State of Armageddon from a Player's Perspective

[Patuk]

I took some time to read up on Bartle stuff and then also on Yee stuff.  Yes, an RPI game is a specific style of MUD but the majority--and I mean the vast majority, probably upwards of 90%--of MUDs have quest systems and other automated activities like the other games you have mentioned (WoW, Gemstone, etc).  There are other players there.  I recently tried out the Elder Scrolls Online Beta and spent a mediocre portion of time working with a group of people I played with.  These kinds of games truly do not require interaction with other people in order for the game to be rewarding.  Now, it can be more rewarding with other people, but that's beside the point.  Bartle focuses on that, those kinds of games.  In 1996 there were (arguably) only a handful of RPIs.  In 1996 I believe even Armageddon was a place where halflings and elves sat down at the same bar to talk to each other, so it's not like there's a long and rich history of high-quality RPI goodness.  RPIs continue to be the minority in MUD gaming.  I doubt very strongly that Bartle was analyzing the finer points of games with intensive roleplay as a focus.

As a counterpoint to this quest-style setup and level-based system that Bartle more than likely was analyzing, Armageddon thrives on the interaction between players.  Based on what we've seen so far with new players, the interaction that new players have with existing players seems to be the thing that retains a new player...not appealing to Bartle types.  We'll continue to explore that if it is needed, but the research you're drawing on here is related to non RPIs and "roleplaying" games in a broad sense (in that "you, the player, act as another character, and we call that roleplaying").  I wouldn't hold Bartle types up like they are the end-all, be-all for game development.  It is an interesting theory laid out, but it is a theory, and after reading more on this, I think it barely applies to an RPI. 

These two paragraphs illustrate exactly how Armageddon is primarily focused on what we could dub an S kind of behavior. I'm going to requote you, since you bolded your key statement already.

These kinds of games truly do not require interaction with other people in order for the game to be rewarding.

What you're saying here is that Armageddon is a game which requires interaction with other people in order to be rewarding.. Which in turn illustrates S behavior perfectly. People who just want to craft, or reach the end of the world, or rack up the 'high score' that is being on the history page cannot get even remotely close to what they want to do without heavy interaction. This isn't a flaw per se, but we shouldn't deny that anyone who isn't too fond of constant and weightful interaction is going to have a hard time in Arm, and this needn't be the case.

I'm also gonna requote this.

As a counterpoint to this quest-style setup and level-based system that Bartle more than likely was analyzing, Armageddon thrives on the interaction between players.

This is no counterpoint, it's proof. Saying Arm thrives on interaction between players is directly saying playstyle S is what it's best suited to. And again, this isn't really a bad thing, and I enjoy Armageddon for a great deal, but fact remains that there are many ways in which we could improve the game for those unable/unwilling to constantly and mandatorily come into contact with other PC's to do everything at all.

[Fujikoma]

Damn, Patuk, I had an extreme dislike of you until just now.

[Nyr]

Interaction != socializing.

If I've got your character in a position that he or she can't get out of and I'm about to kill you, we might well be talking, but I'm about to kill you--and not for the social aspects of it.  I'm about to kill you because I'm roleplaying a character that is in a position where he or she is a "killer" (again, if we must use Bartle types to discuss an RPI).

There's no need for constant and weightful "interaction" of that sort in order to enjoy this game; you can get by with a decent amount of it, I think.  However, at the same time, if you're playing an RPI to explicitly not interact with other players (whether that interaction be murdering them permanently, taking their stuff, manipulating them, or even just talking with them...etc...) you may as well play a single-player game.

I still think it'd be better to view this game through the lens of roleplay and storytelling rather than the lens of "I took an internet test, therefore these changes should be made."  We can make improvements and we discuss those regularly, but Bartle categories seems to me to be a pretty flimsy standard for this game.  I pointed out Yee, who had pretty strong points against the Bartle categorizations.

[Kryos]

Again, my gratitude for taking the time to continue the dialogue.

What are These People Doing?

The researchers in the field of psychology who are analyzing player behaviors are attempting to do what most of the field of psychology is:  creating models to describe behavior.  This by its nature means there's always going to be disagreement, and more importantly, flaws in the model that lead to inaccurate descriptions. Researchers have taken exception at the limitations found in Bartle's analysis, Yee is one such person.  But further, yet more have taken exception to Yee's model and have made yet further distinctions or changes in an attempt to create a reasonable descriptor of player behaviors.  Dr. Briggs is an example of that, and touches more on the notion that I am drawing, and as suggested in a following section, that the style of admin play attracts and more importantly retains the style of gamer that plays.  She also expands on Yee's ideas of gender roles in gaming.  More recent work also confirms this type of behavior.  

A lot of Yee's trouble lies in that he aggregates the types into broader scopes without actually doing a redefining of the behaviors, but that's more an academic debate than it is valid to the discussion of hoping to improve player retention and enjoyment in Armageddon. He also develops his models by having users input information about themselves, rather than observing users absent their own personal bias.   Regardless, models are, by definition, flawed.  That's the pitfall of the field one has to reconcile with.  However, the strive to ever increasing accuracy is a joy of the field.

Further, you do indeed have the issue with Massively Multiplayer games drawing a great deal of attention from contemporary researchers, as the volume of users in the console and MMO era we live in is dramatically increased from the era of MUD dominance for multiplayer online games when MUDS and RPIs were born.

However, the point remains that games who recognize the validity and importance of these models are immense successful.  And other games, who either haven't or refused to, seem to stumble and falter.  And finally, that while researchers have developed models that disagree with the nuance or even some of the macro classification of players, all agree that there are classifications of player behaviors, and they are distinct from one another, and that these distinct styles can overlap and combine.

Bartle to Yee, Yee to Briggs, Briggs to Contemporaries

One of the things I find most curious about Yee's work, is the takes a lot of the factors that Bartle uses to describe his styles, and assigns them as subattributes of three overarching factors (at least in the piece you've linked).  However, there are some extreme gaps in the context of other research, especially in the why.

In regards to the Achievement Component he describes, he describes behaviors these players engage in, but falls flat on incorporating the why they do these things.  Curiously, he also summarizes Griefing behavior as a subcomponent of the Achievement Component in competition, and that has been described by others as a large oversight.  Further, he seems to misappropriate some sub components, such as linking customization in Immersion instead of Social, as other research seems to indicate are very closely related behaviors.

The Competitive, or Griefing has a diverse platform by which it is accomplished, and can be tied to the Social or Immersement Components in his own work easily.  Lothian's work is focused on this point almost exclusively.  Some of Briggs' work touches on this motivation as to why, and if the topic interests anyone reading this, she also goes into gender roles in gaming another worthwhile topics.  

But the main thrust of this is:  Yee is not the end point chronologically or developmentally of models of gamers, but there's some cohesion in his claims with nearly all other work that remains a point of interest:  divergent styles of gaming.

You are Attracting Yourself

By and large, how I interpret the main thrust of your response is, We (I) value a certain style of gamer, and seek to attract that style of gamer to this particular game.  If that's an inaccurate interpretation, please correct it.

As posted initially, I am in 100% agreement that this is the state that Armageddon is mostly in.  Modern research supports this claim.  However, my contention is that attracting and the natural inclination to attract and support only those like one's self causes a distinct point of failure in creating a robust game and player base.

Now to clarify, I do believe any player that will be valuable to the world of Armageddon needs to be able to interface with the world and immerse into it, by role playing.  However the scope of how this is accomplished is vast, and hardly limited to the metrics of what is described as S, or social player behavior described in the previous post.  

Unfortunately, the rubric for what a good player  seems to be constructed on this Social style of behavior.  Again, the distinction here is we are talking about the players, not the characters they play.

Staff expects the player to, outside of their character, always have very strong Social Components in the context of Yee's work, while maintaining the the Immersion sub component of Role Playing.  However, what Armageddon is supporting in a limited or substandard measure, according to my own analysis, is most of the Achievement Component,  and misplaced or not, some of the Immersion Components.

And the point of this is, as like is attracting like which we've ended up agreeing on, player retention is below the desired amount.  If player retention is below the desired amount, changes should be considered to bring it to a point of desirability.

What We Do Not Seem to Agree On

Is in summation:  that players who are not strong Social or alternate Components or Subcomponents are valuable and useful to an RPI game.  The RPI element is naturally, also going to draw in the Role Playing sub component of immersion.  And the ability to do this is required, and enjoyment of it will greatly improve enjoyment of the game.

By the way Armageddon is described, a harsh world where fighting for survival is the order of the day, with the tagline Murder Corruption, and Betrayal,  the game is by and large going to attract the sorts of players with some inclination towards what Yee describes as the Achievement Component and others create distinctions between.  It reads as the perfect platform to entice them.

However, upon arriving, these players are going to find, even if they are fantastic Role Playing subcomponent types of players, that their Achievement Component desires simply are not supported well, or scrutinized to the point they lose interest in participating.  The numbers on who is playing the game also supports that either this, or another issue is driving off these other types of players, while Socializer players are retained.

We also know turnover is high due to your own reporting.  Its a given that some of these players aren't the kind of gamer the game would want to retain anyway, as they may not interface well with the RPI environment.  However, you have said yourself that you do not condone nor appreciate at the least some of the Sub Components of Achiever style play, but I can't recall off hand any specific commentary on the Explorer, Creator or Immersion(other sub points) by Yee styles.

With an apparent lack of regard for at least one of the three styles of Yee's distributions, I worry about this not allowing Armageddon to grow and prosper, and by necessity remaining in an evolving state.  This is without acknowledging the behaviors Yee and Bartle seem to skip over, who can constitute another meaningful percentage of a game's population.



   
Other links for interested people(note I'm not saying I agree with everything they say, but I am saying they are out there):

[1] http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6474/personality_and_play_styles_a_.php?print=1
I think I linked this one before, but, its just an example of divergent viewpoints on the nuance of motivations, yet showing the diversity and breadth of them.

[2] http://web.archive.org/web/20000818064001/http://www.andreasen.org/bartle/stats.cgi
Interestingly enough, EQ seems to sample towards strong S too, but not as strong as Armageddon at the time.

[2.1]MUD name                                 Count Ac So Kl Ex

Armageddon                                  13 31 67 41 58

Note:  I'm having trouble grabbing up Brigg's work off hand immediately, which is unfortunate.

[FantasyWriter]

The OP really rang a bell for me.  As an explorer/achiever-type player, I have to say that I agree with what I think was the general point of this thread.


From the Achiever and explorer in me:
I do feel like there is too much restraint of knowledge.  There are so many things that are lost, either because discovery requires staff to dole it out on a whim or for their own purpose/direction, or because the player has to know the answer to the question before his or her character can even ask it.  Also, how book/scroll-type items work need a serious overhaul.  I remember playing a merchant house Agent and asking staff if I could pay the scribes of the house to copy a book for me thinking it could just be replicated by a staff command, only to find out that the only way a book can be copied is to be rewritten through the text editor page by page).  Also, the fact that a whole page has to be written at once makes them more frustrating and expensive (you can't just jot down notes on a page and add more later, once you start writing on a page, you have to put everything you want on that page in one sitting.  Making books creatable in the same or similar way that biography entries are done while out of game would be extremely helpful.  They are extremely difficult (OOCly) and expensive to create in game, especially when balanced around the ease at which and entire store of knowledge can be destroyed.  Hearing a few years ago that a PC had done this, no matter how good the IC reason behind it was, left me sick to my stomach and I still cringe when I think about it.

And aside from the dozen or so literate characters in game at any given time who can be handed a book (either one that was kept safe by staff somewhere or created by them) exactly what are the odds of stumbling onto some kind of previously unknown or long-lost knowledge?  How many save rooms are out there that haven't been visited/looted in the past two or three years? How many secret crypts or tombs are left to be discovered.  Once you get to a certain level of knowledge in the game, it feels like there is nothing to "achieve" without making characters with specific pursuits of knowledge in mind before creation, and one can play only so many dwarves.

More and more player consolidation also seems to prefer the Social type.  Areas of the game are lost to players, either for IC reasons (Undertuluk, Mal Krian, etc) or OOC reasons (can't think of any that are appropriate to discuss on the public forums, sorry), and don't get me started on places that use to be be save/quit rooms and were either destroyed or lost their save/quit status.  But like literature, destroying or closing off rooms/zones is much easier than ICly and OOCly creating them.  Thankfully, and to my pleasant surprises, a couple years ago, I was able to be a part of a plot to actually -add- a quit room to the game, and a -lot- of in-character work and time went into the effort, when five words and an agreeable staff team was all it took to destroy the one that had been there in the past.  Aside from the difficulty, it -feels- to -me- that there is a drive to push players into smaller areas for consolidation's sake, and while that is FANTASTIC for players of social characters who like to bar-sit, spar, gossip, politic and mudsex, it's not so great for players who want to get out and stumble across something new and exciting, discover the ruins of an Empire of Man village, learn a previously unknown way to manipulate an element, or rediscover the Ghatti.  I feel like it is a shame that all of the work the builders did for Reborn isn't trickling into the game, or even that sort of talent being dedicated to Armageddon MUD.  I am not, nor have ever been on staff, but from a player's perspective, I really can't see a downside to bringing on a couple or three builders to add discoverable content to the game world (other than not wanting discoverable content added to the game world).

[Kryos]

As a bump, the work in link 1 shows an interesting relationship between what I say is supported (S/E) which is working with the people in the world and its static nature, and the A/G which is interaction with physical properties of the world (arm is, as FW says, shrinking and does not often change) and its changing/volatile nature.  I think its food for thought on further nudging what I'm after here.

[Nyr]

Models are, by definition, flawed.

Exactly.

However, the point remains that games who recognize the validity and importance of these models are immense successful.  And other games, who either haven't or refused to, seem to stumble and falter.

Are we stumbling or faltering?  We've increased new player retention by at least 50% this year and possibly over 100% depending on what metrics you use.

By and large, how I interpret the main thrust of your response is, We (I) value a certain style of gamer, and seek to attract that style of gamer to this particular game.  If that's an inaccurate interpretation, please correct it.

Yes, roleplayers.

As posted initially, I am in 100% agreement that this is the state that Armageddon is mostly in.  Modern research supports this claim.  However, my contention is that attracting and the natural inclination to attract and support only those like one's self causes a distinct point of failure in creating a robust game and player base.

We're not that interested in attracting non-roleplayers to the game.

And the point of this is, as like is attracting like which we've ended up agreeing on, player retention is below the desired amount.  If player retention is below the desired amount, changes should be considered to bring it to a point of desirability.

The rate at which we retain new players is up at least 50% from last year; depending in which metrics you use, it is higher than that.  I would say that is a desired amount.

However, upon arriving, these players are going to find, even if they are fantastic Role Playing subcomponent types of players, that their Achievement Component desires simply are not supported well,

Again, in your opinion.

or scrutinized to the point they lose interest in participating. 

Again, in your opinion.

The numbers on who is playing the game also supports that either this, or another issue is driving off these other types of players, while Socializer players are retained.

Our overall playerbase numbers are increasing rather than decreasing.  You're also guessing.

We also know turnover is high due to your own reporting.  Its a given that some of these players aren't the kind of gamer the game would want to retain anyway, as they may not interface well with the RPI environment.

Again, you're referring to new player turnover, not overall player turnover.  What we know is that a varying percentage of new players each month do not even log into the game each month after creating an account.  No amount of Bartle analysis will change that; they have not even attempted to play the game.  We also know that another sizable percentage stops playing between almost no time at all and a few hours.  As analyzed, those players likely also have not spent enough time in the game to actually know what Bartle types are rewarded here.  One area to analyze before analyzing Bartle types would be to make sure that the player is actually logging into a place where they are able to see other PCs and roleplay with them in some fashion (even if it is to try and kill them or be killed).

However, you have said yourself that you do not condone nor appreciate at the least some of the Sub Components of Achiever style play, but I can't recall off hand any specific commentary on the Explorer, Creator or Immersion(other sub points) by Yee styles.

What have I said that I don't condone or appreciate, in context?

With an apparent lack of regard for at least one of the three styles of Yee's distributions, I worry about this not allowing Armageddon to grow and prosper, and by necessity remaining in an evolving state.  This is without acknowledging the behaviors Yee and Bartle seem to skip over, who can constitute another meaningful percentage of a game's population.

No need to worry, we have improved new player retention quite a bit.

[Cutthroat]

I think the karma system allows for more types than you might think, if we are saying that all Bartle types can be good roleplayers as well (which I think is true). People can be Killers, Achievers and Explorers and still fit these points:

   Longevity: Suited to Socializers who generally will play characters that are the least in-danger. But you can only earn one point from this.
   Good communication: Not really limited to the type of player, since this has to do with requests and being nice on the GDB.
   Ability to roleplay: Regardless of what type of player you are, you are able to go with that type and stick to a role.
   Proven understanding of magick and its place in the game world: Explorers who seek information through IC means, or Achievers who actually play magickers and learn this firsthand.
   Proven understanding of cultural and racial structures: Pretty much every type can fit this, especially Socializers (demonstrating knowledge and ability to fit into societal norms) and Killers (who might emphasize racism and xenophobia in the harshest possible ways).
   Contributes to the game: Achievers clearly have the edge here, since they have the most drive to mastercraft items, create new songs, stories, and areas, and so on.
   Leadership: Leadership and achievement goes hand-in-hand, although Killers, Explorers and Socializers lead in their own ways.

Additionally, the karma system unlocks a very discrete set of new opportunities for the player, and isn't the be-all and end-all of how a player is judged by the staff. While I imagine a player's karma is considered for sponsored roles, or anything else special that staff might grant to players, specific experiences the player had in past roles, as well as their general demeanor toward staff and other players, is far more important in order to be accepted.

So while I can see the merit of your argument and definitely think the game can be (and is consistently) improved for the better (by both staff and other players), and there have been some great suggestions in this very thread, I just don't buy the idea that the way players are judged is strictly Socializer focused.

[Rahnevyn]

I found Patuk's list helpful to this discussion. Some points I agreed with, some I agreed with but thought were unfeasible, and some I disagreed with strongly. But it's good to put this debate into more practical terms of what we wish would be possible /easier and isn't, rather than arguing over subjective statements like "Armageddon does not support achievement oriented players."

So, Kryos and others, what sort of "A-player" activities would you like to do that you perceive the game doesn't support? Scanning this thread, I've already seen:

- It's difficult for characters to leave a lasting mark on the game or be remembered after they're gone,
- It's difficult to find easy ways to improve some skills for some sorts of characters (i.e. indies don't have places to spar, shady types don't have safe places to train)
- Promotions in clans in game are often based on longevity instead of achievement

What things have I left off my list?

[Kryos]

Switching to numbers mode.

http://mudstats.com/World/ArmageddonMUD

This is a fantastic tool for non staff of a game to view the general behaviors of players in MUD style games and MMOs to the degree that the site supports.  Arm, since winter 2013 has increased its average player connected by 1.  That's not a dramatic growth (though the change over from 2012 to 2013 is staggering).  Since 2009, the bump was about 5 average players in, and, the trend shows a stabilization for that number(as it did back in 2009 before a sharp dip, then resurgence).

That stabilization suggests for the last year experienced players are turning out nearly at the rate to the amount of newer players that stay.  That 50% increase in new player retention must then be met by a commensurate amount of existing player loss.  So this isn't my opinion.  I'm not guessing.  Its numbers.

That's what has me worried.

Out of numbers mode.

As for models, models are flawed, but massive multi-million dollar businesses use these flawed, but accurate enough, models to improve their performances sharply.  Flawed is far from useless.  Even flawed, these tools are powerful.

As for attracting non role players, I never said otherwise.  Even went to qualify several times in my two larger posts that as a prerequisite, but to also say role playing is not contained just to S type behaviors for players.  Again, not characters, players.  That's what I'm drumming on.

[Adhira]

Longevity can be for the account, not just the character. Play the game for long enough, you get a karma point, whether it's with one pc or 50.

[Adhira]

Fantasywriter - I hate books too. The way they work now sucks. I've thrown tantrums over this before. Like when a book gets eaten by a crash and is gone forever.   Coders have been working on this, but you know, it's complicated. We have an ass-old code base that doesn't do everything we want it too.  But books are one of the many things on our wish list for code that we'd like overhauled.

[Lizzie]

Fantasywriter - I hate books too. The way they work now sucks. I've thrown tantrums over this before. Like when a book gets eaten by a crash and is gone forever.   Coders have been working on this, but you know, it's complicated. We have an ass-old code base that doesn't do everything we want it too.  But books are one of the many things on our wish list for code that we'd like overhauled.

[offtopic]

I -think- I still have a bunch of copies of some books in text files from when I played (a sponsored role that had access to books and read them all). If you want me to dig them up and send them to you let me know.

[Delusion]

Armageddon's certainly more permissive of S-types than other RPIs that I've played. And I've played a few - for five years before I started playing Armageddon, too, actually. Funnily enough, there are massive differences between my typical sort of character elsewhere, and my typical sort of character on Armageddon. Elsewhere, I have played predominantly combatants, for one thing. Armageddon feels like it liberates me from that to a considerable degree, since I don't get the sense that I'm missing out on quite so much interesting stuff that's going on by playing skill-less non-combatants. I've never enjoyed just going raising skills; they're a means to an end, at best, and I'll still sometimes spend a couple days to a week raising skills like crazy on Arm till they're where I feel they make the PC feasible, then, er, don't actually ever put them to practical use most of the time.

I'm more than a bit of an E-type, too. Finding out stuff about the world and the intricacies of stories is cool. I do sometimes wish that more about the world was preserved and accessible IC - without resorting to asking your local templarate or putting in a request to staff, at least. The same goes for long-gone PCs, though with Armageddon's character turnover rate being as it is, I'm just not sure how that could be made workable.

And I like making things. Not mastercrafting style stuff, really, but more "Hey, this would be a great thing for PCs to go interact with somehow", followed by me sort of fudging in a reason my character really wants to do it. Armageddon's world is somewhat immutable compared to those of the other RPIs I've played. Which is nice in a sense, since it means that a PC concept I have now will probably still be feasible a year from now. On the other hand, for those wishing to enact some sort of tangible change, it can be tricky.

I think the most restrictive thing about Armageddon is that the immutability of the gameworld means that you have to improvise like crazy to get certain pretty mundane PC types to make any sort of sense, never mind big wacky schemes. The thing that always gets me the most is that while my characters' vNPC families, and most of the vNPCs in the world, live in hovels or shacks or tenements or even perhaps a room in a proper house somewhere, my PCs are either consigned to living in a dormitory, whether public or clanned, or to having an apartment. It's stuff like that, where there's a big disconnect between what should be totally feasible for a character, and what's actually there as far as ginka is concerned. Other stuff like a larger variety of jobs in the vein of clay-digging and cotton-picking might be good, at least in Allanak. Some clans that aren't noble or merchant houses, maybe - just regular commoners hiring for whatever, since the majority of the population of the city states isn't working for a House. Inn rooms or something similar that people could rent was brought up in another thread, and makes sense, too. But I'm going way away from the original subject here.

[number13]

Interaction is the key to retaining new players.  It's as simple as that. The Bartle stuff, if it has any bearing at all, isn't going to enter strongly into the equation on day 0. The new player is already gone before he has a chance to discover there's no epic level boss raids or vast troves of written lore.

As I see it, these are the three issues that impact the amount of interaction a new player can expect to find on day 0:

1: Lack of players. There isn't much anyone can do about off-peak being off-peak, but even at peak, locations can lack players.  Without players, the new guy doesn't have anyone to foster interaction and bring him into the storylines.  Worse, it makes the game look un-played, and that's just a terrible first impression to make.

Solutions: Concentrate the existing player base, or at very least advise players to start their new character in a location that has a high density of players.  This isn't always Allanak; sometimes Allanak is the ghost town.

2: Nobody needs newbros. In a game like Eve, the new player is the lifeblood of a corporation. The new player can immediately begin participating in a meaningful way.

In Armageddon, new characters are jokes, and stay that way for around 60 hours of play, or much longer for certain classes (*stares balefully at pickpocket*).  A day 30 ranger doesn't need help from a day 0 ranger, for anything.  A Byn unit stands a much better chance of surviving and completing their contracts if they leave the day 0s at home.  A day 0 crafter can't craft anything reliably or to his profit, and the stuff crafters make tends to be useless vendor trash regardless -- nothing an actual PC would want or need -- until the crafter has played 25 to 40 hours.

For reference, the typical modern console game is designed around 10 to 30 hours of gameplay total. By the time our new player could have beaten Bowser and rescued the princess, he's still fumbling around and pathetically incompetent compared to his longer lived Armageddon peers. The only reason for Mister Day 30 to entertain the company of the day 0 is for metagaming social reasons and future potential of the character.

If instead the new character, and the new player, were actually worth anything in comparison to longer lived characters, then there would be more incentive to interact.  It could be to the coded advantage of long lived players to hang out in bars where new players are likely to pop, because they need the fresh meat in order to accomplish their goals.

A solution could be changing the code to allow for meaningful assists in various situations.  Let's say it's completely impossible to skin a Mekillot alone. You need three other players to help out, at least.  All of the sudden, the solo hunter who can take down a mek needs a crew.  Or, let's say even a mastercrafter has a decent chance of failure when spam crafting chests for profit -- unless he has an apprentice PC or two helping out.  Or there could be time consuming components the mastercrafter needs that the new player can reliably provide.  Maybe important spells are so expensive that they require mana donations (or concentration donations, even) from other magickers to be castable: like it's not feasibly possible to be both flying and invisible, unless you have a different elementalist concentrating on maintaining one enchantment or the other.

The power curve could be flattened with assists as well. Maybe my day 0 crafter can't make anything useful on his own, but with help from three of his fellow day 0 friends, he can.  Or, five day 1 warriors working together are able to defeat a day 20 warrior.

3: Confusion! Strides have been made in the documentation and availability of assistance. I still see new players entering that need hand-holding -- and don't know what the Talk command does or how to emote or that there's the spiffy new directions command (and even if they used the spiffy new directions command, they might not have an idea of why certain locations are important.)  Without the basics, interaction isn't possible in the first place.

The walkthrough is pretty good, but it is a little hard to find, and for an experienced MUD player who is new to Armageddon, the important stuff is buried under crap they already know. I'd set the Quickstart, the What You Know documentation, and the various pages of the walkthough as a blink tag enabled side bar on the front page, because it's the stuff you most want new players to read.

Also, it wouldn't be terrible to have some documentation aimed specifically at players who are coming from the most popular MUDs.  Like a page describing the specific differences between Arm and Aardwolf or Arm and the Achaea family of games.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Fantasywriter - I hate books too. The way they work now sucks. I've thrown tantrums over this before. Like when a book gets eaten by a crash and is gone forever.   Coders have been working on this, but you know, it's complicated. We have an ass-old code base that doesn't do everything we want it too.  But books are one of the many things on our wish list for code that we'd like overhauled.

This actually is probably pretty easy. I'm betting that by using the same sort of link that exists between player bios and the website account, you could link books in that same vein. Obviously, the code would be different, but basically, I'd see it as being the book with a flag that links it to http/book/blahblah/page1.htm and spits that out ig. Maybe even do it in a PDF, which comes with page annotations. Then staff would have the book forever on their side, and could always dupe it again.

In your inventory:
a small grey book

>staff_make book html.staff/books/house_tor_7.pdf

A small grey book is now linked to house_tor_7.pdf.

[Adhira]

You'd think so... but it's not that simple. It is however on the project list for coders. 

[Scarecrow]

I find playing a memorable and engaging character leaves a mark, if not in the IC gameworld, but with the other players. There are still PC's I remember, from back when I started playing, who I will always remember for stuff they did, how they acted, and what went on. That in itself is an achievement, an achievement of enriching the experience for everyone who plays.

[Nyr]

Switching to numbers mode.

http://mudstats.com/World/ArmageddonMUD

This is a fantastic tool for non staff of a game to view the general behaviors of players in MUD style games and MMOs to the degree that the site supports.  Arm, since winter 2013 has increased its average player connected by 1.

This is a fantastic tool to the degree that it functions, I agree with that.  However, please do note that it seems to be missing (whether from our end or from its end) chunks of data which may well affect its own calculations.

However, I think you mean spring 2013, not winter 2013.  Do you mean Arm, from spring 2013 to winter 2014 (apparently that is referring to the 2013/2014 winter quarter) has increased its average players connected by 1?  Yes, looking solely at those two numbers and comparing them to nothing else, that number has increased by 1.  Without more information, that would be tough to nail down any more solidly than that, however.  What makes up a quarter?  When does it start and when does it end?

This is actually somewhat important for determining any statistics.  If winter 2014 = January/February/March, then we are missing key data for March for the average of the past three months.  If winter 2014 = December/January/February, it is more accurate, and then we're comparing a period of the highest growth we've ever had in terms of new player accounts (March/April/May of 2013) to a relatively low period otherwise (December 2013/January 2014/February 2014) where we have fewer new accounts and fewer players logging in (a normal occurrence for that time of year it seems, but moreso recently)...and we still have one more "average" player than that.  That's right, even comparing a high period to a low period, the low period was higher.  I don't think that's a bad thing, that points towards a good thing.

That's not a dramatic growth

No, it's not.  It's also a look at averages over the course of 13 weeks of play.  There is only one dramatic change in average player numbers on that whole chart; all of the rest are very slight in comparison.  When I referred to dramatic growth earlier, I was referring to dramatic growth of retained new player accounts as recorded by Armageddon's database, not dramatic growth of average players logged in as recorded by Mudstats.

Since 2009, the bump was about 5 average players in, and, the trend shows a stabilization for that number(as it did back in 2009 before a sharp dip, then resurgence).

There are 3 years of data missing from the chart.  I don't think you can really call that a trend.  Here's what is in the chart:

Spring 2009 --> Summer 2009 = positive (+3 "average" players per season)
Summer 2009 --> Fall 2009 = negative (-4 "average" players per season)
Fall 2009 --> Winter 2009 = positive (+3 "average" players per season)

no data

Spring 2012 --> Summer 2012 = flat (but starting at -3 "average" players per season compared to 3 years previous)
Summer 2012 --> Fall 2012 = negative (-3 "average" players per season)
Fall 2012 --> Winter 2013 = negative (-1 "average" players per season)
Winter 2013 --> Spring 2013 = positive (+11 "average" players per season)
Spring 2013 --> Summer 2013 = positive (+1 "average" players per season)
Summer 2013 --> Fall 2013 = negative (-2 "average" players per season)
Fall 2013 --> Winter 2014 = positive (+2 "average" players per season)

That stabilization suggests for the last year experienced players are turning out nearly at the rate to the amount of newer players that stay.

It doesn't necessarily suggest that.  It suggests averages for the season with no regard for actual events, RPTs, or any plans.  For instance, we do not have a game that runs 24/7 with the expectation that RPTs are happening 24/7; we do not really have automated quests, etc, so the "average" amount is less important in that regard.  RPT means recommended playing time, after all, so we do (as a matter of course) recommend that players (new, old, etc) play during these times so as to be involved in whatever event may be going on (or to disrupt it, as the case may be).  It also suggests these averages with no regard for player changes.  It is a common enough thing that veteran players stop playing for legitimate real life circumstances and we as staff (and as fellow players) should understand that.  It doesn't take into account holidays, nor does it adjust seasonally for that upwards or downwards.  It doesn't cover players that stop playing for reasons like disagreements with staff, bans, etc.

All of these things are as likely as your assessment, and my best guess is that the average just isn't as important for a game that revolves around player interaction.  How active the game is at any given time of day?  That's important to know.  The average over the course of an entire day is not important to someone that is not logging in over the course of the entire day.

That 50% increase in new player retention must then be met by a commensurate amount of existing player loss.  So this isn't my opinion.  I'm not guessing.  Its numbers.

You're taking numbers and you're offering an analysis based on those numbers, but you don't actually know for a fact how many old unique accounts stopped playing at this time or that time (nor do you know why), so yes...it is your opinion.  I've offered mine above, and perhaps one day when we have better staff tools for analyzing veteran retention, we'll delve into that and get into analyzing that data (that would be useful to do).  Right now I'm limited to Where Survey data from the database that I have access to, and I only have 5 or 6 years of it.  I'm not afraid of data that paints a bad picture, but I am afraid of making too broad of an assumption from too little third-party data.

That's what has me worried.

I don't think there is much cause for worry here, though these stats will be useful in other ways as the game continues onward.

As for models, models are flawed, but massive multi-million dollar businesses use these flawed, but accurate enough, models to improve their performances sharply.  Flawed is far from useless.  Even flawed, these tools are powerful.

And my point is that without these tools, we've increased new player retention greatly with very little effort involved apart from a player focus on voting (admittedly the new website helped but that WAS a lot of effort).  My second point--maybe as important?--is that we can't handle growth much more dramatic than the growth we currently have and the growth we are currently experiencing.  Looking at Bartle types and player ideas for what they enjoy doing is important--as Adhira and Rahnevyn have pointed out, this brings up good stuff we can work on to improve regardless of one's view on the theory in question, and those things can be implemented over time, with staff and player involvement.  Doing more to find out how to retain the higher end of the non-retained new players is important to review.  Doing more to retain veterans is important to review as well.

Looking at Bartle types as though it is the only thing that will save us is a bit much.  That's my other big point.  We're not a multi-million dollar business.  We're not even a dollar business, or even a business at all.  This is a hobby--a complicated one, a pretty nerdy one, but it is a hobby.  We are running a free game with volunteer staff and that game has a certain focus as an RPI.  There are always going to be areas of improvement (just like there are always going to be posts every month or so about the current issue affecting someone in some area of the game), but those areas of improvement happen slowly in the grand scheme of things.  Even when new things go in, it can often seem to implementors that the new functionality is forgotten or too easily discarded in favor of a desire for more.  (For instance...hey, explorers:  go bury something.  Or dig it up!)

[Patuk]

I'm not going to argue over the numbers and how exactly they should be looked at concerning averages and logins, but I do wish to point out that Arm has probably attracted a good deal of players due to Atonement and Parallel RPI being gone. With the average increases/decreases in player amounts being as low as they seem to be, something as insignificant as five people jumping ship from these MUDs to ours would skew the statistics you're both presenting immensely.

Anyway.

When the OP posts statements such as these:

What We Do Not Seem to Agree On

Is in summation:  that players who are not strong Social or alternate Components or Subcomponents are valuable and useful to an RPI game.  The RPI element is naturally, also going to draw in the Role Playing sub component of immersion.  And the ability to do this is required, and enjoyment of it will greatly improve enjoyment of the game.

Now to clarify, I do believe any player that will be valuable to the world of Armageddon needs to be able to interface with the world and immerse into it, by role playing.  However the scope of how this is accomplished is vast, and hardly limited to the metrics of what is described as S, or social player behavior described in the previous post.

And the general scope of the reply is this:

We're not that interested in attracting non-roleplayers to the game.

Again, in your opinion.

You're coming off as more condescending than I think is warranted in what is a very civil thread. Though Kryos has stated multiple times that he does not think people unwilling to RP have no place in the game, quotes such as these end up coming across as 'not gonna read what you're saying' and 'you're wrong because opinion.'

We can argue over numbers and player models and whether or not they exactly apply and whether or not we're going to need the hard facts or whether or not opinions suffice for improving the game or not, or we can actually try to be constructive. A post such as Rahnevyn's-

I found Patuk's list helpful to this discussion. Some points I agreed with, some I agreed with but thought were unfeasible, and some I disagreed with strongly. But it's good to put this debate into more practical terms of what we wish would be possible /easier and isn't, rather than arguing over subjective statements like "Armageddon does not support achievement oriented players."

So, Kryos and others, what sort of "A-player" activities would you like to do that you perceive the game doesn't support? Scanning this thread, I've already seen:

- It's difficult for characters to leave a lasting mark on the game or be remembered after they're gone,
- It's difficult to find easy ways to improve some skills for some sorts of characters (i.e. indies don't have places to spar, shady types don't have safe places to train)
- Promotions in clans in game are often based on longevity instead of achievement

What things have I left off my list?

-much better than being dismissive over minor points of someone's statement. Instead of continuing to state that the game is growing at a good rate, that the various playstyle types do not represent the game well, that some kinds of players are apparently unsuited to Armageddon, you can instead go to the core of the issue:

Are there ways to broaden the ways one may have fun in Armageddon and ensure that as few people as possible feel left out in trying to play the game?

I feel a question like the above one, however it might be phrased, is much better a thing to discuss than spreadsheets of numbers and names of psychologists describing gaming theory just so and so.

[Lizzie]

The core issue as Patuk presents it:

Are there ways to broaden the ways one may have fun in Armageddon and ensure that as few people as possible feel left out in trying to play the game?

I have played games that catered to as many types as possible, trying not to leave anyone out. It is because they were so broad and unfocused, that I came to Armageddon. If Armageddon tried to branch out and attract more types of people, I'd probably leave. The more diverse you become, the less of an RPI you are. RPIs are a niche market in a niche market. They exist, because they attract only a very few types of roleplayers. If they are attracting more types, then there is something about them that is making them no longer RPIs.

Bartle's useful, sort of. But his categories don't really apply to Arm players. The usefulness is in getting people to think about the types of interests that our playerbase has, with regards to playing Armageddon.

There are code-junkies, tavern-sitters, mudsexers (a subset of tavernsitters), adventurers/explorers, world-achievers, purists (some of whom are ex-MUSHers), PKers (a subset of code-junkies), and hybrids who borrow from all types.

World-achievers are the ones that make the biggest impact on Arm. They're the ones who borrow from all types, as hybrids, but do so in a way that gets others involved in a positive way to make changes to the world. Ysania's Way was named after a world-achiever. The Silver Ginka exists because of a world-achiever, as does House Terash (Pearl Terash). The fact that people know that gwoshis and Tan Muark have *something weird* between them is the result of a world-achiever (Veddi). Red's Retreat was rebuilt in honor of a world-achiever (Samos the Red). If I recall correctly, the gate separating the public area from the House-restricted area of Luir's Outpost is named for a world-achiever (Sarjax), as are all the gates of the Outpost.

Code junkies made master crafts, but no one remembers who they were, and most people wouldn't be able to tell a single story of lore about how a particular master craft came to exist. PKers are known more OOCly than ICly. Players remember the Red Fangs, but you wouldn't be able to hear much, if anything, about the members of the Red Fangs in game anymore. The same with mudsexers and tavern sitters. Players will remember them for a few months after they disappear, but otherwise - they might not have existed at all. Their existence was nothing more than background atmospheric effect.

Yes, the game caters more toward the world-achievers. But the world-achievers provide the most usefulness to the game. It's a symbiotic relationship. The more YOU provide to the game, the more likely you are to have an impact on it. If you are primarily focused on being a code-junky, you might end up providing a few new silk gowns, or maybe help build a new wagon for the Tan Muark. But in a few months, no one's going to care that it was your character who made it, and in a year, no one will remember, ICly, even if a dozen people remember OOCly.

If you want to be a world-achiever, then you have to take Bartle's list, and combine them and bring THAT into the game.

I should note for transparency: I'm a world-achiever type, although there isn't anything in the game that any of my characters are remembered for, as far as I know. But, I feel that this "type" is the type that would enjoy Arm the most, out of any other type. Because their focus on one thing over another not only varies from PC to PC, but also never varies by a significant amount.

Even when I'm frustrated and pissed off and feel like ranting on the GDB, I play. I might store, or piss off someone else enough to get my PC killed, or accidentally pause just two extra seconds after seeing a carru instead of setting the mount to run and getting away. And then my next app is submitted usually within a couple of hours.

I get more out of the game, because I put so many aspects of "me" into it. If I was only into the skill grind to see what's at the end of the skills list and what can they do, then the game would be over when I mastered the list. If I was only into the mudsex or tavern sitting, I'd probably bore everyone else, to the extent that eventually I would no longer have someone to mudsex -with- or talk -to- at the bar, and game would be over. If all I wanted to do was adventure and explore, I'd have left the game long ago. I already know most of the game world and its nooks and crannies. There isn't much else geographically that I haven't seen, or that I feel I'm missing out on.

But a little of everything - wanting to grind skills - I enjoy that to some extent. I actually like the grind, because the end result is a popped up skill, or a new doodad that I can make, more sids I can earn, more people I can find to buy stuff from me - the whole merchanting thing. Plus, knowing I can now kill a gortok in 2 hits is always a kick to me. It's like christmas. I can milk that even if I'm punching out bahamets with a single fist. The "yeah yeah, I knocked out a bahamet. But did you see that gortok fall? That was so awesome!" thing.

If ALL I wanted was politics and the social game, I'd be bored to tears most of the time and you couldn't pay me enough to play in certain roles, certain locations. That is probably THE most restrictive RP in the game.

But combine them all, give me something codedly to do, people to interact with, politics to manipulate, plotlines to either get involved with or hear about ICly so my character can have an opinion on them, gortoks to slash, silk gowns to make, new persepctive of places I (the player) have already seen with different characters - and you have a player who is really loving Arm, and getting tons of entertainment out of it.

[Nyr]

You're coming off as more condescending than I think is warranted in what is a very civil thread. Though Kryos has stated multiple times that he does not think people unwilling to RP have no place in the game, quotes such as these end up coming across as 'not gonna read what you're saying' and 'you're wrong because opinion.'

I read what Kryos was saying.  I disagreed with it and said as much.  Kryos has a very specific set of opinions about what he thinks staff's view on the game is--rather than asking what that is, he is telling us all what he thinks it is.  I think it's important to point out when someone is laying something out as objective fact when it is a personal opinion.  In both cases where I said "in your opinion", that was the case.  Statements:  Players are going to find that their Achievement Component desires simply are not supported well or scrutinized to the point that they lose interest in playing.  This is an opinion based on a personal belief by one player that Armagedddon doesn't reward one particular type of style.  Saying that is his opinion isn't invalidating his belief, but it does invalidate it as stated fact.

I didn't even get into the area where he believes staff disagree with him here.  To paraphrase, "we do not seem to agree on the fact that players who are not strong social or alternate components or subcomponents are valuable and useful to an RPI game."  That is the view Kryos came into this thread with, even after disagreement and opposition to this opinion on his part, he still feels that way.  OK, cool, but it doesn't mean it's true objectively, and stating it as fact is incorrect.  We can definitely discuss staff views on things but when the starting position is "you think this way, you should change the way you think," how else should that be addressed?  "Thank you for sharing your views on our views?"  It's all heavily based on personal experience; it would be useful to know why that view is held rather than that the view is held, because that would help in resolving things.

I feel a question like the above one, however it might be phrased, is much better a thing to discuss than spreadsheets of numbers and names of psychologists describing gaming theory just so and so.

Far point, I agree with that entirely.  Focusing on solutions as they apply to this game and this staff and this playerbase is more important for us to discuss than numbers and gaming theory.

[Patuk]

You're coming off as more condescending than I think is warranted in what is a very civil thread. Though Kryos has stated multiple times that he does not think people unwilling to RP have no place in the game, quotes such as these end up coming across as 'not gonna read what you're saying' and 'you're wrong because opinion.'

I read what Kryos was saying.  I disagreed with it and said as much.  Kryos has a very specific set of opinions about what he thinks staff's view on the game is--rather than asking what that is, he is telling us all what he thinks it is.  I think it's important to point out when someone is laying something out as objective fact when it is a personal opinion.  In both cases where I said "in your opinion", that was the case.  Statements:  Players are going to find that their Achievement Component desires simply are not supported well or scrutinized to the point that they lose interest in playing.  This is an opinion based on a personal belief by one player that Armagedddon doesn't reward one particular type of style.  Saying that is his opinion isn't invalidating his belief, but it does invalidate it as stated fact.

I didn't even get into the area where he believes staff disagree with him here.  To paraphrase, "we do not seem to agree on the fact that players who are not strong social or alternate components or subcomponents are valuable and useful to an RPI game."  That is the view Kryos came into this thread with, even after disagreement and opposition to this opinion on his part, he still feels that way.  OK, cool, but it doesn't mean it's true objectively, and stating it as fact is incorrect.  We can definitely discuss staff views on things but when the starting position is "you think this way, you should change the way you think," how else should that be addressed?  "Thank you for sharing your views on our views?"  It's all heavily based on personal experience; it would be useful to know why that view is held rather than that the view is held, because that would help in resolving things.

I like this answer much more already. I suppose that what I'll want to now is outright ask.

What are staff's views concerning the improvement of Armageddon and the different ways in which to have fun? I've noticed the world roleplay being dropped a little more than I think is needed, so I'd rather not have it be stated as being the end goal here, as that much is obvious already, and nobody so far seems to imply that less rp is a good thing. If it is possible to quantify this somehow, for example through reviewing the things staff are working at adding to the game, and the most recent and upcoming changes, I'd be rather interested to see in which manner Armageddon has changed in a gameplay-wise manner.

[Nyr]

We have a mission statement that we've posted before (Sanvean posted it), but here it is in its entirety.

Preliminaries:
Armageddon is not a company or corporation; Armageddon is a hobby. It's the equivalent of having a huge train set in our collective basement, and obsessively going down to tinker with it. We want everyone to enjoy being on staff, to feel that they're doing things purely because they want to, and in fact the primary reward anyone should expect for donating their time to a hobby is the enjoyment of the time spent.

The one responsibility that everyone on staff has, and the thing you implicitly agree to when becoming a staff member, is to be an active member of the staff community. This means you should keep up to date on what is happening, in the form of reading the IDB and CDB on a regular basis, and provide information to others in the form of feedback on what they're doing, as well as sharing what you're up to. People who are not a part of the community are not contributing. If you don't enjoy being a part of the staff community on Armageddon, then you probably aren't going to be in charge of much.

That said, we'd like to outline what we feel is most important to the game, because as Overlords, we think it's vital that our vision for the mud be clearly communicated. Armageddon has evolved and changed over the ten some years that it's been in existence, and it will continue to evolve, change and (hopefully) grow.

Accountability:

Accountability comes in three flavors: accountability to the game, to the players and to the other members of the staff. Here's how we see each:

Accountability to the game: To keep working towards the goals of game stability, playability and consistency.
Building: Making items and NPCs that are consistent with the current guidelines.
Building: Keeping abreast of changes and events on the game.
Building: Taking charge of typos and ideas, fixing and verifying them and then making sure they get cleared out of the file once they've been verified/approved.
Coding: Not leaving code half-baked or unfinished.
Coding: Making sure code is balanced and consistent with the current documentation.
Coding: Spending time on code that will maximize people's enjoyment of the game, rather than focusing on code that is so specialized or complicated that it may never get used.
Coding: Taking charge of bugs and making sure that they are fixed, tested, and removed from the bugs file when resolved.
Staff: When posting on the Net, in the form of usenet postings, ISCA, or the Armageddon webpage, or emailing players, to refrain from flamebait, statements which cast a bad light on the game, or insulting other MUDs.
Quests: Running quests that are consistent with current guidelines, which incorporate existing events, and which don't collide with things already existing on the game.

Accountability to the players: Treating players fairly and consistently.
   Building: Keeping your clans informed as to IC/OOC events, and making sure you check bugs/ideas/typos on a regular basis to fix things that affect them. If you have to take RL leave, make sure your areas are covered so the players aren't left in the lurch.
Coding: Testing changes thoroughly to make sure they don't crash us, and posting what's been done in case not everything was tested sufficiently so the crash bug can be fixed
Coding: Making sure command syntax is (fairly) intuitive and more importantly, that command syntax is consistent
Coding: Making sure new features are sufficiently documented in the form of helpfiles, as well as included in news, the MOTD and/or the GDB.
Documentation: Answering questions on the GDB, wishes, account mails, mails to clan immortals both informatively, politely, and in a timely way.
Quests: Running quests which are consistent with current documentation. Finishing quests completely, and not scheduling events for players and then failing to show.
Quests: Treating players fairly. This is not to say do away with the karma system, but hand out karma or perks to players who have earned them. Not because they're a pal in real life, or bought you beer.
Quests: If a player dies or is harmed as a result of your actions, emailing the account with a report on what happened, so if the player emails the account about it, their letter can be answered.
Staff: To be consistent in how things are done. For example: Booting the imm port at a consistent time, so the players know when to expect it will be down, and when it will be back up again. Or setting out guidelines for approving/rejecting apps, and letting the players know what those guidelines are.

Accountability to Staff: Respecting the efforts and time of the other staff members.
Building: Not interfering in another person's area of responsibility or doing something that will have a major impact on them without checking/letting them know ahead of time.
Coding: Airing major changes on the IDB ahead of time, and asking for input. Not making a major change without some consensus on the part of the upper staff.
Coding: Documenting changes thoroughly and letting people know what's new so they can incorporate it in their quests and building. Coding things that are useful to other staff members, and making sure there are no bugs in the code which create problems for people running quests or building.
Quests: Keeping each other informed of plots, events and other information they might need.
Staff: Treating each other fairly and consistently, trying to work out problems directly, or, in the case of Storytellers and Highlords, through someone higher up, should the problem not be directly resolvable. Not engaging in backbiting, or discussing other staff members with players.
Staff: Letting the rest of the team know when you will be absent, particularly when there are plotlines or projects that are dependent on you.
Staff: Adhering to the guidelines sent out in the Storyteller and Highlord documentation, including the staff contract.

Priorities:

The priority list for working in any area of the game, whether it's coding, quests or building, are:

Stability: Increasingly, we're working towards less lag and longer uptimes. Being able to use the testport to test possible crash bugs will move us even further in this direction.
Balance: Making sure code and building do not unbalance the game. Documentation and building like Halaster's template weapons or Krrx's template NPCs assists in this as well.
Consistency: Adhering to the existing documentation. while continuing to expand it. Making code and syntax consistent overall.
Accountability: As listed in exhaustive detail above.
G-Factor: Things that make players go 'Gee-whiz, that's cool!' Anything from a small building detail to a slick piece of code or an inventive, atmospheric quest.

Not on the list, but valid as long as they adhere to the above.

I read this in a book...
A few years ago...
When I was mortal, we always played it that...

Focusing on using/extending what we have:

Code: The code shouldn't be so specialized. Any spell should be usable as a spice, as a poison, as a psi power, as a skill. And the other way around. We add new skills, and people want more spells, we add more spells, and people want more psi powers. And all of them have bugs and issues of game balance. Focus on using and extending the functionality of what's there.
Example: People make requests to see DMPL extended here or there, or see fixes in DMPL. This is a prime example since they're not asking for a whole new language, just a more stable and usable feature in DMPL.
Example: Checking the bugs file to look for flaws in your own code, and making sure they get fixed, so the code is fully functional.
Example: Expanding the light code and adding color values while fixing it so the room echoes when someone moves in with a light.
Example: The gith_gear dmpl, which works with existing merchant code, rather than against it.
Example: Having the crafting code often work with forageable objects.
Example: All the additions Morgenes has made to the emote code, such as being able to use emotes with objects.
Quests: Quests need to be followed through on. Starting a new quest is not a solution to leaving another unfinished. Quests, like code, should interact more. Quests should also try to use what's there, to expand and amplify the existing world and documentation.
Example: Daigon doing Byn travel quests, and Keraptis coordinating with BlackMoon raiding quests.
Example: Quests which use past events as a basis, such as Radoon's going to Mal Krian to find the ruins of the library there. Quests that ask players to find an item or NPC that is already in the game, rather than specifically built for the occasion.
Example: Bhagharva and Talley adding to the arena area, as well as the existing code there, to create the Gladiator RPTs.
Example: The 'quest' where the elves & humans fight for territory in the 'rinth. This doesn't involve demons, ancient assassin cults, or anything, and the players are free to explore it and find out what is going on, they can take part, or flee it.
Example: Kadius sending people on weekly 'quests' to find items for the stock and warehouses. This makes them interact with the existing world and existing code to get what they need. They feel that there's a benefit to exploring and learning the various markets.
Building: There's not as large a need for 500 new items, as there is for having the existing database used more.
Example: Rotating shop merchandise to get old items out into the game.
Example: Going through the existing database to fix old items or make sure they're flagged correctly.
Example: Revamping existing areas, such as Krrx did with the Red Desert and the Salt Flats.
Example: Making the crafting code work with as many existing objects as possible, rather than building entire new sets.
Example: Camps and villages. The wagon code wasn't intended to be used this way, but it is an excellent extension of existing code.
Example: Tents. Again, an imaginative, interesting extension of the wagon code which fulfills a player need.
Example: Lizards/Birds that are 'alive' that people use as pets. Rather than coding it to allow NPCs to exist within characters.

Summary: We've always been about quality over quantity; this is only backing up that ideal.

I think that encapsulates our views on staffing and improving the game.

Staff views on the different ways in which to have fun...but without mentioning roleplay?  OK, I'll do my best.  Well, I like killing PCs.  That's fun.  I don't really like exploring areas so much unless there are PCs to kill there, because that's fun.  I like achieving big things if possible because it's really difficult, and even failing that is fun because I probably got killed or got to kill someone doing it.  I like thwarting PCs that want to achieve stuff that my PC doesn't want to have happen.  That's fun because it sometimes means killing PCs.

I mean, there's plenty of roleplay woven all throughout the things I like to do, but I guess at its base level, those are the things I like to do if we absolutely ignore all roleplay elements involved.  Of course, without the roleplay element, I wouldn't want to do those things here, so there's that.

Quantifying the things staff are working on adding to the game?  We tend to try to focus on showing and then telling rather than telling and then showing.  As such, here's what we've worked on in the past.

Major code additions:

5/21/2008 -- virtual economy added; shopkeepers now have a chance of selling items virtually
10/2008 -- changes to the things that combat affects (barrier, scan, listen, paralysis, magickal sleep)
1/8/2009 -- if you have karma, PC death in the first 3 hours of play no longer causes a repop
1/14/2009 -- cloaks may now be opened and closed
6/23/2009 -- half-elves may choose appearance at char gen
7/27/2009 -- new skill, trample
9/28/2009 -- autopayment system for clans
2/8/2010 -- reroll undo implemented
3/24/2010 -- direction sense ability added
4/1/2010 -- written description of skill level aptitude added to "skills" command
4/12/2010 -- nosave combat added
11/11/2010 -- spice deposits may now be foraged in silty areas; updates to forage to allow keyword search within a category (i.e. forage rock for pet)
1/5/2012 -- significant changes to flee, making it a more valuable skill to have
1/2012 -- extended subguilds / skill boost system added
2/14/2012 -- spice grains may now be sold in bulk as an automated job
6/5/2012 -- rooms outside of city gates are now quit-safe
8/7/2012 -- karma changes, whiran moved to 6, drovian moved to 4
10/29/2012 -- quit ooc command added, allowing player to quit out for emergencies
8/22/2013 -- skellebain rework
12/9/2013 -- directions command added to help navigating in hometown
1/13/2014 -- update to char gen allowing origin location
2/17/2014 -- charm functionality created
2/17/2014 -- ability to bury stuff

We also added somewhere between 200 and 250 rooms last year, possibly more.

Plot-wise, you tell me--there's stuff on the history page from recent times, there are rumor board posts, there are player announcements for RPTs, and who knows what will happen next?

[Twilight]

What Arm needs right now is another APM Vegas.

This game has shifted a lot over the years.  It has shifted directionally towards the social becoming more important, along with the roleplay becoming more important.  It would probably be fair to say that it will take more socialization in today's game to achieve something, than it would have fifteen years ago.  The standards have changed, and in many cases, the staff haven't necessarily been around when the MUD had a drastically different dynamic.

I liked Sanvean, she had an openness to ideas when I interacted with her, and I fondly remember discussing ideas for gith with her and...err, a coder I can't remember which one, in a room in Vegas.  What I think is a shame she didn't include in her Accountability list is an accountability to listen to player ideas and incorporate.  It happens, but in my perspective, this is an area that has drastically changed over time.

As has the ability of players to actually know how staff is thinking about things.  Not public statements, but real discussion.  Communication more than the 10% that is verbal (we probably get less than 10%, given that it is primarily text).

APM Vegas, baby.