Player retention and you: brainstorming

[Dresan]

Let's say staff give you three skills per year.  You play a warrior with magicked aspirations.  After surviving 6 years, yeah, you now have 18 spells or so.  Less if you stopped to skill-bump your warrior past the dreaded warrior plateau, or pick up skills like sneak or scan.  So what?

A six year old warrior alone, without any added skills, is already damned powerful.  Very few characters make it that far, and as others have mentioned, by that point you're looking at a completely different set of challenges from aging and playing what amounts to an institution.  And what if it takes an army to kill your character?  Isn't that kind of awesome?

Despite the fact that the old sorcerer was still more powerful and that you can kinda do this already with warrior/magickal extended sub-guild....please no magickal skills additions. Those should be extremely special, and done case by case only with a lot IC work and collective staff approval.

[Molten Heart]

Let's say staff give you three skills per year.  You play a warrior with magicked aspirations.  After surviving 6 years, yeah, you now have 18 spells or so.  Less if you stopped to skill-bump your warrior past the dreaded warrior plateau, or pick up skills like sneak or scan.  So what?

A six year old warrior alone, without any added skills, is already damned powerful.  Very few characters make it that far, and as others have mentioned, by that point you're looking at a completely different set of challenges from aging and playing what amounts to an institution.  And what if it takes an army to kill your character?  Isn't that kind of awesome?

Despite the fact that the old sorcerer was still more powerful and that you can kinda do this already with warrior/magickal extended sub-guild....please no magickal skills additions. Those should be extremely special, and done case by case only with a lot IC work and collective staff approval.

Except when someone is discovered to be a sorcerer... they're pretty much living a life of exile and isolation, shunned by society and hunted by those with the means to do so. Pretty much the whole world becomes their enemy. Seems like fun.

[Taven]

I think this is a fairly legitimate reason. They are older, less strong, but have had the time to pick up some things younger character have not...what those things are have been their choice. They are unique and no longer fit in a cookie cutter mode. They are special, and when they die, they'll be gone. Once upon a time there used to be a lot of older character that used to have something special about them. It would be nice to have that back without there being any favoritism about it.

I don't think you should get something special because you're old, I believe you should get something special because you worked hard for it.

I'm in favor of PCs getting something neat about them, be it a coded skill or an IC rank or designation, if they worked hard and put in the time for it.

I just don't like the idea of everyone able to do a large variety of things.

Now this is a good point, and one I do agree with.

[stuff]

Again rangers and the right extended sub-guild get so many skills already, one or two more won't change much for them, and it would take other characters years and years to even begin to match them.  

Isn't this why we have extended subguilds to begin with? To provide flexibility?

If you have an extended subguild, you're already flexible. You've already spent the karma and special app splot and gotten the perks for it.

I don't think anyone with an extended subguild should get more skills on top of that.

I think that PCs who aren't extended subguild or who haven't had any special adjustments could maybe benefit from something. But taking a special PC who's already got all sorts of perks and giving them more? That's silly to me.

[nauta]

I think that PCs who aren't extended subguild or who haven't had any special adjustments could maybe benefit from something. But taking a special PC who's already got all sorts of perks and giving them more? That's silly to me.

Now that's an idea.

First, the goal here is to have some mechanism for post-chargen adjustments to your PC (skill additions, stat boosts, and skill boosts) that is easy and quasi-automatic -- it doesn't require hours of logs and 'less' rather than 'more' justification. 

I think we agree on the goal, but disagree on the frequency: you want just one of these per PC; others want more than that.

Your solution above actually looks pretty OK to me.  If I can try to formulate it a bit different:

A special application can be spent either on things prior to chargen (extended subguilds, skill boosts, as it is now) or things after you have created the character where you can boost a stat, a skill, or add a new skill X times to your PC.  (Where X is 3; or 3 times a year capped at karma+1)

Does that pretty much capture it?

Personally, I like Old Kank's solution, because I'm more anti-innativist about skills than you are, but I can see the  innativist's viewpoint on this (we are born with the skills or skill potentials we got).

[Molten Heart]

I like the idea of time and hard work not being a requirement for special skills that would come by way of special requests (currently called special application).

[Harmless]

Because long lived character don't have much to gain anymore. Attributes/skills and special little things  like unique tattoo's or story-based knick-nacks from the last RPT.

I know a lot of this is done to some extent, but I think he's saying more would help keep long-lived characters around without wanting to store, suicide, or just be reckless.

Thanks RGS, you encapsulated my point perfectly.

Liz: I'll tell you why it's frustrating; it's frustrating to frequently be "the one" to not last. Whereas many players here have created truly lasting characters, I never have, and I am pretty sure that unfortunate features like 82 maximum hp or a wisdom too low to advance past journeyman in weapons creates a serious limitation on survivability.

Anyway, I know RGS and Norcal get my point and why it'd help so I don't think I need to explain it much further.

[CodeMaster]

These ideas seem to address veteran burnout, which is a real issue.  But I wonder if it might also be fruitful to focus on making the first 24 hours of play more interesting to help loop in newbies.

Right now you have to 1. create an account, 2. app a suitable background and description, 3. wait for your acceptance email, 4. navigate through the starter shops (and optional newbie school), and then 5. you're in the game... hopefully not off-peak.

We've talked about pre-apped characters, and I've mentioned something like being able to play a rat with no skills and no ability to see sdescs while you're waiting for [approval].

But what could feasibly be done about #4?

What if new players skipped the starter shop and jumped right into the game?  This way these new players also become more identifiable, have a pending mini-quest (explore the bazaar and buy some gear!) and also have coins leftover to buy other things that might be more fun -- check out the mount system, or hire another player to be their guide, [rent an apartment] etc.

Just to harp on this point further, the starter shops are cool but new players might not understand equipment yet.  Buying gear and wearing it can be unintuitive and challenging (wear sash belt, wear toolbag back, wield dagger; sheath dagger anyone?).  Starter-shopping becomes a chore new players probably feel they must perform (and decipher) before they can go and start roleplaying.

[edited]

[CodeMaster]

Liz: I'll tell you why it's frustrating; it's frustrating to frequently be "the one" to not last. Whereas many players here have created truly lasting characters, I never have, and I am pretty sure that unfortunate features like 82 maximum hp or a wisdom too low to advance past journeyman in weapons creates a serious limitation on survivability.

Might be interesting if you could use CGP to buy rerolls.  Each reroll costs 1 CGP.

FWIW, I believe journeyman in weapons is "frickin awesome" if you grade it on the curve, wisdom be damned.

[solera]

I thought your initial post , harmless, was saying , for example, your 20 day  Kurac Fist ranger with 100 hp, average to good stats, journeyman slash, got stomped by an unluckily strong gith, after disarminig your tainted blades, killed you or chasesd you into an ambush? Before you could become that badass sergeant.
Are you talking more about low starting stats?

[Narf]

I thought your initial post , harmless, was saying , for example, your 20 day  Kurac Fist ranger with 100 hp, average to good stats, journeyman slash, got stomped by an unluckily strong gith, after disarminig your tainted blades, killed you or chasesd you into an ambush? Before you could become that badass sergeant.
Are you talking more about low starting stats?

This is not a situation where journeyman skill would help much. In situations where your weapon skill matters, journeyman is about all you ever need since it's where you stop missing your targets ever.

[Harmless]

I thought your initial post , harmless, was saying , for example, your 20 day  Kurac Fist ranger with 100 hp, average to good stats, journeyman slash, got stomped by an unluckily strong gith, after disarminig your tainted blades, killed you or chasesd you into an ambush? Before you could become that badass sergeant.
Are you talking more about low starting stats?

Both of those scenarios are related to the same concept which is how limiting stats are in general. They are not fixed but they are limiting; the benefit of aging is often minimal. It has been said by several other vets here that as you age, you may either be lucky and get a decent boost to strength and endurance but you may also barely see an improvement -- an example I think Malken gave was going from poor to below average, or below average to average, from a young age until peak age (~6 IC years). Anyone who has gone through the grind enough times knows how little of a difference below average to average is when you're finding yourself in a large group battle and you suddenly have to kill say a poisonous, highly agile kryl one on one. You'll die even with defensive skills at their cap and journeyman skill in your weapon. Whereas someone who from the beginning of character creation has exceptional strength can tear through three such enemies without stopping if their skills are at the same level, both because their damage is greatly improved and they can wear very protective armor without being burdened and suffering a penalty to their agility.

Aging often only bumps attributes by one category, two at most, in my experience (which isn't very much). Thankfully others have posted in older GDB threads about how little aging improves stats; only rarely do you get lucky. I think Malken has made this point a few times in random thoughts. It seems to have something to do with the initial stat roll. The hardest part is that the potential for your PC is hidden from you and you won't really know if you'll ever break "very good" strength, for example.

I enjoy the idea of adding the skills of an extended subguild late to a regular one, as well. As it stands each extended subguild has a related regular subguild. For example I once played a caravan guide subguild for half a year, and it would have been cool to have that PC mature into a "master trader," gaining the benefits of bendune AND listen so I could be an expert tavern sitter later in life. It would have been huge, actually. Guards could mature into protectors. Hunters into outdoorsmen. Thieves into rogues. Etc.

Veteran burnout is a problem. I know hooking new players matters, but I was hooked to this game because of the RP and little bonus features would have made very little difference back then. I think if a player has dedication to realism, immersion, and high-stakes interactions they'll love this game no matter what. When many of us remember when peak playtimes would REGULARLY have 70-80 players, or those few sweet moments when there'd be triple digit players, I think the point that veteran burnout is at least an equally important half to the retention question is made in full.

And to Narf: Jman skill is when you stop missing, yes, but purportedly higher skill levels improve damage. If the end all, be all of an attack in combat is total damage output, the only way to improve your damage once reaching Jman is to have better strength, ergo the reason behind my post on page 21

[Jave]

Both of those scenarios are related to the same concept which is how limiting stats are in general. They are not fixed but they are limiting; the benefit of aging is often minimal. It has been said by several other vets here that as you age, you may either be lucky and get a decent boost to strength and endurance but you may also barely see an improvement -- an example I think Malken gave was going from poor to below average, or below average to average, from a young age until peak age (~6 IC years). Anyone who has gone through the grind enough times knows how little of a difference below average to average is when you're finding yourself in a large group battle and you suddenly have to kill say a poisonous, highly agile kryl one on one. You'll die even with defensive skills at their cap and journeyman skill in your weapon. Whereas someone who from the beginning of character creation has exceptional strength can tear through three such enemies without stopping if their skills are at the same level, both because their damage is greatly improved and they can wear very protective armor without being burdened and suffering a penalty to their agility.

I've always been curious about this common knowledge that stats are far more important than skills when determining the outcome of combat, and this gave me the impetus to do something I was never able to do as a player: test it.

So I loaded up 2 basic warrior template NPCs that were clones of one another in gear, attributes, and skills.

I set one to have apprentice level weapon skills, offense, and defense, but AI stats across the board.
I set the other to have low end journeyman level weapon skills, offense, and defense, but dead average stats across the board.

I had them fight.

The more skilled but average stat'd warrior ate the AI warrior's face. I restored them both to full health and tried again 5 times. Same result.

I couldn't get the attributes to trump skills until I boosted them noticeably above the human racial parameters.
By that I mean, for a human with newbie skills to trump a human with jman skills, the jman guy had to have average stats, and the newbie guy had to have stats it is impossible to roll.



I understand the perception of stats being very important and limiting, especially when there is a random chance introduced into the generation process. Anyone who has ever played D&D knows that one person who would obsess to the point of madness over getting an all powerful attribute roll for their character, and we all know a lot more people (myself included) who would just casually fudge a number up 2-3 points if the DM wasn't looking while we rolled.

This kind of fixation, in my experience, happened less in a game with a point based chargen system like WhiteWolf.

But in either game, a mid-level ranged character was going to mop the floor with a starting level character unless the stat discrepancy was  so large as to break the parameters of the system.

Armageddon appears to be no exception to this trend.

I'm quite sympathetic to the warrior's glass ceiling issue when it comes to weapon skills, but aside from the psychological satisfaction one might derive from seeing very good, very good, exceptional, absolutely incredible every time they type score ... those stats really won't make nearly the difference skills do when it comes to surviving an encounter with a swarm of kryl.

[Kryos]

That's the kind of test I'd enjoy doing myself.  Thank you for sharing it:  and putting a touch of a boot to 'common knowledge.'

[Jave]

Like I said, I'm no exception to this "stats need to be amazing" impulse. I sit there at the character generation screen of Baldur's Gate spam clicking the reroll button while watching the "total value" of my combined attributes waiting for it to exceed 100 just like the rest of you 

... And I still die to the first wolf that attacks me out of Candlekeep because level 1. 



I don't think attributes are strongly tied to player retention, but I understand the desire to have them be high.

[Erythil]

Thanks for the info, I enjoy that kind of transparency about how coded systems work.

[Lizzie]

I've always considered it 100% playable as long as my primary stat was something higher than just "average" and the others were at least average.

My character stats tend to be something like - good, average, very good, average.
or EG, good, below average, good.

I think in the entire course of my playing Arm, I've had one AI. My Kurac Sergeant was mostly "above average." My ranger who could one-shot carru with a bow had just one VG as her best stat. My Sun Runner who could punch a gith to death without getting hit had, I believe, two goods and two averages. My best-statted character, in my opinion, had all four "good."

Of course no stats make any damned bit of difference if you - or your opponent - has access to spice.

[Marauder Moe]

I'm not in the disgruntled crowd, and I was already pretty sure that's how it worked, but thanks for running that test and letting us know how it went.  It's like Armageddon Mythbusters.   

[Is Friday]

While reading this thread I keep thinking of all the long lived warriors or "unkillable" characters that died unexpectedly in my Arm career.

[Jave]

I've always considered it 100% playable as long as my primary stat was something higher than just "average" and the others were at least average.

If you're playing a character who ends up with a crap primary attribute for their guild (like poor strength on a warrior for example), and prioritizing it during chargen didn't save you, AND reroll self didn't save you, AND it's not the result of the age code adjusting your base roll, then you can submit a request to have the stat brought up to play-ability.

We don't want people to have to deal with a character that is unplayable.

[nauta]

What if new players skipped the starter shop and jumped right into the game?

It has been a while, but I believe you can bypass most if not all of the starter shops and jump right into game.  It'd be worth someone going in and checking (since I totally agree: as a newbie, I was not interested in all that gear, but I was interested in whether or not people on this mud could roleplay), but I think it is possible.

[Marauder Moe]

There's some solid gear at discount prices in them shops, though.

[nauta]

As promised, we've developed a formal system for Staff giving kudos (Positive Reinforcement) to players. So it isn't nebulous anymore.

Cool!  I at least am looking forward to hearing more about it.

[nauta]

I've said this before, but I also think one simple thing that might help things: adding a 'Staff Feedback' feature to the Report Tool, where you could:

o Debrief about your experiences playing in area X (like an exit questionnaire).

o Have a non-public dialogue about play experiences.  (So it avoids the rhetoric of the gdb forum, or the public shaming if you suggest that, say, maybe elves or gemmed might need more love.)

I suppose this falls somewhere between 'Idea' and 'Staff Complaint'.  ETA: The idea is to have a space where you and staff can chit-chat about the 'play experience' -- from sponsored rolls, to the RPTs, to the level of conflict, to the level of boredom, and so on.

[Narf]

As promised, we've developed a formal system for Staff giving kudos (Positive Reinforcement) to players. So it isn't nebulous anymore.

Cool!  I at least am looking forward to hearing more about it.

Agreed. Kudos (whether from staff or players) are probably one of the overall most cost effective ways to keep people interested in the game. Everyone likes being appreciated.

[Eurynomos]

As promised, we've developed a formal system for Staff giving kudos (Positive Reinforcement) to players. So it isn't nebulous anymore.

Cool!  I at least am looking forward to hearing more about it.

It's not terribly exciting. We just came up with a protocol as to 'how to do this'. Before it was clunky -- Do Staff members submit a player kudos request themselves? This puts the onus on another Staff member to see the request, resolve the request, and send the email...It sort of dumps the work on someone else's lap. Contrariwise, before, we would just put positive 'pinfos' or 'ainfos' and a player would see it when their PC died. However, this doesn't really have the same effect as 'I noticed you RPing and this is what I liked about it'. It can be much more encouraging to know you are being watched, rather than you were watched at some point in the past, if that makes sense. Sort of a perception thing.

So, we wrote up some guidelines for Staff to get in touch with players when they notice positive RP/play. Accounts will be modified (New ainfo set) which is taken into account for future roles and karma.

I'd like to get to a point where a player can ask for RP Feedback -- Either via the Account Notes or Karma Review request, and they can be under review for a couple weeks. This can eliminate the veneer of 'favoritism'. Anyone can ask for feedback (just like the RP Feedback flag you can toggle IG but doesn't do much nowadays). We'll just need to figure out the workload associated with that, how often a player can put in that request, and other details.

Let's try to keep this thread focused on 'player retention' not 'here are some ideas I am selling to you wholesale'. I appreciate the enthusiasm for what we can change about the game to make it better -- But the thread itself is becoming nebulous and difficult for me to bounce through.