Who C

[Eloran]

As someone else said, who-c could have been given to all clans, if "exclusivity" was somehow deemed a problem.

Agreed with your points, but if you don't properly learn my name and how to cite me, a physical confrontation is likely. Don't make me bow up.

So?

So? So like, JFK Jr. died and stuff. Looks like choosing to rely on his gut as opposed to his instruments really worked out is all I'm saying.  

Little known thing, now that 'who c' is gone... barrier prevented 'who c' from finding you.

I am very aware of this. Who c was never infallible to begin with.

I was hidden with a barrier on, watched someone log in and then almost immediately log out multiple times.

So you drew a possibly inaccurate conclusion as to why the character was logging off/on multiple times. Perhaps something came up RL that they immediately had to tend to? Perhaps their net connection was burping and they needed to log.

If you need someone to make your time fun and don't have the time to find them, don't play.  

I don't mind playing alone, personally. I've solo rp'ed extensively, but I do love player-to-player interaction more on any given day. I think the majority of players are with me on this. Anything that helps you locate and contact players to interact with them, as I've stated, is a great thing. Some people need said interaction to prevent them from getting bored.

In disagreeing with Xygax, I do think the positives outweigh the -potential- for negatives on this issue.

Edit before I press post -again-: Jesus this thread has blown up - I can't keep up with this!

[Riev]

I can totally agree that Who C -can- be, and -should- be removed. However, I think it would be useful to just have the "there are x number of clan members besides yourself online" and here is my justification.


If you are in a clan where you know that, during Such and Such a time, SteveO and Bamfer are online. However, there are some nights where they just aren't around. Rather than typing who c to find them, you could know that "Hey, there's 2 other people online, it must be SteveO and Bamfer!". Now who knows, maybe your clan has a new recruit, or got a new special apped leader position. This way you wouldn't -know- and could ask around, but you would know there -are- people in your clan around. I've often used Who C as a "sense that this person is about" anyways, would this be a terribly OOC construct?

[LoD]

Expressing disagreement and discontent over changes is natural, but it may be more practical to propose solutions based on the assumption that these changes were not born of an arbitrary whim, but after consideration and debate over what must have been a list of criteria for how it's hurting the game.

I would suggest focusing on IC solutions that may or may not have yet been explored.

1. Having an NPC represented in a commonly traveled area that actively "looks" for PC's and NPC's that move through the area and retains some amount of memory on how long they "saw" them move through the area.

2. Having an NPC that could be "contacted" and sent psi messages that would either be repeated immediately, or perhaps held -- although the latter solution feels more like a human answering machine and isn't quite as interesting as the first.

Code Select Expand

A Dark, Quartz-Lined Chamber [S]
A willowy, gaunt faced man is here, hands folded in meditation.
The burly, broad-shouldered mercenary is here.

A willowy, gaunt-faced man's eyes widen slightly, his features taut with concentration.
In a slow whisper, a willowy, gaunt-faced man says, in sirihish:
  "Someone reaches me."

His eyelids fluttering slightly, a willowy, gaunt-faced man says, in sirihish:
  "Sir, we are assembled at the western gate if you wish to inspect the men."

The burly, broad-shouldered mercenary nods, then turns about and walks toward the western doorway.

The burly, broad-shouldered mercenary leaves west.

A willowy, gaunt-faced man's features suddenly draw slack as he sighs deeply.

3. You could have NPC's that accept a "report" command so that if you want others to know you are available, the NPC will retain that command for the next few hours.  That's a bit of a adaptation from the first example, where it requires the PC clan members to be a bit more pro-active rather than the environment simply reacting to their presence.

I'm sure there are solutions that would help address the issues some you feel were being helped by the "who c" command which don't inherit the OOC nature or disadvantages that the Staff obviously felt were enough to warrant its removal.

-LoD

[Xygax]

I like the "report" ideas.

-- X

[Gimfalisette]

How would this work for PCs who do not (in some cases, cannot) convene in one physical location? For example, a guild_merchant PC in the Tan Muark who relies on the presence of tribemates for travel, and frequently is required to be away from home where this kind of NPC might logically be centralized.

[Dakurus]

We use many different criterion when discussing changes:
1. Explanations of how the code works
2. Observed behavior/pattern
3. Personal views on how something should work (this relates more to, how folks envision a system, or implementation)
4. Staff input as to the pros and cons (some opinion, some fact) (benefits vs consequences, which always takes some guesswork)
5. Player input (either directly acquired, or indirectly through emails, posts, discussions we observe)
6. Data
7. Feelings
8. Requirements if there were any
9. End Goal if there was any
10. Balance
12. Documentation, or guidelines
13. Others...

Some decisions involve many of these, some involve few. Some are more transparent, some are very touchy. We aren't a business and I doubt we ever will be. Player perception, and even specific Staff perception varies widely from person to person on many issues where it's perfectly aligned on others.

I have yet to see a data collection that hasn't been sliced, diced, and spun. Data is useful, but not an end all. Data rarely makes you happy unless you already feel happy with the solution it's spun to support. It may make you grudgingly accept it, but it won't make you happy or even necessarily agree with the solution. Data is highly suspect because it's based on the criterion one uses to extract it, which is often not deep enough, or has gaps. Data is highly suspect because once you have your elements, it's completely up to the criterion the reporter used to prove their point. I work with data all the time, and I see how it's twisted. Data shouldn't be ignored, it shows trends and adds value, but it is merely one piece of the puzzle if you even have it, and it should always be taken with a grain of salt.

[Xygax]

So...  the merchant isn't allow to travel without tribemates...  but travels frequently, and isn't able to get their tribemates to convene in one location?

-- X

[aruna]

1. Having an NPC represented in a commonly traveled area that actively "looks" fo PC's and NPC's that move through the area and retains some amount of memory on how long they "saw" them move through the area.

2. Having an NPC that could be "contacted" and sent psi messages that would either be repeated immediately, or perhaps held -- although the latter solution feels more like a human answering machine and isn't quite as interesting as the first.

3. You could have NPC's that accept a "report" command so that if you want others to know you are available, the NPC will retain that command for the next few hours.  That's a bit of a adaptation from the first example, where it requires the PC clan members to be a bit more pro-active rather than the environment simply reacting to their presence.

What about a consolidated version of all three? An NPC that automatically remembers the PCs that have traveled through in x amount of time, but with the ability to psi in a "report" for those characters that aren't in the area but want their whereabouts in the world to be known.

[Comrade Canadia]

Players use ooc tools in order to facilitate play all the time. It's not necessarily a bad thing. If we all had no idea who each other were, had no interaction with one another, and only met in game, chances are a hell of a lot less roleplaying would get done. Preserving the 'purity' of anonymous roleplay at the expense of actually getting to roleplay with someone is bass ackwards. We need more things like who c, not less. The moment I log on, I should be able to interact with people as quickly as possible. This is especially important for people who play off peak.

This is all part of the general bent of the game which is to reward people who play incessantly, and punish those who play irregularly or off-peak. I can guarantee we'd have a larger playerbase if people who could only spare a few hours now and again were given some tools with which to find roleplay more easily. Those who oppose this are the imms and a few very prolific, long-term players. These aren't the people who need it.

OOC tools which are -part of the game- that facilitate players meeting and roleplay are good things! They make the game BETTER. There are -countless- ooc things related to code or circumstance which affect the game that we can roll with, but somehow tools like who c (which we need more of, not less) ruin everything? I don't buy it. I'd much rather be given tools to find and interact with people in game than be expected to add my entire clan to my AIM list and coordinate with them - which is more or less what I interpret Xygax as having recommended between snarkily telling players to just stop playing if they can't keep up.

To draw an analogy, oocly coordinating playtimes is like prostitution. It exists, there is nothing we can do about it, so now it's a question of how we handle it.

Armag right now outlaws all forms of ooc coordination, considers it an amoral crime and the refuge of horrible twinks, shit roleplayers, code abusers and baby stompers. Much like all forms of prostitution are outlawed for moral reasons. The argument goes that since it's contrary to the moral fabric of society, it should not be legalized.

The problem of course is that, like prostitution, pushing it underground makes things worse. I don't want to add my entire clan to AIM, but somehow I'm starting to think this is what I'm being encouraged to do. If the game took the steps to ensure I could easily locate and roleplay with my clan mates, there's no need to know half the game ooc and deal with the baggage that comes with that.  Carrying on with the analogy - we get marginalized street walkers.

In-clan OOC coordination should be a regulated part of the game experience for a myriad of great reasons discussed in this thread. Obviously, we're not seeing that. Instead what I'm getting is that casual players can just fuck off and die, and if we want to coordinate do so out of the game. Just lovely.

EDIT: I also think that "X number of players on in your clan." is a good compromise.

[Gimfalisette]

So...  the merchant isn't allow to travel without tribemates...  but travels frequently, and isn't able to get their tribemates to convene in one location?

That'd be the gist of it, yes. Having a single centralized NPC who responds to in-person commands would be a potentially good solution for clans which operate from a single area (like the militia, assuming the NPC is accessible to anyone who can enter the recruits' barracks), but it is not necessarily a good solution for a traveling iso clan like the TM.

This is all part of the general bent of the game which is to reward people who play incessantly, and punish those who play irregularly or off-peak. I can guarantee we'd have a larger playerbase if people who could only spare a few hours now and again were given some tools with which to find roleplay more easily. Those who oppose this are the imms and a few very prolific, long-term players. These aren't the people who need it.

Exactly. And hell yes to everything else you said.

[Xygax]

be expected to add my entire clan to my AIM list and coordinate with them - which is more or less what I interpret Xygax as having recommended between snarkily telling players to just stop playing if they can't keep up.

To be clear, I do not suggest that you coordinate on AIM, and this is (imho) a rather egregious misinterpretation.  Also, I'm terribly sorry if any of my remarks have seemed snarky, they aren't meant to be.

-- X

EDIT:  Also, as someone else noted, there are other, sanctioned ways, to coordinate playtimes (such as via the GDB).  "who c" is, in fact, by comparison a poor tool for it, at best.

[Xygax]

So...  the merchant isn't allow to travel without tribemates...  but travels frequently, and isn't able to get their tribemates to convene in one location?

That'd be the gist of it, yes. Having a single centralized NPC who responds to in-person commands would be a potentially good solution for clans which operate from a single area (like the militia, assuming the NPC is accessible to anyone who can enter the recruits' barracks), but it is not necessarily a good solution for a traveling iso clan like the TM.

Well, isolated clans might actually be a whole other subject, and if you don't want to be isolated, perhaps you shouldn't play in one.  That said, I still think your example contradicts itself.  If you are a merchant who cannot travel without your clannies, then you shouldn't be travelling without your clannies.  Contacting them shouldn't be an issue, since if you aren't in your "central location", then your clannies must be with you.  Then again, many clans have "central locations" that travel with them, at which such an NPC could be stationed.

-- X

[SMuz]

I have some other Arm players on IM. I've never used who c. And I have a lot of fun RPing with those people I have on IM without asking them whether they're online. I play off peak a lot. I'm a casual player. If anything, 'who c' makes things worse, because you're only interacting with people in the same clan, instead of going out there and looking out for people to RP with.

[Krath]

God Damn! Does it really fucking matter? They got rid of
the command because there is already an UNSPECIFIC
who c in the game, it is the WHO command. If you can deal
with not having who c in some clans, you can deal with it in
others.

I know I do not agree with the Imms on some decisions they
make and I may argue with them, but I know, they are doing
what is best for the game, and in the end we have to trust
their decisions.

Regardless if it was abused or was not, the command is gone,
get used to it. They dont need to give reasons as to why. Be
happy that they at least informed you.

[Xygax]

Krath:  Of course it matters.  And it's good that there are players who care enough about the game to fight for features they think improve it.

-- X

[Eloran]

God Damn! Does it really fucking matter?

To some of us, yes. Otherwise we would not be advocating for a change to bring who c back.

Regardless if it was abused or was not, the command is gone,
get used to it.

We could get used to it, or, we could attempt to persuade to the staff members to view the situation from a player's perspective that quite a few of us hold.

And to be quite frank, we're allowed to have a fucking opinion if we want to, and we are certainly allowed to voice it. Thanks.

They dont need to give reasons as to why. Be happy that they at least informed you.

They don't have to, but they should, and they have. Being up front with players and open with the community helps spur kinship between staff and players, something that I think helps foster better play and communication.

EDIT: Thank you Xygax. That's appreciated.

[Gimfalisette]

Krath:  Of course it matters.  And it's good that there are players who care enough about the game to fight for features they think improve it.

-- X

Thanks, X, for acknowledging that there is a purpose to our passion. When it all comes down to it, I do not care about what method is chosen to enhance, improve, and increase interaction within the MUD; I simply care that a method IS chosen. And I do care that one method was removed and not replaced, seemingly without consideration to the impact of this decision on a certain segment of the playerbase (casual players). I feel fairly certain that brytta, staggerlee, Comrade Canadia et al have the same concern, because of repeated posts on their part and/or PM discussions where we have mutually lamented not having enough time to play.

"If you don't have time to play, don't log in" and "don't play in an iso clan" are not solutions which will increase the size of the ARM playerbase or the quantity and quality of interactions within the game. What we're looking for is tools.

[spawnloser]

@Comrade Canadia
We shouldn't be using OOC tools to coordinate that are unfair for other players.  It encourages people to communicate OOCly about other things, first.  Second, it encourages OOC cliques to become IC cliques.  I think this is a fundamental that you (and others) and I (and others) seem to be disagreeing on.

Let me respond to a few things you said quickly, though, point by point.

The moment I log on, I should be able to interact with people as quickly as possible.

I disagree.  Having 'who c' to do this rewards people that play in clans in yet another fashion.

This is all part of the general bent of the game which is to reward people who play incessantly, and punish those who play irregularly or off-peak. I can guarantee we'd have a larger playerbase if people who could only spare a few hours now and again were given some tools with which to find roleplay more easily.

First, roleplaying is NOT interacting with people.  Interacting with people is roleplaying, yes, but you can roleplay without someone else to play with.  Taking away 'who c' does NOT reward people with lots of time, it just removes an advantage others have.  (Remember, someone else having something is not a punishment for the person who does not, and nor is someone else not having something a reward for someone that does.)

OOC tools which are -part of the game- that facilitate players meeting and roleplay are good things! They make the game BETTER. There are -countless- ooc things related to code or circumstance which affect the game that we can roll with, but somehow tools like who c (which we need more of, not less) ruin everything?

What OOC tools?  PMs and IMs?  Those are bad uses of OOC tools.  Public (or semi-public) announcements of RPTs for areas or clans?  Good uses.  You still have those.

Armag right now outlaws all forms of ooc coordination, considers it an amoral crime and the refuge of horrible twinks, shit roleplayers, code abusers and baby stompers.

It does not.  See what I said about announcing on the GDB, either publicly or in clan forums, as I said above.

The problem of course is that, like prostitution, pushing it underground makes things worse. I don't want to add my entire clan to AIM, but somehow I'm starting to think this is what I'm being encouraged to do.

No, you're being encouraged to NOT coordinate in manners that are unfair to the rest of the players.  You're the one thinking of taking it to ways that are unfair by not seeing that the approved ways are fair for everyone.

In-clan OOC coordination should be a regulated part of the game experience for a myriad of great reasons discussed in this thread. Obviously, we're not seeing that. Instead what I'm getting is that casual players can just fuck off and die, and if we want to coordinate do so out of the game. Just lovely.

Noone's saying that coordination is bad, but the ways that people use oftentimes are bad, as already stated countless times.  Don't strawman.

[LoD]

1. Having an NPC represented in a commonly traveled area that actively "looks" fo PC's and NPC's that move through the area and retains some amount of memory on how long they "saw" them move through the area.

2. Having an NPC that could be "contacted" and sent psi messages that would either be repeated immediately, or perhaps held -- although the latter solution feels more like a human answering machine and isn't quite as interesting as the first.

3. You could have NPC's that accept a "report" command so that if you want others to know you are available, the NPC will retain that command for the next few hours.  That's a bit of a adaptation from the first example, where it requires the PC clan members to be a bit more pro-active rather than the environment simply reacting to their presence.

What about a consolidated version of all three? An NPC that automatically remembers the PCs that have traveled through in x amount of time, but with the ability to psi in a "report" for those characters that aren't in the area but want their whereabouts in the world to be known.

My guess would be that having an NPC keeping track of every clan member moving through the area, and resetting their memory to the certain number of hours, whether they were sneaking/hiding, etc...would be a lot more work than simply creating a script that takes a "report" command and holds a message for "x" game hours.  The idea of having someone "report" in through a Way message might provide more of an advantage to clans and remove some of the purposeful difficulty imposed on IG communication over distances.  I wouldn't ever want clear, instant, and unwavering channels of communication to be available for anyone.  This is handled naturally, in part, by the ebb and flow of players into and out of the game.

NPC's have no such limitations, and so they can bring with them unexpected benefits or disadvantages when they're involved.

I always understood the spirit of "who c" to be a tool for iso-tribes and clans with an extremely small or tight-knit community to help its players find one another when they were available to play.  This generally assumed that the players would be keeping to a specific area, or wouldn't be in a location where interaction is easily found, such as a city-state or high-traffic outpost.

The idea of the "report" function would make the most sense to me in keeping with the spirit of "who c" -- allowing those isolated tribe mates or clan members a vehicle to find one another while in their isolated, tight-knit environment.  Once they depart that environment, I don't see a lot of good reasons for extending the functionality.  If you're outside of your isolated or tight-knit environment, then you probably have other sources of interaction available to you, and that's really what we're trying to facilitate.

Code Select Expand

Barracks [E]
A gruff, hazel-eyed soldier is here, sitting behind a desk.

>report soldier Corporal Reyn is heading out to Luir's with Private Jahn and Private Samos.
You make a report to a gruff, hazel-eyed soldier.

<time passes>

The towering, bronze skinned man has arrived from the east.

The towering, bronze skinned man asks a gruff, hazel-eyed soldier for reports.
A gruff, hazel-eyed soldier says, in sirihish:
   "An hour ago, I got a report that Captain Mengs will be at the Storm's Eye Tavern."
A gruff, hazel-eyed soldier says, in sirihish:
   "A few hours ago, I got a report that Corporal Reyn is heading out to Luir's with Private Jahn and Private Samos."
A gruff, hazel-eyed soldier says, in sirihish:
   "Many hours ago, I got a report that Landyn won't be able to make the contract next week."

This would actually add a little more functionality, allowing PC's an IC avenue for arbitrarily reporting their plans, actions, and locations without cluttering up an IC clan board or wasting a lot of time attempting to Way people that wouldn't immediately be accompanying them.  It also gives others an idea of whats' going on, and who they might want to try and contact.

-LoD

[mangler]

I must say this is going to make things rather difficult as an off peak player like myself, I know some people seem to  frown upon it, but I really found it useful to know if clan mates I could interact with were online, so I could log off if they wern't, as my play time has been rather limited lately, i'd like to make the most of the occasions at which I can log on, and to me, being a european, generally when I log on with hope of meeting other PC's, its relatively late here, and i'm not desparate to sit around solo RPing on the off chance someone might turn up, in essence i'm trying to say I believe its worth logging on a little later to interact with PC's, but to solo RP and idle waiting around... its really not.

[X-D]

I don't know about you sometimes Krath.

Snickers.

Anyway, I'd be alright with a who C that just said how many people were logged in from your clan. As long as it did not say which clan (For the many people in more then 1 clan).

[Krath]

Eloran, Not worth my breath.

Second, Gimf I can see where you are coming from,
But what is wrong with using contact? If you cant
reach them, assume they are off. Why isnt that
sufficient?

[Eloran]

Troll fail. 

[Gimfalisette]

LoD and Xygax, let me explain a little more about my experience in the TM so that perhaps you can see what I mean. The TM are different, operationally, than the militia/Legions, or another tribe, or a GMH...but if a tool is added back into the game to facilitate interaction, then their case should be considered. And, there is nothing to say that a clan which structurally functions in a way similar to the TM might not be created/evolved in the current game version or in 2.ARM, so it again is a case which needs to be considered.

At any given time there are no more than a few gypsy PCs--say, up to four. Of those four, it's very frequent that one will be in the gypsy homeland (where a central NPC would logically be located), one will be in Allanak, one will be in Tuluk, one will be who-knows-where. Some PCs have restrictions on travel, and some do not; some are allowed to travel alone, and some are not; there are conditions and restrictions on travel of various types. So there is a scattering effect which happens. It might be possible to put an NPC in a non-central location accessible to gypsy PCs, but I guarantee that it will be rare for all PCs to be at that point, wherever it is. If there's any concern about the solution being equitable, then consideration must be given to scattered-yet-iso clans.

Further complicating the issue is that players choose to play gypsies, or any other role, because they want to experience that particular role; and a vital part of doing so is interacting with others playing that role. It's not that gypsies, or Circle bards, or militia members, or Tuluki nobles want to avoid interacting with the rest of the playerbase; rather, it's that there are portions of their role which they cannot experience unless they are doing it with others playing the same role. So, there is nothing wrong and plenty right with players wanting to specifically (not exclusively, but specifically) spend time with clanmates and cronies.

When I played my Circle bards I would have loved to have something, anything, that would help me find and connect with the other bard PCs. Even when there were some others, it was rare to get to do things like RP practicing music, or a shared lesson, because it was so difficult to find anyone; and thus I ended up spending the majority of my time hanging out with non-bard buddies, not really Playing A Bard.

Gimf I can see where you are coming from,
But what is wrong with using contact? If you cant
reach them, assume they are off. Why isnt that
sufficient?

Refer back to the discussion on needs of casual players. What we are looking for is tools to facilitate quickly entering roleplay with others, versus the current situation of logging in -> spamming contact for 15 minutes until satisfied that really, no one's there -> logging out disappointed -> not really feeling like playing at all, eventually.

[FantasyWriter]

Gimf, your argument seems counter productive.... if there are only three or four TM at a time, they need who C much less that Kurac with 22 PCs who they are going to have to try and contact.  Three or four people you can try to contact three times each in less than a minute and know who's online.  In a very active GMH, you could spend a whole IC day going through your rosters, while laying down to minimalyze stun loss, and still not try everyone.