The (expedited) Evolution of Arm

[Incognito]

I could've posted this on Ask the Staff, but decided to post it here - so that everyone can participate.

In the last couple of years, we're seeing tons of changes to the game, both IC and OOC (game mechanics) and also under the hood - as is evident from the Release Notes and various other posts as well.

I'm not gonna even skirt the subject of whether the changes are good or bad - coz that's a whole different discussion, and many of the changes are already being discussed in various posts separately.

My point here - is to ask Staff and Players alike, as to how they prefer to change the game, or, the game to change, so to speak.
a) Do you think Staff should change the game as and when they deem it fit? As they deem it correct?
b) Do you think Staff should announce proposed changes and take a poll from the Players? And then decide accordingly?
c) Do you think Staff should call for Staff-Player discussion and then arrive at a consensus?
d) Do you think Players should drive the change more than Staff?
e) Do you think PC's should drive the change (based on their IC achievements/failures/actions)?

I mean, sure, Staff members are working voluntarily to maintain, run and make the game fun for all the Players - and there's no denying that that's a HUGE commitment on their part.

On the other hand, the Players who've spent years of their time being loyal to Arm, have given as much of their commitment to the game, in the only way that is possible for a Player to do so (besides offering to help as Helpers or with submissions whenever called for).

In all fairness, and without sounding greedy or overly-needy or whiny about anything, I would like to say that I would like to be more involved in changes that happen to the game - both ICLY and OOCLY.

We're evolving at a very rapid pace as compared to the previous 10-15 years of the game. Can we, the Players, be a part of the change? If so, how? Can we have some say in what happens or when it happens?

Specifically, changes to certain spells, sorcs, psionicists, the auto-magick defense system, removal of mul and HG elementalists, caps on d-elf sorc and elementalist roles - and the most recent changes to the elementalist guilds  - represents a severe move away from Magick. (edited to add: or a "dilution" of magickal powers which a single PC might be able to wield, in other words).

Whether this is a good or a bad thing - I guess time will tell. But it also important to highlight that this drastic direction is also changing the game as we know it. I wont pretend to be a FOSSIL and say that I dislike change, in any form. But I will say that if the flavor of the game keeps changing beyond a tipping point, it might be hard to relate to the original game as we knew it, and it might just end up becoming something else entirely!

Please share your views (without going into specific changes) about the momentum and direction of the game - as you see it.

[Asmoth]

A-C, no

D and E yes

I have already shared my opinion a ton of times since yesterday.

[Zenith]

I have, perhaps, a very different view of this issue than most people will. My husband is a Senior Designer with a major video game company in charge of class, combat, and system balance.

No one, and I am comfortable saying no one, spends months of work and effort to change things because they think the changes will negatively impact the game. Designers, staffers, whoever puts in that much work, does it because they believe it is necessary and that it will create a positive change for the game people play and love. And they often are the victims of a shit ton of personal hate for their efforts.

I think, and I am willing to be in the minority, that staff should change the game as they want and feel is appropriate. They had to have been expecting the backlash, but felt strongly enough about it that they did it anyway. That's enough for me. I've SEEN my husband worry about changes he's made and the way the players will respond to it. I know that he worries deeply about the things he does. And I know that he often feels the need to make things conform to his vision no matter the backlash because things could be better. Just because Armageddon staff are volunteers, and their paycheck doesn't depend on a successful game, in no way makes me think that they take the changes they make to the world any less seriously.

Input is always appreciated. People like having a voice and being listened to. As a player there are things I've been skeptical of, or wish they had done in a different way. But I also know that as a player, I don't see the full reasons behind changing things. Just like players will never know that my husband changed things because class X was doing 20% extra damage by accident and needed to be nerfed. Or because game Y is fully overhauling it's entire way of coding combat and that necessitated a change of the entire system.

Right now, Armageddon is in the middle of an enormous overhaul. The ONLY thing I would have liked to see, is the entire change to all guilds and subguilds happen at the same time so that the overall vision is immediately clear instead of being told, "this will work really well with the changes we have planned for the future." But I can also understand the value in making the changes incremental instead of sweeping.

As hard as it is to accept, sometimes players are wrong, they don't really want the things they think they want, and often they aren't allowed to see the full vision until it's done.

I also believe staff when they say that they have not finished tinkering with the current changes. Things that have happened aren't set in stone and may be negotiable. But first there needs to be a meaningful attempt to see how the changes work on a practical level. Because until they're tested, watched, played, and evaluated, there's no data to meaningfully drive any discussion.

[Asmoth]

Keep in mind two that guilds and subguilds are or at least used to be malleable.

I played a burglar psionicist YEARS ago cause I asked if I can.  Maybe, and again this is guessing, but maybe after the dust settles and you want to play a unique character, you could special app a ranger with two aspects?

I can't imagine adding spells is super difficult, it will just take a staff member tweaking your spells.  I have heard of old school elementalist with spells even outside their class here and there. Just food for thought.

[Incognito]

I have, perhaps, a very different view of this issue than most people will. My husband is a Senior Designer with a major video game company in charge of class, combat, and system balance.

No one, and I am comfortable saying no one, spends months of work and effort to change things because they think the changes will negatively impact the game. Designers, staffers, whoever puts in that much work, does it because they believe it is necessary and that it will create a positive change for the game people play and love. And they often are the victims of a shit ton of personal hate for their efforts.

I think, and I am willing to be in the minority, that staff should change the game as they want and feel is appropriate. They had to have been expecting the backlash, but felt strongly enough about it that they did it anyway. That's enough for me. I've SEEN my husband worry about changes he's made and the way the players will respond to it. I know that he worries deeply about the things he does. And I know that he often feels the need to make things conform to his vision no matter the backlash because things could be better. Just because Armageddon staff are volunteers, and their paycheck doesn't depend on a successful game, in no way makes me think that they take the changes they make to the world any less seriously.

Input is always appreciated. People like having a voice and being listened to. As a player there are things I've been skeptical of, or wish they had done in a different way. But I also know that as a player, I don't see the full reasons behind changing things. Just like players will never know that my husband changed things because class X was doing 20% extra damage by accident and needed to be nerfed. Or because game Y is fully overhauling it's entire way of coding combat and that necessitated a change of the entire system.

Right now, Armageddon is in the middle of an enormous overhaul. The ONLY thing I would have liked to see, is the entire change to all guilds and subguilds happen at the same time so that the overall vision is immediately clear instead of being told, "this will work really well with the changes we have planned for the future." But I can also understand the value in making the changes incremental instead of sweeping.

As hard as it is to accept, sometimes players are wrong, they don't really want the things they think they want, and often they aren't allowed to see the full vision until it's done.

I also believe staff when they say that they have not finished tinkering with the current changes. Things that have happened aren't set in stone and may be negotiable. But first there needs to be a meaningful attempt to see how the changes work on a practical level. Because until they're tested, watched, played, and evaluated, there's no data to meaningfully drive any discussion.

A very well-worded and thoughtful post Zenith. I agree almost completely with what you've written.

All the same, would you care to give some thought to this:
Your husband might be the best game designer ever, and might refine his game every now and then, to improve it and make it better.
Does this mean that people who play that game might not have enjoyed the quirks of the previous version?
(It was just an illustration - I've nothing against your husband or whatever he does RL - I hope you can understand).

Sometimes, imperfections impart character, and that character adds flavor and dimensions to things. Sometimes, the flavor is the backbone of the entire experience!

My post wasn't about trying to say that Staff is wrong, or that Staff might not be spending time and effort deliberating and deciding on changes. I'm sure they do! They care as much about the game as the Players do, if not more. I'd be doing them an injustice if I conveyed the incorrect meaning in my post.

[Molten Heart]

I'd like it if staff were to approach the players and say something general like "Hey guys, we're thinking about making some major changes and we're hoping to get feedback and ideas on what you'd like to happen." We the players are always doing this anyway with random threads about code suggestions or ideas that we're hoping staff are reading and taking notes and re-posting about on the staff boards. Again, hoping staff will translate the GDB proposals into changes in the game.

I understand the need to preserve levels of mystery and staff's reluctance to disclose exactly what they are doing, and even when they'll be doing it. That's cool. I think it's a good idea if staff at least engage with the players and say "Hey, what are your expectations, what are you desires in said vague area of the game world that we're considering changing" and possibly even giving some specifics on what will be changing. And when staff does this (they do this sometimes), I think it's a good thing however I think we the players need to understand it's impossible for us all to get what we want because the things we want aren't always the same, but we do want the game to be fun and as long as the game is more fun as a result of what the staff do, I think it's all for the better. And the best way for staff to understand what's fun for players is to talk to us and try to understand us.

[Zenith]

No offense taken. I'm a big girl and was merely using him to illustrate a point.

[Armaddict]

stuff

Your husband is part of an older, still existent-but-not-liked paradigm of non-discussion based change then.  Most gaming companies have small groups designed to monitor their forums, their reports, their suggestions, and let them know what the current climate of the game is, and thus establish a priority.

As Asmoth has said many times now, this is not a democracy.  I never expect voting.  I never expect staff calls for player input on an idea.  But I -do- expect their ideas to be a reflection of the climate of the game, with larger changes to the theme of the game given more caution than this was apparently given.  Removal of options is bad.  That's always been a known thing, it has never been a popular decision aside from -maybe- the closure of Tuluk where it was closer to a 50/50 split between people (mostly because some of us just didn't really like Tuluk).

Then as far as what they added...an analogy here.  In most systems of change or judgment, there is a certain burden.  In justice, it's the burden of proof.  It's a simple concept...to get something done, you need to prove beforehand that it's a correct course of action.  Now in things like this, that is a little different, obviously.  However...in this case, there was also a clear decade of cyclical dialogue on the topic that had the exact idea they implemented suggested several times, and -it never found any momentum-.  This was not a desired solution, and that was clearly indicated several times.

So no, I cannot complain about them guiding the game in change.  That's part of the job.  But I -can- complain about them being that far out of touch with the game and at the very least, a good portion of the players they repeatedly say they dedicate their volunteer time to.  When changes result in dozens of pages of 'Wait, no!', that's not a good thing.  'Inevitable', some people have said, but that's not exactly true.  There have been large changes made that resulted in the exact opposite, several times.  When ranger was revamped to what it is now, everyone was pumped.  When they removed sorcerer, no one was pumped, but we had the same group of people saying 'Give it a chance, it could be a good thing.'  To this day, you still hear talk about how that was a -bad- idea.  That's not the trademark of a good judgment call.

When people are vocal against the changes, do you really think we, in the Armageddon Platform, expect them to scramble back and change it to how it was?  I don't think anyone has that expectation, because it's not how it works.  What it -is- about is letting the staff/developer know that they've made yet another very unpopular decision and why it's unpopular, in hopes that they will -stop making that kind of decision-.  Clearly, it's a very good method.  It's working wonders.  Basically, they can continue to rely on the steady playerbase that has been there for years, but continued actions that draw such reactions without credence given to that simple concept -is- what makes MUDs die.  The 'fuck it, it's mine to do' mentality does not go well in game development, as your husband can tell you.  The 'someone had to make the call' post is a clear indicator.  Clearly, they knew it was a big deal.  Someone just made the call, said 'fuck it', and made a change without the burden of insuring the change was a good one.

[nauta]

There are a few things that are unique to this environment that would affect workflow, namely: (a) a volunteer staff and (b) the desire to keep code/lore behind the veil of mystery.

So (a) entails certain things about expectations, and seems to necessitate a lot of projects remaining at the level of short-term, do what you can with what we have now, which is why I think Staff often will insist that, while there's hope for features X, Y, Z, it is feature A that we can get done now.  It also means that staff picks the projects that interest them to pursue.

(b) entails that there's just some things staff can't discuss with the playerbase, and that's something the playerbase wants too, although we might disagree on the scope of the unspeakables, I think we'd all agree that there should be unspeakables.

Ok.  So, granted those two assumptions, the question is: could a workflow be had where a project (or at least some projects) be presented to the playerbase before implementation starts? 

The pros:

(i) few alarms and few surprises!
(ii) Linus's Law: many eyes make all bugs shallow.  These projects aren't simple, and a lot of different takes on solving them would be beneficial (to a point).

The cons:

(iii) Disappointment at it not being the way you wanted.  (But this'll happen anyway?)
(iv) Wasted effort.  The noise-to-suggestion ratio on the proposal thread could make the whole effort hardly worth it.

Anyhoo.  Here's a workflow I'd see following this suggestion -- not every project would follow this, but maybe some(?):

1. GDB (player/staff). Staff and Players play the game, and various ideas get tossed up on the gdb now and then. (As now.)
2. IDB (staff) Eventually, a staff says: neat idea!  I got some free times, maybe I'll start thinking about it.

[Staff works hard.]

3. IDB discussion/GDB discussion.  That staff member tosses it out to the IDB or the GDB as a hint -- a very broad rough draft, so to speak, to feel the waters/get ideas.

[Staff works hard.]

4. IDB/GDB Prospectus.  The plan-for-implementation is announced.  This is a final draft, as it were.  Feedback is acquired.  Bugs are maybe discovered.  Expectations and limits are set.

[Staff works hard.  Perhaps repeats step #4 after fixing, or just jumps to step #5.]

5. Implementation.

6. GDB.  Staff announcement and discussion thread. (As now.)

[Players play hard.  Staff eats popcorn.]

Anyway, stuff in bold is the new steps in the process.

[BadSkeelz]

How far "out of touch with the game" staff appear is generally better read as "how much I personally disagree with staff opinions." Staff aren't making decisions or changing the game in a vacuum. They're watching how the game is being played, how the game is running, and identifying things that could use improvement.

It might make us feel better to think they don't really "care" or they just did something without thinking it through. It might even appear like that. But I doubt that was the actual intention behind any decision to implement.

[Armaddict]

How far "out of touch with the game" staff appear is generally better read as "how much I personally disagree with staff opinions." Staff aren't making decisions or changing the game in a vacuum. They're watching how the game is being played, how the game is running, and identifying things that could use improvement.

It might make us feel better to think they don't really "care" or they just did something without thinking it through. It might even appear like that. But I doubt that was the actual intention behind any decision to implement.

Uhm.  No.  Out of touch with the game and things I disagree with are not synonymous, which was elaborated on, but that's okay if you can't see the difference.

[Incognito]

How far "out of touch with the game" staff appear is generally better read as "how much I personally disagree with staff opinions." Staff aren't making decisions or changing the game in a vacuum. They're watching how the game is being played, how the game is running, and identifying things that could use improvement.

It might make us feel better to think they don't really "care" or they just did something without thinking it through. It might even appear like that. But I doubt that was the actual intention behind any decision to implement.

This isnt an accurate analogy IMO.

[Incognito]

<deleted post>

Changed my mind. Sorry.

[seidhr]

 

stuff

Are you trying to frame the removal of elementalist guilds as something that staff did in response to how players were playing them?  That is not at all accurate.

[Lizzie]

I already posted what I'd like to see happen (and what I feel should've happened prior to the current guild changes) but here it is again in greater detail, using the current changes as the example:

Sent via e-mail to all players who currently have mage karma AND whose Pfile indicates they've played at least two mages of different elements in the past two years:

Dear Player,
We're looking for input on the current magick system, from people who currently play or recently have played mages. As such, here are just a few questions - your response is truly appreciated and might impact the potential for any changes that might occur in the future.

1) Are you currently playing a mage character? Y/N
2) Did you enjoy your most recent mage character (if you're playing one now, the current is your most recent)? Y/N
3) Do you feel that given the current system, you are able to play mages as "full people," well-rounded, with code to support the RP of your character's background and goals?
Y/N
   If No: Are you concerned that you are unable to play mages as "full people" or do you enjoy this aspect of gaming?
   If concerned: Have you any suggestions for how you might better enjoy the "complete person" aspect of playing a mage? Please try to keep it just one or two brief summarized paragraphs for now - we might request further detail at some future time.

Thanks!

Sincerely,
Armageddon Staff

(and then as a thank you for taking the time to help out you might issue a one-time additional stat or skill bump for their very next character, that doesn't count against their yearly max allowance)

If you were to do this - it would accomplish a few things:
It would gain insight into the gaming interests of the players.
It would let players know that you really do take their interests into consideration.
It would let players know that you are planning something - without letting them know what, so you can keep the info safe til rollout.
If could also provide specific ideas from players who have already experienced the system, who have some clue as to what they're talking about as far as in-game experience of mage playing, ideas that you might not have thought of yourself as players coming from the perspective of people who are on staff and can see the "big picture" but might miss the details that non-staff players see.

In other words - it gives you greater perspective. You see the big picture - and you see the minutae. But you miss out on the perspective of the player who is -not- on staff. This particular perspective is incredibly important because it is exactly what determines whether your players are happy or not.

[Miradus]

I think the difference comes from being a "founder" versus a "caretaker" dev.

MUD's are unique in the game industry because some of them have been around for literally decades. I remember playing one of my first ones when my first son was an infant. He's 19 now and older than some of the players of this one, which is probably my 7th or 8th mud (even though I still occasionally play that first one).

If you're a founder then you pretty much created the world and can do what you want.

But eventually the founders move on and other people, usually fans of the game, step into higher roles. They become developers, imms, producers, or whatever that particular mud culture calls the people who influence the path of the game.

Caretakers have a higher degree of responsibility. The game is not "theirs". It belongs to the next generation of players as well as the current ones. They have obligations to both make interesting changes which bring the old code up to par with modern expectations, but also the obligation not to screw around too heavily with things that everyone loses and adores.

It is unusual for a mud to go out and seek non-players to fill staff roles. Staff comes from the player base, and sometimes will return to the player base when they get tired of roles and responsibilities. In the meantime, they do have the obligation not to use their personal hobby horse to trample all over the legacy of those who came before them.

It's a very fine line and I am not privy at all to the nuances of these existing changes or the histories of the staff and playerbase here. HOWEVER I would suggest as a lover of these sorts of games that the very fact that these discussions are happening indicate that perhaps the caretakers have overstepped their bounds either with a single change or a collective set of changes. That's by no means the end of the world, but it's something to think about going forward.

[seidhr]

I think the difference comes from being a "founder" versus a "caretaker" dev.

MUD's are unique in the game industry because some of them have been around for literally decades. I remember playing one of my first ones when my first son was an infant. He's 19 now and older than some of the players of this one, which is probably my 7th or 8th mud (even though I still occasionally play that first one).

If you're a founder then you pretty much created the world and can do what you want.

But eventually the founders move on and other people, usually fans of the game, step into higher roles. They become developers, imms, producers, or whatever that particular mud culture calls the people who influence the path of the game.

Caretakers have a higher degree of responsibility. The game is not "theirs". It belongs to the next generation of players as well as the current ones. They have obligations to both make interesting changes which bring the old code up to par with modern expectations, but also the obligation not to screw around too heavily with things that everyone loses and adores.

It is unusual for a mud to go out and seek non-players to fill staff roles. Staff comes from the player base, and sometimes will return to the player base when they get tired of roles and responsibilities. In the meantime, they do have the obligation not to use their personal hobby horse to trample all over the legacy of those who came before them.

It's a very fine line and I am not privy at all to the nuances of these existing changes or the histories of the staff and playerbase here. HOWEVER I would suggest as a lover of these sorts of games that the very fact that these discussions are happening indicate that perhaps the caretakers have overstepped their bounds either with a single change or a collective set of changes. That's by no means the end of the world, but it's something to think about going forward.

Let's swallow a giant pill of handwaving and assume that the entire premise of your post is correct for a moment.

Nessalin has been on staff for longer than some of the players have been alive, and is one of the principal architects for the game as we all know it.  I started playing in 1996 and Nessalin was still one of the top dudes.  That's 20 years ago.

Adhira has been on staff for 10+ years.

Your account was created in 2015.  Who do you think is more informed about the game?

[Miradus]

Your dismissal of my general MUD premise because I've only been on YOUR game since 2015 is not only ad hominem but also rude.

[seidhr]

I'd argue that coming on here and suggesting the administration who have been on staff for a decade or even two decades ("caretakers") don't have a right to change their own game is kinda rude.  As you said, you're not privy to the history of the staff, so why even make a post like this?

[Asmoth]

Damn I go do a few hours of work and shit gets real...

[Miradus]

I'd argue that coming on here and suggesting the administration who have been on staff for a decade or even two decades ("caretakers") don't have a right to change their own game is kinda rude.  As you said, you're not privy to the history of the staff, so why even make a post like this?

I didn't name names. I even characterized at the end of my commentary that I'm not fully aware of the history of this game. What I DID give was what I belief is a valid opinion based on my equally long experience as both player and staff of these sorts of online communities.

The fact that your panties are in a wad about this more or less indicates that I've hit some sort of nerve with my commentary. I would also point out that you're using the very justification of longevity I used in my premise to try and tear down my premise.

Why the heck does the game even have a discussion forum if you so despise player discussion? It seems to be of limited value since opinions and discussions are far more likely to end in this sort of bullshit than actual improvement or consensus.

[BadSkeelz]

Do you really think referring to anyone's panties in a wad are going to contribute to discourse, Miradus?

[Miradus]

Do you really think referring to anyone's panties in a wad are going to contribute to discourse, Miradus?

Nope. But I think it was pretty clear from the beginning that my opinion of what's going on was judged irrelevant.

At that point, why pull punches? Clearly logic and sweet words aren't going to work. Might as well use the vernacular. What? I'm going to be even LESS REGARDED because I said "panties"?

[BadSkeelz]

Yeah, probably.

[Asmoth]

I'll just remind you all that fighting with staff never ends well.

Me going off on Nyr is still a huge regret because by now I might have been a full blown sorcerer if I hadn't.