I've Lost Some Trust

[Kryos]

Right, we don't hold votes.  We are in complete agreement.  However, the ultimatum is implicit in the fact we don't hold votes.  That isn't even muddied or unclear.  If you can't vote or affect what you participate in you:  participate because X reason, or don't participate.  This is not a false dichotomy, this is the choice you have.

A bit more of an opinion is the fact that this state of affairs is wrong.  This isn't the 90's, and modern development techniques, a lot of modern social sciences and psychology, and modern software development models all hold that this state of affairs is wrong.  History shows its not fruitful.  I happen to side with those lines of thinking, especially participating in such a situation.

[Asmoth]

Right, we don't hold votes.  We are in complete agreement.  However, the ultimatum is implicit in the fact we don't hold votes.  That isn't even muddied or unclear.  If you can't vote or affect what you participate in you:  participate because X reason, or don't participate.  This is not a false dichotomy, this is the choice you have.

A bit more of an opinion is the fact that this state of affairs is wrong.  This isn't the 90's, and modern development techniques, a lot of modern social sciences and psychology, and modern software development models all hold that this state of affairs is wrong.  History shows its not fruitful.  I happen to side with those lines of thinking, especially participating in such a situation.

I respect your opinion totally.  You seem like a very intelligent and well spoken guy.

And you very well may be right about this having been done incorrectly, time will tell.

However, none of that matters, if this is wrong, right or indifferent, me you and joe armer, don't hold any sway.

Why are you pushing on a brick wall and expecting it to move?

[Kryos]

Ever read Sanderson's Stormlight trilogy?  Ever hear some of the great inspirational quotes of human kind?  I'll stick to the former, since fantasy is the theme of our shared game.  "Someone has to start, son."

Edit:  And no, I'm not trying to elevate myself with that reference, its just the context of it feels appropriate.  Humble pie for me tonight, just in case.

[Asmoth]

Ever read Sanderson's Stormlight trilogy?  Ever hear some of the great inspirational quotes of human kind?  I'll stick to the former, since fantasy is the theme of our shared game.  "Someone has to start, son."

...

This isn't some vast injustice that affects mankind.

Let's not go all psuedo-patriotic...



I'm going to bed, I have spent more time trying to reason with folks on the GDB than I have actually playing the game tonight and I have work in the morning.

[seidhr]

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.

[Kryos]

For A:

The context is that, one of the central characters of the novels was attempting to beat down what was perceived to be a brick wall, with no outside expectation of success.  Many around ostracized or lambasted the character for attempting to do this.  Many shared sentiments but didn't believe it was possible, etc.  When faced with this, he reminded himself of his father, years ago, who had faced a similar situation yet persevered despite.

I do have a conviction that this is a needed change.  I do not have a conviction that skullduggery, rattling sabers, or some other over the top reaction is required.  Just demonstrate and stand firm.

For S:

Thanks for contributing.  And I fully understand that leaders must execute decisions and that decisions can have blow back or be polarizing. I've been in those shoes, by god, have I.   My problem is I can't to seem to observe this player polling or reaction to player wants, and it thus feel its not there.  And I am actually all about the addition of the subguilds themselves as a side note, and don't believe anyone should jump the gun about what they mean and do.  But its that never saw it coming never got asked that hurts, bad.

Edit:  I'm about 1/9 on typos tonight.  Blargh.

[Warsong]

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.

While the long-term effects of this change can't really be predicted with certainty, it seems like a self-evident fact that magickers are now objectively superior to mundanes at literally everything. That's what makes me incredibly wary of this change. It doesn't take time to discover that this is the case, it's automatically a given. I don't mind the removal of the original guilds, but I feel like this change completely craps on mundane characters as they no longer have anything that they're actually best at. Not one thing. Magickers now trump mundanes, game-mechanically, in every conceivable fashion.

Magickers are now full-blown mundanes with spells on top, sacrificing nothing but whatever mundane subguild they could have chosen instead, and even the most conservative guess at the spell selections makes them seem much, much, much better in terms of coded power than any mundane subguild could be. I don't think that concern, at least, can be waved off as "it's too soon to tell." It's kind if indisputable, unless one were to opine that having something like city stealth on a ranger or middling scan on a warrior is codedly stronger than having an arsenal of spells. Which, I mean, let's be real, I hope nobody will try to make such a claim.

I'm talking about code, of course, not intangible things like "a magicker has to be careful" or "people won't be helpful to gemmed warriors." Socially and thematically, they might have disadvantages, but they're certainly objectively superior to mundanes in every tangible way. They might have been more powerful than mundanes in a general sort of way, before, but not across the board. Non-magick characters had their own niches and things that made it feel worthwhile to play them from the perspective of coded worth. I'd like to know what staff has to say about this, because this is the thing that we know will be a gigantic change from how it used to be, even if we allow for the possibility that the lore and roleplay surrounding magickers will remain as it always was.

I feel like there needed to have been some kind of stipulation, like slightly lower skillcaps or something, to counterbalance the addition of spells to mundane guilds. I'm assuming there's nothing like this as nothing has been announced. I don't think magickers needed to be fully as good at mundane skills as mundane characters are in order to satisfy the need for them to feel like "people first, magickers second." If anything, this now seems like magickers will be chosen precisely for their coded superiority as they no longer really have that much of a distinctive niche in the game, being simply mundanes with some spells on top.

[Bogre]

\
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.

I'm just curious why one door has to close for another to open. Cake + eating?

[Dresan]

I am glad the staff made these changes.

The reasons people want the old sorcerer's are the same reason I DON'T want to see the old sorcerers back. There is too much coded power and not enough RP opportunities with regular mundane (and gemmers) that don't feel like one side should be shivering in their boots the entire time.

With these changes you can RP a magicker who is a person FIRST, a person who is just a hunter, warrior, someone normal who just happens to have magickal abilities. While from a coded point of view thats still incredibly power (though warrior/stealth is still OP) but more importantly it opens up an incredibly amount of RP opportunity.

And now with these changes staff is taking a look at those RP opportunities more closely, maybe now water magickers might have some more interesting RP opportunities. These are the things players have been asking for YEARS.

The days of CAM and super powered beings are gone. Good riddance. I look forward to the more whole-some RP opportunities with this new version of magickers.

[Kryos]

\
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.

I'm just curious why one door has to close for another to open. Cake + eating?

This is one of the schools of thought of modern development, especially applied to games.

I am glad the staff made these changes.

The reasons people want the old sorcerer's are the same reason I DON'T want to see the old sorcerers back. There is too much coded power and not enough RP opportunities with regular mundane (and gemmers) that don't feel like one side should be shivering in their boots the entire time.

With these changes you can RP a magicker who is a person FIRST, a person who is just a hunter, warrior, someone normal who just happens to have magickal abilities. While from a coded point of view thats still incredibly power (though warrior/stealth is still OP) but more importantly it opens up an incredibly amount of RP opportunity.

And now with these changes staff is taking a look at those RP opportunities more closely, maybe now water magickers might have some more interesting RP opportunities. These are the things players have been asking for YEARS.

The days of CAM and super powered beings are gone. Good riddance. I look forward to the more whole-some RP opportunities with this new version of magickers.

I'd point you to the log submission area.  Where a Sorcerer by reference has entertained 7 high powered roles, and by the nature of that engagement, absolutely everyone under them to some degree.  Sorcerer drove one of the most sweeping plots in recent history.  And that's before we add in all the non referenced interactions. 

This CAM malarky is a bit often pulled out, never modernly referenced.  Only references I know of are 2, both of which are in the logs posted about awesome RP and world changing politics and events.

Lastly, this thread isn't about discussing the changes themselves, but the manner in which they were executed and the perceived lack of impact players have on changes.  They happen, we offer our response in futility, and that is bad.

[Dresan]

First of all, I respect your opinion on sorcerers, but no I don't agree with you on any level, I'm glad they are gone. Secondly its the period where CAM existed that is referenced, and yes to those who holed themselves up in Tuluk back in the day to avoid that, it was a terrible time. However, again, thats my opinion, I'm sure some disagree.

Lastly, there has been tons of feedback over the years over this sort of magickers one recent thread bringing up the issues that these changes can potentially address. There has also been a lot of warning that guild changes have been coming for a while now, perhaps you didn't think they would be this dramatic, thats fair. However even with the sorcerer changes, after some feedback they were modified and changed again with their spells recently doubled.  

Just in case: Warrior/ranger/assassin changes are coming too.

[Kryos]

First of all, I respect your opinion on sorcerers, but no I don't agree with you on any level, I'm glad they are gone. Secondly its the period where CAM existed that is referenced, and yes to those who holed themselves up in Tuluk back in the day to avoid that, it was a terrible time. However, again, thats my opinion, I'm sure some disagree.

Lastly, there has been tons of feedback over the years over this sort of magickers one recent thread bringing up the issues that these changes can potentially address. There has also been a lot of warning that guild changes have been coming for a while now, perhaps you didn't think they would be this dramatic, thats fair, however even with the sorcerer changes, after they were modified a bit more based on that feedback.  

Just in case: Warrior/ranger/assassin changes are coming too.

Deletion is not change its removal.  We were not warned of removal.  Snark is not necessary and undermines a point it might be trying to convey.  We have no proof or data demonstrating player input had any impact on sorc change 1 or 2.  All observable evidence actually points to it not.  Further discussion of that should be over in the discussion of that thread.

The jist of this thread is that our opinions were not pursued, the changes were not previewed, and our reactions seem to have no impact on them.  This cycle is in place now and has been in place for quite some time.  One of the undertones here is that alienates players.  Happy to read and discuss about that all day long, even if our opinions do differ.

[Fathi]

I definitely understand why you feel the way you do, Kryos, but I'm not sure anyone would feel any better if players had been consulted.

If the staff had ran a poll and promised to go with the popular option, everyone who didn't vote for the popular option would feel like they weren't being listened to. Or they'd worry about the motivations behind players who chose the popular option (i.e. do they only want mage subguilds so they can play a warrior who throws fireballs?).

If staff had opened up a GDB thread for players to discuss the changes and then implemented them anyway, players would feel like they weren't listened to because people opposed to the change didn't sway the staff's vote.

If staff had opened up a GDB thread for players to discuss the changes, then decided not to go through with the changes because players changed their minds, it would mean everyone who was pro-changes would feel like their voices didn't matter. Also it would mean all the staff members who put time into coming up with the proposal could have spent that time on something else.

If the staff consulted a certain group of players (say, everyone above a certain karma level or everybody currently playing a full guild mage) then some players would be upset everybody wasn't consulted.

If staff members announced the coming changes with an amnesty period (everybody has three months to make the drovian they've always wanted!) then the game would have been flooded with magickers. Also, people would still be upset because they were told inevitable change is coming and they didn't get any feedback.

I really can't see a way for it to have been done that wouldn't leave some people feeling upset.

Again, not trying to diminish your feelings because they're valid, but I think people would be upset regardless of how it was done, so I can't blame the game's staff at all for going for the "rip off the bandaid quickly" approach.

[MeTekillot]

I don't think we're posing the scenario of "If you did this, nobody would be upset" so much as stressing that "Doing something with no input from the players is a good way to upset, probably, as many people as possible", which if consideration of number of upset people is the thing you're taking into account, perhaps not the best course of action.

[azuriolinist]

On the changes themselves, I'm not sure what to say on them as I have yet to give the new subguilds a try. I love seeing updates and new things put into the game. I don't particularly agree with the removal of full elementalists, however, because that leaves players less choices to play out. While I have little to no experience with shadow/lightning/void elementalists, I felt they had set Armageddon apart from what it had been based on, originally, and I hope that these elements make it back into the game.

Personally, I'm for having big changes similar to these being discussed with the playerbase. There's plenty of benefit on having different perspectives on a draft of proposed changes, and giving the players a chance to point out things that may or may not work out. And while there will, in the end, still be disagreement over the decision made, at least the playerbase can trust that staff is willing to discuss large changes before establishing them. That's something I can really appreciate in a game. All of us play the game to enjoy it, so, IMO, players should be given some voice on changes, to ensure continued enjoyment.

[BadSkeelz]

That's nothing new, though. It's always how staff have rolled.

It's the Staff's game. We can either play it or not. Or app for staff and try and have some input ourselves.

[Kryos]

Pretty awesome post, Fathi.

My rebuttal will come in the form of observing some numbers from the polls put up.  If this exact same change had been put into effect, with a bit of premeasuring from the pbase, it looks like a huge amount of the players who are really upset by the change itself (not the ouch, why? of this thread) would have been absolutely cool with it if in some capacity, regular mages continued to exist.  

I'd be willing to bet some would be still be upset or compelled to passion by the changes, but you'd have appeased two portions of the crowd.  One:  those who saw mages go poof and were very displeased.  Two, anyone who feels somewhat similarly to me.  

That's not a huge amount of work for a lot of pay off.  

[Kryos]

That's nothing new, though. It's always how staff have rolled.

It's the Staff's game. We can either play it or not. Or app for staff and try and have some input ourselves.

Not sure why I have to keep saying this, but yes.  You're right.  And that's what we're talking about here, so redundancy is not contribution.

Edit: What, why?

[BadSkeelz]

That's nothing new, though. It's always how staff have rolled.

It's the Staff's game. We can either play it or not. Or app for staff and try and have some input ourselves.

Not sure why I have to keep saying this, but yes.  You're right.  And that's what we're talking about here, so redundancy is not contribution.

Edit: What, why?

This thread is kind of redundant though, don't you think? It comes up in one form or another during every big change.

Staff: We've changed this thing.
Players: Why didn't you consult us!
Staff: Because it's impossible to please everyone and we'd never get anything done.
Players: *huff*

Some players will stop playing, most will continue. Few weeks pass, game continues as normal.

It's fine to be upset and want to contribute and critique changes. But it doesn't really change anything. Best thing you can do is shrug and go along for the ride if you think the ride's still worth taking.

[Kryos]

At hem.  Again, that's exactly what I'm trying to address.  And some numbers analysis discussed previously in this thread shows that your assumption of most going along for the ride makes no sense.

This is not lashing out at staff.  In fact, if I had truly dreadful opinions of staff I'd never consider putting this thread up in the first place for a few reasons.  The opposite is true.  I think pretty highly of them.  I like the cut of their gib, and I trust that having reasonable discussion even on sensitive topics is a ok or even cool.  I do not, however, like this aspect of their methodology.

This is saying, I think your approach could be improved, I'm not alone in this for many reasons, and that players are stakeholders.  And if you think that's not worth saying or putting up, more power to you for having that opinion.  But can you back it up?  Can you look at any of the contributions as to why its problematic and challenge them?

[BadSkeelz]

There is only one worthwhile means of addressing it: acknowledging that the only decision you can really make is whether you want to be along for the ride or not.

The best you can really hope to achieve as a player is point out things that Staff might not have foreseen - i.e. my question to Rathustra about whether touched PCs will contribute to tribal clans' caps on magick users.

Polling numbers after a big change are always skewed and dramatic, and invariably amount to no appreciable negative impact on the game after a couple of weeks.

Edit: You may see incremental improvements. Staff didn't forcestore every nilazi, elkran, or drovian currently in the game (like they did with Sorcs back when. Or rapists, I presume). So maybe on the next big change you'll get the early warning thread you want or whatever it is.

Really, this thread will show you the general staff response to your plea for "changing the methodology"

http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,50862.msg934797.html#msg934797

Staff are staff. Best we as players can do is roll with the changes, raise red flags we see, and if we don't like the game we don't play the game.

[Fathi]

I don't think we're posing the scenario of "If you did this, nobody would be upset" so much as stressing that "Doing something with no input from the players is a good way to upset, probably, as many people as possible", which if consideration of number of upset people is the thing you're taking into account, perhaps not the best course of action.

Yeah, this is gonna have to be one of those agree to disagree things. I feel like the proportions of the playerbase bothered by the changes would have been relatively similar, simply because different people are irked by different things. I think players who were happy to have input would have been canceled out by players who were upset to have input that then wasn't listened to, y'know? But this is based on nothing but me pulling it out of my ass so I totally can't back it up. It's just feelz.

Pretty awesome post, Fathi.

My rebuttal will come in the form of observing some numbers from the polls put up.  If this exact same change had been put into effect, with a bit of premeasuring from the pbase, it looks like a huge amount of the players who are really upset by the change itself (not the ouch, why? of this thread) would have been absolutely cool with it if in some capacity, regular mages continued to exist. 

I'd be willing to bet some would be still be upset or compelled to passion by the changes, but you'd have appeased two portions of the crowd.  One:  those who saw mages go poof and were very displeased.  Two, anyone who feels somewhat similarly to me. 

That's not a huge amount of work for a lot of pay off. 

Thanks!

And I'm actually one of those people! (Who thinks it would have been great to at least keep the drov/elkros/nilaz guilds, 'main guild' mages I care less about.) But yeah, mostly I was just hoping to point out that I really don't think staff did what they did because of any trust issues or from a 'take it or leave it' POV. I think it was just well, people aren't going to like this no matter what. And different ways of announcing it may have arguably been worse, or at least more time consuming and more emotionally charged.

[Nergal]

Pretty awesome post, Fathi.

My rebuttal will come in the form of observing some numbers from the polls put up.  If this exact same change had been put into effect, with a bit of premeasuring from the pbase, it looks like a huge amount of the players who are really upset by the change itself (not the ouch, why? of this thread) would have been absolutely cool with it if in some capacity, regular mages continued to exist.  

I'd be willing to bet some would be still be upset or compelled to passion by the changes, but you'd have appeased two portions of the crowd.  One:  those who saw mages go poof and were very displeased.  Two, anyone who feels somewhat similarly to me.  

That's not a huge amount of work for a lot of pay off.  

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.

[Nergal]

I am also displeased that those who perceive this negatively are being lumped as 'over reacting' by you, Nergal.  I think those are two very distinct cases.

That's not what I said. I was referring to taking a break or quitting the game being an overreaction to a change that has only had a few hours in the spotlight.

[Lizzie]

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 don't think that warning everyone in advance, that this specific change was coming, was necessary. I know I'm not complaining about that, at all. There were plenty of ways the staff could have gotten a general idea of player opinions on how things were, without hinting that they were planning on doing *this* to the guilds. In fact, they might have done something else, if they had asked the right questions in advance. Have an exit poll for every player who plays a mage character, once that character ceases to exist (stored, killed). A generic poll that doesn't hint at a potential future direction. What did you like about playing Amos? What didn't you like? Do you feel you were able to explore Amos's full existence as a human/dwarf/breed living in Zalanthas, with your choice of guild and subguild? Yes? Thanks for your time! No? Why not? Did this bother you? No? Thanks for your time! Yes? Do you have any suggestions for the staff on what might have made you feel like Amos was more rounded out as a sentient being in Zalanthas? No? Thanks for your time! Yes? Explain here.

If all the questions are answered "no" then it's a very short exit survey. The "yes" questions lead to only one single "essay-type" response request.

From that, the staff could get some idea of what players really want, because they're polling only players who actually play these roles.