Known History and Player Involvement

[Nergal]

Desertman: I have no problem taking honest criticism, but the problem is when players like you presumably know what you've accomplished with your own characters over the years and yet continue to say the same thing they've been saying for years. Why should we pretend that the truth lies somewhere in the middle of your feelings and staff's facts when it doesn't? If players still find the game isn't changing and no player-started plots are starting, after years of staff visibly working to make changes and being on-hand to support plots, then where is the problem, really? I see more players stopping player-started plots than staff do - either stopping their own plots for fear they will be rejected by staff or stopping other players' plots by refusing to support them or by killing them.

So that's what I'm saying. Give us actual criticism based on your honest experience, not the same thing people have been parroting for years despite everything those people's characters have done just to stir up a discussion. Consider that staff know you, and others posting here, have had characters accomplish quite a lot through player-started, staff-assisted plots. The discussion is worthless if it's not based on your honest experience, and is instead based on some vague feeling that should not even be justifiable considering your characters' experiences.

[Desertman]

Desertman: I have no problem taking honest criticism, but the problem is when players like you presumably know what you've accomplished with your own characters over the years and yet continue to say the same thing they've been saying for years. Why should we pretend that the truth lies somewhere in the middle of your feelings and staff's facts when it doesn't? If players still find the game isn't changing and no player-started plots are starting, after years of staff visibly working to make changes and being on-hand to support plots, then where is the problem, really? I see more players stopping player-started plots than staff do - either stopping their own plots for fear they will be rejected by staff or stopping other players' plots by refusing to support them or by killing them.

So that's what I'm saying. Give us actual criticism based on your honest experience, not the same thing people have been parroting for years despite everything those people's characters have done just to stir up a discussion. Consider that staff know you, and others posting here, have had characters accomplish quite a lot through player-started, staff-assisted plots. The discussion is worthless if it's not based on your honest experience, and is instead based on some vague feeling that should not even be justifiable considering your characters' experiences.

This is a great reply.

You feel that players are accomplishing a lot more than the players feel they are accomplishing and so that is what is frustrating you.

While I find it somewhat flattering that you feel my characters have accomplished a lot more than I obviously do, I think it brings to light what might be the core issue.

It seems that maybe what you/the staff feel are meaningful accomplishments that players have access to might not be the same things that players feel are possible meaningful accomplishments?

I think what a lot of people want is more options to CREATE, instead of just play with someone else's creations.

Since you used me as an example of someone who has fulfilled what you believe to be meaningful accomplishments I will follow suit.

I can think of only one thing in the game world I have created that arguably went on to exist after my character's death. That one thing met such extreme opposition trying to shut it down (or at least multiple PC's involved felt that way regularly) through multiple staff animations across multiple staff-led/ran/supported groups that by the time the end came I had come to the conclusion that it would be a long time before I tried to build anything again.

It met so much staff opposition through animations, usually on the untouchable NPC level, that multiple PC's at multiple times made IC but OOC'ly fueled jokes about it and those jokes became a common theme.

If that is the amount of effort it takes to accomplish even something so minimal as what I have accomplished that arguably changed nothing in any way and would not in reality survive my PC....we might look at that.

Trust me, I'm not saying I don't feel like I have avenues to really accomplish anything because it makes me feel good. I'm saying it because that's how I feel, and this is coming from a player that we both agree, obviously, has tried to accomplish some things. We just have different opinions on what level those accomplishments reached and what happened along the paths to get there.

[Jherlen]

Why should we pretend that the truth lies somewhere in the middle of your feelings and staff's facts when it doesn't? If players still find the game isn't changing and no player-started plots are starting, after years of staff visibly working to make changes and being on-hand to support plots, then where is the problem, really?
<snip>
The discussion is worthless if it's not based on your honest experience, and is instead based on some vague feeling that should not even be justifiable considering your characters' experiences.

Nergal, I understand your perspective well, but I do think you need to understand this is a perception issue that can't be fixed by saying "our facts show your feelings are wrong." There are a lot of veteran players who are speaking up in this thread, and I can't believe all of them are doing it because they want to win Troll Points on the GDB while fully well knowing that they're lying about what they can accomplish.

I would be interested to know why people feel how they do. What things would they like to accomplish but can't? What things have they accomplished or seen other pcs accomplish that are no longer possible due to current policy, and is that good or bad for the game? I think those questions are how we could all get something constructive out of this discussion.

Maybe it's because I'm relatively newly returned and still in a honeymoon phase with Armageddon and the GDB right now, but I feel like a lot of the people posting have in fact been honest and sincere. If they feel a different way than their player history might suggest, there may be reasons why that are worth examining, not dismissing.

[Nergal]

Then they should explain, using facts, why they feel the way they do, instead of merely using the sound bites that players have been using for years to describe player-staff relations regardless of the actual state of player-staff relations.
Edit to add: Even if that means discussing it via request tool as one player has already done, in case you feel it's not fit for the GDB. Although a GDB post would be fine if you can manage it.

[Desertman]

Then they should explain, using facts, why they feel the way they do, instead of merely using the sound bites that players have been using for years to describe player-staff relations regardless of the actual state of player-staff relations.
Edit to add: Even if that means discussing it via request tool as one player has already done, in case you feel it's not fit for the GDB. Although a GDB post would be fine if you can manage it.

That's fair and reasonable. Thank you.

I will wait until the "One Year Rule" burns its self out and any applicable PC's it might affect to my knowledge are long gone so as not to ruin any possible IC "things" for them.

It will require me to comb through a few hundred requests/replies submitted over the course of RL years for a PC, so, it's a good thing I have a bit more time before then.  

[valeria]

There is a psychological phenomenon where human brains emphasize negative events and remember them more strongly than positive events. People may keep bringing up "that one thing that frustrated them literal years ago" over "that positive thing recently" because they remember the negative thing more strongly and still have a more visceral reaction to it.

For instance, despite knowing how much staff support I got on my last leader, I'm still miffed about That One Thing, that majorly disappointing thing about her that stifled the story I wanted to tell and certainly at least contributed to my ultimate storage decision (not caused, but when I looked at reasons for trying to stick it out through a tough RL time, the corner I felt that my character had been backed into factored in heavily to my decision to want to start fresh). While I got MOST of what I wanted with that character, and TONS of staff support, the thing that was denied to me for seemingly very little reason given is the thing I remember the strongest. Not the cool history shit I was involved with and altered (oh yes! I definitely was able to impact some events).

And I'm not even the jaded old veteran archetype ( ). I communicate, I keep trying to do things I want done, and I keep seeing results. I'm generally positively disposed toward staff.

The main thing staff could have done better with me? Clear communication from the start and then giving me an actual reason for the "no" when it was clear there was a misunderstanding. I'm not sure things would have shaken out differently, but I would've been a lot less frustrated and depressed.

I realize that's not always an option, though. "Some other player stands in your way" isn't something that can/should be said.  I've witnessed more than once someone complaining through an OOC channel about "staff" being against them when I knew that I as another player had actually been the cause of their woes.

But in a thread like this, I think most people are more likely to complain than praise. And I'm sure there was just as much frustration and bitterness in the nostalgia days of yore.

So yes, Nergal, you'll probably have to say "look at all these cool things." Sorry, man. But every time you remind people about cool things it actually does make some of us go "you know... that's right." So I'm not sure I'd call it time wasted, even if it is rather repetitive.

I personally think the game continues to move in a positive direction, with more emphasis on open and honest communication on both sides and various "grievances" aired and discussed instead of festering in dark FB messenger echo chambers or whatever it is the kids do these days.

[Armaddict]

This turned into way more of an appeal of players blaming staff and staff blaming players for me to contribute to anymore.

Any side that thinks that people feel this way purely because of staff, or purely because of players, is pushing their head in the sand.

[seidhr]

I'd like to see things being done in public more.  While I totally get that there is a need for some meetings to be held in clan compounds, apartments, or other private rooms - if a leader PC is just going to give some casual instructions to their minions and whatever, that could easily be done in a tavern somewhere.

As a staffer we can see where everyone is with one command.  A lot of times it's just little micro clusters of two or three people in an apartment, clan compound/crafting area, etc.

Leaders visible in public = more stuff going on, in general.  Players do focus on "winning" too much and it will not be the end of the world if Amos from Oash overhears Fluffy Fale hiring the Byn to capture live scrabs for an exhibition for the next Scrab Festival.

[BadSkeelz]

I'd like to see things being done in public more.  While I totally get that there is a need for some meetings to be held in clan compounds, apartments, or other private rooms - if a leader PC is just going to give some casual instructions to their minions and whatever, that could easily be done in a tavern somewhere.

As a staffer we can see where everyone is with one command.  A lot of times it's just little micro clusters of two or three people in an apartment, clan compound/crafting area, etc.

Leaders visible in public = more stuff going on, in general.  Players do focus on "winning" too much and it will not be the end of the world if Amos from Oash overhears Fluffy Fale hiring the Byn to capture live scrabs for an exhibition for the next Scrab Festival.

I've posted thoughts on why some things don't get done in public more often before:

http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,49826.0.html

[Patuk]

I'd like to see things being done in public more.  While I totally get that there is a need for some meetings to be held in clan compounds, apartments, or other private rooms - if a leader PC is just going to give some casual instructions to their minions and whatever, that could easily be done in a tavern somewhere.

As a staffer we can see where everyone is with one command.  A lot of times it's just little micro clusters of two or three people in an apartment, clan compound/crafting area, etc.

Leaders visible in public = more stuff going on, in general.  Players do focus on "winning" too much and it will not be the end of the world if Amos from Oash overhears Fluffy Fale hiring the Byn to capture live scrabs for an exhibition for the next Scrab Festival.

But Seidhrrrr tavern RP is so boring besides if people are gud they know where to find people anyway

[Taven]

If you played during the time of the Rebellion, you'll probably know what I'm getting at.

I don't think giving a one-line reply which is basically "if you played the game 10+ years ago like me, you know" is in the spirit of discussion. It shuts down anyone who hasn't been here a decade.

Instead, I would challenge you to actually respond to my points.

[Taven]

What's my point? My point is that nothing makes everyone happy.

Don't have to make everyone happy, just the majority. The problem with threads like this, or with just threads like this as a communication tool, is that you cannot accurately gauge how the majority of the playerbase feels. I think the only thing that could do this would be some sort of survey that all players take. At that point, you need to have some representation of this majority that understands how to translate for the people actually creating the game. This could, in a small environment, be the same group of people for both things. If the majority of the playerbase feels this way, I would say that means you have likely several big issues. If it's just a handful, then you can cast them off as edge cases given the rule that, no, everyone will not be happy.

I think the problem is that the portion of the playerbase that is unhappy (however small or large they may be) can't agree on how to actually fix anything so that they're happy.

That's my take, anyways.

[Lizzie]

What's my point? My point is that nothing makes everyone happy.

Don't have to make everyone happy, just the majority. The problem with threads like this, or with just threads like this as a communication tool, is that you cannot accurately gauge how the majority of the playerbase feels. I think the only thing that could do this would be some sort of survey that all players take. At that point, you need to have some representation of this majority that understands how to translate for the people actually creating the game. This could, in a small environment, be the same group of people for both things. If the majority of the playerbase feels this way, I would say that means you have likely several big issues. If it's just a handful, then you can cast them off as edge cases given the rule that, no, everyone will not be happy.

I think the problem is that the portion of the playerbase that is unhappy (however small or large they may be) can't agree on how to actually fix anything so that they're happy.

That's my take, anyways.

Worse: if they do manage to fix it so they're happy, they run the risk of making everyone who was already happy, unhappy as a result of the fixes. And then you'd be right back where you started, and you'd end up where you always end, with that tired old cliche: You can't make everyone happy.

[wizturbo]

In the last 2 years, I've received support from staff to do a significant amount of pretty big, history altering stuff.  Much, much more than all of my other years in Armageddon combined and I've been around since 2004.

I don't put in a ridiculous amount of play hours compared to some people.  I have no 'friends' on staff, and I haven't met someone whose played Armageddon in real life ever.  I'm not some kind of model citizen who puts in a character report every single week or anything either.  I've been whiny and petulant about changes related to magick in Armageddon.   I highly doubt my experiences are the result of staff favoritism, which leads me to conclude that my results are likely repeatable by just about anyone.  So some of the complaints I'm reading on this thread strike me as focused on something other than the actual ability to do big things in-game.  I get the sense they're mostly complaints about "Why won't staff do this thing I really think is a great idea?"

I think the important thing to remember when proposing a plot is it has to be a match, where both you and your staffer are interested in working on it.  Staff aren't servants, they don't do whatever it is we want them to do.  They run plots because they have fun doing it or they don't run them.   Or what's actually the worst case scenario, they'll run them to appease you, and since they don't really like the idea they won't do as good a job on it as you'd like and you'll be disappointed rather than excited about it, wasting everyone's time.  The only sensible way to go about things is to toss out ideas until one resonates with your staffer and they run with it.  I find keeping ideas open-ended, leaving them with plenty of creative freedom on how to move forward works the best.   If they aren't digging an idea, I generally don't get too beat up about it.  I just move on to the next thing, and try something else.  Sometimes you're just not going to match up on what sounds cool, and that's okay.



So having said all that, there is one suggestion I'd like to throw out there because not everyone responds to "No" the same way I do.

Some people fixate on one idea, fall in love with it, and when staff reject this idea they have the potential to be heartbroken.  It would mean the world to this player, and in many cases, might take only a very small amount of staff support to make it happen.  Some room description edits, maybe an item or two, and it might be enough to make a player go from heartbroken and ready to quit, to invigorated and ready to lead the next great plot line that everyone will be talking about years from now.

Obviously too many of these types of requests could get out of control, but that's not a very difficult problem to solve.   For example, what if you could spend one of your special application requests to ask for a room alteration, assuming you go through the IC steps required to do that?   How bad would that be to support?  Instead of having admins spend time reading someone's special application for a half-giant with a magick ding-dong, they can tweak a few sentences in a wilderness room, drop a few room items, and give that player who desperately wants a camp site for their little tribe a home?   Guidelines can be written on what kind of things are okay to request, and what things aren't, and players would suddenly have a new avenue to get at least some of their pet projects that they love (but their staff find to be pretty meh) a way of getting off the ground.  

[wizturbo]

If someone wants to create a camp out in the desert and they have four or five PC's with them and they all put together a big sack of money, gather a few hundred planks/logs/poles/insert building materials, and get some crafters to help them build said camp...and then spend the IC time roleplaying building it...they should have a camp.

As it sits the only way that camp will exist is if the project in question fits a plotline most likely created by staff for the players, or if a staffer decides they personally like the idea being presented.

If one of those isn't the case, you could put together triple the money, people, and resources needed for it to exist on an IC level, and OOC'ly it will never be allowed to exist.

This is a good example of what my suggestion above is trying to address.  Even if staff think your idea is boring, if you're willing to burn some of the time allotted to you from staff to consider special application requests to do something like this, I don't see why staff time couldn't be reallocated to this instead.

What I do not support is that anyone can do this any time they want.  Staff have a limited amount of time to do stuff.  If they're building your camp, they aren't building whatever thing they're passionate about with their free time.  They're already obligated to read character reports, approve applications, and a bunch of other necessary but not particularly exciting admin work.  Adding more work onto their plate they aren't passionate about doing isn't a good thing. 

[Desertman]

If someone wants to create a camp out in the desert and they have four or five PC's with them and they all put together a big sack of money, gather a few hundred planks/logs/poles/insert building materials, and get some crafters to help them build said camp...and then spend the IC time roleplaying building it...they should have a camp.

As it sits the only way that camp will exist is if the project in question fits a plotline most likely created by staff for the players, or if a staffer decides they personally like the idea being presented.

If one of those isn't the case, you could put together triple the money, people, and resources needed for it to exist on an IC level, and OOC'ly it will never be allowed to exist.

This is a good example of what my suggestion above is trying to address.  Even if staff think your idea is boring, if you're willing to burn some of the time allotted to you from staff to consider special application requests to do something like this, I don't see why staff time couldn't be reallocated to this instead.

What I do not support is that anyone can do this any time they want.  Staff have a limited amount of time to do stuff.  If they're building your camp, they aren't building whatever thing they're passionate about with their free time.  They're already obligated to read character reports, approve applications, and a bunch of other necessary but not particularly exciting admin work.  Adding more work onto their plate they aren't passionate about doing isn't a good thing.  

Which is why I recommended adding a staff role outlined above that would be filled by people passionate about doing exactly this sort of thing.

Basically, I absolutely agree with you, I just don't think it's a problem that can't be fixed.

The Minor Merchant House system, for all of its many flaws in its current incarnation, is a fantastic idea in theory. In my opinion it's one of the most interesting and truly sandbox elements ever put into the game to give the players what they want. Freedom.

That system needs to be tweaked at both the IC level and at the OOC Staff Guidelines level (here especially), for several reasons, but the theory and basic fundamental structure behind the MMH system could be altered to do so much more.

I would love to see it branched out and altered to several other things players want to do that are similar but don't necessarily result in brand new staffed merchant Houses.

[TheWanderer]

Honestly, I think the MMH system is fine. It's sufficiently difficult to rise to the levels of the Atrium, as it should be. When I threw my hat in the ring, the issue was simply finding the players to get started. On the other hand, I think I killed the best one for the job.

Regardless, I'd like to hear what you consider the flaws.

[Desertman]

Honestly, I think the MMH system is fine. It's sufficiently difficult to rise to the levels of the Atrium, as it should be. When I threw my hat in the ring, the issue was simply finding the players to get started. On the other hand, I think I killed the best one for the job.

Regardless, I'd like to hear what you consider the flaws.

There are many issues and I will certainly outline several of them at some point.

In terms of difficulty, I agree, the system as it sits and as it is outlined is actually very adequately structured in terms of difficulty. It is surprisingly well done in this regard. The amount of money and time outlined for fees etc is very well done. If nothing else, this one thing alone is the thing that doesn't need to be touched.

One glaring issue to consider is that Shopkeeper Status, is for better or worse, not really any better than basic Warehouse Holder status but costs quite a bit more. It comes with a tiny little bit of prestige that quickly loses its luster when you realize at a mechanical level you have gained basically nothing and it has cost you a lot more.

In order to actually utilize your ability to own a Shop you have to be a mastercrafter. If you aren't a mastercrafter, you don't get to own a shop. It is highly recommended by myself that we open up the ability to put items on your Shop NPC that aren't your own mastercrafts. The list would be approved by staff and would be 8 - 10 items that both staff and the player involved agree fit the theme of the group. Raw materials, for example, or basic crafting recipes that aren't mastercrafts could be a possibility.

Moving on from that.

Even if you ARE a mastercrafter, the items you put on your NPC shop attendant will not be specific to your "group" at a coded level because you aren't codedly a group. Every single mastercraft you potentially put on that Shopkeeper WILL be craftable by every other PC in the Known World with a crafting skill that fits the bill.

It makes the idea of putting your mastercrafts on an NPC very unappealing. The fundamental difference sits directly in your ability to dictate your distribution agreements on your goods and track how they are distributed, to who, and when. I can tell you from experience this is a very important thing.

If you sell on your NPC shopkeeper, every crafter in the game can get their hands on your crafts with immunity and then recreate them to resell them around the world.

If you sell to a PC directly you can let them know, "This is "Insert Group's" design, you are not allowed to recreate this without someone coming after you. Before I sell this to you, I need you to agree to these terms.".

Some people might still do it. Most won't. Eventually your designs will get out but YOU will know who you have sold to and you can more readily track down at that point who is recreating your goods and act accordingly.

Basically, you are better off not owning a shop as a shopkeeper in the current incarnation of the system in just about every way, so owning said shop is pretty pointless.

Being a Shopkeeper for now in reality means your BEST outcome is getting an NPC guard who will not actually defend you or attack on your behalf in any way because you aren't a coded clan. The NPC guards can't be coded to be "on your side". It's the same reason crafts can't be coded to be made by your group specifically.

Shopkeeper in reality is just sort of the "long wait" with very little actual payoff between Warehouse Holder and Trade Company.

My recommendation in this regard would be to grant BASIC clan status to Shopkeeper level groups.

They would have one coded leader and one coded leader only.
That coded leader would have the ability to Recruit and Dump PC's only, and there would be only one coded rank below "Leader". They wouldn't get clan bank accounts, they wouldn't get any other clan perks. The only reason they are even coded as a clan is for the below.

This would allow your NPCs to actually do something/be worth something more often. They can be coded to "be on your side", instead of just act as decoration. (They would not be allowed to follow you around/carry things/act as a mobile guard etc. Their commands would be very limited.)

Most importantly this would allow you to designate your mastercrafts to your group to make the idea of actually using an NPC shopkeeper for your group much more appealing. You could put your mastercrafts on your NPC vendor and they would serve as more than just a list of recipes you are giving out to the playerbase out of the kindness of your heart, which is what it is now.

(To any staff who worked on this, I'm not bashing your system. For coming up with something that never had anyone actually USE it and at such a complex level this system is amazingly well done. It is by far one of the most interesting and fun things in the game in my opinion. You did great. However, since it has got some test-time, I think some negative feedback where applicable will be constructive and might be useful.)

[seidhr]

That's all well and good, but maybe a new thread would be more appropriate because this one isn't really about that.

[Desertman]

That's all well and good, but maybe a new thread would be more appropriate because this one isn't really about that.

Confirmed. Moved to here: http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,51179.0.html

[seidhr]

Gracias!

[Withered Ocotillo]

As far as I know the first player-influenced timeline entry was the one referred to by the OP.

Thrain Ironsword's siege happened around 1992 and to my knowledge the game opened around 1991. It's possible there was beta testing of the game before that which had an influence on the timeline, but I believe Nessalin is the only active Armageddon player/imm that could tell us if that was the case.