The woes of the aging gamer

[NOFUN]

I don't see why players who put more into Armageddon shouldn't get more out of it. Sure, it's not fair on those with less time but that guy who plays all day everyday probably put a lot of IRL stuff aside so he/she can play more.

[Kalai]

Mm... Just going to note ... There is somewhat of a fundamental flaw in a game, as a game, that rewards you for not playing it.  

One man's "reward for not logging in" is another man's "removal of a penalty for not logging in."

And it's not a fundamental game design flaw unless there's some negative unintended consequence.  Some have been proposed, but ironically hinting that there may be others isn't really that helpful.

Yea, to be honest, you're doing an excellent job of figuring out how it should work, if it were implemented. I'm unsure it's the most useful suggestion for players currently trying to play with the code as is, and feel like this discussion would go better in code discussion with some links.

[Drayab]

You guys are doing a good job of hashing this out, but I personally wouldn't support moving the training aspect of the game off stage, so to speak. In my opinion, training is an important aspect of character development, and you are cheating yourself and your fellow players by taking it off stage. If you don't like training backstab anymore, maybe it is time to play a merchant.

We've already suggested removing certain skills from consideration, here.

We've also already addressed the "training is roleplay" objection.

If you have specific counter-arguments to those, by all means, continue, but simply stating the same thing over and over again because you couldn't be bothered to read the entire thread is just lazy.

Well, backstab was just an easy example. Replace it with whatever skill it is you don't like training anymore.

To prove I read it, here's your argument against 'training is roleplay.'

As far as role-playing is concerned:  going back to my analogy...the DM could say that "oh, well, roleplaying out memorizing your spells is roleplaying just as much as going out to firestorm a goblin camp...suck it up."  The question isn't about what is or isn't roleplay:  it's about what is fun roleplay.

Now, you might answer, "Well, sparring and salt-foraging are fun, for me," and that's fine.  For you.  However, seeing as this is a multiplayer game, I think the optimal situation promotes an environment where everyone can enjoy the game, not just those who have three or more hours to put in every day

Now, I agree that we should try to make the game fun for everybody, within reason, and there are certainly things we'd rather have handled off-stage, but I think you are taking a myopic point of view about training. In the game, training is not done in a vacuum. You will inevitably interact with other characters on some level. A hunter bumps into raiders. A pickpocket gets notices sneaking around. A warrior spends a lot of time sparring, and people start to talk about his/her skill in the taverns as they begin to build up a reputation. By moving it off stage, you are removing all those interactions your character should have had as a normal part of their development. So, I say you should do a better job of choosing a role that you will like every aspect of (ha) so that none of your time gets wasted on things you don't like.

[Synthesis]

Well, I think you should still be rewarded more for playing as opposed to not playing... but I think the whole point of balancing things out would be to not penalize those of us that have minimal time to play.  Obviously it would still be unbalanced if you were rewarding people for playing less... I think we are trying to figure out how to meet in the middle somewhere.

I don't see why players who put more into Armageddon shouldn't get more out of it. Sure, it's not fair on those with less time but that guy who plays all day everyday probably put a lot of IRL stuff aside so he/she can play more.

Yeah, I don't think anyone is arguing that actually logging in shouldn't be more beneficial, in any regard.

I should note that technically, the skillgain system is already set up such that not playing a lot is vastly more beneficial than high playtimes, in terms of the (skillgain:time spent at keyboard) ratio, if you have the stomach and discipline to really push the boundaries.

Also, you know...I kind of question whether it's really that healthy to encourage players to log in beyond a certain amount of time.  Intuitively, "more players, playing more = better," but is that necessarily the case?  I mean, we all get a chuckle out of the CRACKAGEDDON meme, but there is a real dark side to it, and it's not just in terms of RL detriments.  I think it's arguable that the quality of the game suffers overall when you're only encouraging a certain type of player...for argument's sake, let's go with "emotionally-stunted basement-dweller."

You guys are doing a good job of hashing this out, but I personally wouldn't support moving the training aspect of the game off stage, so to speak. In my opinion, training is an important aspect of character development, and you are cheating yourself and your fellow players by taking it off stage. If you don't like training backstab anymore, maybe it is time to play a merchant.

We've already suggested removing certain skills from consideration, here.

We've also already addressed the "training is roleplay" objection.

If you have specific counter-arguments to those, by all means, continue, but simply stating the same thing over and over again because you couldn't be bothered to read the entire thread is just lazy.

Well, backstab was just an easy example. Replace it with whatever skill it is you don't like training anymore.

To prove I read it, here's your argument against 'training is roleplay.'

As far as role-playing is concerned:  going back to my analogy...the DM could say that "oh, well, roleplaying out memorizing your spells is roleplaying just as much as going out to firestorm a goblin camp...suck it up."  The question isn't about what is or isn't roleplay:  it's about what is fun roleplay.

Now, you might answer, "Well, sparring and salt-foraging are fun, for me," and that's fine.  For you.  However, seeing as this is a multiplayer game, I think the optimal situation promotes an environment where everyone can enjoy the game, not just those who have three or more hours to put in every day

Now, I agree that we should try to make the game fun for everybody, within reason, and there are certainly things we'd rather have handled off-stage, but I think you are taking a myopic point of view about training. In the game, training is not done in a vacuum. You will inevitably interact with other characters on some level. A hunter bumps into raiders. A pickpocket gets notices sneaking around. A warrior spends a lot of time sparring, and people start to talk about his/her skill in the taverns as they begin to build up a reputation. By moving it off stage, you are removing all those interactions your character should have had as a normal part of their development. So, I say you should do a better job of choosing a role that you will like every aspect of (ha) so that none of your time gets wasted on things you don't like.

That's nice and all, but none of that stuff would happen (much) for someone who logs in infrequently, anyway, so there isn't much of a net "loss" of roleplay-interactions.

[BleakOne]

Yes, because people who put in a lot of time in Arm are all basement dwellers with no social life. 

[Synthesis]

Yes, because people who put in a lot of time in Arm are all basement dwellers with no social life. 

Yes, because clearly that's what I said. 

[Drayab]

That's nice and all, but none of that stuff would happen (much) for someone who logs in infrequently, anyway, so there isn't much of a net "loss" of roleplay-interactions.

It's more than just a net loss of interactions - it makes a hole in the collective story because nobody knows what you character has been up to until he decides to tell us. Maybe your character's friends won't care very much, but it gives your character an unfair level of anonymity when he makes some enemies. Nobody has ever heard of him practicing with his favored sword, so how can anybody know that is he is good at it? That sort of secrecy should not come for free.

[BleakOne]

Yes, because people who put in a lot of time in Arm are all basement dwellers with no social life. 

Yes, because clearly that's what I said. 

Just messin' with you, dude. 

[Synthesis]

That's nice and all, but none of that stuff would happen (much) for someone who logs in infrequently, anyway, so there isn't much of a net "loss" of roleplay-interactions.

It's more than just a net loss of interactions - it makes a hole in the collective story because nobody knows what you character has been up to until he decides to tell us. Maybe your character's friends won't care very much, but it gives your character an unfair level of anonymity when he makes some enemies. Nobody has ever heard of him practicing with his favored sword, so how can anybody know that is he is good at it? That sort of secrecy should not come for free.

Welcome to the life of an off-peaker, or a low-playtime player, dude.

My last PC only spoke words to two other PCs in about 7 days' played...over like 2 or 3 months RL time.

In short, your concerns are valid, but they have to be weighed against the very basic, very real penalties that casual gamers are facing.  Personally, I'm not too concerned with it, because really, the lack of basic anonymity is a problem, in and of itself.  Why should you know every dude in the city who's good with a sword?

[Potaje]

 I would purpose, that if something where to be considered to be implemented that it be restricted to further variables:

1. Class and skills that can be trained must be tied to an association, i.e. for Weapon training they be enlisted in the Byn, or House Tor, House Winrothol, Arm of the Dragon or Sun Legion.

This would thus be more indicative than an independent that would have to seek out to the more virtually realistic dangers to train up their skills. And thus risk death or raiding.

All this can be translated into grebbing as well, perhaps with a caveat for independent grebbers to gain income, or not, for then you should also weight in the need to eat and drink constantly on an equal level.

This I would also see including sneakies in a guild of family, they would in actuality be risking their lives to further their abilities.

Now I exclude Greater Merchant Houses for trained fighters, for generally they are hunters, one could argue this aspect, fine, argue it.

But I would reserve them the ability to level up their crafters as the War Complexes hand the other aspect.

(Though I still disagree with the premises as a whole, this would be my constructive input.)

[Synthesis]

I would purpose, that if something where to be considered to be implemented that it be restricted to further variables:

1. Class and skills that can be trained must be tied to an association, i.e. for Weapon training they be enlisted in the Byn, or House Tor, House Winrothol, Arm of the Dragon or Sun Legion.

This would thus be more indicative than an independent that would have to seek out to the more virtually realistic dangers to train up their skills. And thus risk death or raiding.

All this can be translated into grebbing as well, perhaps with a caveat for independent grebbers to gain income, or not, for then you should also weight in the need to eat and drink constantly on an equal level.

This I would also see including sneakies in a guild of family, they would in actuality be risking their lives to further their abilities.

Now I exclude Greater Merchant Houses for trained fighters, for generally they are hunters, one could argue this aspect, fine, argue it.

But I would reserve them the ability to level up their crafters as the War Complexes hand the other aspect.

(Though I still disagree with the premises as a whole, this would be my constructive input.)

Restricting it to only after you join an organization is a bad idea on four points:
1. Joining a clan is a little difficult in the first place, if you don't play a lot, or you're off peak.
2. Clans have recruiting limits, and it would suck to have a clan populated by people who only play once a week, who joined only so they could get access to the script (although this is really the same problem as the apartments problem that I addressed earlier...i.e. the solution is to increase hiring caps, but I digress).
3. Clan-based PCs aren't the only ones who use skills, so there really doesn't seem to be a good reason to restrict skillgain to clan-based PCs.
4. Being in a clan sucks if you're hardly ever around, or if you're around only off-peak.

Again, risk:reward can be tailored for each particular skill, and a global cap can be put on the script so that no skill (just as an example) can progress beyond (journeyman) or whatever.  Since weapon skills in particular increase so slowly even when you're using them, they would presumably also improve very slowly via the 'default activities' method.

I really don't see what you're so concerned about, if we start with two fundamental limits:  1) nobody becomes a badass via the method and 2) nobody becomes wealthy via the method.

However, the clan thing is a good idea, on its own.  I would modify it such that being in a clan might improve the maximum level you could reach in particular skills via the "default activities" method.  E.g. if you're a Tor Scorpion, maybe you can get combat skills to (advanced) instead of just (journeyman), or if you're a crafter for House Kadius, you can get tailoring and jewelrymaking to (advanced), or whatever...but that's just sort of a bonus thing that isn't intrinsic to the general idea.

[DustMight]

DustMight, how much time per day would you be both willing and able to put into Armageddon?  Per week?

I could never guarantee daily play-times. 

At best I might be able to do one or two times a week and one of those for several hours (meaning 3 - 6 hours).  The rest of the time is hit and miss.  Maybe one day at 5 hours, maybe another at an hour - maybe.  The following week, maybe only 3 hours total.

My personal goal when playing a character?  To generate plots.  But clearly I'll never qualify for a sponsored roll, for good reason and I certainly can't advance a character with those kind of play times to become a self-generating plot dude.

[DustMight]

All you need is a laptop and wireless internet so that you can mud and drink all the beer you want on your porch.  My my, how far we've come.

This is a prime example of why we need a "like" button.

[Qzzrbl]

I remember back when I had alot of time to play Arm (around 5-7, sometimes upwards of 12 hours a day), I'd respond to a proposed system like this with a resounding, "Fuck no!"

But... now that I'm at the point to where making a character seems pointless because I can barely scrape together a few hours a week-- most of that time being spent grebbing for food and water or what-have-you, I really wouldn't mind seeing a system like this in place.

Arm is a -very- stagnant game for casual players.

[brytta.leofa]

1. Class and skills that can be trained must be tied to an association, i.e. for Weapon training they be enlisted in the Byn, or House Tor, House Winrothol, Arm of the Dragon or Sun Legion.

I'm not keen on offline training or on restricting it to clans...but, y'know, there have been times when getting signed on to the Tor Academy was about the worst thing you could do for your coded combat career.  Which is unfortunate.

(I know, the Academy is not primarily a sparring school.)

[Sokotra]

I remember back when I had alot of time to play Arm (around 5-7, sometimes upwards of 12 hours a day), I'd respond to a proposed system like this with a resounding, "---- no!"

But... now that I'm at the point to where making a character seems pointless because I can barely scrape together a few hours a week-- most of that time being spent grebbing for food and water or what-have-you, I really wouldn't mind seeing a system like this in place.

Arm is a -very- stagnant game for casual players.

I would imagine a lot of people would have this response.  If they have plenty of time to play currently, they would be against these ideas.  Once they get (somewhat permanently) restricted by RL down to a couple of hours a week of play time they would suddenly like this idea.  If they didn't care, they would just disappear mostly and end up playing the game less and less... which is more likely to happen if you don't address the needs of low-time players.

[Kismetic]

As someone who plays this game anywhere from "none at all" to "all the time," I would highly encourage a system in place that offered a coded benefit for those of you struggling to find time to play.

However, here's what I'm having trouble with:

From what I can understand, you're saying ...  as a low-time player, you want your skills to progress at nearly the same rate as someone with high playing times, and yet ...  if a person with high playing times decides they don't want to spend their time logged in the game doing the mundane skill practice, they would make less progress than the player with little to no playing times?

How does that make any sense at all?

This is the thought process you're encouraging.  "I don't want to spend all my time training skills anymore than Joe Realguy, so I think I'll stop playing so much so that I'm not penalized."

Before you commence Johnny Storm style "flame on," I do get that you're talking about a capped system.  As well, I'm all for some little skill bumps so your Ranger can actually hit the broad side of a barn, or your Pickpocket isn't in jail for the duration of your sparse time logged in the game.  I especially agree with the notion of giving some offline monetary gain based on a "trade skill," so that people who only have an hour or two to play once in a blue moon might not have to spend all of their time logged in playing the Grebber Game.

I'm definitely against singling out a portion of the playerbase because they're having just too much darn fun.  That's no more fair than have too much darn life to play with your favorite toy.  Hell, for some of you, this probably isn't even your favorite toy.

I don't think you should be rewarded for not playing the game.  The level of "maintenance" should be fair, and should support roleplay, but turning around and trying to exclude the effort of others because you think your character should "be somebody" is kinda dumb.  A little help, though?  Yes, of course.  By all means.

By way of example, I had a long-lived character who often got neglected because my real life kept me away for days to weeks at a time, and upon being able to play, it was difficult to "keep up with the curve."  Even when I did have more playtime, it was still difficult, because I am a player who chooses to spend the bulk of my time roleplaying, rather than "skilling up."  I found, too, that when I was doing these skill-up sessions, it was at the inclusion of other characters, in the hopes of enriching their playing experience.  Was it frustrating not being able to play my favorite game?  Yes, definitely.  But I didn't, as a player, get butthurt over the fact that people were consistently passing me in skill.  I just worked harder at it, and kept surviving (probably because I was always too busy with work to make RPTs ).

Real life gets us all, and yeah, I do see that for some people (at times, myself included), this is a little more than just a game.  It's not your position to judge your fellow players lifestyles (directing this solely at Synthesis' emotionally-stunted comment).  Hopefully, those of you who aren't able to play will be afforded some kind of assistance, but with this in mind, I want to finally say:

Isn't Armageddon supposed to be hard?   

[Qzzrbl]

While I'd be all for a "skill up while your ass is logged out" system....

I wouldn't want to see the skill increases come any faster than "snails pace" (i.e.: three or four months worth of straight not logging in to bump from novice to apprentice) or with a cap any higher than "journeyman".

[BleakOne]

If applied in moderation, I'm ok with it. As long as it remains at a pace where more active players still have a noticable edge, and there's a cap of Journeyman level or something, I can see it helping to bring more casual gamers in, and that's a good thing.

It would need to be careful done though, to get theright balance.

[DustMight]

Just to be clear, the OP wasn't about skills at all.  The lack of skills is only a small part of the problem.  The roles that I, myself, really desire to play have little to do with skills and a lot to do with social interaction - Templar, Merchant, plot-developer dude.

[Cutthroat]

I was thinking about sponsored roles for casual players, and how that would work. Basically roles that staff could call for players with low and inconsistent playtimes and fill them well. I think certain noble, templar, and merchant roles could work well for good players with lower playtimes - it's just that while they won't be expected to do the things the typical player in this role is expected to do, they would be expected to make the most of their time.

An example of such a sponsored role would be a noble in a highly-specialized House like Negean or Sath, where you could spend much of your time simply listening to current events, making efforts to gather more secret rumors, and writing them down. Another example is a white-robed templar that preaches about Tektolnes and leads the occasional devotion... and keeps an eye on the people that never show up to them. A third example could be a Nenyuki agent, where a player with low or erratic playtimes could thrive on arranging loans for people and renting out empty houses in the cities.

While these role examples might be classified (and dismissed) by some as "flavor roles", I disagree. I think opening roles like these would round out the playerbase and bring more of the current casual players that are avoiding making a commitment, into the game. I also think better ideas for such roles could be made up by the staff and other players with time.

[Sokotra]

From what I can understand, you're saying ...  as a low-time player, you want your skills to progress at nearly the same rate as someone with high playing times, and yet ...  if a person with high playing times decides they don't want to spend their time logged in the game doing the mundane skill practice, they would make less progress than the player with little to no playing times?

How does that make any sense at all?

This is the thought process you're encouraging.  "I don't want to spend all my time training skills anymore than Joe Realguy, so I think I'll stop playing so much so that I'm not penalized."

Yeah, if it ended up that way it would pretty much be unbalanced.  I think we were trying to avoid that.  If someone said that is how they wanted it to work, I guess I didn't read it.  That, or you interpreted that the ideas presented would make things that way.  I would be against that the same as you.  I don't think we want a system that would make playing less more beneficial than playing more.  That would be sort of counter-productive to the whole reasoning for changing things in the first place.  Although I think that having the privilege to play more is a big reward in itself, and should be considered, I still wouldn't want to be unfair to the people that put more time and effort into the game.  Again, I would only want those that are -forced- to have minimal play time (because of important real life circumstances) to have some sort of help so they could play the game effectively and not fade out of existence.

[Barzalene]

Logging in and training with your peers will give an influence and bonds that code can never confer.

[Kismetic]

@ Sokotra:

Maybe I read it wrong, but somewhere in brytta's suggestion, and subsequent suggestions by Synthesis, I was getting the impression that people with longer playtimes who preferred social roles would get less benefit than, say, people who preferred social roles, but just didn't have the time to log in.  That made zero sense to me.

I read these posts while I'm MUDing, or watching NetFlix, so there's a chance that I missed some vital detail (and I honestly don't feel like going back and re-reading it).

Mostly, Sokotra, what I think is important for someone who hasn't logged in a long time and isn't an active player on the game is to narrow your focus a little.  On another note, I don't think having high play times is that much of a privilege, I'm sure Armageddon isn't the only thing people could be doing.  They choose to be here.  I always felt it was more of a privilege to even get to play when my work schedule was in the upwards of 60-90 hours/week.

I've yet to hear any real detailed, creative, non-coded solution to this dilemma.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but code of this nature is very unlikely to see the light of day.

[Nyr]

DustMight, how much time per day would you be both willing and able to put into Armageddon?  Per week?

I could never guarantee daily play-times. 

At best I might be able to do one or two times a week and one of those for several hours (meaning 3 - 6 hours).  The rest of the time is hit and miss.  Maybe one day at 5 hours, maybe another at an hour - maybe.  The following week, maybe only 3 hours total.

My personal goal when playing a character?  To generate plots.  But clearly I'll never qualify for a sponsored roll, for good reason and I certainly can't advance a character with those kind of play times to become a self-generating plot dude.

I don't think there's much of an option for players like you to get the things you desire out of the game without adjustments to your time spent on other hobbies.  Correct me if I'm wrong (I know everyone else in this thread is off on a skills tangent, I assume ) but I think the core issue is time management and opportunity costs.  You have your needs and obligations (work, family, home).  You can't really compromise with your needs and obligations.  You have your hobbies and interests (running, hiking, playing guitar, drinking beer on your porch, and Armageddon).  You can compromise on these.  Figure out how much time you're spending on everything you can adjust even if you hate it, and then decide which things can take a back seat more often (if you want to play more Armageddon to your liking).  If you can get at least 6 hours per week into the game in regular segments of 2 days or 3 days of playtime, you can accomplish the goals you want, though at the lower end of your expectations.  It is unlikely you would be a prime candidate for playing a noble or templar or GMH family member, but the following roles would work:

• soldier, either city-state
• bard, Tuluk
• sales in a merchant house
• partisan, Tuluk
• gemmed mage, Allanak

I think that for you, the best thing to do would be to figure out the low threshold of required playtime to enjoy Armageddon, and whether that sacrifice to your other interests is worth it to you.  I would say that the low threshold for social roles would be about 6 hours per week.  If you can dedicate two days per week to playing Armageddon, slot in about 2.5 to 3 hours each day.  You'd be using more time per day, but less days of the week, and that may be better for your new and improved hobbies and interests schedule.  If you can dedicate three days per week to playing Armageddon, slot in about 1.5 to 2 hours each day.  You'd be using more days per week, but less time per day, and THAT may be better for your new and improved hobbies and interests schedule.  I'd recommend the 3 days thing, myself.  There's other options as well (five-six days per week, 1 hour ish per day) that will net you less total time per day, but that probably will start you sliding towards less actual Armageddon enjoyment time, considering the PC-to-PC interaction you are interested in finding.  Consider also that if you are in GMH sales, you will be putting in orders with staff via the request tool. I don't know if this would cut into your time the same way, but it would have to be considered.

I was thinking about sponsored roles for casual players, and how that would work. Basically roles that staff could call for players with low and inconsistent playtimes and fill them well. I think certain noble, templar, and merchant roles could work well for good players with lower playtimes - it's just that while they won't be expected to do the things the typical player in this role is expected to do, they would be expected to make the most of their time.

An example of such a sponsored role would be a noble in a highly-specialized House like Negean or Sath, where you could spend much of your time simply listening to current events, making efforts to gather more secret rumors, and writing them down. Another example is a white-robed templar that preaches about Tektolnes and leads the occasional devotion... and keeps an eye on the people that never show up to them. A third example could be a Nenyuki agent, where a player with low or erratic playtimes could thrive on arranging loans for people and renting out empty houses in the cities.

While these role examples might be classified (and dismissed) by some as "flavor roles", I disagree. I think opening roles like these would round out the playerbase and bring more of the current casual players that are avoiding making a commitment, into the game. I also think better ideas for such roles could be made up by the staff and other players with time.

This looks really good on the surface and may work.  The cons outweigh it:

• We still would want reports on what these people did during the week.  Even if done bi-weekly, these people are casual gamers, are they not?  Taking 15-30 extra minutes of one's time to toss in a request may be a pain in the ass.
• What if the player suddenly becomes more active?  Time frees up due to unfortunate RL events or sudden addiction to Armageddon, and they start clocking in regular noble/templar/GMH family hours.  We now have an extra noble/templar/whatever that we weren't expecting to be this active.  Doing nothing means that we have a top-heavy section of the game, so staff would ahev to intervene and determine what to do here.  This places an additional burden that we don't currently expect to have with existing sponsored roles.  Admittedly, these problems happen in reverse for sponsored roles, but we expect that.
• Policing these players.  They are playing new roles, they will need to be watched, and they will need to be watched carefully.  They may not be doing much (that would make it easier) but it is still something to consider.
• At least some of the mentioned roles have little to no documentation or existing expectations from staff.  The answer is to write it, but it is another consideration.