05-26-2012, 04:15 PM
Hello, friends.
Right. So. Solidarity.
I like Solidarity. At least, I like the idea; the concept of a political or revolutionary RP is something that I've always found to be an interesting kind of dynamic. It's an idea that had been kicking about in my mind for about a year prior; partially influenced by when I first saw the Commoner's Party, as well as a few other sources from games and the like (I think Skyrim actually rejuvenated my interest in that sort of thing).
With my forward of praise out of the way, allow me to throw out some points here.
1) The server seems more suited for 'episodic' events.
In general the server population seems to favor events which start and end in one setting. Not storylines, mind you, but events-- ones which aren't ongoing and expect to keep attention to them for a certain span. People seem to favor going to events then leaving; heading elsewhere for their RP, or getting on other characters. Because of this an event line like Solidarity falls flat.
I've mentioned in the past that events such as The Island would also suffer from this-- thus why I've made note in the last few weeks that I likely would not run that event. The real concept behind both of these events is that they're less a complete experience and more of a framework; a bare bones kinda plot which is meant to give people something to work off. I had attempted this in the past with the Battle of Stonetalon to a minor degree, and the Hearthglen storyline to a greater success with mission boards-- but even they began to dwindle off as time passed, and really there was more emphasis behind the hub created than the events themselves most of the time.
Point being, Solidarity's set up isn't one in which you're meant to get everything intended from an event. The idea was more within how people would interact with one another over the conflict; the Royalists were largely supposed to be player influenced until the halfway point as stated prior, for instance.
To my current observation though I haven't seen Solidarity actually spurring any of the intended RP. Without the more casual meetings between players the event line is just going to seem a bit fast-- one day conquering one plot of land, then the next, etc. It seems like the event line is just falling flat in that respect.
2) Solidarity is focusing on the wrong faction and race.
I get the feeling while doing Solidarity that the event line as a whole is just focusing on the wrong things. Two wrong things, even;
Stormwind-- while the bastion of humanity in the Eastern Kingdoms and all of that, I've encountered pretty swiftly that there isn't exactly the greatest of interest in it. This has varied reasons-- the king being one, the nobility another, the common occurrence of non-Stormwind humans, and the Alliance in general.
I guess most people tend to steer towards neutral-- which does kinda disinclude them from the same kind of interest a patriot would have during this sort of eventline. It also might have something to do with the preference of neutral characters-- thus, people might not be interested in an aggressor nation to the Horde.
The other problem is humans, in general-- it seems like there is much more interest in elven politics when things come down to that sort of matter. With humans there seems to be a higher preference, again, to the use of neutral characters rather than one actually tied to his race, if that makes sense. I suppose it would have worked better to orchestrate a belf event, or even one for the old horde races in some respects. Lots of people just find humans boring; thus I suppose an event wholly concerning them would get the same kind of idea.
(Perhaps it should be telling that one of the most readily involved characters thus far is a Draenei.)
3) Solidarity's ending is already apparent.
I suppose this is one of them I personally may only be drawing a conclusion towards, but part of me feels that there would be some lack of interest if only because the event has a slated ending-- people don't know -how- that ending is going to come about, but it's been stated before that the changes brought about by the event chain are going to be temporary-- if it was not already stated then odds are you could have easily guessed either way, especially with lore-important points such as Moonbrook being overtaken.
So yeah. I guess it's a predictable ending-- and part of me is thinking that because people know that the work is going to be undone it seems more like a futile experience, or one that will put them on the 'losing side' to participate in.
Idunno. Again, this is only my guess on this specific notion.
4) Solidarity is a companion event to an event that never was.
Solidarity was meant to run alongside the Defias Brotherhood event line. The idea was to spark a lot of interest in the area, and generate a bit of a dynamic between the two. Unfortunately, nothing ever came of the Defias event-- perhaps that should have been a warning to me.
I guess its also notable that Solidarity -wasn't- the leading event on my poll. Heck, it had three votes while two others had fifteen and sixteen. It had the least interest out of all the events polled for, and I went on with it anyway. I guess it was just too tempting to try and double up an event line, and it seemed like the two would play off one another really well. I can't really say if they would have or not, but I suppose in the end I should have trusted the numbers better.
...So yeah.
I'm not sure what to do here, is why I've brought this all up. I like Solidarity. I still love the concept, and I wish it could work as I had intended. But as is this seems to be an event line that is slowly grinding itself down, and at a much more rapid pace than the others I've run. It's funny to note I suppose that I've only once ran a whole storyline that I plotted out-- Hearthglen. Battlefield: Khaz Modan and Battlefield: Stonetalon had whole second acts that were meant to take place-- Stonetalon was to involve all of the races in their own representations and highlights in the battle, even. It was meant to stretch out into the Barrens, as well. Khaz Modan had a whole unused enemy general, as well as an untouched run of events in the Wetlands where the whole 'battlefield' thing would seem much more apparent.
I don't know what to do, but part of me feels the solution is to truncate Solidarity as I did these two. How though I'm not sure.
/ramble.
Right. So. Solidarity.
I like Solidarity. At least, I like the idea; the concept of a political or revolutionary RP is something that I've always found to be an interesting kind of dynamic. It's an idea that had been kicking about in my mind for about a year prior; partially influenced by when I first saw the Commoner's Party, as well as a few other sources from games and the like (I think Skyrim actually rejuvenated my interest in that sort of thing).
With my forward of praise out of the way, allow me to throw out some points here.
1) The server seems more suited for 'episodic' events.
In general the server population seems to favor events which start and end in one setting. Not storylines, mind you, but events-- ones which aren't ongoing and expect to keep attention to them for a certain span. People seem to favor going to events then leaving; heading elsewhere for their RP, or getting on other characters. Because of this an event line like Solidarity falls flat.
I've mentioned in the past that events such as The Island would also suffer from this-- thus why I've made note in the last few weeks that I likely would not run that event. The real concept behind both of these events is that they're less a complete experience and more of a framework; a bare bones kinda plot which is meant to give people something to work off. I had attempted this in the past with the Battle of Stonetalon to a minor degree, and the Hearthglen storyline to a greater success with mission boards-- but even they began to dwindle off as time passed, and really there was more emphasis behind the hub created than the events themselves most of the time.
Point being, Solidarity's set up isn't one in which you're meant to get everything intended from an event. The idea was more within how people would interact with one another over the conflict; the Royalists were largely supposed to be player influenced until the halfway point as stated prior, for instance.
To my current observation though I haven't seen Solidarity actually spurring any of the intended RP. Without the more casual meetings between players the event line is just going to seem a bit fast-- one day conquering one plot of land, then the next, etc. It seems like the event line is just falling flat in that respect.
2) Solidarity is focusing on the wrong faction and race.
I get the feeling while doing Solidarity that the event line as a whole is just focusing on the wrong things. Two wrong things, even;
Stormwind-- while the bastion of humanity in the Eastern Kingdoms and all of that, I've encountered pretty swiftly that there isn't exactly the greatest of interest in it. This has varied reasons-- the king being one, the nobility another, the common occurrence of non-Stormwind humans, and the Alliance in general.
I guess most people tend to steer towards neutral-- which does kinda disinclude them from the same kind of interest a patriot would have during this sort of eventline. It also might have something to do with the preference of neutral characters-- thus, people might not be interested in an aggressor nation to the Horde.
The other problem is humans, in general-- it seems like there is much more interest in elven politics when things come down to that sort of matter. With humans there seems to be a higher preference, again, to the use of neutral characters rather than one actually tied to his race, if that makes sense. I suppose it would have worked better to orchestrate a belf event, or even one for the old horde races in some respects. Lots of people just find humans boring; thus I suppose an event wholly concerning them would get the same kind of idea.
(Perhaps it should be telling that one of the most readily involved characters thus far is a Draenei.)
3) Solidarity's ending is already apparent.
I suppose this is one of them I personally may only be drawing a conclusion towards, but part of me feels that there would be some lack of interest if only because the event has a slated ending-- people don't know -how- that ending is going to come about, but it's been stated before that the changes brought about by the event chain are going to be temporary-- if it was not already stated then odds are you could have easily guessed either way, especially with lore-important points such as Moonbrook being overtaken.
So yeah. I guess it's a predictable ending-- and part of me is thinking that because people know that the work is going to be undone it seems more like a futile experience, or one that will put them on the 'losing side' to participate in.
Idunno. Again, this is only my guess on this specific notion.
4) Solidarity is a companion event to an event that never was.
Solidarity was meant to run alongside the Defias Brotherhood event line. The idea was to spark a lot of interest in the area, and generate a bit of a dynamic between the two. Unfortunately, nothing ever came of the Defias event-- perhaps that should have been a warning to me.
I guess its also notable that Solidarity -wasn't- the leading event on my poll. Heck, it had three votes while two others had fifteen and sixteen. It had the least interest out of all the events polled for, and I went on with it anyway. I guess it was just too tempting to try and double up an event line, and it seemed like the two would play off one another really well. I can't really say if they would have or not, but I suppose in the end I should have trusted the numbers better.
---------------------------------
...So yeah.
I'm not sure what to do here, is why I've brought this all up. I like Solidarity. I still love the concept, and I wish it could work as I had intended. But as is this seems to be an event line that is slowly grinding itself down, and at a much more rapid pace than the others I've run. It's funny to note I suppose that I've only once ran a whole storyline that I plotted out-- Hearthglen. Battlefield: Khaz Modan and Battlefield: Stonetalon had whole second acts that were meant to take place-- Stonetalon was to involve all of the races in their own representations and highlights in the battle, even. It was meant to stretch out into the Barrens, as well. Khaz Modan had a whole unused enemy general, as well as an untouched run of events in the Wetlands where the whole 'battlefield' thing would seem much more apparent.
I don't know what to do, but part of me feels the solution is to truncate Solidarity as I did these two. How though I'm not sure.
/ramble.
