I've Lost Some Trust

[boog]

Well, maybe we can take a deep breath in, exhale, and just maybe save our judgment and our immediate finger pointing and inflammatory speech until we actually give it a go.

Sometimes you gotta dive in, give it a go. If you swim, great. If you sink, it sucks. Make it known you think it's not so great. But use kind language. Don't be like my kid and call me a fucking twat waffle and go in timeout for the whole day. Just... realize there are people on the other side, too. They've thought about this. They want you to give it a go with them.

[Armaddict]

Well, maybe we can take a deep breath in, exhale, and just maybe save our judgment and our immediate finger pointing and inflammatory speech until we actually give it a go.

Sometimes you gotta dive in, give it a go. If you swim, great. If you sink, it sucks. Make it known you think it's not so great. But use kind language. Don't be like my kid and call me a fucking twat waffle and go in timeout for the whole day. Just... realize there are people on the other side, too. They've thought about this. They want you to give it a go with them.

...where has there been...any name calling?  Or unkind language?

[RogueGunslinger]

Nobody complaining has addressed one of the major issues that would have arose if they did tell everyone beforehand: Storage, and countless people playing a certain type of character simply becuase it'll be the last time they can, instead of because it added to the game. I imagine a ton of those requests would be denied and the staff would have ended up pissing people off just as much, if not more.

Anyhow, Staff, being made up of players of the game, and having knowledge of what people like to play beyond the average player, really doesn't need to ask for input from the GDB if they're willing to amend and make changes to said decisions to smooth things out as much as they reasonably can afterwards.

That last bit is pretty key though.

I am curious of an example of this smoothing out through player input that can be demonstrated.

They have both made changes on the fly to appease players AND asked for player input for these things. If you're asking me to go digging around for linked examples I'm afraid I'm way too lazy. One, for instance, would be the sorcerer sub-guilds doubling their magical spells from the time they were implemented to now for changes after a lot of feedback on those changes.

If you're asking how they could smooth things out? These are just things I think are a good idea:

Re-adding drovian/elkrosian later with some added spells that has some more flavor and uniqueness.
Making a fleshed out nilazi-type class or subguild that ISNT a magicker but a guild closer to Psion,(as in no word combination bullshit... I'm assuming psions don't have word combinations, heh)
Allow your magicker-subs a way to access a full-blown magicker skillset through in-game means that are hard to achieve.

[boog]

Well, maybe we can take a deep breath in, exhale, and just maybe save our judgment and our immediate finger pointing and inflammatory speech until we actually give it a go.

Sometimes you gotta dive in, give it a go. If you swim, great. If you sink, it sucks. Make it known you think it's not so great. But use kind language. Don't be like my kid and call me a fucking twat waffle and go in timeout for the whole day. Just... realize there are people on the other side, too. They've thought about this. They want you to give it a go with them.

...where has there been...any name calling?  Or unkind language?

In the other thread. I'm not digging through it. It's just been offensive to me, reading it.

I realize you get really impassioned, for one, about the code stuff. I don't. I like to think we're both good RPers, though. I'm not singling you out, either. But in the other thread there was finger pointing, implicating staff accusing players of shit and it was a complete mindfuck to me. I just guess that I value the staff here more than most people, because I've played games (and staffed them) like The Eternal City, where you don't get dick, and you get banned for even the slightest hint of unhappiness.

I don't know. This is worse than when people were riled up about sorcerers, probably because it affects a larger portion of the player base. But I don't think that we can really say, for sure, until we give this change a go, that we don't like it. And we can be pleasant about it, or at least, not ugly?

[Kryos]

I don't know what GS is. But, since i have real life experience with it: The Eternal City has been around for slightly less time than ArmageddonMUD. They have never had a resurge in players like we have. They hold steady at maybe a max of 50 players, but more often average 20-30. They have had the same core playerbase for decades now. Even with all of the changes that have occurred, completely crippling some skillsets while insanely benefiting others, people STILL stayed around, because they had faith, they had nothing else to do, or they enjoyed one another more than the skill changes.

It's unfair to lack trust in all staff because of the changes made. I don't think it's fair the way some of you are speaking to them, either. You can't have a civil discussion while accusing staff that they're saying you suck. You can't treat this change poorly until we give it a go.

If it sucks, maybe it'll change. But it's not nice to sit there and bemoan shit that has been implemented for less than a day.

Ugh. Maybe I need to ghosty and get away from the GDB.

Gemstone III (now Gemstone IV) was the biggest mud in the world. Hundreds online at nearly all times.  Hailing back from the pre real internet days, such as AoL only access.  I used it as an example for that reason, and a tertiary reasons that part of the reason they changed the game was me,  I had played it since '95 when I was barely double digit age, and the similarity of their make a change processes and the results(modernization as a focus, no player surveying/input pre action).

And I count 1 instance in this thread so far of someone having borderline bad intentions.  Pretty happy with the tone of discourse so far.

Lastly, its not logical, or rational, to say someone can't tell you how the fallout of removal of options will impact their enjoyment, or how the lack of communication impacts their perceptions of staff before trying it out.  Its not about just the latest change.

[boog]

Yes, this thread. But the other one is full of heated salty craziness. I think we can tone the heated, salty craziness down and apply it liberally to our popcorn, instead.

Edited due to your edit: I think we can all have feelings and voice them. But I don't think we need to be ugly, as people are being. I think it's just ridiculous. It's not messing up characters right now, as we speak. It's something that is going to gradually come into play as main guild magickers phase out and are replaced by these.

I don't think that the staff has breached any sort of trust, but then, I'm used to this sort of thing happening more frequently, more half-assedly, and more, in generally, brokenly, than the way things have been implemented here.

I understand that you are upset because this is another straw on your back. I hope you'll stay around because I've played with you and I think you're the bee's knees. But I don't think this is going to break anyone's experience. If it does, then detail it as it happens. We can only present hard, factual evidence to staff and hope they listen to it if it's not working. But, I guess I'm simply glad that they would even look at what I have to say about my experience with this new subguild stuff in the first place. Not every game is so lucky.

[Inks]

I trust staff in the last year more than I ever have before.

[Kryos]

Yes, this thread. But the other one is full of heated salty craziness. I think we can tone the heated, salty craziness down and apply it liberally to our popcorn, instead.

I . . . can say ought but I agree.  Civil discourse is the best approach(even made a thread about that a few days back).  Perhaps apply the fire hose over there?

[Desertman]

Eh, the same rule has been in place since the beginning of my "career" here. The rule is simple:

It's staff's game. Player input has always been a secondary consideration if it is asked for at all. Like it or leave it. Those are the only options that have ever existed and ever will exist most likely.

*shrug*

We are all still here playing it, for the most part, so they must be doing something right even if you feel they do some things wrong.

There are always going to be things we like or don't like about the game. The game is big enough however that we can -usually- find something to enjoy even if we don't enjoy everything about it.

That's what I do.

[shadeoux]

Like Boog, I'm a long time player, under a couple different names over the last two decades. The one thing that I am saddened by the most, is that I only last year got the ability to play a sorcerer, unfortunately I got that last Karma after the change(le sigh) and I'll not be able to play one. I really, really, really, have faith in the staff they are doing whats best for the game. While excited about the up coming changes to the guilds, I don't understand the removal of the three mage guilds completely. Maybe there is a reason as others have been suspect of, I.E. creating more Sorcerer options with the Nilazi, elks and drovs. A little shake up is good, but this is one hell of a shake up.
#pleasedon'tbreakapartpsionsbeforeIcanplayone
#mycharacterslivetolongtocheckoutthechangessincebeforethesorcseperation

[Desertman]

I believe in the original world of Athas only fire, water, wind, and earth elementalists existed.

That might have something to do with it.

If it didn't, we are mimicking it unintentionally anyways. *shrug*

[Vwest]

Ugh. Maybe I need to ghosty and get away from the GDB.

I've been saying that for years.

Both parts, actually.

[boog]

Ugh. Maybe I need to ghosty and get away from the GDB.

I've been saying that for years.

Both parts, actually.

He has a sexy voice and he doesn't pay attention to the GDB. Let's both do this. Get sexy voices and be more like ghosty and get away from the GDB.

[Kryos]

Eh, the same rule has been in place since the beginning of my "career" here. The rule is simple:

It's staff's game. Player input has always been a secondary consideration if it is asked for at all. Like it or leave it. Those are the only options that have ever existed and ever will exist most likely.

*shrug*

We are all still here playing it, for the most part, so they must be doing something right even if you feel they do some things wrong.

There are always going to be things we like or don't like about the game. The game is big enough however that we can -usually- find something to enjoy even if we don't enjoy everything about it.

That's what I do.

I'm going to refute this with numbers.  Look at the number of unique accounts created every month, then the log ins.  We aren't all still playing.

Edit:  weeeee, typos.

[Desertman]

Eh, the same rule has been in place since the beginning of my "career" here. The rule is simple:

It's staff's game. Player input has always been a secondary consideration if it is asked for at all. Like it or leave it. Those are the only options that have ever existed and ever will exist most likely.

*shrug*

We are all still here playing it, for the most part, so they must be doing something right even if you feel they do some things wrong.

There are always going to be things we like or don't like about the game. The game is big enough however that we can -usually- find something to enjoy even if we don't enjoy everything about it.

That's what I do.

I'm going to refute this with numbers.  Look at the number of unique accounts created every month, then the log ins.  We aren't all still playing.

Edit:  weeeee, typos.

I'm going to refute that with just pointing out I didn't say what you are saying I said.

[Kryos]

And you think the black and white of, accept or leave, is a useful or enjoyable paradigm? 

Also, please elaborate.  How did I miss the mark?

[Desertman]

And you think the black and white of, accept or leave, is a useful or enjoyable paradigm? 

Also, please elaborate.  How did I miss the mark?

I have no opinion that I wish to share on the topic of the black and white "accept it or leave" front. My opinion doesn't matter and it likely wouldn't be well received. Suffice to say we are likely in agreement.

I stated we are all still here playing, "for the most part". I never stated we are all still here playing.

How you want to interpret "for the most part" is entirely up to you and how you are feeling currently as it was intentionally left open to interpretation.

[Asmoth]

And you think the black and white of, accept or leave, is a useful or enjoyable paradigm? 

Also, please elaborate.  How did I miss the mark?

I don't think anyone said accept it or leave.

But I do think people have been trying to get across that player desire versus game programming, don't always jive.

[Kryos]

Thanks!

The we are playing for the most part, to me, meant there was a significant hold on players.  Or at least an expected degree of retention on a yearly window.

As it is, in a thread a few years past I did an analysis of what must be happening by the numbers from a third party site that tracks player logins to muds and compared it to the new accounts/unique log ins.  The result is that older players gravitated out as the trend.  If I had the raw data from the game, I could plug in some network analysis through some tools I have access to and probably come up with a clearer picture.  But the picture was not reinforcing before increased granularity.  Older players were leaving.  This is expected, to some degree, by real life, but not to the degree observed.

Edit Here:  in that thread, the new accounts kept as offered by a member of staff were factored in to what must be old accounts lost, which is why I had some certainty.

Another reason I am beating the bushes on what is no doubt a touchy subject.

And you think the black and white of, accept or leave, is a useful or enjoyable paradigm?  

Also, please elaborate.  How did I miss the mark?

I don't think anyone said accept it or leave.

But I do think people have been trying to get across that player desire versus game programming, don't always jive.

My original post goes on a bit of length on how this is the exact opposite of true.  This is not to say I or hopefully others who share some similarity of sentiment couldn't be reasoned with or satiated with proof of why I was off base, or a good thrust of logic against it.

[nauta]

I like the changes and so on, and really like the really informative post explaining them, and wouldn't say there's lose of trust at all on my end.  But!

I do agree it'd be neat to toss out proposals (like the really informative post explaining this change) before any work was done on it.  I'm not sure what the workflow upstairs is, but it'd be sort of like an RFC in computers, or a prospectus for a dissertation.  Get some feedback from the playerbase, tweak the proposal, or keep it as is, implement, release.  You'll still have people who disagree, and certainly won't satisfy all the players, but you'd at least eliminate the element of surprise.

[Asmoth]

I like the changes and so on, and really like the really informative post explaining them, and wouldn't say there's lose of trust at all on my end.  But!

I do agree it'd be neat to toss out proposals (like the really informative post explaining this change) before any work was done on it.  I'm not sure what the workflow upstairs is, but it'd be sort of like an RFC in computers, or a prospectus for a dissertation.  Get some feedback from the playerbase, tweak the proposal, or keep it as is, implement, release.  You'll still have people who disagree, and certainly won't satisfy all the players, but you'd at least eliminate the element of surprise.

What took me a long ass time to realize about this game, and really any mud, is that it's not a democracy.

They don't have to get our permission, or our vote.

We play or we don't play, that is the absolute extent of our influence.

Can we propose ideas, complaints and input? Sure.

But it in no way, has any weight moreso than the staff puts on it.

If they like an idea and run with it, great, you helped shape the game.

If they don't like an idea and do the opposite, you still are here at their allowance, and you can voice your complaint but don't feel entitled to anything.

To put it in slightly simple, but I think effective view...

This is a dictatorship and the rulers are the staff.  This is China, not the USA. (changed from cuba to china, because technically china is ran by a group of people, where cuba is one.)

[Kryos]

I like the changes and so on, and really like the really informative post explaining them, and wouldn't say there's lose of trust at all on my end.  But!

I do agree it'd be neat to toss out proposals (like the really informative post explaining this change) before any work was done on it.  I'm not sure what the workflow upstairs is, but it'd be sort of like an RFC in computers, or a prospectus for a dissertation.  Get some feedback from the playerbase, tweak the proposal, or keep it as is, implement, release.  You'll still have people who disagree, and certainly won't satisfy all the players, but you'd at least eliminate the element of surprise.

What took me a long ass time to realize about this game, and really any mud, is that it's not a democracy.

They don't have to get our permission, or our vote.

We play or we don't play, that is the absolute extent of our influence.

Can we propose ideas, complaints and input? Sure.

But it in no way, has any weight moreso than the staff puts on it.

If they like an idea and run with it, great, you helped shape the game.

If they don't like an idea and do the opposite, you still are here at allowance, and you can voice your complaint but don't feel entitled to anything.

To put it in slightly simple, but I think effective view...

This is a dictatorship and the rules are the staff.

To be blunt, your post contradict themselves. To paraphrase:

"I don't think anyone said accept it or leave."  "This is a dictatorship, accept or leave."

So, apparently, you, me, and a few others are saying the options are accept or leave.

I do not find that to be modern, respectful, or compelling reason to keep the faith.

[Armaddict]

I've said that several times before over the course of years, Asmoth.  It holds true now as it ever has.

However...that doesn't remove the need for feedback.  For data.  For overall reactions.  When a suitable portion of the playerbase (whatever one finds suitable, at least) isn't content with something, though, and that something is a change rather than the standard...it is usually in a 'best interest' paradigm to figure things out.  Unless the goal of said changes -is- to push out certain schools of thought and encourage another.  Which is not me saying anything, just saying that it usually fits the model to listen and hear, unless there is a grander plan at stake.

The assurance here is that there is a grander plan.  So we'll see, but as noted before...I am highly skeptical.

[Asmoth]

I like the changes and so on, and really like the really informative post explaining them, and wouldn't say there's lose of trust at all on my end.  But!

I do agree it'd be neat to toss out proposals (like the really informative post explaining this change) before any work was done on it.  I'm not sure what the workflow upstairs is, but it'd be sort of like an RFC in computers, or a prospectus for a dissertation.  Get some feedback from the playerbase, tweak the proposal, or keep it as is, implement, release.  You'll still have people who disagree, and certainly won't satisfy all the players, but you'd at least eliminate the element of surprise.

What took me a long ass time to realize about this game, and really any mud, is that it's not a democracy.

They don't have to get our permission, or our vote.

We play or we don't play, that is the absolute extent of our influence.

Can we propose ideas, complaints and input? Sure.

But it in no way, has any weight moreso than the staff puts on it.

If they like an idea and run with it, great, you helped shape the game.

If they don't like an idea and do the opposite, you still are here at allowance, and you can voice your complaint but don't feel entitled to anything.

To put it in slightly simple, but I think effective view...

This is a dictatorship and the rules are the staff.

To be blunt, your post contradict themselves. To paraphrase:

"I don't think anyone said accept it or leave."  "This is a dictatorship, accept or leave."

So, apparently, you, me, and a few others are saying the options are accept or leave.

I do not find that to be modern, respectful, or compelling reason to keep the faith.

I am not giving you an ultimatum and I don't think staff is either.

But I am trying to instill that beyond offering opinions, which we all have, over and over since the game went down and this new shit popped up.

That's it.  This isn't a war of attrition where we need to keep fighting back and forth with our opinion, because it's a dictatorship, we don't hold any votes.

[Asmoth]

I've said that several times before over the course of years, Asmoth.  It holds true now as it ever has.

However...that doesn't remove the need for feedback.  For data.  For overall reactions.  When a suitable portion of the playerbase (whatever one finds suitable, at least) isn't content with something, though, and that something is a change rather than the standard...it is usually in a 'best interest' paradigm to figure things out.  Unless the goal of said changes -is- to push out certain schools of thought and encourage another.  Which is not me saying anything, just saying that it usually fits the model to listen and hear, unless there is a grander plan at stake.

The assurance here is that there is a grander plan.  So we'll see, but as noted before...I am highly skeptical.

I can respect all that, but they may very well totally change main guilds and this is going to happen all over again.