Should we lessen restrictions on the Underdark? [Poll]

[Planehopper]

As lead builder I am 100% behind collaboratively working with existing UD players to try to address UD issues. It takes some time, obviously, but ive reached out to a few I am familiar with and have a long list of things already. If you want to send me a good list of actionable items, free of snark and sarcasm, I welcome it and will try to include your feedback with others to make a fun, believable, and mechanically interesting UD. Over time.

But as a builder I am also 100% not interested in designing areas or shifting access to areas to encourage and promote more player vs player mechanical conflict. Ive been here a long time. Ive given a lot of time. If people want an arena server they can do that without me.

And I'm not saying the UD players are to blame with pvp. You can look back in this thread and see surface players eager to get more head to head. I am certain it will be reciprocated as it usually is.

Its a "both sides" issue, but it is still an issue.

[cosmic ray]

As lead builder I am 100% behind collaboratively working with existing UD players to try to address UD issues. It takes some time, obviously, but ive reached out to a few I am familiar with and have a long list of things already. If you want to send me a good list of actionable items, free of snark and sarcasm, I welcome it and will try to include your feedback with others to make a fun, believable, and mechanically interesting UD. Over time.

But as a builder I am also 100% not interested in designing areas or shifting access to areas to encourage and promote more player vs player mechanical conflict. Ive been here a long time. Ive given a lot of time. If people want an arena server they can do that without me.

And I'm not saying the UD players are to blame with pvp. You can look back in this thread and see surface players eager to get more head to head. I am certain it will be reciprocated as it usually is.

Its a "both sides" issue, but it is still an issue.

That post I wrote to you last night was ironic, but not sarcastic. Irony is only saying the opposite of what you really mean; sarcasm is nasty, caustic, vitriolic discourse (which may be ironic or not). The one is literary figure of speech to add humour or drive a point home by contrasting it with its opposite; the other a way to belittle and insult. I'll keep my irony to lower levels, however, in the spirit of camaraderie and harmony.

However, let me say that when players make suggestions, which we have spent time developing in our heads or in conversations with each other out of a genuine desire to give a little theoretical, if not practical, contribution to the server we all like, only for certain developers to post curt pithy passive-aggressive remarks like "how about not", that doesn't leave a anything other than a bitter taste in people's mouths (and I'm not saying it is you necessarily, just talking in general here). So both sides should be mindful of tone.

This is way off-topic, sorry.

[Maecius]

Currently we have 52 individuals who have given an opinion (or at least made a post) on this subject. 14 of whom are staff (who do qualify as players as well, don't get me wrong, but will also probably get a second voice in this discussion when it's taken staff side).

It looks like we have more than twice as many votes as that, though. 113 votes at this time. If a few more folks (especially players who are not also on staff) could very briefly lay out your reasons for voting the way you did it would be extremely helpful for informing the staff-side discussion once this is brought there for final decision and the possible implementation of any changes (or the deliberate decision to not implement any changes).

We don't need an essay if you'd prefer not to write one, just a general reason for your feelings or a statement of your position ("I think we should lessen restrictions" or "I don't think we should lessen restrictions"). Simply attaching your name to your position will give your position additional power by further legitimizing it for the people who are going to argue that the poll is being gamified on either side of the equation.

Don't worry about the chatter in here, and just ignore it if someone "quote blocks" you if it's a concern over being challenged by another player or a staff member that's keeping you from posting: You don't have to defend your opinion to them, and their retorts to you have no bearing in the decision (nor do they strengthen their position -- i.e., we probably already know how they feel, as they've probably already posted). The more unique voices we have will, however, help us with any decision we make by explaining to us why players more generally are voting the ways they are, so we are more fully informed as to the wishes of the player base as a whole.

If you really, really don't wish to attach your name to your position, that's fine, too. It would help, but it's not necessary. The poll is still indicative of the fact that it's a controversial suggestion and needs to be discussed thoughtfully, if nothing else. But the more unique positions we have to consider, the more reflective of the needs and the wishes of the player base any eventual determination will be.

[zhazz]

We don't need an essay if you'd prefer not to write one, just a general reason for your feelings or a statement of your position ("I think we should lessen restrictions" or "I don't think we should lessen restrictions"). Simply attaching your name to your position will give your position additional power by further legitimizing it for the people who are going to argue that the poll is being gamified on either side of the equation.

I am voting No.

Because existing restrictions aren't the issue. Lack of available playerbase, content, DM time, and racial strongholds are the issues. Lifting restrictions for surface activity won't change that.

I am in favor of a third option: "Change the Underdark entirely".

[EasternCheesE]

We don't need an essay if you'd prefer not to write one, just a general reason for your feelings or a statement of your position ("I think we should lessen restrictions" or "I don't think we should lessen restrictions"). Simply attaching your name to your position will give your position additional power by further legitimizing it for the people who are going to argue that the poll is being gamified on either side of the equation.

I am voting No.

Because existing restrictions aren't the issue. Lack of available playerbase, content, DM time, and racial strongholds are the issues. Lifting restrictions for surface activity won't change that.

I am in favor of a third option: "Change the Underdark entirely".

I don't try to say you point is invalid or something, but "Change the underark entirely" without "i volunteer to make areas/write scripts/write quests" sounds like "just buy a house" from a famous gif. Changing UD entirely can and will take very long time while players existing there (and dozen of them do already participate in various staff activities related to UD rework/expansion) will have RP and fun draught.
It surely will be the best option and will remove most of current issues, but it doesn't happen overnight or even overmonth while issue persists even when it's being in the process of being addressed.

[Hydros]

We don't need an essay if you'd prefer not to write one, just a general reason for your feelings or a statement of your position ("I think we should lessen restrictions" or "I don't think we should lessen restrictions"). Simply attaching your name to your position will give your position additional power by further legitimizing it for the people who are going to argue that the poll is being gamified on either side of the equation.

I am voting No.

Because existing restrictions aren't the issue. Lack of available playerbase, content, DM time, and racial strongholds are the issues. Lifting restrictions for surface activity won't change that.

I am in favor of a third option: "Change the Underdark entirely".

I also voted No, for almost these exact reasons. I just don't think it's a productive solution to the perceived problem, and think it would, in the end, cause more issues than it fixes

[Korchas]

I voted yes, as it ultimately changes the current rule status to how it is in practice and is a help to enable those that do maintain the Underdark presence to actually, just maybe, do something with others without constant worry of reprisals for inadequately appropriate RP reasons to go topside. While the other solutions to actually -fix- the Underdark can then be approached with some more care and time added because the playerbase is ultimately less frustrated or likely to drop anyways.

[zhazz]

We don't need an essay if you'd prefer not to write one, just a general reason for your feelings or a statement of your position ("I think we should lessen restrictions" or "I don't think we should lessen restrictions"). Simply attaching your name to your position will give your position additional power by further legitimizing it for the people who are going to argue that the poll is being gamified on either side of the equation.

I am voting No.

Because existing restrictions aren't the issue. Lack of available playerbase, content, DM time, and racial strongholds are the issues. Lifting restrictions for surface activity won't change that.

I am in favor of a third option: "Change the Underdark entirely".

I don't try to say you point is invalid or something, but "Change the underark entirely" without "i volunteer to make areas/write scripts/write quests" sounds like "just buy a house" from a famous gif. Changing UD entirely can and will take very long time while players existing there (and dozen of them do already participate in various staff activities related to UD rework/expansion) will have RP and fun draught.
It surely will be the best option and will remove most of current issues, but it doesn't happen overnight or even overmonth while issue persists even when it's being in the process of being addressed.

Oh I wholly agree. If I had the skill to do something about it, I would give it a try. But I don't. So my best option is to make suggestions, and hope that someone decides to run with it, or refine it. If they do, I'll be happy to consult as an ideas-person. Valid points all around though

[mrm3ntalist]

the lead builder is very anti-ud to begin with and is already against this so there is little hope of this going anywhere, but the admins dont care about bias anyway

I had my disagreements with planehopper but how is he anti UD if he is willing to spend his free time and build it?

[EasternCheesE]

I am voting No.

Because existing restrictions aren't the issue. Lack of available playerbase, content, DM time, and racial strongholds are the issues. Lifting restrictions for surface activity won't change that.

I am in favor of a third option: "Change the Underdark entirely".

I don't try to say you point is invalid or something, but "Change the underark entirely" without "i volunteer to make areas/write scripts/write quests" sounds like "just buy a house" from a famous gif. Changing UD entirely can and will take very long time while players existing there (and dozen of them do already participate in various staff activities related to UD rework/expansion) will have RP and fun draught.
It surely will be the best option and will remove most of current issues, but it doesn't happen overnight or even overmonth while issue persists even when it's being in the process of being addressed.

Oh I wholly agree. If I had the skill to do something about it, I would give it a try. But I don't. So my best option is to make suggestions, and hope that someone decides to run with it, or refine it. If they do, I'll be happy to consult as an ideas-person. Valid points all around though

Writing quest ideas and texts requires no special toolset background, but is a quite big job itself. If you have ideas, try to wrap them into things so scripters don't have to invent the words themself. Be it "go there get x and return to me" or whole quest chains that become small campaigns for players, everything's possible and all you need is google docs.

long lurker on the forums but this is my first time posting

this thread is a perfect example of why polls on this server don't work because every second person is using a small group of alternate accounts to try and sway it in their favor.

the lead builder is very anti-ud to begin with and is already against this so there is little hope of this going anywhere, but the admins dont care about bias anyway

i don't plan on posting here very often, but this server needs to open its eyes if it wants things to change for the better, not restricting the ud to begin with is a good start, but the problem lies in the people more than the systems


thank you and good luck

Please excuse me for possibly being rude, but Planehooper is a lead builder for less than two months and builder job is historically not visible to players until things are already done. How can you even have any idea what projects does current lead builder vote yes or no for without having a spy in builder team?

[Hydros]

long lurker on the forums but this is my first time posting

this thread is a perfect example of why polls on this server don't work because every second person is using a small group of alternate accounts to try and sway it in their favor.

the lead builder is very anti-ud to begin with and is already against this so there is little hope of this going anywhere, but the admins dont care about bias anyway

i don't plan on posting here very often, but this server needs to open its eyes if it wants things to change for the better, not restricting the ud to begin with is a good start, but the problem lies in the people more than the systems


thank you and good luck

I'm unsure how you've concluded that Planehopper is "anti-ud" when he's said he's more than happy to work with UD players to address the issues in the UD, all I see is that he's unwilling to work on stuff that'll just promote more PvP fests.

[Planehopper]

Let's move past this and talk about the OP, please.

FYI you can be banned for PMs (on alt accounts and mains) just as easily as on forum posts.

Carry on, please.

[Truthiness]

I'm all for opening up the surface to UD races, however I believe that preventative measures would likely need to be taken to lessen the drow (and deep gnomes) coming to the surface for just pvp or looting. The 41 SR both drow and deep gnome get set them high above other races in terms of power, so having some sort of permanent 10 SR reduction (mords effect) from being on the surface for all (even the ones with the surface feat) of them would help to put them more in line with other races.

Secondly, would this rule be changed as well in the areas affected?

- Familiars and Animal Companions are considered an extension of the player character and normal PvP rules must be followed when attacking them. Beasts of burden, such as pack horses and elemental haulers, are included in this category. Monstrous Humanoid, Hellhound, or Worg companions on the surface are exceptions to this rule and these companions may be attacked on sight.

I may have a deep gnome that has a worg that does most of the talking for him (the worg has higher cha ), and this would allow for it to RP on the surface without being attacked constantly.

[Maecius]

Let's keep this on topic for now. If you have a complaint to make against a player or a staff member, please use the correct channels. If you're afraid to speak up on your primary account for any reason, at least make your complaint via PM, and do not try to derail or lock the discussion around an important decision for the server as a whole because you have some personal axe to grind with another player or staff member.

[c2k]

A lot of the "anti-UD" sentiment came about because UD races used to nonchalantly walk through the civilized areas of the surface liked they belonged there, and to be fair, that is immersion-breaking when you are trying to RP the setting.

I personally think the restrictions could be lessened to the extent where UD characters could petition to be allowed to work with surface characters and vice versa, assuming both parties are mutual about it. There has been some good RP interactions between UD and Surface characters in the past and it wasn't ending in a server-scale PvP. As long as there isn't an instance where you have a drow raid sitting outside the FAI or a surface elf raid sitting outside Sshamath, there could be room for story development.