Armageddon is Zero Sum

[Kryos]

Zero Sum is a term from game theory, if you aren't familiar, where in order to advance or win, other participants must give up or lose an equal share proportionate to the winner's gain.  In Armageddon, this is the aspect of perma death.  Now, game theory depends on rational actors working with an accessed and understood information set as well.  The idea of Armageddon being Zero Sum, and the flawed notion of perfect rational actors(and perfect information) has been an undertone in several topics in the GDB lately, perhaps not pronounced directly, but the subtext is there.

I'll just go ahead and admit I'm not a perfectly rational actor when it comes to Armageddon(or other zero sum style games).  Any staff member could look up my notes and see that I've stood my ground in judgement of things I've perceived negative (regardless of being right or wrong, and I've been wrong and right alike) or that I've been enraptured by the game and made a blunder or two.  I'd hope they also convey I do my damn best to play a role.  Experience and age has tempered me more towards being a rational actor, yet I can admit I'm still flawed.  I've seen hints or outright presentation of this elsewhere, in others, as well.  This is not an attempt to finger point and accuse, but rather to draw a simple consensus that we are not perfectly rational players.

If you can give me that caveat, I can give you a suggestion as to why things like prioritizing stats, how to become buff in combat, how to be a ninja, or pwn noobz with leetzor magicks in pvp holds gravitas and attraction to those who aren't normally inclined towards competitive behaviors.  That reason is when your character dies, all their story and your engagement with them die as well.  I would speculate that engagement, be it to the character's story, triumphs and exploits, failures and suffering, or wonder at discovery, (or all of these) may be a strong influence on what makes us imperfectly rational.  Our emotions as human beings, even if we are play the role of something alien, muddy our behaviors with this and other factors in mind.

And what could be more disheartening for a player to have these things trampled on by what they perceive to be someone with no story, no engagement or wonder, just a pile of skills and desire to flex them?  There's a subtle, ever present fear of failing to those who abide no concepts of engaging in a story, just acts of superiority or malice.  Or, perhaps, if you can't demonstrate a certain level of capability in some aspect of your character, you will not be able to create these stories, find these wonders, or strive for those great achievements.  In short, you've got to keep up with the Jones, Jones being that nameless 'twink'.  

I can tell you I've personally met Jones, I've worn its face in games past, and seen it in games present.  I got so annoyed with Jones once I made him in Armageddon, and was victorious in its creation.  It was never flexed though, just a nameless death in a nameless place.  So I know the fear or concern well.  So why bring all this up and give you a wall of text?  I'm curious if you think it holds merit, and if you think the trajectory of current changes helps to alleviate this subtle, present fear.

Me:  I vote yes, changes in code and mentality seem to be going this way.  And I really do hope staff continues this path.

[Desertman]

Just to make sure I understand, is this the tldr version?

"Twinks twink so in return if you want to win Armageddon you have to keep up with the twinks.".

Just want to make sure I understand before I vote.

[Kryos]

Not trying to be an ass in this reply, but sort of?  Yes?  I made it long, and pointed to validated approaches to modeling behavior with the intention of doing just that.  Its a big thought.  I suppose it doesn't have to even be a "twink".  Just someone who had/has superior resources to you.  In the case of the twink, they have no restraint on behaviors in order to maximize their footprint and power set in the Zero Sum game.

Add:  to also be relevant.  Without a certain level of proficiency, irrelevance may leave you out of stories, plots, and interactions.

[Desertman]

Not trying to be an ass in this reply, but sort of?  Yes?  I made it long, and pointed to validated approaches to modeling behavior with the intention of doing just that.  Its a big thought.  I suppose it doesn't have to even be a "twink".  Just someone who had/has superior resources to you.  In the case of the twink, they have no restraint on behaviors in order to maximize their footprint and power set in the Zero Sum game.

Not trying to be an ass at all. I just don't want to reply unless I'm sure I understand what you are trying to say.

So the tldr version is: "Some people will do things to get stronger than you. Some people unfairly so. If you want to win, you have to keep up with them.".

More or less?

[Kryos]

I meant to say, 'I am not trying to be an ass.'  I really don't like that level of ambiguity the tl/dr has, though.  There's some granularity I'm using on purpose, with ties in to applied sciences I've had exposure to and studied in during my life.  So, yes with a question mark.

[John]

The idea of Armageddon being Zero Sum, and the flawed notion of perfect rational actors(and perfect information) has been an undertone in several topics in the GDB lately, perhaps not pronounced directly, but the subtext is there.

Are we talking about OOC winning or IC winning? Because there are people who OOCly play to have their IC character, in all likelihood, lose. They do this because it results in an OOC win by having their character be memorable, have interesting interactions with PCs and the game world and create interesting stories.

Our PCs are not rational. Dwarves are obsessive compulsive, half-Eli's are as insecure as all hell, half-Giants are morons and everyone is a racist bastard who hate elementalists despite all the societal and personal advantages they bring to the table. Is as players have varying degrees of rationality. But even the most rational player may have an irrational character.

I've seen hints or outright presentation of this elsewhere, in others, as well.  This is not an attempt to finger point and accuse, but rather to draw a simple consensus that we are not perfectly rational players.

I am by no means rational. I'm stubborn and set in my ways. But I do have my moments of rationality.

I can give you a suggestion as to why things like prioritizing stats, how to become buff in combat, how to be a ninja, or pwn noobz with leetzor magicks in pvp holds gravitas and attraction to those who aren't normally inclined towards competitive behaviors.

People have always obsessed over getting every coded advantage. It use to be stats were the primary source of most people's angst while magicker's spammed like crazy. That's because these were the only elements people could get objective feedback as to how strong they were. We now get that feedback on skills so it is logical skills would become a greater source of angst than it was "back in the day".

That reason is when your character dies, all their story and your engagement with them die as well.  I would speculate that engagement, be it to the character's story, triumphs and exploits, failures and suffering, or wonder at discovery, (or all of these) may be a strong influence on what makes us imperfectly rational.  Our emotions as human beings, even if we are play the role of something alien, muddy our behaviors with this and other factors in mind.

And what could be more disheartening for a player to have these things trampled on by what they perceive to be someone with no story, no engagement or wonder, just a pile of skills and desire to flex them?

Back in the day there was an infamous character called Pearl. It seemed at least half the player base hated her and there were quite a few attempts to kill her. All but 1 of them were unsuccessful. Her guild was merchant and her subguild was equally meaningless. She didn't survive because of a list of coded skills, she survived through role playing. She arranged her enemies' deaths and was possibly one of the most powerful PCs in Allanak at certain times. And she was a merchant (also the player's first character).

There's a subtle, ever present fear of failing to those who abide no concepts of engaging in a story, just acts of superiority or malice.

If someone wants you dead bad enough, you will eventually be killed. No amount of skills will stop that. But nor are coded skills required to avoid it.

Or, perhaps, if you can't demonstrate a certain level of capability in some aspect of your character, you will not be able to create these stories, find these wonders, or strive for those great achievements.

Some of the best players who've crafted exciting plots have done so irrespective of their own coded skills and quite possibly have succeeded in creating those plots because of their inadequate coded skills.

So why bring all this up and give you a wall of text?  I'm curious if you think it holds merit, and if you think the trajectory of current changes helps to alleviate this subtle, present fear.

Me:  I vote yes, changes in code and mentality seem to be going this way.  And I really do hope staff continues this path.

I personally think we need role models whom can inspire us and demonstrate to us just how meaningless their own coded skills are in creating memorable plots. I've never equaled the likes of Pearl or others from that era, but I continue to strive. I'm sure there are characters who can similarly act as role models to show how unimportant skills are in acquiring power. They are either busy away shining or are on the cusp of revealing their awesomeness.

I understand what your saying and I do see staff taking steps to make the game easier. I see people saying things like "food and water should be easily acquit able for newbies." I don't like it. Make the game fairer on an OOC level (so make it so indies and clanned characters have the same opportunities to skill up). But at the same time I think it's important the harshness and IC difficulty level remain. If getting combat skills is easier, than the wildlife should receive power boosts to compensate (and it's possible staff are doing this, or plan to do this).

[Desertman]

The better your coded skills are the more likely you are to survive.

To win Armageddon the key factor is to first survive.

Other people might try to kill you.

If your coded skills are higher than theirs, you are more likely to survive.

Thus, you are more likely to be able to eventually "win".

So yeah, I agree. If you want to win, you have to survive, and if you have better coded skills that is more likely to happen.

[Eurynomos]

I thought Pearl kept getting resurrected. 

The things you learn from gossip aren't always true.

[Malken]

We're never going to have an objective zero-sum game because of two things: not everybody knows all the rules, and the rules are enforced differently against different people. The very construct of karma represents staff favoritism; that's one of the roots of a player and their characters.

I have plenty of karma and I'm pretty sure that I'm as far as what you would consider a staff favorite.

[Delirium]

Pearl got resurrected once because of a grief character created specifically to kill her using abusive code tactics. It was also a different era of the game.

People hate on her because... she was successful, manipulative, and wasn't afraid to resort to down and dirty tactics and politics. She'd win, and people hate losing.

The playerbase suffers from epeen envy and an unwillingness to be the support character in someone else's story.

There's not a lot we can do about that but keep trying to be better roleplayers.

This is a MUD, so the game is at its best when people realize that a successful, fully realized character comes from knowing how to roleplay and knowing how to use the code to support your roleplay. The amount of code necessary for your role will depend on the role, and the roles you play will depend on your playstyle. One is not necessarily better than the other.

If you're a griefer, you get off on fucking with other people just for fun, well, you suck, but you know what, there's people like that in RL, too.

And at least those people aren't likely to gain a whole lot of trust from the staff to play higher powered roles.

Point is, code knowledge is good, it supports the ability to roleplay in the gameworld. There's nothing wrong with it.

Where it goes wrong is when you use it abusively to accomplish questionable things, like subdue-killing a long-lived PC just because you don't like them on an OOC level.

[Marauder Moe]

Eh.  I don't think the "zero sum game" notion is really apt for Armageddon, even in the pvp/permadeath aspect.  When you PK someone, you maybe gain their wealth, but you don't gain their skills, you don't gain their reputation or political clout, and you don't gain their memories.  Furthermore, resources in Armageddon are not strictly limited.  Everyone can make coded money from non-PC sources.  Everyone can gain skills.  Everyone can tell good stories.  Even if you die, you can just make a new character.

[Desertman]

[Nergal]

There have been many players who justified skill-maxing with the notion that everyone else is doing it, too. The fact of the matter is that relatively few people actually do stupid things to max out their skills, and when they do, it is painfully obvious to staff and fellow players that that's what they're doing. But there is still that lingering perception that skill-maxing is always justifiable.

At least one of the goals with some of these changes is to better reward players who play fairly. It was totally possible in the past to spin your wheels by training legitimately, and to be surpassed by players whose PCs knew the "One Weird Trick" to maxed skills. There is an ongoing effort to eliminate that from the game, by re-balancing things that are just off-kilter.

Ultimately I think the game isn't strictly zero-sum, though it can be within certain interactions as part of the larger game. Ultimately, the story of Armageddon keeps going, characters keep getting developed, and so on.

As far as karma goes, I don't doubt that there used to be a lot of favoritism in the system, but only because staff back then were beholden to fewer guidelines. The unfortunate thing about the system is that there's some good players with low karma that get overlooked and there's some not-as-good players with a lot of karma that received their karma back when there were fewer standards. That doesn't mean the system should be thrown out, it just means players ought to be reviewed more. Now that staff take notice in players that seem to have slipped through the cracks and players can put in for a karma review, there's quite a bit more flexibility in the system than there used to be.

[Lizzie]

I thought Pearl kept getting resurrected. 

The things you learn from gossip aren't always true.

And sometimes they are true. Sometimes they are rooted in truth and exaggerated - for instance - Pearl didn't "keep getting" resurrected - obviously the last time her character died, she stayed dead.

[Armaddict]

I'm less inclined to agree that it's based on fear, because there have been many discussions that bring up a lot of different reasons that people like to 'twink'.  The most prevalent is that people feel the game doesn't 'start' until they're at a certain level, followed quickly by the expectation of every character to branch every skill before it becomes fully their character.

I think your model more accurately describes raider scenes and pvp, where it's -really- hard to give up advantages you have in order to play out a scene, knowing that if you give it up and they do not, you have likely lost your character over it.  In other words, your paradigm seems more suited to immediate scenes, rather than long-term play.  In another era of the game, the 'random gib' where you got killed by another player out of nowhere was more common, and it built in a pretty steady paranoia in some players about the intent of other players.

As far as long term play, I'm more suited with D-man's explanation.  More than anything right now...it's a survival game.  Code is used to survive.  Code is very important in a code-based rpg, as opposed to a story-telling rpg.  It's how you interact with the world, and so it becomes 'in your interest' to know the code and work with it.  Not necessarily twinking, but working with it and in line with its capabilities.

Roleplay is fairly common sense.  Interpretation of code and how people use it to get desired effects in game is not, but in lieu of constantly wishing up to get things done -exactly- as the story demands it, the code is ye olde reliable.

As a side note...I played a number of PC's with Pearl.  She got hated on because she was manipulative and 'won' against a lot of people who were trying to get in her way, and as she won more and more, the players got more and more set on standing in her way, and as she kept winning...well...the frustration was real.  I think I was always in some way aligned with her though, and she was pretty stellar, and always fun to plot with.  *thumbs up*

[JackGibbons]

Just curious, what RL year-ish was Pearl? It sounds like I should be sad I missed this legend.

[tinsix]

win the game with the listen skill

[wizturbo]

Just curious, what RL year-ish was Pearl? It sounds like I should be sad I missed this legend.

Like 13+ years ago.  Pearl was the founder of the Atrium and House Terash.  

By the way, I do not think Armageddon is a zero sum game.  The fact that some people treat it like it is makes for very convincing reasons there's Karma and rigidly enforced rules by staff.

[JackGibbons]

Just curious, what RL year-ish was Pearl? It sounds like I should be sad I missed this legend.

Like 13+ years ago.  Pearl was the founder of the Atrium and House Terash.  

By the way, I do not think Armageddon is a zero sum game.  The fact that some people treat it like it is makes for very convincing reasons there's Karma and rigidly enforced rules by staff.

Oh, sheesh. Yeah, I started in 2013. Well, technically I might have played for a couple of hours in 2008 before I discovered SOI in its heyday. That's cool that a player can leave that kind of legacy, though. Back on topic: there are many other things to do besides straight coded PvP, and on a player level, if we enjoy being part of the stories and happenings, then it's a mutual win, not a zero sum.

[Synthesis]

The game isn't zero sum at all.  It's a completely misapplied concept.  There is no winning Armageddon, only playing.

And listen, I skill up HARD, but somehow I still have a decent amount of karma.  If there are people out there who are doing shit to skill up that results in them getting their nuts slammed in a vise, I have no idea what the fuck they're doing, but it must be completely berserk.

That being said, I don't skill up to "win."  I skill up because I enjoy the process, and I enjoy being useful to other PCs.  I sometimes PK when it's appropriate, but it's been...I don't know...I can't even remember the last time I PK'ed someone.

(Although I have been sorely tempted.)

[BadSkeelz]

I don't think it's that big a deal.

A character who gets by on just code is not going to get very far. Sure, they might dangerous in a straight-up gank scenario (high potential-M score), but they're probably pretty boring to interact with. This will limit the amount of networking they can accomplish (low C and B scores). The most dangerous they'll be is as the lonewolf raider or assassin. I'm not really worried about them anymore than I am, say, a sinkhole or an out-of-position mekillot. They're just natural features of the landscape that the rest of the playerbase will roll their eyes at and forget about until a character people actually like dies to it. There are plenty of available counters - allies, knowledge of the game world, knowledge of tactics, certain guilds - that will allow a prepared player to minimize risk.

Outside of the most straightforward, "locked in an apartment with a dwarf with a knife" scenarios, I don't think Armageddon is terribly zero sum. Not by default, anyway. Your character is living in a world where death is cheap, you never really know how strong you are, and you should consequently tread lightly. I think this is true for a lot of players, so a lot of characters are looking for the win-win: They can get some of what they want, I can get some of what I want, and nobody dies. It's only when this bargaining and politicking between characters breaks down and someone decides someone else needs to die that we really start edging close to zero-sum interactions.

[valeria]

I've never gotten by just on code. I'm sure other people do, but my favorite and most memorable characters are just characters doing what characters do. (Which, by the way, I've never felt that I skill up shockingly show, even if I have never fully branched a single character.)

If you're avoiding playing a character to skill up, if you put skilling up over interaction and rp, I feel bad for you. You WILL lose that character eventually, no matter what, and all that time you put into grinding, but you don't lose the memories of good stories and fun rp. Unless you find grinding fun, then I guess you're doing what you love. M

[James de Monet]

I keep seeing this idea that "If I don't skillmax, someone else will, and beat me, therefore I need to."  And that can be true, sometimes, but I don't skillmax, and honestly? I've never had a problem I can think of where I was powerless before some RPless scrublord with master parry.  That doesn't mean no one has been, but it does mean (to me, at least) that it can't be as big of a problem as people are making it out to be.

This, in turn, makes me wonder (since it would be hard to prove) if the people skillmaxxing for the sake of keeping up with the Joneses aren't actually the face of twinking that everyone else sees.  "Beware that, when fighting monsters..." and all that.

[James de Monet]

Also, it might bear pointing out that simply because someone is more powerful than your character does not make them a twink by definition.  If someone has more political power than your PC, or is a magicker and you aren't, or is a 40-day character and you aren't, that power differential is not (necessarily or primarily) due to the other player skillmaxxing, and no amount of twinking will protect you in that situation.

That's what diplomacy and humility are for.

[hopeandsorrow]

I keep seeing this idea that "If I don't skillmax, someone else will, and beat me, therefore I need to."  And that can be true, sometimes, but I don't skillmax, and honestly? I've never had a problem I can think of where I was powerless before some RPless scrublord with master parry.  That doesn't mean no one has been, but it does mean (to me, at least) that it can't be as big of a problem as people are making it out to be.

This, in turn, makes me wonder (since it would be hard to prove) if the people skillmaxxing for the sake of keeping up with the Joneses aren't actually the face of twinking that everyone else sees.  "Beware that, when fighting monsters..." and all that.

It's a weird cold ware mentality, at least that what I find myself stricken with sometimes.

IF I don't do XYZ, I'm scrab food. It's how I feel to the point that a new PC doesn't feel like untapped potential more or less like a daunting endeavor before I feel comfortable with being know beyond a random cloaked sdesc you see around occasionally. 

[John]

Just curious, what RL year-ish was Pearl? It sounds like I should be sad I missed this legend.

From what I've heard she began just as Allanak defeated Tuluk and occupied the city, which was before 2002. She died late 2003 from memory.

As for the rumors on Pearl, some of them are true. Many are based on the truth while others are complete fabrications. I only know of one actual resurrection and it occurred shortly before she died. There were any attempts before then. Regardless she is hardly the only character in Arm's history whose power didn't come from coded skills.

Can you survive thanks to coded skills? Yup.
Can you survive without coded skill Set? Yup.
Can you be killed regardless of whether you have coded skills or not? Definitely.

[Bogre]

Definitely not zero sum.

Things I count as wins:

Having your character remembered
Getting into cool shit
Finding out secrets
Finding some neat loot
Being a part of game-historical events, interacting with the characters people remember
Winning a fight (so yes, winning in PVP is a win, but you don't necessarily have to ace another PC)
  ... but so is having your shit beat in a memorable way (does help if you're not ganked)
  ... memorable deaths are wins too
basically - you win the game when you have memorable RP experiences, not just by owning some other noobs.

Skills certainly help you in some situations above, but certainly isn't a prerequisite. Some of the most insane situations I've had in game were with 1-3 days played chars, complete stock-out-of-the-gates. My 1 day warrior lived through the 'Rinth blowing up, where unholy power was the rule of the day and multiple Templars / rinthi badasses bit the dust. Plucky old Blite, though, caved in some heads and hustled it out of there with some awesome stuff.

One of my most successful characters was yes, a merchant. He did start the game as a bastard noble, but he rose to the highest PC commoner position in the Arm of the Dragon. Being a templarate advisor, he never wielded powerful magicks / wrecked people in combat (though, I did stab some people in a pocket plane with his gemmed spear of office!). But he held the Magekiller, he worked against agents of Hadon, demons and Dragonsthralls, recommended a certain recruit Paryl to the Militia, would chat with the Plainsman from time to time, and stood by Samos's side when they made peace with the North. And he had a sweet house and tons of money. On that char, contact/barrier/scan/haggle/pilot/bandage were about the only skills I ever used. For 2 and 1/2 years.

Karma does sort of help because it expands your game-exploration potential. For instance, I have never played an lightning elementalist, so when I eventually do, I'm pretty much going to be enjoying it the whole time and the experience will be a 'win'.

[Delirium]

Everything Bogre said.

(Though admittedly a lot of the things Magister AFKticus enjoyed being a part of wouldn't happen in today's culture.)

I would reiterate that "winning" with or without skills is beside the point. Skills or no skills, it's the role, how well you play it, what you get to experience with it, that's the clincher.

[Lizzie]

Even in PvP or other combat, winning doesn't require that you be the best fighter. It means only that you be better than your opponent. If your opponent is better than you are then sure, he has a better chance at winning the fight. It's not guaranteed, you could get lucky, or you could successfully escape (unless you're in jail but that means you failed before you ever got into the combat situation in the first place, otherwise you wouldn't be in jail).

If you piss off someone who isn't as well skilled as you in combat, then there's a better chance that you'll win the fight. Again - not guaranteed.

But none of this requires that you "keep up" with everyone else. Everyone else is doing their own thing. In fact many of those "everyone elses" aren't even combat-trained PCs at all.

[Riev]

And listen, I skill up HARD, but somehow I still have a decent amount of karma.  If there are people out there who are doing shit to skill up that results in them getting their nuts slammed in a vise, I have no idea what the fuck they're doing, but it must be completely berserk.

Gortoks in the dark IS pretty berserk, but damnit, my clan needed a steady supply of useless hides probably at one point.

I was going to be the best close-combat knife-fighter in the Known. And really, I did it just so I could barehand people and in fact be a subdue-wrestler.

[IAmJacksOpinion]

The game isn't zero sum at all.  It's a completely misapplied concept.  There is no winning Armageddon, only playing.

And listen, I skill up HARD, but somehow I still have a decent amount of karma.  If there are people out there who are doing shit to skill up that results in them getting their nuts slammed in a vise, I have no idea what the fuck they're doing, but it must be completely berserk.

That being said, I don't skill up to "win."  I skill up because I enjoy the process, and I enjoy being useful to other PCs.  I sometimes PK when it's appropriate, but it's been...I don't know...I can't even remember the last time I PK'ed someone.

(Although I have been sorely tempted.)

This. All of it. I work to raise my skills. I sneak when I'm not hiding from anyone in particular. I forget to ">stand" after missing a bash every once in a while. I will backstab an NPC or a jozhal, even. And I've got 8 karma. (Not sure what that Malkren-Delirium karma circle jerk was about...) I'm also fun to be around (usually), I don't run around solo-grinding when there's RP to be had, and I don't use my "ill begotten" skills twinkishly or to ruin other peoples days. I kill like... 1 person per year on average, so I'm not skilling up to zero sum. High horse about your RP all you want, but don't come crying to me when your plots stagnate cause you can't find a single skilled henchmen.

[IAmJacksOpinion]

[Redundant post... nothing to see here...]

[Riev]

When it comes to twinking, I have been remarkably similar to IAmJack and Synthesis. I don't ACTUALLY think I've killed a PC since I played a Tuluki Legionnaire.

I like having skills. I like the feeling of "I should be able to take that" mixed with "but its not worth the risk, I should probably continue my training".

I've seen people who ACTUALLY twink. I've heard of people doing things real damn sketchy but it was "okay because thats just what you have to do". I mean, there's a lot of things people might have to do to "get that damn fail". But that being said? It doesn't make Arm a Zero Sum at all. The benefit is in the play, the social release, the game itself.

[Kryos]

Some great replies here, and I thank all who posted for doing so.  On to the responses I have:

1)  OH GOD THE IRONY.  Pearl's player was the person to show me Armageddon, and talk to me about the superior RP and engagement of the game over its then competitors.  I talked to her OOC about a lot back then, and I can tell you the notion of her getting resurrections en mass and so on, is poppycock.  She was resurrected once, due to being killed by a glitched exploit, just as others (including staff) have stated.  That conversation actually made me roll up a character back then, though it didn't stick.

The idea that favorite sons and daughters of Armageddon having superior resources to you and thus encouraging the notion that more power is required to compete is an interesting one though.  Thank you Nergal for putting this to bat too.

2) Interesting Concepts
I disagree with Synthesis' claim of inappropriate application.  Even in so much as story.  If you take a portion of the player's attention with your story, that's a portion not being given to another's, let alone to win is to live, to lose is to die.  The very theme of the game is about this notion, win or die(andI recognize the abstractness of the concept win here, not limited to direct murder pvp).  I should note I firmly believe this theme is what allows for such strong attachment to experiences, thus emotions and imperfect actors.  If it is not perfectly zero sum, which is reasonable to say, it is at the very least adversarial, and that yet holds a strong format for all the behaviors I wanted to explore.

Bogre/Delirium/Valeria point to something I touched on in the original post:  engagement and attachment through story.  Let me ask you:  do you often get involved in crazy stories and plots when you are perceived as 'useless'?  Or is that a means by which exclusion is conducted, and someone else perceived more useful is included?  Is status as a recognized player capital to expend in the zero sum/adversarial situation?  Not a jab at those who posted, just something I think is worth examining, as my instincts tell me its likely.  

As James suggested, there is a certain, base line of capability that is required by the non player aspects of the game.  If you aren't X good, you can't do Y.  Is this then a baseline motivation for competency that may fuel a sort of cold war mentality described by others, or even proliferate past this baseline?  Due to varied types of player engagement and enjoyment, and some of what I'm chewing on, I think yes.

3) Stuff I'm chewing on
I wonder if the limited options for player plot guidance are a factor in this idea of expending some sort of capital in order to achieve inclusion.  I've brought up (years ago now I think) the idea of the glass ceiling players are put under and how I rail against it.  Openly admitted, because it clashes with my play style is one reason I rattle that particular saber.  But I also believe it hampers the size of the cake that is competed for.  Only so many avenues of plot creation exist, if players can never do what NPCs can.  If Armageddon is player driven, that is a huge shackle, and breeds animosity over what share of story remains.

Also, while the game is zero sum/adversarial, discussion is not.  Some of this is hard to say or type out coherently, but none of it is belligerent in intent.  I have a great deal of fun playing Armageddon, and enjoy doing so with a number of players I don't know on any level other than their PCs.

[WarriorPoet]

My only mentionable Guild character, Rocker, gained a fair amount of pull, power, and notoriety as a hardass killer. Secret? I dont recall ever sparring with him and most of the murders and killings attributed to him were carried out by others. He was no Pearl, but I carved out his niche, had a blast playing, and was codedly never more powerful than your average Byn runner. It is nice to be able to reap souls with a big fucking sword, but it certainly isn't a must.

Also, Staff has never paid me any particular attention, good or bad. I still get my kicks.

[Coat of Arms]

In my opinion, it's okay to be a Jones as long as you play responsibly. The game is already set up in such a way that you can't become godlike with ease. Some people play this game like an RPG where character advancement and coded activities are the main appeal, and as long as they also roleplay and don't grief other players, that should be fine. There are skill timers, and there's risk of dying. Very few people become powerful through "twinking up" in some supposedly illegal way, because either it isn't possible or it's so dangerous that the odds of dying before you reach the goal are so high that it's a waste of your time.

The issue is more that the game sometimes lacks reward for the alternative. You can play one way: going out to hunt every two RL hours, making sure you fight the most agile animals, and using your skills with the sole intent of raising them. You can play another way: joining a clan, training when it's possible, and using your skills when your character has a reason to do so. The former is vastly more effective and rewarding. To some extent, this is probably inevitable. Still, I think the game could do more to lessen the gap.

Right now, if I join a clan and show up during training hours but find that there are no other players around - which, in some clans, will happen more often than not - I just miss out. Too bad. My character advancement is halted for entirely OOC reasons, boring reasons, reasons that I could avoid by not being in that clan. Many players opt not to be in clans for that reason alone, which isn't good for the game.

There's a few things I would really love for Armageddon to do in order to acknowledge and support the game's competitive nature and its "murder, corruption, betrayal" theme. It is in part a game where people are out to get each other, and that's great. That's what defines Armageddon. It's what makes it exciting and interesting, it's what provides something to do even when there's a lull in the plot scene. In other games of its ilk, people spend that time sitting around doing nothing -- or they don't play; what other RPI has more than 20ish players? Don't underestimate how much of Armageddon's appeal comes from the fact that you can play it like an exciting, high-stakes PvP game.

So, I think Armageddon ought to be more open to that. It's not some unwanted nastiness that the game is better off without. It's actually what makes this game popular and has sustained it for such a long time, while literally all other games in the genre have dwindled or died out. I'm not saying abandon the standards that players have been held to all these years, but maybe drop the pretense that caring about your character's power is some kind of awful vice, or cheating. Instead, make it so that those players who do care, and make up enough of the playerbase that you'd all be very sorry if they were gone, aren't at odds with the actual gameplay. Examples:

- Provide a more consistent and reliable source of training in clans. If the schedule says you train today, you should be able to get some form of training no matter what. Sparring dummies do nothing, there need to be actual NPCs to train against when players aren't there.

- Stat randomness needs to be reduced so that your character's potential isn't largely determined by a dice roll at creation. This isn't Dungeons & Dragons. The total amount of stats between one character and another shouldn't be able to vary this much.

- No skill should take RL months to obtain. At least not something as basic as parry. This, and weapon skills above journeyman, takes more than it ought to, which compels people to do what most everyone will tell you that you shouldn't: mindlessly grind for the sake of skillgains.

- Starting skill levels usually are so abysmal that most skills basically cannot be used until at least a couple of days have been put into the character. Skills should not start this low. New skills you branch can start at the bottom of novice, that's fine.

Remember AtonementRPI? A game where skills generally capped around 60-70ish, and you started at 30-40ish? That was friggin' awesome. One's character was actually able to contribute from the start, and it didn't feel like you had months of heavy-duty grinding ahead of you before you could feel accomplished. That carrot was actually within reach, and you started out good enough that you didn't feel forced to obsess about skillgains. It was really nice. And then there's Armageddon, where your skills start at 5 and cap at 90 and it's hard to justify joining the Borsail Wyverns where I'm lucky to get a chance to use those skills five times a week. Instead I'll go live in the grasslands where the weather's nice and I can do what I want and add nothing to the game for the first long while until I'm satisfied that the competitive players, of whom I started out speaking, don't have too easy of a time getting my boots.

[John]

do you often get involved in crazy stories and plots when you are perceived as 'useless'?

My involvement in plots have always been irrespective of my coded skills. When I have been perceived as useful it has had nothing to do with my skills.

And yes, I've been involved in some pretty big stuff, both ancient and relatively recently.

If you aren't X good, you can't do Y.

This is true. However if you aren't good at X, you can still get Y done. It just means involving other players, getting their skill and knowledge brought to the table which increases of them knowing pertinent things which could escalate what doing Y actually means and could result in A, B and C also needing doing which means bringing more players and before you know it doing Y has resulted in a mini-plot that's potentially getting staff involvement. I have done this so it is possible.

[RogueGunslinger]

In my opinion, it's okay to be a Jones as long as you play responsibly. The game is already set up in such a way that you can't become godlike with ease. Some people play this game like an RPG where character advancement and coded activities are the main appeal, and as long as they also roleplay and don't grief other players, that should be fine. There are skill timers, and there's risk of dying. Very few people become powerful through "twinking up" in some supposedly illegal way, because either it isn't possible or it's so dangerous that the odds of dying before you reach the goal are so high that it's a waste of your time.

The issue is more that the game sometimes lacks reward for the alternative. You can play one way: going out to hunt every two RL hours, making sure you fight the most agile animals, and using your skills with the sole intent of raising them. You can play another way: joining a clan, training when it's possible, and using your skills when your character has a reason to do so. The former is vastly more effective and rewarding. To some extent, this is probably inevitable. Still, I think the game could do more to lessen the gap.

Right now, if I join a clan and show up during training hours but find that there are no other players around - which, in some clans, will happen more often than not - I just miss out. Too bad. My character advancement is halted for entirely OOC reasons, boring reasons, reasons that I could avoid by not being in that clan. Many players opt not to be in clans for that reason alone, which isn't good for the game.

There's a few things I would really love for Armageddon to do in order to acknowledge and support the game's competitive nature and its "murder, corruption, betrayal" theme. It is in part a game where people are out to get each other, and that's great. That's what defines Armageddon. It's what makes it exciting and interesting, it's what provides something to do even when there's a lull in the plot scene. In other games of its ilk, people spend that time sitting around doing nothing -- or they don't play; what other RPI has more than 20ish players? Don't underestimate how much of Armageddon's appeal comes from the fact that you can play it like an exciting, high-stakes PvP game.

So, I think Armageddon ought to be more open to that. It's not some unwanted nastiness that the game is better off without. It's actually what makes this game popular and has sustained it for such a long time, while literally all other games in the genre have dwindled or died out. I'm not saying abandon the standards that players have been held to all these years, but maybe drop the pretense that caring about your character's power is some kind of awful vice, or cheating. Instead, make it so that those players who do care, and make up enough of the playerbase that you'd all be very sorry if they were gone, aren't at odds with the actual gameplay. Examples:

- Provide a more consistent and reliable source of training in clans. If the schedule says you train today, you should be able to get some form of training no matter what. Sparring dummies do nothing, there need to be actual NPCs to train against when players aren't there.

- Stat randomness needs to be reduced so that your character's potential isn't largely determined by a dice roll at creation. This isn't Dungeons & Dragons. The total amount of stats between one character and another shouldn't be able to vary this much.

- No skill should take RL months to obtain. At least not something as basic as parry. This, and weapon skills above journeyman, takes more than it ought to, which compels people to do what most everyone will tell you that you shouldn't: mindlessly grind for the sake of skillgains.

- Starting skill levels usually are so abysmal that most skills basically cannot be used until at least a couple of days have been put into the character. Skills should not start this low. New skills you branch can start at the bottom of novice, that's fine.

Remember AtonementRPI? A game where skills generally capped around 60-70ish, and you started at 30-40ish? That was friggin' awesome. One's character was actually able to contribute from the start, and it didn't feel like you had months of heavy-duty grinding ahead of you before you could feel accomplished. That carrot was actually within reach, and you started out good enough that you didn't feel forced to obsess about skillgains. It was really nice. And then there's Armageddon, where your skills start at 5 and cap at 90 and it's hard to justify joining the Borsail Wyverns where I'm lucky to get a chance to use those skills five times a week. Instead I'll go live in the grasslands where the weather's nice and I can do what I want and add nothing to the game for the first long while until I'm satisfied that the competitive players, of whom I started out speaking, don't have too easy of a time getting my boots.

I loved this post. This post is amazing. The only thing I'd disagree on is parry begin hard to advance, and a nuanced disagreement with the idea that skills should start higher. I agree that low level skills are useless and suck, but I'd rather skills be addressed in a way that made them better at low levels instead of just bumping everyone to journeyman+.

Anyway, I agree with everything else wholeheartedly.

[SuchDragonWow]

The only thing zero sum about Arm is the GDB.  Coat of Arms wins and this thread loses.

[evilcabbage]

staaaaaaff

everyone else is abusing stilt lizards.

can i abuse them too?

can i abuse turaals too?



staaaaaaaaff.

everyone else has higher skills than me.

please bump me up to master in everything.




i think the thing that needs to be stated is that, no, not everyone is stabbing npcs at night in the street. in fact, 95% of the playerbase is not doing that.

if you believe they are, you are crazy.


not everyone abused or hunted stilt lizards or turaal either.


a few people say "everyone does this because this is how to get better" and suddenly a giant thread about how armageddon is zero sum pops up out of nowhere.

people whine about their skills not going up fast enough. weapon skills take too long. i don't want to put in an hour a day, or ten minutes a day, to level my skills.
my skills should go up faster.

look i get it, i have played a lot of warriors in my time, a lot of rangers. weapon skills are a huge source of frustration for me too.

i don't make threads about it. i don't whine to staff about it. i don't whine anywhere about it.

you do not see me in other forums complaining that my skills don't go up fast enough, or other people are abusing stuff.

you won't even see me telling people how to raise their skills beyond the obvious "use them where and when it makes sense".

consequently yes, my characters may never master a skill that i believe is important to them.

consequently, i may die to another player because their skills were better than mine.


that's okay. i have lost a lot of characters over the years. that doesn't stop me from playing warriors who inevitably may die, or what have you.

i just play the game, guys. really. the cabbage just plays the game. you should stop making threads and play the game too. it's fun, i swear.

it really is.

[John]

I agree with a number of Coat of Arms' sentiments.

I agree that there is nothing wrong with skilling up responsibly. There is also nothing wrong if you get the most enjoyment from the game in reaching higher skills ranks and achieving coded accomplishments. As an off peak player I routinely (though not always) take a crafting subguild so I have the ability to solo-interact with the game on a coded level, have coded achievements and explore a coded area of the game. With extended subguilds now automated for mundane classes, I will be very tempted to take Merchant+Extended Combat Subguild.

I don't think it's necessary to grind X amount before you can contribute to the game. But nor is there anything wrong with skilling up responsibly either.

[James de Monet]

I guess the crux of it is, for me, I don't have a problem with people who want to see their skill identifiers change, or their skills list get longer.  If that is what keeps them coming back to the game, hey, skill on.  What I absolutely don't want to see, though (and as I mentioned in that other skilling thread), is where we start to cater to that playstyle to such an extent that the people who don't want to play that way (IE me, and others of my ilk - for the record, I have no idea what a skill timer is, or why you need one; no, don't tell me, I don't want to know) are now relegated to playing derp or social only characters forever.  It ISN'T that way now.  Skilling up takes long enough, and the lifestyle that it requires is dangerous enough, that casual or combat-clan-social characters can still make an impact just doing the day-to-day thing.  I think this is critical.

Other than that, I guess my only question for people who do like to grind would be...if it was easier to get weapon skills above jman, do you guys think that you would get bored with high-level/long-lived characters more easily?  If watching those numbers tick is your thing, isn't there a possibility that maxing out at day 10, then playing till day 40, is going to really stop delivering that high you want?  Or does logging in every day and seeing everything at 100% do it for you?  (This isn't intended as a persuasive sentiment, it's is an honest question.)

[Armaddict]

Nice posts.  

- Provide a more consistent and reliable source of training in clans. If the schedule says you train today, you should be able to get some form of training no matter what. Sparring dummies do nothing, there need to be actual NPCs to train against when players aren't there.

I agree.

- Stat randomness needs to be reduced so that your character's potential isn't largely determined by a dice roll at creation. This isn't Dungeons & Dragons. The total amount of stats between one character and another shouldn't be able to vary this much.

I partially agree.  While I do not think the random sway needs to be this large, I do -not- think that the spread between people needs to decreased drastically.  I like that some people are Absolutely Incredible in some areas, and I'm not.  I like when I get exceptionals in my prime stat.  In my experience, stat ordering + the 1 reroll has resulted in some pretty good stats for me, leading to this being kind of a point of trying to equalize where I don't think equalization has much place in a roleplaying game.  It's not about whether it's D&D or not.  Even Mushes generally have a stat ordering that is fairly spread.  I see no reason to level this out.

- No skill should take RL months to obtain. At least not something as basic as parry. This, and weapon skills above journeyman, takes more than it ought to, which compels people to do what most everyone will tell you that you shouldn't: mindlessly grind for the sake of skillgains.

- Starting skill levels usually are so abysmal that most skills basically cannot be used until at least a couple of days have been put into the character. Skills should not start this low. New skills you branch can start at the bottom of novice, that's fine.

Again, I disagree due to the same arguments that have been posted on this topic for the past year or so.  We do not need to bump starting levels, and in the end that accomplishes very little anyway, as has been discussed.  There is a variety of anecdotal discussion on that, but in the end, it comes down to people perceiving it as the grind or the story.  Frankly, the concept of 'But the way we have it -makes- me have to grind' is becoming a broken record that's been torn apart too many times.  Nothing is -making- anyone grind -anything-, as is evidenced by the entire history of the game and so many notable characters within it that did no grinding.  None.  The demand for increasing skills before you play the game in earnest is a personal issue, not a game issue.

While the -months- of grinding can be annoying...I find it less so when I think and acknowledge that my character is fully realized from the moment that it enters the game.  He's out there, surviving, and doing his thing.  Skills go up.  He gets better at surviving and doing his thing.  This is not a slow increase, it's actually quite drastic in that first day of play time...all that time is, is basically 'don't be stupid, be a cut above the average zalanthan like a PC is supposed to be, and you'll end up fine'.  Does getting parry on a ranger or assassin suck?  Yup.  Does it -gimp- them to not have it?  I don't think so...it just emphasizes what they are.

Basically, I only come in to say this because I'm not of the mind that we need some sort of drastic skill overhaul just because there's consensus that some tweaks on how things work are needed.  Some change good.  Coming in and changing the entire nature of the beast bad, particularly when it's actually working very well as far as long lived characters still having personal goals.  You can say that maxing should be fast, and all goals should become social/political/whatever...but I will just move ahead of that now and say that's what you could be doing from the moment you enter the game instead of focusing entirely on skill development.  Long-earned achievements good, particularly where the middle of the scale is where you're already kind of kickass, and all those things that don't perform well in the middle of the scale tend to increase pretty dang fast.

I don't think it's necessary to grind X amount before you can contribute to the game. But nor is there anything wrong with skilling up responsibly either.

I very much agree with this.  Skills and the idea that everyone should max them/fully branch every character is a pretty new and foreign idea to me that seems to have taken prevalence in the last two years or so.  It's weird.

[Erythil]

I have played this game for almost a decade without playing a single combat character, so it is possible to enjoy it without being the strongest fighter.

[valeria]

Bogre/Delirium/Valeria point to something I touched on in the original post:  engagement and attachment through story.  Let me ask you:  do you often get involved in crazy stories and plots when you are perceived as 'useless'?  Or is that a means by which exclusion is conducted, and someone else perceived more useful is included?  Is status as a recognized player capital to expend in the zero sum/adversarial situation?  Not a jab at those who posted, just something I think is worth examining, as my instincts tell me its likely.  

Overall response: No.  What?  No.

Getting involved in crazy stories and plots, yes.  I do this all the time.  If I'm not getting dragged in by other people, I tend to create them.  Being perceived as useless?  No.  Excluded in favor of someone more useful?  No.  I've been excluded for being a recruit and not trusted in an organization, but I think that was less because I was useless, and more because who lets recruits sit in on war planning sessions.

"Is status as a recognized player capital to expend in the zero sum/adversarial situation?"  I don't know what this sentence means.  I don't usually get PKed, but when I do, I'm usually rooting for my character to die while desperately trying to get them out of it.  Because I don't like it when my characters die, but if they do die, I want it to be to a PC or in a big RPT, instead of to NPC #1835 or Hole #23.

I tend to get included in a lot of shit early on with almost all of my characters.  I think that's because they're enjoyable to play around (even when they're complete assholes) more than because they have mad or useful skills.  Plus, if my character isn't in leadership, she's probably constantly pestering leadership with "here I am, what are we doing" or being in areas where PCs congregate because that is how I get involved in plots--being visible to people that are making plots, not being somewhere in the desert trying to solo skill up.  Even my extremely shitty 'sneaky' elf was getting dragged into stuff, despite that she had almost no skills at all.

This isn't a personal anecdote, but it's one I'm very familiar with.  When Zoltan was playing Raul, he was constantly embroiled in wacky adventures.  When he got on staff and another staffer loaded up Dead Raul, they checked the skill levels of Dead Raul, and minds were blown at how horrible Raul's skill levels were.  I didn't play with Raul, but it sounded like he was very enjoyable to play around.  Didn't hurt that he was in a leadership position either.

Anyway, I never feel excluded because I don't have the skills.  Mostly because by playing my characters as people going about their daily lives, they tend to get decently skilled,* but also because by devoting my time to interaction instead, I tend to get more interaction.

*Even though I've never fully branched anything, most of my characters (4 warriors, 3 burglars, 7 rangers, 3 gicks, 1 pick pocket, 4 merchants, 1 templar, 1 assassin) have at least their basically useful skills branched out by 5-8 days played/2-3 months of playing, if they make it that long.  Except my warrior characters, which start playable in everything I want them to do but ride unless I pick a riding subguild, and my noble characters, who aren't going to skill up but that isn't the point anyway.  Then again, what I define as a "basically useful skill" and what you define as a basically useful skill might differ.  I don't think I've ever had a ranger with parry, not even my ranger that was in Winrothol for an RL year, but she had a good story.  Anyway, she didn't die because of PK, I ended up storing her because RL happened.

[Delirium]

Val, it's awesome that you can build such rich stories without underpinning them with (much) skill. I've been there, too.

Not all concepts are like that, though, and not all players are like that. That's OKAY.

My argument is that I don't want people to start demonizing skills, that's just as ridiculous as slaving at their holy altar.

This is a MUD, not a MUSH - skills are central to gameplay, just as roleplay is.

The challenge is to make them coexist better. Trying to teach people not to care about skills is counterproductive at best.

[Bogre]

You can play another way: joining a clan, training when it's possible, and using your skills when your character has a reason to do so. The former is vastly more effective and rewarding.

This is what we're discussing - the former might be more effective at gaining skills, but is it ultimately more rewarding? Only if you bar your metric at 'gaining skills'.

Instead I'll go live in the grasslands where the weather's nice and I can do what I want and add nothing to the game for the first long while until I'm satisfied that the competitive players, of whom I started out speaking, don't have too easy of a time getting my boots.

Again - part of this thread is wondering why some people feel they need to be at a certain level of skill before 'playing'.

I remember Atonement well, and there was a lot of grinding. You had people able to get a very real advantage by grinding out skills. Getting your skills from novice to familiar, yea, not too hard. But to get up to 60-70 in combat skills? Very difficult. My character there was one of the top-skilled (if not the most skilled) characters in the Beta, and reached 80 in a weapon skill (the only person to do so in the Beta), 70 in a combat skill, and was at 50 for defense. It took him over...150 days played. In fact, beyond a certain point (familiar-talented) you had to do some ridiculous stuff to up skills at the end, which was by design and sort of made sense - you had to be in very difficult / dangerous situations to get skills at the top. I mean, my heroic point came about when my character was clawed and literally knocked out bleeding by a really monstrous NPC, and its a close thing he didn't die.

I've never been one to advocate for things to start out on an equal footing. What makes the 40 day warrior badass, if every newbie out of the gate has 50% of his skill from the get go? What makes exceptional stats really exceptional, if everyone is averaging 'very good'? You offer the supposition that a large part of the playerbase is here for a fast-paced PVP game - would you be logging in everyday to go around to the bar and RP if your skills were already pretty much maxxed? No. Would your character be out in the wilderness or in the streets and able to bump into other RP opportunities if you started the game with a complacent level of skill? I don't think so. Things to do certainly keep people logging in and playing, and its part of the game. There's a sense of accomplishment you get from improving your character. The more you increase the starting average, the more you lose that, or worse, transmute it to 'to be awesome, now I've -really- got to grind', because you're in a place where now to gain skills you need to jump through hoops.

I think the changes are really good. By all means, make it a bit more reasonable to gain skills and get to a pretty decent level. I've personally never really had a problem with that (all of my clanned chars generally get pretty good at hitting stuff in the face through time and normal effort), but it sounds good to me that you don't have to really bend over backwards to try and make sparring 'work' for gains.

[RogueGunslinger]

I don't think anyone feels they need to be a certain level before they can play their character. I think People play their character on a scale. Towards the beginning some are more focused on skills, but that doesn't mean they're excluding roleplay to get those skills up. They're just not actively seeking out interactions with others that doesn't involve getting their skills up. As their skills increase they slowly become more and more social, feeling like they can better contribute to whatever is taking place.

[John]

+1 Valeria's post

My argument is that I don't want people to start demonizing skills, that's just as ridiculous as slaving at their holy altar.

This is a MUD, not a MUSH - skills are central to gameplay, just as roleplay is.

Agreed.

Trying to teach people not to care about skills is counterproductive at best.

Agreed IF people care about skills because they enjoy acquiring and using them. If, however, someone doesn't care about skills for their own sake and instead engaging in unenjoyable play so that they can qualify to get involved in the plots and interesting stories, I definitely think there is value in mentioning the grind isn't necessary in order to get involved in plots.

[valeria]

Trying to teach people not to care about skills is counterproductive at best.

I was answering a set of questions, not trying to Preach! 

[LauraMars]

I rarely use or care about skills

I couldn't be less worried about the idea of people using or caring about skills

I am involved in STUFF&THINGS, so too are people who use and care about skills

This thread is weird

[Malifaxis]

I don't know what Laura meant by that, but she is smart, cool, and fun so I am backing her play.

YEAH!  WHAT LAURA SAID!!!

[Armaddict]

I rarely use or care about skills

I couldn't be less worried about the idea of people using or caring about skills

I am involved in STUFF&THINGS, so too are people who use and care about skills

This thread is weird

Armageddon-Almost-Haiku

[evilcabbage]

i like to twink up
because it makes me feel good
did i win arm yet?

[Majikal]

Armageddon is a Zero Sum game... what?

Suppose that depends on your definition of what a gain and what a loss is. I think you very much simplified what the game is about.

[tapas]

I don't think it's zero sum in regard to skill building. It's certainly zero sum when it comes to running up against certain player cliques.

Long lived players calcify into the game world, certain players play together for so long. They form ooc relationships and it isn't long before the group think develops into some sort of bizarre siege mentality.

It's great when you're on the inside. You're having your friends figure out new ways to inject you back into the game to play with you. And they'll bend over backwards to accommodate your nilazi-whateverr. But when you're on the outside, playing with players who don't know you oocly, you can expect a fuck-tonne of backroom gank-deaths and general shittiness to bump you off the plot line.

This is the true disease of Armageddon. The way these silos develop to crush characters and plot-lines not because of the actual content, but because they are run by players that aren't on the inside.

[James de Monet]

That's a possible scenario, but I wouldn't give in to that rather depressing thought without more hard evidence.  A lot of people on the GDB act like they know each other, but only do as personalities, or really do know each other, but also use aliases in clan forums, which makes it hard to know who you're playing with.  I feel for you if that really happened, but I've never really seen it.

[RogueGunslinger]

 I don't have some sort of group I roleplay with OOCly in this game, I try to hide who I play(though i'm shit at it), and I think I can pretty fairly say I've never been PK'd without deserving it in some IC way. I know that is anecdote and it does happen and that there are people who play like that, so don't get me wrong. I just don't think it's a disease crippling Armageddon and is probably pretty rare.  

[John]

I also haven't ever come across one of those cliques either. I also tend to play a wide variety of characters as well (although almost always Allanak based. So if they are tribals or Kurac or something then I naturally self-select away from them).

[Xalle]

OOC player cliques pooling into clans or always playing together, giving each other a magic pass into plots and automatic 'backup', while cold shouldering/dismissing those who aren't part of it are definitely a thing - I sensed it as a player, and see it clearly happening now as staff. I wish people wouldn't do it and would play with a more inclusive mindset, as an 'elitist' (except it's not really elitist, it's just crap) cliquey mentality is not a healthy or a positive thing for the game. Luckily not everyone is like that, and they're the ones missing out on the really classy, fun players because their scope is so limited to and influenced by their OOC networks.

I think a lot of players could try to do better with their OOC/IC separation in general, to be honest.

[Asanadas]

OOC player cliques pooling into clans or always playing together, giving each other a magic pass into plots and automatic 'backup', while cold shouldering/dismissing those who aren't part of it are definitely a thing - I sensed it as a player, and see it clearly happening now as staff. I wish people wouldn't do it and would play with a more inclusive mindset, as an 'elitist' (except it's not really elitist, it's just crap) cliquey mentality is not a healthy or a positive thing for the game. Luckily not everyone is like that, and they're the ones missing out on the really classy, fun players because their scope is so limited to and influenced by their OOC networks.

I think a lot of players could try to do better with their OOC/IC separation in general, to be honest.

Thank you for saying the truth here.

In Armageddon, if you feel like there are forces beyond the scope of the actual game converging against you, one of the only things you'll salvage or take away from all of your investment is a new friend or person you've found & changed contact info with. I'm thankful for my few (three) friends I met on this game; however, since I've had years of 'kayfabe' experience in other RP environments, I don't feed them OOC opportunities and I do my best to ignore if they accidentally slip something to me.

I play to win, but win within the game. There's a threshold of gamesmanship that goes beyond that, which I think is spawned by general familiarity or being bored with the game. I'm not there yet.

And we all know that the staff are the ultimate OOC clique, constantly sharing information about everything happening.   

[Miradus]

OOC player cliques pooling into clans or always playing together, giving each other a magic pass into plots and automatic 'backup', while cold shouldering/dismissing those who aren't part of it are definitely a thing - I sensed it as a player, and see it clearly happening now as staff. I wish people wouldn't do it and would play with a more inclusive mindset, as an 'elitist' (except it's not really elitist, it's just crap) cliquey mentality is not a healthy or a positive thing for the game. Luckily not everyone is like that, and they're the ones missing out on the really classy, fun players because their scope is so limited to and influenced by their OOC networks.

I think a lot of players could try to do better with their OOC/IC separation in general, to be honest.

I die pretty frequently so I don't know that I've seen what you're talking about, but I will acknowledge it's happened on every single other roleplay enforced game I've ever played in.

I don't know that it's a problem in general. People want to spend time with those they like and avoid those they don't. The problem develops when group A looks at group B and says, "Those people over there are having fun. Let's go crush it."

I've met a number of people I enjoy playing with. They roleplay very well, aren't scumbags, and are generally pleasant to be around. But I've felt it would sort of be a breach of etiquette to try and establish an OOC relationship with them so our playing can persist through multiple characters.

[evilcabbage]

OOC player cliques pooling into clans or always playing together, giving each other a magic pass into plots and automatic 'backup', while cold shouldering/dismissing those who aren't part of it are definitely a thing - I sensed it as a player, and see it clearly happening now as staff. I wish people wouldn't do it and would play with a more inclusive mindset, as an 'elitist' (except it's not really elitist, it's just crap) cliquey mentality is not a healthy or a positive thing for the game. Luckily not everyone is like that, and they're the ones missing out on the really classy, fun players because their scope is so limited to and influenced by their OOC networks.

I think a lot of players could try to do better with their OOC/IC separation in general, to be honest.

i see it all the time.

i feel your pain.

i want to include everyone.

but some people don't want to include me.

[Alesan]

OOC player cliques pooling into clans or always playing together, giving each other a magic pass into plots and automatic 'backup', while cold shouldering/dismissing those who aren't part of it are definitely a thing - I sensed it as a player, and see it clearly happening now as staff. I wish people wouldn't do it and would play with a more inclusive mindset, as an 'elitist' (except it's not really elitist, it's just crap) cliquey mentality is not a healthy or a positive thing for the game. Luckily not everyone is like that, and they're the ones missing out on the really classy, fun players because their scope is so limited to and influenced by their OOC networks.

I think a lot of players could try to do better with their OOC/IC separation in general, to be honest.

It can be pretty obvious from the outside even as a player when this kind of thing is going on. People think they're being sneaky, or subtle, or whatever, but they don't realize how easily spotted it is when they're on the inside. It's a natural occurance in any game, RP enforced or not, but it would be nice if those types of players made more attempt to branch out from their circle of friends. When you just stick to the people you know, you make it that much more boring for everyone else who happens to play around you. And that makes you kind of boring, too.

[Miradus]

It is a much greater problem when that small clique forces their way into any plot or quest going on, even if it doesn't concern them. I'm not saying that occurs here, but I've seen it elsewhere. On a previous mud I played, a certain clique of friends who had played together for years would loiter in the tavern literally doing nothing for RL weeks except commenting on each other's fashion or having mudsex (and babies). Then suddenly an imm would animate a goblin or orc in the wilderness and you'd see the city empty out fast as the entire clique would rush out to participate in a plot, often overwhelming or even forcing away other players who had been there at the start.

Worse was that some of the staff were part of that clique and supported it OOC.

That sort of behavior is death to an RP mud as you just sort of cannibalize your new players in favor of supporting the old ones.

[Nergal]

OOC player cliques pooling into clans or always playing together, giving each other a magic pass into plots and automatic 'backup', while cold shouldering/dismissing those who aren't part of it are definitely a thing - I sensed it as a player, and see it clearly happening now as staff. I wish people wouldn't do it and would play with a more inclusive mindset, as an 'elitist' (except it's not really elitist, it's just crap) cliquey mentality is not a healthy or a positive thing for the game. Luckily not everyone is like that, and they're the ones missing out on the really classy, fun players because their scope is so limited to and influenced by their OOC networks.

I think a lot of players could try to do better with their OOC/IC separation in general, to be honest.

Thank you for saying the truth here.

In Armageddon, if you feel like there are forces beyond the scope of the actual game converging against you, one of the only things you'll salvage or take away from all of your investment is a new friend or person you've found & changed contact info with. I'm thankful for my few (three) friends I met on this game; however, since I've had years of 'kayfabe' experience in other RP environments, I don't feed them OOC opportunities and I do my best to ignore if they accidentally slip something to me.

I play to win, but win within the game. There's a threshold of gamesmanship that goes beyond that, which I think is spawned by general familiarity or being bored with the game. I'm not there yet.

And we all know that the staff are the ultimate OOC clique, constantly sharing information about everything happening.   

In the interest of saying the truth, I suppose it's also worth mentioning that one of the many things player cliques do is spread information on recent plots or things that happened to their character, or other characters. Usually it's behind the scenes, but sometimes it's quite visible.

Either way, it goes on to completely ruin the status of the plot, sometimes to the point that staff have to drop all support for it because it's obvious how much OOC collusion and information-sharing has destroyed the plot's integrity. Those people treat the game as if it is zero-sum because they are completely willing to destroy plots and other players' fun to benefit themselves and a few others. While it's safe to say that those players will never be trusted to the extent that non-clique players are as long as they continue their behavior and maintain their associations, it's also fair to say that some players that appear to be non-clique could be secretly engaging in the same behavior.

Ultimately, we individually decide whether high school has ended for us or not. A mature person who plays this game to have fun will adhere to the game's rules and guidelines and avoid OOC information sharing. Everyone else sucks.

[Riev]

Or. Sometimes it LOOKS like you are sharing plots and IC information but you dont have any friends. So staff summon you and rail you for 45minutes about how they know it was you even though you have no idea what theyre talking about.


Only to find out it WAS someone else but of course now staff dont trust you and you probably have a nasty pinfo because you lie to staff.

[Jingo]

For what it's worth. If you've never been the inside, you don't know what it looks like from the outside.

[Synthesis]

Or. Sometimes it LOOKS like you are sharing plots and IC information but you dont have any friends. So staff summon you and rail you for 45minutes about how they know it was you even though you have no idea what theyre talking about.


Only to find out it WAS someone else but of course now staff dont trust you and you probably have a nasty pinfo because you lie to staff.

Ha, that reminds me of the time I murdered a brand-new sponsored role PC sort of by accident. (I had no idea who it was...I just saw them palling around with another PC I wanted dead, so I was like, "fuck this guy, too.")  Then the corpse dropped and I saw the signet ring and was like uh...oops?

[Asanadas]

I let out a lot of information because I assumed that I was never returning to the game... I'm sure a lot of people have done this before. Now that I've got an invested interest in continuing in the game, I'm not outing information and likewise I'm following the rules. Like it's been said, I'm a somewhat rational actor here in the metaphor.  

The respect for the game comes and goes, especially if someone feels like they're not being respected in turn (by anything or anyone, no specific thing). In those pockets of questionable standing, it's relieving to find out that one isn't alone; that's how it was for me. The key qualifier here is whether it's true or not, the sensation is still there -- we're talking about feelings, after all.

How plots are ruined by OOC collusion, I can see that. But if my buddy tells me, "Hey, staff are giving me a purple erdlu that's going to eat Templar X's pants off" or some other plot that is completely out of my IC "realm" of influence, I'm going to say, "cool" and be done with it. I'm not going to get Templar X's AIM and warn him about his pants. Even if I am Templar X (which isn't likely at this rate), I'll say "cool" and keep on going.

There's a surface layer of Arm which, due to policies, protects information about activity from bubbling through to discussion on an OOC level. Some of us who have taken an interest in those activities from a hobbyist's standpoint want to talk about those things, in our circles. What's the last "This is something that happened which you know about" post on the GDB? Off the top of my head, aside from the gith stories, ICly it's the flash of light from our laser light show. But there's depth and story much further than that which interests us.

Basically, the depth is there but it can't get out without ruining things. Some cliques develop out of experience and the mutual assumption that others aren't going to "ruin" whatever they're told. Maybe there's a clique explicitly trying to ruin everything, but those folks are bad players. Maybe those of us who want to appreciate Armageddon outside of the small frames of our characters do suck, but I hope we're not ruining everything for everybody.

[Lizzie]

I think it should also be noted that some people just naturally gravitate toward certain play styles of others. This ultimately results in players who end up having characters who know each other.

For example - I interacted with the Red Fang character Lash with at least four of my PCs. For the first two, I didn't know who XD was other than a persona on the GDB, had no idea he was playing Lash, and it wouldn't have "meant" anything if I had known. By the time I had gotten to my third character's interaction with him, I found out it was XD. By that point I was already drawn to his inclusionary style of roleplay, and would have definitely gravitated toward his characters, whether as an ally or adversary, because I found the player fun to RP with.

The inverse is true as well - some people are naturally inclined to avoid certain play styles, which means that ICly, you'll see some exclusionary RP going on. It doesn't necessarily mean people are coordinating things outside the game.

[Suhuy]

OOC player cliques pooling into clans or always playing together, giving each other a magic pass into plots and automatic 'backup', while cold shouldering/dismissing those who aren't part of it are definitely a thing - I sensed it as a player, and see it clearly happening now as staff. I wish people wouldn't do it and would play with a more inclusive mindset, as an 'elitist' (except it's not really elitist, it's just crap) cliquey mentality is not a healthy or a positive thing for the game. Luckily not everyone is like that, and they're the ones missing out on the really classy, fun players because their scope is so limited to and influenced by their OOC networks.

I think a lot of players could try to do better with their OOC/IC separation in general, to be honest.

Dealing with this is the story of my life. Well, my IC one at times. It's definitely a thing and very frustrating when you go to great lengths to actually be inclusive and certain cliques can't be bothered to lift a finger because.. you're not in their little circle.

The flip side of the token, however, is as Riev says. Sometimes it really just looks that way when it's not at all, to the point where the players who may seem OOCly connected don't even know one another outside of their IC selves. I haven't been the victim of it, myself, but I have heard horror stories from many years past where various staff members would come down hard on a player, accusing them of OOCly coordinating with another. In almost every instance, the players accused didn't even know one another! I say this not to point fingers or to suggest that it happens in this day and age, but for all of us to look at a situation with a grain of salt and accept the possibility that we may be wrong.

What is not wrong, however, are the cliques that refuse to be inclusive and essentially want to play their own MUD within the MUD, and in some cases their own clan within a clan. They may not be ruining plots or sharing any deep dark IC secrets with each other offline, but their exclusivity is certain.  I would rather see players look for an excuse to interact than to blame away their refusal to do so on the virtual world, saying it was too crowded to notice you in a tavern. Why not use the virtual crowd to force you to bump into that one and only other PC in the room instead? The only other PC is an elf and you feel your character is too uppity to interact with elves? Make up some virtual excuse that your ailing aunt has a sickness and you need some sort of illegal substance to cure her as an excuse to start a deal and initiate interaction. I'm not saying we have to interact with every single individual we encounter, but sometimes it feels that we go so far to the opposite end of the spectrum that forcing a little interaction on others would actually be beneficial.

[BadSkeelz]

Make what excuses for clique-forming and "Not all players collude OOC!" you all want, it still happens. Try not to take the stating of facts personally.

I know it because I've done and seen others do it. If it's as bad a thing for the game as some believe, I can't say. It probably is. I try not to engage in "plots" that take more than a day or to resolve, or scheme against other players, because the OOC baggage that comes with either is too much for me to bother with. But even as someone who doesn't like "plots," learning the amount of shit I do OOC is annoying.

[hopeandsorrow]

I sometimes have difficulty telling if some one is putting me off cause OOC motivation or just if it's IC.

I always find it impossible to tell.

Especially when you add 'disinterested' in a emote, (looks at you, with an expression of disinterest).

I get slightly offended on an OOC level, "Sorry guises I'm not in on yer buddy list!"

Then I realize it's more then likely because I'm playing a dirty breed wearing the worse clothing, but for that slight moment I'm always like "Did you really have to add the disinterested part? REALLY?".

Just my personal musing, I could care less about people's little cliques, I evolved past high school to become a socially awkward adult.

[nauta]

Having played my share of social outcasts, my favourite reactions still are the following:

1. em ignores you.

(Yes, I've received that.)

2. [nothing]

(Yes, I've received that.)

I could honestly give two poops about it.  There are by leagues more people out there that are fun and interesting than people who aren't on this MUD.

[Desertman]

While I do not talk about the game OOC'ly with anyone, I have been part of what I would consider IC cliques I suppose.

It is incredibly easy for me personally to spot the guy who has played my underling four times in a row and is coming back to be underling number five. (I've also had people come back to play my enemy multiple times. That is also obvious.)

While it isn't arranged OOC, and I know they are doing it just because they enjoy playing with me, I'm not sure how -bad- it is.

I don't treat them any differently. If they fuck up, they get shit on. If they don't, they get treated like every other underling of mine that comes along, gets hired, and gets put to work.

I've never once arranged anyone to "join" me in game for anything I've ever done outside of some really corny stints 15+ years ago involving some RL friends I was introducing to the game. (Which I would argue was me trying to get new players, not actual meaningful allies that would get me anywhere IC.)

While I can absolutely see frowning on some groups that are obviously only playing together because they are OOC'ly arranging it, we should be careful not to frown on people who "just enjoy playing with someone".

If someone is playing an awesome Kuraci Sergeant and you have played two other Kuracis under them and that leader is still alive and you want to play a third underling, go ahead. It is a game. It is supposed to be fun. If that leader is making things fun for you, go play with them again if you want.

If someone is playing an awesome rinther that you love being around, play with them over the course of a few characters if you keep getting dead. Just try to make it not obvious who you used to play. It's a game. Enjoy yourself.

So long as you aren't breaking the rules surrounding OOC communication I don't think you should be hindered from playing where and with who you want so long as you have an IC reason to do so.

It's a game. It's not a chore and it's not a job.

Follow the rules, and have your fun within the scope of those rules.

Anything beyond that is just people trying to dictate you to their preferences and that is not the same as breaking the rules.

(While I enjoy getting -new- people, I never had a single issue come up with people I knew who were coming back to play multiple underlings with me. Some of them even betrayed me with new characters when their past characters were loyal as could be hehe.)

[Nergal]

While it isn't arranged OOC, and I know they are doing it just because they enjoy playing with me, I'm not sure how -bad- it is.

It isn't bad at all.

[Delirium]

Rule of thumb I follow: take everything IC. Assume everything is legit.

Even if it seems obvious that it's OOC collusion, I don't have a magic wand to know the truth behind any scenario I'm in.

So we may as well assume the best unless proven otherwise, because going down the road of guilty until proven innocent just leads to a toxic, accusatory environment.

[RogueGunslinger]

Amen, D.

[Armaddict]

It's a closed community.  We've been closing clans.  We've been closing play areas.  We've been pushing things together.  People are bound to set up in similar circles as they were before, purely out of lack of options/variety within their desired state of gameplay.

Not to say collusion doesn't exist.  But people seem fairly quick to jump to things being a 'cut and dry case' where it's really not.

[Jingo]

Rule of thumb I follow: take everything IC. Assume everything is legit.

Even if it seems obvious that it's OOC collusion, I don't have a magic wand to know the truth behind any scenario I'm in.

So we may as well assume the best unless proven otherwise, because going down the road of guilty until proven innocent just leads to a toxic, accusatory environment.

There's a lot to be said about call out culture. There's also a lot to be said about a permissive culture that overlooks certain forms of abuse.

I think the solution is to challenge players to play better without personally judging them in public.

[Delirium]

Rule of thumb I follow: take everything IC. Assume everything is legit.

Even if it seems obvious that it's OOC collusion, I don't have a magic wand to know the truth behind any scenario I'm in.

So we may as well assume the best unless proven otherwise, because going down the road of guilty until proven innocent just leads to a toxic, accusatory environment.

There's a lot to be said about call out culture. There's also a lot to be said about a permissive culture that overlooks certain forms of abuse.

I think the solution is to challenge players to play better without personally judging them in public.

I agree with that.

Still, pushing forward and seeming to condone a culture of cyncisim and paranoia seems ill-advised at best. Do you want witch hunts? That's how you get witch hunts.

I'd rather be more worried about whether people are having fun in keeping with the spirit of the game. It's a fine line but a very important one.

[BadSkeelz]

All players are shit until proven otherwise. And they'll probably still do something shitty if you put them in the right situation ("Shitsuation").

If you feel uncomfortable about people discussing shitplay, it's probably because you do it. I know that feeling, it's alright to admit it to yourself and try and do better.

[evilcabbage]

i try to assume the better of people.