I've Lost Some Trust

[Lizzie]

With great trepidation I am going to make a brief comment on this thread.

We do look at player opinion as one factor when we're making changes to the game.  But ultimately someone has to make the call to change something, and with a pretty sizable audience of interested parties (players) - we'd never be able to change anything if we waited for universal agreement (or even a super majority) on proposed changes - especially something of this scale.

I think there's been uh.. one, maybe two PCs rolled up under the new system thus far.  I am pretty sure that they haven't affected the game world in any meaningful way yet.  Literally all the discussion thus far is based exclusively upon conjecture.

Speaking personally, also as a player, I can feel empathy for the 'sense of loss' some people have with the pure elementalist guilds disappearing - but as they say when one door closes another opens.  I definitely think that is true in this case.

What I see existing currently with the current changes:

A few doors closed.
A bunch of pigeonholes opened.

I have zero interest in those pigeonholes. I did, however, have great interest in some of those doors. Not even all of them. I feel that the staff has actually *eliminated* my ability to play a mage as a "full person" rather than enhanced that ability.

[Harmless]

players tend to react negatively when options are taken away and positively when options are added.

Does the notion of "change" necessitate removal of options? Why not just add subguilds for sorcerers and keep a mainguild as an option? Nobody would be upset; some people will whine that they have too many choices but those would be minor complaints. The vast majority would say "cool, more choices is better" and the response would be positive. The same question could be asked of every change staff makes including this latest one: take something away and you have taken away someone's range of experience.

So in summary, leave options in and add new ones and everybody celebrates, a few people may complain about complexity but will generally still be pleased. Remove options some people like without hope of replacing them and some people will be upset, so much so that they won't celebrate the additions.

It should generally be a policy of staff that removal of options should be run by the playerbase before being implemented. If staff don't do this  then you will indeed see players be disappointed. Running it by the playerbase could be done directly through asking us or indirectly through watching us make choices. See below for more.

Change != removal. It can mean additions without deletions. I definitely sympathise with players who feel this was a heavy handed move. Moreover if something was removed from a game without a similar replacement and it was something players had previously spent hundreds of game hours enjoying then I think stating they would like a break from the game is a reasonable reaction. We are talking about the complete removal of "mages" as described in the original announcement. If you enjoyed being a mage, roleplaying a character with a deep connection to magic, now you can't unless you were lucky enough to have one already. That is the largest change in Armageddon to date and if a player were to want to quit over it I would understand.

Armageddon is a different game now to be sure. I would much rather have seen both mainguild mages and subguilds available for a few years before such a removal were even considered. See how many PCs are rolled up of either category and then decide if the playerbase would be okay with it. Instead the decision was forced on us without seeing whether or not these new subguilds would be as popular or more popular than the existing choices.

[Large Hero]

Nevermind, this thread isn't really about the changes. Deleting post.

[azuriolinist]

We'll consider the polls for what they are: expressions of player opinion based on conjecture and feeling. When staff take valuable feedback on a change, it happens months down the line, when players can respond logically and with basis in experience. Then things can be adjusted as-needed.

That's great to hear, though I agree with Harmless's post above, especially because it was the removal of something many players (or it seems that way) had enjoyed. Anyway, it should be fun to see how these changes play out.

[IAmJacksOpinion]

I haven't really read this thread all the way through, but my thoughts / reaction to the premise is this:

We're schmucks posting on the GDB. Staff arose from the ranks of the GDB posting schmucks. Any schmuck who's ever spent days crafting an argument for a new concept only to have it receive a page and a half of indifference can tell you that, no matter how smart a schmuck thinks he is, sometimes his ideas stink. I'm not saying that this change stinks - so far my feelings on it are neutral - but I think that those schmucks over there could have at least run something this monumental by us schmucks over here before pushing it to PROD.  We may not have all agreed on it (that would take a fuckin' miracle on the best of days), but it would've been nice to test the temperature before plunging in.

Sure, there might have been an uptick in magickal play, but if the question was phrased as "hey, here's what we're thinking guys" instead of "here's what we're working on right now and planning to implement on MM/dd/yyyy" then I doubt you would've seen a gamebreaking upswing in people apping mages.

[boog]

According to the poll, for those saying a majority of players are against this change, numerically, is untrue. Most players feel neutral or better about the changes. I think that's a good way to be.

So... give something a go before you shit all over it, guys. That's all I'm saying.

[Harmless]

According to the poll, for those saying a majority of players are against this change, numerically, is untrue. Most players feel neutral or better about the changes. I think that's a good way to be.

So... give something a go before you shit all over it, guys. That's all I'm saying.

Boog, who here is "shitting all over" something? we're reacting, and the majority of us who are reacting with disfavor are doing so with as much politeness and congeniality as possible.

If I have a negative response towards something, I am going to be honest about that. I am also open-minded and admit that I want to give this a try, yes. So in essence I am planning on doing what you're saying, but I am also being told that many options have been removed from the game. So I am reacting to that. I think the community as a whole is also doing the same.

Please try and see our side of things. To use your own language, don't "shit all over our responses to something," this is after all a discussion board and we are having a discussion. Okay?

[boog]

I wasn't indicating you. There have been a number of really aggressive posts! I'm just saying that we should all take a deep breath and give it a go. If the response is terribly negative, and people stop playing by the droves, I'm sure staff will try to come up with a resolution.

But as it stands now, people seem okay with the idea. I guess those who complain are usually the loudest, though. And on an Internet forum, they're usually the... very loudest and meanest. The tone has lightened some from last night, but it's still just insane to me how some people were mistreating one another.

Blah, I'm going away now.

[Harmless]

*hug*

[Delirium]

I'm going to say it...

Look, I've been as salty at staff as any player here. But at some point you have to realize that it accomplishes absolutely nothing.

Taking grand stands about betrayals of trust is only going to come off as slightly ridiculous at best, no matter how understandable your feelings are.

I have super mixed feelings, but I can see the potential for this. I have faith that staff has a grand plan in all this, whether or not I personally agree with it at the moment.

My advice is to chill out, embrace the chaos, and let the hate darkside apathy flow through you.

[Chettaman]

*yes. embrace chaos...
I fell in love with Kryos recently. He's a hero in the GDB sense of the word as well as, I suspect, the real world sense. Let him speak his reasonably concerned mind! Tribe mentality!

Lost trust? No. To tell you the truth, I've always regarded the staff as overlords that give and take on a whim without my hearsay. Do I like to believe that the staff will work with us to make this game the best ever? Pfft. Duh. And I'm not saying the change is good or bad, because I'm going to enjoy the game anyway. I am going to say that I do think that taking away options breaks hearts, man. Dreams are crushed. Especially without consent or any warning at all. ... but like I said. I've always considered staff to be gods looming over us.
I'm also a really "go with the flow" kind of guy. Unless something threatens my flow directly, (which in a sense, it has) I won't worry about it.
Hm. I guess I am kind of upset that I won't be able to roleplay being completely connected to an element. I really hope this isn't the case.

[Chettaman]

I realize, after seeing something like this being "futile" how serious this actually is. Everyone... this is a game. Created and crafted /for/ us and not by us. We can come up with ideas and talk about positive change, but ultimately the people in charge are the people in charge. That isn't a bad thing. Heck... I'm big headed enough to say that they've even listened to my pleas, what with the reassuring announcement to the player base after I suggested it in a thread and some other stuff. I'll even say that other people's words were heard too.
That is the truth. The people who are in charge /do/ listen. They do take our thoughts and feelings into consideration. They do love us, man. <3
They have literally been making updates regularly without our consent and for the most part has had no back talk. Because most of them were additions to the game. Now that they've taken something away it is reasonable to wonder why and ask why. It is reasonable for people to make threads like this. (again, I commend you, Kryos).

But. It is clear that people see another solution and I'm certain, now, more than yesterday that the IMMs are lookin' out for us. Did I lose trust, no. I tell ya, ever since all these changes started happening I've noticed my trust in them sky-rocket. Like I said, it's like they actually care!
xD And I may not of gained trust from this, because "they're" still the hand that feeds.
But I got faith, man.

[Miradus]

Staff are not obligated to check and make sure that players unanimously like every change we're planning before we work it into the game, and it's difficult to take feedback on this particular change seriously when literally only one player has tried the change so far and other players are twisting staff commentary to mean something else.

If you feel that a change to the game is driving you to take a break, or quit, then do it.

If you stop yourself and consider that that might be an over-reaction before you try out the change, then more power to you.

Ultimately, this is a game and we hope the players have fun playing it. As staff, we're going to continue to work on it and modernize it. When it's appropriate to ask players for suggestions before a change, we will (and have in the past for myriad other things).

I thought I'd keep my mouth shut since this is essentially none of my business. I was okay with the change since it absolutely and positively didn't impact me in the least, but when I saw this response from you it more or less validated the OP's complaint at its core (without all the overreaction and drama included).

In over 20 years of playing, coding, and serving as staff on muds I can tell you that big game changes without consultation of the playerbase or even lovingly and kindly soliciting their input post-release will drive away players. That's all you had to do. Politely say, "Hey, nothing is permanent. Try this out for awhile and give us some feedback on how it's working." Instead you took a hard line and your response reads largely as "hit the road if you don't like it".

I can point to about four other really great muds I've played out there that had stellar world-building, great code, and an awesome history ... but now have about 4 players logged on at their peak times. Staff may be all volunteers, but so are players.

[Nergal]

I don't want anyone to quit. However, I want people who say they are going to quit over a change to stop using that as a threat against staff in an attempt to get us to change the game to their liking, because 1) it doesn't work, 2) it's clearly an overreaction and 3) because players almost never follow through with such a threat. I was specifically addressing a sentiment that was starting to become a theme of the thread and certainly not saying "hit the road if you don't like it".

[valeria]

Politely say, "Hey, nothing is permanent. Try this out for awhile and give us some feedback on how it's working." ....

I'm just going to point out that this has been said several times now. I know I'd get tired of saying the same thing over and over.

[Miradus]

Politely say, "Hey, nothing is permanent. Try this out for awhile and give us some feedback on how it's working." ....

I'm just going to point out that this has been said several times now. I know I'd get tired of saying the same thing over and over.

Good then! I didn't read all the responses in the thread and nor do I want to. I just wanted to weigh in on a specific thing I saw, which Nergal has largely addressed in his response.

[Harmless]

Let us compare this recent change to the changes to subguilds which started with Adhira's poll asking us which two subguilds were the least useful or fun. Within a few months they released changes to subguilds that basically incorporated player feedback. I think people received those changes very positively. Scavenger was removed but there were definitely no "threats" to quit.

Now we have the complete opposite approach to this no less than a few months after. We were told guilds would get a revamp but there was no mention of these kinds of changes.

Is this staff's game to change and code as they wish? Definitely. Is there some merit to the poll Adhira started before subguilds were changed? Definitely. The point is there are a lot of ways to run a ship. There is clearly not an explicit rule saying staff must or mustn't do things in a way players like. But players also have a say and they can and do make a big difference in the experience of all players.

When threads like these are started it is an attempt to show not just that we are happy or unhappy with the decisions staff make but also that we really, really care about those decisions. Sometimes there is some heated emotion included and that is OK. We love the game even if we don't love everything that happens to its design. In the end I still can't find a roleplaying community with the same depth and dedication so that will keep me here at least when I have time to play.

[wizturbo]

Posted in the wrong thread.

[RogueGunslinger]

Nobody complaining has managed to take into account the reason staff said they didn't warn people ahead of time...

Nobody has even tried. Right now staff has already put more effort into considering the decision, and what other problems might arise from telling everyone before-hand, than anyone who's complained about it. Because ya'll are hand-waving away a glaring flaw in your idea that everyone should be notified before-hand; That would piss off just as many people who don't like the idea, AND make the games balance of magick vs mundane incredibly in favor of magick while everyone scrambled to play a guild that won't be around anymore.

[Riev]

I, for one, prefer mundanes. I am afraid of the changes allowing nearly ANYONE to be a magicker, OOCly, but I can totally get behind that fact that... well.. now thats REALLY true. Finding out your boss is a fucking death wizard has some profound implications.

However, where my trust is being lost is in some of the vocal GDB base. I read all three pages, and most of it is arguments between a few key vocal people who didn't like ANOTHER post on these forums, or thinks people don't get to voice their opinions and must be shut down. For those of you who have expressed your opinions, defended them, and left it at that? I would fucking love to play alongside you any day. Some of you others... are seriously just throwing shade and making an air of grievances to be more than it is.


So far as staff? While a headsup would have been nice, and some of the options they just ripped from me were ones I hoped to one day special app for... I can't even imagine the hemorrhage of players we'd see just from the IDEA that this is what was going to happen. Debates would start, people would be doing what they're doing now, only the changes wouldn't even exist. It sucks. It hurts that they did it. I was really hoping to have that 'all-chocolate chip cookie' one day, because I heard from people that ate it before that it was amazing. The change exists, now. I see a number of problems with it. Staff doesn't particularly care if I play or not, so I think I'm just going to keep playing. I just pegged the overarching idea of 'staff' down one, in my mind, but my system of Karma doesn't matter, its theirs.

[Norcal]

Speaking to staff in a recent request, I wrote something like "well it is your game and you can do as you like". The response I received was "It is -our- game" meaning players, staff (who are also players), builders etc.

This thread started talking about stakeholders. I run an NGO and dealing with various stakeholders is one of my principal duties. Any good program needs both stakeholder consultation and stakeholder accountability.

However, if I tried to run my NGO as a democracy...chaos would ensue, the donors would never fund us again and I would accomplish nothing. Consultation does not equal majority rule.

Harmless had a wonderful post (as usual) about Adhiras poll.  I think personally, that is the way to go for large scale changes. It really did make me feel like I had some ownership in the game and in the process of change. It made me feel valued.  However it was not a democratic process. It was a consultation, and it worked.

Kyros, while there was no poll for these changes, I would not say they were taken with no stakeholder consultation. I think decisions were most likely taken after many years of watching the game being played, playing the game and listening to players through requests and on the GDB.  It was just not a centralized thing, like Adhras poll.

Why did they do it this way?  They have explained. Is the reason acceptable? I don't know.  Do I feel sad? Yes, however, I have not yet tried the new system.  I do think there was consultation, just not in the way many would have liked to see it done. Will there be review? I believe so and that makes me relax a little.

I need to give the benefit of the doubt to staff here, and trust that they are indeed trying to make the game more FUN, for all the stakeholder groups, even Boog.
Cheers

[Culinary Critic]

I admit to giving up partway through the argument about dictatorships on page two (not meant as a flame, just too tired to read it all tonight) and not being fully informed on everything posted.

I was considering creating a thread asking staff how they decided where they were going to focus their energies.  How are the decisions made on which changes will be made, when and how?  And how much player consultation takes place in the process?

But I changed my mind.  Here's why.  In looking at the simplest of threads on the GDB, one on the most innocuous, gentle, bland and downright boring topics of conversation that a person could think of, by the time we get to the second page (third on a slow day), the players are upset and arguing about every tiny detail.  We, as a group, myself included, would never be able to reach a consensus on how to correctly pronounce jallal (and don't derail on this topic), much less something as significant as how magick is portrayed and played in the world. 

And, quite frankly, I'm kind of glad that we're not involved.  The discussions would never, ever, ever end and we'd still be playing with dice, on a tabletop, most likely stuck in the opening scene of the campaign because the cleric and the rogue are arguing about the correct saving throw for falling out of a chair and avoiding the badger of doomy doom on the way down.  (yes, I would have participated in this argument for hours)

I have been upset about a number of the changes that have taken place in the last several years.  I came to realize that most of them made the game world a better place.  The ones I don't feel this way about, I either avoid where possible or accept as one of the conditions for playing the game.

I do, however, trust that staff are a collection of people much more knowledgeable about the game, the world and the history than I.  I also trust that they're trying to make positive changes to improve the game experience, at least as they see fit.  Maybe not the exact same changes I'd make, but well thought out and developed by the group.

[Harmless]

Nobody complaining has managed to take into account the reason staff said they didn't warn people ahead of time...

Nobody has even tried. Right now staff has already put more effort into considering the decision, and what other problems might arise from telling everyone before-hand, than anyone who's complained about it. Because ya'll are hand-waving away a glaring flaw in your idea that everyone should be notified before-hand; That would piss off just as many people who don't like the idea, AND make the games balance of magick vs mundane incredibly in favor of magick while everyone scrambled to play a guild that won't be around anymore.

In one of my earlier posts I suggested that they could have indirectly seen what players would have favored more, the subguilds vs the mainguilds, by implementing both at once and seeing what players chose over time. If players tended to favor the subguilds with both options available for some time then they would have had their answer. They needn't necessarily have ever told the players they were planning on removing the Magick mainguilds in this case.

Otherwise I agree with you. An advance warning would have thrown game balance. Still, there is an alternate way to go about this besides what was chosen.

[Dan]

Nobody complaining has managed to take into account the reason staff said they didn't warn people ahead of time...

Nobody has even tried. Right now staff has already put more effort into considering the decision, and what other problems might arise from telling everyone before-hand, than anyone who's complained about it. Because ya'll are hand-waving away a glaring flaw in your idea that everyone should be notified before-hand; That would piss off just as many people who don't like the idea, AND make the games balance of magick vs mundane incredibly in favor of magick while everyone scrambled to play a guild that won't be around anymore.

In one of my earlier posts I suggested that they could have indirectly seen what players would have favored more, the subguilds vs the mainguilds, by implementing both at once and seeing what players chose over time. If players tended to favor the subguilds with both options available for some time then they would have had their answer. They needn't necessarily have ever told the players they were planning on removing the Magick mainguilds in this case.

Otherwise I agree with you. An advance warning would have thrown game balance. Still, there is an alternate way to go about this besides what was chosen.

I've tried to come up with a better implementation plan and find more flaws than benefits. What would you suggest as the alternative way to go about this?

[Harmless]

What I just posted. Implement the subguilds, keep the mainguilds, eventually get numbers for what people favor among the subguilds and do tweaks to balance them, rinse, repeat. All the while keep mainguild Magickers around as the "classic" option. Eventually have subguilds options people like more and phase out the mainguilds at that point when they won't be as missed. It could have been done, no? What is wrong with this approach?