Make Armageddon more casual: Increase skill gain

[Beethoven]

Thanks for the insight, Nergal!

[Desertman]

I hate to see the game drift more in the direction of, "Things are easier and easier to accomplish.".

The reason for this? I'm an achiever type player. I want to achieve things. I want to build things. I want to establish things that are going to last. I want to step back at the end of a long-lived character's life and say, "Yeah, it was fucking hard, but I did that.".

That's not for everyone. MOST people want to sit down in front of a game and say, "I had a fun time, and that's what matters.". I get that. Absolutely. That mentality is exactly why World of Warcraft will always have more players than Armageddon MUD. To be honest I'm more and more in that corner myself these days. However, there are other games where I can easily get that fix.

I do not want Armageddon to become one of those games. It has never been one of those games and it shouldn't become one of those games.

I'm going to use a dirty word. Casual.

Armageddon is not a game for Casuals and it should never become a game for Casuals. If you are a Casual, you should go play Overwatch, it is awesome. Add me to your Battlenet because you are going to find me there playing it with you a lot these days.

As much as some people WANT Armageddon to be more casual friendly and "easier", you have to keep the math of the situation in mind.

Every time the game gets easier, what you accomplish means less and less.

People already do this with certain things. They put an asterisk mentally and sometimes literally next to accomplishments:

Did you accomplish this with a staff sponsored character? Asterisk.
Did you accomplish this back in the day when it was the Wild West of staff favoritism (Atrium for example)? Asterisk.
Was this a staff ran plot you were just a part of and not a player ran plot? Asterisk.
Was this with a magicker PC and not a mundane? Asterisk.


What I don't want is to see the following, because it would make me not want to try and accomplish things because I would KNOW I did it on easy-mode, and it didn't mean very much:

Did you accomplish this after the big code change where everyone could be viable/good at fighting in just a few days? Asterisk.



Every time it gets easier, what you accomplish means less.

I feel we are at a good middle ground as it is.

[Malken]

I hate to see the game drift more in the direction of, "Things are easier and easier to accomplish.".

The reason for this? I'm an achiever type player. I want to achieve things. I want to build things. I want to establish things that are going to last. I want to step back at the end of a long-lived character's life and say, "Yeah, it was fucking hard, but I did that.".

I'm pretty sure that we all want that, actually

But honestly, when's the last time you feel like a character of yours has achieved something of worth? Something truly world-changing?

If you've achieved, established and built things with most of your characters, then I truly envy you!

It should still feel fucking hard, I agree. I feel like most don't achieve much of worth, though, even after giving it a real good and long effort.

[SuchDragonWow]

Frankly, I'm shocked to hear this kind of stuff from the guy who admits to loving Torbjorn.   

[Miradus]

I almost always achieve something of worth TO ME but it's almost never of worth to the game world at large.

With my last character I discovered a whole new chunk of about 40 rooms in Allanak I'd never seen before, mapped them all, and found cool spots to do things in. I assume they aren't well known or commonly traveled due to the number of typos I bugged.

Having a long lived character does not seem that difficult to me. I have had several merchants who I could still be playing today if I hadn't gotten bored with them and took a day off from grinding out widgets to go explore some new spot. If you stick to the roads and the tregil-zones then you're probably going to live a very long time. It's when I get that wild hair to see what lies out past the grasslands or salt flats that I get in trouble.

But accomplishing something as an independent? I mean accomplishing something other players would take note of? No idea how to do that.

[Desertman]

I hate to see the game drift more in the direction of, "Things are easier and easier to accomplish.".

The reason for this? I'm an achiever type player. I want to achieve things. I want to build things. I want to establish things that are going to last. I want to step back at the end of a long-lived character's life and say, "Yeah, it was fucking hard, but I did that.".

I'm pretty sure that we all want that, actually

But honestly, when's the last time you feel like a character of yours has achieved something of worth? Something truly world-changing?

If you've achieved, established and built things with most of your characters, then I truly envy you!

It should still feel fucking hard, I agree. I feel like most don't achieve much of worth, though, even after giving it a real good and long effort.

You have me here actually.

But the solution isn't, "Make me able to hit things easier with my bone sword.".

The lack of an ability to accomplish lasting things in the game in a reasonable manner has absolutely nothing to do with coded skill levels.

There is a glass ceiling you hit at one point or another where you either get approval to move ahead how you want or you get shutdown. That shutdown can come and has come in a variety of ways. You get your political backing yanked at staff level, you get your money yanked at staff level, you get your employees yanked at staff level. It happens and has happened more than once. The issue is how that glass ceiling is handled. You eventually get to a point where a decision is made, "Do we let them remain powerful, or do we yank their power, because they've reached the point where they can accomplish things.". How that question gets answered more or less determines if you succeed at this point in creating a lasting accomplishment.

It has nothing to do with how fast you get good at fighting.

[Desertman]

Frankly, I'm shocked to hear this kind of stuff from the guy who admits to loving Torbjorn.   

You watch your filthy mouth!

Torbjorn is love, Torbjorn is MOOOOOLLLLTEEEEN COOOOOOOOREEEE!!!!

[Lizzie]

One of the "accomplishments" is coded.

I want to max all my skills. That's an OOC goal for pretty much all my characters. It's of FAR lesser importance than any IC goal, but it's still a goal. If it was easy to max all my skills, it wouldn't be a goal at all. It'd be just one less thing for me to give a shit about.

I like having goals and accomplishments. I also like just playing for the sake of playing. I like both of these things.  I don't want either of them taken from me. I'm selfish like that (you can tell because of all the times I include the word "I" in my posts).

Someone told me I am INSANELY patient when it comes to skill gains. Maybe I am. I don't think I am - it takes me FOREVER to gain skill, probably because I rarely make use of combat or crafting or magick skills when I have them. I might have a full RL hours worth of sparring/practicing/spam-crafting, and then for the next two RL days I just hang out or go exploring. That's my choice, but the downside is it takes me a long time to max out on anything. If I min-maxed instead of playing my character, I'm sure I'd be maxed out in 20 days or whatever the cool kids consider an uber experience. It isn't hard, I'm told. If it's not hard, then I'd really like for it to NOT get easier.

Like DMan - I want my accomplishments to mean something. I want them to be significant. Those accomplishments range from "finding a place no one else has found before" to "influencing a Senate hearing" to "being an integral part in a significant plotline" and yes, to "maxing and branching all the skills on my skills list."

If I want easy mode I'll go back to GemStoneIII and rewrite all my wizard scripts.

[SuchDragonWow]

Frankly, I'm shocked to hear this kind of stuff from the guy who admits to loving Torbjorn.   

You watch your filthy mouth!

Torbjorn is love, Torbjorn is MOOOOOLLLLTEEEEN COOOOOOOOREEEE!!!!

I'm sure that's what he howls while he's jacking off behind that turret, that demonic little fucker.

[Beethoven]

I don't know what the happy medium is. I just want more players. I care more about having more players who are into roleplay than having the ideal rate of skill gain that gives me that feeling of accomplishment without being too much of a drag. So anything that will draw in more new players or bring back more vets who have lives now gets a +1 from me.

[Reiloth]

The mentality of 'casual is a bad word' will only lead to a death for the game. Some great players have already moved on because they cannot spend the time on the ArmageddonMUD paradigm as it currently stands. They don't make ragequit posts, or even postulations like I am doing (because i'm not trying to actively leave, i'm trying to actively stay actually). They just fade away -- And as they fade away, we lose many of the sparks of inspiration that make ArmageddonMUD great.

Casual players are the red shirts in your Byn Party -- The people who show up to have fun when the fun can be gotten. There will always be a place for the achievement players who have the time to commit to the game. You will always have your world shakers -- The Templars, the Minor Merchant House aspirees, the social catamites who know every dirty secret, the Nobles with their cadre of minions and plots. Those roles all take time, and are rarely possible for a Casual player to do anything besides interact with.

To call Casual a dirty word names many of the people who still attempt to play the game unsuitable to play the game. The only people who should play the game are people who have time to play the game. And it sends the message to people who can only play casually of 'play another game if you want to play ArmageddonMUD casually'. To which, many casual gamers will say 'No problemo', and the playerbase dwindles even further.

While skill gain is not the problem per se, the culture of skill shaming or ability shaming is prevalent in the current state of the game. If you aren't skilled enough to do a task, you aren't involved with plots. You need to train more, and spend more time doing inane training tasks, before you are allowed to sit at the table. You need to be around more often, so we can begin to trust you. What do you mean you need to leave? There is a certain guilt-tripping that goes on, where if you aren't 'around enough', whether that means training or simply talking, you aren't worth it.

Part of me understands this, having played many leadership roles myself. You don't want to waste time on people who may never log in again or show up for 'work'. At the same time though, you are sending the message that you are only interested in people who spend many hours playing the game, and you don't have time for 'casuals'.

There is very little wrong with the achievement based playing style -- There is plenty of room for you to devote many hours of your life to achieving great things in ArmageddonMUD. But for the people who just want to log in a few hours here and there, due to the requirement by many to be talented / skilled before involvement in plots, there is very little beyond the casual RP in a bar, or the solo Ranger who can 'make their own fun'. To shut out or pretend there aren't casual players having these problems is very short sighted. I think you will find that much of the ArmageddonMUD playerbase has become more casual due to necessity of their life obligations -- And to have fewer avenues for them to be involved in the game, you will likely find they will just go elsewhere.

I'm not sure what solution there is -- Nergal pointed out that Staff already saw this as a problem in the past and made adjustments, and would be open to making more adjustments. Is Skill Gain the real problem here though, or is it the culture of requiring people who are 'skilled' to be involved with plots, due to a fear of failure?

[nauta]

While skill gain is not the problem per se, the culture of skill shaming or ability shaming is prevalent in the current state of the game. If you aren't skilled enough to do a task, you aren't involved with plots. You need to train more, and spend more time doing inane training tasks, before you are allowed to sit at the table. You need to be around more often, so we can begin to trust you. What do you mean you need to leave? There is a certain guilt-tripping that goes on, where if you aren't 'around enough', whether that means training or simply talking, you aren't worth it.

Part of me understands this, having played many leadership roles myself. You don't want to waste time on people who may never log in again or show up for 'work'. At the same time though, you are sending the message that you are only interested in people who spend many hours playing the game, and you don't have time for 'casuals'.

I like this point.  One thing I really liked about playing in a tribe was that, regardless of who you were, you were instantly involved in the plots.  Of course that's a tribe where everyone trusts everyone.  Outside a tribe, it's a tension between the (almost suicidal) track of trusting a new AoD soldier or Guild recruit with secrets, on the one hand, and not trusting them until they've lasted a year or whatever.  Personally, I think we should lean more towards trusting people with our secrets, or at least tossing those secrets out.  It helps spread stories (and so can go a ways towards diminishing the feel that 'nothing is happening'), creates far more dynamic plots, allows for betrayal, and so on.

[Reiloth]

While skill gain is not the problem per se, the culture of skill shaming or ability shaming is prevalent in the current state of the game. If you aren't skilled enough to do a task, you aren't involved with plots. You need to train more, and spend more time doing inane training tasks, before you are allowed to sit at the table. You need to be around more often, so we can begin to trust you. What do you mean you need to leave? There is a certain guilt-tripping that goes on, where if you aren't 'around enough', whether that means training or simply talking, you aren't worth it.

Part of me understands this, having played many leadership roles myself. You don't want to waste time on people who may never log in again or show up for 'work'. At the same time though, you are sending the message that you are only interested in people who spend many hours playing the game, and you don't have time for 'casuals'.

I like this point.  One thing I really liked about playing in a tribe was that, regardless of who you were, you were instantly involved in the plots.  Of course that's a tribe where everyone trusts everyone.  Outside a tribe, it's a tension between the (almost suicidal) track of trusting a new AoD soldier or Guild recruit with secrets, on the one hand, and not trusting them until they've lasted a year or whatever.  Personally, I think we should lean more towards trusting people with our secrets, or at least tossing those secrets out.  It helps spread stories (and so can go a ways towards diminishing the feel that 'nothing is happening'), creates far more dynamic plots, allows for betrayal, and so on.

That's an excellent point. Tribal play may actually be more attuned to casual play styles, due to the immediate trust between tribe members, and no real distinction of 'roles' beyond the flavor. A Sajahain of the Sun Runners is a 'higher rank' compared to a Naza Pah, but they are still both Sun Runners, and that's the most important thing.

I would agree with your statement as well -- I think not trusting someone doesn't necessarily mean shutting the door in their face. It can mean giving them false information, and seeing if they spread it around town, and then killing them for being a snitch. It can lead to fun RP, rather than a dearth due to fear of failure.

[Desertman]

Don't misinterpret my meaning. I personally don't have a problem with casual players. The game needs casual players. I only say "casual" is a dirty word because of the negative connotations associated with it in general.

However, while I admit we need casual players, what I don't think we need is to change the game into a casual game for them.

Armageddon is and always has been a hardcore game.

Armageddon is and always has been a game where hardcore players succeed and reap the most benefits and "less inclined" players make up exactly what you have said....the Red Shirts.

We need the "Red Shirts". We absolutely do, but they should realize they are the Red Shirts and probably always will be the Red Shirts.

Nothing wrong with having them around. They can even be very fun. Casual players are in general the ones most inclined to do odd and zany things since they don't have 80+ days invested into the PC to worry about losing. They can be a heap of fun.

But, at the end of the day, the game shouldn't be changed to cater to them. They should understand their place as a casual player in a hardcore game and be happy with it, and if the aren't happy with it....come play Overwatch with me.

It's not that I don't want them here, it's that I don't want "here" changed for them (and thus myself) and if they can't have fun without that change, then yeah, there's other games for them.

[Reiloth]

You just may have to come to terms with the game being of a much smaller population of 'hardcore' players. You can't have it both ways, just as casual players can't have it both ways in your perception.

However, the only people who are going to truly miss out from casual players turning to Overwatch and other casual games are the people playing ArmageddonMUD. Catering to an exclusively hardcore demographic will only harm the player count of ArmageddonMUD going forward. There will have to be a compromise at some point, or it will be a very low player count (or a low quality player count), as with many other RPIs out there.

Telling people 'all you are ever going to be is a red shirt, because you don't play the game enough' not only sounds like an incredibly unappealing turn off, it is a very elitist message. While I don't think ArmageddonMUD is for everyone, telling people who are 10+ year veterans that they don't have a place at the table because they don't play enough is more than shooting yourself in the foot.

[Reiloth]

Nothing wrong with having them around. They can even be very fun. Casual players are in general the ones most inclined to do odd and zany things since they don't have 80+ days invested into the PC to worry about losing. They can be a heap of fun.

This is part of the culture of 'skill shaming' that I am discussing.

Why do you care more about having an 80+ day played anything, with the skills to match, than contributing to the overall story of ArmageddonMUD together with other players?

More to the point -- Why does it matter how much time you invested in a PC? To me, it seems like you are playing a single-player game within a multi-user game. To me, it always matters whether or not my PC is telling a story and involved in a story. I've had PCs who are 0 days 0 hours and get involved in some awesome stuff (albeit, this was back in the day, and in Tuluk). I've had 50+days played PCs take risks that were appropriate to their playstyle, rather than caring whether or not my 'time investment' would be lost.

Who cares if you invest time in your PC, really, besides yourself?

[Desertman]

Nothing wrong with having them around. They can even be very fun. Casual players are in general the ones most inclined to do odd and zany things since they don't have 80+ days invested into the PC to worry about losing. They can be a heap of fun.

This is part of the culture of 'skill shaming' that I am discussing.

Why do you care more about having an 80+ day played anything, with the skills to match, than contributing to the overall story of ArmageddonMUD together with other players?

More to the point -- Why does it matter how much time you invested in a PC? To me, it seems like you are playing a single-player game within a multi-user game. To me, it always matters whether or not my PC is telling a story and involved in a story. I've had PCs who are 0 days 0 hours and get involved in some awesome stuff (albeit, this was back in the day, and in Tuluk). I've had 50+days played PCs take risks that were appropriate to their playstyle, rather than caring whether or not my 'time investment' would be lost.

Who cares if you invest time in your PC, really, besides yourself?

You are making the assumption I'm talking about losing your skills. I'm not.

I'm talking about risking losing 80+ days of roleplay development including IC accomplishments and relationships.

I haven't played a character past the five day marker in RL years where I continued to actively train their skills. There's no need.

At five days played you are viable enough skillwise to do just about anything you want to do within reason.

The amount of time it takes to actually "get good" with a PC for practical purposes in regards to skills is an afterthought at best, honestly....which is why I find the idea of making that even easier to be laughable.

If a player is too casual to put in five days played on a PC to "get good", then yeah...they probably are too casual for Armageddon to make game-wide sweeping changes to cater to them.

[Reiloth]

About how often do you play every day/week?

Also, who's to say you have control over losing/keeping your 80+ days of RP? A Templar could come by and toss you in the Pit if they like. Why are you attached? Isn't that part of the perma-death in our game?

[Desertman]

About how often do you play every day/week?

Eh, not very much the last few months. I'm on a bit of a break for a few reasons.

But, in terms of playing a PC I'm actively involved in and really pushing to advance in the IC world, maybe two or three hours a night after work if I'm not a leader.

If I am a leader I might put in upwards of four or five hours a night but that's when I've made an OOC decision to devote my time to the game and the enjoyment of other players who are counting on me to be around. (Even I admit this is a bit taxing and does eventually become a burden at a point, but, casual players shouldn't be leaders. That's my opinion on leaders in general. I don't feel bad about it.)

I go to the office for nine hours a day, I go to the gym after that. I'm in bed by 11 or 11:30 every night and up at 6:30 am.

I'm not exactly living in my mom's basement devoting every waking hour to Armageddon MUD.

I'm a normal guy with a normal job who happens to also spend his limited free time playing some Armageddon, and I do just fine.


Usually I find viability at around an IC year to an IC year and a half played, which seems about right. I enter the game world, I have an IC year to a year and a half to train my character and establish my starting relationships to get "my life going". That seems more than reasonable. It is probably intended to be exactly that way. Look at the T'zai Byn for example. To my chagrin it is universally known these days as "the newbie training clan". It takes you about an IC year to become a Trooper. Basically.....it takes you about an IC year to "get good". Working as intended.

[Desertman]

Also, who's to say you have control over losing/keeping your 80+ days of RP? A Templar could come by and toss you in the Pit if they like. Why are you attached? Isn't that part of the perma-death in our game?

I'm not sure what your argument is here.

Yes, Templars can kill people.

I don't see how Templars having the power to kill people means you shouldn't grow attached to your storylines and your characters and their friends/family.

[Reiloth]

Not trying to say you are the 'in your basement of mother's house' type, nor that being that person is a bad thing. Just curious what the 'hardcore player' amount of time is.

I can personally only play a few hours a week, by comparison. I'll have a night or two off where I can actually put time into playing, rather than just logging on for 20 minutes. So that is what I would call 'ultra casual'. I think there are people who can play more consistently or often (same day of the week, for instance) and put in more like 1-2 hours a day. I personally can't at the moment, and keep in mind, i'm not asking for the game to change to my schedule. I'm curious if there are ways to involve casual players more readily -- Nauta's suggestion of Tribal Clans for instance is a very good one along those lines. You can jump in and out without worrying that your trust will be ICly/OOCly speculated upon. My next PC, from this suggestion, will likely be a tribal.

There's no argument with the Templar statement. It's a fact. You can try your hardest to hold on to a long lived PC, and a Spider or a Templar will take it away one day. I suppose i'm recommending becoming less OOCly attached to your PCs, but to each their own.

As we're both of opinions (some shared, some different), maybe we can collectively brainstorm on where/how casual plays can fit in to ArmageddonMUD. I think that's more productive.

[Yam]

Reiloth said it much better than I did and I think got to the real issue. Maybe there isn't a code solution to mending the casual/hardcore schism.

I admittedly sympathize with people like Majikal and Desertman. I enjoy the grind. I'd probably play less if the grind was drastically reduced. Part of me really likes going out and whacking shit with bone swords and slowly getting better at it. The combat portion of the game right now is great for players like me and damn near impossible for players like Reiloth.

What about expanded options to apply for semi-sponsored characters in clans with skill boosts and some of the same limitations as sponsored leadership roles? Would it make sense to offer players the chance to jump into a private in the AoD right away? To play a pre-grizzled Byn trooper that they can immediately contribute with?

[Reiloth]

Hmm. I think someone mentioned like starting a class with a higher starting level (Jman, or something), and a lower cap. So they can start off stronger, but never really achieve 'master' level in skills.

I'd personally be fine with that.

A semi-sponsored role -- A Byn Mercenary, Trooper, or Salarri Hunter, might be fun too. If it was like a Byn Sergeant, where you don't really move up or down at all, even, that'd be fine by me. I don't really play the 'achiever' type. I've never played an Agent in a House and wanted to be the 'Senior Merchant' or wanted to move up against the glass ceiling. I appreciate the glass ceiling.

It might be helpful if a Player could apply for roles like these that interested them, without needing a Staff call for one. I know that as it stands, a player can't apply for a Noble or Templar without there being an open role call for one. Part of this is favoritism -- It's more fair if everyone applies at the same time, and they're weighed, and then someone is picked.

But with more 'flavor' roles (A Byn Trooper, a Guild Enforcer, a Salarri Hunter), it'd be cool if it was a little more superfluous. So a Player who comes up with an idea can run it by Staff, Staff can approve/make suggestions/deny, and then go from there.

[Desertman]

Hmm. I think someone mentioned like starting a class with a higher starting level (Jman, or something), and a lower cap.

I liked this idea when I first saw it.

A character who will never be a master at anything but can start out, "Decent" and eventually get "Pretty Good".

I thought it was a good idea worth creating a new thing to spend CGP on.

Then again the argument could be made that you can already do this to a point with skill bumps, I'm just not sure if it is the equivalent.

[Reiloth]

Hmm. I think someone mentioned like starting a class with a higher starting level (Jman, or something), and a lower cap.

I liked this idea when I first saw it.

A character who will never be a master at anything but can start out, "Decent" and eventually get "Pretty Good".

I thought it was a good idea worth creating a new thing to spend CGP on.

Then again the argument could be made that you can already do this to a point with skill bumps, I'm just not sure if it is the equivalent.

Having played several 'skill bump' PCs before they became a bit more restricted (I think they were a headache for Staff) I can say it definitely helped. I'd personally be fine with a 'more rounded' Guild, so I didn't have to pick the skills. It was also a headache for me as a player to figure out which skills to pick. I just sort of wanted a 'slightly better dude'.

It'd just be like 'Novice Warrior who can become a Master in everything' and 'Journeyman Warrior who will always be a Journeyman, with maybe some advanced caps.'

For me -- This allows me to be skilled enough to jump into a plot or be skilled enough to be perceived as trustworthy (?). So while it doesn't change the culture of skill shaming, it does allow me to cater to it better I suppose as a casual.

RE: Pre sponsored roles. Part of the problem I can perceive with it is that Leaders like hand-grooming their Lieutenants. They pluck them from the Novice Bosom and raise them up to be their cronies. However, I actually played a couple of sponsored in Aide/Lieutenant types, and I think it can work surprisingly well too. Part of raising the Novice Bosom scenario is a grind in and of itself. Sometimes it's nice to have someone fall into your lap, ready to do your bidding. I think the fine point here is these roles shouldn't be automatically TRUSTWORTHY (unless they are a tribal, within a tribal role). People who would play these should play PCs, not cogs within the Clan Machine.

As to how these roles get there, they are part of a larger organization. People die and leave behind little caches of people that served them, who then get shuffled around. Pretty simple, ICly speaking.