1.9 - New Map & New Spawn

[Praefator]

I appreciate the direct way of communication Jessahkat. You'll not hear me complain about it being 'blunt' - it's my default way of communication

With that being said - allow me to voice my opinion on your reaction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDGlN6mluGA

To be blunt:

The Corps, as they were, were not well implemented and were inherently broken. While they did inspire a number of nifty designs, I have seen far greater designs come from a lack of the Corps. These groups were in their entirety a hindrance to multiple players and gave no true benefit.

Key word being 'as they were'. In addition, "I have seen far greater designs come from a lack of the Corps" is entirely subjective and circumstantial at best. While it's impossible to determine the effects of the last several years if Corps were still alive (and/or improved upon) during the entire history without some means of viewing an alternate timeline, I think it's fair to say Corps (or lack thereof) have no discernible effect on whether someone comes up with a great design. For the sake of the argument, I'll not go into what constitutes a 'great' build, as it would derail my points in this reply and the original intent of the thread into a discussion of entirely subjective criteria.

Also, just because Corps were not well implemented in the past, does not mean it can not be improved upon and become 'unbroken'. The very reason I posted these ideas, was to spark a discussion in order to determine whether there's interest in revisiting the ideas of Corps.

Chief among my reasons to even bother is simple. While it had its flaws, it also sparked something much more important (to me). They sparked a true 'community' that sticked together, because the players were rallied behind a common cause. What we see now, is a whole new wave of fragmented players, simply because there was no more reason for the old guard to even stick around. In other words, the very identity of DC was altered when the Corps dissipated. Can you tell me which other component in DC history affected the players in such a dramatic way?

To put it blunt as well:
1. the Corps were the main reason we had a stable playerbase
2. the Corps were the main reason we had more than a handful of players online concurrently at any given point in time.

Start to see the picture?

Also, to address "These groups were in their entirety a hindrance to multiple players and gave no true benefit." - They had no perks/incentives, and I have just addressed that they did indeed provide benefit.

DC, as it is, does not need this level of separation. A separation of the player-base into factions or groups can be damaging as the leaders of said groups could effectively become staff in their own right as I have personally watched happen in the past. Staff is the only part of DC that needs any kind of infrastructure. Cities are one thing, nations are another. Players can build cities and areas and own those areas without any governance other than the rules of our server. So far there has been no effective government other than staff and, gosh darnit, it's been working pretty well.

While I cannot justify a claim stating that I know the ins and outs of the current Dreamcraft iteration, I think you're going overboard. While there is potential for abuse (as with all things), there is nothing keeping us from building in checks to make sure that players stay players, and staff stays staff. In addition, I think Dreamcraft does need something to shake things up.

For one, a previous opportunity for a conflict in interest was with yours truly, as I was doubling as both the Fire Corps leader and a Moderator. While I (to my knowledge) separated the two duties entirely, it would have been possible for me to further the Fire Corps agenda by proposing stuff in the staff meetings that would further Fire Corps at the expense of the other 3. In effect, creating a conflict of interest.

As I have a spine and integrity, I would never do such a thing, as ultimately such a plot would be a short term gain, but a long term detriment. This statement is entirely in line with my prior behavior as both Moderator and Fire Corps leader.

DC, as it is, also does not need this competition, at least not as it is suggested here. There is no need for any one person or group to be "dominant" or even assert such dominance over any one person or other player or other group. Being competitive is fine, yes, but allowing a group or player to become "dominant" breaks the natural freedom gifted by this game. Especially in a PvE environment. Players should be free to build alone or with whomever they like, wherever they like, (again within the boundaries of our rules) while being worry free of other players or groups. Any groups should generate naturally, built by a player's own natural desires for social communication, camaradie, and structure.

I should also mention that our player-base is completely different from what it was 4 years ago. Yes we have some of the older players here, but the majority of our players are now very young, running the gamut between 7 and 13. It is a maturity level that needs and requests constant attention, and diverting attention away from that can be extremely taxing.

While my initial premise may have been poorly worded (it was written just prior to going to bed), it was provocative enough to spark a discussion. So in that light, tentatively I can state mission accomplished

What I meant with 'dominant', is that spawn would simply represent the 'flavor of the month', similar to how the Hogwarts Great Hall would change colors at the end of the year, depending on which House would be 'on top' at the time in the Hogwarts House Cup.

I imagine it would add flavor to the server in the following ways:
1. People with a common 'ideology' (Corps affliation) flock together, thus bonding together, and forming the basis for a long-lasting friendship that would not be possible with just a loose affliation
2. People with a common 'ideology' (Corps affliation) would be further incentivised to participate in the economy, to gain a perk at a to-be-determined REM cost (thus creating a money sink, lowering the need for inflation or price corrections, the more REM would 'spawn' out of thin air)
3. People with differing 'ideology' (Corps affliation) 'compete' against each other to spark increasing creativity (to a certain degree, as Corps one-upping one another should be monitored), thus providing dynamic objectives to the playerbase

In addition, people who wish to freelance or affliate outside of the Corps are always free to do so. To ease the lack of a Corps, possible incentive would be the opportunity to have their own city chat channel or be featured in some way(s) in the Corps cities themselves.

To elaborate on the "Corps-less" - the ultimate goal should be interconnectivity for those who choose to affliate with any group whatsoever, as well as people who intermittently connect to others. Loners would still get the full DC DIY experience,  with the opportunity to either build solo or in a co-operative capacity whenever and wherever they choose, in order to combat any sort of alienation for 'not belonging'.

In addition, any perks or buffs for any reason should either come as an end result of a staff decision, or something allowed within the confines of the game, i.e. enchanted items or crafted potions.

Staff will build spawn. We will work out any implementation of any and/or all game features.

This all being said, should you wish to form a group of your own feel free to do so, however, it will not receive any staff assistance whatsoever.

Obviously, in the end it all boils down to staff, as no player has any executive power over any part of the server administration. As a result, any and all changes would therefore necessarily be implemented by staff, in collaboration with its playerbase.  Therefore, if there is to be some sort of perk/incentive, it's a direct result of a staff decision to put that into the DC server environment.

I'm afraid that part is unavoidable with any sort of change

Also, I would like "it will not receive any staff assistance whatsoever." to be a negotiable position. I understand all too well staff time is limited, it being a voluntary position in the staff's free time after all and speaking out of personal experience. To that end, I would like to nominate myself as an intermediary to mediate between the fragmented community on one end and staff on the other.

I hope this clarifies my stance some more.