GMH Conflict: Reflections and Replies

[Jave]

I'm fairly sure that [what you think will happen won't happen] But [if it did] what's wrong with letting [it happen for awhile?]  

Now, [if it did happen], then I believe staff should step in and [fix it after awhile].

How often will that have to happen though?

I think it's a non-issue.

In my opinion, that's a much better system that puts more power into the hands of the players and makes things a lot less stagnant.

The situation I posit, wherein players engage in short, bloody conflict with one another till a clear victor emerges, and that clear victor then uses their coded superiority as long lived characters to suppress new competition is not hypothetical, it's precedent.  

This has happened in the past. This has happened since I've been on staff. I'm comfortable positing that it happens every time players are given the opporunity. Players like to win, and win quickly. It is what it is.

The problem with it, is that in effect, it ignores the virtual world. And then we have to come in and correct for it, which can often result in hurt feelings and less fun.

So, I disagree. I think it is an issue.

The system we have now allows for high frequency minor conflict. It's too bad you apparently haven't experienced much of it, but other players have chimed in in this thread already to let you know that they have.

I think the system you suggest would allow for low frequency major conflict, but I think the clans would feel more stagnant than they currently do between those major conflicts. Hence, I prefer to have a higher frequency of smaller conflicts like we presently do.

But major conflicts are fun, so I'd like to have those as well in the form of staff supported plots so that we get the best of both worlds.

[Jave]

How often do the guys on the ground floor [engage in supply side competition]?

You are just pointing out exactly what I'm saying. [Only high up management engages in this aspect of a business].

Again, I'm sorry to say that your assertion here is incorrect.

My sales team does not engage in supply side competition because it's not their job. They engage in front end competition.
GMH Merchants generally don't engage in supply side competition because it's not their job either.

My logistics team however, are guys on the ground floor who engage in supply side competition as their main responsibility.
GMH Hunters have the main responsibility of supply side competition as well.

[Jave]

Just a closing note:

In case I'm coming off as too negative I want to let you know that's not my intent. I understand you're offering suggestions that you think would improve the GMH experience, and that sort of feedback is always welcome even if I happen to disagree with parts of it.

But Nergal has been hard at work doing a bang up job of tinkering with Armageddon's economy both in the realm of driving larger scale plots for the GMH's, and digging into the code to expand on how base resources are acquired ala the mining updates.

I'm going to be diving into a project myself that Nergal started this week to help add more value to the GMH's as well. We're working to make things better.

[Large Hero]

I'm fairly sure that [what you think will happen won't happen] But [if it did] what's wrong with letting [it happen for awhile?]  

Now, [if it did happen], then I believe staff should step in and [fix it after awhile].

How often will that have to happen though?

I think it's a non-issue.

In my opinion, that's a much better system that puts more power into the hands of the players and makes things a lot less stagnant.

The situation I posit, wherein players engage in short, bloody conflict with one another till a clear victor emerges, and that clear victor then uses their coded superiority as long lived characters to suppress new competition is not hypothetical, it's precedent.  

This has happened in the past. This has happened since I've been on staff. I'm comfortable positing that it happens every time players are given the opporunity. Players like to win, and win quickly. It is what it is.

The problem with it, is that in effect, it ignores the virtual world. And then we have to come in and correct for it, which can often result in hurt feelings and less fun.

So, I disagree. I think it is an issue.

The system we have now allows for high frequency minor conflict. It's too bad you apparently haven't experienced much of it, but other players have chimed in in this thread already to let you know that they have.

I think the system you suggest would allow for low frequency major conflict, but I think the clans would feel more stagnant than they currently do between those major conflicts. Hence, I prefer to have a higher frequency of smaller conflicts like we presently do.

But major conflicts are fun, so I'd like to have those as well in the form of staff supported plots so that we get the best of both worlds.

Jave, this is a great post; I'm very glad to see you guys looking at things from the high frequency/lower stakes vs all-conflicts-equal-death angle. I agree that the game tends toward the latter, and also that it would benefit from tending toward the former. Kudos, it's great to see sophisticated schema like this

[Desertman]

Just a closing note:

In case I'm coming off as too negative I want to let you know that's not my intent. I understand you're offering suggestions that you think would improve the GMH experience, and that sort of feedback is always welcome even if I happen to disagree with parts of it.

But Nergal has been hard at work doing a bang up job of tinkering with Armageddon's economy both in the realm of driving larger scale plots for the GMH's, and digging into the code to expand on how base resources are acquired ala the mining updates.

I'm going to be diving into a project myself that Nergal started this week to help add more value to the GMH's as well. We're working to make things better.

You aren't coming off too negative. You believe you are right and maybe you will be.

Maybe when you are done with your tinkering you will have fixed the issues that make Houses like Salarr and Kadius have trouble fielding a single dependable merchant or more than two hunters at any time on a regular basis. (I'm actually sure in the short-term you will. For as long as staff is directly running plots and sending out regular role calls for sponsored roles related to those plots I fully expect the issue to be corrected. I'm worried about a year after that plot is over though.)

I really hope you do. It's a sad state of affairs and I've had it hurt me personally and my character's goals in the past....and I wasn't even part of those Houses so the issues affecting them aren't just a "Houses Issue". They are a playerbase-wide issue, which I know you are aware of.

I can tell you this though, just from my own point of view. (And I'm absolutely willing to admit I may be in the minority.)

When I think of playing in a Merchant House in their current status, at best I consider it a practice in boredom. At worst I consider it a great effort on the front of not only suspending the reality of the game world to motivate my PC to actually take the job, but also a great effort as a player to try and force myself into that awkward mold.

Staff ran plots designed to try and force conflict between the Houses over resources that in reality they don't care about day-to-day feels forced and doesn't interest me. It doesn't interest me because I don't feel like what I'm doing really matters, and I also don't feel like what I'm doing is really relevant to the House. It's not that I don't appreciate the effort, it's that I am the type of player who prefers to be given sand and told, "Build a castle.", instead of the type of player who is told, "Here is a castle, enjoy the guided tour.".

The system I'm pushing for is a little less, "Here is the castle we built. We hope you enjoy the castle.", and a little more, "Here is a big box of sand, make some shit and we will keep our hands out of what you are doing unless what you are doing starts destroying the playground.".

My ideas aren't perfect, but they are ideas designed around the concept of giving players what I have personally seen players tend to enjoy. This may be because the only people who play with me are people who also like what I like and in fact we are an extreme minority.

What I can tell you is staff ran plots as a leading device for creating a more enjoyable experience really won't in the long run in my opinion and it will be a lot of effort for minimal payoff.

I hope it works and I hope everything that is being done really fixes these longstanding issues, I'm just not horribly optimistic based on my own preferences. Hopefully, I'm just that asshole who doesn't understand what people actually enjoy.

Edited to Add: After reading this again, I think it is coming off as, "I hate your staff plots.". I don't hate your staff plots. I usually enjoy staff plots, even if they are staff plots that I'm really just "watching" and not "doing" in. They can be a lot of fun. It's just in this scenario, I do not feel staff ran plots are going to fix this issue by themselves. They are, in my opinion, like putting a Band-Aid on a gunshot wound. I hope that makes sense. I'm also sure you are doing other things behind the scenes as well. I just want to throw my input into what's going on there and hopefully you guys find it useful.

[Desertman]

The situation I posit, wherein players engage in short, bloody conflict with one another till a clear victor emerges, and that clear victor then uses their coded superiority as long lived characters to suppress new competition is not hypothetical, it's precedent.  

This has happened in the past. This has happened since I've been on staff. I'm comfortable positing that it happens every time players are given the opporunity. Players like to win, and win quickly. It is what it is.

The problem with it, is that in effect, it ignores the virtual world. And then we have to come in and correct for it, which can often result in hurt feelings and less fun.

So, I disagree. I think it is an issue.

The system we have now allows for high frequency minor conflict. It's too bad you apparently haven't experienced much of it, but other players have chimed in in this thread already to let you know that they have.

I think the system you suggest would allow for low frequency major conflict, but I think the clans would feel more stagnant than they currently do between those major conflicts. Hence, I prefer to have a higher frequency of smaller conflicts like we presently do.

But major conflicts are fun, so I'd like to have those as well in the form of staff supported plots so that we get the best of both worlds.

I wanted to touch on this as a side-note, of sorts.

This reads to me as, "We don't want you guys doing anything that matters where we don't have a hand in determining the outcome. You are only allowed to do things that don't really matter, and the second you try and do things that do, we are going to be right there to make sure the outcome goes our way.".

I'm sure you don't mean it that way, but it is reading that way.

I've also often felt this way in game, which may have more to do with me and less to do with staff. I'm the sort of player who wants all of the control and very little meddling.

I do believe that it is better to stand back and say, "Let's see how this works out.", sometimes. Often times I feel like staff see something that is going on that is interesting, and they feel a responsibility/desire to jump in and say, "Alright, this is kind of cool, now, I get to put my own flavor on it and I think it would be cool if it turned out this way....so it's going to, because I have decided it is.".

That's what I get from this post.

"You guys can do little stuff that doesn't really matter, and if you try to do big things that do on any level, we are going to dictate how it goes.".

It is exactly that sort of mindset/policy that makes me more often than not roll up indy rangers and mind my own business with an extreme hope I just get overlooked.

I think the push should be towards, "How do we let players do more big things with less help from staff.", and not, "How do we ensure they only do small things unless we have our hands in it.".

[555]

I think your perspective of minor and major may differ from some others. My personal perception of minor vs. major conflicts is that major conflicts can lead to loss of minions, which leads plots to stagnate and contacts to go missing, etc. minor conflicts can feel like a bit of an achievement to overcome as well. On the one hand, you say you don't want someone to give you some sand and say, here you go, build a castle, you say you'd like the castle with a guided tour, on the other you'd like staff to interact as little as possible, if I'm not misinterpreting, but isn't building the castle for you interacting in your plots a bit much? Losing key characters results in the search for a replacement, you have no way of knowing if this replacement is going to be anywhere near as trustworthy or reliable, and they damn sure won't be as codedly strong or capable of doing their job, this results in a huge investment of time and resources before it begins to pay off, and in the meantime, that major conflict is still going on, costing you people.

Minor conflicts, however, do not cost resources which are all that difficult to replace. Sure, it may be over something that doesn't, in the end, convey all that much in a coded manner, but in a virtual manner it has given you a bit of a leg up on your competition and an achievement you can look back on and debate whether you could have done better, or study where things could have turned for the worst and resolve not to let things get cut that close again. I like minor conflicts because the leader PCs, assuming they survive (which, touches on the point of there not being enough PCs in a merchant house clan to facilitate plots outside of the merchant house), don't have to set all ongoing plots aside and work at carefully replacing their help. By all means, draw your minions into your plots, where reasonable, and get them to feel involved, drum up excitement over the small victories and the perks that will surely trickle down from it, make your underlings feel important in the achievement of a goal, this will keep them active and playing.

[Desertman]

On the one hand, you say you don't want someone to give you some sand and say, here you go, build a castle, you say you'd like the castle with a guided tour, on the other you'd like staff to interact as little as possible, if I'm not misinterpreting, but isn't building the castle for you interacting in your plots a bit much?

This is the exact opposite of what I posted.

I am the type of player who prefers to be given sand and told, "Build a castle.", instead of the type of player who is told, "Here is a castle, enjoy the guided tour.".

The system I'm pushing for is a little less, "Here is the castle we built. We hope you enjoy the castle.", and a little more, "Here is a big box of sand, make some shit and we will keep our hands out of what you are doing unless what you are doing starts destroying the playground.".

[Asanadas]

Desertman is saying he wants to build the castle. What he's touching on is that staff members can decide if you build that castle, and, indeed, can decide who you build that castle with. It's been said here on the GDB that staff members have the privilege of removing players from their clan for "reasons" -- something I've experienced, heh.

I'm with D-man in that I'm concerned there is the potential a staff member would use this to say "no" to a character life-swearing to their clan, just based on issues they have with the player. That would be something that makes players uneasy. I feel like OOC issues are OOC issues and should not influence IC actions. However, that potential has been there ever since I can remember in other ways, anyhow. But I've got faith in the current staff team, as it stands. This change comes from a good position, and isn't with "bad" intentions.

Where before it was the player leader's choice in who to "lock-in", now there's staff involvement. I think lots more communication from both sides in requests nd etc. will help ease this, and not make it seem like a rescinding of valued player-PC rights. 

[Desertman]

Desertman is saying he wants to build the castle.

This is what I'm saying. (I'm not sure about the rest of that stuff and life-swearing and all of that. I'm not talking about that.)

But to that point, I will say that I'm 99% sure staff will absolutely look at recommendations from your current PC leaders when it comes to deciding if you get asked to life-swear into the House.

If your PC leaders who are already lifesworn recommend you to also be lifesworn, I would bet you have a damn good chance.

[Desertman]

Also, I've given all of my best advice so I really don't have anything more to add.

I'll bow out now. Thanks for taking the time to read what I posted and for giving thoughtful replies. I do appreciate it as I really do care about this topic.

[555]

Desertman is saying he wants to build the castle.

This is what I'm saying. (I'm not sure about the rest of that stuff and life-swearing and all of that. I'm not talking about that.)

But to that point, I will say that I'm 99% sure staff will absolutely look at recommendations from your current PC leaders when it comes to deciding if you get asked to life-swear into the House.

If your PC leaders who are already lifesworn recommend you to also be lifesworn, I would bet you have a damn good chance.

I see, apologies for misreading your post, Desertman. I suppose it does make more sense to me now, and I should have given you the benefit of the doubt when reading your post and reread it another time.

EDIT: There are things the player can do in game to start conflict, which needn't end in stabbing. Keep in mind you're the best house in the known, doesn't matter what anyone else says, and you aim to prove it whenever the opportunity presents itself... witty, cutting verbal ripostes, cracking jokes about a well-known quirk or trait of a member of a house, belittling, hand-waving their achievements, calling their low-level employees idiots, inviting them over for sparring to lay the smack down, when you find yourself in a position to prove some form of dominance and/or superiority, just do it, and surely your enemy will reciprocate in kind. If they choose to escalate beyond a certain point, then stabbing  may be resorted to. It may sound petty and without heavy enough consequences, but going too heavy-handed is detrimental to the game as a whole, and the plots of people even outside the houses. There's nothing that says you can't respect the strong points your enemy possesses and know that mutually assured destruction is inevitable should things go too far, so you'd tiptoe around that.

[Dresan]

Give PC merchants the ability to make basic looking but codedly equal alternatives to the gear/equipment salarr/kadius/kurac make and I think GMHs will have more conflict, competition and antagonist in the future in just about any area that isn't allanak (or tuluk).  

[Jave]

When I think of playing in a Merchant House in their current status, [I don't care for it].

Staff ran plots [also don't interest me because I enjoy a more player driven, play dependent outcome style of gaming].

That's fine. We all have preferences. I haven't noticed a problem with activity inside the GMH's. I'm not supervising those clans at the moment but I can think of reliable movers and shakers in each House off the top of my head because I always see them online and notice the character reports they're sending in.

But if you don't care for that kind of role, then we have a lot of other roles available. I personally never cared for playing in Allanak.

This reads to me as, "We don't want you guys doing anything that matters where we don't have a hand in determining the outcome. You are only allowed to do things that don't really matter, and the second you try and do things that do, we are going to be right there to make sure the outcome goes our way.".

We don't think that. Our perspective is "Please don't ignore the game world."

We aren't playing Counter Strike or Call of Duty here. Characters are not dropped into a small, static sandbox with weapon catches hidden around to engage in a free for all until the most skilled gamer comes out on top.

Mostly I think we end up ignoring something through unintentional ignorance, or because we get caught up in the conflict of the moment and get too excited.

It takes many forms which can include but is not limited to:

• Thinking an area in the wilderness is safe because you only saw 1 NPC there.
• Thinking that a group you are creating trouble for is only as strong as the coded power the PC's of that group are able to personally project.
• Thinking that rooms with no NPCs in them are abandoned.

Basically, player characters represent the tip of the iceberg that is the organization they are affiliated with, and your titanic ignores that at your peril.

You said you want to do something that "matters" and by "matters" I can only assume you mean "has a strong impact on the setting of the gameworld". -- Great, but please realize that you're going up against forces far stronger than the handful of PC's at the tip of that iceberg -- and plan accordingly. The more you talk with us (the staff) about what you're trying to do the more we can help the story get told.

[Eurynomos]

Also i'm counting 15 PCs in one GMH, 11 PC's in another GMH, and 10 PC's in another. So i'm not sure where the idea of 'hard to find 1 or 2 merchants' or 'hire a guard or two' comes from beyond player misconception.

I will say that this is a higher GMH population than you are perhaps used to Desertman. But data is data.

[RogueGunslinger]

Probably people have that misconception becuase those poor GMHers are so sick off all the nagging about orders that they constantly have a barrier up, and only let those in with the power to crush it.

[Desertman]

Also i'm counting 15 PCs in one GMH, 11 PC's in another GMH, and 10 PC's in another. So i'm not sure where the idea of 'hard to find 1 or 2 merchants' or 'hire a guard or two' comes from beyond player misconception.

I will say that this is a higher GMH population than you are perhaps used to Desertman. But data is data.

I've had this report tell me I had 25+ people in my crew alone. I may have considered 4 - 6 of them even alive on an IC level.

(I'm not saying this is the case here, I'm just saying this data is not always reflective of what's actually happening in game, and in my own experience, it has always been extremely wrong every single time. I am willing to concede it may be a perfect reflection of IC performances in these cases.)

[Eurynomos]

Also i'm counting 15 PCs in one GMH, 11 PC's in another GMH, and 10 PC's in another. So i'm not sure where the idea of 'hard to find 1 or 2 merchants' or 'hire a guard or two' comes from beyond player misconception.

I will say that this is a higher GMH population than you are perhaps used to Desertman. But data is data.

I've had this report tell me I had 25+ people in my crew alone. I may have considered 4 - 6 of them even alive on an IC level.

(I'm not saying this is the case here, I'm just saying this data is not always reflective of what's actually happening in game, and in my own experience, it has always been extremely wrong every single time. I am willing to concede it may be a perfect reflection of IC performances in these cases.)

There is a difference between 'People not playing when I play, therefore they are inactive' and 'People are playing when I don't play, who are active, just not when I am'. It's a matter of perception, and yes, as Staff we are able to see when people log in, are active, and are inactive. As a player, you only have the data in front of you, which is basically playing the game and seeing who's around when you play.

The point of contention here is stating that GMH are struggling, looking for merchants and/or hunters. Since the closure of Tuluk and consolidation of GMH in Allanak, this has markedly not been the case in actuality. So I am conjecturing that this may be based on your memory of GMH, rather than experience of how it is currently going.

[Desertman]

The point of contention here is stating that GMH are struggling, looking for merchants and/or hunters. Since the closure of Tuluk and consolidation of GMH in Allanak, this has markedly not been the case in actuality. So I am conjecturing that this may be based on your memory of GMH, rather than experience of how it is currently going.

This is a good point I had not fully considered.

My only other point would be that we might consider this as a time to implement a system where closing down half of the world isn't a key factor in making this no longer an issue.

[Eurynomos]

The point of contention here is stating that GMH are struggling, looking for merchants and/or hunters. Since the closure of Tuluk and consolidation of GMH in Allanak, this has markedly not been the case in actuality. So I am conjecturing that this may be based on your memory of GMH, rather than experience of how it is currently going.

This is a good point I had not fully considered.

My only other point would be that we might consider this as a time to implement a system where closing down half of the world isn't a key factor in making this no longer an issue.

One might argue that closing Tuluk was, in part, an effort to help solve problems like you mentioned -- Having Northern and Southern Branches, active, in every GMH, was part of the untenable stretched-too-thin problem that we had with the GMH. Having only an active Southern Branch in the GMH has effectively doubled the active population in each, with the exception of Kurac who never really had an active 'Northern Branch' or 'Southern Branch', more like the 'Midwest Branch'.

[Desertman]

The point of contention here is stating that GMH are struggling, looking for merchants and/or hunters. Since the closure of Tuluk and consolidation of GMH in Allanak, this has markedly not been the case in actuality. So I am conjecturing that this may be based on your memory of GMH, rather than experience of how it is currently going.

This is a good point I had not fully considered.

My only other point would be that we might consider this as a time to implement a system where closing down half of the world isn't a key factor in making this no longer an issue.

One might argue that closing Tuluk was, in part, an effort to help solve problems like you mentioned -- Having Northern and Southern Branches, active, in every GMH, was part of the untenable stretched-too-thin problem that we had with the GMH. Having only an active Southern Branch in the GMH has effectively doubled the active population in each, with the exception of Kurac who never really had an active 'Northern Branch' or 'Southern Branch', more like the 'Midwest Branch'.

Agreed.

[IAmJacksOpinion]

I want to weigh in on the discussion that was being had circa page 4 about special roles and rewards, ala outriders. I've been in a lot of clans over the years and, with the exception of the Tzai Byn, I can't remember one that didn't have some kind of elite military unit and some kind of "this is for assassins" unit outlined in the clan documentation. I can see how these units fit into the game world thematically, and how they may have once had a spot for players during the "good 'ol bad days" of arm when GMH employees were openly backstabbing blue robes in the streets of Allanak... And I can also see how that sort of thing doesn't generally fly in the acceptable mode of gameplay anymore.

But I don't think that means clans should be one size fits all. And I'm not saying that "everyone should get their own personalized cloak and badges" as seidhr put it (jokingly). But I think there should be some role variance, even if it's not glorified with a bad-ass title and bone spurs.

I think it should be left up to the clan leader to create the subgroups that she/he feels are needed, just through simple role play.

This is definitely one of the hallmarks of a good leader. You clan has a lot of different characters with a lot of different competencies (coded or otherwise), and I think the best leaders recognize and utilize that.

Story time. Last time I played in the Tzai Byn (a year or two ago) our Sarge did a pretty good job of this. He divided Byners into two groups "heavies" and "scouts" where the scouts were ~4 hand picked rangers, and the heavies were everybody else. On a mission the scouts were trained to scan, watch a specific directions, scout, or whatever else rangery needed done. When it came time to fight, if we had to kill a pack of gith say, the scouts would fire a few volleys of arrows first, then the heavies would charge and engage, then the scouts would come in in a second wave. We certainly could've just engaged them straight up and won just as easily, but this strategy was codedly effective, tactically realistic, and thematically more fun. (A common gith-stomp turned into a scene from Braveheart.) Apart from that, we had another guy (Merchant/Aggressor I believe) who became an unofficial quarter master of sorts, who would take you to the market and haggle down the vendors for you. Or craft you gear, so that runners could get decent gear for what little coin they brought.

These were miner tweaks that allowed non-warriors playing in the premier kick-bash-disarm clan of Armageddon to play their skillsets, and feel like they were really contributing to the team, rather than just being the least effective characters in the "kill" spam.

Another thing I saw that I liked, was when I was last in the AOD we created this "pin" system where you would get a sash or something, and then you could earn pins of special significance that you could add onto them. There were things like "fighting in a battle", and I think one of the highest ones was for "saving a Templars life". And I think there were event-specific ones for like veterans of the Copper Wars. It's kind of fuzzy - it's been a while. But this was also a really cool little perk that can give players things to aspire for / achieve. Albeit it's a little gimmicky, and maybe Zalanthas doesn't strike you as a "participation ribbon" society, but when you think about it these are accolades that can drive your troops to work harder and aspire to them, for the cost of maybe 50 sid a pin, if they're really fancy.

So there is a lot leaders can do on their own to enact these kinds of things. Personally if one of your trusted employees is going to assassinate someone for you, I don't see the harm in getting Imm-proval to say "Congrats, now you're in the 'Black Daggers' division. You get nothing for it. Because it's secret. Just tell everyone you're in the guard division. Shhh!" I mean, who the fuck would actually wear a special cloak saying "I'm an assassin" ?? We're not filithy Tuluki's. (At least not anymore!)