I'll note the disparity when a combatant is asked to validate and justify their actions while an RPer is not. For a combatant, combat is often not considered RP for whatever reason. Why isn't what I invest my time, effort, and money into not considered a valid expression of my characters personality and interests? The generally implied reason is that because I enjoy it as a player, it can't notranslate as RP. It's convenient rather than RP. Yet a person who RPs as a character they enjoy as a player is never questioned about it. I think, because of the constant ongoing discussion regarding PK mechanics, Pk is rarely considered a valid expression of Rp. I would argue that a soldier or violent murderess can be as interesting as a diplomat or politician. Simply because they don't take the time to explain themselves to you doesn't mean that it wasn't a representation of their character. We are allowed to enjoy our characters, and the idea that as a PKer I am forcing my RP on you by playing a character that kills is somehow different than a non combatant who is trying to force a character who fights to justify, explain, or otherwise RP in a way that satisfies the non combatant is ludicrous when you really dig into it. You're asking more of me than you are of yourself. It's the non PKer double standard.
Even if you do jump us, and it is for no reason, is it so hard to do a "Convert, heathen, or I attack!". Even if we both know that's ridiculous, and nobody's about to convert. With no conversation offered (and often, that 'conversation' is "HA HA, don't suck at PK?" it's ridiculously easy to assume there's no conversation to be had. The only interest offered a lot of times is PK, when your 'opponents' don't even have a non-PK response to just-PK.
No matter how good you are at PK, you can still RP. That's not necessarily true the other way. If you want people to get more from a fight, you kinda do have to ask for it.
Mayor Steingrim, the Grand Schema says to you, "Well, as I recall you kinda leave a mark whereever you go."
Here's the thing though. You're a guild, org, and order enemy to me. You're pretty much kill on sight. I find you out doing things where I can have a go at you. I shoot you a tell, "Prepare to meet the Fates". You then book back to your nexus, thus robbing me of my pk interaction.
I wanted to get a fight from my rp, I didn't get that. Because let's face it, the majority of people are going to beat feet in that situation.
4
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
No, it's not hard, but if both parties agree it's ridiculous to pantomime RP just to appease one party, I don't really understand the purpose.
I get that. I really do. It's why I don't envy the admin this situation at all.
The game is geared more to "cause havoc, then gtfo" than anything else, on a lot more issues than just this. Much less towards sustainable conflict (whatever that even means).
Somehow we used to make it work though, and we aren't so much anymore? It's a subtle, but important (I think) distinction. How did it used to work so well, and not now?
Mayor Steingrim, the Grand Schema says to you, "Well, as I recall you kinda leave a mark whereever you go."
0
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
Maybe because we played different games? I was literally griefed constantly as a lowbie/midbie when I started over half a decade ago. I think when we reminisce about the days of yore, it's often romanticized.
No, I remember not being able to play a day without being genuinely griefed, too. (not just people doing something bad to me, then whaaaa. Actual griefing, in the strict sense of the word). Somebody going out of their way to fuck with me. And we still talked, and still became friends. Why doesn't that happen? Why can't we be friendly with the people we're antagonizing, if only to help them calm the fuck down?
Now everybody just wants their own damn game, and we can't cooperate at all without bitching. On both sides of this stupid fence we've made. Once people doing shit we weren't expecting was par for the course.
Mayor Steingrim, the Grand Schema says to you, "Well, as I recall you kinda leave a mark whereever you go."
Tbh, I just enjoyed getting ganked, then getting better. Eventually, can start turning fights. Just like in any mmo that offers it, I play on free pvp servers. Because while it can get frustrating, it's turning that level 60 warrior's gank into a kill for you as a 56 priest that you remember.
That, and trolling people using mind control to run them into the lava near molten core. But that was just fun. And then they'd kill me xD
Something important has been hit on. In most of the cases described, the frustration stems (I think) from the feeling of non-reciprocity, that there isn't really any way to return in kind. In other words, the rhetoric about PK versus RP stems from the fact that PK-centric characters can largely ignore any reprisals from RP-centric characters, but the reverse is not true. A PKer can easily enforce limits on the gameplay of a non-PKer in a way that isn't open in kind to those non-PKers by any stretch of the imagination.
I know that that feeling of one-sided potential is what frustrates me so much about totem chopping. It's not that we're not fighting back or trying to engage in the conflict, it's that we lack the tools to do so. There is no feasible or reasonable way to engage with the 'other side', outside of gnashing teeth. A newer players gets ganked by an enemy, and regardless of how much it actually hurts them, they can't engage in that ongoing conflict on their own terms. You cannot possibly say with a straight face that if (say) Synkarin, Ixion, and... Xena took it to gank someone, that they would be faced with the potential of getting taken down at any time. They just have too many tools to avoid any personal recrimination, and will not feel the kind of restriction on movement that a targeted gankee would. Said gankee can, and should, fold that experience into their RP, and seek to gain the kind of RP leverage that they lack in PK spheres, but let's be real: that only goes as far as the gankers care to let it. All orgs have had those people who will not respond to any censure short of stripping them of their power skills via ostracism - assuming that phases their class.
I think everyone generally agrees that the specifics of the Sea Battle are really dumb, and that Thalkros can do the side of the quest inimical to the org he leads to gain an edge is amazingly broken. I don't blame him for taking advantage of the mechanics as they stand. In fact, he's doing a very good thing by serving as an example of a situation in which there is no reasonable and direct way to address a 'conflict mechanic'.
I always find these discussions entertaining although ultimately pointless. It is very similar to the discussion of one org bringing too many players to a fight or 'off peak raiding'.
When it comes down to it what Thalkros did was within the rules. Raising it with him OOC on the forums will bring some interesting discussion but isn't going to change anything (might actually inspire a few more to follow suite).
It is a game and a conflict game at that so you have two options; address it IC (start a war, sent diplomats, kick Thalkros in the balls ect) or plead with the admin that although its within the rules it's not in the spirit of the game (not to dissimilar to the case put forward for tree chopping).
Personally I say address it IC and see if you can come up with a way to make Mag bend to your wishes.
06/30/2014 19:37 Silvanus channels the power of the Megalith of Doom for you, stripping you of your Vernal Ascendant status.......bastard!!
That number is hyperbole, I can't give an actual figure but I'm pretty sure we've killed more spheres than pots. All gut though.
Yeah, but what's the ratio on books published and plays released between the two cities?
Checkmate, Gaudiguch.
Everiine said: The reason population is low isn't because there are too many orgs. It's because so many facets of the game are outright broken and protected by those who benefit from it being that way. An overabundance of gimmicks (including game-breaking ones), artifacts that destroy any concept of balance, blatant pay-to-win features, and an obsession with convenience that makes few things actually worthwhile all contribute to the game's sad decline.
No, it's not hard, but if both parties agree it's ridiculous to pantomime RP just to appease one party, I don't really understand the purpose.
The idea is that if you play along and have an RP conversation first (even if you know they're not going to sides!) the other side will be more inclined to play along and fight you (even though they know they won't win!) afterward. A big part of the whole "conflict is dead" issue is that a big part of the playerbase likes talking to other characters, especially enemy characters, and won't PK if it doesn't lead to interesting conversations while another big part of the playerbase is here for PKing and won't talk to people except when that talking leads to them being allowed to PK someone.
There's this weird narrative that when one side gets raided and doesn't decide to defend, or decides to do a conflict quest in a way that doesn't let the other side PK them, its because they're afraid of PKing. That's not it. The problem is they find PK unengaging and don't think defending will lead to anything they will find engaging. Because the other side will either be absolutely silent, or go "Learn to fight better and stop being such a crybaby" as their only contribution to a conversation.
tl;dr: Talky bits are foreplay for combat to a lot of players. Try yelling stuff at the other side when you raid?
I am a big fan of taunting yells midraid or sassy replies mid/postfight, but there's no way people should open up their PK with says or emotes or tells. The victim would just run
What really is that Gaudi/Halli book ratio? I would have bet Halli killed it, but I haven't been Librarian in 3+ RL years.
It favors Halli immensely, but not by quite as much as some other orgs. The command to list all of the library scores is LIBRARIES, but I'm not sure if you can use it without being a librarian. In case you can't here are Halli and Gaudi's scores:
********************The Library of Universal Knowledge********************* Current Year Credibility: 150 Last Year Credibility: 150 Current Growth: 5
Recent Scholarly Rating: 2011 - Book Count: 94 Recent Literary Rating: 2376 - Book Count: 103 Recent Book Rating: 4387 - Book Count: 197
Total Scholarly Rating: 6466 - Book Count: 260 Total Literary Rating: 5310 - Book Count: 184 Total Book Rating: 11776- Book Count: 444 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*******************The Archives of Illuminated Mysteries******************* Current Year Credibility: 150 Last Year Credibility: 150 Current Growth: 0
Recent Scholarly Rating: 30 - Book Count: 1 Recent Literary Rating: 211 - Book Count: 14 Recent Book Rating: 241 - Book Count: 15
Total Scholarly Rating: 1257 - Book Count: 36 Total Literary Rating: 2033 - Book Count: 80 Total Book Rating: 3290 - Book Count: 116 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't really help you on the stage. I suppose you could compare the list of plays, but I don't think those have publication dates so you it'd be a pain to get data on recent culture things.
Any sufficiently advanced pun is indistinguishable from comedy.
What really is that Gaudi/Halli book ratio? I would have bet Halli killed it, but I haven't been Librarian in 3+ RL years.
<tables>
To put it in even a more favour of Hallifax, Portius alone has 115 books (although I'm sure he has a few in editing). So, he by himself (will) have more books than Gaudi.
I suppose the question after that is whether or not all those books have substance or are merely a means of expansion for the sake of size (Does size matter? More at 11).
I've seen a lot of books from hallifax published with subjects that make me consider why (or even how..) someone took the time out to write about it..
Something important has been hit on. In most of the cases described, the frustration stems (I think) from the feeling of non-reciprocity, that there isn't really any way to return in kind. In other words, the rhetoric about PK versus RP stems from the fact that PK-centric characters can largely ignore any reprisals from RP-centric characters, but the reverse is not true. A PKer can easily enforce limits on the gameplay of a non-PKer in a way that isn't open in kind to those non-PKers by any stretch of the imagination.
I know that that feeling of one-sided potential is what frustrates me so much about totem chopping. It's not that we're not fighting back or trying to engage in the conflict, it's that we lack the tools to do so. There is no feasible or reasonable way to engage with the 'other side', outside of gnashing teeth. A newer players gets ganked by an enemy, and regardless of how much it actually hurts them, they can't engage in that ongoing conflict on their own terms. You cannot possibly say with a straight face that if (say) Synkarin, Ixion, and... Xena took it to gank someone, that they would be faced with the potential of getting taken down at any time. They just have too many tools to avoid any personal recrimination, and will not feel the kind of restriction on movement that a targeted gankee would. Said gankee can, and should, fold that experience into their RP, and seek to gain the kind of RP leverage that they lack in PK spheres, but let's be real: that only goes as far as the gankers care to let it. All orgs have had those people who will not respond to any censure short of stripping them of their power skills via ostracism - assuming that phases their class.
I think everyone generally agrees that the specifics of the Sea Battle are really dumb, and that Thalkros can do the side of the quest inimical to the org he leads to gain an edge is amazingly broken. I don't blame him for taking advantage of the mechanics as they stand. In fact, he's doing a very good thing by serving as an example of a situation in which there is no reasonable and direct way to address a 'conflict mechanic'.
This is an interesting point, and one that I'm finding possibilities in now that I've been getting more involved in PK since my return.
I fully agree that a large part of the frustration on a non-combatant's side is indeed the feeling of helplessness that comes from the perceived notion that you may never be able to respond in kind. However, non-combatants can and should explore alternative courses of retribution. And the best way to do that is to use what's available to us... RP.
When a non-combatant gets ganked, you should not just have to grin and bear it. Go to your guild leadership. Go to your org's ruling council. Let them know what's going on. Be vocal. Denounce the organizations that condone your attackers at every opportunity. Find allies who'll add their voice to yours. Steer the political climate of your organization in the direction you want to see it go. Build support for your case and eventually you may very well help muster the momentum to see your organization as a whole begin to retaliate against others' belligerence through diplomacy, such as trade bans, travel restrictions and withdrawal of diplomatic recognizance, creating an analogue to the restrictions that PKers are able to impose on non-PKers.
Just like non-combatants might not be able to match combatants on the battlefield, combatants can't do anything to stop your org's ruling council from making decisions. Except to stop attacking your org.
As an example of RP retaliation of sorts, Marcella would run up to me, kill me, then I would return. Since I was under Avechna's protection we would just casually chat after that. Good times.
For Mister Zvoltz, Pejat has been terminated by the Replicant Dynodeon.
I suppose the question after that is whether or not all those books have substance or are merely a means of expansion for the sake of size (Does size matter? More at 11).
I've seen a lot of books from hallifax published with subjects that make me consider why (or even how..) someone took the time out to write about it..
Sidebar. Some are on extremely niche topics, and of course Portius writes in the styles that are easiest for him to produce (as anyone should if they're capitalizing on publication rewards), but you can hardly make a suggestion like this just because a book's about something that doesn't interest you.
I suppose the question after that is whether or not all those books have substance or are merely a means of expansion for the sake of size (Does size matter? More at 11).
I've seen a lot of books from hallifax published with subjects that make me consider why (or even how..) someone took the time out to write about it..
Sidebar. Some are on extremely niche topics, and of course Portius writes in the styles that are easiest for him to produce (as anyone should if they're capitalizing on publication rewards), but you can hardly make a suggestion like this just because a book's about something that doesn't interest you.
Points are points! Library scoring is based off of two things: length and prestige. If a book is not going to be submitted for prestige, then quality is only relevant insofar as it prevents critique. So no OOC info, and have to make the spelling/grammar/formatting good enough to be mostly readable. Prestige brings in some subjective things since the admin don't really have a rubric, but there are still some trends that you can follow to try to optimize for it. But, you only submit two books for prestige every cycle. For a library like Mag that doesn't publish very often, it's probably best to write most books to try to win prestige. But if you're Hallifax? We publish more than will ever be submitted. So it's a waste of time for us to try to write all of them to win prestige contests they will never enter. I min max for the library exactly as much as your stereotypical combatant min maxes for fighting.
Any sufficiently advanced pun is indistinguishable from comedy.
Something important has been hit on. In most of the cases described, the frustration stems (I think) from the feeling of non-reciprocity, that there isn't really any way to return in kind. In other words, the rhetoric about PK versus RP stems from the fact that PK-centric characters can largely ignore any reprisals from RP-centric characters, but the reverse is not true. A PKer can easily enforce limits on the gameplay of a non-PKer in a way that isn't open in kind to those non-PKers by any stretch of the imagination.
I know that that feeling of one-sided potential is what frustrates me so much about totem chopping. It's not that we're not fighting back or trying to engage in the conflict, it's that we lack the tools to do so. There is no feasible or reasonable way to engage with the 'other side', outside of gnashing teeth. A newer players gets ganked by an enemy, and regardless of how much it actually hurts them, they can't engage in that ongoing conflict on their own terms. You cannot possibly say with a straight face that if (say) Synkarin, Ixion, and... Xena took it to gank someone, that they would be faced with the potential of getting taken down at any time. They just have too many tools to avoid any personal recrimination, and will not feel the kind of restriction on movement that a targeted gankee would. Said gankee can, and should, fold that experience into their RP, and seek to gain the kind of RP leverage that they lack in PK spheres, but let's be real: that only goes as far as the gankers care to let it. All orgs have had those people who will not respond to any censure short of stripping them of their power skills via ostracism - assuming that phases their class.
I think everyone generally agrees that the specifics of the Sea Battle are really dumb, and that Thalkros can do the side of the quest inimical to the org he leads to gain an edge is amazingly broken. I don't blame him for taking advantage of the mechanics as they stand. In fact, he's doing a very good thing by serving as an example of a situation in which there is no reasonable and direct way to address a 'conflict mechanic'.
This is an interesting point, and one that I'm finding possibilities in now that I've been getting more involved in PK since my return.
I fully agree that a large part of the frustration on a non-combatant's side is indeed the feeling of helplessness that comes from the perceived notion that you may never be able to respond in kind. However, non-combatants can and should explore alternative courses of retribution. And the best way to do that is to use what's available to us... RP.
When a non-combatant gets ganked, you should not just have to grin and bear it. Go to your guild leadership. Go to your org's ruling council. Let them know what's going on. Be vocal. Denounce the organizations that condone your attackers at every opportunity. Find allies who'll add their voice to yours. Steer the political climate of your organization in the direction you want to see it go. Build support for your case and eventually you may very well help muster the momentum to see your organization as a whole begin to retaliate against others' belligerence through diplomacy, such as trade bans, travel restrictions and withdrawal of diplomatic recognizance, creating an analogue to the restrictions that PKers are able to impose on non-PKers.
Just like non-combatants might not be able to match combatants on the battlefield, combatants can't do anything to stop your org's ruling council from making decisions. Except to stop attacking your org.
I can see that frustrations are running high around here (and I still lurk your forums from time to time). Honestly it looks like your rules and mechanics may not be giving non-coms (or really, anyone who doesn't want to be ganked "at will" in a game that still has XP loss ) much relief - although, as a non-com you shouldn't be expecting to actually control engagements/events/objectives that are based around PK, and there could be some of that going on (an expectation of controlling outcomes that are inherently PK based).
That said, this post absolutely exemplifies how both PK-ers AND RP-ers in MUDs are both absolutely capable of being quite nasty griefers/bullies given the right set of circumstances, or really, just the opportunity to do so, because, what you are suggesting is trying to create the sort of player driven political stranglehold that would not only attempt to relieve the pressure PK-ers are putting on non-coms right now, but, if successful, it creates the sort of political and power structure that is almost certainly going to be a bit tyrannical in general - through the power structure its bureaucracy would necessarily create.
In fact, I've often found RP bullies far more of a problem than PK bullies (but only because that's who I was interacting with as a non-com, and because it is actually easier to make rules and mechanics to rein in PK bullies). And this means all sorts of things... there is usually a rigidly enforced rank hierarchy based on how many essays one has read/written, etc... Lots of silly rules, lots of bureaucracy, and usually, lots of ego stroking. It also actually tends to be an environment that drives people who enjoy PK (griefers or otherwise) particularly nuts (those players simply seem to have a lower tolerance for this sort of crap), so the org ends up not being appealing to PK-ers who might take up their cause. Then, the PK-ers "clump" in one or two orgs where they can find likeminded people (and they still spank everyone else to the degree rules and mechanics allow).
I realize I am painting RP-ers and PK-ers as mostly separate groups - and I think that holds, actually. That is not to say there isn't any overlap, but what usually seems to happen, is that many PK-ers actually do have an RP of sorts, but even in non griefy sorts, it very often isn't the very specific sort of RP that most "serious" RP-ers approve of (see above about rigid hierarchies and titles and rules and essays) - and "RP-ers" tend to call the shots on what is "proper RP" in "their" arena. But I can see that right now, a very particular sort of "hard core" PK mindset is ruling the roost over here, and of course many people find that frustrating. I would find it frustrating. Go bash for hours because I lost? No thanks.
For the record, there's a rave about someone who went from 0 - Demi in about 8 days of playing time from a day ago, so the 'bash for hours because I lost' isn't actually a thing anymore. It's more like pop an ikon and influence guards for an hour and you'll probably come out ahead.
"'Cause the fighting don't stop till I walk in." -Synkarin's Lament.
4
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
Not the same. There are no points in PK. I don't really care about library points and if mass production of word vomit wins, more power to you, but that's definitely not how min/max applies to PK. Min/max or volume in PK does not equate to a win.
PS: Some of these suggestions are hilarious and I often wonder if we all play the same game. Yell and sass during PK and basically get called an asshole if you win and a douche if you lose. I've done it in seren in the past and basically just got flamed for it (by non coms no less). Going to pass on that.
I think @Portius is saying he's taking full advantage of the idiosyncrasies of the library system to achieve maximum potential (combined with Halli rewards in the same regard)
Meaning he's minimizing his effort to produce maximum results. Much like a PKer would do.
Maybe I'm wrong, who knows, but that's what I gathered.
I think @Portius is saying he's taking full advantage of the idiosyncrasies of the library system to achieve maximum potential (combined with Halli rewards in the same regard)
Meaning he's minimizing his effort to produce maximum results. Much like a PKer would do.
Maybe I'm wrong, who knows, but that's what I gathered.
No, you're absolutely right. He's basically the closest competitive-equivalent to a PKer there is in Lusternian writing. If no one rises to the challenge, he still keeps steamrolling on to see just how far he can push the gap anyways, and that's pretty much the core of it when he says: "this is for just producing more library points, more so than being prestige worthy".
1
Cyndarinused Flamethrower! It was super effective.
I get it, it just doesn't make sense to compare the two as if the systems, or even the effort, are similar.
Comments
I wanted to get a fight from my rp, I didn't get that. Because let's face it, the majority of people are going to beat feet in that situation.
Now everybody just wants their own damn game, and we can't cooperate at all without bitching. On both sides of this stupid fence we've made. Once people doing shit we weren't expecting was par for the course.
That, and trolling people using mind control to run them into the lava near molten core. But that was just fun. And then they'd kill me xD
I know that that feeling of one-sided potential is what frustrates me so much about totem chopping. It's not that we're not fighting back or trying to engage in the conflict, it's that we lack the tools to do so. There is no feasible or reasonable way to engage with the 'other side', outside of gnashing teeth. A newer players gets ganked by an enemy, and regardless of how much it actually hurts them, they can't engage in that ongoing conflict on their own terms. You cannot possibly say with a straight face that if (say) Synkarin, Ixion, and... Xena took it to gank someone, that they would be faced with the potential of getting taken down at any time. They just have too many tools to avoid any personal recrimination, and will not feel the kind of restriction on movement that a targeted gankee would. Said gankee can, and should, fold that experience into their RP, and seek to gain the kind of RP leverage that they lack in PK spheres, but let's be real: that only goes as far as the gankers care to let it. All orgs have had those people who will not respond to any censure short of stripping them of their power skills via ostracism - assuming that phases their class.
I think everyone generally agrees that the specifics of the Sea Battle are really dumb, and that Thalkros can do the side of the quest inimical to the org he leads to gain an edge is amazingly broken. I don't blame him for taking advantage of the mechanics as they stand. In fact, he's doing a very good thing by serving as an example of a situation in which there is no reasonable and direct way to address a 'conflict mechanic'.
06/30/2014 19:37 Silvanus channels the power of the Megalith of Doom for you, stripping you of your Vernal Ascendant status.......bastard!!
Yeah, but what's the ratio on books published and plays released between the two cities?
Checkmate, Gaudiguch.
The idea is that if you play along and have an RP conversation first (even if you know they're not going to sides!) the other side will be more inclined to play along and fight you (even though they know they won't win!) afterward. A big part of the whole "conflict is dead" issue is that a big part of the playerbase likes talking to other characters, especially enemy characters, and won't PK if it doesn't lead to interesting conversations while another big part of the playerbase is here for PKing and won't talk to people except when that talking leads to them being allowed to PK someone.
There's this weird narrative that when one side gets raided and doesn't decide to defend, or decides to do a conflict quest in a way that doesn't let the other side PK them, its because they're afraid of PKing. That's not it. The problem is they find PK unengaging and don't think defending will lead to anything they will find engaging. Because the other side will either be absolutely silent, or go "Learn to fight better and stop being such a crybaby" as their only contribution to a conversation.
tl;dr: Talky bits are foreplay for combat to a lot of players. Try yelling stuff at the other side when you raid?
It favors Halli immensely, but not by quite as much as some other orgs. The command to list all of the library scores is LIBRARIES, but I'm not sure if you can use it without being a librarian. In case you can't here are Halli and Gaudi's scores:
********************The Library of Universal Knowledge*********************
Current Year Credibility: 150
Last Year Credibility: 150
Current Growth: 5
Recent Scholarly Rating: 2011 - Book Count: 94
Recent Literary Rating: 2376 - Book Count: 103
Recent Book Rating: 4387 - Book Count: 197
Total Scholarly Rating: 6466 - Book Count: 260
Total Literary Rating: 5310 - Book Count: 184
Total Book Rating: 11776- Book Count: 444
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*******************The Archives of Illuminated Mysteries*******************
Current Year Credibility: 150
Last Year Credibility: 150
Current Growth: 0
Recent Scholarly Rating: 30 - Book Count: 1
Recent Literary Rating: 211 - Book Count: 14
Recent Book Rating: 241 - Book Count: 15
Total Scholarly Rating: 1257 - Book Count: 36
Total Literary Rating: 2033 - Book Count: 80
Total Book Rating: 3290 - Book Count: 116
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can't really help you on the stage. I suppose you could compare the list of plays, but I don't think those have publication dates so you it'd be a pain to get data on recent culture things.
To put it in even a more favour of Hallifax, Portius alone has 115 books (although I'm sure he has a few in editing). So, he by himself (will) have more books than Gaudi.
I've seen a lot of books from hallifax published with subjects that make me consider why (or even how..) someone took the time out to write about it..
Estarra the Eternal says, "Give Shevat the floor please."
I wish someone would tell her that!
Points are points! Library scoring is based off of two things: length and prestige. If a book is not going to be submitted for prestige, then quality is only relevant insofar as it prevents critique. So no OOC info, and have to make the spelling/grammar/formatting good enough to be mostly readable. Prestige brings in some subjective things since the admin don't really have a rubric, but there are still some trends that you can follow to try to optimize for it. But, you only submit two books for prestige every cycle. For a library like Mag that doesn't publish very often, it's probably best to write most books to try to win prestige. But if you're Hallifax? We publish more than will ever be submitted. So it's a waste of time for us to try to write all of them to win prestige contests they will never enter. I min max for the library exactly as much as your stereotypical combatant min maxes for fighting.