Player retention and you: brainstorming

[Eurynomos]

Half full.

Well, it's comforting to know that the people still playing are satisfied with the levels of transparency and mutual accountability in staff-player interaction. But if you wanted to know why many people have quit playing, well, there's your answer.

There also seems to be an unhealthy undercurrent to the effect that just because Nyr is gone, and Rath is is a producer now, then magically, all concerns have been addressed. Noone's come right out and said it, but there's definitely a vibe like that around. I also know there's a certain segment of the playerbase that fixates on one or two specific staffers (whose name may or may not begin with N) as the source of all their unfairness, and if they were gone, then everything would be right as rain.

I don't think that's the case. I don't think Armageddon's problems with retaining players have anything to do with any one staffer, even if one might be a convenient scapegoat to some people. There are deep and systemic cultural problems with how Armageddon staff in general, approach interaction with the playerbase. For a game with barely 50-70 people on prime time, on a good night, and with probably ~10-15 staffers logging in every day minimum in one capacity or another...They have managed to create an extremely disproportionate amount of work for themselves.

Armageddon needs deregulation, and part of that is starting with the easy things, like say, account notes, then moving on from there. Armageddon is managed extremely inefficiently...and if people can't see that. Well. All I can say is that well-managed games don't need to brainstorm about retaining players.

Well managed games also tend to pay their employees for their time.

I think we are doing the best that we possibly can at the moment to make Players happy, and Staff happy.

We really do want you to have fun!

[Clearsighted]

Kudos have to go through staff because otherwise IC secrets could be divulged, links to dickpicks sent, death threats, etc. through the Kudos tool if it wasn't. Sure there'd be consequences, if it were monitored, but it's important that staff be able to review that information before it's passed on.

Great job with your breed, Amos. Also, if you want my gear a scrab killed me just outside the gates.

The real tragedy is that staff does not have to do or monitor half the things that they're currently convinced they need to be. The request tool allows 5-10% of the playerbase to monopolize 90% of staff's time, and gives them a false sense of accomplishment after two hours of wading through requests.

Well. Spending a quarter of that time, going in game, to animate a random gith to fling an arrow at a passing patrol, would create more value (and more RP), than two hours spent handling the same requests/reports/kudos/desc changes/extended subguild apps/account note requests, for the same player.

The request tool might be here to stay, but it has definitely contributed to staff interacting less with the playerbase in a meaningful fashion. It has also been used to facilitate a lot of needless makework. It makes staff too available to players that are too needy, and distracts them from engaging with the majority. Plenty of people will come up with counter-examples, but I probably went on 40-50 patrols in a 4-5 month period (almost always with 4-8 players involved, out of around ~50-60 online), at least a dozen of which were planned in advance with several days warning. I think in all that time, we encountered an animated NPC once.

And yet, I'm sure our clan staffer was working very hard and wading through all the requests ending up on his desk. It's just easy to get fixated on the request tool and ignore everything else, and to believe things are accomplished and done, and everyone is satisfied, so long as the request queue is empty.

Well managed games also tend to pay their employees for their time.

I think we are doing the best that we possibly can at the moment to make Players happy, and Staff happy.

We really do want you to have fun!

This isn't the case. There are many, many, many volunteer projects and open-source efforts (wikipedia), fanfiction sites, mods for games like skyrim etc, and countless MUDs or MUSHes, that don't have paid employees but who manage to attract people and keep them happy. I think it's representative of the extreme amount of bureaucratic makework that Armageddon staff toils under (largely of their own making), that makes it feel like a job that needs monetary compensation to endure.

Storytelling should be fun. Staffing should be mostly fun. I've been a storyteller/producer-esque type (different genres have different terminology for staff types) in the past. I've worked on a game that had several hundred people on during prime time. We had fun. I didn't need to be paid to want to do things efficiently. But it does start to feel that way, I'm sure, when staffing becomes more like data entry.

If staff feel like they need to be financially compensated to perform better, then they probably shouldn't be volunteering their time.

Also? Somehow, whenever these threads crop up (and there's been a couple in the past), 'doing your best', always translates to defending the status quo, after letting people vent for a little while. The truth is, Armageddon has a deeply flawed management philosophy, and it's probably harmed the staff more than the players. You guys have got to start cutting away the dead weight chores and giving more agency and responsibility to the playerbase.

[Large Hero]

Nobody reasonable thinks staff is malicious. Nobody reasonable is sitting around going "staff dont want us to have fun! They're trying to make the game worse, and everyone miserable!" We know you are trying. We appreciate it. I also totally get that a bunch of people criticizing your hard work sucks.

That said, "I'm a volunteer" and "this is the best we can possibly do" are not very constructive.

"I'm a volunteer" in particular, I think, is missing the point of Clearsighted's suggestion. He's calling for streamlining so that the volunteers will have more time to do stuff that makes the game more fun for staff and players alike.


I recall this from the moon code changes thread (and let me preface by saying it was a great change and I appreciate the work):

"During this step there are hours of back and forth collaboration with other staffers and coders in game and on discussion boards.  It can take days or weeks to hash out all the details depending on everyone's schedules and the nature of the change.  As part of the collaboration, all the feature lists are created and a design document can be drafted, revised and re-revised. "

This was very worrisome to read. This has stuck in my head since I read it. When I think "Armageddon has become bureaucratic," I think "the moon design document thread."

Hours of back and forth? Discussion boards? Weeks to hash out details? Schedules?

I get that there are benefits to those processes. Really though, I can see this working just as well with 1 person, the coder, being supplied with relevant information so they don't violate game lore, and being set loose. There does not need to be a convention called to handle projects like this.

It's very nice to get the team involved and have discussions and meetings and back and forth and posts about this objection and this and that, but you're sacrificing a lot of time and agility when you operate like this.

Projects like that, without huge consequences: put someone on it. Give them a little guidance where necessary. Let them work. If it needs revision, give them that feedback.

The idea of "every detail must get a rubber stamp from the top of the hierarchy" needs to be excised from Armageddon's management culture. Let the game breathe. You're holding it in an iron fist.

[Clearsighted]

The idea of "every detail must get a rubber stamp from the top of the hierarchy" needs to be excised from Armageddon's management culture. Let the game breathe. You're holding it in an iron fist.

Exactly this. There's plenty of specific examples where staff creates unnecessary work for themselves and stifles the playerbase.

Just off the top of my head...Warehouses. Instead of being an elaborate bureaucratic process that seems to require at least 3 separate staff meetings behind the scenes at each step of the process...Just give Allanak four warehouse compounds. Let the templars handle it. Staff doesn't need to concern themselves with which indy outfit qualifies as a 'minor merchant house' officially or not. Let the templars handle that.

if someone is trusted enough to be a templar, they can be trusted enough to handle everything concerned with warehouses and indy outfits without staff involvement.

If someone can come up with the 50k, 100k, or however many sids to acquire a warehouse property, let them work it out with the templar. If a new templar comes along that wants to evict them or demand more sids, let them deal with that too.

Staff does not need to be involved. They do not need to hold behind the scenes meetings to address the 'OOC integrity' of the player behind the merchant. If staff doesn't trust someone to be able to acquire a warehouse or form a merchant house in the game - regardless of all their IC RP, and even getting a templar to go along with it, then why are they even allowed to log in?

If the leader of a clan wants to make an elite unit, or have someone be an 'Outrider', let them do it. There is no need for staff to micromanage clans. That's what you have players for. It defeats the purpose of having players, if all the cool roles and the ones requiring the most initiative and leadership are left to NPCs...Because it's staff that has to step in. Is it going to ruin the game if the elite and interesting units suddenly have PCs in them instead of NPCs? Most clans only have a small handful of players. They might as well take on the interesting roles. Staff cannot fill the upper-middle and upper leadership function of every clan. They need to experiment with letting players have control of them - again.

Extended subguilds. There's no reason why they need to be treated like a special app. It just seems another way of creating more work for staff. It could be very easily automated. But there's a fear against doing so, because it removes another control mechanism.

Staff is way too concerned about control. And clearly, their unprecedented control and direct oversight has not helped the game. No more than overregulation helps the economy.

I could go on. Armageddon is the very definition of a centrally-planned RP-economy. It creates a minimum of entertainment value with a maximum of work and supervision. The game has always been more fun when staff took on less responsibility.

[Fathi]

I don't have a whole lot to add to this discussion since the reason I'm not playing is simply because I got busy as hell.

But re staff forcing you to go through them rather than templars to do stuff, I have to say PLEASE do not change this. Having to go through PC templars for stuff like warehouses would make the game even less friendly to off-peak players than it already is.

I played a PC in Tuluk who tried to hire a shadow artist for literally months because, as an off-peak player, I could never find a Lirathan.

I played a gemmed mage in Allanak who had to eventually get his gem from a staff-animated templar because I could never find a templar.

And this was when I was playing a good 4-6 hours a day several times a week. It may be a lot of additional work for staff, but leaving stuff like that entirely in the hands of PC templars would be a huge kick in the family jewels to folks who don't live in USA time zones. It's not the greatest system in the world and I'm sure there's room for improvement, but if I had to go through PC templars to do a lot of stuff, it would severely limit the types of roles for players like me. I don't want to live in mortal terror of my warehouse being given to someone else because I haven't been able to find a PC templar and my rent's been due for a week.

[Nergal]

I think the amount of work that players perceive that staff have to do is severely overblown. When projects take weeks, they are beside other projects that also take time to do and are worthy of finishing. Often, these projects are not publicly announced, as they are for specific PCs or clans. The perception is partially our fault: when we share the design process for something, the implication is that the project was the only thing we talked about or worked on for the past few weeks - but it wasn't.

Regarding the glass ceiling, or restricted roles within clans, there is more room than there has been in a long time to move up in clans. While I won't get into IC details, I can think of at least four clans off the top of my head that have PCs in very high positions in their clan within the past year or so, relative to the virtual and NPC aspect of their clan. Additionally, a new clan was planned and opened with the intent of the PCs taking the "interesting roles" within it. The glass ceiling is more apparent when the clan is populated by relatively newer PCs that haven't earned those promotions yet. But when they do earn those high-level promotions, they tend to get them. That is something I've both experienced as a player and tried to ensure as a staff member.

Automating extended subguilds requires a code change that Nessalin is looking into.

[Fujikoma]

Spending a good deal of time discussing a minor change like the phases of the moon doesn't strike me as wasteful. It strikes me as a serious commitment to quality control. I once worked in a metal shop where this was crucial, we used to do work for DOW Chemical. Our tolerance range for measurements being off on jobs that, weren't entirely crucial with details? Less than a 32nd of an inch, ANYWHERE. More than that off? It's scrap. Make a new one. Something more sensitive? We'd contract it out to a shop with the equipment to ensure it got done with as little error as possible, and THEN we'd check that shit obsessively, and say "Make us a new one, you fucked up here, get some of your lost funds back by recycling this garbage you sent us. What, do you want to incinerate tens of thousands of people?". I think it shows in the phases of the moon. Maybe it doesn't matter to my current PC, but maybe one day I want to play a demented Seer who makes all his decisions based on what occurs to him given the positioning of the moons and bizarre chants.

That said, there are times where, I wonder, is this simple change over here really of such magnitude that it needs to sit on the back burner for months, despite logs upon logs of player effort, only to be shot down with a no? I can only imagine what's going on there, but, I have to admit, though befuddled, I have no idea.

I'm not sure about the request tool, I wasn't here before it went into use, so I can't pine for the days or yore, nor can I say, well, the days of yore sucked, fuck you. The request tool works, there's a lot I don't understand about how it works, but, it's there.

As far as maliciousness, I don't, personally, think staff is overly malicious, I do, however, think it a mistake to begin with the assumption that they aren't malicious in the slightest, or that it's not focused on some players to the exclusion of others, who may be committing more grievous sins. This is only human, it feels unfair to the person on the receiving end, whether justified or not, and is magnified by the veil of secrecy, which, in a game like this, is necessary. In a game where there is significant emotional investment, unlike, say, a PvP mud or hack and slash, this can cause a good deal more frustration in players with a lower tolerance (usually newer) and inspire them to find something else to do, or, in the event something seemingly more unfair happens, even a well adjusted player, even a stoic player may choose to move on. A lot of this could be eased on staff's end by, one, adjusting the way staff communicates, which, is hard for me to gauge but I've been seeing some positive, though slow, change, and two, staff adjusting the way they look at even problem players. It's difficult to give staff the benefit of the doubt when it comes to maliciousness, when it can feel like they aren't extending us the same courtesy.

[Lizzie]

The real tragedy is that staff does not have to do or monitor half the things that they're currently convinced they need to be. The request tool allows 5-10% of the playerbase to monopolize 90% of staff's time, and gives them a false sense of accomplishment after two hours of wading through requests.

The request tool also allows 90% of the playerbase to monopolize 10% of the staff's time. It's up to the staff to determine which requests they'll focus on and which will be shelved, resolved within minutes, or closed without resolution. Since you're not on staff, and neither am I, it's pretty pointless to base your entire opinion on an assumption you can't back up with facts.

----

There are many, many, many volunteer projects and open-source efforts (wikipedia), fanfiction sites, mods for games like skyrim etc, and countless MUDs or MUSHes, that don't have paid employees but who manage to attract people and keep them happy. I think it's representative of the extreme amount of bureaucratic makework that Armageddon staff toils under (largely of their own making), that makes it feel like a job that needs monetary compensation to endure.

There are a whole lot MORE volunteer muds that fail miserably because no one is held accountable due to "I'm just a volunteer, therefore I don't have to do anything if I don't want to." In addition, Armageddon has a niche audience, whose only real common trait is they enjoy muds. Not everyone likes the magick system, not everyone wants it to change. Some of them want to condense the playerbase in fewer clans, some want them more spread out and more clans opened. Some want this, while others want that. You *CANNOT* make the playerbase happy. Some of them will be annoyed/irritated/miserable/disappointed, and some will be happy/overjoyedsatisfied/content.

Just because you think something isn't working, and therefore the game should change to fit your idea of what works - doesn't mean that a change in that direction will make everyone else happy. In fact, it doesn't mean it'll make ANYONE else happy. It might - but you have no way of knowing one way or another.

I'd love to see some changes. But I also know that what suits me doesn't necessarily suit anyone else. I don't hold a hard line of "fix it or I"m leaving" because even if they DID do what I asked - I have no way of knowing until then, whether or not I'll like the results.

[Fujikoma]

But yeah, I think it seems kind of, unnappreciative to pick out a change like the phases of the moon, which I'm only now beginning to realize the depths of, as an example of staff waste. I know they don't always make the changes we want to see, but, as I said before, quality control, consensus. Considering there are many things going on at once, part of a collaborative effort of people who don't live in the same timezone, I'd say it's a nice change. Not only that, the process was explained to us as an effort at transparency. That adds another level of seeming ingratitude on top of using it as a negative example. I obsessively use the "weather" command, so, over time, I've been just, checking out the wide variety of positions and phases the moons can be in. I won't say I understand what's going on there, but it's evident to me that a lot of thought and consideration went into it, and it's not just some random variable, but part of a system with some kind of basis.

And maybe there's reasons this was done, maybe, therein, are contained some kind of clues as to a plot. Who knows? Likely some elderly Sath scholar, peering up at the sky through a primitive telescopic tube, before paling significantly and gasping, "Oh... shit."

Some of us wonder why seemingly simple changes we'd like to see are so hard or impossible at this time. It's not up to me to speculate, as I have zero fricking information on the matter, but I imagine there must be some reason. On the surface, it strikes me as rediculous, but I'm ambivalent in that I want to look at it as there must be a reason, and, for whatever reason, that reason isn't being shared with me. I know some other muds develop more quickly, it's also easier to get consensus from 2-3-4 staff members than it is a larger team, further, there's a good deal of history and lore to take into account, I would assume.

EDIT: I should also, likely, note the challenges involved in figuring up the orbits of satellites around an object that gets, two or three hours of "night" compared to so many daylight hours. Not sure if that went into it or not, but it's something I'd, personally, be worried about if it were a project I were working on.

[Mordiggian]

I get confused when I see people telling us about all the red tape and bureaucracy we have to deal with because it isn't really the case?...

The first thing I really did when I joined the team was revive the old Rinth starter shop project. Here is how it went:

1. I found a few items that had been created for the old project.

2. I asked if anyone was still actively working on it. Turns out the staffers involved were no longer on the team.

3. I asked if anyone had issues with me taking over the project. All clear!

4. I wrote a draft for a style guide to give the builders. Emailed it to my admin for approval. Done.

5. We made a bunch of dope stuff (88 new items, some NPCs, rooms, etc).

6. I submitted an object approval for the new goodies. This step caught a few typos I hadn't noticed. Boom. Done.

7. I asked the code wizards to adjust the spawn code when you point Labyrinth so you pop in the starter shop. Boom. Done.

8. Everything was pushed live. No ridiculous bureaucracy or red tape or extra work.

[Old Kank]

This is only human, it feels unfair to the person on the receiving end, whether justified or not, and is magnified by the veil of secrecy, which, in a game like this, is necessary. In a game where there is significant emotional investment... this can cause a good deal more frustration in players with a lower tolerance (usually newer) and inspire them to find something else to do, or, in the event something seemingly more unfair happens, even a well adjusted player, even a stoic player may choose to move on.

Not surprisingly, some people take issue with others wielding power, authority, secrecy, and judgement over them.  It doesn't matter how noble the intentions are, or the direct form it takes (I'm convinced some of the account note vitriol is just a proxy for a general sense of resentment), it's going to ruffle some feathers.  Whether or not this is finally a problem worth addressing is up to the staff, but I'd say it is.

I don't think the staff are doomed when it comes to this problem, but it may take a pretty big cultural shift.

• Understand that when players get upset about stuff, it's probably because they're passionate about this game, their character, or whatever.  Try and channel that passion, rather than shoot it down with style and sarcasm.
• Most staff should focus more on facilitating, less on enforcement.  Code, and tell stories.
• Get out of the business of RP critiquing entirely.  We can do workshops on the GDB or in special in-game sessions if people feel really strongly about wanting feedback.
• Account and player notes should be based exclusively on objective data.
• Set up a thorough enforcement policy for offenses that steps outside the veil of staff-player secrecy and empowers players.  Set up a system of warnings that ranges from, "We noticed something fishy; feel free to submit an explanation to your clan staff," to "This is your third and final warning, if this behavior continues, a formal complaint will be sent to Nyr and the enforcement team."  If you're going to accuse someone of doing something wrong, you have to bring them into the conversation as an equal partner.  Do it person to person, not player to great and powerful Oz. Do it on Teamspeak, or Skype if desired.  Include an appeals process, and an option for impartial third party mediation, not a peer, friend, and co-volunteer of the great and powerful Oz.
• Engage with players differently, enable players to assist with the game in ways that share the workload.  Minimize the distinction between player and staff and give players the benefit of the doubt based on their experience and participation.  How about: player, volunteer, assistant, builder, legend, storyteller, administrator, producer
• Promote staff and player engagement outside of clan management.  How about regular clan staff-player meetings, just to shoot the shit during the World Series, or to talk about different aspects of the clan on an OOC basis?

Players, too, have to alter their ways some.

• Let go of the past
• Stop trying to get the last word in in request and GDB exchanges.  Make your case, respond one time if clarification is needed, then let it go.  Seriously, chill.
• I'm sure there's more, I may ninja edit them when I have more time.

[Fujikoma]

Mordiggian, I think it's due to when a member of staff a while back posted to the GDB explaining what went into the phases of the moon project, which, is a different project than the starter shop project, I'm going to have to play a rinthi sooner or later because I'm highly excited to see what's in there.

Oldkank, yeah, yeah, I know there are times where I've pursued an argument via the request tool past a "no", it was rather unwise of me, and really wasn't worth the time and hassle of anyone. These days I either don't submit a request or brush it off and move on. There can be some buildup over time due to interactions with, um, less favorable results, though I must say I admire the patience that's been shown with me. Good post overall.

[Mordiggian]

The moon project was code-heavy and required revolved pretty much entirely around new coded functions. These do need to undergo a thorough testing/vetting process so the game doesn't break.

Sometimes simple building projects crash the game! Not that I would have any recent experience with that or anything...

[Fujikoma]

The moon project was code-heavy and required revolved pretty much entirely around new coded functions. These do need to undergo a thorough testing/vetting process so the game doesn't break.

Sometimes simple building projects crash the game! Not that I would have any recent experience with that or anything...

Heehee, please build more, I have a large pile of silky braies and hair needles that need selling. 

That said, I have often wondered why doors and curtains are sometimes taboo in Zalanthas, depending on location and setting.

[Taijan]

Re: Request tool

In the olden days (not really all that long ago), character reports and such were delivered to an animated NPC superior if you were in a clan, and were either cast into a void or maybe emailed to staff if you were unclanned, I guess. I never reported things back in those days.  When I was giving those reports, they were kinda nice. It let my character feel like they were building a relationship with their direct superior and get real time feedback.

But, these only happened on occasion due to login times with the Storyteller not matching up, and oftentimes there were other PCs there waiting to give their reports as well.  It was a huge time sink on both ends - sure, I had a lot of free time back then, but it meant 1-2 hours were spent not RPing with other players. Instead I was either listing off various things that might've just got thrown in a mental trashcan, or waiting for my turn. If I forgot something, I'd either have to wait until next time or just never mention it.  And once a report was given, I never knew if any of that information would go anywhere.

A lot of it didn't. Only a handful of things were recorded, and the rest was lost. If it was an email sent in, it could go to a group of people. But as staff have rotated out, those get lost too.  So I think the request tool is great. Data is stored for all staff to see, new staff can look at a character's request history when they're assigned to a new team, and everyone gets a chance to see them and offer feedback/additional info.

The word bureaucracy gets thrown around a lot here and in those jcarter parts.  I won't say there's not a process to getting things added or changed, but it's more about getting a second or third pair of eyes to proofread your work and offer advice for improvements. We want our work to be of high quality.

Back to requests - many of them really don't take long.  Some may go unresolved longer if they generate discussion, or if it prompts a dialogue with the submitter.  Or we want to give other staff a chance to see things and offer feedback before resolving right away.  But the number one thing that might lead to a perception that requests are a time sink is - most times, we're animating for a group of players, are observing them, are planning out plot lines and scenes, or are doing work on various projects that give everyone some new toys and tools to play with.  A large portion of my attention has been focused on trimming away "administrative" work so I and future staff can direct that focus more on players (automating item orders was a big one).

I think that Eurynomos' comment that we're not paid was misconstrued.  A paid employee that helps to run a game can likely expect to have 8-12 hours of their day focused solely on the efforts to run that game.  We don't. We have other full time jobs, bills to pay, families to feed, friends to spend time with, and other hobbies that we like to pursue outside of this game that we all love.

I can't speak for everyone, but I can speak for me - time is a finite resource. Every hour I devote to Armageddon is an hour I don't devote to something else - and I'm okay with that, or I wouldn't be doing it still.  But, I've still got other things competing for my time. I try to dedicate an hour each day to exercise, and another dedicated solely to playing with my dog - there's some free time that I'm pretty much not going to give up for anything.

But there's that extra window of free time that gets dedicated to gaming.  I've really been  enjoying Phantom Pain and a replay of Life is Strange on top of the time I focus on Armageddon. And it's a safe bet that when Fallout 4 comes out next week (and I finally make the decision between buying an expensive computer or a PS4), some free time is gonna go towards that.  So here's an important question that I haven't seen addressed much in this thread: how do WE make Armageddon attractive enough to make someone not want to play something else for even just 1-3 hours every day or so?

A lot of fingers have been pointing towards staff, and I'll freely admit that there's always room for improvement. But c'mon, in game I can safely assume that >95% of your interactions are with other players.  When I could sit down and play a character of my own (it's been a little while), player-to-player interactions were what I kept coming for. Staff attention wasn't even icing on the cake for me - at best, it was a cherry on top.  For me, that was never a bad thing. I enjoy a little staff attention from time to time, but I have a lot more fun with other players.  Voting is great for bringing in new people, but fun is going to keep them here.

So what do you find fun?  How can you share that with others?

[Is Friday]

Can't wait to read the hate posts on the alt gdb now that you've stirred the turd.

[Desertman]

Here's a trend I've seen that I particularly don't care for in regards to the request tool.

If the IC superior has a perfectly sound IC reason for the message being handed down...you get an animation.

If there really is no good IC reason for the superior to give the direction being handed down, because it makes no IC sense...the request tool gets used instead.

Why?

In my experience the answer is, "Because if we animate this NPC, really, IC'ly, this guy hasn't done anything wrong and he has a really good case to tell this NPC how it is and possibly actually -win- the interaction and get their way for IC reasons.".

The only time I've found superior NPC's to really be animated is when the outcome doesn't matter, or when they are so high up the food chain that trying to present any argument at all is futile.

Basically, you only get them if you are guaranteed a no win situation and staff is guaranteed full control of the conversation and its outcome.

Anything else where you might be able to present a sound IC argument to get your way in an IC fashion and you get the request tool.

Granted, that's my own personal experience, but I can think of a few situations where it applied.

With all of that being said, I remember the days of doing things via email only....we did the SAME things then...we just did it in a much more clunky much harder way.

Would it be ideal if every interaction and every bit of direction was handed to you by an NPC you could interact with? Yes. Is that possible due to the real IC restrictions on resources and time that staff has? No.

I don't have a good solution.

[Fujikoma]

I, personally, love interacting with other players, whether in the taverns, behind closed doors, in the streets or marketplace, or in the wastes. I like to try and create a moment that, years later, the player behind that character will still remember. When in character generation, I keep my backgrounds vague, but, with some guidelines to work around, then flesh them out as the character develops and the time to share stories comes up. Over the lifespan of my characters, they natrually go through a good deal of changes (provided they survive) and learn lessons, and, may have some tales of tragedy and woe, or, comedy, with a valuable moral, to share with other characters.

I like making things IG, not just the finished product, but the design process itself, not a bunch of solo RP trimming fabrics or gluing bone together to find out what works, na, that's done, virtually. I mean, musing on ideas, consulting fellow creatives, who you trust not to steal your ideas, or, the types of characters you intend to be your customers, well, Amos, what do you think would help you greb more efficiently? Then bounce it back and forth a bit, ruminate, reflect, consult, all are reasons for interaction.

I don't like grunt squint spar rough circle times infinity. These can be entertaining enough if you insert some character development and humor, but, sooner or later, it gets old, which is why I think the subject of the increasing of combat skills and weapons skills bears some looking at, as the rediculousness of finding a fail at certain skill levels can aspire an achiever type t explore some really wacky options. But yes, I like to bring interaction into these roles as well, because, I mean, what else can you do? If you don't, it, really becomes quite bland.

I like finding newbies and finding IC excuses to help them out, whether it's pointing them to the Byn or some other group, or, even if they're clanned, maybe finding an excuse to discuss a topic that may warn them about something their fellow PCs might have forgotten which could lead to YASD. I like seeing them grow and succeed, and I interact in the hopes of providing examples of character growth and hoping their characters find their own moments to grow.

EDIT: That's what I do anyway. I fail to see the benefit of immediately imposing the harshness of the world on someone who hasn't the slightest idea what's going on yet, that's not very sporting.

[Malken]

Taijan, I do feel like the way you say "We do our best with the limited time we have to dedicate to Armageddon" sounds a lot better than "We're volunteers, deal with it."

The first sentence makes me understand you and where you're coming from, since I have to deal with the same problems IRL and time -is- limited. I totally understand that.

The second sentence makes it sound like you want us to put you on a pedestal and worship every little code changes that get implemented or else we're selfish bastards playing on your hallowed ground.

I much prefer the way you phrased it and think you should ditch the volunteerism martyrdom for it

(and of course, as always, I don't mean "you" as "you" personally, just in general).

[Fujikoma]

I agree with Malken, I love the way that was phrased, it not only emphasizes the RL time concerns that many of us have, encouraging an empathetic response, but challenges and encourages us, as players, to do our part at player retention, without coming off as blaming or finger-pointing. It's more positive reinforcement than shaming the player and simply saying, "You're not trying hard enough.", but saying, "What do you do? Let's all share strategies for player retention, which I've already aknowledged you're working toward, in order to pursue a common goal.".

[whitt]

A lot of fingers have been pointing towards staff, and I'll freely admit that there's always room for improvement. But c'mon, in game I can safely assume that >95% of your interactions are with other players.  When I could sit down and play a character of my own (it's been a little while), player-to-player interactions were what I kept coming for. Staff attention wasn't even icing on the cake for me - at best, it was a cherry on top.  For me, that was never a bad thing. I enjoy a little staff attention from time to time, but I have a lot more fun with other players.  Voting is great for bringing in new people, but fun is going to keep them here.

So what do you find fun?  How can you share that with others?

Totally agree with the above.  If I'm not interacting with other players then... why am I here?  I could be solo RP'ing somewhere with graphics.  So yes, more players in game means more opportunities to find interaction which means more potential for fun to be had. 

How do you share that?  Find a hook for your character to interact with the characters around them. A great example that comes up is RP'ing hate/disgust.  No just pretend to be link-dead to show you're not interested in interacting.  Throw out an emote that you get up from your stool at the bar, move a few stools further away, and start muttering about that filthy allanaki patriot.  Give those around you something to play off of.

[Taijan]

The second sentence makes it sound like you want us to put you on a pedestal and worship every little code changes that get implemented or else we're selfish bastards playing on your hallowed ground.

I much prefer the way you phrased it and think you should ditch the volunteerism martyrdom for it

(and of course, as always, I don't mean "you" as "you" personally, just in general).

Hmm, that's about the exact opposite of the thought I was trying to express.  Thanks for the second set of eyes on that, Malken!

[manonfire]

The second sentence makes it sound like you want us to put you on a pedestal and worship every little code changes that get implemented or else we're selfish bastards playing on your hallowed ground.

I much prefer the way you phrased it and think you should ditch the volunteerism martyrdom for it

(and of course, as always, I don't mean "you" as "you" personally, just in general).

Hmm, that's about the exact opposite of the thought I was trying to express.  Thanks for the second set of eyes on that, Malken!

playerstaffinteraction.txt

[Fujikoma]

The second sentence makes it sound like you want us to put you on a pedestal and worship every little code changes that get implemented or else we're selfish bastards playing on your hallowed ground.

I much prefer the way you phrased it and think you should ditch the volunteerism martyrdom for it

(and of course, as always, I don't mean "you" as "you" personally, just in general).

Hmm, that's about the exact opposite of the thought I was trying to express.  Thanks for the second set of eyes on that, Malken!

Without the first part of the quote, Malken's words taken out of context, it looks like he's saying  the opposite of his original post to me. He's not talking about your second sentence, he's talking about the ones in his post in quotation marks, perhaps "former and latter" would have been better word choice in his post...

...or... that's the joke, and I missed it? *boggled*

[LauraMars]

The second sentence makes it sound like you want us to put you on a pedestal and worship every little code changes that get implemented or else we're selfish bastards playing on your hallowed ground.

I much prefer the way you phrased it and think you should ditch the volunteerism martyrdom for it

(and of course, as always, I don't mean "you" as "you" personally, just in general).

Hmm, that's about the exact opposite of the thought I was trying to express.  Thanks for the second set of eyes on that, Malken!

No I think he meant the way you said it was good and encouraging, and the way people have said it in the past ("We're volunteers you ungrateful savages") is off-putting and makes people feel bad.