Hiring caps: A Self-Defeating Policy of Roleplay Mercantilism

[Clearsighted]

Hiring caps are the ultimate Arm-esque expression of the economically harmful 16th-18th century concepts of mercantilism.

This is a long post, so feel free to bugger off if you've got something better to do than read an impassioned attack on the policy of hiring caps. I won't take it personally.

Background:

Essentially, mercantilism defines all economic transactions between nations as a form zero-sum competition. Every widget that England sells is a widget that France is unable to, essentially taking money out of Pierre's pocket. Because of this, countries would logically attempt to dominate others, construct monopolies and enact brutal protective tariffs. This stifled competition, promoted inefficiencies, and essentially screwed over the greater population (who were denied cheaper, better quality goods) for the enrichment of a tiny plutocracy. It wasn't until Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, that the tide began to turn against the tenets of mercantilism and towards new ideas of free trade.

The fundamental concept of free trade is that excessive taxes, tariffs and other 'market barriers' inhibits innovation, ultimately retarding far more economic growth than is saved by enacting them in the first place. After all, Pierre has no incentive to figure out how to produce a better widget if the superior widgets offered by his English competitors all come with 50% tariffs and a mandatory kick in the ass by the local customs officer. The locals will just keep buying Pierre's shoddy widgets.

This isn't merely applicable to widgets. It's also incredibly relevant to the relation between employers and employees (and lots of other things as well, like democracy or game theory).

Application to Armageddon:

In a free market hiring economy, most potential employees would and should gravitate to the most exciting and interesting employers. In RL, this might be working conditions, benefits or salary. In Armageddon, it's RP activity or 'fun factor'.

Currently, many potential 'employers' within Armageddon have strict hiring caps. For example, nobles are only allowed to hire two PCs, which is hardly enough to get anything truly ambitious going. It only takes one of those employees to flake out, or have an irregular schedule, and you're rapidly down to one. They could be the most exciting and interesting boss in the world and normal RL demands and play-time fluctuations would still play havoc with schedules.

This means that the best, brightest and most active nobles are punished, while the hiring cap functions as a sort of welfare for the less inspiring or interesting nobles. This leads potential employees to either go elsewhere and join another organization without a hiring cap, or having been hired by their second or third choice employer, gradually end up bored and disinterested in continuing. They might store or stop logging on altogether. Not only has additional fun RP not been created, there is a ton of RP activity that never had the chance to be expressed at all, which would have been, without policy interference.

Imagine a fun, exciting and interesting noble PC employer. He has lots of people that want to work for him. Without hiring barriers, they would likely have formed a very fun little group with a lot of potential. The bigger a group is, the more RP activity tends to be generated by it, and the more epic people's ambitions start to become. The more invested they get in their standing and where they're going. Hiring caps don't easily allow for this critical momentum to form, even when one of those rare, great noble leaders show up on the scene. Although there's a few bullshit tactics to get around this restriction (and I'm sure someone will mention one or two of them below). But that hardly helps the Tor noble, that say, wants to form his own personal cavalry squadron.

Nobles don't need hiring caps to find employees. If someone is interesting and worth working for, they will attract employees regardless of how many other employees that others are hiring. In fact, the success of one group might very well cause others to try and emulate them. This is because RP interaction in Armageddon is like every other economic interaction in RL: RP/prosperity is NOT a zero-sum competition. Lots of RP activity creates more RP activity.

If Armageddon had fewer 'barriers' to RP or association, I'm sure the average population and activity of the game would be up, not down. This is because fairly few people are able to be 'RP engines', who generate more excitement and interest for those around them. A good leader in game is somewhat analogous to an innovator in the market economy. They need room to express themselves and reach their rare potential. The current policy stifles the best and props up the mediocre, harming everyone's fun in the process.

If you have a 17th century grasp of economics, and you see everyone wants to buy widgets from distant England, and not from the local widgetsmith Pierre, your solution is to punish or restrict people from buying from the English as much as possible, so that they're forced to go to Pierre. If you're Adam Smith, you know this is bullshit, and the problem isn't that people are buying too many widgets from England...the problem is that Pierre makes shitty, overpriced widgets, and needs to study the practices of his competitors and do his best to emulate them.

Similarly, RP should also take place within a 'free market' with as few artificial constraints as possible. Attempts to impose constraints which are not completely necessary for the game to function (Example: Karma is a 'good barrier', so not everyone can RP a sorcerer at the same time) almost always do more harm than they are meant to prevent. The more arbitrary or petty the policy, the more harm it usually does. In RL, what tends to screw people up the most, dealing with real world economics, is that they're often unable to separate the important 'karma-esque' policies from the petty 'hiring cap-esque' policies. A good RL example of someone like this would be Ron Paul. Ron Paul is badly mistaken about abolishing the federal reserve (analogous to Armageddon's karma policy in terms of RP generation), but is absolutely right about a high minimum wage hurting the poorest citizens (just ask Puerto Rico or France). Hiking the minimum wage just results in those employers going elsewhere, so that instead of going from $8 to $10 an hour, people go from $8 to $0 an hour.

Although, Karma probably could stand for a little deregulation, that must be a discussion for another day.

In brief, hiring caps are an attempt to 'spread the wealth', but it only drives players away as their ideal RP options become artificially limited.

Conclusion:

Governments get away with statist policies in RL, because in RL people just suffer and the economy stagnates and life - such as it is - goes on. They need their widgets or bad job to survive, no matter how inefficient. This is why hordes of people are always trying to immigrate from shitty countries to less shitty ones. In RL, immigration can be a painstaking process requiring years of bureaucracy, a fortuitous marriage, or risking your life in a dangerous and desperate journey.

Unfortunately for Armageddon, it is an online game which you can easily disconnect from and go play something else or not play at all. Moreover, Armageddon does not offer us money or any useful widgets. It only offers a very nebulous concept of 'fun' and 'community', which are very far down on our 'needs index' as a species. Concepts of 'fun' and 'camaraderie' are more truthfully on the 'Would be nice if it weren't too much trouble' index, when it comes to matters of survival. It's a volunteer game to staff, but it's also a volunteer game to play, too, since we all have something better we could be doing. Because of this, most require an ongoing incentive to keep logging in. That incentive is most often the other people we play with, by way of enjoying their RP. Therefore, it makes even less sense than normal to try and restrict people from associating with who they want to, provided that it makes even passing IC sense within the logic of the game world and isn't a completely arbitrary construction arising from them both being PCs.

(In other words, IC barriers don't count. Only arbitrary OOC ones. So fucking an elven nilazi on a table in the Gaj is still bad, okay?)

In real life, most people find themselves in inelastic situations. In online games, a person's situation is very elastic. In layman's terms, in RL, if the government is pissing on you, you pretty much have to stand there and take it, because they might beat you to death if you object too forcibly. Or you'll starve. In online gaming, you have no such inhibitions. You can flounce off whenever you like with zero consequences. You can even spend more time bitching about the game, and the people running it, than you ever spent playing it, and thus derive pleasure from that.

An Appeal:

I am not playing an employer. I am barely playing an employee, and my employer has no meaningful hiring cap to the best of my knowledge. I am completely unaffected by this issue. It was randomly provoked. I never intend to play an employer in Armageddon ever again. When I did play one, my hiring cap was fairly reasonable, though I still managed to exceed it. Having a hiring cap of like 12-14 dudes provides a lot more flexibility than 2 dudes.

I'm also not saying this is a crisis, or that because of hiring caps, staff are horrible bastards out to get us. I think the original policy was implemented with good intentions...Probably as a backlash to some popular employer once upon a time who drew complaints from envious peers. You know who else complains a lot about free trade? French farmers.

Staff might feel that some nobles monopolize more attention and followers than they deserve. But in the end, trying to make it harder for exciting people to attract others to work for them only does more harm to the game than it prevents. It has stifled more fun and RP activity than it has inspired.

A game's success can only truly be judged by its level of activity. If a policy decision makes you feel better about something, but in the end, results in decreased activity for the game - then it was a probably a poor policy to implement. IMO - I think Arm generally errs on the side of too much policy vs too little.

Of course, as in the real world, you can't have complete anarchy. Would Armageddon have more players tomorrow if it completely abolished the application and karma system? Probably. Would it be a less rewarding experience if everyone was running around as a mul sorcerer? Probably. But it requires a semi-detached cost vs benefit analysis. One must ask themselves if this policy has a worthy long term benefit to the game (not being swamped by a hundred random newbies playing mul sorcs is a reasonable trade-off, IMO) vs something mostly petty and arbitrary, primarily affecting those who we already want to be here (hiring caps). 

A town might have a law against raping sheep, and one town might be a sheep raping free for all, but the first town is willing to accept a tiny loss in economic prosperity to have one or two less sheep-rapers in their midst. It's good to have policies banning alt abusers or forum spammers. Conversely, the Jim Crow laws in the South (targeting huge swathes of the population for being black) didn't work out so well.

If I could reiterate one point (and if you've read this far, why stop now?) it is that the lack of hiring cap will never prevent a good character from finding all the minions they could ever want. It doesn't matter if I was Borsail, and the Oash nobles were openly offering free handjobs and magick rings with every new hire. I'd still be able to attract recruits. If you can create fun goals for other people and bring Zalanthas to life in some tiny way, you will never lack for minions. The only people hurt by the removal of hiring caps are those who probably wouldn't retain an employee (or create any fun for them) with a cap in place. It will just lead to both eventually storing or drifting away. I think ten years of Tuluk nobility applications proved that, if nothing else.



Edited to readd the original material from the OP.  No, staff wasn't censoring you.  The modify button (for moderators/staff) is right beside the quote button.  It's surprising that this kind of mistake hasn't happened more often.  -Nyr

[bcw81]

The only time I've ever had a hiring cap was when I was a Byn sergeant and I had upwards of 30 people in my unit.

I've been playing leaders for about the past two years, never once have I been told I had a hiring cap save that one time.

[Clearsighted]

The only time I've ever had a hiring cap was when I was a Byn sergeant and I had upwards of 30 people in my unit.

I've been playing leaders for about the past two years, never once have I been told I had a hiring cap save that one time.

Actually, the Byn and the Militia/GMH hunters are the most hiring cap friendly clans in the games. Exponentially so. Have you ever played a noble in the past two years?

[Mordiggian]

There's no limit on how many people a noble may personally employ. There is a limit on how many people a noble house will employ on the behalf of a PC noble. The limited number of these positions reflects the fact that they should be coveted and hard-earned, in my unofficial opinion.

[Armaddict]

i never ran into a hiring cap with any of my nobles or leaders.

...

...

Does this mean I am a shitty leader and was not valued in the 'fun market'?

[Clearsighted]

i never ran into a hiring cap with any of my nobles or leaders.

...

...

Does this mean I am a shitty leader and was not valued in the 'fun market'?

Probably.

Or maybe you just weren't very ambitious? Fact is. Caps exist. They shouldn't. I'd like to see the Wyverns or Scorpions make a comeback for example, and that simply isn't possible under the current policy.

[bcw81]

The only time I've ever had a hiring cap was when I was a Byn sergeant and I had upwards of 30 people in my unit.

I've been playing leaders for about the past two years, never once have I been told I had a hiring cap save that one time.

Actually, the Byn and the Militia/GMH hunters are the most hiring cap friendly clans in the games. Exponentially so. Have you ever played a noble in the past two years?

ha

I really suggest you stop spouting things like this. It makes people think things exist that straight up don't. When was the last time you ran into a hiring cap that really limited you? When was the last time you ran into a hiring cap period.

As for the Wyverns/Scorpions, those are closed to players not due to a hiring cap, but because they're closed clans.

[Mordiggian]

The closure of Wyverns and Scorpions has nothing to do with hiring cap policies.

[Clearsighted]

The only time I've ever had a hiring cap was when I was a Byn sergeant and I had upwards of 30 people in my unit.

I've been playing leaders for about the past two years, never once have I been told I had a hiring cap save that one time.

Actually, the Byn and the Militia/GMH hunters are the most hiring cap friendly clans in the games. Exponentially so. Have you ever played a noble in the past two years?

ha

Not sure how to interpret this post. Is it funny, because you are revolted at the very idea of playing a noble? Or that you've played so MANY nobles in the past two years, that you're like a noble maestro?

If that's the case, how were you not aware, as Mord posted, that noble PCs have a hiring cap of two PCs? Maybe that's what's funny? You played so many great nobles, hired so many people, and created so much fun for your followers, that it's funny noone ever mentioned the official cap to you? I agree, that's pretty rocking.

Obviously, many nobles don't seek out minions, or have many minions seek them out. I think my post was clearly slanted more towards the ambitious types.

Care to enlighten me? I am compelled with insatiable curiosity to unlock the mysteries of your soul, bcw.

The closure of Wyverns and Scorpions has nothing to do with hiring cap policies.

Can't imagine it helped.

In any case, hiring caps exist (and this statement isn't directed at Mord). We are constantly reminded about them. I don't really understand what the goal is, from Armaddict and bcw, to so stridently insist they don't. When most people have evidence to the contrary.

If you're all pro rah rah hiring caps, then by all means, tell us how they improve the game. But don't insist they don't exist...They do.

[bcw81]

The point of the matter is simple. If you're playing a noble and you have two people under you already, and a third person comes up to you out of the blue and says they want to work with you and you hire them - absolutely nothing is going to happen.

Yes, you cannot hire for your particular noble houses' guard units. Those are closed as of currently. That is not a part of the hiring cap.

Seriously man, you make a lot of claims that just aren't factually true.

[Clearsighted]

The point of the matter is simple. If you're playing a noble and you have two people under you already, and a third person comes up to you out of the blue and says they want to work with you and you hire them - absolutely nothing is going to happen.

Yes, you cannot hire for your particular noble houses' guard units. Those are closed as of currently. That is not a part of the hiring cap.

Seriously man, you make a lot of claims that just aren't factually true.

What claim did I make that was in error?

Was it the claim that hiring caps exist in game? That seems to have been confirmed by staff. Also? Personal experience.

Was it the claim that hiring caps are bad and ultimately inhibit activity? If so, tell me how they're good, and how they increase RP activity. Please don't restrict your answer to 'because it didn't inconvenience me, personally'.

It would be much appreciated.

If it was neither of the above, then what other claims did I make in my OP, that are wrong? Because I don't recall making any other claims. Unless you're secretly Ron Paul, but we can take that to PMs. I've got a bone to pick with you, then.

[Clearsighted]

Also? Guys? I never even said that the Wyverns and Scorpions are closed because of hiring caps. I just said it clearly wasn't possible under the current policy. Since you need more than two Scoprions or Wyverns to do more than pop a scrab in the sands.

i never ran into a hiring cap with any of my nobles or leaders.

...

...

Does this mean I am a shitty leader and was not valued in the 'fun market'?

Probably.

Or maybe you just weren't very ambitious? Fact is. Caps exist. They shouldn't. I'd like to see the Wyverns or Scorpions make a comeback for example, and that simply isn't possible under the current policy.

[MeTekillot]

There are hiring caps.

[MeTekillot]

The 1-2 Aide per noble thing kinda makes sense. You only need so many Aides. The Oash gemmed hiring cap makes sense, so that the Seal Team Six doesn't get too big. I assume there would have been hiring caps on Wyverns, Elites, and Scorpions, but I never played in noble clans when those were a thing.

[Clearsighted]

The 1-2 Aide per noble thing kinda makes sense. You only need so many Aides. The Oash gemmed hiring cap makes sense, so that the Seal Team Six doesn't get too big. I assume there would have been hiring caps on Wyverns, Elites, and Scorpions, but I never played in noble clans when those were a thing.

Well. We start getting into matters of Pierre and widgets. Why does every gemmed PC want to work for Oash? Because it is the most exciting and prestigious opportunity they can possibly hope for, with the most potential for powerful allies/items/influence and illicit noble on mage mudsex. These are not benefits to be taken lightly.

What are your alternatives? Ostracism and contempt. Working with some bullshit militia sergeant or newbie templar, all the while mudsexing mere commoners.

Of course, I could make a whole thread about the Oash, Borsail and Tor imbalance. I wouldn't want to derail someone else's, but since this is mine, I'll derail away.

Lord Borsail! Your house is renowned for its ferocious mul slave bodyguards and gladiators.
Great, can I have a couple PC mul slaves?
No.
Can I breed and sell NPC slave guards? They don't even need to be muls.
No. Well. Maybe, if they're purely virtual.
People will pay for that?
Sure.
Well...Who -can- I have as a minion?
You can hire one or two tressy girls from the atrium or an ex-Runner. If you're lucky, one might be a secret psi. But they probably won't work for you.
Oh, well...all right, then. I guess I'ma go mudsex this chick, here, okay? Then get bored and store in a few months.
Great.

Lord Tor! Your house is renowned for its influence in the Army of the Dragon, its elite military training, and its cadre of famously disciplined warriors, such as to make the Spartans wet themselves.
Hey, that's great! Do I get to help lead and organize the militia?
No. We have PC Militia sergeants and templars for that.
Oh, well, do I get to work in a renowned academy of military arts where special and elite martial knowledge is taught?
No.
Do I get to keep company with disciplined and proud warriors, sworn to my House and united in esprit d'corp?
No.
Well...What do I get?
Howabout a punch in the mouth if you don't STFU?

Lord Oash! Your family loves the shit out of gickers and dabbling in the black arts. That's your rep - depraved gicker-fuckers and employers. What's more, you have cornered the market on employing gickers, because no matter how powerful they are, the rest of the Houses refuse to debase themselves to hire one. Consequently, you're immensely powerful and feared by everyone.
That's great!
Yes. Yes it is.
But I probably don't get to hire any right? They're like background NPCs?
No, go wild! There is absolutely nothing restricting you from engaging in all canonical Oashite activities, in game.
Hooray!

Much like the timeless scene from 'When Harry Meant Sally', the natural response from ten years of observing slight variations on the above is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecSMPobj62E

Anyways. I think the solution to Oash needing a hard hiring cap because of how great they are, is to give gickers more interesting and exciting employment opportunities. For one thing, all Houses should be willing to hire mage PCs, just like a Oash noble wouldn't be restricted from having a mul bodyguard.

In Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, he tells us, and I will paraphrase here, that if two people are doing the exact same job which are both equally vital - call them Job A and Job B - but one job (Job A) comes with twice the salary, free healthcare and courtesy backrubs, you're going to need to insert a fairly impressive, arbitrary barrier to keep all the equally qualified people working Job B, from hopping the fence and trying to get in on Job A's action.

One solution is to try and spruce up Job B's condition. Another solution is to consider if maybe, Job A is being overcompensated for the effort/expertise it really requires. And for a fascinating, ongoing RL debate of this nature, check out the furor surrounding the recent London Underground workers strike (in the news this last couple weeks) and the huge public backlash to them demanding white collar benefits for essentially blue collar jobs.

[MeTekillot]

Well, to be fair, Tor nobles get to run and teach at the Academy, which means they get to hang out with other people's tough bodyguards, which is kinda close to hanging out with your own Scorpions.

[Eurynomos]

Hiring caps are a purely OOC concept. I feel I don't need to break this down into itty little bits, but our player base isn't exactly ESO or WoW in quantity. There are only so many people playing this game. We like to make sure the population of all clans are properly represented, so we don't have 5 people in one clan, zero in another, 20 in another, 2 in this one, 6 in this one. We have standards to make sure the median line provides the most amount of diversity.

That's it.

[Clearsighted]

Well, to be fair, Tor nobles get to run and teach at the Academy, which means they get to hang out with other people's tough bodyguards, which is kinda close to hanging out with your own Scorpions.

Do they? I heard the Academy was closed for instruction/students. I hope I am wrong! I always thought the Academy was very cool. Although, it was always rather less effective than a month or two in the Byn, which was unfortunate. I remember that there was a Tor policy at one time, of only enrolling students in the Academy who'd already done a year in the Byn. But there was still no real special knowledge or elite training they could impart, which wasn't 'virtual'.

Hiring caps are a purely OOC concept. I feel I don't need to break this down into itty little bits, but our player base isn't exactly ESO or WoW in quantity. There are only so many people playing this game. We like to make sure the population of all clans are properly represented, so we don't have 5 people in one clan, zero in another, 20 in another, 2 in this one, 6 in this one. We have standards to make sure the median line provides the most amount of diversity.

That's it.

Exactly!

I addressed this in the post. It's possible that RP activity isn't a zero-sum game, and that by removing barriers, the total number and activity of players will increase, owing to more players playing with whom and what they're truly interested in. (Since 'interest' and 'fun' is the only ties keeping people playing Armageddon).

It's true that one or two clans would suffer more than they are now. But precedent suggests that overall, the game's activity would improve.

Those clans would suffer because they are less interesting and fun than the clans doing well. But fortunately, staff is well placed to try and address that. It's a good thing to do, when 'fun' is the main commodity one can be enriched by, in an online game. Conversely, the various balances of clans don't matter to anyone except those who can see the hidden information and are offended by the lopsided aesthetics of it.

In game, no one actually cares, so long as they can play with whom they want, unrestricted by OOC concerns.

[Beethoven]

The Tor Academy is open, but its current incarnation is probably quite different from what you are remembering. (I was around when the Academy and Scorpions were open, but I never played in it, so I am not sure what it was like from firsthand experience, however.) It is now more geared towards lectures and the like, as far as I can tell. It isn't the kind of thing where you can skill up and become a badass warrior PC. There isn't much sparring going on, except for the occasional "hey, up for a spar? Splendid, let's be off to the Academy" sort of thing.

[Eurynomos]

This is purely speculative though. I guess i'll offer my purely speculative point of view as well, based on my experience Staffing and also playing the game.

I think by removing hiring caps, you would see bloated areas of the population with no antithesis, and therefore, fewer plots than we have running now. I fail to see how we are 'well placed to help with that'. Staff are not here to dictate your fun or to make the game fun for you -- Our role is telling Stories, encouraging your Stories, and making the virtual world react to your actions. Sometimes this equals a great amount of fun for you, or for Staff. Sometimes it equals the death of your PC, because of actions you have taken and consequences of your actions. We are sort of forces of nature, not arbiters of 'fun times for dead clans that don't have PCs in them'.

There are many trends in the game's population. Sometimes you see the Desert Elf tribes brimming with PCs and activity and plots -- Other times, there is absolutely nothing going on, very few people playing in the clans, etc. Sometimes there are a ton of people in Noble Clans, other times, very few. Sometimes the AoD is hopping, sometimes the Labyrinth is hopping, sometimes not at all. This is a direct result of the limited population of players we have playing the game. It waxes, and it wanes, but MUDs are not exactly 'Cutting Edge!' Our community is very niche, and though it grows, it also diminishes as people move away from their past-time hobby or simply don't have the time to devote to it when they were 15 years old.

Our hiring caps are in place to provide an equal dispensing of the population, while allowing for independent clans and groups to form that are outside of this norm. As others have pointed out, though, i've only seen hiring caps called into play when they are written into documentation (1-2 direct employees for a Noble, for example), or when clans simply get out of hand (Over 50 active people in the T'zai Byn). Despite clamorings of 'what's active' in that thread, wherever that was, what we on Staff consider active is 'logging in within the past week', not 'playing at all the exact times I do, and if they don't, they're inactive'.

The long and short of it is, we have placed hiring caps for a reason, and it isn't arbitrary, and I doubt it will change.

[Clearsighted]

Thanks for the response! I'll attempt to clarify one or two confusions.

I think by removing hiring caps, you would see bloated areas of the population with no antithesis, and therefore, fewer plots than we have running now. I fail to see how we are 'well placed to help with that'. Staff are not here to dictate your fun or to make the game fun for you -- Our role is telling Stories, encouraging your Stories, and making the virtual world react to your actions. Sometimes this equals a great amount of fun for you, or for Staff. Sometimes it equals the death of your PC, because of actions you have taken and consequences of your actions. We are sort of forces of nature, not arbiters of 'fun times for dead clans that don't have PCs in them'.

My theory here is that if staff sees everyone wanting to play in Clan A, but not in Clan B...They are, in their role as semi-omnipotent overseers, uniquely placed to judge why. Perhaps Clan A is inherently more interesting and exciting than Clan B? Perhaps there's something fundamental about its mission statement that makes it more attractive to an online MUSH environment than another clan's mission statement? Oash vs Tor and Borsail for example. There are very good reasons why there are more gemmed PCs for hire than Mul slave PCs. That's not staff's fault. But at least they can see the reason, and could potentially implement a solution.

Might be, all noble houses should be allowed the limited and restricted hiring of mage PCs, with Oash's greater advantage largely relegated to the same virtual periphery that Tor's military elitism/Army influence and Borsail's mul slaves are. It doesn't have to be noble houses. Maybe one tribe (say, Sun Runners) is much more exciting, powerful and with access to stronger allies/better items than say, another (Jul Tavan...or Soh)

Staff will be able to determine that maybe some clans need more or less love. If they determine the opposite, then they'll have to grapple with the wisdom of enforcing a game policy which forces characters to play in clans they don't find as fun or exciting as other clans they'd rather be in.

It could have nothing to do with the clans too. It might be one clan has superb support or leadership (both IC and the staffers responsible for it). Should players be blamed for wanting to play in a clan with better leadership and support? Should staff force them to play in a clan that is less active or engaged?

When players are allowed to go where they will, these facts become quickly obvious. If it occurs to such an extent as to potentially harm the game world (as you seem to imply it might) then maybe something really does need to be done about it.

There are many trends in the game's population. Sometimes you see the Desert Elf tribes brimming with PCs and activity and plots -- Other times, there is absolutely nothing going on, very few people playing in the clans, etc. Sometimes there are a ton of people in Noble Clans, other times, very few. Sometimes the AoD is hopping, sometimes the Labyrinth is hopping, sometimes not at all. This is a direct result of the limited population of players we have playing the game. It waxes, and it wanes, but MUDs are not exactly 'Cutting Edge!' Our community is very niche, and though it grows, it also diminishes as people move away from their past-time hobby or simply don't have the time to devote to it when they were 15 years old.

Our hiring caps are in place to provide an equal dispensing of the population, while allowing for independent clans and groups to form that are outside of this norm. As others have pointed out, though, i've only seen hiring caps called into play when they are written into documentation (1-2 direct employees for a Noble, for example), or when clans simply get out of hand (Over 50 active people in the T'zai Byn). Despite clamorings of 'what's active' in that thread, wherever that was, what we on Staff consider active is 'logging in within the past week', not 'playing at all the exact times I do, and if they don't, they're inactive'.

The long and short of it is, we have placed hiring caps for a reason, and it isn't arbitrary, and I doubt it will change.

This is all fair enough, and well said. It's even noble. My only assertion would simply be that even the gentlest and the most kindly intended hiring cap, will still ultimately result in less overall activity than one without it. I don't think it's killing the game. But I think, if hiring cap issues were never brought up to leaders, and each clan was allowed to die or bloat as the game's population sees fit...and if this were the policy for the last 4-5 years. I think the average login would be higher than it was tonight. Maybe by only 6-7. But a net positive.

In a way, hiring caps acknowledge that some clans have more fun than others. A hiring cap sort've helps to limit the damage. There's no burning need to really dig into why one clan is rocking and the other sucking. Much like how French tariffs keep Pierre from having to learn how to make better widgets. I think all clans would be in a healthier place if staff cared less about keeping them mostly evenly dispersed, and more curious why some succeed wildly or fail.

And yes, for the record, I doubt there'll be immediate change either. But good things do come in time. Hell, most people advocating the closure of Tuluk were regarded as little better than raving anti-staff nutjobs around here, for years. But eventually, attitudes change. Since I do think caps are harmful to the game (not even close to ruining it, but not helping it either) it's worth having a conversation over. Even if the final effect is mostly subconscious.

[Armaddict]

Sorry.  What I meant to be pointing out was that even when I had influxes of PC's and recruits up the wahzoo, I was never told 'Hey, slow this down.'  The population usually regulated itself within a couple weeks time.  Yes, regulated itself.  That's putting it diplomatically. XD

I'm not saying your well-thought out post is shitty.  I am saying I don't think it contributes as much to the problems you're saying as you think it does.  I, too, would like to see more military clans open, but before that can be done, they need something to actively participate in.  Which is, I think, far more of a contribution for their closing than caps.

I was kinda making a jab at myself, because as a noble, there's only so much you can come up with that requires a military force to be always at the ready.  Even in Tor, it was more about having people ready to train other people...not having a fully effective fighting force.

I'm not particularly -for- hiring caps...but at the same time, I do not particularly like bloated clans, either.  When any one of them get too many people, it just turns the game ridiculous purely because you've got too many people with not enough duties for them to take care of.  So then they mob up on it.  It turns into five and six man hunting parties.  Patrols with seven people.  Where people hate mass combat, it's not...really cool...when a clan gets huge.  So while I'm with ya on the -effect- of what you'd like to come about (the ability for more clans to open up), I don't think the clan population cap is the issue here, particularly because it's only a couple clans that truly seem to hit that cap.

And I'm lightly buzzed.  If this isn't what you were looking for from me, I apologize and I'll re-read more closely at a later time.

[MeTekillot]

Hiring caps haven't proven an insurmountable obstacle for me, personally. I usually have one or two dudes that I don't really mind getting rid of. There are things that I disagree with and end up railing against sometimes, but hiring caps aren't often one of those things.

[MeTekillot]

I do wish nobles got to hire like, 1-2 combat dudes, since they're not allowed to kill with NPCs and you can't always count on your Aide being a warrior or assassin.

[Clearsighted]

Edited owing to a misunderstanding.