Ookla the Cited

Members
  • Content count

    261
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

163 Oldblood

4 Followers

About Ookla the Cited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

369 profile views
  1. Greetings all. Hopefully I can be more active next cycle and start placing more established reads on people. These are more like quick, uninformed sketches that are most likely missing information, but I thought I should at least post something. Karnatheon (village) Karn’s worries about being lynched, while usually damning for experienced players, are NAI here: I wouldn’t go so far to clear them entirely, but I have stated in the past about the survivor mindset, and it’s something that often gets new players lynched. Aside from that, I’m mostly gutreading them as village, and especially since this is one of their first games I think it would be harder for them to hide their mistakes. Fura (slightly elim) The double vote on Drought seems... odd. If someone doesn’t respond to an initial pokevote, then it’s very unlikely that they’ll respond to a second, so if you were trying to incite discussion you’d probably be much better in spreading your pokevote around. In addition to that, doing maths analysis about the rings in order to disguise a lack of opinions and activity seems to me like a Fura!Elim ploy, especially with so little player activity otherwise. It also strikes me as odd (although I may be unnecessarily extrapolating here) that the first elim kill was on a player that was doing ring analysis, and thus would be the best equipped to point out any misleading information that Fura hid into their posts (eg overestimating village defences to let our guard down, intentionally miscalculating or drawing wrong conclusions). However, Devotary is usually a solid analysis-based elim kill, so I’m not so sure about that. But I’m leaning a little elim on Fura. (If you could provide some more solid reads on everyone, this would do a little to convince me otherwise.) That’s all I really have time for, unfortunately - I thought I could do more, but work has unexpectedly reared its ugly head. I’ll be back, but not before rollover probably. I will try to place a vote when I’m more informed.
  2. DISCUSSION SUMMARY: Guild Plans Guilds should make plans that they try to achieve throughout the era that might/would bring them into conflict with other guilds How open should guilds be with their plans/goals? Guilds should be announced and discussed in the chat pm/thread before a post goes up - this prevents dud guilds that have been created in the past. Membership How many guilds should each person be able to join? (Suggested numbers have ranged from one through to five, with some arguing there should be no limit.) Should there be different limits on number of great/normal guilds? Should you be required to join a guild? The idea was proposed that avatars have a maximum of (x) guilds they could affiliate (publically) with, and those characters could only be a member of those guilds (although they didn’t have to be members). This would serve to allow greater RP and variance within people’s characters while still having the benefits of the limit - it would require people announcing their affiliations publically and someone to keep track of it. Armies How big should guilds be before being able to have a city/army? Should there be a hard limit on future armies, with all troops being hired from existing sources? If an army is created, it’s buildup should be heavily advertised to allow for the disruption of the buildup. Leadership/characters The avatar/character separation also fits here. Should guild PMs be required to be in-character? Or should it be up to the guilds? Should the leaders of guilds have characters that are leaders? Should the positions of a character in the guild correspond to the positions of their avatars? Do the leaders of guilds need to be active? Greatness/Officiality Guilds that meet certain parameters (activity, have a goal, have 4/5/7+ members) qualify as ‘great guilds’ - not just the big three. Guilds can move between normal and great status. This allows guilds to try and achieve ‘greatness’ status. Should great guilds be allowed to muster a greater (heh) amount of forces? There should be a codified list of all Great Guilds so newcomers don’t get lost down the rabbit hole of old, defunct guilds. Errata Should guild spying (which would be primarily between Great Guilds) be allowed? Both OOC and as RP. I’ve likely missed things, so let me know and I’ll update the list.
  3. Ark is aware of this, but I’m currently planning a way to break Voidus out. That theoretically could work in conjunction to the fever (the disease motivating Chartreuse to actually break Voidus out to find a solution) and could trigger a guild conflict and thus the guild reform ideas that have been developing. Of course, that would require guilds to get behind trying to stop the team (@TUBA).
  4. That sort of thing is what we’re trying to avoid by implementing a guild limit: just joining a guild to bump up its numbers without actually caring about it and devoting time to it. If you really want to be a Liebrarian, then you should properly join and devote time to it: otherwise you’d run out of space for guilds you actually care about it.
  5. I have no problem with people breaking ‘laws’. These rules are more designed to make guilds more effective as a form of RP. They aren’t really limits on what the characters can do, but rather what their avatars can do. (Much like how spamming doesn’t affect the characters but affects the avatars.) As long as we strive to keep on one side of that line, I think that we’ll be on the same page. (The other note is that nothing should prevent criminals from being punished - in that way, someone can commit arson in the Citadel. It just won’t end well for them.) And I think Fura’s response is quite a reasonable one. Many (most) of our guilds never got off the ground or had a major impact in the RP. These rules are designed to make guilds more active and forge stronger relationships between their members and the system. Later, I’ll edit in a summary of what everyone has said so far, and what rules we have basically agreed we should implement.
  6. That’s a fair assessment. We’re only trying to improve how guilds function, and not limit the creative space that there is to be explored. Although I do disagree with you on how much the proposed ideas would limit people (I do, for example, believe that there are too many NPC armies currently, and there would be nothing preventing new guilds from hiring mercenaries like the Sentinels), it is something to be aware of. And we’re not necessarily trying to make guilds more/less organised - just that we’re trying to make them more involved in the Alleyverse and goal-oriented. It achieves the same purpose no matter how they go about it. In terms of rules, I think this is just something we fundamentally disagree on. In my eyes, we’re not preventing chaos - we’re just trying to make more effective chaos. Improving the state of guilds opens up realms of possibilities in guild wars (both intra and inter) and politics, faction instability, etc. I think those are excellent requirements; especially the city idea. Maybe we could have the citadel being the result of becoming a great guild (a privilege granted by their activity and numbers). I’d probably decrease the number of members to five, though, to make it less difficult for guilds to achieve that status. Corollary: whether or not you have an army should not depend on your guild status. In fact, the way I’d do it is that I’d probably put a hard limit on large armies (small militant groups are fine) going forwards. If troops are needed to achieve that guilds’ mission, then they can be hired. This works both to decrease power level and increase RP opportunity, and given the number of existing armies shouldn’t hinder new guilds too much.
  7. I think you're misinterpreting a lot of what we're trying to do, and you've failed to respond to some of our rebuttals. I agree with you on this one. Spying should continue to exist, but I think we need to build up the guild framework more to allow this to be more pertinent. As it stands not a lot of guilds are doing much of anything. Yes, it depends on the guilds. But I would encourage most to at least try it, even if they decide to change back. Rejecting it out of hand would be somewhat closed-minded. I outlined a while back why I think affiliation limits (I wouldn't call it membership limits, that could be misconstrued) would improve the RP as a whole. Could you respond to those ideas before rejecting the proposal? The problem is that smaller guilds are waltzing in and making massive armies (ahem). We already have massive armies - see any of the big three, the forces in SDW and the Great Game, GUESS, and the Sentinels. You shouldn't need to make more - I've said repeatedly that hiring people would actually be a lot more fun and sets up some RP. Yes, you can have smaller guilds have a small number of NPC's to fill out the numbers. I don't think anyone would object to that. But these restrictions exist because we're trying to prevent Disingenuous-Size-Syndrome, and decrease power level. In addition, I've seen a number of guilds that were poorly thought out and subsequently floundered because nobody joined. Remember, every significant guild today started with only one member. You shouldn't need a powerful army to keep it going if the idea is good enough. (The Thieve's Guild is an excellent example of this.) I think you severely misunderstand how leadership works. There is such a thing as 'handing over a position', even if it is temporary. I'm not even sure this already happens - I think Storm is still in charge of TUBA. Correct me if I'm wrong, though. Also, Voidus is correct. That would be an amazing character arc. You're trying to paint a bogeyman out of rules. Give me a second to compile my thoughts on this. Modern historians agree that Era 1 began with the creation of rules. Specifically, the Rules for Combat, which outlined how combat works in the Alleyverse. This was in response to a major duel between two OP characters which ended up dissolving into an unfun mess. Why? Because there was no structure. No framework to create effective, enjoyable stories out of an emergent narrative. Now that the combat rules are in place, it holds a special place in the history of the Alleyverse and remains one of our most-used assets. Did it limit our enjoyment? No. It enhanced it. Similarly, we have identified a problem: the way guilds work currently has broken. It worked during Era 1, but it didn't during Era 2. We're trying to find out why. If we don't, it's very likely that they will break even further. We implement rules so that we can structure our narrative, and thus allow us to have more fun. Yes, if you disagree with individual points, then I invite you to rebut why, and offer alternative solutions. But we're doing this not because we want to 'subracact [sic] enjoyment', but because we want to solve the problems that unstructured chaos has created. Yes, our god is a slowbro. That doesn't mean that he can solve every problem because he wants to, and dictate the actions of every single character. There are rules. The rules, and the narrative we create in those rules, are what make it fun. Limitations > powers.
  8. They are connected - if someone suspects someone, they can just say that they suspect their character. Even if guilds don’t shift towards in-character RP (I’ve thought a little more on this and I’d say that guilds could probably shift to this, with planning and jokes being in quote boxes) you could still play it as the discussion in the guild PM just being a representation of the in-character discussions.
  9. The possible problem with this is that I can see the big three just become the only ‘great guilds’ and the others being stuck at normal. If that’s what you intend, I disagree; I’d love to see more guilds become major players in the RP. This also means that characters can’t be in multiple of the big three, like Tena’s GB/TUBA combo. If spying continues (if that happens I would like to see that in-character as it adds a dimension beyond people just learning about subterfuge) then this would make it basically impossible. But if we made it explicit that normal guilds can become great and remove the restriction on “multiple great guilds”, I support this. It’s probably how power would develop anyway in a city-state anyway - multiple large factions struggle while smaller ones just try to get by. You could see guilds trying to achieve greatness over an entire era instead of being able to just magic up their own army and resources.
  10. Is there a specific reason you are against it? Could you explain your thoughts a little more clearly? There are several ideas in that post - are you disagreeing with all of them?
  11. “There’s technically no limit, but I don’t think I’ve seen a guild started by a new member ever really get off the ground. If you’re planning to make one, I suggest airing your ideas with others so we can improve it, or propose alternative guilds that already cover your ideas.”
  12. If it was done with the cooperation of the two people (even assassinations should probably get permission from the person from the outset of the attack), then intra-guild-warfare could become a cool thing. It already sorta happened with the Ghostbloods, although that may have been a ploy. Still not sure. Mraize has refused to explain. In terms of the leaders having different goals: if the guild goal is agreed democratically at the start of the era, that shouldn’t be too much of a problem. It really depends on the specifics.
  13. Is the holiday season usually this busy for most? I know it’ll get busy for me in the future, so I will do my best to stay active on here (especially if we see a similar level of activity as in LG50), but consider yourself forewarned that I may miss a cycle or two. Sorry in advance. This is NAI, especially since I can see you using this as a bluff as an elim: your style of play is very helpful (or “helpful”) regardless of your faction. We can’t really draw any conclusions from this. That being said, I would encourage you to continue to share information that you can without causing damage. Mafia is a game of information and information like this that people might not think to share is the kind of stuff we need. I agree with Snip’s conclusions of Devotary being a kill for activity - PMs are closed, so there couldn’t have been any private transfer of information that triggered the kill. I’m not sure what to think about this - the only reason I could think of for a village warrior not to claim and vouch is they didn’t want to give away that they were Hardy, and thus deter an elim kill. That’s not a good reason not to vouch, and I would encourage someone to do so. However, even if someone did cover Snip’s claim, FalDara is an NAI role. If he isn’t FalDara, that’s also NAI - Rand would have good cause to lie about his role. Lynching all liars isn’t necessarily a good idea in this instance, and it’s just as likely that Rand would have gotten pegged in the first round as Aginor. The redirect indicates to me that either both Fura and Snip are village, or one of them is elim (Snip with the self-redirect to search for roles, and Fura to get Snip killed out of suspicion). I’d find it unlikely that they’re both elim, as a bus this early in the game would do much more harm than good and doesn’t seem like something I’d expect Fura to do. I therefore wouldn’t be opposed to flipping Snip to learn more about Fura.
  14. May I present to you a helpful wiki page, summarised for your convenience: https://alleyverse.wikia.com/wiki/Seven_Day_War
  15. I have an idea to do that through WoD, although that needs a little more work before I’d be willing to air that idea (although I’d probably get to it a little more quickly if people wanted to go down that route). I haven’t kept up with Solace’s shenanigans, however, so those might be a better era-ending candidate. (Another reason to encourage guilds to come up with goals - it means we aren’t ever lacking in ‘main plot’, as there’ll always be something going on.)