So many ideas...

[LauraMars]

Speaking objectively, I think Lizzie would like people to stop making new threads and play the game instead.

To Lizzie, and to all who would suggest such a thing on a discussion forum (or take umbrage at same), I present this pill, suitable for chilling.

[Malken]

So what's the point of this thread, again?

Mom's lasagna is best lasagna in whole Kazakhstan.

(and there are some of us who don't play the game but enjoy shooting the shit with other members of this esteemed community in a friendly and often frantic fashion)

[Lizzie]

I think the point was "don't bitch about the game so much" but then we bitched about bitching about the game too much.

Oh hell. I don't really know any more.

Gonna go download "This War of Mine". I hear it's a delightful romp.

It was what it still is:

It's great to have ideas for improvement. But when the majority of posts when you come home from work and click on the link to see what you missed reading that day consists of "let's get rid of this" and "this is too harsh let's make it easier" and "this is broken let's fix it" and "this is bad let's change it to make it good" "I don't like when this happens let's change it to do that instead" you lose some of the posts about things that are already working great.

(Pretty much like some people missed what I was saying and only read the parts that were easy to pick apart and insult me about)

[Armaddict]

Didn't read all of it.

I feel what Lizzie is saying, though I think the phrasing is a little off.  But first, for a direct response:

If the game doesn't change, it will die.

Sometimes...changes are what kill things, not lack of change.  We have an entire political ideology based off this in real life, because whether you buy into it or not, there is such a thing as demanding too much change too quickly and giving too much credence to ideas that look good but in reality change a fundamental truth that something is dependent on.

I am -not- against ideas, though I will almost always play the skeptic against them.  I think it's very important to do so.  I think it's less about entitlement or keeping things the same and more about exercising a fair amount of caution to make sure that you, an expert in tweaking things in an engine, don't suddenly make a mistake with confidence and kill the thing when if you'd taken a few steps back to listen to concerns, you could have avoided breaking it.  Because if it gets broken, it's not just players getting old and running out of time anymore.  It's an exodus, it's something that -won't- be recovered from, and it -can- kill the game.  So...people continually questioning your changes to the game can be frustrating, I realize, but that isn't some mentality that harms the game.  It's people working hard to protect it.  Insistence that times change, so Armageddon should too is an argument that will likely fall on deaf ears, because what you're really saying is 'move on, hardcore armers of yore!  Make room for the new guys to have their way, it's their game now!'  It isn't you saying Arm's platform needs to change to survive, it's you saying that the old platform has failed, which it definitely has not.  It's still alive and kicking and every bit as relevant as it was, because it's been purposely kept intact through changes both good and bad.

Which leads to what Lizzie was saying, I think.  You all interpret it as 'stop suggesting changes!', where that's not it at all.  The community at large today, seems largely based on critique and arguments over the things that they feel differently about.  This is not uncommon or irrational, but it's gotten people into the mentality that there is a dire need for <this> to change NOW, or everything will crumble and fall!  Yet if I could explain to you just HOW MUCH THIS GAME HAS CHANGED, based off staff providence and player requests/feedback alike over my time here, you'd be appalled.  There was recently a clone of the game that people fucked around on, and it demonstrated some shallow amount the pace of change of the game.  So I think what Lizzie is referring to is not 'STOP CHANGING MY GAME MOTHERFUCKERS' but rather 'stop insinuating that everything is so terrible that changes are the only thing we're focused on!'.  The GDB culture has shifted in itself so much in just the past couple years because of this false sense of desperation that the game is dying.  But the culture of the GDB used to be much more of a forum about cultures, about histories, about small tweaks and about relationships and the role of this clan and that clan and whether or not this was possible or that.  Today, when you read it, it often reads as a clamor for things to be personally tailored to each of however many hundreds of players we have.  Where everyone is so intent on expressing their distaste for this or that, that we aren't even talking about the same game anymore, it's like a bunch of different empires in different minds that are constantly at war to assimilate the other ones.  It gets tiresome.  It gets more tiresome than ideas shutting down.

The game is clearly doing fine; we pick up new players, we have dedicated veterans, and we have people who have been around.  Don't be so fooled by the more vocal few; changes -are- coming.  Some of them, I'm going to hate, but you're going to love.  Some of them, I'll be a big fan of, and you will not like.  But making everything all about changes rather than appreciating what we -do- get to play in, which is the richest, most time-tested RPI in existence, can exhaust people who just want to keep playing in the same theme as the one that originally drew me here...but with bonus features!

And if I misrepresented things here, I apologize (particularly to Lizzie since I tried to swing in and vocalize a different way to say it), but c'mon.  Claiming that we have it sooooo bad right now is only true if you -want- the game to fail.  There's plenty of dissatisfaction in plenty of things, but the end point is...I'm still here because I enjoy the game.  Change is occurring at a slow, but steady pace.  It's evolving, rather than radicalizing.  And if you realize that but still feel the OP was trying to shit on you, I don't really know what to say other than you're trying really hard to be rabid.

[Miradus]

Screw lasagna. Tonight for dinner I am making ratatouille.

Except I didn't have all the ingredients so it's really just zucchini, okra, squash, chard, and mustard.

Basically everything I could pick out of the garden and throw on the wok.

ETA: C'mon, Liz. It's not about you. It's about me. And my ratatouille.

[BadSkeelz]

But when does it become too much?

Ignoring the rest of the OP (which I personally think is in the best interest of the thread), my answer to the question

"When do [changes] become too much?"

It's when the changes alter the fundamental flavor and character of the game.



As a rambly aside, I do think there's a philosophical split that this thread is only really alluding to - the idea that part of what makes Armageddon Armageddon is the harsh and unforgiving nature of the code, as well as the setting.

Personally I prefer a harsh and well-fleshed out setting with robust, intuitive, and explicit code. I wouldn't play a tabletop game where only the GM has access to the core game mechanics and only they (or anyone who's GMed in the past or has Rainman-like attention to detail) know it. I feel that kind of setup encourages abuse and divides the players between the "has code knowledge" and "has no code knowledge."  I think that's more damaging to the longterm viability of a game and community than the occasional asshat taking publicly-available code and acting on it to the point of of abuse.

If the code is clear, everyone can make a choice whether to stick to the rules or not. Abusers gain a temporary unfair advantage.

If the code is hidden from some but not all, those who know it have an innate, out-of-character unfair advantage over the rest.

[Lizzie]

Armaddict has it, and thank you for your interpretation, it was basically spot on.

Badskeelz, no it's not about the changes. It's about the CONSTANT DEMAND for changes that obscure any praise for the changes we've already experienced, or even the game itself that we already play. Read Armaddict's post. He expresses it well.

[BadSkeelz]

I thought of making a "Change Log Reaction Thread" after the RAT was closed (where people would often comment on Changes that didn't need an entire thread dedicated to the fact). Maybe I should have.

If the constant demand bothers you that much, I dunno. I don't think any of us can help you there.

We can't talk about what we're doing in the game. There's precious little discussion about what we've done in the game. Speculating about the game is the only thing open to us. Couching that speculation in terms of change-ideas is the most common and really only allowable form.

[Miradus]

I'm with BS on this one. I would much prefer the code was more transparent. Not just for my added play enjoyment but also because code is what fascinates me. Not only have I been a coder on several muds, I ran my own from the Diku base. So yeah, I like seeing what people have done with the code, and I particularly like THIS code. I hate having to piece together from guesswork what's happening. HATE IT.

As for the demand for change, it should be flattering. There are a thousand muds out there. Heck, there's 9 others in the top ten.  

If we felt this one sucked then we'd just go on to one of the others. Heck, I'm playing another one RIGHT NOW but it's what I hold in reserve when I'm waiting on a character to be approved. Arm draws me in.

Praise is not generally given but it should be accepted as written when you type "who" and see 50+ people playing.

[TheWanderer]

People put forth ideas and other people discuss them. Is this not the general premise of a discussion board?

I don't even... like, wat is this thread? Can I call it silly without being moderated? I mean, you're upset people aren't discussing things people have been discussing for twenty years and that every change doesn't have a 20 page thread to accompany it? I'm led to believe most of the things that are implemented were discussed previously, hence their implementation. Most ideas don't even become reality.

I welcome you to make a thread intended solely for praising, though.

[nauta]

I use the staff kudos tool to give staff kudos, and this includes giving positive comments on things that are working right.

I use the Code Discussion area to suggest code ideas, provide feedback on changes, or ask questions, as per the description.

Great place to suggest code ideas, provide feedback on changes, or ask questions.

If there's any confusion about the role of the 'Code Discussion' area, there's also a top-post by staff about its function here:

http://gdb.armageddon.org/index.php/topic,5.0.html

And I'm not really interested in not suggesting ideas, providing feedback on changes, or asking questions.

[Armaddict]

As I tried to elaborate...

I consider this thread to be less of a complaint about people having ideas, and more of a frustration post of ideas coming across as complaints, as well as a general air of promoting dissatisfaction rather than exploring and elaborating on cool facets of the game .The latter may sound weird to some, which is precisely why I think it's older players who know what it means.  Like I said in my above post, the 'culture' of the GDB has changed pretty drastically in regards to the overall mood of the GDB.  While posts like we're seeing today were always relatively common, they sometimes come across much more forcefully (agree with my idea or you're a shit), and aside from a few consistent posters of really good contribution (of which I am not, this is not a self-puff-piece), we don't really discuss some of the cool aspects of the game anymore like we used to.

If that sounds weird, consider it this way:  How many posts do we get like Taven's hatred post compared to posts about code changes?  How many are meant to guide players or explore roleplay, rather than try to add on another project to be worked on?

[RogueGunslinger]

Since my delicately worded post was removed I'll reiterate. I disagree entirely with the spirit of this thread.

And Armaddict if that's the true intent of the thread, it's very ironic. A complaint thread about complainers isn't really solving the problem. If it's even a problem.

How about we stop discussing the proper way to have a discussion and instead just... discuss.

[Miradus]

Discuss what? There's not a coherent theme to this thread.

[RogueGunslinger]

My whole point is this thread is the discussion of discussion. Which we don't need.

[Miradus]

Possum is the finest of the road kill meats.

Discuss.

[TheWanderer]

Rat's a better meat, but I couldn't open the cage's lock.

Heh. Get it?

[Reiloth]

No extreme is going to be the truth.

Too much change will kill the game, too little change will kill the game. I already think there's a healthy balance of 'TRADITION' and progressive change. Lizzie is an old-school Vet who is perhaps perturbed by the slew of demands for change. I can appreciate that. However, it's no different than any other era of ArmageddonMUD from what i've seen. The GDB has always been rife with it. There's also some decently worded, thoughtful ideas for how to improve the game. You can't let every suggestion get you down. Play the game, idea/bug in game for some ideas when they come up or bugs you notice. Hey, if you think of something worth discussing on the GDB, post it. Otherwise...Just play the game. Tell your friends about it. Make it a cool place to play.

[Armaddict]

And Armaddict if that's the true intent of the thread, it's very ironic. A complaint thread about complainers isn't really solving the problem. If it's even a problem.

So essentially your contribution in the thread that is complaining that people are complaining too much is to stop complaining?

Ironic indeed.

Meanwhile...I've tried to steer it to what it actually was.  Which was a push for adequate discussion and exploration and an appreciation for what we all enjoy playing, rather than what you seem to think it was when you say you disagree with the spirit of the thread, which has you thinking this is an anti-change thread.

As noted above...the spirit of the thread is not 'Stop suggesting changes!'.  It's 'Can we please stop talking about things that are bugging you and talk about cool things about the game?'

Example, even presented in terms of presenting a change:
Me talking about mages:
  --Short post saying I dislike mages and I don't want to play with them and anything that removes them is good.

Wizturbo talking about mages:
  --long, expressive post of someone with far more advancement in this knowledge than me that is exploring what their role is, how this role is being performed, whether or not this fits with the theme of the game, possible scenarios that could be changed, possible things in player mentality that could deal with addressing, and an overall provocative post that I can still readily disagree with, but his purpose isn't to force a change as much as to draw out discussion and inform the rest of us.

Which of those two would you prefer?  The first is me being bugged by something and basically asserting that my way is the best way for the game to go because me.  The second is someone well-versed in the topic, far moreso than me, who comes out with very thoughtful, and more importantly, to repeat the word, -provocative- discussion of the topic at hand.  This is not his pet peeve.  This is not an annoyance that makes him decide he will leave the game.  This is an earnest desire to improve something that doesn't quite fit.

So...I think you're misreading it in a way that's making you feel like it's an attack on change.  I would describe it as an attempt (certainly, this method was obviously not the best, but I view it as well-intentioned nevertheless) to draw people into that impassioned desire to make the game world thrive.  Not to focus on little nuances you dislike (present them as you will, this is not saying to shutup), but draw the community as a whole around what is still an incredibly fucking cool game and game world by all accounts.  We all have our gripes, but hearing about them incessantly is -exhausting-, and this unfortunately leads to that advice that I would rather we never have to say to anyone, which is 'Don't read the GDB'.  We actually tell people that.  -On- the GDB.  We acknowledge that that's what we do with the thing...so someone points that out in a thread to stop making it that way, and eloquently put...we disagree with the entire spirit of it.

[Armaddict]

But you're right.  I'll let it go.

But you wildly misconstrued what I'm pretty sure it was about and basically just tried to bully someone out of the motivation to improve the state of discussion between players by focusing less on little frustrations and code elements and more on meaningful in-depth knowledge of zalanthas AND its code.  I hope you do realize that.

[Dresan]

And Armaddict if that's the true intent of the thread, it's very ironic. A complaint thread about complainers isn't really solving the problem. If it's even a problem.

As noted above...the spirit of the thread is not 'Stop suggesting changes!'.  It's 'Can we please stop talking about things that are bugging you and talk about cool things about the game?'

Once again even if the original poster who I will hence forth call 'lizzie' stated that specifically. The answers would still be NO. As people have stated here (i think in her defense): Everyone is entitled to their opinions.

The only requirement to posting any idea is that you do it in a civil manner. The reasons you feel your idea is good and will make the game better are really up to you as part of your arguement. Again as Nauta mentioned, there is an entire section of the GDB related to this and often very easy to avoid if you don't feel like reading.

Decades ago, someone suggested they felt warriors should have backstab. They were laughed at. I like to think that person might look at the game now and think, well someone was listening. I know I do. 

[RogueGunslinger]

I think Lizzie's first post is very clear, and doesn't need explanation. I understand the desire to make everything come off reasonable, and only see the best intentions in them. Sure, there's a discussion that can happen about excess negativity and talking about the things we like instead of beating the dead horse on things we don't. That's all well and great and nobody would reasonably argue against that. But that's not what Lizzies post was about. There's no room for disagreement with "maybe we should all be nice and get along and talk about the things we like and remain positive and hopeful". So that isn't really a discussion at all.

The gist of my disagreement is this: We shouldn't be stifling good ideas and conversation about those ideas to make the GDB more positive. I don't think I've at all misconstrued Lizzies post when I say that. See:

I get it - people have ideas on stuff they'd love to see changed in the game.

But when does it become too much? I think this is why I've been so "push-backish" lately on the GDB. I see thread after thread, topic after topic, nothing but "let's change this" and "let's change that" and "let's add this" and "let's nerf that."  Much of the "here's what IS, NOW" is being lost in the "let's change/nerf/add" threads.

Just - I wish people would give it a rest for awhile, and spend more time playing what IS, and less time posting about what ISN'T.

[Reiloth]

I think Lizzie's first post is very clear, and doesn't need explanation. I understand the desire to make everything come off reasonable, and only see the best intentions in them. Sure, there's a discussion that can happen about excess negativity and talking about the things we like instead of beating the dead horse on things we don't. That's all well and great and nobody would reasonably argue against that. But that's not what Lizzies post was about. There's no room for disagreement with "maybe we should all be nice and get along and talk about the things we like and remain positive and hopeful". So that isn't really a discussion at all.

The gist of my disagreement is this: We shouldn't be stifling good ideas and conversation about those ideas to make the GDB more positive. I don't think I've at all misconstrued Lizzies post when I say that. See:

I get it - people have ideas on stuff they'd love to see changed in the game.

But when does it become too much? I think this is why I've been so "push-backish" lately on the GDB. I see thread after thread, topic after topic, nothing but "let's change this" and "let's change that" and "let's add this" and "let's nerf that."  Much of the "here's what IS, NOW" is being lost in the "let's change/nerf/add" threads.

Just - I wish people would give it a rest for awhile, and spend more time playing what IS, and less time posting about what ISN'T.

Gotta agree with my boy RGS here.

[SuchDragonWow]

Lizzie, say you're sorry/

[Reiloth]

Hah, I don't think that's necessary (nor do I think Lizzie ever would do that). I think there's appropriate sentiment on both sides of the 'argument', if we need to call it that. People are passionate about the game remaining more or less the same (or at least remaining recognizable in that fashion). People are also passionate about the game updating, changing, and shifting towards a modern era of gaming. I think there is valid truth in both of these sentiments, and only by keeping true to both passions will the game flourish.

Where I agree with RGS is there is a lot of explaining Lizzie's intentions with the OP -- I think you can read the OP and come to your own conclusions.