chaotikal 2392 Share Posted January 8, 2016 Makes no sense. Look, I don't like those creatures very much, but removing them point blank just further proves the point the lore team is lazy and has no work arounds the difficulty that is a player-built server wide lore. Totally unacceptable behaviour from the team that is supposed to be creative in their ways of handling, instead proves their laziness by fueling drama with removing 4 (5 if you count the monks.) player groups. Not nice. Not nice at all. Definetly -1 11 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadeleaf 1021 Author Share Posted January 8, 2016 9 minutes ago, Draxagon said: Wait, if you're removing lore so that you can add lore that does the same thing, what was the point of the removal in the first place? And if there are other characteristics of the new lore that could stand on their own, wouldn't they be accepted anyway? I'll explain how the process went, maybe that'll clear things up. Every few weeks the LT composes a 'loremag' a big pile of lore which needs to be voted on. Every now and again (you've been seeing more of these recently) we have anti-loremags, things to evaluate the state of lore, amend, or remove it to both clean up the server and archive under-un-inactive-unsatisfactory lore (Itherals, Bryophytes, etc). So after evaluating the current situation (about 2 weeks ago) the LT came to a completion on these races and conditions. It was agreed that the removal process (rather suspension of implementation), would occur but plays with characters involved would keep theirs if they show they have reason to still play them. In conclusion, the actions were voted upon and passed to both clear things up and allow expansion forward. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space 2335 Share Posted January 8, 2016 Just now, ¤Arzota¤ said: I'll explain how the process went, maybe that'll clear things up. Every few weeks the LT composes a 'loremag' a big pile of lore which needs to be voted on. Every now and again (you've been seeing more of these recently) we have anti-loremags, things to evaluate the state of lore, amend, or remove it to both clean up the server and archive under-un-inactive-unsatisfactory lore (Itherals, Bryophytes, etc). So after evaluating the current situation (about 2 weeks ago) the LT came to a completion on these races and conditions. It was agreed that the removal process (rather suspension of implementation), would occur but plays with characters involved would keep theirs if they show they have reason to still play them. In conclusion, the actions were voted upon and passed to both clear things up and allow expansion forward. You didn't answer the question. If you are removing lore for similar lore to come in, why remove the lore in the first place? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadeleaf 1021 Author Share Posted January 8, 2016 3 minutes ago, BrandNewKitten said: I would urge the team to not be opposed to the return of these groups in the future. Especially with trolls as they are a staple. If a group of players come to you and say "we would like to play these creatures that aren't currently on the server but have been" the team should be lax about it. That's just my opinion. The other ones were both decent ideas but neither were fully realized in my opinion. That was the intention moving forwards. In their current state the lore was voted on, and handled accordingly. This definetly allows the possibility of revision of lore, and we would actually hope for such a thing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zaezae 1098 Share Posted January 8, 2016 Guys, the thought process is actually quite simple. Why should new lore not have a chance because there is this lore over here that hogs up the niche that no one ever plays? Like, it isn't difficult /at all/ to understand. Gosh, leave it up to LOTC to take a simple thought and turn it into drama. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadeleaf 1021 Author Share Posted January 8, 2016 5 minutes ago, Space said: You didn't answer the question. If you are removing lore for similar lore to come in, why remove the lore in the first place? Rather, as Zae said, lore to fill the niche in place of the current. The lore was deemed unnessacary or under used in one way or another and it was acted upon accordingly. To make something better and to clean out lore decided on by the LT. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaotikal 2392 Share Posted January 8, 2016 6 minutes ago, ¤Arzota¤ said: I'll explain how the process went, maybe that'll clear things up. Every few weeks the LT composes a 'loremag' a big pile of lore which needs to be voted on. Every now and again (you've been seeing more of these recently) we have anti-loremags, things to evaluate the state of lore, amend, or remove it to both clean up the server and archive under-un-inactive-unsatisfactory lore (Itherals, Bryophytes, etc). So after evaluating the current situation (about 2 weeks ago) the LT came to a completion on these races and conditions. It was agreed that the removal process (rather suspension of implementation), would occur but plays with characters involved would keep theirs if they show they have reason to still play them. In conclusion, the actions were voted upon and passed to both clear things up and allow expansion forward. Why is this being attended first and not the more needed things, such as an incredibly desperate repair to the Magical lore, the confirmation of Dwarven lore, amongst other things that need more urgent attention... There's been a year or so since the team produced anything of relevance to the lore. And this is substracting from lore, also aiding to scramble it further. You also never mentioned that groups may return in the original post? If you guys are so skilled at writing that you were entitled with a group rank for it, why can't you write better posts? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadeleaf 1021 Author Share Posted January 8, 2016 8 minutes ago, Chaotikal said: Why is this being attended first and not the more needed things, such as an incredibly desperate repair to the Magical lore, the confirmation of Dwarven lore, amongst other things that need more urgent attention... There's been a year or so since the team produced anything of relevance to the lore. And this is substracting from lore, also aiding to scramble it further. You also never mentioned that groups may return in the original post? If you guys are so skilled at writing that you were entitled with a group rank for it, why can't you write better posts? Point by point: -The team as it stands is working its butt off with 5.0 lore and lore for a very interesting event to occur hopefully in febuary to give you all something to do. That is what they are writing, The other Lore you've mentioned may be submitted by players or otherwise, but Connor has deemed map lore to be a priority as it is. -It's 11 pm, I'm tired and it was written on a phone. The idea was to get the point across, and to imply new lore could come in. I don't write the lore fyi, I just help Connor #GmSlave. My apologies if the post wasn't to your liking Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaotikal 2392 Share Posted January 8, 2016 Just now, ¤Arzota¤ said: Point by point: -The team as it stands is working its butt off with 5.0 lore and lore for a very interesting event to occur hopefully in febuary to give you all something to do. That is what they are writing, The other Lore you've mentioned may be submitted by players or otherwise, but Connor has deemed map lore to be a priority as it is. -It's 11 pm, I'm tired and it was written on a phone. The idea was to get the point across, and to imply new lore could come in. I don't write the lore fyi, I just help Connor #GmSlave. How can Dwarven Lore be player induced when EVERY TIME Dwarves had turned in their lore it was denied, or taken shortly after by a LM who left it useless or voided most of it shortly after, encumbering the Dwarves to even a shittier situation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadeleaf 1021 Author Share Posted January 8, 2016 3 minutes ago, Chaotikal said: How can Dwarven Lore be player induced when EVERY TIME Dwarves had turned in their lore it was denied, or taken shortly after by a LM who left it useless or voided most of it shortly after, encumbering the Dwarves to even a shittier situation. This is straying from the original topic. If you would like to address this privately, Dizzy should be able to help you out if you've got any questions or concerns with dwarven lore. Best of luck on that front. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stag 3230 Share Posted January 8, 2016 Especially if you think of all the times our community has posted this comment on a lore thread "This is cool but the server is over saturated with magic & creature lore. We don't need more." This helps the perception that there are empty spots to be filled. Players who are reading this thread may be thinking of a couple things. 1.) That creature is cool. Maybe I will work to play one. 2.) Less creatures? Maybe I have an idea for a better one. I was playing devils advocate there, Arzota. I think it's healthy to put some lore to rest, especially if you allow current players to keep their creatures and let the community know that they are gone for now but maybe not forever. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Areon 947 Share Posted January 8, 2016 But Arzota, all of Oren play Trolls. 16 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mephistophelian 977 Share Posted January 8, 2016 2 hours ago, ¤Arzota¤ said: That was the intention moving forwards. In their current state the lore was voted on, and handled accordingly. This definetly allows the possibility of revision of lore, and we would actually hope for such a thing. My thoughts on this entire idea are not pleasant, but everyone else has said what I would have had to say. So, instead, I will ask this: What amendments must be made on the current lore of these creatures to make it acceptable? Must it allow more people to be able to play the creature? Simply put, I am asking what part of the lore needs revising. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angmarzku 1251 Share Posted January 8, 2016 Bryophites? Why the hell would bryophites be played by staff? They are vegetable people, they really have no giant effect on the world . . . are they secretly some giant monster or what? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ventusyr 233 Share Posted January 8, 2016 12 minutes ago, Angmarzku said: Bryophites? Why the hell would bryophites be played by staff? They are vegetable people, they really have no giant effect on the world . . . are they secretly some giant monster or what? Confirmed 5.0 antag. Global warming brings the wrath of the plant people. That said, my opinions on this are also fairly negative and confused. I echo Mephistophelian's plee. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.gif.4284906d3788a322c219fc4b2911a67d.gif)
.thumb.gif.9200049f1e9ae4031b060af8a5c775d7.gif)
.thumb.gif.f363e1e24ec35c023d600bb13f6d2f03.gif)
Recommended Posts