What if clans didn't give unlimited free food?

[Desertman]

My experience, while limited, is that to succeed as a GMH hunter is to play like being part of that crew matters. Going out and getting the job done is part, but coming back with everyone after getting the job done is better. Taking an interest in the house's interests. Looking out for people. (Or plotting to get rid of them if they can't belong, that's legit too.) One skin more or less doesn't matter, but the idea that you show up and do your job does. While it's true that to the organization you're just a hunter out of many, in your unit what you do and don't do is important. And for that reason, using something like Delirium's suggestion or getting rid of cooks, or anything that makes that contribution more quantifiable is important.

Oocly it's all one and zeros right? But while you play your role, it should feel meaningful. Crates of crap no one wants doesn't feel meaningful.

The only way to feel like it is meaningful as the player is if it truly is meaningful.

The only what for it to be meaningful is if the goods brought in really are needed to produce the final IC products and orders, otherwise the orders don't get filled.

If the products still get produced and orders still get filled if you hunt or not, then what you are doing as a hunter isn't meaningful. It is a flavor role. You are there to "provide the appearance" of meaning, without actually having any meaning that matters. (In terms of hunting and gathering.)

If I know OOC that this is the truth, no matter how much I roleplay and pretend it matters, as the player behind the keyboard, it doesn't feel meaningful to me.

It doesn't matter if the crates are full or empty. Either way, I'm still just giving the appearance of a meaningful purpose without there actually being one. (In terms of hunting and gathering.)

[Barzalene]

Some of it is. Not all. Some of the stuff it doesn't matter if you get it. Other stuff is required to make items. Now maybe the new quartermasters change that. And maybe that's something to be reassessed. Things that you had to make before quartermasters went in, maybe should be taken out of their inventory. (I don't know what is or isn't loaded.) I know in the past there were things the imms would load for me to use as a model, but subsequent instances had to be made from acquired materials as a general rule.

[Desertman]

Some of it is. Not all. Some of the stuff it doesn't matter if you get it. Other stuff is required to make items. Now maybe the new quartermasters change that. And maybe that's something to be reassessed. Things that you had to make before quartermasters went in, maybe should be taken out of their inventory. (I don't know what is or isn't loaded.) I know in the past there were things the imms would load for me to use as a model, but subsequent instances had to be made from acquired materials as a general rule.

Yeah, I proposed this idea. (Having only those items that can't be crafted loaded on the quartermaster.)

It was confirmed the quartermaster will have them available if they can be crafted or not.

[Barzalene]

But the system is new. And there's been other stuff going on. They may look at that decision down the road. Or not.

[Talia]

Yeah, I proposed this idea. (Having only those items that can't be crafted loaded on the quartermaster.)

It was confirmed the quartermaster will have them available if they can be crafted or not.

To clarify: I'm pretty sure these NPCs will not be quartermasters. They will be shopkeepers (which is what the current NPCs for GMHs are). Different type of code thing. They operate completely differently.

I know that there's still discussion staff-side about how to put craftable items on these NPCs. I'm not sure there is a conclusion yet, because there are balance issues. On the one hand, crafting stuff for the clan should be meaningful; on the other hand, what do you do when you have no one who can craft a thing, but Lord McFluffypants wants it NOW NOW NOW? And also, how do crafters learn to make stuff when they can't find an example thing to analyze?

We are working within the limitations of current code, but our staff is pretty creative and I feel sure they will come up with the best solution possible while also balancing different requirements.

[Desertman]

My personal recommendation based off of my own play style and preferences.

A) Shopkeeper NPC has all items on them that are House clan items. (Craftable and non-craftable.)
B) No items that can be crafted can be sold off of the shopkeeper.
C) The shopkeeper is only there to provide a list of clan items.
D) If your clan leader hasn't been able to keep a good crafter on staff, your clan leader now has the uncomfortable responsibility of explaining to Lord McFluffypants why he can't get his order....because as a leader you can't keep good staff members.
E) If it is craftable, now you can tell your hunters exactly what is needed for this order. (This gives them and your crafter meaningful purpose.)
F) If it isn't craftable, you are allowed to sell it off of the shopkeeper to Lord McFluffypants. (As a clan leader you may even have to be persuasive and maybe talk Lord McFluffypants into an alternative order you CAN give him from "The other House crafters.")

This is a very "hardline" policy. I would enjoy it personally. I enjoy being given the opportunity to fail. I enjoy being given the opportunity to succeed in a meaningful way.

I like the idea of clan leaders being responsible for actually leading and having to face IC consequences (the disfavor or Lord McFluffypants for one) for not being good leaders. If you can't keep a good crafter on staff because nobody wants to follow you....you need to change your policies, or get ready to face a lot of consequences.

If you are a great clan leader and you are able to keep a great staff producing for your customers you are going to be loved by just about everyone and I wouldn't be surprised if staff stepped in to show you some favor too for doing such a great job on the IC front by giving you IC rewards.

That is my perfect system. (It is absolutely something a lot of people will hate. I understand that.)

[Clearsighted]

It's really quite simple. This game, functionally, has only one economy. The economy of hunger. Everyone must eat. Everyone must drink.

That is the engine of the survival RPI. Food and water. Hunger and thirst.

The economy is out of whack, because the primary economy of the game - starvation - is completely eliminated at the moment. You are only affected by hunger and thirst if A) you are a newbie or B) you go out of your way to risk it.

Everyone else has no hunger or thirst issues. They might as well have it turned off. You don't even need a waterskin. I never carry one. I just need to drink whenever I pass through the barracks.

That's the crux of the argument. If people are really happy with the current situation, then I'd suggest they'd be even happier on a MUSH, and not an RPI MUD.

It didn't used to be this way. It got this way because there were dozens more clans than could be supported, and lots of tiny ones, like Tuluki noble houses. Those are gone. It should go back to the way it was. Militia/Byn/Other Qualifying Clan can keep their iconic foods. Nobles keep their water. The rest of us should start playing the game again.

[bardlyone]

My personal recommendation based off of my own play style and preferences.

A) Shopkeeper NPC has all items on them that are House clan items. (Craftable and non-craftable.)
B) No items that can be crafted can be sold off of the shopkeeper.
C) The shopkeeper is only there to provide a list of clan items.
D) If your clan leader hasn't been able to keep a good crafter on staff, your clan leader now has the uncomfortable responsibility of explaining to Lord McFluffypants why he can't get his order....because as a leader you can't keep good staff members.
E) If it is craftable, now you can tell your hunters exactly what is needed for this order. (This gives them and your crafter meaningful purpose.)
F) If it isn't craftable, you are allowed to sell it off of the shopkeeper to Lord McFluffypants. (As a clean leader you may even have to be persuasive and maybe talk Lord McFluffypants into an alternative order you CAN give him from "The other House crafters.")

This is a very "hardline" policy. I would enjoy it personally. I enjoy being given the opportunity to fail. I enjoy being given the opportunity to succeed in a meaningful way.

I like the idea of clan leaders being responsible for actually leading and having to face IC consequences (the disfavor or Lord McFluffypants for one) for not being good leaders. If you can't keep a good crafter on staff because nobody wants to follow you....you need to change your policies, or get ready to face a lot of consequences.

If you are a great clan leader and you are able to keep a great staff producing for your customers you are going to be loved by just about everyone and I wouldn't be surprised if staff stepped in to show you some favor too for doing such a great job on the IC front by giving you IC rewards.

That is my perfect system. (It is absolutely something a lot of people will hate. I understand that.)

See, this, I agree with and would love. The idea to remove clan cooks to make hunters more relevant misses the problem if the problem is that they are supposed to be gathering materials to craft, not hunting just to keep the clan afloat when the clan is many times richer than a noble house. Forcing people to actually use their hunters for what they are supposed to be used for is the most direct way to address the problem, and the one that would make IC reality line up best with documentation. Trying to alter the role of a GMH hunter to something that it is, per the documentation, not supposed to be, makes no sense as a solution, because it doesn't fix the problem, it just changes it to a different problem.

[Marauder Moe]

When did this become Hunger Games MUD?

Some of you are blowing the whole "THIS GAME IS ALL ABOUT FOOD!" idea way out of proportion.  That's not Armageddon and it never has been.

[BadSkeelz]

Must....resist..."Eat a dick" joke...

[Barzalene]

I see the logic.  I think it looks better on paper. It's great for hunters and minions. It sucks when you're a leader and you're in a constant shit storm and on top of it, everytime you log in you're beseiged by people who mistake you for a gumball machine and think if they just kick you hard enough they can have their crap. Now, yes, maybe if I were a better leader that wouldn't be a problem. But I'm not. If we reserve these roles for only the best leaders who can always keep a full crew there will be longer lapses when there are no leaders at all.

I think the answer lays between Dman's outline above and having full crates and shopkeepers who will give you every thing ever the minute you need it.

Some ideas are that you don't offer what you cannot provide. Or that you try to beg your imms to help you out when someone poisons the water tun and all your crafters die. But I think the sweet spot is something between this and that.

[Clearsighted]

When did this become Hunger Games MUD?

Some of you are blowing the whole "THIS GAME IS ALL ABOUT FOOD!" idea way out of proportion.  That's not Armageddon and it never has been.

Everyone has to eat. Everyone has to drink. That makes it fundamentally and thematically a survival RPI. Anyone that has any knowledge of game design, knows that basic mechanics like these are never peripheral. They are there specifically to create a struggle.

Something is fundamentally wrong when the only people that have to be concerned about it are the hopelessly newbish and vets who deliberately seek out the challenge.

For everyone else, it's a chore without meaning.

[Barzalene]

Lays or lies?

[Clearsighted]

I see the logic.  I think it looks better on paper. It's great for hunters and minions. It sucks when you're a leader and you're in a constant shit storm and on top of it, everytime you log in you're beseiged by people who mistake you for a gumball machine and think if they just kick you hard enough they can have their crap.

I think it'll help leaders. Often the biggest problem is keeping minions busy in a meaningful fashion. So what helps minions and hunters, in turn, helps leaders and takes more stress off them.

Although there has definitely been a trend in the game with leaders (even down to Corporals and such) getting wrapped up more with high politics and intrigue hijinks, and less to do with their basic roles (for which there is admittedly, virtually no need beyond the occasional escort).

[Desertman]

I see the logic.  I think it looks better on paper. It's great for hunters and minions. It sucks when you're a leader and you're in a constant shit storm and on top of it, everytime you log in you're beseiged by people who mistake you for a gumball machine and think if they just kick you hard enough they can have their crap. Now, yes, maybe if I were a better leader that wouldn't be a problem. But I'm not. If we reserve these roles for only the best leaders who can always keep a full crew there will be longer lapses when there are no leaders at all.

I think the answer lays between Dman's outline above and having full crates and shopkeepers who will give you every thing ever the minute you need it.

Some ideas are that you don't offer what you cannot provide. Or that you try to beg your imms to help you out when someone poisons the water tun and all your crafters die. But I think the sweet spot is something between this and that.

I agree my recommended system will absolutely shit on some people and probably wouldn't be optimal for the game as a whole. I'm just saying, I would enjoy it personally.

Part of me wants to say, "If you are a leader, you should be the type of person who can and does play a good leader, or you deserve to suffer until you get better, or you leave and let a good leader step in.". (Some people might even enjoy being the bad leader. I can see that being fun too.)

The other part of me says, "Cool your tits Desertman, this is a game son. Relax because you are going overboard.".

Both of those voices have some merit I think, but I think you are right, something in the middle is the best final solution.

Edited to Add: And it appears staff is trying to find that best middle ground.

[Barzalene]

I think even good leaders struggle with crew building. And even when you have the perfect crew it doesn't last. People die. People take sponsored roles or rage quit or lose interest in the game. And then you have to find replacements. Some days you don't have enough lockers and you have to turn them away. Other days you just can't find anyone to play with you. And that's for good leaders. Or at least that's me. And I agree you have to want to be a great leader or otherwise you should just go home. But it's not always easy. And I'm not always successful. I think that's across the board.

[Desertman]

I think even good leaders struggle with crew building. And even when you have the perfect crew it doesn't last. People die. People take sponsored roles or rage quit or lose interest in the game. And then you have to find replacements. Some days you don't have enough lockers and you have to turn them away. Other days you just can't find anyone to play with you. And that's for good leaders. Or at least that's me. And I agree you have to want to be a great leader or otherwise you should just go home. But it's not always easy. And I'm not always successful. I think that's across the board.

This is when you get to experience the part of the system that isn't sunshine and rainbows, and I think that is fine. If there isn't some real darkness waiting for you if you fail, you can't appreciate the light when you succeed.

In a system where everything is just auto-loaded there is no light, and there is no darkness. It doesn't really matter what you do.

[Barzalene]

Alright, I'll buy that.

[Desertman]

Alright, I'll buy that.

Now I just wish I was smart  enough to think of that good middle ground system...which I'm probably not.

I will do some serious thinking on it and come back though.

[Marauder Moe]

Everyone has to eat. Everyone has to drink. That makes it fundamentally and thematically a survival RPI.

Everyone also wears clothing and/or armor.  Does that make the game fundamentally and thematically a fashion and gear RPI?

Anyone that has any knowledge of game design, knows that basic mechanics like these are never peripheral. They are there specifically to create a struggle.

I have knowledge of game design and do not know that as a fact.

Something is fundamentally wrong when the only people that have to be concerned about it are the hopelessly newbish and vets who deliberately seek out the challenge.

And anyone not in a clan... and hunters out hunting... and soldiers on patrol... and mercenaries on contract...

For everyone else, it's a chore without meaning.

It's only a chore if you treat it as such.  It can also be a roleplaying prop and a system to add structure to your PC's daily life.


You want to suggest changes to specific clans, fine, but trying to back up your arguments with gross misrepresentations about the nature of Armageddon or "game design" is pretty silly in my opinion.

[Clearsighted]

I think even good leaders struggle with crew building. And even when you have the perfect crew it doesn't last. People die. People take sponsored roles or rage quit or lose interest in the game. And then you have to find replacements. Some days you don't have enough lockers and you have to turn them away. Other days you just can't find anyone to play with you. And that's for good leaders. Or at least that's me. And I agree you have to want to be a great leader or otherwise you should just go home. But it's not always easy. And I'm not always successful. I think that's across the board.

You're absolutely right, and this is partially why I'm so optimistic about the current state of the game. It was a great choice to pare away a lot of the dead weight. I would have liked to see a couple tribes remain.

Without the Legion, Tuluki noble houses, Tuluki Templarate, Northern distaff branches of every major Southern clan, etc, things are a lot more cohesive. When I played, the Northern and Southern branches of various clans were basically distinct organizations, and both suffered for it. You had to double up on leadership.

[Clearsighted]

Everyone has to eat. Everyone has to drink. That makes it fundamentally and thematically a survival RPI.

Everyone also wears clothing and/or armor.  Does that make the game fundamentally and thematically a fashion and gear RPI?

Anyone that has any knowledge of game design, knows that basic mechanics like these are never peripheral. They are there specifically to create a struggle.

I have knowledge of game design and do not know that as a fact.

Something is fundamentally wrong when the only people that have to be concerned about it are the hopelessly newbish and vets who deliberately seek out the challenge.

And anyone not in a clan... and hunters out hunting... and soldiers on patrol... and mercenaries on contract...

For everyone else, it's a chore without meaning.

It's only a chore if you treat it as such.  It can also be a roleplaying prop and a system to add structure to your PC's daily life.


You want to suggest changes to specific clans, fine, but trying to back up your arguments with gross misrepresentations about the nature of Armageddon or "game design" is pretty silly in my opinion.

I wouldn't want to play a game that you designed, if you included hunger and food, and it served no purpose except to confuse newbies.

And again. You get more into MUSH style terminology. Hunger and thirst as no utility except to fulfill an RP prop. This is still a MUD. It should be more than RP prop (which it is, but only for newbs and those who arbitrarily risk themselves).

I'd like this game to have an actual economy. Games should have an economy. Food and water are the only resources that all characters must consume. That makes food and water a fundamental component of any potential game economy. (How do you not recognize this?)

If you can't wrap your head around this, or are still talking in terms of RP props, then we have no need to continue conversing. Because if staff really envisions food and water as RP props, then they ought just turn off hunger/thirst.

I think you're the one that is more likely to be making a gross misrepresentation of Armageddon, based on a very specific subset of its player culture, than what the game actually advertises itself as.

[Desertman]

I think there needs to be some sort of serious negative you take IC'ly for selling items off of the shopkeeper NPC in the backroom.

There needs to be some sort of measurable and meaningful negative associated with going that route so that players are naturally pushed towards marketing items they have crafted themselves.

If there is no negative to selling directly off of the shopkeeper NPC instead of using your hunters and crafters...there should at least be no/minimal gain to doing it. (Much less gain than if you DID use PC hunters and crafters.)

How about this system?

1) You don't have a crafter or hunters available to make Lord McFluffypants his diamond greatsword.
2) You go to the NPC shopkeeper and buy a diamond greatsword off of him for 18,000 coins.
3) You deliver the diamond greatsword to Lord Mcfluffypants.
4) You deposit 18,000 coins back into your personal account.

(The rule is you HAVE to charge the client what the NPC shopkeeper charged you. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PROFIT OFF OF USING THE NPC SHOPKEEPER TO FILL ORDERS!!!)

With this system you do not make any profit off of using the shopkeeper NPC to fill orders.

You can still fill the orders. You can still bypass hassling staff to load the items. You can still bypass having to deal with Lord McFluffypants hassling you constantly like a vending machine.

What you can't do is profit from going the easy route.

YOUR crew did not craft this item. YOUR crew did not pull in the materials.

All you did was deliver the item to the client on behalf of House Salarr for another (VNPC) crew.

The only profit you stand to make is if Lord Mcfluffypants decides to tip you (which is fine in my opinion). Your other profit is also that you just made Lord Mcfluffypants happy with you, so you made a good political contact.

Now, if you DO have good hunters and crafters in your staff because you are doing well as a leader and Lord Mcfluffypants DOES buy a diamond greatsword from you that YOUR crew did craft....you get all of the normal profits and everyone is happy.



That seems like a pretty good incentive system to me.

All of the negatives regarding staff being hassled are gone. All of the negatives regarding not being able to fill orders quickly is gone.

You have a measurable positive for using PC crafters and hunters to fill orders. (Actual IC profit.)

[BadSkeelz]

referenced post got moderated. I'll try to behave too.

[Desertman]

I just don't want this thread locked. I think my last idea was a dang good idea.