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.

[Clearsighted]

Can I get a helper, or anyone, to please lock this thread? It's not as if there can be much more to be said about it when Eury has not only deleted my original post, but whether in an attempt to be funny or for some other less flattering motive, edited it to make it seem I was posting something entirely different from what I did. I'd rather the thread was preserved in this state, until some other official action can be taken.

[MeTekillot]

I'm hoping Eury clicked modify instead of quote by accident.

[Armaddict]

Yeah, I...didn't see anything wrong with the original post.

Edited:  I'm not sure what that edit is about, either.  There was no proposition I saw about bringing free market trade into the IC world.  Only using economic rules to make an argument on how we handled things.

I disagreed but there was a good level of thought in that.  Did you misread, Eury, or did we miss something heinous in there? XD

[bcw81]

Yeah, I...didn't see anything wrong with the original post.

Edited:  I'm not sure what that edit is about, either.  There was no proposition I saw about bringing free market trade into the IC world.  Only using economic rules to make an argument on how we handled things.

I disagreed but there was a good level of thought in that.  Did you misread, Eury, or did we miss something heinous in there? XD

I am like 90% sure that was an error with the quote/edit button. They're side by side and look exactly the same. We're looking into it. Waiting for Eury to give the final word.

[Clearsighted]

Yeah, I...didn't see anything wrong with the original post.

Edited:  I'm not sure what that edit is about, either.  There was no proposition I saw about bringing free market trade into the IC world.  Only using economic rules to make an argument on how we handled things.

I disagreed but there was a good level of thought in that.  Did you misread, Eury, or did we miss something heinous in there? XD

I am like 90% sure that was an error with the quote/edit button. They're side by side and look exactly the same. We're looking into it. Waiting for Eury to give the final word.

Judging by the timestamps, this seems plausible. I'm wretchedly tired and truly must sleep, but I hope I'll wake up in the morning to Eury confirming that it was an accident, and we can all have a laugh about it later.

[Eurynomos]

Yeah, I...didn't see anything wrong with the original post.

Edited:  I'm not sure what that edit is about, either.  There was no proposition I saw about bringing free market trade into the IC world.  Only using economic rules to make an argument on how we handled things.

I disagreed but there was a good level of thought in that.  Did you misread, Eury, or did we miss something heinous in there? XD

I am like 90% sure that was an error with the quote/edit button. They're side by side and look exactly the same. We're looking into it. Waiting for Eury to give the final word.

Judging by the timestamps, this seems plausible. I'm wretchedly tired and truly must sleep, but I hope I'll wake up in the morning to Eury confirming that it was an accident, and we can all have a laugh about it later.

Yeeeeah, that was an accident. I was confused when my quote/reply didn't show up at the bottom of the list and didn't really look at the OP to see what happened there.

[Nyr]

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.

I also don't mean to drop any "Find out IC" bombs on this argument, but common literacy is illegal. Concepts of 'free trade' and 'mercantilism' are most certainly not buzz words at the Noble Parties. People seem to like the status quo as it is, if you're talking about idly there being some sort of problem. This seems more like an OOC issue/gripe that you have, though.

Adding back in what Eurynomos meant to do.

[Nyr]

And as far as the original post goes:

Nobles are only allowed to hire two aides--people working directly for them--not two PCs total.  If there's another role in the House for PCs to fill, then PCs can do that.  That presents the real problem.  The problem isn't necessarily hiring caps (which always will exist) so much as fleshing these things out more to have these playable roles available...so that there are things to play that aren't "aide" roles in noble houses.  That's a documentation need that will continually be worked on, though perhaps not as quickly as one may like...and that is something worth discussing.  It was the direction Tuluk went, and Tuluk was largely a self-contained experiment along those lines in the past couple of years until closure.  I'd be happy to discuss and go over that.  It wouldn't be unreasonable to expect that Allanaki noble houses are going to go in that direction (if they aren't there now in some cases).

However, there will likely always be an OOC need for hiring caps.  Those caps will also likely be lower at the upper tiers of playable society...because if everyone that is a PC can work for the richest noble House, they would, and that would skew what is perceived in-game.

One way I can consider that we might remove all hiring caps would be if all hires had to be paid by the employer directly out of the employer's personal account.  This is the direction code is going to go with regards to banking and MMH progression, so linking up autopayment to a clan NPC which is linked to a very real bank account (clan account, perhaps, or even personal account) would be possible.  That's not close on the horizon, though, and moving ALL clans to this would be a significant undertaking requiring more thought and review than a spitballed post on the GDB.

[Clearsighted]

Yeah, I...didn't see anything wrong with the original post.

Edited:  I'm not sure what that edit is about, either.  There was no proposition I saw about bringing free market trade into the IC world.  Only using economic rules to make an argument on how we handled things.

I disagreed but there was a good level of thought in that.  Did you misread, Eury, or did we miss something heinous in there? XD

I am like 90% sure that was an error with the quote/edit button. They're side by side and look exactly the same. We're looking into it. Waiting for Eury to give the final word.

Judging by the timestamps, this seems plausible. I'm wretchedly tired and truly must sleep, but I hope I'll wake up in the morning to Eury confirming that it was an accident, and we can all have a laugh about it later.

Yeeeeah, that was an accident. I was confused when my quote/reply didn't show up at the bottom of the list and didn't really look at the OP to see what happened there.

Glad to hear it. It did seem like the obvious possibility after I thought to look at the timestamps

One way I can consider that we might remove all hiring caps would be if all hires had to be paid by the employer directly out of the employer's personal account.  This is the direction code is going to go with regards to banking and MMH progression, so linking up autopayment to a clan NPC which is linked to a very real bank account (clan account, perhaps, or even personal account) would be possible.  That's not close on the horizon, though, and moving ALL clans to this would be a significant undertaking requiring more thought and review than a spitballed post on the GDB.

That'd be a great idea. I look forward to that ever becoming implemented or made possible. It would be a much better solution than either hiring caps or completely abolishing them, because players are then confronted in-game with a need to manage their own resources. They're unlikely to hire people for flippant reasons, if the result is directly coming out of their limited pocket.

[Armaddict]

That sounds pretty good.  So an active nooble who has invested well, bidden his time, and built up more passive income than just the stipend can, intrinsically, hire more people...which would make sense since those other investments would call for some more jobs needing filled.

Perhaps a happy medium.  One house aide, paid by the house.  One or two soldiers, those of rank, paid by the house.  Everything else paid out of pocket.  (Note:  That means that overhiring means you won't have the coin to get involved in things for those soldiers to do.  Or to equip them.  Etc.)

[Fathi]

Clearsighted, your post is really well thought-out and brings up a lot of good points. Back when I played a leader that came up against a hiring cap often enough, it was an incredibly frustrating experience for me because I played in a different time zone to a lot of my clan's minions. Leader A who played peak time had hired them, leaving me as Leader B with not a lot of leeway to hire people who played during my playing times.

But I've also been in situations where I was trying to do business with clans that had next to no employees due to there being 30 Bynners or 19 Kuraci Fist PCs and that was equally frustrating. Sometimes it got to the point of where I emailed the staff of Clan XYZ back in the day before the request tool and was explicitly told "sorry, there's only 2 PCs in this clan right now and you keep missing them!" I also remember playing a Salarr merchant for quite a while who always got asked if we could just mastercraft THIS ONE SILK THING because Kadius didn't have any PC mastercrafters at the time. Those imbalances end up impeding the flow of the game.

Part of that is a problem with Arm's "one House does ___" monopoly style of play. As long as the game is set up like that, staff are going to have to put an OOC cap on employees in some situations. It sucks, but I understand why they have to do it. 

I am excited by the idea of leaders having an unlimited number of employees as long as they pay for it out of pocket. My leaders always ended up doing something like this anyhow - they'd just have unofficial employees who did odd jobs and got paid by hand rather than being on the clanned payroll. It works great and creates a lot of opportunities for conflict, especially if your real employees feel like their usefulness is being threatened, heh.

A side note on aides: part of the reason why there's a cap on two aides per noble would be to me a documentation thing. Given how many junior nobles there are and how relatively low rank some of them are (especially in the bigger Houses), a junior noble with a giant retinue of personal guards and concubines is kind of jarring. I think this issue will be resolved if and when more types of noble employment are open to PCs, though.

[Clearsighted]

Part of that is a problem with Arm's "one House does ___" monopoly style of play. As long as the game is set up like that, staff are going to have to put an OOC cap on employees in some situations. It sucks, but I understand why they have to do it.  

This is an excellent point, and it's at the heart of a lot of 'issues' within Armageddon's geopolitical landscape.

There isn't as much conflict and competition among the GMHs, because Salarr, Kadius and Kurac serve niche markets with little overlap, and they all (consequentially) need each other to some extent or another. There's not much point for them to try and attain 'exclusive' rights to any organization, town or city.

The noble houses are similarly specialized.

Some level of specialization is needed, and great, and colorful. Each House/GMH should have 'strengths' and 'weaknesses'. However, Armageddon's current Houses and Clans are set up to where their strength is usually a 'near monopoly' and their weakness is 'utterly taboo'.

I think the game world would be better off if Kurac, Kadius and Salarr had more reason and motive to compete with each other. Or if say, all the noble Houses could hire gemmers. It's true that Borsail might not hire as many mages, or have the same relationship to or understanding of them as Oash (since magick stuff is one of Oash's strengths), but that wouldn't keep some Borsail noble form having a Vivuadan support mage for the Wyverns, or a secret Drovian spy mage.

If this were combined with what Nyr suggested might be possible in the future, I think we'd have a much more interesting game world. I also think that the noble houses, with their assured steady stream of income being deposited in their accounts, would become much more influential.

[Armaddict]

I -do- think that steps over into facilitating free market in the game, though.  Which Zalanthas is clearly not a free market.

They don't compete because they have control over their market, and an unspoken agreement not to fuck with each other's business.  Because in Zalanthas, fucking with that business means blades in the back and poisoned luxury foods.

[Clearsighted]

I -do- think that steps over into facilitating free market in the game, though.  Which Zalanthas is clearly not a free market.

They don't compete because they have control over their market, and an unspoken agreement not to fuck with each other's business.  Because in Zalanthas, fucking with that business means blades in the back and poisoned luxury foods.

That's a worthy point. I suppose that leads to two more questions.

1) Does this state of affairs increase or decrease RP activity? If it increases RP activity, then it's a good state of affairs.

2) If it decreases RP activity (through the stifling of PC conflict or competition), then it's worth considering if it's a state of affairs that should be encouraged or protected.

If it would have a very small effect one way or another, then the status quo is worth keeping in place, or at least, even if not ideal, not worth the effort of altering it. But the sole fact of it being the current status quo does fairly little to recommend it. Closing Tuluk and dropping a volcano on the gypsies both affected the status quo a good deal, for example. Having some IC event take place that instigates more competition among GMHs would be more subtle.

But in fairness to your post, I agree that most concerns raised on this board fall into the 'interesting, but not significant enough to be worth the time and effort of immediately addressing at the expense of other projects' category.

[Erythil]

Hiring caps as a method of limiting how much free salary gets thrown around is one thing.

But if I'm a noble, say, and I want to hire a personal bard and personal barber, I cannot actually give these people clearance to enter and leave my estate even if it would be perfectly reasonable for them to have this clearance.  In this way I found hiring caps inconvenient.  Similarly, it's a bit odd that a junior noble gets 2 PC aides, but a PC templar, who is more important in the scheme of things, is capped at one.

There's essentially a very low ceiling on the number of non-combat characters that can successfully be played at any given time, when clans generally have many more roles for combative characters available and we heavily encourage people to be part of clans.  I see lots of characters who show up looking to be aides of some kind, then sort of wither and retire when they realize all the noble PCs are at their hiring caps.

So -- more non-combat clan roles, please.

[TheWanderer]

Similarly, it's a bit odd that a junior noble gets 2 PC aides, but a PC templar, who is more important in the scheme of things, is capped at one.

I think the entire city full of NPCs and a unit of PC soldiers to command is plenty, seeing as how that second aide is usually for flavor or combat-oriented duties. I'm also gonna go out on a limb and say the Templarate doesn't really feel like paying the salary of a second aide for every Blue in Allanak. That's probably a big coin sink for something that the overwhelming majority of them don't actually need.

It makes sense for a templar to be capped at one aide from both an OOC perspective and an IC.

There's essentially a very low ceiling on the number of non-combat characters that can successfully be played at any given time, when clans generally have many more roles for combative characters available and we heavily encourage people to be part of clans.  I see lots of characters who show up looking to be aides of some kind, then sort of wither and retire when they realize all the noble PCs are at their hiring caps.

So -- more non-combat clan roles, please.

There aren't really any fun and engaging non-combat clan roles to offer that don't just boil down to you being an aide, and a noble honestly only needs one or two. I suggest killing your way into the House of your dreams.

[Eurynomos]

Why do these roles need Estate access, beyond sheer laziness of the Noble?

I've seen many successful Nobles 'employ' several people (have them on retainer, reward them for their services, and pay them out of pocket). They didn't have 'official Estate access'. It also pushed the Noble to meet with them outside of their ultra-safe Estate.

[Armaddict]

Why do these roles need Estate access, beyond sheer laziness of the Noble?

I've seen many successful Nobles 'employ' several people (have them on retainer, reward them for their services, and pay them out of pocket). They didn't have 'official Estate access'. It also pushed the Noble to meet with them outside of their ultra-safe Estate.

...because that's part of the prestige of working for a noble, is access to things beyond the realm of other commoners.

[CodeMaster]

Why do these roles need Estate access, beyond sheer laziness of the Noble?

I've seen many successful Nobles 'employ' several people (have them on retainer, reward them for their services, and pay them out of pocket). They didn't have 'official Estate access'. It also pushed the Noble to meet with them outside of their ultra-safe Estate.

...because that's part of the prestige of working for a noble, is access to things beyond the realm of other commoners.

Probably part of the fun, too.  "Oh my god, I just walked into the noble's quarter unescorted and the guards didn't stop me.  This is so cool..."   It's having something the other players don't have, which is all anyone wants.

[Eurynomos]

So beyond the cool factor...Is there any other reason?

Part of the prestige of working for a Noble is working for the Noble, no? You don't get anything out of the Estate. You don't live there. You don't work there, really. If a Noble wants you to come to the Estate, they can meet you at the Estate.

I fail to see why being clanned and having 24/7 access to an Estate is required to be an employee of a Noble.

[Malifaxis]

I want to chime in here quick.

I've had the pleasure of playing several leadership roles.  One of those roles was a command level role for a clan with a traditionally quite high turnover rate.  I started with a hiring cap.

I started being able to take on 5 members.  5.   Fi-ve.

For a high turnover rate clan.

What I found is that it is not the amount of compatriots you have, but the quality of compatriots, and how much you interest them in logging in to keep things going.  That's the trick of a good leader.  You attract people who want to play in your slice of the world, and you present that slice to them in all its glory, making sure they experience every little bit, and want to keep coming back and playing for more.  You don't need 10 to 15 people.  In fact, I'll go so far as to say any fucking clan that has more than 15 people is being a bunch of assholes and stripping fun from the rest of the world.  You need 5-8 dedicated, fun players for military aspects.  A good noble crew can operate with 1-2 nobles and 2-3 aides/bodyguards/whatevers.

That's it.  Anything else is greed.

Am I above it?  Nope.  I've been greedy.  I've had huge clans.  THEY ARE AWESOME.  But they're also dickish, and I always try to keep that in mind after I reach my personal soft cap of population.  If I already have a crew, and I don't absolutely need someone, I try to refuse them so someone else can have a bit more fun.

That's just me though.  And I'm weird.

[Armaddict]

So beyond the cool factor...Is there any other reason?

Part of the prestige of working for a Noble is working for the Noble, no? You don't get anything out of the Estate. You don't live there. You don't work there, really. If a Noble wants you to come to the Estate, they can meet you at the Estate.

I fail to see why being clanned and having 24/7 access to an Estate is required to be an employee of a Noble.

...because clans are good, in this game.  Everything is based around being clans.  From having npc buddies in a fight, to having access to safe areas, to having acknowledgement that you are, indeed, in an official group...clans have always been important.  You're coming across as very short in this regard, which is making me very curious why that's an issue.

Even in the case that nobles should be paying out of pocket, I'd still pretty much want to see the clan there (in ranks that have 0 pay), as acknowledgement from the OTHER people in the clan that you are, indeed, working with them.  They are your homeboys.  You are their homeboy.  Even if you're duping them, they -think- they're your homeboy.  That all goes away if you turn it into just a commoner who gets to talk to a noble at a table and receive coin.

Not to mention, we just did these banking changes, where discussion was brought up about said estates and how they were very secure, but not perfectly secure, and there should be heists.  But you're making a long-game disguise...not viable?

Now I can counter that question, though.  Why is it such a big deal for them -to- be clanned, without pay aside from the noble itself?

Edit:  You essentially just asked me why anyone should want clans in this game.  Because they give you boons.  The noble estate, and the services there, have always been one.  I'm curious what you'd replace that sort of safety with, for an employee.

[MeTekillot]

When I said I didn't come here to have fun, I was joking, by the way. I. . . I do come here to have fun. Feel like that's. . . pertinent to mention.

[Clearsighted]

You don't need 10 to 15 people.  In fact, I'll go so far as to say any fucking clan that has more than 15 people is being a bunch of assholes and stripping fun from the rest of the world.  

Aren't you kind've stripping fun away from the people who want to play in that clan? It might be popular for a good reason. It might be exceptionally well lead and better managed. It might have more exciting lore, or powerful assets. If the only reason someone can't play in a clan is a purely OOC one (a desire to spread the playerbase around), you're basically telling players to go have less fun somewhere else.

Some of those players do go off, and find new opportunities, and have fun. Some don't.

I can't help but feel the best long-term solution is to try and discern why a clan is mega-popular at any given moment while others are dead. But maybe the answers to that requires uncomfortable questions.

[Armaddict]

Eh.  I'm with Malifaxis again, but for different reasons that I stated earlier.

Like I said...anytime you start getting that many people in a clan, it's not fun.  It's -crowded-.  It turns into a hassle.  It turns into a bunch of activities that are fun for 3 to 5 people, but are now just a spam fest and shit storm of people forgetting water or people grouping together around their drama that somehow got dragged into an entire-clan-affair.  Keeping numbers low is not depriving anyone, it's keeping things in a controllable state.  Once it goes beyond that state, it's irritating.  Yes, I -have- gone inactive in clans with too many people until some of them died off, because it's just that irritating to have a sudden bandwagon for no reason other than 'There's always things going on in that clan'.  That status can literally be reached by anyone.  If they had people flocking to them because there were already numbers there, as well.

(Edit here to sum up:  More players in clan good.  TOO MANY players in clan is actually a real thing, and bad.)

However, I'm not certain where the clan cap turned into people not being clanned but still in service.  That's wonky to me.

[Suhuy]

While I'm no fan of the spam which accompanies a crowd of PCs in one room, I've never thought any clan was simply too big. Even with 15 PCs in a single clan, that's a whole heck of a lot of different online times to accommodate. Additionally, most clans have lots and lots of different rooms, some of which get practically no use whatsoever. I'd rather have 15 people in a clan and go find somewhere quieter to RP in when things get busy, than to simply say "this clan can have 8 characters maximum because it will prevent you from the annoyance of spam".

[Suhuy]

I'd also like to just chime in that while in theory you don't need to be coded into the clan to be someone's employee and that maybe all it really adds is color and nothing more, people want it. And when they don't have it, they're a lot less likely to consider teaming up with you.

Bells and whistles are important. And if some feature in the code says "You are now a part of something", even if it offers no coded advantage or additional goodies at all, it's still something that attracts players. Why discourage that!

[Armaddict]

Reducing it to spam is somewhat silly.  Spam was part of it, but what was degraded was the actual activities themselves.

You guys get excited about RPT's, and want there to be more of them.  I want the everyday to be more exciting.  If your house has 10 hunters...it's not that fun being a hunter.  If your house has 10 merchants...it's not that cool being a merchant.  If your house has these daily activities, but they get done regardless of your participation because they're what everyone does...it's less exciting.  Those RPT's with lots of people come around (and yes, there is spam), but those are the exceptions to the fun.  It -is- more fun to have a solid group working together to accomplish goals than to have an amorphous blob always changing and modifying with a couple steadies and creating made up larger events to accomodate the fact that you're larger.  In the military clans I played in, anything more than 5 or 6 going out at time was complete overkill for anything save for RPT-strength encounters.  It removed the 'Zalanthas' from Arm and made it a hack'n slash mud group, minus spellcasters (in most cases).

No, that is not an anti-RPT post.  Yes, it is saying that having a clan be reliant on RPT's for 'fun activities', as tends to happen with larger amounts of players in clans, is just as detrimental as it is beneficial, and so I see no boon in removing the caps.  The quantity of roleplay activities go up, the quality of roleplay opportunities go down, regardless of players involved.  You're just...an unnecessary bit of more-blob.

The bit I will give you is the bit about different timezones...but I also believe I read something about accommodation to that, regarding caps.  I could be mistaken.  Awhile back there was a post about some tool that would allow off-peak players to view what clans other off-peakers were in.  That would be a far more targeted, refined, and efficient fix than 'off-peakers need huge clan numbers'.

Also.  Realize that I am not actually particularly for -or- against clan caps, but every reason I've seen for dropping them, I just happen to disagree with or find the reasoning somewhat flimsy for a theoretical benefit that I think:
  a) brings detriment with it. (as above)
  b) Does not counteract the benefit of having it remain in place, i.e. Clans can get strong, but not -overwhelmingly- strong.  This is -particularly- an interesting dynamic when people are talking about clan vs clan conflict at the same time in other threads.

I'd also like to just chime in that while in theory you don't need to be coded into the clan to be someone's employee and that maybe all it really adds is color and nothing more, people want it. And when they don't have it, they're a lot less likely to consider teaming up with you.

Bells and whistles are important. And if some feature in the code says "You are now a part of something", even if it offers no coded advantage or additional goodies at all, it's still something that attracts players. Why discourage that!

This I agree with.  I'm a little taken aback, to be honest...I'd thought the reason people wanted to be clanned and have access to things and whatnot to be...fairly straightforward, not something puzzling.  Which means I have to describe something I've never really had to describe in my head before aside from 'Sweet, I'm a Wyvern now!'

[bardlyone]

I'd also like to just chime in that while in theory you don't need to be coded into the clan to be someone's employee and that maybe all it really adds is color and nothing more, people want it. And when they don't have it, they're a lot less likely to consider teaming up with you.

Bells and whistles are important. And if some feature in the code says "You are now a part of something", even if it offers no coded advantage or additional goodies at all, it's still something that attracts players. Why discourage that!

This I agree with.  I'm a little taken aback, to be honest...I'd thought the reason people wanted to be clanned and have access to things and whatnot to be...fairly straightforward, not something puzzling.  Which means I have to describe something I've never really had to describe in my head before aside from 'Sweet, I'm a Wyvern now!'

I don't know of anyone who feels differently than this. And I know a lot of people.

[MeTekillot]

"besides it being fun for players, why should we do this?"

[LauraMars]

I was the only noble in my clan for a period of over 7 months, and I was pretty firmly (but nicely!) told I couldn't hire anyone besides my two aides.  So for months my clan had three people in it including myself.  A three person clan was not what I signed up for.  It was hard.  It drove me crazy.  Things felt tiny and static.  I felt like the burden of entertaining my two employees (who I am absolutely not criticizing, they were great) was far heavier than it would have been if there had been more people.  I felt like a failure for not being able to bring new people into the clan, and I was sure that being stuck with just me for so long must have been terribly boring for my aides.  There was no player level clan politics or backstabbing going on, which has always been my #1 favorite part of clans.  There were no new people.  There were no servants of a rival noble to harass, manipulate, or bribe.  There wasn't even the non-excitement of hiring a guy only to never see him again, and when you've come to a point where you're missing that as a leader, you know things are frustrating.  I was frustrated.  I'll even go so far as to say I hated that clan cap.

I'm not against the idea of clan caps at all (6-7 people seems like great fun to me)!  But to just cap it at three people including the leader is not my scene.  And it's a little insulting to say that it's only laziness on my part that I wanted to clan more people.  Having people codedly clanned is useful for everyone.  When you have an "employee" that isn't in the clan, you can say they're working for you, but they can't wear your livery, eat your food, store their shit in a somewhat safe locker, access nice, clan discounted apartments, find you in any space that isn't public, be "attached" to you in anything but name, enjoy any other perks of being clanned (even if it isn't hard coin), and they're much harder to keep track of oocly as well due to their lack of access to a clan gdb and monthly check ins.  It's also much harder for a "fake" employee to betray you, steal from you, or spy on you, which cuts down on potentially interesting conflict within the clan.

There's also a culture aspect; being part of a group of employees who can rub shoulders and get to know each other, (spar together, clean the barracks together, whatever) instead of just being "a ranger who sometimes works for Lady Oash and sleeps in the Gaj" feels a lot more inclusive, and a lot more, well, like being in a clan.  Two direct aides is plenty for an active noble, but having guard roles, "flavor" roles (gardener, explorer, personal tailor, bard) or some other type of role open as well would be aces.  Heck, when we finally got another noble in my clan (three weeks before I had to store of course ) and they started hiring aides, I was delighted.  Suddenly we doubled in size and things felt ever so much more lively and social, despite still being a relatively teeny clan in the grand scheme of things.

I don't regret the role. I accomplished things, there were mad plots, I stayed busy, I loved my two employees dearly and still think I hit the minion jackpot with them.  And to all who can function as leaders of a clan of three, awesome! More power to you.  I definitely, 110% will never play a noble again though, not unless I can be sure of being able to have more than two other people in my clan, even if only two of them are working for me directly.

[Lizzie]

It looks like the rules aren't as strict as people are making it out to be.

You can have other people in your "two aides only" clan, but they can't be aides. As a noble, you can only have two aides that are clanned and ranked with access to the estate, cook, and paymaster NPC.

You can have all the minions you want, but only two of them get that particular privilege. If you want more, just hire more. They won't be able to get in and out of the clan compound unless you or one of your aides are there to let them in and out, they won't be able to order food from the cook, and they'll have to rely on you or your aides to get paid.

I don't see a problem with that.

[Delirium]

I remember being SO confused when someone wanted to hire my character and another character, but acted like they simply couldn't hire both of us.

My literal thought was "why not both?" Now I understand why.

Everything Laura said. And I guess if you can only have two aides, it's time to start hiring gardeners, fashion assistants, armor repairers, cooks....

[wizturbo]

...and they're much harder to keep track of oocly as well due to their lack of access to a clan gdb and monthly check ins.  

I agree with all of LauraMars' post in outlining the problems that come with per person clan caps.  I personally think there's no need to have a per person clan cap, but rather have it be a total clan membership cap for noble houses.  The "number of lockers is your clan cap" concept makes sense ICly, and acts as an easy tracking mechanism.  If there's only one noble, or only one active noble, this would enable them to hire more than just 2 others to interact with in the clan.  If another noble is brought on, that noble can hire on their own people once the inevitable attrition rates of any clan kick in and people leave (should this be a problem for the new noble, they can always accelerate the process.... ).

I think she points out a very important issue though when it comes to GDB access.  Playing as a leader in a clan is hard enough, and having to get messages to non-clan members to coordinate RPT's with them is so exhausting and irritating that I frankly don't think I'll be doing it again unless I feel there will be a big pay off in fun for myself and all involved to do so...  It'll just be a "see if they're online when we go out" sort of deal.  I'm not sure if other leaders feel the same way, but the idea of having employees who cannot access the clan board makes me shy away from even calling them an employee.  For instance, if I'm going on vacation, unless I sync up with this person and let them know through an OOC or Psi OOC, they're not going to have any idea that their "employer" is gone for 10 days...this sucks for all parties involved.  This is one of the reasons I think the Gemmed have it so bad, not only are they excluded from things ICly, they're excluded from things OOCly in the form of not being able to coordinate play times unless they join House Oash.  Super lame, and a reason to create a Gemmed GDB board as has been asked for countless times.

All of this would be easily managed if there were better OOC communication tools to work with, but such tools aren't permitted.  I would love to have a "Groupies of...." GDB forum that PC's could invite their non-clanned minions/allies/enemies into just to coordinate play times..it would save me literally hours of RL time.   Looking to do a cross-clan RPT with 5 indies joining?  Invite them all to join Groupies of Merchant Awesomesauce, and coordinate play times in that forum...save countless hours of frustration....spend those hours mudsexing.  Profit.

[Narf]

To build off of what Laura said I think people drastically underestimate the ability to OOCly coordinate play schedules that a clan board gives. As someone that's had to work at great lengths to coordinate a large number of people with no clan board access... It can be done but it's exhausting. And there's always a few people that forget or worse, remember the wrong time. Or they have a change in their availability and no way to contact you.

Honestly, I'd rather be in a "clan" of three people who sleep in the gutters around the rinth who have a clan board to coordinate their online times than be in a clan with protected estate access and storage and massive prestige and regular pay, but no clan board.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

I actually agree with hiring caps, but they should be relatively generous. The number of lockers in your barracks is a perfect barometer.

[wizturbo]

Honestly, I'd rather be in a "clan" of three people who sleep in the gutters around the rinth who have a clan board to coordinate their online times than be in a clan with protected estate access and storage and massive prestige and regular pay, but no clan board.

Agreed 100%.  Not having a GDB forum to coordinate significantly increases the amount of inertia a player has to overcome to plan activities.

The demand for RPT's is ever present, people would love to have them every single day, I think...  but the amount of inertia to plan such things for staff and PC leadership is so high that the only a tiny fraction of that demand can be supplied.

[Narf]

...and they're much harder to keep track of oocly as well due to their lack of access to a clan gdb and monthly check ins.  

All of this would be easily managed if there were better OOC communication tools to work with, but such tools aren't permitted.  I would love to have a "Groupies of...." GDB forum that PC's could invite their non-clanned minions/allies/enemies into just to coordinate play times..it would save me literally hours of RL time.   Looking to do a cross-clan RPT with 5 indies joining?  Invite them all to join Groupies of Merchant Awesomesauce, and coordinate play times in that forum...save countless hours of frustration....spend those hours mudsexing.  Profit.

From personal experience I can say that there are probably dozens of things I haven't done because of inability to communicate playtimes effectively with independent groups, either because they fell through or because the thought of getting in touch with these three people with irregular playtimes just made it too exhausting to contemplate.

[nauta]

...and they're much harder to keep track of oocly as well due to their lack of access to a clan gdb and monthly check ins.  

All of this would be easily managed if there were better OOC communication tools to work with, but such tools aren't permitted.  I would love to have a "Groupies of...." GDB forum that PC's could invite their non-clanned minions/allies/enemies into just to coordinate play times..it would save me literally hours of RL time.   Looking to do a cross-clan RPT with 5 indies joining?  Invite them all to join Groupies of Merchant Awesomesauce, and coordinate play times in that forum...save countless hours of frustration....spend those hours mudsexing.  Profit.

From personal experience I can say that there are probably dozens of things I haven't done because of inability to communicate playtimes effectively with independent groups, either because they fell through or because the thought of getting in touch with these three people with irregular playtimes just made it too exhausting to contemplate.

I'd love a dynamic clan system which would allow you to coordinate for RPTs in groups - it'd also cut down on illegitimate or inconvenient forms of OOC communication.

[Majikal]

...and they're much harder to keep track of oocly as well due to their lack of access to a clan gdb and monthly check ins.  

All of this would be easily managed if there were better OOC communication tools to work with, but such tools aren't permitted.  I would love to have a "Groupies of...." GDB forum that PC's could invite their non-clanned minions/allies/enemies into just to coordinate play times..it would save me literally hours of RL time.   Looking to do a cross-clan RPT with 5 indies joining?  Invite them all to join Groupies of Merchant Awesomesauce, and coordinate play times in that forum...save countless hours of frustration....spend those hours mudsexing.  Profit.

From personal experience I can say that there are probably dozens of things I haven't done because of inability to communicate playtimes effectively with independent groups, either because they fell through or because the thought of getting in touch with these three people with irregular playtimes just made it too exhausting to contemplate.

I'd love a dynamic clan system which would allow you to coordinate for RPTs in groups - it'd also cut down on illegitimate or inconvenient forms of OOC communication.

ooc do you have a gdb or e-mail I can send rpt details too?

the dude says ooc 'send them to awesome_amos@myemailandshit.com, or tall muscular kank on gdb'

ooc Figure out what times work for ur peepz and let me know by tomorrow kthxbai

Bridge complete? GDB handles are a legitimate tool for communicating playtimes and things. Make an alt handle for facilitating stuff like that and use it. *shrug* Making more request spam for something like groupies of clan X. Meh.

[wizturbo]

I'm totally fine with Majikal's solution, but it seems highly frowned upon in my experiences....maybe my perception on that is flawed though?  It's okay to ask for a GDB handle in-game?  If so, I have a lot of people's GDB handles I need to ask for...probably 10+.  Time to create a new tab on my excel spreadsheet with character names & GDB handles.  Weeeeeeee

[BadSkeelz]

I'm a little leery of it, because it feels like you're breaking the IC/OOC barrier... Even if, functionally, it's not a whole lot different than joining a clan forum. Still feels "wrong" on some nonrational level.

I wonder if it would be better to tell your non-clanned Minion "Hey, pay attention to Player Announcement posts by AmazingAmos, as those will affect you." And then you vaguebook in the Player Announcements ("Those in the know will know to be at the place @ 7pm Server Time").

[CodeMaster]

being able to leave messages in the Way for an offline player might help. creating a second or third gdb account seems like a bit of a hassle.

[Beethoven]

I played with someone who figured out kind of a cool, happy medium solution to this problem once. They gave an IC explanation for how my PC might contact theirs while they were offline (think letters between literate PCs, perhaps Waying a third party for non-literates,) and then OOC'd me their GDB handle. When I PMd them, I did it with IC messages, aka "Lady X has left a letter for Lord Templar Y with one of his guards in the temple, asking if it would be acceptable to meet with him at X time." Never any IC details or anything, just meetups, but it was a neat way to handle it, I thought.

[Narf]

I'm totally fine with Majikal's solution, but it seems highly frowned upon in my experiences....maybe my perception on that is flawed though?  It's okay to ask for a GDB handle in-game?  If so, I have a lot of people's GDB handles I need to ask for...probably 10+.  Time to create a new tab on my excel spreadsheet with character names & GDB handles.  Weeeeeeee

I do this all the time. It's still an enormous hassle for a variety of reasons:

1) Most people don't think to hit reply all when they're discussing online times. This means if you're organizing between a few people, you'll be acting as translator for each person.

2) The GDB messenger only allows 4 people to be contacted at a time. If you need to arrange times with more than 4 people you'll have extra messages to type out. Furthermore, now even if you've trained people to use the "reply all" function, it won't really work anymore if you're dealing with 5+ people.

3) Typing in a lot of people's weird handles is kind of annoying. It sounds like a small thing, and it is, but if you have to do it every time it starts to bug you.

[wizturbo]

That's true Narf.  I'm totally fine with the solution for 1 on 1 communications, for RPT planning it's still a nightmare.

[Delirium]

I tend to prefer to keep as much information in-game as possible so that potential spies have a chance at getting that information.

So I'm not a huge fan of using pms on the GDB to coordinate. I wish more people still used clan boards in-game for the same reason.

I wish there was a way to send messages to people offline, in-game. Messenger NPCs that act like game email, or something along those lines.

[Desertman]

I tend to prefer to keep as much information in-game as possible so that potential spies have a chance at getting that information.

So I'm not a huge fan of using pms on the GDB to coordinate. I wish more people still used clan boards in-game for the same reason.

I wish there was a way to send messages to people offline, in-game. Messenger NPCs that act like game email, or something along those lines.

I wish The Way was extremely limited compared to what it is now (outside of psions) and literacy was much more common for just this reason (among many others).