[Discuss] Kinda weird question.

[AJ]

Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> I don't reward the ones that do; I rely on the game to do that. Mosst of
>> those chaarcters will want to fight, often because it will get them 
>> points
>> of honour, maybe (if they are new enough) prestige, their unit
>> training/cohesion will increase, and they will be looked on more 
>> favourable
>> by the man who made the request in the first place. I also use it too 
>> see
>> who is more enthusiatic, or perhaps simply more active. Through this 
>> method
>> I have found that at least one character seemstohave a veriable 
>> aversion to
>> speaking to mine and will *only* speak to my characters desiganted 
>> second in
>> command (or third in command in the official hierarchy of things, but 
>> the
>> actual commander is literally never there).
>
> Favouring those that do is a reward. You don't take such missions into
> account when deciding who to promote as your 2ic, or who to recommend
> for lordships?
How can you call it favoring when the "inactive player" is well, uh, 
inactive? He cannot and does not receive orders, has not acknowledged it 
so how is the other person favored? It's just that the player who is not 
active is not there to receive the "equal" treatment of receiving orders 
or being in the battle!
>
>> If lack of reward (taking part in the battle) is considered a punishment
>> then often times I am inadvertently punishing inactivity by not giving
>> everyone the opportunity.
Do you give opportunity? Do you say, "hey, the two of you will take part 
in the battle and the two of you wont" ? Or do you say, all who can, or 
maybe some group of players who have volunteered to move? Because, the 
only one who is "punishing" (your term) is the player himself because he 
is not logging in. If he logged in, he would receive the orders and 
hence move thereby not getting "punished".

aJ
-- 

bLogging @ http://ramblings.ajaxed.net



-- 
Unsubscribing and other list options:
http://news.battlemaster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss