. Now you don't know better, that's basic human psychology, we're greedy and want more, not less.

3. Accept that the players are different, you can't push for the single "most welcome" aspect of the game and hope that everyone will become like that. No, you will have everyone not meeting the criteria leave, and then people meeting the criteria leave because there's noone to play with. You as game designers can't change the behavior of people, you can either attract or alienate them. You can't change the nature of a man.

4. Memorable characters are result of tons of low-investment characters discarded. Very, very few players roll with the single character until conagedeath, most of the time there are many low-investment characters until one of them "hits the bulls eye" and becomes a high-investment character. The rate of "memorable" characters per characters total for one player is way below 100%. And once again, you can't FORCE players to run high-investment characters if they're not having fun.



Otherwise, we all love high-investment characters that are very well developed who are involved in PK and RP and make the game fun.

So, you suspect that he IMMs lied about why Halloween forms were not implemented. If I believed that, I would be even less inclined to play then I am now.

As far as quest forms, I don't remember the last time I've seen a quest form on a character not in a cabal. I had at least three shifters that met your criteria in 2018 and no quest form:

Serris - 484 hours
Odoe - 484 hours
Acra - 439 hours

I'm just saying that I think it's much more rare than you make it sound.

>I'm just saying that I think it's much more rare than you make
>it sound.

Another way to look at it is that in the last year there have been 25 shapeshifters who reached level 51 and had over 100 hours. Four of them received a form as a reward, two being "quest forms" specifically.

So 16% of even remotely eligible (and there's plenty of room for interpretation there, but for sake of argument..) characters of the second most popular class in the game received an additional and/or quest form as a reward. If only bona fide quest forms count, then that's 8%.

That's a degree of "rarity" that I'm happy with.

I'm not saying that they are too rare. I just knew that four step program wouldn't get you one 50% of the time. I've never expected any extra form.

>So, you suspect that he IMMs lied about why Halloween forms
>were not implemented.

I said "suspect" only because I haven't followed this discussion very closely and wasn't sure what explanation had been given. If someone said "we didn't do them because we think they're bad for the game" then I'd take them at their word and assume that's what actually happened.

If it's like most things, though, then it's probably a case of "the one guy who can do this got too busy with RL stuff" or "no specific person was tapped to make it happen so it slipped through the cracks."

>As far as quest forms, I don't remember the last time I've
>seen a quest form on a character not in a cabal.

My guess is that to a large extent this is because the set of well role-played, frequently online, non-douchey, PK-effective characters is skewed toward cabal membership. That doesn't mean a character who checks all those boxes wouldn't still get rewarded if he/she happened not to be in a cabal.

1) I don't believe at any point we've said or suggested low-investment characters aren't acceptable or welcome. I'm certain we've all played dozens. The statement is that decisions were made so as not to encourage them. Particularly when some of what has been seen is people quitting existing characters, established characters for these low-investment that also then delete soon after.

2) I'm truly curious, given you had Krunk. Was Krunk a high-investment character, or just something you rolled, that you continued to play, and ultimately saw plenty of rewards? Generally I assume any orc, even if a serious character, is usually low investment.

3) I'm a little surprised in the world of D&D that so many people are obsessed with controlling the system. Whatever happened to the days of the D&D person who played their character, tried to strengthen then as best they could, but enjoyed the game either way, or even more so with such challenges.

4) I honestly think getting over the min/max is a huge step. Most of my favorite characters that I've played are when I stop worrying about the pk ratio, and just play the character. Takes the biggest frustration out.

When you feel you can't fight back, ever, it kills the desire to play.

However, I want to reiterate that my original post was not about PK. I only said "players feel the need to control the development of their characters, but imms fail to sympathize for these reasons", and I tallied the reasons.

P.S. In D&D you choose your feats and you can choose what abilities you get.

I avoided responding to this because the tone is pretty brutally bad, and so I was just going to walk away, but I am interested in CF being better, so I'll dump more garbage on this trash fire in the hopes that someone clues in.

>1) I don't believe at any point we've said or suggested
>low-investment characters aren't acceptable or welcome. I'm
>certain we've all played dozens. The statement is that
>decisions were made so as not to encourage them. Particularly
>when some of what has been seen is people quitting existing
>characters, established characters for these low-investment
>that also then delete soon after.

If you aren't encouraging low-investment play by removing/not re-releasing content, you are discouraging that style of play. Case in point: I'm not playing a shifter for a chance at halloween form. Instead I'm not playing at all. I've heard your message loud and clear, you don't want what I can give to CF.

Getting your panties in a twist because someone stopped playing a character you liked to play something they wanted to play (obviously more than the other) seems real weird. Shouldn't you just be happy they are playing? Again, you can't say you low-investment characters are welcome while simultaneously saying that dropping an established character for a low-investment character is bad.

>2) I'm truly curious, given you had Krunk. Was Krunk a
>high-investment character, or just something you rolled, that
>you continued to play, and ultimately saw plenty of rewards?
>Generally I assume any orc, even if a serious character, is
>usually low investment.

I don't know if you realize how insulting this sounds, but I suspect not. You aren't in any position to judge the quality or quantity of investment into anyone's character but your own. You can just their RP in game, you can judge their role, but you cannot know what they've invested into that character.

Now, to answer the question you asked: Krunk was an extremely high investment character. Go look at this page: http://www.carrionfields.net/help/race/orc.php Down at the bottom where it lists 5 notable heros? Yeah, 2 of those are mine.
Srithra and Thrunna. Those two represent the last of a line of orcs stretching back to when they were first introduced. Orcs where, I played, tried, and failed to find any success. I posted detailed breakdowns of why skills either didn't work reasonably (see: headbutt) or places where I misunderstood the mechanics (and was not corrected). In part, because I put in all this effort, eventually someone (I think Daev) adjusted the balance of orcs so that they weren't completely punching bags.

Rolling with the punches as a punching bag isn't my idea of fun btw. No one wants to play a game (PVP) where they don't feel they have a fair chance of winning.

So before I even rolled Krunk, I had 1000 hours invested in him. You probably don't recognize that investment as being tied to that character... but I do. I then also put in *even more* investment into RP and role and practicing skills etc. to make sure I could try the edges I wanted to try, and explore the places I wanted to explore, and stand a chances in PK vs. others.

>3) I'm a little surprised in the world of D&D that so many
>people are obsessed with controlling the system. Whatever
>happened to the days of the D&D person who played their
>character, tried to strengthen then as best they could, but
>enjoyed the game either way, or even more so with such
>challenges.

If you, as a DM, ran your game as CF runs, no one would play D&D with you. You could offer to run for literally anyone, and eventually your reputation would mean you have an empty table.

Every good DM tailors their game to what their players enjoy. If your players aren't having fun, you aren't being a good DM. If someone wants to struggle and overcome, you provide that. If someone wants to be a powerhouse, you allow that. Your job is to provide the fun people want while helping them to realize they can have fun without ruining anyone elses.

D&D is also not an inter-player competitive game, so none of that applies. If you want to try and play the equivalent of a felar sword spec in D&D, your DM probably doesn't just punish you over and over and over with losses and deaths and losing items until you give up. But CF will. There is little to no reward to playing something that's non-competitive (see: orcs as originally released) unless you are simply ignoring the PK aspect of the game.

The Imm staff have stated over and over that there should not be "rewards" for losing in PK, so the message is clear. Either don't be invested in PK (you exist to avoid it and pad others stats when you can't), or win. If you lose because you made bad mechanical choices or your build sucks or your gear is chosen for flavor rather than stats or whatever, you will only be punished (by CF) and ignored (by it's Staff).

>4) I honestly think getting over the min/max is a huge step.
>Most of my favorite characters that I've played are when I
>stop worrying about the pk ratio, and just play the character.
> Takes the biggest frustration out.

That's good that you enjoy that. I have played some of those characters too. Not every character I play is about PK wins, or even about PKing at all. But every character is designed to be successful at *something* and I will have a really hard time enjoying my character if I'm completely blocked from being successful at whatever my character was built to succeed at.

Since I cannot succeed at getting a Halloween form, I won't enjoy playing a shapeshifter this Orctober.

Since Orctober events for Orcs have always fallen apart or been purely fluff every Orctober since Imms embraced Orctober, I'll not enjoy playing an orc this orctober. Then when Orctober events fall flat on their face because some Imm got busy, or they designed nothing I consider worth my investment, or they put a constraint on success like 1 hero level orc per adaptation which is unrealistic, I'll not be disappointing because I won't be playing.

I really don't need you to cater specifically to my desires, but one by one, you'll lose every player you have one way or another. You don't have to go out of your way to do it. You don't have to belittle a player's efforts because you consider "any orc, even if a serious character" low investment. You don't have to remove content because it doesn't suit your ideal of how someone else should have fun playing CF.

On a final note. I'm sure my tone isn't any better. If you want to have a real discussion, come on over to discord, and we can talk like two real people having a real conversation, or we can continue to launch garbage at each other in forum posts and get nowhere.

>You aren't in any position to judge the quality
>or quantity of investment into anyone's character but your
>own. You can just their RP in game, you can judge their role,
>but you cannot know what they've invested into that
>character.

This is actually grand because it's so true.

...which showcases exactly why I am dormant ATM, but anyways.

No, I wasn't aware of how insulting that sounded, as in no way was it
intended to be. Probably poorly phrased due to my three month lack
of decent sleep. It was a question of whether Krunk was something
you'd planned, invested, etc, or if he might have been something you
simply lucked into/ Clearly, you find all your orcs to be major
investments.

I swear I've mentioned this before, but you and I used to chat
frequently, particularly about orcs. You and I have probably played
more orcs than most of the rest of the playerbase combined, so I am
definitely aware of your expertise with them, even if I forget
specific ones. I personally view orcs as very low-investment to design. Getting that sweet, sweet screen of 100% skills is a
different matter.

Anyways - not a great deal of time, but it was clear that you were
offended by the post, and I wanted to clarify that it simply
wasn't the intention.

In the sense that you only have to go out of your way to improve on like 3-4 skills to be a monster(disclaimer I had a 200 kill orc with zero allies to help). Now you can still invest a lot in playing the char but it’s pretty autopilot once you understand your limits, how to farm gold(not really orc specific), and where to get stone skin/protection/fly/teleport(see gold farming). The hardest path for most is mamulak but that’s because most are their skills as core gameplay as opposed to situational tools. Fallback/lag with a smattering of grapple and blood chug is just devastating with any adapt once you get the hang of it.

because this illustrates very well how exactly imm staff works
nowadays. 
Personally I've understood why my ####ty role wasn't even read
in about 3 weeks for one character and about 1.5 weeks for
another one with quite insane online time spent - I guess it's
because of.. low investment? You just refuse to do your work
and ask people bring some fun to you in reward? I've got bad
news for you - this will not happen.

That isn't the case with roles.

Typically it's more that people are doing things other than
reading roles until someone notices "Oh, an unread
role!" then it gets rated. If I see anyone with a role
that hasn't been rated despite it being entered a while back,
I try to hit it too. Only issue is that I fully admit I get
preoccupied with other things before I notice.

I have never seen an immortal read a role then go "Too
low investment, I'm not going to bother". So you are
definitely incorrect about the assumption there.

I don't think that's what Jormyr was trying to convey, so I'd
reread what he wrote.

-Ish

Would it be possible to simply code a little something to do a check on roles entered vs online players? I think I recall some IMMs saying that there's a flag that shows whether a role has been read by an IMM, so why not just add a little adhoc type ability that returns a list of names, like the who command, that only returns names of players with currently unrated roles. I think there's also something like this for certain IMMs and prayers. Without reading the code, I don't know the difficulty to mod something like this but I think it shouldn't be that bad. Also, I'm not saying I think role reading is a problem but maybe this kind of thing could help the perception.

FWIW, I think you guys do a great job with the game environment as a whole and didn't want to contribute to the mass of negativity that posts like this create but kinda felt like I saw something that I may suggest to improve "Gameplay", since that's the forum we're on.

That already exists. Imms are notified every X period of time when there is an unrated role on an online character, and have a command to check that whenever.

We use that, and we rate roles. Lots of roles. Lots and lots and lots of roles. So it really isn't an issue that I've seen. SOMETIMES, rarely, someone might notice "Oh hey this guy's role hasn't been rated yet" - but that pretty much only happens if said guy had been online while no imms have been, so his role just didn't get rated yet.

It's not a severe issue, and there isn't a backlog or anything I'm aware of.

But hey, you've got good instincts since what you're suggesting we already have! Bwaha.

-Ish