Another Torrential Horsepile AKA Reiloth Bad Idea #42: Change Karma

[Reiloth]

You too can change your karma...

No, I mean the karma in game though.

So -- Karma has changed quite a bit, or the options available to karma have changed quite a bit, in the last couple of years. Now we have a ton of subguilds, and eventually, hopefully, automated skill bumps at chargen.

With this in consideration, I had a few ideas about how Karma can potentially update and 'work'.

Karma Depletes when used on a character concept (Add up all the 'points', subtract it from the total). Karma Repletes itself on a monthly basis. Karma can be 'awarded' into the PC's pool by Staff for good RP/Leadership/Sticking to Documentation, etc.

* Correlate a certain amount of Karma to Longevity and playing the game. This is a reward for sticking around, and playing the game. Call this 1 or 2 karma. This also means Newbies are automatically bumped in this category, rather than going sometimes unnoticed. If someone has stuck around enough to survive say 6 months IRL, i'm pretty sure they've gotten the hang of some of the more basic aspects of Zalanthas/RPI MUD/ArmageddonMUD in general.

* Keep all the normal Karma categories, but be more liberal with the 'bottom end' of Karma. As the "Magick Guilds" have been drastically changed and are no longer full guilds, the potential for abuse has also shifted significantly. If we kept the 'Touched/Lesser Subguilds' in a lower category, and moved the 'More Potentially Abusable/Harmful' subguilds into a higher category, they could still be attainable and achievable, and aren't considered as dangerous as their predecessors.

* Increase the Maximum of Karma possibly achieved. If someone is awarded Karma by Staff, and it goes over their current maximum, let them keep it and use it. If they mess up the role, dock their karma or lower their maximum. Similarly, if we do get to a point where we can use Karma on skills, consider raising the maximum from 8 to 10 or 12. Allow people to apply for more Karma to use in a character app.

* Allow players to 'nominate' other PCs around them for Karma. There is particularly good RP going on all around us, but I don't think Staff can always be around for it. There are great PCs that maybe slip through the cracks, they do something that really stands out and you just want to note that PC to staff. I think this 'kind of' happens with Player Kudos, but I get the feeling that this is just PC to PC. Do Staff heavily weigh Player Kudos when they are putting someone up for Karma Review? Do they say 'Well, this guy got 8 kudos last month, let's give him another karma'? I never got the impression that was the case, it's more of a side encouragement between Players and part and parcel with being a community. This sort of 'ping' would be something you could use say, once a month. You 'recommend PC'. And that PC gets flagged in a way that an Immortal only can see, when they look at their stats or monitor them after the recommendation flag is toggled.

I think there should be a form of encouragement via Karma -- Whether you have 1 karma or 8, there should be a possibility to use that karma in various ways, and to gain Karma from good RP/Sticking to docs/making fun for people around you, and other reasons that Staff deem fit. It would make more sense in a fluid CGP system, not currently, so this is more of a 'down the road' sort of concept.

[Feco]

If Character Generation Points are still being worked toward, the whole "deplete-replenish" thing is already in the works, right?

[Reiloth]

If Character Generation Points are still being worked toward, the whole "deplete-replenish" thing is already in the works, right?

I'm assuming so. I was just including that in the 'Reiloth's Torrential Horsepile Vision of Karma in the FUture'.

[TheWanderer]

Seems needless, bruh.

[Reiloth]

Quid Pro Quo:
What is the 'Karma Incentive' for people who are at the end of their karmic rope? It turns from a possible 'positive reinforcement' to an exclusively 'negative reprisal', as there is no upwards movement possible. You can only go down, from 'messing up' in Staff's eyes.

On the other end of the spectrum -- What do people with 0 Karma have to lose?

In my opinion, coming up with a system like this (player recommendations, karma built in with longevity), people can come back from the brink of 0 Karma 'fuck this shit I got all my karma docked, i'm going to be a shit player', and people who have higher karma have something to gain, and lose, rather than just something to lose.

[Patuk]

You may be uncomfortably right with your assessment of people, but do we really want for Arm to be a game where playing nice gets you nifty stuff even more?

[Reiloth]

You may be uncomfortably right with your assessment of people, but do we really want for Arm to be a game where playing nice gets you nifty stuff even more?

Hmm. I think if by 'being nice' you mean playing to documentation, RPing well, and not being a troll to Staff -- Yeah, i'd like where people who are 'playing nice' get more nifty stuff over people who don't RP, don't play to documentation, and troll Staff.

But, I see your point that being sycophantic may get you more 'reward'. It'd be cool if some of the karma was sort of player incentivized, not only Staff incentivized. IMHO, at least.

[Akaramu]

It'd be cool if some of the karma was sort of player incentivized, not only Staff incentivized. IMHO, at least.

I think Atonement RPI sort of did this, in part. But the system seemed sort of cliquish, with friends 'upvoting' each other. Typical social media problem where simply having more friends nets you more points.

I'm not saying that's what would happen with a similar system in Armageddon MUD, but I'd be a little worried if it was implemented.

[Reiloth]

It'd be cool if some of the karma was sort of player incentivized, not only Staff incentivized. IMHO, at least.

I think Atonement RPI sort of did this, in part. But the system seemed sort of cliquish, with friends 'upvoting' each other. Typical social media problem where simply having more friends nets you more points.

I'm not saying that's what would happen with a similar system in Armageddon MUD, but I'd be a little worried if it was implemented.

Yeah, absolutely I would worry about this. To clarify, I didn't mean 'Player Upvotes and they automatically get Karma'. I meant that a Player would 'recommend' another Player for review, and they would get possibly reviewed by a Staff member. Staff would obviously be (as they always have been) the arbiters of Karma.

[Marauder Moe]

I'm don't think you've done a good job defining the problems you think this proposal would solve.  I also think you've not addressed the problems it would cause, like all the increased staff work and increased bias that it would introduce.

[Nergal]

Here are a couple of the main problems staff have identified with the karma system in the past, just to add to the conversation:

1) The system became strictly meritocratic - in the form of karma criteria - only relatively recently. Before then, there was still some level of staff consensus (albeit at a lower standard), but there were frankly also cases where friends were rewarded and new staff received 8 karma by virtue of being staff. There are players with high karma levels who earned all their karma during the past iterations of the system, and are still holding on to that today. Many of them truly deserve that karma, even today. Some arguably do not.

2) Some players with high karma regularly roll up high-karma roles, effectively taking those spots up from other players who want to normally app or special app said roles. There are soft limits on the amount of certain high karma roles we want in-game, but it's not always easy to track when that limit is hit or whether a player counts as active enough to be taking up a slot.

To address some of the points discussed in this thread:

Players can already indirectly motivate staff to review other players by sending in kudos (or complaints...).

Karma reviews are already work. The current system eliminates as much bias as possible, requiring karma criteria as well as an amount of staff consensus that increases directly with a player's karma.

We definitely don't want to encourage sycophancy, either directed to please other players or staff. It's intensely difficult as it is to get the real opinions of players, due to the perception that even polite disagreement with staff or other players is shut down. Adding a reward incentive to providing feedback just encourages players to give good feedback even when it is not warranted. Staff and players deserve to know when they are simply not doing a good job.

We're not really concerned about "incentives" for max-karma players, or indeed for any player on any rung of the karma scale. The only incentive we offer players is fun while playing the game. Karma is a measure of trust, not a reward for being good. The specific karma criteria outline ways which we judge trust. If anything changes about the karma system at all, it will likely either be a change to the scale, or the addition of more criteria.

[Akaramu]

Yeah, absolutely I would worry about this. To clarify, I didn't mean 'Player Upvotes and they automatically get Karma'. I meant that a Player would 'recommend' another Player for review, and they would get possibly reviewed by a Staff member. Staff would obviously be (as they always have been) the arbiters of Karma.

It wasn't automatic in Atonement either, and they had no kudos system over there, as far as I remember. Isn't our kudos system kind of what you suggest? You could always include a 'please consider upping this player's karma' note for staff.

Edit to add: Nergal was faster! Didn't see his reply in time.

The only issue I see with out current karma system is that offpeakers have lower chances of getting noticed or playing those highly involved, plot driving roles that gets lots of kudos, positive account notes and staff attention. It's also harder for us to play leadership roles and get leader role karma. I remember Morgenes saying I should have had that amount of karma a long time ago when he gave me karma. I don't know how to fix that issue though.

[Reiloth]

Just to be clear, there would be no 'incentive' to recommending another player for karma. Sure, there might be some sort of...Gaming to it? Where two people who are friends constantly recommend each other? I'm sure that would be pretty obvious.

IMHO, it would help with the off-peakers that don't get much notice. If you see someone has recommendations from several people, maybe they're worth watching. That's all. There would be no 'echo' to the player receiving the recommendation, and only a simple 'OK, thank you' to the person doing the recommending.

Staff would ultimately decide whether or not that 'recommendation' was even accurate. Some PCs/Players like RP that may not even fit the documentation of the game world. So it isn't a unilateral 'Hell Yes, this player is awesome'. It's actually Players helping out Staff, in a way.



To respond to the last bit, Nergal -- The Karma system seemed to have gone in place in a time when there was such a thing as a Full Sorcerer, even a Mul Sorcerer. When Mindbenders were much more codedly powerful than they are now, and so on and so forth. Basically -- With so many updates this year to the things Karma and 'Staff Trust' get you, it seems at odds with what those options actually are.

I think there are (typically) plenty of off-peak Staffers. I think the best thing a player can do to be noticed is file regular character reports and basically put themselves on Staff's radar.

I disagree that there should be no incentives to higher-karma players. Taking this last bit:

Many of them truly deserve that karma, even today. Some arguably do not.

Means that there are people who have 8 Karma, who Staff believe shouldn't have 8 Karma. That seems to be at odds with the whole system -- If it's about trust, and Staff clearly doesn't trust these people, then why do they have 8 Karma? My speculation is the punitive nature of 'You actually aren't worth 8 Karma' might drive some people away from the game. But at the same time, it does the whole 'trust' system a disservice. For example, how are players to know if they're the 'cool' 8 Karma players, or the ones Staff think don't actually deserve the 8 Karma?

So at the opposite extremes -- What incentive is there for someone with 0 Karma, who maybe got docked to that level, to do a good job? Similarly, what incentive is there for an 8 Karma player to continue to be a good player, when they can basically only mess up in order to have their Karma reduced? I don't mean incentive in the sense of 'reward for a job well done'. I mean for these people who have 8 Karma but perhaps don't have 8 Karma's worth of trust from Staff -- Stagnating, as it were, in their 8 Karma-Ness and perhaps not being the 'awesome player' that Staff wants them to be. How do you encourage 8 Karma players to not rest on their laurels?

This statement:

Karma is a measure of trust, not a reward for being good.

Is perhaps the intention behind Karma, but Players will equate gaining karma with 'doing good'. They are rewarded for good behavior, for being helpful to Staff, for understanding the game world and their PCs place in it, for fitting the Karma Criteria as laid out by Staff. So while it is perhaps about Trust for Staff, it's about 'being good' for a Player, and not necessarily about 'trust' between a Player and a Staff member.

Thanks for engaging in the discussion, Nergal.

[nessalin]

The Karma system seemed to have gone in place in a time when there was such a thing as a Full Sorcerer, even a Mul Sorcerer. When Mindbenders were much more codedly powerful than they are now, and so on and so forth.

This in incorrect and should not be a basis for the point you're making.

Basically -- With so many updates this year to the things Karma and 'Staff Trust' get you, it seems at odds with what those options actually are.

I have to disagree, here.  The changes were not made with the karma system in mind.  Again this is a poor argument to support your proposal.

[Akaramu]

IMHO, it would help with the off-peakers that don't get much notice. If you see someone has recommendations from several people, maybe they're worth watching.

Honestly, as an offpeaker, I don't think it would help. It's harder for offpeakers to get recommendations from other players, too - because offpeak. It's harder to even make really good IC friends, or to get into the kinds of situations where players notice you and send kudos. Kudos are often sent after (peak time) RPTs or when a popular PC dies. But... offpeak PCs won't be as popular as peak ones in many cases, and when we die to kryl because we get bored of solo RP at 7 AM EST, people probably won't even find out about it.

Edit: I realized this may sound bitter, but it's really not - I now have enough karma to play anything and everything I like, so I'm happy. But I feel for other offpeakers who haven't yet played the many, many years I invested in this game.

[Reiloth]

The Karma system seemed to have gone in place in a time when there was such a thing as a Full Sorcerer, even a Mul Sorcerer. When Mindbenders were much more codedly powerful than they are now, and so on and so forth.

This in incorrect and should not be a basis for the point you're making.

Basically -- With so many updates this year to the things Karma and 'Staff Trust' get you, it seems at odds with what those options actually are.

I have to disagree, here.  The changes were not made with the karma system in mind.  Again this is a poor argument to support your proposal.

As you were around for the time before and after the implementation of the Karma System, can you elaborate on why it went into place, and what has worked over the years with it, and what hasn't? As it is the only basis in reality that I have (I wasn't around for the implementation of the Karma System), I can only speculate. Therefore, it is the only basis of a debate (not argument) I can put forward.

I don't think it's incorrect to say:
8 Karma used to allow you the ability to play a Full Sorcerer. Now it does not.
8 Karma used to allow you the ability to play a Mindbender, when their abilities were more codedly powerful than they are now. Now they are not, post 2006.
7 Karma used to allow you to play a Mul Magicker -- Now that has changed.

I'm not saying these changes are good, or bad. But they are changes, from the inception of Karma and what the values were assigned to, and what those values now are assigned to.

While the changes weren't made with the Karma System in mind, they do have an effect on the Karma System. If you divide up every Magick guild into several Subguilds, how can that not have an effect on what your Karma equals? It has changed, before and after treatment.

I would find that helpful. Thanks Nessalin!

[nessalin]

Basically -- With so many updates this year to the things Karma and 'Staff Trust' get you, it seems at odds with what those options actually are.

I have to disagree, here.  The changes were not made with the karma system in mind.  Again this is a poor argument to support your proposal.

Typo.  Had started to typo something else, then re-wrote the sentence.

The changes were made with the karma system in mind, not out of ignorance to its existence.

[Nergal]

A truly fair karma system would involve regular reviews of all players, something we simply don't have the manpower to do. So at present we look at when players "stand out". This is typically in one of two ways: by putting in a karma review, or by playing and communicating in a way that catches the attention of clan staff. The attention can be positive or negative.

I said that there might be people who have 8 karma that shouldn't, because the standards for karma were different back in the day, where karma was not always granted on staff consensus. There are absolutely players who were granted karma by their significant other, or good friend, or they joined staff when the policy was that staff receive 8 karma on their player account. Whether they should have that karma is not up to me alone, but rather the entire staff body. We discuss karma reviews on the staff version of the GDB as well as through the request tool and come to a consensus on it. They may very well keep that karma because they meet karma criteria - or they might not keep it because they don't.

If we must talk in incentives, then it's pretty simple:

A 0-karma player has an incentive to play well, because playing well leads to productive involvement with other players, which leads to increased trust, which leads to increased karma.

An 8-karma player has an incentive to play well, because playing well leads to productive involvement with other players, which leads to solidifying trust that has already been placed in them by staff.

The immediate incentive is that a player has fun by playing by documentation and involving themselves productively. The indirect incentive is that staff notice the player's contribution to the game.

[Riev]

To put it simply, what I'm hearing is:
Karma is not a reward. It is a trophy of trust, that comes WITH A REWARD in the form of more codedly powerful/interesting skillsets.
The incentive to play well is to earn these rewards, until you are at a point where your incentive hopefully comes from an internal source, because there are no external motivators.


And Reiloth is saying:
The rewards that trophy comes with feel diluted when concerning recent changes to the guild system.
The maximum levels of trust used to mean access to things that no longer exist, so the incentive to attain those levels has diminished.

[Reiloth]

Oh by the way. I imagine the title may have bummed out Staff! It was my attempt at sarcasm to Patuk's assertion that I post bad ideas on the GDB. I'm actually quite fine with how Karma stands now. This is only a conversational experiment in how it might improve or potential current perceived issues with Karma. I want to encourage healthy debate! It's a discussion board after all.

[manipura]

Oh by the way. I imagine the title may have bummed out Staff! It was my attempt at sarcasm to Patuk's assertion that I post bad ideas on the GDB.

Attempting to use sarcasm in text communication can be tricky and if someone misses that sarcasm they may indeed be unnecessarily bummed out.
It's a sticky pickle. 

[Jingo]

I'm kind of wondering if staff see the benefits of subclassing all the non-mundanes yet. Did the new system work as intended? Will there be tweaks moving forward?

[Synthesis]

I'm kind of wondering if staff see the benefits of subclassing all the non-mundanes yet. Did the new system work as intended? Will there be tweaks moving forward?

I don't think enough time has elapsed for players to have fully explored the potential of the new system.  It takes a long, long time for mundane primary guilds to max out.  I doubt there are very many who have even approached it thus far.  Making assessments based on fully-branched magick subguild with scrub-level primary is pretty useless.

Even I can only comment on one particular combination.  When fully branched (as far as I can tell), the magick subguild has some good synergies that make the primary guild far more dangerous than a pure mundane primary, but nowhere near as dangerous as the previous full magick guild could be.  However, the subguild magick means overall the character is far better at being a realistic individual, rather than being a creepy glass cannon.

[Reiloth]

I'm kind of wondering if staff see the benefits of subclassing all the non-mundanes yet. Did the new system work as intended? Will there be tweaks moving forward?

I don't think enough time has elapsed for players to have fully explored the potential of the new system.  It takes a long, long time for mundane primary guilds to max out.  I doubt there are very many who have even approached it thus far.  Making assessments based on fully-branched magick subguild with scrub-level primary is pretty useless.

Even I can only comment on one particular combination.  When fully branched (as far as I can tell), the magick subguild has some good synergies that make the primary guild far more dangerous than a pure mundane primary, but nowhere near as dangerous as the previous full magick guild could be.  However, the subguild magick means overall the character is far better at being a realistic individual, rather than being a creepy glass cannon.

Very well put.

[Jingo]

I was thinking more along the lines of staff objectives and less to do with build possibilities. Has it helped deal with guild sniffing? Has there been any positive changes to magicker roleplay? That sort of thing.

[Lutagar]

I'm kind of wondering if staff see the benefits of subclassing all the non-mundanes yet. Did the new system work as intended? Will there be tweaks moving forward?

I don't think enough time has elapsed for players to have fully explored the potential of the new system.  It takes a long, long time for mundane primary guilds to max out.  I doubt there are very many who have even approached it thus far.  Making assessments based on fully-branched magick subguild with scrub-level primary is pretty useless.

Even I can only comment on one particular combination.  When fully branched (as far as I can tell), the magick subguild has some good synergies that make the primary guild far more dangerous than a pure mundane primary, but nowhere near as dangerous as the previous full magick guild could be.  However, the subguild magick means overall the character is far better at being a realistic individual, rather than being a creepy glass cannon.

Burglar + water elementalist corruption is literally a combination so gamebreakingly powerful that even defilers from ye olde days weep in envy. The combination of one skill from the primary guild and one spell is just like.. assassin++++++++++++++++

[Akaramu]

Burglar + water elementalist corruption is literally a combination so gamebreakingly powerful that even defilers from ye olde days weep in envy. The combination of one skill from the primary guild and one spell is just like.. assassin++++++++++++++++

That's the thing with the new elementalist subguilds... I like them, but they encourage min-maxing because certain magick subguilds just work so much better with certain mundane guilds. The spell selection from the subguild is so limited that choosing the wrong 'combination' can put you at a disadvantage compared to the min-maxers. I think Synthesis (?) mentioned in a different thread that many subguild spells are very situational, and I suspect the more versatile / broadly useful elementalist subguilds (hello, Whiran_Travel!) will be FAR more popular than others.

Here's me derailing a thread again. But hey, someone else started it! 

[Synthesis]

I'm kind of wondering if staff see the benefits of subclassing all the non-mundanes yet. Did the new system work as intended? Will there be tweaks moving forward?

I don't think enough time has elapsed for players to have fully explored the potential of the new system.  It takes a long, long time for mundane primary guilds to max out.  I doubt there are very many who have even approached it thus far.  Making assessments based on fully-branched magick subguild with scrub-level primary is pretty useless.

Even I can only comment on one particular combination.  When fully branched (as far as I can tell), the magick subguild has some good synergies that make the primary guild far more dangerous than a pure mundane primary, but nowhere near as dangerous as the previous full magick guild could be.  However, the subguild magick means overall the character is far better at being a realistic individual, rather than being a creepy glass cannon.

Burglar + water elementalist corruption is literally a combination so gamebreakingly powerful that even defilers from ye olde days weep in envy. The combination of one skill from the primary guild and one spell is just like.. assassin++++++++++++++++

Uh...doubt it.  Unless they've added some new mysterious spell that I've never run into.

At any rate, there's no way a "sorc of old" would be jealous about any burglar/whatever.  I mean...it's like comparing a Ford Fiesta to a Bugatti Veyron.  I mean, yeah, a Fiesta sounds great if all you got is a damn bicycle, but uh...yeah.

That's the thing with the new elementalist subguilds... I like them, but they encourage min-maxing because certain magick subguilds just work so much better with certain mundane guilds. The spell selection from the subguild is so limited that choosing the wrong 'combination' can put you at a disadvantage compared to the min-maxers. I think Synthesis (?) mentioned in a different thread that many subguild spells are very situational, and I suspect the more versatile / broadly useful elementalist subguilds (hello, Whiran_Travel!) will be FAR more popular than others.

Here's me derailing a thread again. But hey, someone else started it! 

The favorite primary guilds are the same favorite primary guilds for pure mundanes, honestly.

Primary ranger is so generally versatile for staying away from civilization like a rogue magicker probably wants to do that almost every non-gemmed, non-tribal 'gicker is going to be primary ranger.  Hell, most gemmers nowadays are probably rolling rangers, because of primary guild versatility, and because it lets them quit out beyond the gates when they have spells active.

Most subguild 'gicker 'rinthers are going to pick assassin...again, because of primary guild versatility.

There are very, very few spells that synergize well with a particular mundane primary, because every spell in the game was -designed- to be fucking bodacious without any mundane skills at all.  If anything, it's the stat boost and defense spells that synergize.  Everything else is just like...okay...

In fact, there are quite a few spells that are useless now because they relied on synergies with other spells that are no longer part of the split subguild.

Further, it's too early to even get into a min-max vs. karma-value discussion, because nobody has had enough time to play with every fully-branched subguild with every fully-branched primary guild.  It's barely more than theorycrafting at this point.

[Cind]

Ever since the change I actually haven't come across a single 'spamcaster' because, obviously, mages are no longer 85% a spell-list with maybe a crafting or the hunter subguild. That to me is worth it. I can't tell you what a fucking pain in the ass it is to try to tell someone to stop spamcasting and they won't listen.

[Akaramu]

I haven't seen a spamcaster since like, 2005. 

But if there are spamcasters, they'll spamcast regardless of whether they have 10 spell or 30.

[Reiloth]

Yeah, and we, the players, aren't really the RP police. If someone is doing something you think is fishy or dumb, send a player complaint.