Request For Feedback

[Raesanos]

While it's a minor derailment, I love this idea.  And I think it'd be absolutely necessary for Sanvean's idea.  I don't remember to cc: the right people normally, especially when other clans are involved.  How the hell would I be expected to remember, for example, that Adhira isn't the Atrium imm any more, when I'm playing in Salarr?

Is there a problem with http://www.armageddon.org/ic ?

[Rindan]

Perhaps a method of doing this is to have an in-between period.  So, if someone is moving from Kurac to House Borsail, they spend a month doing both houses.  This way, they can teach can bring their replacement up to speed slowly and be brought up to speed slowly in their new clan.  Making people move every 6 months might be a little extreme, but making one of the clans imms move every 6-9 months might not be a bad idea.  So, if there are three imms in a clan, it would take 18 months to fully rotate everyone out.
 
One worry I would have is that some people are given clans they don't want.  I know there are certain character types that I would rather not play.  I imagine the same could be said for certain clans.  Dumping a clan on someone who doesn't want it is a pretty sure fire way to make people not want to log on.  I would really try and work within everyone's preferences as much as possible instead of setting up a strict rotation.  I don't think it would be a terrible tragedy of one imm always rotated between the same 5 clans that he likes, instead of hitting up every single one.

I do see the benefits, but I think communication is the real issue.  If there is good communication within the staff, I think this could be pulled off well.  If the communication is spotty, this could be a recipe for some ugliness.  Making sure that communication lines and documentation are shored up would go a long way to making something like this work.

I really like the idea on principle.  I could see this giving new energy to different clans as people rotate in and out with new ideas.  I think the real question is if the communication lines and the documentation exist to ensure smooth transitions.  Obviously, this is a question that only the staff can answer.

[Lazloth]

The average life of a PC, even a sponsored role in an clan, is only about 3 months anyways.  So it's not like there'll be a great deal of upheaval in most PC's lives.

I don't think this is true at all.

Yeah, it's probably much less.

I am totally in love with this proposal and [in my head] the pros heavily outweigh the cons.

Addendum:  I've been in situations where clan "ownership" has changed before, and while it's jarring when new ideas and approaches proliferate, as has been mentioned in this thread - if staff and player remain receptive to communication, short-term issues with unexpected kinks find a way of working out.  I think clan evolution greatly benefits from varied modes of attention.

To Delirium's point - loss of immediate NPC continuity:  I agree, and perhaps something as simple as a changing of the guard (no pun intended) would (a.) breathe in new energy for the players affected, (b.) help alleviate the shift in new management.  Your boss may get promoted (and you not!), assassinated, whatever:  some IC action that can positively or negatively affect your career, tie in plots, further clan history, etc.

[proxie]

Hmmm. I have mixed thoughts on this.

I recently spent a while in a clan, where the imms shuffled in and out, while one remained constant. That wasn't a problem, but then, another imm came in and started settling in for a long work with the clan. Again, no problem.

However, NPC's that were previously cordial, approving, and in general liked my PC and were sources of vast knowledge to my PC suddenly became hostile and critical and disapproving, to the point where I asked the imms if this was supposed to happen or if I should consider this NPC being affected by something mindbenderish or magicky.  

So, if this idea is put into place, then the NPCs need to either be consistant or each Imm needs to put in new NPC's that are designed to act within their own style and constraights, so that the known NPC's aren't suddenly acting like they've been taken over by someone evil.

The sudden loss in consistancy made me question my roleplay and whether this PC was a good match for the clan. Which was sad because I'd put considerable RL time into her, and yet good, because I was able to move on and am now playing something fresh and new, with amounts of joy that would probably not be there were I still playing that previous PC.

Proxie

[Seeker]

Most of my concerns have already been covered by others (mostly the ones dealing with continuity issues and long-lived PCs, and the possibility of apparently schizophrenic-seeming NPCs and institutions) but I'll toss out a couple of new topics.

Some IMMs are on a different time zone.  Their clans seem to manage to attract and retain off-peak players, and this works out well for everyone.  A bit odd, on an OOC level, but still useful.  Off-peakers might suffer when they are left high and dry in a clan when the rotation hits.

Some players just don't enjoy the company of certain IMMs and vice versa.  This entirely removes the chance of them applying a little polite consideration and just avoiding each other.

Some parts of the game (eq. the entire desert elf cultures, tribal interrelationships, frictions, and developed histories) might be a bit much to master in a couple of months and then not be active with for four years until the rotation completes for the staff.

As a suggestion, some of the clans already have a "semi-permanent" staff advisor available.  Perhaps -every- clan, in a rotation plan, should have such a permanent fixture to allow more retention of continuity?  Even if largely a background position, it might be a help.


Seeker

As a side-note, some of the very best interactions I had came only because of having a long-term IMM overlooking one of my character's slow, slow development arcs.  Knowing that someone on staff knew that character's foibles almost as well as I did myself made it entertaining on a whole new level to run him.  I would miss that, I think.

[mansa]

While it's a minor derailment, I love this idea.  And I think it'd be absolutely necessary for Sanvean's idea.  I don't remember to cc: the right people normally, especially when other clans are involved.  How the hell would I be expected to remember, for example, that Adhira isn't the Atrium imm any more, when I'm playing in Salarr?

Is there a problem with http://www.armageddon.org/ic ?

What's wrong?  I'm lazy.  I just want to pick one email address and not have to worry about going to a web page to find out who to email.  

I wonder how easy it would be to automate the change of ownership of houseborsail@armageddon.org .

[spawnloser]

I will start with, I love the idea for all the reasons listed as pros.

I don't like it for the cons listed, but the biggest one is the continuity.  I think the rest will resolve themselves with some hassel, yes, but not too much, and once the groundwork is set up, later work will not be as much.

I like the idea of having mail lists for clans, but as long as members of clans are told when one of their IMMs changes, they know to check the ic page or update their own personal mail lists.

I am also in favor of slightly longer stints in individual clans.  Since most IMMs are partly responsible for two clans at a time.  I like having them in each for one year's time.  Each IMM switches only one of their clans at each switch time to minimize the amount they have to pick up on in the new clan.  In the new clan, the IMM being joined should have been there six months, to maximize understanding of that clan already present.

In response to player grievances about continuity, I suggest using the 'bio' command to include things about notable NPCs that your character knows and how the characters interact.  That way a new IMM coming in will know what's going on with your character after reading the bio entries.  I would also suggest being truthful in your bios, as far as you understand.

[editted to add:] Oh, and just to be clear...after the cons are analyzed, they carry less weight than the pros to me, so I'm in favor of this idea on the whole.

[HunterKiller]

Do it.  Same ole shit = bad.  New pup on the block nobody likes with new ideas = good.

I think the only danger is in all the clans being too similar to each other because somebody comes up with a good idea and everyone tries to copy it.

- HK

[Tamarin]

I'm in support of this idea if player run plots are given much more prevalence over the designs of the staff.  That way, the continuity rests with the players being able to drive the world, and not the other way around.

[Folker]

I enjoy the idea, but I would emphasize the two posts made before me. One about the novelty of the continual shift to be a good thing, even if it a price (Hopefully, the price like that will go on for a ... year, and afterwards each IMM will gain enough background experience in every clan) But another emphasis is on requirement to make certain that player ran plots are paramount to those of the IMM ones. So the 6 (or is it three? you said six originally, then said three later Sanvean) month shift doesnt turn into plague where every character concept ends up dying off/retiring because a new IMM suddenly arrived.

[Lazloth]

But another emphasis is on requirement to make certain that player ran plots are paramount to those of the IMM ones. So the 6 (or is it three? you said six originally, then said three later Sanvean) month shift doesnt turn into plague where every character concept ends up dying off/retiring because a new IMM suddenly arrived.

I find this view extremely narrow and egocentric, and hope I'm not the minority.  I won't pretend to guess at the planning that goes behind some of the IMM-run plotlines, but I would retch if some built-up story that affects the larger playerbase is shelved because your templar/noble's greenhouse project has a higher priority.

[Vesperas]

As you said, each clan tends to have two immortals.  Each immortal also seems to mange two clans at a time as well.

Perhaps a hybrid system might be better?  Each immortal has one permanent clan they're responsible for and one rotational clan that changes every few months.  This way you have both the consistency of a permanent immortal but also the 'breath of fresh air' new ideas and such from the rotational immortal.

I really like this alteration.  It would help alleviate most of the concerns that players against the original idea are having, in my opinion.

I would actually like to see a little rotation of some kind through the clans -- but, the main reason I'm supporting this is for the tantalizing chance of greater, more uprooting conflicts.  The longer I play Armageddon, the more I slowly see stagnation in things (most likely because I'm becoming more familiar with the game, and am getting used to seeing certain things) -- this shouldn't be the case.  If I don't play a clan for a while, I don't want to return to it to see that nothing has changed.  It takes the adventure and fun out of discovery.  I would like to see more dirty politics, economics, and competition between clans (let alone city-states).

I think it would also help to keep things fresh as far as NPCs and documentation goes.  And perhaps, given time, as immortals are rotated through the clans, they will learn about all the clans and be able to switch between them more easily.

[X-D]

Love it love it love it.

Lets go with it the way LoD posted.

Cuts out most peoples arguements anyway, specialy on loss of continuity in npc's and such.

Since A and B start together and hopefully work together, when A leaves and C comes in, C gets to basicly apprentice to B learning how the NPC's and such are played. Not to mention fresh ideas and such from C.

Plus, I think even the staffers would, for the most part have more fun in the long run, being involved with and learning even more of the game and game world. Better chance of more even spread of karma for the players too, or at least of being seen, since many players complain that they don't think they are watched enough.

Summery

BIG THUMBS UP!

[ArmWindworn]

Npcs were being roleplayed differently. It is extremely jarring to have a long standing rapport of a certain type with an NPC, and then one day the NPC has a completely different personality. This disrupts game play, and can make adjustment very difficult.

 Heh.. have IMM's use Biography for NPC's with entries for PCs that they have regular contact with

[mansa]

Npcs were being roleplayed differently. It is extremely jarring to have a long standing rapport of a certain type with an NPC, and then one day the NPC has a completely different personality. This disrupts game play, and can make adjustment very difficult.

 Heh.. have IMM's use Biography for NPC's with entries for PCs that they have regular contact with

MY GOD THAT'S GENIUS!

You're promoted, ArmWindworn.  You're now my lieutenant.

[Aldiel]

I like this idea in this effect.
:arrow: One Permanent Imm
:arrow: One Rotating Imm With a Min Rotation Time of Six Months

[Ghost]

I love the idea of rotating imms.  Six months sound good to me.  Some people said a little longer periods would do better, like eight months.  Still fine.  Six month or eight month, it sounds lovely.

Rindan's idea of making an in-between period is a sound one, I think.  It would ease the problem with continuity.  Perhaps the new imms will get an idea, how the NPC had been running, how the clan had been running previously and will get adapted more easily?

I love the idea of rotation.

[X-D]

I don't like the idea of one perm imm one rotating imm.
No point in bothering then as its close to what we have now.
Second, that makes the rotating staffers -always- secondary, again, no point in bothering then.

As to time period, I like six months, but eight months is alright I guess, a year is too long.

Remember all, even if the time is six months, that still gives a single staffer one full year on a clan.

[path]

I like the rotating. I think any freshness or inspiration it could bring to the clans and plotlines far outweight the cons, especially as apparently continuity can be worked around in the way they switch shifts.

I also have a sense of stagnation and I suspect, for the staff, it might be difficult to keep a clan running in any cool direction when people keep twinking around, acting incomprehensibly and dying, so maybe switching things up could keep the faith strong and the.. staff from being jaded.

As far as player run plotlines vs. staff run plotlines.. I'm not totally sure I agree. I guess it's good for the players to have priority in their plotlines, as long as it doesn't break any of the obvious layout of the game or require too much imm support.

[Aldiel]

I don't think you have ever agreed with me X-D.     I went back and reread some of the other posts, I like this idea of a three part rotation with one imm remaining behind to be an advisor too.  However, whatever you do, I think an imms should stay in one place for at least six months to a year.

[Maybe42or54]

I liked the idea, then didn't, but I finally believe I like it.
Since everyone knows we like to huddle around those active imms. When those active imms move around, they bring their new clan to life again.

Just one thing, I'd like to add.

The imms would pick up to 8 clans, and no less than 5 to switch between. So that they don't completely forget what they learned and they can stay in the circle of clans they enjoy being apart of. I don't want it to be a chore if they are imming on a house they don't like.

[RunningMountain]

I would totally be for this idea just because it removes the whole 'conflict of interest' in a lot of situations. I'm damn disgruntled though no matter what happens with staff policy.

[Dakkon Black]

I've really mulled over this one for a long time, and there are cons, but maybe, just maybe they do really do get overrun by the pro's.

The most glaring example I can think of is a situation where a long time PC in a house was about to leave it. The Imm's knew, they were emailed about it, and literally moments before it happened, that PC was invited into a room and summarily executed. Two npc's and another PC.

For various IC reasons, even that scene could have been done much differently. It could have been done in ways that made some much better rp. Hunting down a traitor? All kinds of things, but I can only see the way it was handled was oh quick, get rid of them so they don't hurt the house.

It wasn't Rp'd well.
It wasn't handled with any realism.
It was clearly set to play on ooc reaction time, not IC.
It didn't serve to further any plots.
It didn't serve to assist in any rp.
It didn't create any new story.
It simply killed a long lived PC so that the house looked good.

Since that I've had a serious issue with trusting Imm's with information about what I want to do IC. Do I feel sad about that. Yeah. Do I think that it would be nice to know that this IMM is getting my emails so that they can track the RP happening IC and FOSTER it, CREATE stories, OPEN up new opportunities. YES!

This is a gritty, brutal world, I love the fact that I can die, and die at any time. Hell, it's the reason I come back over and over, to see if I can manage to survive another day. I'm okay with getting offed, I'm really ok with loosing a massive amount of time and effort in a bad situation. But you'd think that they coulda thrown an emote out first.

Go Kurac.

[Twilight]

I don't like it for the loss of history.  Sure, some stuff gets written down, but a lot doesn't.

Try imagine running something like Blackwing with a couple of imms, the most experienced one being three months?  I mean, as it is with rotations the history is already fragmented.  Who knows about what happened in Tor seven (rl, yes rl) years ago?  Or in Tuluk before the destruction?

I've always been pretty happy with imms leading clans knowledge of recent events (1 to 2 rl years), moderately frustrated for medium term knowledge (2-5 years) and definately frustrated when it comes to old knowledge (5-14 years).  This plan would just compound that, and fracture what history there is.

Maybe that is okay.  Maybe we want to like in the last 1-2 years.  But I'd rather like to think it at least possible to dredge up the dark, terrible secrets of the last couple of Ages.

[flurry]

I've given this some thought and I thought I'd share my perspecitve on this.

To begin with, I like playing in clans.  I also tend to have long-lived characters.  So I am interested in seeing what comes of this discussion.

On the one hand, I do have some of the continuity concerns that others expressed.  I'm a little concerned about the example Sanvean posted because if I understand it correctly (and I might not), if you join a clan, all of those clan immortals would cycle out within six months.  Not all at once, but still.  That seems really fast - I just imagine playing for a long time in one clan and seeing that turnover multiple times.  

I wouldn't really say I personally have had these continuity issues affect me in a major way.  I did have one time when I had a goal for a PC that I was (OOCly) really excited about, but probably required some significant immortal help.  I felt like I was starting to get that until the clan immortals changed, and definitely felt a different reception of the idea, which ended up going no where.  At least that was my perspective on it.   It wasn't any of the immortals' fault at all, and I don't have bad feelings over how it was handled, but it was just disappointing because I really thought it had some great potential and I felt like the change in staff ended up hurting its chances.   I only mention this as another example of the kind of thing that could be an issue when there is clan staff turnover.

All of that said, I really think it is important to have some kind of rotation.  Or even just some kind of "term limit" on how long a staff member could be with one clan.  I see a lot more potential for problems with too much stagnation than with too much changing.   I think this is especially a potential problem with staff becoming overprotective about "their" clan and putting the good of the clan over the good of the game.  

One other related issue (that I didn't see much mention of) is of players and immortals that just don't mesh well.   This could be over a variety of things - different styles, different expectations, past disagreements, etc.  The reason I mention it here is because I think if immortals move around with some regularity, some players may feel like they have more options open to them.   This isn't an issue for me, but I see it as another potential problem with too much stasis.