Player retention and you: brainstorming

[Nyr]

I agree, that we shouldn't focus our energies on banned players -- what you want to go after are the players who were exciting roleplayers, got stuff started, then just... vanished, often without a word.

This is something we do...maybe once a year, once every two years.  It's probably time to do it again.  We go through player history stuff and find the ones that aren't playing anymore, and send them an update e-mail thing with "here's what's been happening, we've missed you, maybe you could swing by and say hello?"

We could do it more often but we also don't want to spam people.

[Nyr]

I would like if players could affect plots from a pre-determined outcome (railroading) as well. If savvy players stop x from happening deus ex shouldn't be used to make x happen. This would be a good step in putting story and engagement back in the hands of the players. Such as a tiered choice tree you could write up in 10 mins and you only need to plan the next choice in detail. But if there is a choice and if pcs with ulterior IC motives could alter that would be pretty cool.  

The Black Robe plot in Allanak this year was one such plot, or at least close enough to count it.  Players got to be involved in having their Houses or groups support different sides of the conflict.  Player actions and reactions determined the end results.

I'd like to point out that this takes a lot longer to do than suggested.  The more potential steps involved, the more work needs to be done, especially if any building is involved (most plots require that).  Otherwise, we end up pausing a lengthier amount of time in between each step, and players may lose interest in the plot altogether.  This is an area where we can find a happy medium, surely.  The Black Robe plot was easier to make open-ended because there were already existing pieces we could use (Red Robes were already in-game and built).  When the plot requires mostly "animation and destruction", we can better prepare for almost any eventuality thrown into the mix by players.  When the plot requires more building or a specific end-goal (from an OOC stand-point) in mind, there's less room for the "end result", but plenty still available for the tracks leading to the railroaded destination.

[Fergie]

A lot of stuff that I don't really feel the need to respond to line by line, even though I disagree with nearly all of it

The thing that most of your post makes clear is that you have a perception about the game and its staff and what we've done that doesn't match up with what has actually occurred.  You've missed where I've pointed out some high-effort things we could focus on...in lieu of your tunnel-vision on me pointing out some of the low-effort ideas we could also focus on.  We've even apologized for screwups we've had, both individually and collectively.  It's not as easy to find because there's not a post or thread detailing all public apologies from staff, but it's there, we've done it.  I won't even get into the comment about how anything done in the past 5 years could've been done over a weekend--that's hyperbolic to the point of silliness.  

Maybe you haven't seen these things, or maybe you do want to discuss these things more seriously.  If you want to discuss these things individually, I'd be more than happy to do so.

Are you one of these alienated veterans to which you are referring?  If so, what can we do to retain you?

The fact that you disagree with all of it is enough to probably deter those players. I'm sure it's not news to you that you're rather often cited as the reason, and that an entire community has gathered in large part around their disputes with you personally. The fact that you completely deny it tells me that there's not likely any chance of reconciliation with that group of people. It would take a few concessions on your part that I don't reckon you'd make. I'll not go into private debate with you because you're known specifically for requesting this and then treating the person you speak privately with so badly that they never want anything to do with you again. I was willing to be civil on the public forum in the interest of perhaps encouraging change that would help a game that I used to love, but I don't think that'll happen if you maintain this "you're wrong about everything, let's talk privately where nobody can see the tone I use for you" approach.

Suffice it to say that it's not the first time Armageddon's staff has been plagued by this, and I think it has lapsed back into this habit since Sanvean's departure. For my part, there's probably nothing you can do to retain me if you're not open to any of what I say. Why should I? I've pointed out what I think is wrong and you "disagree with nearly all of it."

[Desertman]

A lot of stuff that I don't really feel the need to respond to line by line, even though I disagree with nearly all of it

The thing that most of your post makes clear is that you have a perception about the game and its staff and what we've done that doesn't match up with what has actually occurred.  You've missed where I've pointed out some high-effort things we could focus on...in lieu of your tunnel-vision on me pointing out some of the low-effort ideas we could also focus on.  We've even apologized for screwups we've had, both individually and collectively.  It's not as easy to find because there's not a post or thread detailing all public apologies from staff, but it's there, we've done it.  I won't even get into the comment about how anything done in the past 5 years could've been done over a weekend--that's hyperbolic to the point of silliness.  

Maybe you haven't seen these things, or maybe you do want to discuss these things more seriously.  If you want to discuss these things individually, I'd be more than happy to do so.

Are you one of these alienated veterans to which you are referring?  If so, what can we do to retain you?

The fact that you disagree with all of it is enough to probably deter those players. I'm sure it's not news to you that you're rather often cited as the reason, and that an entire community has gathered in large part around their disputes with you personally. The fact that you completely deny it tells me that there's not likely any chance of reconciling. I'll not go into private debate with you because you're known specifically for requesting this and then treating the person you speak privately with so badly that they never want anything to do with you again. I was willing to be civil on the public forum in the interest of perhaps encouraging change that would help a game that I used to love, but I don't think that'll happen if you maintain this "you're wrong about everything, let's talk privately where nobody can see the tone I use for you" approach.

See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnjAcWPY4rU

Suffice it to say that it's not the first time Armageddon's staff has been plagued by this, and I think it has lapsed back into this habit since Sanvean's departure. For my part, there's probably nothing you can do to retain me if you're not open to any of what I say. Why should I? I've pointed out what I think is wrong and you "disagree with nearly all of it."

Then play a role that doesn't involve you with Nyr in any way.

I love this game but there is no denying there are some staffers I will simply not play under. If they become the leader of my clan/group in a rotation of staff....I find a reason to get out quickly because I know I don't have any desire to be part of anything they do.

There are also staffers I will intentionally try to play under because we do get along well.

It isn't that they are wrong or that I am wrong most of the time. Most of the time it is just that I don't like them personally and they probably don't like me personally.

It is what it is. Not everyone is going to agree with each other but you have options that let you not have to be part of their world. Nyr is a Producer. Play a role that you enjoy that does not need or even want staff oversight. Those exist and can be very fun.

That is my recommendation. It works for me.

[Norcal]

I agree, that we shouldn't focus our energies on banned players -- what you want to go after are the players who were exciting roleplayers, got stuff started, then just... vanished, often without a word.

This is something we do...maybe once a year, once every two years.  It's probably time to do it again.  We go through player history stuff and find the ones that aren't playing anymore, and send them an update e-mail thing with "here's what's been happening, we've missed you, maybe you could swing by and say hello?"

We could do it more often but we also don't want to spam people.

Nyr, really? More than one email every two years is spamming?  This is something simple that -could- possibly produce good results.  And it sounds like it is already part of the program, yet just never gets done.  

This kind of highlights an issue; Are there current staff limitations which prevent solutions to improving player retention from being implemented (i.e. being overworked already)?

If so, how can we constructively reduce those limitations?

[Nyr]

The fact that you disagree with all of it is enough to probably deter those players.

The points you've made that I disagree with:

• pre-planned plots are overrated
• Armageddon has never had a heavy emphasis on plot
• most plots tend to entertain a small group of people
• no events since the Copper War that would sow the foundation for new char types
• the game has remained the same since then
• everything was just light shows and nothing actually mattered or was anything of substance
• that we don't actually want to focus on any high-effort work
• anything added in the past five years looks like it took less than a weekend of work

I don't agree with you on those points, but those are your opinions and you can believe those things if you like.  I just disagree with them.  This is not the end of the world.

I was willing to be civil on the public forum in the interest of perhaps encouraging change that would help a game that I used to love, but I don't think that'll happen if you maintain this "you're wrong about everything, let's talk privately where nobody can see the tone I use for you" approach.

I didn't say you were wrong about everything.  I said I disagreed with almost everything you posted.  I also meant discussing the things you posted individually, not discussing the things you posted privately.  There's no reason to discuss them privately; you posted them here.

For my part, there's probably nothing you can do to retain me if you're not open to any of what I say. Why should I? I've pointed out what I think is wrong and you "disagree with nearly all of it."

I have no problem with discussing those things individually, one thing at a time.  Please post one specific concrete suggestion that we should do that we aren't already doing (or something we should stop doing that we currently do), and we can address those things one area at a time.  That way, we don't get bogged down!  

[nauta]

I agree, that we shouldn't focus our energies on banned players -- what you want to go after are the players who were exciting roleplayers, got stuff started, then just... vanished, often without a word.

This is something we do...maybe once a year, once every two years.  It's probably time to do it again.  We go through player history stuff and find the ones that aren't playing anymore, and send them an update e-mail thing with "here's what's been happening, we've missed you, maybe you could swing by and say hello?"

We could do it more often but we also don't want to spam people.

That's a really good thing!

I also have had a vague idea about a feedback mechanism or an exit questionnaire (e.g., if someone stores, you could ask them why they stored, and where they think things might be improved -- maybe you do this, and that's great.  I've never stored.)  I once piggybacked some feedback on the back of a staff kudos I sent, since staff had asked me if there were ways one could improve the experience in the rinth.  I actually never heard anything back about that in about a year.  (Maybe a fluke, and trust me, it was all positives.)  What's important about a properly functioning feedback mechanism is it keeps things off the gdb and the internets in general, where something positive can turn into something negative on a dime.

It might be important to stress that not all feedback is hostile or aggressive, some feedback is positive and constructive, even if you disagree with it, and just as the IG experience isn't about winning and losing but about telling collaborative stories and killing things with bone swords, so too the out of game experience (minus the killing things with bone swords).  That's in reference to your line here:

...it was a confrontation in which staff disagreed with the player, and since staff has the final word, staff wins, the player dislikes losing, the player quits, and then the player complains about the whole ordeal.

I wouldn't consider that winning.  

I'd doubly encourage players to pursue ways of providing positive feedback.

I also have to say that sometimes what you say publicly comes off as a bit strange.  For instance, you wrote:

There's ideas here about removing systems that just clog things up but I don't really see any specifics about what it is that clogs things up (just like previous threads) so...maybe I'll skip past those!  Wink

Why did you wink?  Don't you think that the players who posted those suggestions feel a bit ignored as a result of you saying you'll just 'skip past them', without following up, privately or publicly, even with a simple: Well, that's an idea, and hopefully I'll circle back around to addressing it, but...? (I'm not even sure what you are referring to!)  
(In fact, isn't the wink sort of a salt-in-the-wound move?  I just don't get it.)  I'm not saying you have to answer each post here, but what probably would be more constructive is to not dismiss a whole swathe of suggestions with a wink.  This is one area where 'tone' is important.

[Nyr]

...it was a confrontation in which staff disagreed with the player, and since staff has the final word, staff wins, the player dislikes losing, the player quits, and then the player complains about the whole ordeal.

I wouldn't consider that winning. 

Put simply, if there's a disagreement over something game-related and staff disagrees with the player on the matter, at the end of the day, what staff end up doing/deciding is what occurs.  That is what I mean by "since staff has the final word, staff wins".  I was not making a statement about it in any other way than that.

There's ideas here about removing systems that just clog things up but I don't really see any specifics about what it is that clogs things up (just like previous threads) so...maybe I'll skip past those!  Wink

Why did you wink?

I wanted it to be clear that the tone of that specific line should be taken in a light-hearted manner.  It was a reference to a non-specific concern, similar to one that I saw in another thread, so I responded and added an emoticon at the end.  Perhaps I should have used a different one.  I don't like the big cheesy smiley face one though because that can be taken sarcastically. 

Maybe text is a medium in which people can read too much into something--with or without emoticons. 

Don't you think that the players who posted those suggestions feel a bit ignored as a result of you saying you'll just 'skip past them', without following up, privately or publicly, even with a simple: Well, that's an idea, and hopefully I'll circle back around to addressing it, but...? (I'm not even sure what you are referring to!)

I'm not sure what they're referring to, either.  Let me clarify below.  As it turns out, it was only one suggestion, so I'll quote it and clarify with context.

Make the world more mysterious by eliminating the systems rules with more staff meddling with your shit.

This idea here about removing systems rules isn't very specific, not sure what you're referring to here.  We can't improve on (or even offer an explanation for) things that aren't specified!  If you'd like to elaborate, feel free.  If not, no worries! 

[Harmless]

Good players probably leave quietly because they get burnt out of putting in a lot of effort to try and create change in the gameworld and/or get staff cooperation on a plot, without success or recognition. When they leave it is a feeling of relief, as all of that time and energy they spent just to be abruptly killed by a staff-animated critter really doesn't feel worth it in hindsight. You might see these players stick around if:

a.) it wasn't such a god-awful grind to become influential and or powerful
b.) There weren't arbitrary limits on the number of times per year they can roll up a decent combatant (see above suggestions on "why 4 ext subguild apps a year!?) AND OR the number of times they can roll up a noble or GMH family member (role call only)
c.) Staff allowed them the ability to modify the gameworld realistically without there being a long approval process. Build this, that, add this, that door, building, hut, fortification.

In contrast to the above, I think there are players who are dedicated to destruction and death. They may have left the game because they have gotten multiple warnings from staff about how they need to report up in advance before PKs, or they need to limit the number of PKs they do or else forced storage. I get the reasoning behind those warnings, but the core issue isn't that there was too much death but that growth and progress took too long and it was unbalanced. So, assuming a, b, and c are accomplished:

d.) Allow us to PK wantonly. Require a post-PK report and require us to wish up in the moment of the kill, and to give advance warning when possible, but stop putting OOC limitations on our murdering. If you want to animate a large-scale NPC response to a murderer go ahead, but cut the OOC warnings/threats of a ban/threats of forced storage.

These changes require major attitude and policy changes from staff, but it would draw more players back, those who wanted to build and accomplish but felt like their hands were tied, and those who wanted to play as true antagonists to the former and felt like their hands were tied also.

[Beethoven]

I really, really would love it if you guys opened up extended subguilds to the karma system, as suggested. I used to never special app, but now I feel like I don't have enough spec apps anymore. There are so many new things and concepts I want to play, but I'm always carefully managing my spec apps now and calculating when my next will open up again, which is so different from what I ever used to do or ever wanted to do.

I know I can just play regular subguilds, but I'm so excited about the more complex concepts that the extended ones open up, it's hard not to want that.

[Nyr]

I really, really would love it if you guys opened up extended subguilds to the karma system, as suggested. I used to never special app, but now I feel like I don't have enough spec apps anymore. There are so many new things and concepts I want to play, but I'm always carefully managing my spec apps now and calculating when my next will open up again, which is so different from what I ever used to do or ever wanted to do.

I have no problems with that myself, saw that mentioned earlier.  Will shoot it over towards the coder peeps to see what is needed to divorce this from the rest of the proposed CGP stuff.

[KankWhisperer]

Double how fast time passes. 16 years for 1 RL year.  Recruit years now 3 weeks instead of 6.

[Beethoven]

I have no problems with that myself, saw that mentioned earlier.  Will shoot it over towards the coder peeps to see what is needed to divorce this from the rest of the proposed CGP stuff.

Awesome!

[Harmless]

That's exciting. Also, if you could ask the coders how terribly difficult it'd be to finish coding the wagonmaking skill that'd be baller. Building wagons and having easier access to extended subguilds probably nets you another 10-15 players active per day at least!

[BadSkeelz]

Double how fast time passes. 16 years for 1 RL year.  Recruit years now 3 weeks instead of 6.

I'd rather see skills go up twice as fast than time speeding up, myself.

[Iiyola]

Double how fast time passes. 16 years for 1 RL year.  Recruit years now 3 weeks instead of 6.

I'd rather see skills go up twice as fast than time speeding up, myself.

It can be pretty demotivating not seeing your skills increase for the longest time, yeah.

[LauraMars]

Nyr, really? More than one email every two years is spamming?  This is something simple that -could- possibly produce good results.  And it sounds like it is already part of the program, yet just never gets done.  

This is a fine line. I wouldn't want to see more than one email from Armageddon a year, myself.  One every six months at most.  If I wasn't playing, I mean.  It doesn't take much for me to hit the "spam" button on repeated emailers that I have no interest in, and then I never see email from that sender again.

I am playing, so obviously this doesn't apply to me, but...just saying, if I'm quick to bin the spam I'm sure other people would be too.

[CodeMaster]

1.  Update the MotD regularly.  When I used to check out MUDs, the first thing I wanted to know was, "Is this game actively maintained?"  If the MotD hadn't been updated in two years, I logged off and didn't go back.

Yeah, getting someone on the motd would be great.  Mentions of RPTs, rolecalls, a weekly death tally, and recent changes in the world would be great.  Even putting a weekly trivia question in there or something would be fun.

[Nyr]

Nyr, really? More than one email every two years is spamming?  This is something simple that -could- possibly produce good results.  And it sounds like it is already part of the program, yet just never gets done.  

This is a fine line. I wouldn't want to see more than one email from Armageddon a year, myself.  One every six months at most.  If I wasn't playing, I mean.  It doesn't take much for me to hit the "spam" button on repeated emailers that I have no interest in, and then I never see email from that sender again.

I am playing, so obviously this doesn't apply to me, but...just saying, if I'm quick to bin the spam I'm sure other people would be too.

Yeah, those were my thoughts.  I wasn't saying "more than one per year" is too much, but "more than once per year might be too much especially if that player hasn't responded to previous attempts to engage them."

[Fergie]

I have no problem with discussing those things individually, one thing at a time.  Please post one specific concrete suggestion that we should do that we aren't already doing (or something we should stop doing that we currently do), and we can address those things one area at a time.  That way, we don't get bogged down!  

There's so many things that it almost feels odd to post a single one, because it'll be a brick in the wall. If I had to pick one concrete suggestion, it would be for you, personally, to acknowledge that there's a divide between staff and players which needs to be mended. We can say that it has to come from you because you're the producer, if that's nicer than because most of the complaints are about you. There's too much hostility, both from staff and from that growing crowd of players (current and former) who feel wronged. It goes both ways but I do feel it starts with the staff. This issue lies at the root of most of the other problems, and needs to be addressed before the other problems.

I don't think you really like most players, and thus don't trust them enough to do things that matter. It leads to excessive snark and manipulative rhetoric on the GDB, habitually vindictive private correspondences, and a tendency to deny players any creative freedom. As a consequence, many players have come to dislike you and distrust staff in general. Change this with a serious and believable admission that things aren't as they should be, and I think it'll suddenly be much easier to improve the game as a whole. People won't be so afraid of becoming the arbitrary targets of staff disfavor, won't be afraid to post their honest views and be met with callous snark from staff, and you might recuperate enough players with a renewed appetite for Armageddon that much of the stagnation takes care of itself.

It's not just a matter of population. These issues have persisted for years, long before the numbers started to drop significantly. The playerbase has learned that they can't do anything noteworthy because they always get told no, so they lose their inspiration and love for the game. Without any lasting competition, the numbers were okay for a while but even this has now begun to falter, even though it's far from the first sign of trouble. It's just the first one that can't be staunchly denied. But before you can do much about this, you have to handle the two-way animosity that has built up over the last few years.

Improve the atmosphere around this game and you'll find that not only will it be easier to improve the game itself, it'll also need much less fixing. Armageddon isn't salvaged with RPT schedules and tinkering with the guild system. These are not the reasons people quit. It's because Armageddon has become a game where nothing happens, where people aren't allowed to matter, and where there's no connection between the game's features and how people are told it should be played. That's on staff.

[Beethoven]

I'm having a hard time expressing what I want to say. This will be my third attempt; sorry if it comes out all garbled and confused. I KNOW it's going to be tl;dr.

Before I played Armageddon, I came from some RP-enforced but more H&S MUDs (which I was terrible at, by the way, because I was only there for the RP, so I was constantly PK'd into oblivion) and in those places, the game world is just where the players do their coded/emoted thing. There's no expectation that it will ever change. People always group up and head to the Forest of Blah to kill snorglefaxes and gain XP in a certan level range. People ascend to the top of the Tower of Blurgh to collect the magical artifact that all mage characters need in order to be remotely viable. And people go to the inn to chat. The same clans were always enemies of each other, the same NPCs always gave out the same generic fetching quests...that's just the way it was.

When I came to Arm 5 years ago, of course I knew I was playing in a more realistic and developed game world. I knew I was finally free of the generic fantasy quest bullshit and power-leveling painted in a thin shiny glaze of minimal RP. I wasn't one of those H&S players who asked where the weak mobs are so I could go level up my ranger (although I'm certain my other hilariously noobish mistakes were just as facepalm-worthy!) No, I was glad to be rid of all that. What stuck with me was the idea that the game world was just a static environment to play in. It didn't even occur to me that something could be built by players. And when so much was coded, I was pretty content anyway. That assumption stayed with me for YEARS, to the point where even a year or so ago when one of my PCs was approached by a templar that wanted to help him build a building, I took it as one of those virtual goals that I'd have to find an excuse for not happening. (This was before the whole MMH thing, of course.) It didn't even cross my mind that she was talking about shooting for an actual, tangible goal, difficult as it may have been. (Due to IC circumstances, that plot never got off the ground.)

Only very recently have I been able to completely shed the notion that the game world isn't supposed to be changed by players. I'd heard IC about famous historical PCs building things and making changes in the world, but it always seemed like a once in a King's Age thing, something extremely outside the norm. My question is, why was I able to maintain that assumption for so long? I think it's because something about Armageddon feels static rather than organic. It's not only accepted, but expected that the bartender in the Gaj will always be the same guy, forever. Same with every other tavern. The noble houses always seem to keep the same feel. There's no sense that people behaved differently or that culture was any way different in the past than now, except maybe in Tuluk, but that seems to have resulted from an OOC effort to "fix" it more than anything. Honestly, all these static staples don't feel so different from The Tower of Blurgh being the place where everyone knows to go to for the supercool respawning wand.

I hear a lot of disgruntled or just discouraged vets saying that you're entrenched in a bureaucratic nightmare the second you attempt to make any real changes or shake things up. The response I most often hear staffside is that the only reason people think this is because the belief is self-perpetuating; that people who think trying to change things is a waste of time won't try, so they won't ever be able to test those assumptions. Well, that sounds fair enough, but whether or not the world can be changed, it doesn't feel like a place that can be changed. Maybe if the perception is the problem, it's the perception you need to work on. Because honestly, I'm not enough of a mover or a shaker to know how possible that stuff is in actuality. I just know how the general vibe is, and it doesn't seem conducive to change.

I'm not sure how someone could go about making the game world appear more organic and malleable. Staff would probably have a better idea than I would.

[Dresan]

I used to have character who started his own small company (i'll keep it vague), but since i had alot more time to play back them, they used to stumble upon new players alot. My character would take the time to show these 'lost' people around, teach them survival tricks, and how to greb. They would see what they were good at and try to lead them in a profitable path, with the excuse that they would eventually come back to buy goods/services from him. This would involve alot of ooc chat, as I taught them the basic commands and showed them around. Several of them did. And I know some of them died, made another character and came back to play  with him some more. Their RP style and mistakes were obvious but they were still learning.

What this game needs is a special secret role call, for volunteer players in the right positions to stop into the gaj 'coincidently' when a brand new player logs in, in order to strike a conversation. The system would do the following: whenever someone new to the game logs in, these volunteer players would be notified. If they can go meet the newbie and spend time with them showing them the ropes, they would type 'accept newbie', and all the other volunteers would be notified that this newbie is being taken care of.


It sounds oocly jarring, but we need a system like this so that no newbie falls in the cracks. This game can be dull and very hard to pick up when you first begin but that changes the moment someone shows up and begins to show you around, or begins to talk to you and RPs with you. If we had a system like this I believe the new player rentention would go up. Again this is from experience just from that one character running my little company which i know for a fact increased the player count by at least 1 or 2. However not every character is suited to do this job, it fits better if you are an independant hunter for example vs a gemmer or someone who players in a location where newbies don't start. Then again any volunteer player should be experienced enough to help a newbie learn the game regardless of what they are playing.

But again we need that support system to notify us when those new players log in.

[KankWhisperer]

My main suggestion is get rid of the 'too big to challenge', 'monopoly' and 'culture of no' thing we have going on in the game. I think everyone would acknowledge you can't readily challenge the GMHs, city states, the Sand Lord, Sun Runners, etc. So I would suggest taking out nearly every clan that is too big to fail with perhaps the Arm of the Dragon remaining as 'the law'. 'Byn would remain.

Kadius, Kurac, Salarr, Noble Houses, Sun Runners, and Akei should all be closed. They're all too big to fail background NPC/VNPCs.

What would I replace them with? I would replace them all with player run clans. These clans would mostly have to pay a tithe to whoever they were a subset of. Sell Armor, then Salarr gets 25% for doing nothing. Salarr is too big to fail, your clan can be squashed however.

Allanak proper would have one or two warehouses available for player run clans. The 'rinth would have one. Red Storm would have one. Luir's would have one. Morin's would have one. I would also add a coded 'raider camp' that moves between various locations every week or so that players can have a semi-secure setup in.

Why? I think that if players were all competing for these minor merchant house positions, they would feel that what they did mattered. You -don't- matter to the closed organizations but to these upstart organizations, you are important. What the players do would now matter. The staff wouldn't have to say no as much because now you are just picking fights with people of generally the same social level as you. If your organization wins then after a couple RL years you get coded into the game as NPCs and begin the game of warehouses again. Personally I really think this would be a lot more fun and engaging for the playerbase.

[Desertman]

I think that is an interesting idea. I don't think we are to the point yet that we can really manage that, but I do like the idea of it in theory.

[Rokal]

There's ideas here about removing systems that just clog things up but I don't really see any specifics about what it is that clogs things up (just like previous threads) so...maybe I'll skip past those!  

I have no idea what ideas/posts you're referencing, but here's the one that comes to my mind:  CGP, and it's little cousin, special app requirements.

Scrap CGP.  Neat idea, but it's stuck in coding limbo.  Here's the thing:  You guys moved the bar by adding extended sub-guilds (ESGs), and now I have absolutely zero interest in playing a class/subguild character, I only want a class/ESG character with skill bumps, and I only get three of those per year.  This isn't a huge deal, but now I'm playing with the mindset that I have to be stingy with my characters because each one has to last four months.  I assume a lot of people feel this way.

Could we just add ESG's to character creation with karma restrictions?  And if so, could you make some high-karma ESG's that have all the skills people want, and not just one or two?  Give me a spy ESG that gives sneak, hide, scan, and listen, please.  Or a gladiator ESG that gives slashing weapons, parry, and shield use.

At the VERY least, look at some of the popular class/ESG combos, and make them full-fledged karma-required classes.  Warrior/outdoorsman is popular?  Make a bandit class that gets the warrior tree, plus scan, hunt, and direction sense.  Assassin/cutpurse gets a lot of love?  Make a rogue class for 3 karma.  How about a Weaponmaster class that's just the warrior tree, but with all skills bumped twice, yours for only 6 karma.

Let me save my special apps for off-the-wall zany shit that you guys have no interest in seeing in game.

ETA:  Also, ease up on the restrictions against players recruiting for roles.  One of the hardest things about leadership roles is finding your right-hand man that makes it all possible.  Let people recruit their damn friends to play at their side, and don't get upset when they plan world domination over a beer at a real bar instead of the Gaj.

I really like all of OK's ideas here. these are pretty cool!