Maximus,
thanks for your comments. Yet I think you are missing the point.
The differences between the different communities are well known and have been discussed a couple of times. Your description of the former Leanon roleplay community may be correct in your view, but I feel it overly judgemental.
Indeed that community was ways more cooperative in roleplay among nations, and even factions, and comprised in much more mutual interaction. Insofar it fundamentally differed from the ways the French community had chosen. It was, though, a very lively and attractive part of server activities, participation often being better than nowadays in a larger community. I am well aware that Aniro roleplay was very much different, that it was attractive and satisfying for the participants as well.
It is obvious that such different styles may lead, and already led, to conflicts and clashes which have not been resolved completely or to everybody's satisfaction.
Yet I fail to see that the one way is superior or more valuable compared with the other, while I feel in your writing a somewhat missionary drive to impose the one way onto the other side. And I think, while I confess not to have any easy solution at hand, that such approach is plain wrong.
As to power to players: I feel - in terms of the Atreus event - the imminent risk that important parts of my biography and roleplay are being taken away from me, substantially altered and destroyed without any possibility for me to act on, that is why I opened this thread. It may be pleasant for a handful of players to alter the game for all others, among them not few Fyros patriots, and may give them much power, in fact not that of players, but that of an event guide creating that storyline.
Btw., I am well aware how the ET works, and how difficult it is for them to do their job in a multilanguage environment with different, not seldom conflicting playstyles and traditions. And I agree to much you write about the way we should participate in events. Yet it is important to retain the impression to be playing, and not to be played with. Therefore I consider it legitimate to voice concerns when one feels transgressions or when they are at risk to occur.
Of course there may always be activities remaining in the hands of small groups of players, and they may prove interesting and rewarding, be it for those groups alone, or for the whole of the community. Where they are influencing the gameplay of larger parts of the community, the interests of this larger part have to be taken in account. To voice concerns when one sees the danger of major dissatisfaction, has nothing to do with general mistrust, it is just a part of monitoring what is going on and giving feedback.
ok, got too long once more. Have fun :)
thanks for your comments. Yet I think you are missing the point.
The differences between the different communities are well known and have been discussed a couple of times. Your description of the former Leanon roleplay community may be correct in your view, but I feel it overly judgemental.
Indeed that community was ways more cooperative in roleplay among nations, and even factions, and comprised in much more mutual interaction. Insofar it fundamentally differed from the ways the French community had chosen. It was, though, a very lively and attractive part of server activities, participation often being better than nowadays in a larger community. I am well aware that Aniro roleplay was very much different, that it was attractive and satisfying for the participants as well.
It is obvious that such different styles may lead, and already led, to conflicts and clashes which have not been resolved completely or to everybody's satisfaction.
Yet I fail to see that the one way is superior or more valuable compared with the other, while I feel in your writing a somewhat missionary drive to impose the one way onto the other side. And I think, while I confess not to have any easy solution at hand, that such approach is plain wrong.
As to power to players: I feel - in terms of the Atreus event - the imminent risk that important parts of my biography and roleplay are being taken away from me, substantially altered and destroyed without any possibility for me to act on, that is why I opened this thread. It may be pleasant for a handful of players to alter the game for all others, among them not few Fyros patriots, and may give them much power, in fact not that of players, but that of an event guide creating that storyline.
Btw., I am well aware how the ET works, and how difficult it is for them to do their job in a multilanguage environment with different, not seldom conflicting playstyles and traditions. And I agree to much you write about the way we should participate in events. Yet it is important to retain the impression to be playing, and not to be played with. Therefore I consider it legitimate to voice concerns when one feels transgressions or when they are at risk to occur.
Of course there may always be activities remaining in the hands of small groups of players, and they may prove interesting and rewarding, be it for those groups alone, or for the whole of the community. Where they are influencing the gameplay of larger parts of the community, the interests of this larger part have to be taken in account. To voice concerns when one sees the danger of major dissatisfaction, has nothing to do with general mistrust, it is just a part of monitoring what is going on and giving feedback.
ok, got too long once more. Have fun :)
---
Daomei die Streunerin - religionsneutral, zivilisationsneutral, gildenneutral