Seeya!

[Olgaris]

Addenum:

Your superiors might not want you to succeed. You would then be a challenge to their power. Remember: Murder, Betrayal, Corruption.

[Kol]

Olgsaris....

Code Select Expand

I want to attack X, what do I need to do to make this happen properly?

[flurry]

This era of staffing policy is probably one of the best times for players leading plots and doing awesome stuff since I started playing almost a decade ago. Sometimes I find myself wondering why players are not walking through all these open doors, and exploring all the avenues available to them, and doing all the totally awesome wicked stuff that they are capable of doing.

I think part of the answer is that players became accustomed to certain doors being closed, previously. Or at least, had that perception. Personally, it took some time after the policy change for me to realize some of the new opportunities afforded to us.

There are some aspects of the policy change I dislike (or at least, hope will evolve as we all get used to it), but the new doors opened up is a definite plus.

[DustMight]

Me personally, I wish:
1)  The dragon had shown just up, destroyed Allanak, Tuluk, Luirs, Red Storm, Cenyr, Black Wing, and all the other Permanent settlements,
2)  The game closed for a month or so while the closed those zones off and rewrote some stuff
3)  We were all running around in the wild playing rangers, delves, raiders, and rouge magickers.  
4)  Open gith and mantis back up while you're at it, if the Dragon didn't wipe them out.
5)  Let's all fuck some shit up for a while.

I'm so down with that.

[jcljules]

With the specific example, we would never give such advice. While it might make sense for your superiors to tell you how to make a bit more coin (for example) it is unfair when it is staff telling you how to make more coin. Also if we told you to try trade with x tribe and it worked out great, it is unfair to players who don't have staff coaching them, and if it worked out poorly, players could get pissed off that they were set up for failure.

I second Oleupata's sentiment. If you want advice, ask for it. But it is not our role to give you unsolicited advice on what goals to pursue. Used to be. Made people angry. It was the old cry of you can't get involved in anything unless you are a staff pet. Now YOU (plural) make things happen.

I get a lot of reports that don't seem to ask any questions, they are just telling me stuff that went on. I appreciate them (I don't get to watch as often as I would like) and always send thanks. If you have questions or want nudges, ask ask ask. If it is something along the lines of "do you think it is a good idea to attack x?" then we won't be able to answer, but if you ask "I want to attack X, what do I need to do to make this happen properly?" then the answer will probably be along the lines of: Get your crew together, give me a date, let me know your plan in advance. Then the world can react.

Word.

I've never really thought about it this way. And I understand what you mean about 'staff coaching,' being unfair. And I don't really expect staff to tell me what to do, or coach me, or start plots for me... I can start things myself. I have my own ideas. But I have felt in some roles -- mostly ones I have observed rather than experienced myself -- as if there is no IC feedback. There is a lack of IC pats on the back for success and reproaches/punishments for failure. Is it alright to ask how your PCs clan superiors/colleagues feel about their actions? Sometimes it just feels as if you're reporting to a brick wall of emotionless, nameless superiors, instead of a living breathing clan of people who may have particular biases for or against your PC. But I agree with what you're saying. Its mostly the fault of players for never really asking.

[Olgaris]

Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to throw any blame around for any kind of malaise which may or may not be going on. I'm just trying to give the readers of this thread The Nudge.

Part of the recent (few months old... 6-8?) shift of how we staff the game is that we decided not to play the superiors anymore. Instead reports are taken by e-mail and we focus on bringing things to life at the same level or below the PCs. As mentioned somewhere else this is a bit of an experiment to see how it will work in Arm 2.0. Perhaps this is something we could improve upon, so that there is some form of middle ground. I do recall enjoying being terribly scared of Senior Nobles of Red Robes when reporting to them, and you could get a bit more of a sense of how they felt about you. Or at least that they felt SOMETHING about you.

We are still learning, and always will be. I do think that there is a solid improvement from the old way to the new way, but perhaps bits of the old way should be carried over rather than abandoned. I get the impression that nobles are a bit less fun now, but that lowbies have a lot more potential. Time will tell. Thankfully the majority of the posters in this thread have been interested in collaboration and working toward improvement, rather than plain griping.

[spawnloser]

I didn't read anything but the first post.  All I have to say is this:

You obviously haven't met Shalooonsh.

I was about to say that another reason staff has to be careful about pushing forward plots and generally be awesome is because they run the risk of becoming 'the popular' staffer and making everybody else look bad. i.e. Shalooonsh. I've seen dozens of "who's your favorite staff?" thread and everybody answers Shalooonsh and then it gets shut down.

What I said was primarily a direct response to this:

At least, when Armageddon had the hard-nosed Immortal rep the game rocked very hard.  Now - it's like an old man sighing on his deathbed.

All of the staff are awesome.  I've had plenty of interaction with Senga and Olgaris with recent characters and they're awesome.  I have no favorite staff, but of all the staff I know and have interacted with, Shalooonsh epitomizes the exact OPPOSITE of what DustMight said.  What I said was not intended as favoring one staff member or as a slight against any other staff members.

In summation, I think the game's just as good as it has been since it stopped being a H&S stupid-fest.

[Lizzie]

jcjules wrote:

Sometimes it just feels as if you're reporting to a brick wall of emotionless, nameless superiors, instead of a living breathing clan of people who may have particular biases for or against your PC.

This is precisely why I was disappointed with the change in policy regarding clan superior NPCs vs. OOC e-mailed reports. I'm still disappointed with it. I would -much- prefer giving weekly reports as usual (as I had previously), and having one 1-hour one-on-one with my clan superior NPC every week, or even a 1.5 hour one-on-one every other week.

I can't see my NPC superior's smile, or warm tone, or scolding waggling finger, in an e-mail. I can't sense the emotions coming through. It's just very sterile now. I *appreciate* the staff's correspondence and communication. I'm GLAD for it. But..I'd still rather trade half of it for an hour a week in-game. Let me e-mail my character's activities, and have an NPC touch base to respond to some of it..to talk things out with my PC's superior, have an actual conversation rather than passing e-mails back and forth that end up with 6 different staffers (clan staff and game admin) all having to watch the whole thing repeated over and over again (since the staff always includes the previous part of the conversation with every response)...multiply that times every single player who has the responsibility of sending in weekly reports, who need responses...and who have questions about those responses..that's such a mess, such an inefficient system!

Instead, why not just..let me send the report. Respond to it. If I still have questions, then bring in an NPC to have a -conversation- about it in the game. Log that conversation and forward it to the clan staff and mud admin, and boom - you got yourself a happy player, a streamlined system, a smaller e-mail box, and some fun RP that doesn't take up MORE time than it does to keep sending e-mails back and forth.

[jcljules]

I can't see my NPC superior's smile, or warm tone, or scolding waggling finger, in an e-mail. I can't sense the emotions coming through. It's just very sterile now.

Yes, this is exactly what I meant.

It wouldn't even have to be done through animation. Specific superiors could be described in an email. And it wouldn't have to be superiors only.

"Lieutenant Stobax doesn't seem very happy with your latest contract. A lot of the Runners have been grumbling about your performance behind your back."

Or...

"Some Junior Merchants in another division have been making much more than you, and seem like they might be favored for a promotion."

Adhira did something like this in response to one of my reports a few PCs ago. I thought it was awesomely refreshing to get a feeling for how the rest of the clan felt about my PCs actions.

I do recall enjoying being terribly scared of Senior Nobles of Red Robes when reporting to them, and you could get a bit more of a sense of how they felt about you. Or at least that they felt SOMETHING about you.

Yes, yes, exactly what I mean.

[FantasyWriter]

I would have to say that I agree.  I have no idea how my leader NPCs feel about my character or his accomplishments/failures. 

I am also torn by the fact that I enjoy the idea of PCs being more in charge of running things than they were in recent history and less reliant on "asking" permission to do things.

Although, I would probably hate having a weekly IC meeting with them, I wouldn't mind being called in their office about once a RL month and bitched out/praised.  They current situation makes it seem like your house/tribe/organization (not their staff mind you) doesn't care what you do, since you are never chastised or rewarded.

[IAmJacksOpinion]

Personally, I don't take the challenges of leadership, and I really don't wish to. Never played a noble or templar.

I guess my only opinions on the subject are formed through observation of the leaders I see and talk to.

If the glass ceiling were really so high, and the power so firmly in the players hands, why is there such a trend of people in Noble / Templar positions coming out of it saying, "I'll never try to deal with them again!" Why is it that most of the players who leave the mud entirely do so after they've been in these roles?

I mean, I don't have the answer, but this is my observation from the outside perspective. From my personal, formidable, experience of self-perception/denial I could definately see the Immortals being far less accommodating than they think they are.

[Niamh]

You can't please all of the people all of the time.

[Salt Merchant]

It comes down to what players want from the game.

That old mud personality test is applicable. Explorer/Achiever/Socializer/Killer.

The game is fine as it is for Socializers and Killers.

Exploration can only last so long. Nothing to be done there, really.

If you're an Achiever, you're screwed. You're just not going to be able to build, or change the world now. Titles are granted, not earned. Accumulated wealth means little when it can't buy property. Even highly skilled characters are nothing more than pawns.

e.g.:
"There will be no new building".
"There will be no new clans".
"The magick system will not be changed".

A lot of the frustration being aired here is of a thwarted Achievement sort. But the player base has generally changed itself to be mostly Social/Killer, because that is what is offered, and a lot of Achievers silently leave when they can't find what they're looking for.

[Lizzie]

If Achievers can't find what they are looking for, then I would suggest they try looking for something other than whatever they can't find. There is -plenty- to achieve, and I would argue with every point you have made, Salt Merchant.

If you're an Achiever, you're screwed. Not true.
You're just not going to be able to build, or change the world now. Not true.
Titles are granted, not earned. Not true.
Accumulated wealth means little when it can't buy property. Not true.
Even highly skilled characters are nothing more than pawns. Not true.

I am -playing- the proof that everything you've said so far is not true. I am not, however, strictly an Achiever player. I'm a combination of Achiever/Socializer.

If you are incapable of being anything -other- than 100% Achiever, if you are incapable of adding a few socialization skills, or tossing in the occasional PK, or taking a walk once in awhile to examine the other side of town, then you shouldn't be playing an RPI in the first place, let alone Armageddon. RPIs exist for people who are capable and interested in making use of all personality types. If it was strictly socialization, it'd be a mush. If it was strictly PK, it'd be Midgaard. If it was strictly for achievers, it'd have visible character and skill levels. If it was strictly explorer, there would be no mobs.

I get frustrated, everyone in leadership positions gets frustrated. I don't believe in the glass ceiling though. I believe that my character -could- potentially change the game world. I just don't have the foggiest idea how. I'm working on it though. And I'm patient. And I don't expect it to be given to me, for all the whining I do about needing a nudge.

[LoD]

If the glass ceiling were really so high, and the power so firmly in the players hands, why is there such a trend of people in Noble / Templar positions coming out of it saying, "I'll never try to deal with them again!" Why is it that most of the players who leave the mud entirely do so after they've been in these roles?

I mean, I don't have the answer, but this is my observation from the outside perspective. From my personal, formidable, experience of self-perception/denial I could definately see the Immortals being far less accommodating than they think they are.

Though I'm not privy to what exchanges between these players, nor to any specific instances where this has occurred, my guess would be that special application roles like GMH family, nobles, and templars provide a unique mixture of power and control.  These roles are considered to be highly influential, and to have access to wealth, power, and position that would either be impossible or improbable for unaffiliated characters to attain. 

What ensues is an oftentimes difficult and frustrating period during which the player probes their environment to determine exactly what their boundaries are, and the only way to do that is to press upon the edges until something, or someone, presses back.  By the time many of these roles have determined exactly where they fit into the mold, both the player and the staff have done a fair amount of pushing both ways, which may or may not have negatively influenced their relationship -- much of this will depend upon the dynamic of the individuals involved.

Player-Side

I imagine players thinking, "Why did I accept this position of power and leadership if I'm not allowed to actually DO anything?".  This perception can come as the result of a several different encounters:

> Sometimes there is a misconception of what a sponsored role can actually do (i.e. I always thought a templar's word was law, and they could kill a PC simply for looking at them wrong.), and the reality of the policies governing these positions end up making a player feel that they are being held back, unjustly limited, or being unfairly criticized.

> Players sometimes have "big plans" for what they want to achieve, and often try to accomplish too much too quickly, only to feel that "someone" is against them when they encounter resistance.

> Players are sometimes pressured by outside forces (e.g. other players, other organizations) to accomplish something that they feel should be achievable, only to be met with resistance and further feel that they while they embody a supposedly powerful position, they feel as if they can't meet the demands of their station.

Staff-Side

I imagine staff members thinking, "Why did I bring this player on board if he/she is going to completely ignore the documentation and take offense at my subtle nudges to tell them which direction to go."

> Staff likely receive plenty of emails from players who suffer beneath the hand of a sponsored role, complaining about their decisions, their actions, their habits, and their conduct.  Trying to rectify legitimate issues with the player while simultaneously doing something else can probably send mixed messages or seem like they're constantly nit-picking.

> Staff have a broader view of the "big picture" and often lose their narrow lens, which makes it difficult for them to see life through the same tunnel through which their player is looking.  They may have a completely legitimate and IC reason for refusing the request of a sponsored PC, but cannot convey to them the details surrounding that reason because of the IC nature of that knowledge.  This can sometimes cause a negative response to appear unjustified or arbitrary.

Combine all of these issues from both sides of the fence, and I can see how some relationships can break down and people can choose to leave the game.  It's especially sad because both parties involved are usually trying to be accommodating, fair, and smart about their interactions with one another.

My only suggestion would be for players to view the game world with a pragmatic rather than idealistic viewpoint.  Approach changes to the world in the way that the world will accept them, rather than how you feel it should accept them.  Figuring out those fine lines takes a little trial and error, but you'll find yourself feeling much better about your chances of success.

-LoD

[FantasyWriter]

If the glass ceiling were really so high, and the power so firmly in the players hands, why is there such a trend of people in Noble / Templar positions coming out of it saying, "I'll never try to deal with them again!" Why is it that most of the players who leave the mud entirely do so after they've been in these roles?

Because it's HARD! Not impossible, just hard.
You PC has to become influential and/or powerful enough to gather minions and allies.
You have to wait for your minions and allies to become strong enough on their own, and last long enough (a battle in itself).
You have to plan, have your plans ruined, have your enemy discover your plans, change your plans, rinse and repeat.
When the time finally comes to move the plot, there's dealing with OOC coordination, allies and minion turnover, more waiting on rookie minions/allies to come into power.
Rome wasn't built in a day, and despite popular opinion didn't go down in one, either.

Leader PC tend to have a very high turnover.  I know one clan that has gone through at least half a dozen so far this year.
Some are impatient with having to gain power on their own, some die, some get overwhelmed, but when one finally sticks, it's worth it.
Other leaders around you failing/giving up around you is in itself discouraging.

Edited to add:
Damn you, LoD, damn you.

[FantasyWriter]

I have been feeling really burned out on my PC lately... this thread had gotten rid of almost all of that for me.

I really hope that it may turn the OP around as well.  If not, good luck out there, DustMight.

[flurry]

jcjules wrote:

Sometimes it just feels as if you're reporting to a brick wall of emotionless, nameless superiors, instead of a living breathing clan of people who may have particular biases for or against your PC.

This is precisely why I was disappointed with the change in policy regarding clan superior NPCs vs. OOC e-mailed reports.

I would have to say that I agree.  I have no idea how my leader NPCs feel about my character or his accomplishments/failures.

Wholeheartedly agree. This is the one aspect of the policy shift where I think a change would be wonderful. And I think it's achievable without any animation of the bosses. Either the low level NPCs could help with this (hinting at some higher-up's reaction) or else included in the email reply itself. Of course, it wouldn't make sense for every little accomplishment or scrap of news. But for the more significant ones, it would help greatly.

Having said that, we can always ask. I've asked how news was being received by the boss before, when I felt like it was especially important to know. Still, I'd love to see a change there.

[staggerlee]

There has never been a game made that can withstand decades of uptime without the players eventually becoming bored or jaded.^* Sometimes it's best to just move on. It doesn't necessary speak poorly of the game that all of its participants eventually gripe about how it's not living up to their expectations anymore and long for past glory days. Sometimes it's best to just salute and move on to greener pastures.





Except nethack.^*

[Salt Merchant]

You're just not going to be able to build, or change the world now. Not true.
Titles are granted, not earned. Not true.
Accumulated wealth means little when it can't buy property. Not true.
Even highly skilled characters are nothing more than pawns. Not true.

I'm going to call you on this. I'll use Allanak as an example, since that's the part of the game I'm more familiar with.

You're just not going to be able to build, or change the world now. Not true.

Provide an example of anything that has changed constructively in this city as a result of a player initiative in the past two years?
The only thing I can think of is the Azure Dragon, and that may not even be a player-initiated change.

Titles are granted, not earned. Not true. Not true.[\b]

While it's true that peons can progress through a series of ranks (e.g. Private/Corporal/Sergeant), they never ascend to importance from what I've seen. Have you heard of a commoner being made into a templar? A noble? A GMH family member? Their fate is to die and the world goes on pretty much as if they hadn't been there.

Accumulated wealth means little when it can't buy property. Not true.

Show me one example please of a commoner PC even owning a house, or opening a shop, in Allanak.

Even highly skilled characters are nothing more than pawns. Not true.

I'll qualify this one. Someone can possibly rise to have a destructive influence on the world. But a constructive one? I just don't see it.

[Sraosha]

Except nethack.^*

Noted. We need more plentiful, creative, and brutal ways for character to die.

Also start players with kittens.

Code Select Expand

The @ stands here, dying of sickness.
A half-eaten kobold corpse lies here, its gnawed face in a taunting smirk.
An adorable kitten sits here, poking at the kobold corpse.

[Lizzie]

I am -playing- the proof that everything you've said so far is not true. I am not, however, strictly an Achiever player. I'm a combination of Achiever/Socializer.

Which means, Salt Merchant, that the proof you seek is IC information, it is CURRENT information, and I'm not gonna post about it. And the Azure Dragon most certainly WAS the result of specific player creation. And is ongoing, and IC.

As for the rest:

Here's a clue Salt Merchant: Just because it ain't happening to YOU doesn't mean it ain't happening. It's happening. You're just not involved in it, or for whatever reason, you haven't earned the right to experience it.

[FantasyWriter]

You're just not going to be able to build, or change the world now. Not true.

Provide an example of anything that has changed constructively in this city as a result of a player initiative in the past two years?
The only thing I can think of is the Azure Dragon, and that may not even be a player-initiated change.

It -was- player initiated.  
Name me one building project that was turned down by staff after players had put more than a months RP into it.

Titles are granted, not earned. Not true. Not true.[\b]

While it's true that peons can progress through a series of ranks (e.g. Private/Corporal/Sergeant), they never ascend to importance from what I've seen. Have you heard of a commoner being made into a templar? A noble? A GMH family member? Their fate is to die and the world goes on pretty much as if they hadn't been there.

Seen two PCs recently who started as entry level employees reach a position in a GMH at which family members normally start.

Hlum nobles.  They are always started as commoners who make it to nobility through prowess.

Accumulated wealth means little when it can't buy property. Not true.

Show me one example please of a commoner PC even owning a house, or opening a shop, in Allanak.

Buy a tent, set up shop.  The Kadian shop in Luir's was a result of a PC designing the line of clothing that it sells, and gaining the materials/wealth needed ot construct the building.

Even highly skilled characters are nothing more than pawns. Not true.

I'll qualify this one. Someone can possibly rise to have a destructive influence on the world. But a constructive one? I just don't see it.

Constructive ones... the PCs that had the Azure dragon started.  The PC that worked towards the Kadian shop in Luir's.
The PCs that pushed for recently and soon to be added buildings in Tuluk and other IC sensative places.

[FantasyWriter]

Also Salt Merchant... If you don't like the way things are going in Allanak, perhaps you either need to:
A) Play somewhere else.
B) Take a leadership role in Allanak and change the things you don't like.
C) Suck it up, and keep playing like you're playing.
D) Don't.

Nothing you've said at all is constructive, and most of it has been ramblings of ignorance.
Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't happening.

[Zoltan]

As you guys are saying, it's all about perspective. I've personally witnessed Salt Merchant bashing his head against the wall to get things into the game, and I can kind of see what he's saying. I'm not saying I -agree- 100%, but come on, lay off on him. It feels like everyone's got their fucking claws out over every little thing. Er, not that I can really talk, I guess.